Talk:Ten Commandments in Catholic theology

Disambiguation needed

In the heading, what St Augustine are we refering to? Great article, congratulations. --Againme (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I disambig'd it already. Thanks for the encouragement! :) NancyHeise ^talk 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the POV tag today (sorry!). The article reads way too much from the RCC perspective, and in fact often comes across as very preachy. It's also written in a manner that presumes that what is written in the Bible actually happened (which many people don't believe). We should be striving for a neutral examination of how the RCC views the commandments without any hint of proselytizing. The article needs to be quite accessible for people of all (or no) faith(s). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I would appreciate your review of the article if you have time to come by and maybe point out some specifics. NancyHeise ^talk 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have recently peer reviewed this article. I believe that it clearly sets out the Roman Catholic Church's theological stance on the Ten Commandmants; it is what the Church teaches its adherents, so obviously it reflects the RCC perspective. The Church does believe, for example, that what is written in the Bible actually happened. I found some of the information disturbing, but I did not consider the article's tone proselytising. I think a critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments would provide fertile material for a further article, but I believe this one fulfils its purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was in agreement with Brianboulton until the last sentence where he said "I think a critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments would provide fertile material for a further article". While I am a big proponent of having articles like Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, I think it's getting ridiculous to consider having an article like Criticism of The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. Any "critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments" needs to stay in this article or in Roman Catholic theology. --Richard (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add a section on criticisms at the bottom with a main link to Criticism of the Catholic Church. I appreciate everyone's input and would like to know your comments on the criticism section when I am finished. Thanks NancyHeise ^talk 08:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I kept to Jimbo Wales suggestion to put criticisms throughout the article. The only criticism specifically against the Catholic Church regarding the Ten Commandments centers on the fifth and sixth commandments so please see new content in the introductory section of the fifth commandment and under the birth control section of sixth commandment. We also already have info on diverse views under the homosexuality section and graven images section. Criticism of the Catholic Church has been added to the See Also section as well. I have searched for more criticism and I personally do not know of any more myself. If you have any more suggestions, please let me know. I am removing the tag. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 11:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I've done some reorganization and copyediting of the first few sections (through the section Second Commandment). I'd appreciate some other eyes on that text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently distort anything or lose important meanings. Any other feedback on these changes is also welcome. I'd like to make similar adjustments throughout the rest of the article, but I only have time to do a few pieces at a time. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the page is greatly improved with your changes and I appreciate them very much. I had to fix your reword of Benedicts comments in second commandment because your changes made the article reflect something different than what Benedict was saying, specifically that giving the name happened during the covenant, it happened before the actual exodus from Egypt. I like all of your other changes very much and I hope you will continue to go through the rest of the page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I tried to extend your improvement of the commandment quotes to the rest of the article but I am doing something wrong. I don't know what I am doing wrong and I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. NancyHeise ^talk 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it figured out. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I think that until relatively recently, the Church prohibited cremation of remains. I assume that this was under the 5th commandment. One or two sentences on this, to place the section in a proper historical context, might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I added this, please see. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

opinions sought

I reverted Karanac's rewrite of the third, fourth and fifth commandments because I did not think it was an improvement to the page. It jumbled the issues into a mass of ideas devoid of the structure offered by the scholars whose books we are using to present the RC view of the Commandments. While I always appreciate Karanacs very good reviews and comments, I hope she is not upset that I reverted her, my intention was not to upset. There does not seem to be any dispute over content and sources, just personal differences in structure in the way that information is presented. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, just in case I am wrong, I would like to know what others prefer. Please see Karanac's version of the third, fourth and fifth commandments here [1] as opposed to the more structured version that I prefer here [2]. Which one do others find preferable? Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts.

3rd Commandment: Karanacs adds a brief explanation of the commandment at the start, which is good in theory. However is karanacs interpretation correct? My reading is that it is more than a day of rest. The statement at the start of Nancy's second para does not seem to be referenced, and its quite a controversial point in some circles. Karanacs version fudges it a little with a "beleieved to be".

4th Commandment:

I think Nancy's version is clearer with the bullet points and sections. Although the prominence given to Rabbi Neusner seems too great. it leads to the impression that all the following teaching is based on Neusner's work. Karanacs' "According to Benedict.." is a bit too informal however.

5th Commandment:

I don't think the unbroken mass of text in karanacs version is an improvement, It looks very daunting to wade through. Nancy's version brings out the individual topics far better. However some mention of Augustine and the development of Just War theory would be a good addition here. Xandar 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• In an ideal world some version with the best points of both would be worked out. I like Karanacs 5th, & some of that should maybe be kept as a section lead before the sub-sections, which are clearer, and include things Karanacs removed. There seems too much Neusner, & personally I would like more on the Catholic tradition, with older authorities being quoted, rather than just Benedict - eg Xandar's point on Just War, but generally also. Also both versions could do with more linking. Karanacs layout is more forbidding, but that is easily fixed. I've not seen this article before, and generally, if we are to have "The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology" I think more indication and differentiation should be given to specifically Catholic views - eg the section on the 4th could surely be placed unaltered into The Ten Commandments in Baptist theology or any other Christian denominational variant, whereas this is not true for the 5th - at least in Europe, many Protestant churches are very soft on abortion in particular. Neither version mentions stem-cell research, which should be in, and RC attitudes to contraception are also partly derived from the 5th, no? Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• Third commandment: overall I prefer Nancy's version, with the proviso that the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews" should be slightly changed: "Because of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the sabbath is observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews". It should be possible to cite so basic a statement to a source.

I changed this per your comments here. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fourth commandment: I would go along with Nancy's version as easier to follow, though I see no great differences here. From a personal viewpoint I think the direct link between this commandment and the social gospel summarised in the "Jesus' expansion" section is questionable, as is the apparent assumption of unconditional parental love. But these aren't the issues here; it is the Roman Catholic standpoint that has to be represented, and either version does this adequately
• Fifth commandment: it is important, given the title of the article, that the full rigour of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this commandment, particularly on the abortion issue, be fully presented, and I think Nancy's version does this pretty well. I remain perplexed, as I was during the peer review, about the "Scandal" section and its relevance to "Thou shalt not kill"; I can't believe that the Church actually recommends death by drowning as the literal punishment for those who corrupt children. But again, that is a separate issue.

Neither the Church nor Jesus recommend death by drowning as the literal punishment for those who corrupt children. The Catechism actually states Jesus' words in the Gospel when he states that it would "be better" for that person to have a millstone round his neck and tossed in the sea but does not advocate doing exactly that. The point made by the Church in the Catechism is that scandal involves killing the soul of an innocent person and is thus classified under the commandment against killing. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• In summary, while I would have no serious objection to any of Karanac's amendments finding their way into the article, I think Nancy's approach does more justice to the article's title. It is probable, however, that whatever is decided here, the issue will be debated all over again when the article comes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow - I really appreciate the very thorough review you have all given me here. I am going to incorporate your new comments which will make the page even better. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to offer these sound comments. NancyHeise ^talk 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

First commandment: Should not mention Kreeft in the same context as Augustine

Peter Kreeft may be renowned in our time but it is too early (and IMO unlikely) to determine if he is in the same league as Augustine. It would be OK to say that Augustine's comment is echoed by Thomas Aquinas but saying that it is echoed by Kreeft is a bit jarring. Put the mention of Kreeft in a reference, not in the sentence itself.

--Richard (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence a bit to make it more clear that Kreeft is explaining Augustine's statement. NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Second commandment

"The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jewish people threw stones at Jesus after Jesus spoke the name of God; the crowd considered his action blasphemy."

I have a problem with this sentence. The scripture John 8:58 says "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The problem that caused the Jews to stone Jesus is not that Jesus spoke the name of God although that would certainly have been a problem. The real problem is that the Jews considered Jesus to have blasphemed by asserting that he was God.

Does Kreeft use this passage to support his discussion of the Second Commandment? If so, I have doubts about the soundness of his understanding of the passage.

--Richard (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the sentence to state "Under Jewish law, a person who pronounced the name of God was essentially claiming to be God. The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jews attempted to stone Jesus after he spoke the name; because they did not believe in him they considered this blasphemy which, under Mosaic law, carried a death penalty." This comes from Kreeft pp 210-211 which you can view online here [3]. The book has a Nihil obstat imprimatur declaration. The imprimatur by the way is William Levada, the pope's second in command in areas of doctrine! NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad. The first sentence about "speaking the name of God being equivalent to laying claim to be God" is the key. If you take the two sentences, the passage is fine as to theology. It could perhaps be written more clearly but the theology is sound. It was too late at night and I wasn't reading and thinking clearly enough. --Richard (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third commandment

Does Pope Benedict really say that the sabbath "constituted the core of Jewish social order"? I am a bit skeptical of this assertion as it is worded in the article. Observation of the sabbath is clearly a central focus of observant Jewish faith but to say that it is "the core of Jewish social order" seems a bit of an overreach. I would like to see a citation that makes this assertion. Observance of the commandments as set forth in the Torah and as interpreted in the Talmud would seem to be "the core of Jewish social order". Clearly observation of the sabbath is one specific and important part of the general observance of the commandments.

Also, there is something a bit anachronistic about the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews."

It's not terribly wrong but it is a bit imprecise due to the summarization. The Scriptures don't say that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. They say that he rose on "the first day of the week" which is "dies solis" in Latin or the "day of the sun". There is also the distinction between Sunday, the Lord's day on the first day of the week and the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.

It would be useful to refer to this section in the Wikipedia article on Sabbath in Christianity. That section quotes from the Catechism.

--Richard (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed "Sunday" to "first day of the week" as per your and Brian's comments on this one. Regarding your comments about Benedicts comments. On page 108 of Jesus of Nazareth he states "The Sabbath is not just a matter of personal piety; it is the core of the social order. This day 'makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day' ". Benedict is quoting Rabbi Neusner in the second sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... consider this link. See the blog entry titled "The Torah of Messiah". I'm not claiming that this blog is a reliable source. It's just useful because it came up on a Google search and I'm being lazy.

The blog entry includes the following:

The celebration of the Sabbath and the obedience to parents dictated by the Fourth Commandments are, rather, two of the strongest glues binding together the Jewish people into an "eternal Israel" that remains faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through all time and all history. Jewish social order is built upon strong family loyalty and ties, which the Sabbath rest has been absolutely crucial in maintaining:

"So to keep the Sabbath, one remains at home. It is not enough merely not to work. One also has to rest. And resting means, re-forming one day a week the circle of family and household, everyone at home and in place." - Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, p. 80

I don't have a copy of Jesus of Nazareth but, if I understand the blog entry correctly, Benedict is saying that observance of the Sabbath is at the core of social order. (NB: Benedict says "at the core of social order". He does NOT say "at the core of Jewish social order")

Now there is a sentence in the blog entry "Jewish social order is built upon strong family loyalty and ties, which the Sabbath rest has been absolutely crucial in maintaining". Who is saying this? The blogger? Or Neusner? Do you have a copy of "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus"?

This may seem to be splitting hairs but there is a difference between saying that "Keeping the Third Commandment constituted the core of Jewish social order" and saying "Keeping the Third Commandment is a core element of Jewish social order". It's the difference between "THE core" and "a core element" (i.e. one element among others). Just for example "obedience to parents dictated by the Fourth Commandment(s)" is one of the others.

At the end of the day, we are more interested here in what Benedict says about social order and not as much in what Neusner has to say about the Jewish social order. It would probably be easiest to just remove the word "Jewish" from "Jewish social order".

--Richard (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, in response, I have the actual book Jesus of Nazareth, on page 108, in Benedicts words it reads "The Sabbath is not just a matter of personal piety; it is the core of the social order. This day "makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day". I can't just change the meaning of what Benedict is saying by doing my own WP:OR using blogs which are not considered WP:RS. I think it is safer and more accurate to keep the wording the way Benedict describes. His book is considered a scholarly work by an expert on the subject matter. NancyHeise ^talk 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Benedict doesn't say that "the Sabbath is the core of Jewish social order"; he says that it is the "core of social order". It is an interpolation to take "it is what makes eternal Israel what it is" and turn "social order" into "Jewish social order". The problem is that when we say "Jewish social order", we have the difficulty of determining whether this means "social order in the time of Moses", "in the time of Jesus" or "amongst 21st century Jews". If Benedict didn't say "Jewish social order", do we need to say "Jewish social order"? Wouldn't it be better to just quote him directly? I would hope Neusner did that and didn't interpolate "Jewish" into Benedict's quote because it would be wrong. If you want to include the rest of the Benedict quote viz. "makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day", I have no problem with that. My issue here is about making sure the reader understands that we are representing the Catholic POV via Benedict's assertion and that the reader further understands that we are not attempting to represent the Jewish POV. I will go out on a limb and argue that "eternal Israel" represents something different from the Hebrews in the time of Moses, the Jews in the time of Jesus and the Jews in modern times. --Richard (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, because Benedict is specifically speaking about the Jewish people, when he says "it is the core of the social order", he is speaking about the Jewish people. However, I will try to find either another source or reword it to avoid the issue. Let me have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated "Jewish" and replaced it with "the" per your suggestion a little further up. NancyHeise ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth commandment

Murder of family members especially sinful

I have some questions about the sourcing of this sentence "Murder, especially of family members is considered "gravely sinful"."

Now, the statement seems unobjectionable but I'm curious... are we asserting that violating the fifth commandment via commission of murder is more "gravely sinful" than violating any of the other nine commandments? Are violations of the other nine just sinful and violation of the fifth "gravely sinful"? What precisely is being asserted here? And is it supported by the citation to Kreeft, p. 232?

Along the same lines, what is the support for the assertion that murder of family members is especially considered "gravely sinful"? Is killing a sibling or a child more sinful than killing a neighbor or a stranger? Where is the support for that? Is it Kreeft, p. 232?

I understand that popular opinion would agree with the sentence in question. I am not an expert in theology, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but my gut feeling is that there are some theological concerns with making such an assertion. I would really want to know where it is written in Scripture or in the Catechism that the fifth commandment is somehow more special than the other nine. I would also want to know where it is written that killing a family member is considered especially sinful.

Are we sure that this is not pro-life polemic? It seems adequate to me to assert that murder, especially of an innocent such as a child or unborn fetus, is a mortal sin. Anything beyond that suggests hyperbole and polemic.

Also, as long as we are on the topic, isn't the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment on the same grounds of sancitity of human life? Why is this position omitted from this section?

--Richard (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kreeft is interpreting the Catechism which makes the argument that killing a family member is more sinful than killing a non-family member "because of the natural bonds which they break" (CCC2268), Kreeft p. 231 NancyHeise ^talk 19:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, my bad... I didn't realize the Catechism said that. I reorganized the Fifth Commandment section and created sections on "Murder" and "Capital Punishment" so that things could be laid out in a more organized fashion. The injunction against killing family members applies to all family members, not just unborn children and so it doesn't belong in the "Abortion" section but in the "Murder" section. --Richard (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement, thanks for taking the time to work that out, I appreciate that very much. NancyHeise ^talk 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations against personal health

If you will excuse my bluntness, the following is a horrid sentence that combines three ideas that are only tangentially related.

"Abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs or unhealthy behaviours cause a person to violate the fifth commandment which also requires proper burial of the dead and for societies to work for healthy living conditions for their people."

The section should start by saying something like "Respect for human life is considered to require respect for one's own body, for the bodies of those deceased and for the healthy living conditions of all people." Then it should continue by saying "Respect for one's own body precludes abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs and other unhealthy behaviours. Respect for the bodies of those deceased requires proper burial of the dead. The requirement to provide healthy living conditions for all people imposes a moral obligation on society."

--Richard (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your comments here and I intend to change the page in favor of your formulation. However, I can not devote anymore time to this today and I'll have to get to this when I can. Thanks for all of your insights. NancyHeise ^talk 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I have reworded this to separate these two ideas. Please let me know what you think and thanks for taking the time to offer these suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Respect for the dead, burials

This topic is discussed in the section on "Violations against personal health". Either merge the two sections or remove it from the section on "Violations against personal health". --Richard (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the personal health section. Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. NancyHeise ^talk 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sixth commandment: pornography more sinful than fornication or adultery?

Does Kreeft really say that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"? That's what is implied by the sentence "Pornography ranks yet higher on the scale in gravity of sinfulness because it is considered a perversion of the sexual act which is intended for distribution to third parties for viewing." I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps I understand Catholic theology less than I thought I did. Even if Kreeft said it, are we sure that this is Catholic teaching? And, please don't throw Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat at me. We've already discussed elsewhere that these don't mean that everything in the book is gospel truth, just that what's in the book is within the bounds of acceptable Catholic teaching.

--Richard (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, The Catechism ranks pornography higher, Kreeft is interpreting the Catechism and we are supposed to use scholarly interpretations of original documents otherwise we are accused of WP:OR. If you can come up with a better source than one with Nihil obstat and imprimatur please let me know. However, I already know that there are no better sources to use and Kreeft is a respected scholarly expert on the subject whose book is oft cited. NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I have looked at the Catechism section on the Sixth Commandment and I can't find any assertion that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery". Paragraph 2396 says "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices." Paragraph 2400 says "Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage." No ranking is given with respect to the relative gravity of these sins.

Can you provide a direct quote from Kreeft that states that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"?

As for Kreeft's reliability on this point, is the specific statement in question often cited? You cannot take the fact that some assertions made by Kreeft are often cited to support the validity of every statement he has ever made. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. The fact that the Catechism is silent on this point should give us pause.

--Richard (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, Kreeft states on page 246-248 "The Catechism lists six specific sins against chastity, in order of increasing seriousness: (a)lust, (b) masturbation (c)fornication (d)pornography, (e) prostitution, and (f) rape ...... Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties ...'It perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other ...it is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials' (CCC2355)" The fact that a scholarly expert in a Nihil obstat book with an Imprimatur says that the offenses are listed in order of "increasing seriousness" allows me to portray those offenses in that same order of seriousness. I would be creating my own WP:OR if I did not accurately reflect the explanations of this expert whose book is oft cited by other experts. The Catechism may say nothing about how it came to the order presented in the book but the scholarly experts have access to the negotiations and "spirit of the letter" intended by the writers of the Catechism. There are papal letters and pronouncements on these subjects that were gathered together in order to create the Catechism in the first place. We have to trust our scholarly experts to deliver to us, the intention of the Catechism writers and Nihil obstat Imprimatur designations are meant to assure us of that end. NancyHeise ^talk 21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But isn't the point Richard is making, about the idea of adultery being less serious than pornography? Your quote above doesn't say that. I can't see something directly forbidden by a commandment being less serious than something derived from it. I don't know any cases of people being stoned to death for pornography. Xandar 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Xandar. It's clear that there is a list of sins against chastity whereas adultery is among the sins against the dignity of marriage. So, we are left to ask whether the "sins against the dignity of marriage" are more serious than the "sins against chastity" becuase the former are listed later in the catechism. If this were true (and I am not asserting that it is), then adultery should come at the end of the list of sins provided in this article. Moreover, divorce is mentioned in the Catechism as a "sin against the dignity of marriage" and it is not mentioned in the list at the beginning of this section. Homosexuality, birth control and "free union" are also mentioned by the Catechism but are not on this list. So, this leads me to ask, how did "adultery" and "incest" get pulled into the list of sins provided in this article? Does the list come from Kreeft? I note that Kreeft is not cited in this ranked list and so the reader is led to conclude as I did that the ranking comes from the Catechism which it clearly does not.

It would be minimally acceptable to state something like "According to Kreeft, the sins against chastity are listed in the Catechism in increasing order of gravity."

However, I would take issue with Nancy regarding the use of sourced material. I assert the following principles: "(1) Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic and (2) just because it's encyclopedic doesn't mean it belongs at this specific place in this specific article."

In the case of this particular issue, the question is whether the "ranked order" is a universally accepted teaching of the church or whether it is Kreeft's interpretation of the Catechism. The Catechism itself says nothing about ranking and thus we are left to assume that this is Kreeft's interpretation. Do we know that Kreeft is authoritative in this particular interpretation? Can the reader reasonably assume that every authoritative work that touches on the Sixth Commandment will agree with Kreeft on the idea that this is a strictly ranked order list?

Look at it from a commonsense standpoint. It seems reasonable that pornography is more grave than lust because viewing pornography is equivalent to lust and since pornography is deliberate lust ("with sin aforethought" if you will), this rank ordering is not problematic. However, is "viewing pornography" more sinful than "engaging in fornication"? One would think not but this is an interpretation that one could construct from the current wording of this article. Perhaps Kreeft and even the Catechism meant that "engaging in the production of pornography" is more sinful than "engaging in fornication". That makes sense to me but that's not what the article says and presumably that's not what Kreeft says either so we can't say it. But that doesn't mean that we have to include the potentially misleading direct quote from Kreeft. Why do we feel it necessary to assert the existence of a strictly increasing rank order if the Catechism doesn't assert it?

Ehhh...I just re-read the quote from Kreeft and he makes it clear that he's talking about the production of pornography so what I wrote immediately above is moot. The remaining problem is that the current text in the article doesn't make it clear that we are talking about "production of pornography" vs. "viewing of pornography" although the words "intended for distribution to third parties for viewing" kind of hints at this. --Richard (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The job of an editor is to critically pick and choose what information is worth including and how to present it. I propose that we drop the mention of the rank ordering unless there is more information to understand how the issues described above can be resolved. I further propose that we make the same distinction that the Catechism makes between "sins against chastity" and "sins against the dignity of marriage". If Kreeft doesn't make this distinction, he should and if he doesn't, we should find a source that does. It seems like an important distinction to me.

--Richard (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the producer of the pornography and the viewer of it are cooperating in the same evil. No one would make pornography is there weren't anyone to sell it to. Just as the drug dealers and producers would not be doing their evil deed unless there were someone using the drug. Now that is just my opinion and that is not found in the article. However, Kreeft, a nihil obstat, imprimatur book, a respected scholar at a respected university, the very kind of book and author that WP:reliable source examples tells us to use - does say that the list is in the form of increasing sinfulness and that is what our article portrays. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just found this [4] - the Catholic Bishops use the exact analogy I just cited above - so it is not just my view! :) NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting although not directly relevant to the discussion. Please understand that I am not trying to argue that pornography is not a grave sin from the Church's point of view. My argument is solely about the claimed ranking of sins in order of gravity. The source you provide immediately above does not seem to provide a rank ordering. --Richard (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It might help to know that Thomas Aquinas was one of the Church fathers who discussed the order of gravity of sins of lust in his Summa Theologica, this book discusses it here [5]. This book [6] also discusses the subject as treated by other Catholic authors including St Augustine. Kreeft is not making stuff up, he is an expert on the subject who knows whether or not an order of gravity exists and we need to be able to trust our nihil obstat, imprimatur sources to be free of doctrinal and moral error. NancyHeise ^talk 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you seem to be missing my point. I think part of the problem is that, when I started this line of discussion, I wasn't quite sure what the point was and it didn't become clear until I looked at what Kreeft and other sources had to say.

Let me go through the sources you provided one by one and hopefully you will understand what I'm getting at.

• Wikipedia article - Lists the following sins, specifying that they are listed in order of increasing gravity: lust, masturbation, fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, rape (NB: citations are to the Catechism and not to Kreeft or any other author)
• Catechism of the Catholic Church - Lists the following sins against chastity but does not specify that they are listed in order of increasing gravity: lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution, rape (NB: the Catechism does not list adultery here but under "sins against the dignity of marriage"; divorce, incest, sexual abuse and free union are also mentioned under "sins against the dignity of marriage"; why then is the sin of adultery mentioned in the Wikipedia article's list but the other sins against the dignity of marriage are not mentioned?)
• Kreeft pp. 246-248 - The list provided by Kreeft is (a)lust, (b) masturbation (c)fornication (d)pornography, (e) prostitution, and (f) rape. (NB: Kreeft's list matches the Catechism's list but not the list in this Wikipedia article. To wit, adultery is not on Kreeft's list. Kreeft adds that the Catechism's list is "in increasing order of gravity")
• Art and Doctrine (Woolf and Donaghue) - Provides the following list in order of gravity: sexual acts against nature, incest, rape, adultery, fornication. (NB: Woolf and Donaghue make it clear that this list and order of gravity reflect a "medieval classification" that "does not necessarily corespond to the views of modern readers". Adultery is on this list as is incest but the order is not the same as the Catechism or Kreeft)
• The Culture of Confession from Augustine to Foucault (Chloë Taylor) - provides an ordered list which includes: fornication, adultery, rape, incest, masturbation (NB: Pornography is not mentioned explicitly in this list. Also note that the order provided in this list is dramatically different from the orders provided in the previous lists)

So what can we take away from this? Kreeft's list matches that of the Catechism but he adds that the list is "in increasing order of gravity". The other two sources really just muddy the waters by providing lists with different elements in different orders.

At the very least, I think we need to take adultery out of the list in this article. The alternative is to present two lists: one list of the "sins against chastity" AND one list of the "sins against the dignity of marriage" and to label each list accordingly.

Also, we need to separate the attribution of the list(s) (which should be cited to the Catechism) from the attribution of the rank order in increasing gravity (which should be cited to Kreeft).

I would prefer to drop the "increasing order of gravity" altogether as it raises some questions about pornography vs. fornication and prostitution vs. pornography but, if you insist on keeping the phrase, then we really should make sure to attribute the ordering to Kreeft since the order is not mentioned in the CAtechism.

I think the Woolf/Donaghue and Taylor citations are not useful because they are discussing medieval views of these sins and thus have less relevance to the Church's current teaching. Their lists and ordering just confuse the issue by introducing more differences.

Hope this helps.

--Richard (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with richard on this point. There is not the justification in the sources to rank adultery in this way - and it could be very misleading to some people. I'd hate someone to read that and think: "Well, I've done pornography, I might as well cut back a bit, and just do a little adultery." It would be better to remove adultery from the list.

In addition many things appear in nihil obstat and imprimitur works nowadays that are not in accordance with Catholic teaching. (Just look at the NAB notes for example.) Xandar 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The list in the article is identical to the list in the Catechism now. I think Richard must have corrected this and he did a nice job of laying out this commandment. I just fleshed out these sections and improved referencing. NancyHeise ^talk 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seventh commandment

I'm a bit skeptical of this sentence...

"Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment as well as slavery which it deems the stealing of a person's human rights."

Does Schreck really suggest that the precept that "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment" falls under the seventh commandment? Seems to be an overreach to me. There are other ways to justify abuse of animals and respect for the environment but "Thou shalt not steal" does not seem to be the most straightforward argument.

Once again ...

"The Church teaches that business owners should balance a desire for profits that will ensure the future of the business with a responsibility toward the "good of persons"

Does Kreeft rally suggest that the foundation for social justice is based on the seventh commandment. I can see the argument but I think it is a stretch to try and cram all of Catholic teaching into one of the ten commandments. Do Kreeft and the Catechism really try to do this? Or is this Nancy Heise speaking? Strike the above... that's what the Catechism says.

Here's another horrid sentence...

According to the Church, private property "is a natural need and a natural right" that compels the owner use it for more than private enjoyment - for the common good while first taking care of his family.

The above sentence combines two ideas that result in a non-sequitur. First, private property is a "natural need and a natural right". But how does the natural need and natural right "compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment"? We need to separate the subject "natural need and natural right" from the verb "compel". It is neither "private property" nor the "natural need and natural right" that are compelling the owner to...." but something else. What is it?

Does Kreeft really liken the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman? Seems like a really contrived analogy to me. Is this Kreeft talking or Nancy Heise talking? In either case, I think the analogy to the complementarity of man and woman does not add to the thrust of the argument and is distracting because it could cause some readers (like me) to wonder about the aptness of the analogy.

--Richard (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Richard for these great comments. I will be working on everyone's comments as I can get to them. As far as your disbelief as to Kreeft's and Schreck's comments in the section just above this one - please know that the Catholic Catechism frames catholic social teaching on the Ten Commandments. The items you can not believe are addressed under each commandment are indeed part of the Church's teaching on each Commandment and you can see that for yourself by either viewing Kreeft's book online at Googlebooks or just click on the link to the Catechism that is provided in each section. I have not been making stuff up as you allege and all of my sentences are referenced to the books and page numbers with a link to Catechism in each section to boot. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the last paragraph of this commandment to make the Church teaching more clear. Please see and let me know if you think this is addresses your concerns. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you addressed the second point about comparing the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman. However, you have not addressed my point about the following sentence:

According to the Church, private property "is a natural need and a natural right" that compels the owner use it for more than private enjoyment - for the common good while first taking care of his family.

When I look at the Catechism, I cannot find this sentence in it. Does it come from Kreeft?

Note that I am not challenging the underlying meaning of the sentence. I am challenging the specific wording which leads to a meaning that makes no sense. The key point here is that we need to pay attention to the linkage between the subject ("private property"), the predicate "a natural need and a natural right" and the verb in the subordinate clause "compels".

Here's the problem... How does private property compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment? Neither "private property" nor "a natural need and a natural right" can compel anyone to do anything.

Private property is inanimate and cannot compel anybody to do anything. Even God does not compel us to use private property for more than private enjoyment. He commands us to do so but he does not compel us to do so. Our free will allows us to disobey the commandment.

The basic problem is that you are trying to make one sentence express two ideas and you have worded the sentence in a way that makes an inappropriate linkage between the two ideas. Once you focus on the inappropriate linkage between the subject "private property" and the verb "compel", I am sure that you can come up with a better formulation. For example, we could say something like "Private property carries with it a moral obligation to use it for private enjoyment, etc. etc."

--Richard (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"private property is a natural need and a natural right" comes from Kreeft, p. 260 where he is explaining Church teaching on this commandment. See [7]. I thought it was a good summary but I am going to reword it because of your comments above. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The revised paragraph is a definite improvement. The non sequitur is gone and that was an important item to deal with.

Now that I have read the passage from Kreeft that you cited, I think it worth pointing out that your paragraph puts the relationships of private property and common good in the reverse order from Kreeft. Kreeft actually starts by saying citing the Catechism "the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race" (i.e. he starts talking about the common good) and "the right to private property does not do away with the original gift of the earth to mankind". Only then does he move on to say "the promotion of the common good requires respect for private property". This echoes the order in the Catechism. It is a more Christian approach and, from an American capitalist's point of view, a somewhat more socialistic approach.

Your treatment in the article is a bit more American and capitalist because it doesn't emphasize the "destined for the whole human race" bit as early or as strongly as Kreeft and the Catechism do. I didn't notice this until now perhaps because, like you, I am American and the way you wrote it sounds natural to an American. But, if you go back to the Catechism and to Kreeft, I think you will see that the emphasis is on the whole human race and the common good first and private property second.

The difference is subtle. You do mention both common good and private property and the complementarity of the two. I just get the feeling that the emphasis of your text is on private property with obligations to use it for the common good whereas Kreeft and the Catechism seem to emphasize that property is to be used for common good while maintaining a respect for private property.

As I said, it's a subtle shift in emphasis. It's not a big deal (at least not to me). And I doubt anybody would comment on this at FAR. However, I just point this out because I noticed it and I figured I'd share the observation with you and let you ponder whether to do anything about it.

I will comment that treatment given by Kreeft and the Catechism make a much stronger theological point: i.e. all creation was destined by God for the good of all manking, private property is just an accomodation "to assure the security of [men's] lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence". The implication is that "in the absence of poverty and violence, private property would be unnecessary". Whew!! Sounds like Marxist utopianism to me. There are, after all, those who say Marxism is a Christian heresy.

--Richard (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An apology to Nancy

I confess that some of my comments above were based on my own personal biases and speculation as to Catholic theology. Some of them I stand by but others were easily proven to be wrong once I consulted the CCC which I should have done last night had I not been too lazy. I should have been more respectful of Nancy's diligent work and refrained from casting aspersions on her thoroughness in capturing what Kreeft and the CCC said. I claim the late hour (1AM) as my flimsy excuse. --Richard (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted! Peace! (and go to bed already!) NancyHeise ^talk 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihil obstat and Imprimatur

Nancy,

You appeal to Nihil obstat and Imprimatur quite frequently but I wonder if you understand what these are saying.

From Nihil obstat...

Nihil obstat is an official approval, certifying that a work dealing with faith or morals does not contradict Catholic teaching. The "Censor Librorum" reviews the work as delegated by a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The nihil obstat is not a certification that the reviewer agrees with positions or approaches in the work.

From Imprimatur...

An Imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

Following [the imprimatur], some works may also include the following statement:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, it indicates the purpose of the imprimatur: theologians and other writers are free to discuss various theories, ideas, approaches, or positions on theological topics - even if the bishop does not agree with the author's positions - provided they do not actually harm Catholic faith or morals. Within Catholic doctrine, therefore, a breadth of possible opinions may be freely discussed.

The point here is that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur only assure you that the content within the publication is not heretical and that you won't get excommunicated for preaching or teaching it. It doesn't mean that it's right and that every Catholic must agree with every word in the publication.

In brief, they don't say "This stuff is true". They say "This stuff is not obviously wrong."

--Richard (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, we have theologians in the Catholic Church who write books and they can't get nihil obstat and imprimatur because their works are not free of moral or doctrinal error. Some of these theologians (examples: Hans Kung, Charles Curran) are Catholic priests but they have been officially banned by the Church from teaching theology. Having a nihil obstat and imprimatur declaration means that the scholar's book is at least something that has an official Church approval as opposed to one that does not. Would you prefer that I use books on Catholic Theology that do not have these designations? How do I know that the writer isn't banned from teaching theology? We don't know that for sure unless we have the official Catholic approval as indicated in nihil and imprimatur. Please give me some reason why you are opposed to use of these books because I don't understand your problem with them. Do you have a better source? NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I don't oppose your use of books with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Of course, such books are to be preferred when explaining the teachings of the Catholic Church. What I am concerned about is your comments often suggest that your understanding is that if a book has Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, it can't be "wrong". As explained above, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur simply admit the teachings in a book into the spectrum of acceptable church teaching i.e. it's not so far out of the mainstream of teaching as to be heretical. It doesn't mean that those teachings are the only acceptable teachings on the topic. Thus, you should not interpret Nihil obstat and Imprimatur to indicate that everything in the book is the one and only teaching of the Church. The Church doesn't actually treat its teaching that way except on a few non-negotiable items. That's what papal bulls and encyclicals do. They end the debate that has taken place "within the spectrum of acceptable teaching". They say, "Enough. I (the Pope) have decided that it's time to narrow the spectrum of acceptable teaching. And here is what it is." Even then, the Pope is not infallible unless he is speaking ex cathedra and that has happened only twice in the history of the doctrine of papal infallibility. --Richard (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were only using one book to portray Catholic teaching then I might be concerned that a scholar's views might be his own. However, I have several sources to consult and have used the most quotable one of each of them in the article. Kreeft seems to make the point better than the others most of the time but I have read all of the sources before deciding which one to cite in each instance in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 04:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And that is a perfectly defensible approach. It's just that you sometimes fall back on an author having Nihil obstat and Imprimatur as proof of the truth of someting he wrote. That is making a different (and not so defensible) argument. 'Nuff said. As long as you understand that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are not a blanket endorsement of everything written in the book, I'm satisfied. --Richard (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing references to the Catechism

The article uses three different ways to reference the Catechism:

1. Several sentences begin with a phrase along the form of "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463,..." This locution has two problems. First of all, "addressed" is a past participle and as such should be used to describe the next noun or noun phrase which follows (usually the subject of the sentence). In many sentences, this grammatical rule is not followed leading to a sentence which is grammatically incorrect. Example: "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463,[69] the Catechism explains...". It is not the Catechism which is addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463, it is the commandment which is addressed. If we are to keep the "addressed in ..." locution, all instances of the locution should be reexamined for this grammatical flaw. However, below I argue that we should get rid of all these locutions in favor of standard Wikipedia <ref> style references.
2. There are many references in the text of the form "(CCC2384)". This is not standard Wikipedia style reference format. If this were the only way that the Catechism were referenced in this article, it would be simply a deviation from standard that keeps the article from FA status. However, when mixed in with "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463" and standard Wikipedia style reference formats, the result is an abomination that would keep this article from even GA status.
3. The preferred way to reference the Catechism is to use standard Wikipedia style reference format (the <ref> style of citation)

There is no need to reference Catechism paragraphs directly in the text. Most readers will not take the time to look up the Catechism text and those that wish to can use the footnotes to find the relative paragraphs. It would be acceptable to provide links to the relevant Catechism section in the footnotes to facilitate the reader jumping directly from the footnote to the relevant Catechism section.

--Richard (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will address this issue but have run out of time today. Thanks for pointing this out. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have addressed all of these. Thanks for taking the time to read and review the article. I appreciate it very much. NancyHeise ^talk 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename article and other FAC comments

I would like to know if anyone can think of a better name for this article. User:SandyGeorgia does not like the name and wants us to eliminate "The" at the very least. I suggest "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" Does anyone else have a better name to suggest or comments on the above proposal either for or against?NancyHeise ^talk 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting that I never objected to the article title; please re-read my comments on the FAC (the problem is inconsistent use of "The" in several section headings, per WP:MSH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also posting a list of SandyGeorgia's comments for improvement, minus the personal stuff from the FAC which was quite a scathing review of my efforts here.

Article needs:

• Copyedit, it has lots of "typographical, punctuation and MoS errors"
• faulty use of WP:ITALICS,
• sentence fragments,
• inconsistent spacing on bullet points,
• incorrect ref punctuation per WP:FN,
• faulty logical punctuation per WP:PUNC,
• incorrect ellipses spacing per WP:MOS#Ellipses, and
• WP:DASH errors throughout.
• There is also inconsistency in the use of "the" per WP:MSH. The article title uses "The" for the Ten Commandments, the individual commandments don't use "The", and yet we find a strange use of "The" in front of a few section headings only.
• Corrections to tone are needed throughout: see Wikipedia:MOS#Grammar.
• There are also WP:LAYOUT issues (See also to be worked into the text or already in the text, and it's not See Also, it's See also).
• Also, please review WP:CREDENTIAL regarding the use of academic titles.

• Now, on to much more serious matters: I spotted at least one serious attribution problem, indicating that the text should be thoroughly reviewed for similar.
• Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse and marries another commits adultery"[65] and that divorce was an accommodation that had slipped into the Jewish law.[66]

Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.

• There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements.

• This sentence is indecipherable:
• 3)Civil divorce is not recognized as valid, is not considered a moral offense and is accepted by the Church if it is deemed to be the only way of ensuring legal rights, care of children, or protection of inheritance.[66]

• In terms of comprehensiveness, I have a question:
• However, lying under oath ... are considered sins of blasphemy.[23]

Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?

• There are also uncited conclusions which appear as OR, sample:
• Church teaching on the tenth commandment is directed toward this same attitude toward worldly goods.

The above list comes from SandyGeorgia's oppose which is listed on this article's withdrawn FAC today.NancyHeise ^talk 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The following is also copied from the withdrawn FAC:

• Tech. Review

• Dabs need to be fixed (found with the links checker tool)
• External links are up to speed (found with the links checker tool)
• Ref formatting is not up to speed (found with the WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated, and appear more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead

• Kreeft, p. 209
• Schreck, p. 305
• Kreeft, p. 219
• {{cite web | last =Paragraph number 2258-2330 | title =Catechism of the Catholic Church | publisher = Libreria Editrice Vaticana| year = 1994| url = http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm| dateformat=dmy |accessdate=27 December 2008}}
• Kreeft, p. 247-248
• Schreck, p. 315
• Kreeft, p. 252

• The following ref names are used to name more than 1 ref, when they should only name 1 ref

• Kreeft201
• Schreck310
• Kreeft247

NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much to do, then. Xandar 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell if Xandar is being serious or tongue-in-cheek. Actually most of SandyGeorgia's comments are not "scathing" but just a laundry list of technical issues which, while time-consuming, are not big deals. The most serious issues that I saw are:

• attribution - who actually said what is being asserted: the Catechism, Kreeft, Schreck or Wikipedia?
• synthesis - due to unclear attribution, there is text that looks to be an interpretation of the Catechism; if it is, then it should be clearly identified as such. Otherwise, it looks like synthesis.

The phrases "The Church teaches ..." or "According to Church teaching,..." are potentially problematic. Far better to quote the Catechism or an authority such as Kreeft or Schreck. When we say that "the Church teaches...", we presume to cover all of Church teaching in its various aspects and interpretations. The Catechism is solid. Interpretations by Kreeft or Schreck are probably reliable but they are not the final definitive exposition of Church teaching, degrees, credentials, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur notwithstanding.

--Richard (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, these have all been addressed. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dies Domini

The section on keeping the sabbath holy ends with this one-sentence paragraph "The papal encyclical Dies Domini offers guidance to Catholics on keeping this commandment." It just dangles there, leaving the reader hanging. It should either be removed or the paragraph should be expanded to provide a concise summary of what Dies Domini says. --Richard (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll expand that. Thanks for your improvements and suggestions. I have run out of time today but will attend to this later this week. NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations needed

It seems clear to me from the amount of questions arising that we need to quote the author or Catechism in many of the references to avoid the charge of WP:OR. I think that we should also include links to the actual bible quotes in addition to referencing the scholar quoting them. Three people have expressed disbelief so far after reading the article that the Catechism or scholars actually say what is expressed here and all were surprised to find out that it is indeed what is being said. This may help prevent this reaction by others in the future. I will be working on this over time as it is going to be a time consuming endeavor.NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed by placing more links to the Catechism so Reader can see what the Cat says. NancyHeise ^talk 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

First Commandment

bronze serpent is redlinked.

--Richard (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed red link. NancyHeise ^talk 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Commandment

The section titled "Jesus' expansion" lists eight "duties of citizens and nations" and the text attributes them to being specified by the Catechism. However, the citation is to Kreeft. When I look at the Catechism, I do not find this specific list of eight duties although I am certain that I can find each of them in the text. Thus, it appears that the list is Kreeft's summary of the Fourth Commandment section in the Catechism. There is nothing wrong with this except that our text doesn't quite present it that way. The text should say something like "Kreeft summarizes the duties of citizens and nations specified in the Catechism as: (and then provide the list and leave the citation to Kreeft as is)". Alternatively, "The Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations" which Kreeft summarizes as..."

--Richard (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, nice suggestion. I have implemented your latter wording. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Commandment

Quality of life ethic

Quality of life ethic is a redlink. Either unlink it or create an article.

Also, does Kreeft specifically mention "quality of life ethic" as "a philosophy introduced by a book entitled Life unworthy of life" and as "first embraced by Nazi Germany"? This is not a showstopper but it seems inappropriate to link "quality of life ethic" to Nazi Germany. This is maligning an ideology by association. The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy does not mean that it is bad to have trains run on time. --Richard (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues described above. I have found the pages of the Kreeft citation in Google books. He does indeed say these things but the Catechism doesn't and it is my opinion that Kreeft is a bit over the top in his argument. The association of "quality of life ethic" with Nazi Germany beggars the debate by seeking to taint "quality of life" by association with Nazi Germany. Similarly, to argue that sanctity of life is the "basis of Western civilization" and "presupposed in our laws" is hyperbole. There is a strong element of truth in the assertion but the statement is too bald to present as unqualified truth. To present Kreeft's statements as if they were fact rather than opinion is inappropriate. --Richard (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We came to a meaningful compromise on this issue a little futher down the page here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital Punishment

This section consists of nothing but a single quote from the Catechism. As a general comment, we need to avoid over using quotation as a substitute for brilliant, scintillating prose. This section is a particularly extreme example of a quote farm but the whole article should be reviewed with an eye towards identifying and remedying this issue wherever it may occur. --Richard (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I paraphrased the Catechism on this one. NancyHeise ^talk 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

War and self-defense

Christ invited his followers to "turn the other cheek even to the point of martyrdom"

The above quote is not from the Bible and so it must be someone's paraphrasing or interpretation of the Bible. Whose? A citation is needed here. There is a citation to Kreeft at the third sentence in the paragraph. Are the first three sentences all attributable to Kreeft? If so, the text needs to be reworded to make that clear. Alternatively, you could cite the Bible passage directly and then attribute the second and third sentences to Kreeft. --Richard (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, this section makes no mention of Just War theory and it would be important to do so, starting with the first treatment of it by St. Augustine.

The big difficulty here is that all these citations to Kreeft make this article seem like "The Catechism according to Kreeft" with a few sops thrown to Schreck for good measure. Once again, the Catechism does not list the criteria listed in the article. Whose criteria are these? Kreeft's? Then we should say so. I am not disputing Kreeft's list but it would be possible for a different Catholic author to come up with a different list or different exposition of the items in the list and still get Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Thus, we cannot simply say "this is the Catholic Church's teaching". We must indicate that this is Kreeft's exposition of the Church's teaching (leaving open the possibility that a different author would present the Church's teaching differently).

--Richard (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Kreeft is citing the Catechism, see CCC2309,[8] the list is the same as Kreeft. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sixth commandment

"It also recognizes that responsible parenthood sometimes calls for reasonable spacing or limiting of births and thus considers natural family planning as morally acceptable but rejects all methods of artificial contraception."

I have improved this sentence but it feels incomplete. Here's the problem:

• considers natural family planning as morally acceptable but
• rejects all methods of artificial contraception (as ...)

To achieve parallel construction, there should be a counter point to "considers ... as morally acceptable" which runs along the lines of "rejects ... as counter to the purpose of the sexual act".

Also, consider these two sentences:

• Because it divorces the sexual act from the creation of a child, the Church rejects all forms of artificial insemination and fertilization.
• The Catechism states, "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift ... 'the supreme gift of marriage'...".

Taken together, these two sentences form a non sequitur. There is the sense of something missing, some linking ideas that make it all hang together. Expound on this topic a bit more so as to lead the reader along. The brevity of the current text requires the reader to know too much about the topic.

--Richard (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Eighth commandment

Once again, whose list is this? It's not an exact match to the Catechism. Is it Kreeft's list, Schreck's list or a synthesis of both their lists? Both Kreeft and Schreck are cited for specific items on the list but it's not clear whose list this is.

Note that boasting and mocking are included in the article text but not mentioned by the Catechism. Conversely, irony is mentioned by the Catechism but not in the article text. Now, compared to the inclusion of adultery in the list of sins against chastity that we discussed earlier, this is a lesser concern. However, I raise the issue any way just for completeness. It looks like synthesis but that might be cured by being more clear as to where the list comes from.

--Richard (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Catechism uses the word "irony" (CCC2481)[9] and then defines it to be the exact definition of "mocking" which is the term used by our scholarly interpreter and is, I think, an easier word to comprehend. There is no dispute in these lists. The entire list has two refs at the end, one to the Catechism and the other to Schreck. Kreeft is cited in the middle because he ends his discussion at calumny and does not discuss the other items. Because WP:cite does not require us to have so many refs, I will remove Kreeft's since Schreck and the Catechism are enough and are more complete.NancyHeise ^talk 00:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ninth commandment

Whose list is this? It doesn't parallel the Catechism exactly. The Catechism says:

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God's grace he will prevail

- by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

- by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God's will in everything;313

- by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God's commandments: "Appearance arouses yearning in fools";314

- by prayer

2521 Purity requires modesty...

The article text says:

The Church identifies some gifts of God that help a person maintain purity and these are:

1) Chastity, which enables people to love others with upright and undivided hearts;

2) Purity of intention, which seeks to fulfill God's will in everything, knowing that it alone will lead to the true end of man;

3) Purity of vision, "external and internal", disciplining the thoughts and imagination to reject those that are impure'; and

4) Modesty, of the feelings as well as the body is discreet in choice of words and clothing.

The fourth item is cited to Schreck. Is this Schreck's list? Does he say that these four things help a person maintain purity?

Shreck actually does have five, I missed prayer. The list in Schreck is the same as in the Catechism and I have linked it to the Catechism now too so Reader can easily see this. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How does Kreeft address this topic? Does he provide the same list as the Catechism or the same list as Schreck?

I did not think we needed to have more than one ref but now the section has two, one to the Catechism and one to Schreck. I did not want to use Kreeft for every single item. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this issue is not as big as the adultery mixed in with sins of chastity issue but it is a bit of a concern because the article text rewords the Catechism in a way such that one must think carefully as to whether the meaning of the Catechism has been preserved or changed and, if changed, in what way. It would be a whole lot simpler and more defensible to simply quote the list in the Catechism verbatim and sidestep this problem.

Please see the list again, it is cited to the Catechism and to Schreck with a link to the Catechism so you can see it is the same. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

--Richard (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, these are all very good comments. I am going to be attending to this page little by little as I have time and will be addressing all of these. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me a detailed and thorough list of concerns. You have been very helpful throughout. NancyHeise ^talk 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifications for Richard's comments above

Richard, Kreeft and Schreck use more than just the Catechism to discuss official Church teaching on the Ten Commandments. There is a very large list of Vatican documents that discuss the teachings in detail and the scholarly sources cite not just the Catechism but also these many other official sources that were all used to create the Catechism in the first place. The Catechism was created by the Church so lay people like me didn't have to spend years in Seminary getting a PhD in Theology to understand what the Church teaches. But the creation of the Catechism did not supersede the official documents used to create it and there is more about the "spirit of the law" in the official documents that these scholars are experts in bringing out in their books. I think it is too narrow to confine the article to just the Catechism when these Nihil obstat Imprimatur books clearly make use of more. NancyHeise ^talk 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have either misstated my point or you have misunderstood it. The problem is that the article is asking us to accept Kreeft and Schreck as final authorities. They're not, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur notwithstanding. I haven't read either book so I am at a disadvantage here. Do these authors simply state what they assert the Church's teaching is or do they indicate which parts of what they write comes from the Catechism and which parts come from somewhere else?

According to you, Kreeft and Schreck are performing syntheses of various documents of the Church including but not limited to the Catechism. This is entirely acceptable to Wikipedia because Kreeft and Schreck are reliable sources. However, it is imperative that you indicate which source is saying what and avoid doing any synthesis of your own. That would be OR.

Moreover, to the extent that it is possible, it would be helpful to provide insight into what the nature of the synthesis that Kreeft and Schreck are doing. If, for example, one of them uses Augustine's Just War theory to explain the Catechism's stance on war and self-defense, then say so. If the reader understands what goes into the synthesis Kreeft and Schreck are making on a particular point, he/she can better evaluate what they assert.

Now, it may be the case that Kreeft and Schreck do not provide references to the primary sources on which they base their synthesis; in which case, we are out of luck. However, to the extent that they do, it would help to have more transparency to understand what their synthetic process is.

It will also avoid giving the reader the impression that Wikipedia is doing the synthesis.

--Richard (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on the need for more transparency given the questions I am seeing about the text. I am also going to include more quotes in the references. I like what you did with the numbering rewrite as well as the biblerefs. I was going to do the biblerefs but you beat me to it. Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

adding sources

I have ordered the United States Catholic Catechism For Adults published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to supplement the sources used in this article. This source is more authoritative than the nihil obstat imprimatur scholarly sources presently used to create the page because it is created by and published by the Church. Here's the description of the book found on the USCCB website [10] NancyHeise ^talk 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, though - this article should not just be regurgitating what the Catholic Church says. The article should rely most heavily on scholarly sources that are interpreting what the Church is saying, and it should cover the range of opinions, giving due weight. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The US Catechism is actually a scholarly source, created by Catholic experts who are commenting on the Catechism. It offers discussion and interesting facts and commentary and is something that will help supplement the scholars who are already on the page. Do you have any suggestions for sources? I think I have used the most reliable ones but I can keep looking. I am not sure of any books written by Pope John Paul II on the Ten commandments. He would be nice to include here too. NancyHeise ^talk 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

Also, I would like to expand the annulment section to make clear that even if you have been married with kids for several years, annulments are readily granted for women whose husbands are physically abusive. Need to find a source on that.

Regarding Sandy's comment about including something on confession, another section to consider at the end might be something on Examination of Conscience and Church teaching that encourages people to continue to go to the Sacrament of Confession when struggling to overcome a persistent sin. Something on the sacrament being invalid if the person does not receive it with proper dispostion might also be added. We need to search for a scholarly source that discusses these issues in light of the Ten Commandments. NancyHeise ^talk 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of life ethic vs. sanctity of life ethic

Nancy,

Does Bayertz also assert that the "quality of life ethic" originated in Nazi Germany? Please provide a quote.

This is the crux of the question. I don't dispute that "Life unworthy of life" advocates some sort of "quality of life ethic". The problem here is that Kreeft is using association with Nazism as part of his polemic against the "quality of life ethic". Are you ready to provide sources to prove that this is a majority view? I see this association as polemic rather than as fact. I don't think it belongs in the article at all and it is unnecessary to make the point about the Church's teaching.

I think you need to take Kreeft off the pedestal that you have put him on and stop treating everything he says as "gospel". If you do a Google search on "quality of life ethic" and "sanctity of life ethic", you will find plenty of people who argue for sanctity-of-life over quality-of-life. The association with Nazism is unnecessary polemic.

--Richard (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few sources for you to consider:

• The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code.
• "It Never dies: Assessing the Nazi Analogy in Bioethics". Journal of Medical Humanities.
• "Misusing the Nazi Analogy". Science.

Now, let me make my position clear. It's obvious from even a cursory Google search that there is a strong polemic among the "sanctity of life ethic" supporters against the "quality of life ethic". And yes, some people do use the Nazi analogy as a rhetorical device to attack the "quality of life ethic". That the above two articles have felt it necessary to argue against this rhetorical device shows that this is not used only by the fringe but among the mainstream of those who advocate a "sanctity of life ethic".

I am not disputing the existence of these opposing views or the fact that some people use the Nazi analogy to attack the "quality of life ethic".

What I am trying to establish is that the linkage to Nazi medical practices is highly POV. That the Nazis had a warped view of "valuable life" is undeniable fact. However, it is highly polemical and, IMO, illegitimate to characterize "quality of life ethic" as originating in Nazism as Kreeft did and as others do as if the linkage is damning because of the despicability of Nazism.

It's as if one were to malign the argument for a strong military because Nazism built up a strong military force. Well, they did and it was bad. But that doesn't automatically mean that having a strong military is bad. And yes, some people do make this kind of argument about having a strong military but that doesn't make the argument encyclopedic.

--Richard (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Not meant as a "threat" but as a simple statement of my personal opinion regarding what others FA reviewers will think of this issue... I think an insistence on keeping the "Nazi analogy" will become an obstacle at FAR. My advice is to dump it because it is not central to your thesis. The use of the Nazi analogy in bioethics debates and the objections to such use constitute an encyclopedic topic that should be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. I may even start an article about it but this is really not a good place to delve into it. And yet, we cannot be NPOV without delving into it in at least a little bit of detail. So, I say it's better to dispense with it in this particular article. --Richard (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks for your insights. I kept the Nazi mention for several important reasons, the first of which is that it is how our scholarly source use it to explain to Reader the origin of the ethic that is directly opposed to the Catholic Church ethic. I don't think that is somehow POV, that is just a fact. Also if you search, you will find a dearth of medical journals that discuss these ethics and specifically refer to the Nazis when explaining the quality of life ethic. This is not something Kreeft invented, it is a very significant and visible discussion in the medical community when they are contemplating the subject of ethics. The Nazi's are injected because they were the first to use the quality of life argument and they are the most extreme example of its abuse. Based on these facts, it would be POV for us not to include the Nazi comment. NancyHeise ^talk 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I just saw your edit to the Nazi part, I like what you have done and I think it rounds out the issue nicely. Do you still object to this being mentioned? It is quite an important issue not to include. NancyHeise ^talk 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, your response highlights why I find Kreeft's analogy objectionable. It is an attempt to malign the quality-of-life ethic by suggesting that it has its roots in Nazism. That is precisely what the articles I referenced object to. Have you heard of Godwin's Law by the way? Kreeft's use of the Nazi analogy seems to be an example of it (or at least a corollary).

I do still object to the inclusion of the Nazi analogy but I can tolerate the text as it stands now as long as the counterbalancing text I added remains. I don't actually like the current text but it is, IMO, better than leaving the Nazi analogy there unchallenged. My personal preference would be to delete the Nazi analogy, thus obviating the need for the counterbalancing text. I will wait until FAR to see if anyone else agrees with me.

--Richard (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard, thanks, I think we have a nice compromise. I think it is better to put the issue out there and have all sides covered than to try to hide the POV issues. Per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to present these things exactly as we have now done on this page and I thank you for your help on this. NancyHeise ^talk 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunh! And I thought I was the master of NPOV but I bow before your convincing argument. It probably is better to expose both sides than to hide them. So... we are in agreement with the text as it now stands. --Richard (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the proposed Rename

I dislike "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" simply because it implies that the Catholic Church has a different set of Ten Commandments to other groups. If we're not supposed to have a "The" at the start. Why not

• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Theology"
• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic teaching"
• "Ten Commandments - Roman Catholic understanding"
• "Ten Commandments - Roman Catholic Theological development" or simply
• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism"

Xandar 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike "theology" because this article is more about "teaching" than about "theology". Theology being somewhat loftier, philosophical and abstruse. Teaching being more down-to-earth and practical instruction for the laity about how to live our everyday lives. So, how about Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Ten Commandments? --Richard (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic teaching is OK but it is less grammatically correct than Roman Catholicism. Richard I think the title you propose is kind of long, its OK but I think I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism better. Maybe some other editors will weigh in here too. Lets see. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism too. I first found this article yesterday, and when I wanted to look at it again today, that is the exact phrase I put in the search box. —Angr 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that another website has used this Wikipedia article as their Ten Commandments section. If we change the name does that mess up the links coming to this page from other websites? Sandy Georgia said she is OK with keeping the name as it is right now with the word "The" at the beginning. What do others think about just keeping the present name. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When an article is renamed, the old name is usually retained as a redirect to the new name, so links to the old name, including links from outside Wikipedia, will still work. —Angr 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have created Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism and placed a speedy delete tag on top of The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology but I think I may not have done the tag correctly. NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of whether the tag was done correctly as that the whole process was done incorrectly. Not your fault, this sort of stuff is not obvious to the uninitiated. Read my comments below for more details. --Richard (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

US Catechism for Adults

I received this book this week and have been reading it. It will supplement our other sources nicely in some places. I was wondering if anyone would want to see me insert some examples used by the US bishops to illustrate each commandment. They begin each commandment with a story of some saint who exemplified Church teaching. What do you think? Would this be appropriate for an encyclopedia article? NancyHeise ^talk 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved this page over the cut-and-paste copy performed by Nancy Heise

Nancy,

I don't have time to write a long message so I will refer you to WP:MOVE for the detailed explanation of how to do this right the next time.

In a nutshell, we are required to keep edit histories for copyright reasons so cut-and-paste is frowned upon unless you provide in the edit history where the text came from. You could have more easily used the "Move" tab to move the article yourself if the new title doesn't already exist. If it does, you need an admin to delete the new title first so that the old article can be moved there.

Everything should now be as you wanted it in the first place but done according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Happy editing.

--Richard (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I have never had to move a page with history before so if I did anything wrong it was not intentional. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ughh!

I spotted this nasty sentence on the page in the section, "War and self defense". Since its up for FAC again, I thought I'd better point it out here. It needs splitting somehow.

Although Christ invited his followers to "turn the other cheek even to the point of martyrdom" when our own lives are threatened, the Church defines a legitimate defense of oneself and societies that is allowed and even considered a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others

Xandar 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, please feel free to edit. I am not sure what you dislike about the sentence and I am not sure how to reword it without changing its meaning to something not intended by the reference. NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a whack at this section. I think the problem is that Nancy was trying to say too much in a single, terse sentence. It's obvious to us who are familiar with the subject what she was trying to say but not necessarily obvious for the less knowlegeable reader. My text takes several sentences to lay out the case that Nancy was trying to pack into two or three sentences. Hopefully, this is now more accessible to the average reader. (NB: I was a little bit lazy with the Catechism references. These may need to be cleaned up.)

--Richard (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Catholic numbering,..

Before I changed it, the text used to read "According to Catholic numbering, the first commandment instructs people to..."

The problem here is understanding what "According to Catholic numbering" refers to. I understand that Nancy meant that this is the first commandment using the Catholic system of numbering the commandments. However, technically, that's not what the sentence says.

I think the best way to explain it is that "according to Catholic numbering" modifies the entire sentence or, at least, the primary verb "instructs". That is, if the sentence is read according to proper English grammar, it is the "instruction of the commandment" that is "according to Catholic numbering". Of course, this leads to a sentence that doesn't mean what we want it to mean.

The way to fix it is to move the "according to Catholic numbering" to a different spot in the sentence. We could say "The commandment, which is first according to Catholic numbering, instructs....". However, that sentence, while providing the meaning we want, is stilted and sounds awkward.

My suggestion is to either (1) make two separate sentences or (2) drop the point about Catholic numbering altogether since we've already made the point about numbering and this is just a reminder. I have implemented the second approach. Feel free to use a different approach to fix the problem.

--Richard (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I think your changes are fine. NancyHeise ^talk 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Navigation template

I am removing the navigation template per a FAC comment by user:Ealdgyth because it takes up too much space on the page. If anyone has a problem with this please post your comments here and lets discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

En dash

While I know I sound petty for talking about a minor triviality like this, I think we should make it unambiguous as to which style of dash should be used for independent clauses etc. I've seen WP:ENDASH and see that "spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article." So it's a cosmetic decision.

Tangent: it's a matter of function. To whoever is writing, it is all done in a plain text box anyway, so why should the look matter? 118.90.41.39 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)