Talk:Catholic Church

Template:Archive box collapsible

Agenda

Open issues

• Relations with Nazi Germany
• Divorce
• Cultural influence
• Slavery
• Human sacrifice
• Albigensian Crusade
• Inquisitions
• Talk:Catholic_Church/Origins
• Sexual abuse cases
  • I disagree that the sex abuse issue is closed. I think the article is now POV anti-Catholic since it does not mention how the Church implemented changes to prevent future abuse. NancyHeise (refraining from signing so this does not get archived by bot)

I disagree that many of these are considered open issues. No one is arguing most of them. I would keep "relations with Nazi Germany" open and "cultural influence" as well. I think that these issues are vastly understated in the article in a way that glosses over or significantly omits the good done by the Church in these areas. I have compiled a list of sources to improve the Cultural Influence section here [1] someone keeps eliminating it from this tray. Please do not edit my post - Thanks, NancyHeise (refraining from using signature so this section does not get archived by the bot)

Use --~~~ (three tildes instead of four) and your signature will not be timestamped and therefore the bot will continue to ignore this section when archiving.

Nancy, no one is arguing these issues because they have either disengaged from this article Talk Page or they are wrapped up in the silly and useless fight over the Tags. I am taking the initiative to reorganize things in a way that will hopefully allow those who are interested in various subtopics to discuss them without being distracted by the other foodfights that erupt on this page.

Nancy, you will find a link to your sources in this subpage: Talk:Catholic Church/Cultural influence.

--Richard S (talk)

Settled issues

• Catholic vs. Orthodox

Lost in numbers

I think I must plead guilty to the introduction of too much analysis here regarding article size. I think it must be said that all the focus on the numbers should NOT distract from the purpose of the article, which is the "education of readers". Hence I think to balance all the number crunching here, another front needs to open, namely "what should the article teach the reader". My personal opinion is that the article is a VERY good introduction, except the long history section. A new reader with a non Catholic background should first be informed of a few things:

• Where did this Church come from?
• What do Catholic believe?
• How is it structured?
• What was its history?

And the article is already structured as such. So apart from the massive history section, the rest is really needed to inform the reader. And I think it is pretty well written. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should not turn into an exercise in statistics on text length. That analysis just gives us an idea of which topics we have the longest passages. If there are obvious anomalies we should fix them but we need not be slavishly bound by an analysis of the percentages. --Richard S (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality of writing

The purpose of our articles is not deciding how to "inform the reader"; that l is what leads to the production of propaganda, as it has here.

Does History2007 mean to praise such prose as This is held to be in fulfilment of, or is he supporting its general polemic dishonesty? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to never respond to me again.... sigh.... I was hoping for that.... I am going to pray for that again..... History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an obligation to respond to such programs when they are made an entire section. Otherwise some partisan would declare this opposition to basic policies to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get caught up in sparring over semantics here. Of course we're trying to inform readers - otherwise we wouldn't be writing an encyclopedia. By doing it through Wikipedia, we've all agreed to do it in as neutral a way as possible. The challenge is that we all have our own biases, and we need to work through the inevitable disagreements. Let's also try and back off a bit on the personal accusations. Statements like This is held to be in fulfillment of . . . may need to be qualified (e.g., This has traditionally been held by many Catholics to be in fulfillment of . . .), and we need to identify them. But accusing each other of bad faith and tarring the entire article as fundamentally biased doesn't help. We need to identify specific sentences and paragraphs and talk about them. Otherwise all we're doing is annoying each other. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I choose This is held to be in fulfillment of as an example of the prose; it is not (particularly) POV - it is merely abominable writing, with its quasi-scientific passive and its unnecessary abstract noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's be more compassionate regarding writing style. The problem is finding different ways of saying "Catholics believe..." and "the Church teaches...". If, in an effort to avoid repeating those phrases umpteen times, an editor has chosen a locution that seems stilted, then let's fix it but let's at least understand from whence these locutions come. (or,more colloquially, "where these locutions come from"). --Richard S (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we are trimming the history section...

I've been reading some of this section. I hadn't realised just how bad it is. Duplicate sentences, unreferenced claims, stuff all over the place. Truly dire. Anyway, i'm working away at some of it, and i came across this:
"Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers.[313][314][315] Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.[310][316"
As a lay person my immediate reaction is that this makes a ridiculous comparison between secular court outcomes, trying criminal matters, and the inquisition, which was a doctrinal investigation. The notion that a body is lenient because it puts fewer people to death for non-Catholic religious beliefs than for, say, murder or theft, is too bizarre for words. I propose that all the above quote be deleted. This would allow the bare facts to stand without such wierd commentary. Not to mention the added virtue of shortening the bloated history section. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. Notes on the cited sources. There are three separate sources involved in these footnotes:

• One - John Vidmar (notes 310 and 315) - might best not be regarded as an independent source in this context - he is a Catholic university scholar, a dominican, and the particular source is published by a church organisation. As i have commented in other contexts, this would be OK for some facts, but not for an evaluation of how good or bad the chruch was during the reformation. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• A second - Edward Norman - is also a conservative Catholic scholar. Not an inherent issue - we should faithfully represent the range of views in general - but i think he is somewhat fringe on this issue. Consider this remark from a review of his book on the church: "Norman has boundless sympathy for his subject. This is not the place to look for an account of the decadence of the Borgia popes, still less the controversy over Pius XII's conduct during the Second World War. He even manages to shift the blame for the Inquisition by depicting it as a legacy of the 12th century Islamic heresy courts and insisting that it was far more enlightened than the secular courts of its time." We should not be oblivious to source POVs. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• The third source- Morris - makes a much more cautious remark that does not warrant the interpretation currently laid out in the WP article.

Once again, i recommend deletion, not tinkering, and certainly not expansion to cover "the range of views". The place for that is papal inquisition or Spanish Inquisition. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is Historical revision of the Inquisition, but there were squeals of outrage when I suggested a link there, so like other readers, you remain unaware of the article. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You will find this section has been under discussion for some weeks - see above. I was supposed to be producing a new draft, which I did start but now seem to have lost, but this page is currently just too depressing to follow, & I lack the sources to reference the section, which has other issues - not making clear enough the different types of inquisition, for example. I think you misunderstand what the passage is saying: sometimes the inquisition imposed its own sentences, and sometimes it found them guilty and handed them over to the "secular arm" for sentencing. Heresy was at various times and places a criminal offence, and other charges were often involved; this is not very clear, I agree. The passage as it stands is not good, as has been pointed out before. Vidmar, and Norman, have been much discussed before; in this case I think they accurately reflects the fashion among modern historians to counterbalance older accounts of inquisitions. If there are duplicated sentences it is because the whole section has been buggered about so much; at one point it was at least all coherent, and considerably over-referenced imo. The inquisition is one of things the popular mind in the Anglosphere most associates with the medieval history of the Church, so I think it does deserve rather more space than a straight historical account might give it. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've already been admonished once for describing parts of this article as indulging in apologetics but I have to say that this is another example of what I've been talking about. I haven't read all of Historical revision of the Inquisition but I do at least agree with this sentence: "Because the inquisitorial process was not based on tolerant principles and doctrines such as freedom of thought and freedom of religion that became prominent in Western thinking during the eighteenth century, modern society has an inherent difficulty in understanding the inquisitorial institutions." This is why we need to discuss the Inquisitions with some nuanced detail. Not the specifics of each Inquisition but an expanded explanation of the historiography of the Inquisition. (i.e. an inclusion of the revised perspective discussed in Historical revision of the Inquisition)

However, I will point out that Historical revision of the Inquisition also says " Investigations usually involved a legal process, the goal of which was to obtain a confession and reconciliation with the Church from those who were accused of heresy or of participating in activities contrary to Church Canon law. The objectives of the inquisitions were to secure the repentance of the accused and to maintain the authority of the Church. Inquisitions were conducted with the collaboration of secular authorities. If an investigation resulted in a person being convicted of heresy and unwillingness to repent punishment was administered by the secular authorities."

Now let us look at the current article text which says "Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period." What does this mean? Are we saying that 99% of those tried admitted their heresy and recanted thereby escaping the death penalty? I fear that we are trying to provide an apology for the Inquisition as not being bloodthirsty like the Terror during the French Revolution and glossing over the use of interrogation, torture and the threat of the death penalty to coerce religious conformity. Sometimes a great lie can be told by telling a partial truth. This seems to be one of those situations.

I would prefer not to try and excuse the Inquisition in this particular way; it seems intellectually dishonest to me. I would prefer a more straightforward explanation of the social context of the Inquisition (along the lines of the sentence quoted above from Historical revision of the Inquisition which starts "Because the inquisitorial process was not based...") I think we just need to understand that religious conformity was considered far more important to peace and civil tranquility than it is today. If this is so hard to understand, consider that McCarthyism was a form of political inquisition and that was only half a century ago. The Communists had their own style of political inquistion as well. We are not so much more civilized than our forebears as we would like to think.

--Richard S (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trimming this article

I re-read this article line-by-line and managed to reduce it from 203,000 bytes to 195,000 bytes (assuming no one reverts my deletions). I have to confess that many of the complaints that I voiced earlier turned out to have been addressed already. For example, the previously lengthy discussion of the Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge/Holocaust has been reduced to 4 sentences. It's hard to see how that could be reduced much more.

I do see a little more trimming that could be done in the last section titled "Present". The mention of the "new ecclesiastical structures" to accomodate converts from the Anglican Church could be dropped. In addition, the very last paragraph which starts with "In politics, ..." could also be dropped.

Other than that, I really don't see much more that could be deleted except for a few sentences here and there.

--Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think in the digital age worrying about a sentence here or there is just "worrying" with no real result, e.g. see the article yesterday [2] on how in the age of clay tablets every word could be worried about but these days, here now, gone in a few seconds.... An IP will come out of nowhere and change in 3 months anyway.... History2007 (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that trimming 10 sentences out of the whole article has very little effect on the total size of the article. My edits only reduced the article size by 4%. However, as I re-read the article last night, I could only find parts of one or two sections to delete entirely. Everything else was a sentence here, a sentence there.

Maybe I'm too much of an inclusionist and we need someone with a more radical deletion "knife" to excise more text.

What I'd like to hear from other editors is "Where do we cut?" Should we go after the lengthy quotes in the footnotes? This will cut total load time for viewing and editing but will not have any effect on the "readable prose" of the main article text.

I don't think it's worth going after the "Notes" section. If we removed all the Notes, we would only cut the article size by 8000bytes maximum and none of that would have been counted as "readable prose" anyway.

At this point, I think we need to move away from generalities and get down to "brass tacks" with nominations of specific sections and subsections to delete or trim.

--Richard S (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Open questions and concerns

I have outlined some open questions and concerns below. I'd like to hear what other editors think.

"Giving people his word"

In the section on Jesus, sin and penance, the article says "It is taught that Jesus' mission on earth included giving people his word and his example to follow, as recorded in the four Gospels."

Well, being a Catholic, I understand what this means and so too would any Christian who has spent any time in church or Bible study. However, to a non-Christian, "giving people his word" might be something less than comprehensible. First of all, my inclination would be to capitalize "his Word" as the colloquial meaning of "giving someone your word" is to make a promise. Is that what is meant by this sentence? I don't think so. I'm unclear as to what we mean to say here because "Word" has so much meaning overloaded onto it that I'm not sure if the original author meant "his word" or "his Word". For example, There is this huge discussion about Jesus being "the Word" (ho logos) and the Bible being the "Word of God".

I'd like to hear what other people think about this. The sentence needs to be fixed but I'm not sure how to do it.

P.S. Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 in the "Beliefs" section use a very florid style that takes on the tone of something that is either catechizing or proselytizing (i.e. it's what one might expect to find in catechetical material or in a proselytizing tract). It's not quite an encyclopedic tone. Any ideas on how to fix this?

--Richard S (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The English for logoi is "sayings", possibly "preaching". Check to see if this is a copyvio from a catechism.

As for Word, we can leave that to Christianity, unless we wish to assert that Catholicism reads the Gospel of Saint John differently than other Christians.

One of the endemic problems of this article is failure to remember that this is part of an encyclopedia, and what is important is to make sure that Wikipedia as a whole has everything notable and verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sacrament of confirmation

In this section, the article says "Through the sacrament of Confirmation, Catholics believe they receive the Holy Spirit."

Once again, as a Catholic, I understand what this means to say. However, for a non-Christian, this could be read differently. What does this say about what happens between baptism and confirmation? Has the baptized but unconfirmed Christian received the Holy Spirit? I would say "Yes, he has but at confirmation the Holy Spirit endows the confirmand with a fuller understanding of one's faith and one's relationship to God and the Church".

Anyone else have an opinion on this sentence?

--Richard S (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

At least reverse it. Through modifies receive, not believe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Liturgy of the Hours

Is this section really vital to this article? I would advocate removing the entire section. The Liturgy of the Hours is mentioned and linked to in the next section Devotional life and prayer --Richard S (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, being bold, I just deleted the section. If you feel strongly that it should be kept, revert me and then let's discuss it here. --Richard S (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was a good call. Happy with it gone from this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Consecrated life

I think the discussion of "Tertiaries and oblates" is excessive detail for an article of this scope and should be dropped. I would reduce the section to just the lead sentence and thus the last two sections of the "Consecrated life" section would now read:

Tertiaries and "Oblates (regular)" are laypersons who live according to the third rule of orders such as those of the Secular Franciscan Order or Lay Carmelites, either within a religious community or outside. The Church recognizes several other forms of consecrated life, including secular institutes, societies of apostolic life and consecrated widows and widowers. It also makes provision for the approval of new forms.

Comments?

--Richard S (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and made the proposed edit. More trimming could be achieved by dropping even these two sentences. --Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

I hesitate to ask this because the answer will probably make the article longer but here goes anyway...

The article text reads "The consequent estrangement led to the creation of the papal states and the papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800. This ultimately created a new problem as successive Western emperors sought to impose an increasingly tight control over the popes."

There are dots that are not connected here. How exactly does the estrangement "lead to the creation of the Papal States"? Also why does the papal coronation of Charlemagne lead to the problem of successive Western emperors seeking to impose control over the popes?

I think I know the answer to the second one. Once the pope claims the right to crown the secular ruler, then secular rulers seek to control the pope to make sure he crowns the "right" secular ruler. However, this is not obvious to someone who is not already familiar with the history of that period. We need to spell it out for the average reader.

--Richard S (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It led to the pope acting as an independent sovereign, with the assistance of the Kings of the Franks; Pippin conferred (much of) the Papal States on the Roman See. Need more dots? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, but the dots are so weakly linked that I think this bears more discussion. Here's the relevant passage from the article...

From the 8th century, Iconoclasm, the destruction of religious images, became a major source of conflict in the eastern church.[261][262] Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V strongly supported Iconoclasm, while the papacy and the western church remained resolute in favour of the veneration of icons. In 787, the Second Council of Nicaea ruled in favor of the iconodules but the dispute continued into the early 9th century.[262] The consequent estrangement led to the creation of the papal states and the papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800. This ultimately created a new problem as successive Western emperors sought to impose an increasingly tight control over the popes.[263][264]

Now, I'm not an expert in this or any other period of Church history but the problem I see is that the above text suggests that the Papal States were created and Charlemagne was crowned as a consequence of the estrangement between the East and West over the theological dispute over iconoclasm. This is sort of true but in a very indirect way.

What I found interesting is that the creation of the Papal States are actually not mentioned much in History of Christianity or History of the Catholic Church. It isn't until we look at History of the Papacy that we see a discussion of how the Papal States were created by the Donation of Pepin. This is is almost Rashomon-like in the way the same period is described in different ways by different articles with an important event (the creation of the Papal States) being omitted in two of the four major treatments of the period.

Moreover, this article makes it sound as if a theological dispute over iconoclasm led to the creation of the papal states and the coronation of Charlemagne. I'm sorry but this really sounds strange to me. As far as I can tell from reading History of the Papacy and the Donation of Pepin, what was really going on was geopolitical in nature rather than theological.

I don't doubt that theological differences contributed to the estrangement of East and West but, as far as I can tell from reading the Donation of Pepin, the real issue is the fact that the Lombards conquered the Exarchate of Ravenna, the main seat of Byzantine government in Italy, whose Patriarch held territorial power as the representative of the Eastern Roman emperor, independent of the Pope. So, to counteract the Lombards and to avoid paying tribute to Aistulf, Pope Stephen II goes to Gaul and talks to the Franks.

Pepin the Short agrees to help and also agrees to give the Roman Pontiff a sizable chunk of territory which forms the beginnings of the Papal States. None of that narrative is presented in this article.

I know we're trying to shorten the article so I am not proposing that we go into this in great detail but I think we need a more accurate summary than the one currently presented in the article.

--Richard S (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Present

The last paragraph of the article reads as follows:

In politics, the Church actively encourages support for candidates who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity" which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, welcoming and support for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion.

First of all, this is sourced to the USCCB and therefore we have no proof that this is the position of the whole Church. Also the source is effectively a primary document. A secondary source would be preferable.

However, those points are just a question of sourcing. My real concern is that whether this should really be the last paragraph of the article and whether it is that important to mention as part of the description of the Church in the present. To warrant keeping this paragraph, I think we would have to show that there is a deliberate increase in involvement of the Church in politics across multiple countries (e.g. in the U.S., Canada and Europe at least). Even then, it seems like an abrupt way to end the article.

--Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It also is a drastic simplification of the Church's long and conflicted interaction with democratic politics, which now (although not in the past) includes an active opposition to priests running for elective opposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of the sentence. It might be worth presenting this info but I think we need a fuller exposition of the relationship of the Church to governments. --Richard S (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: You've been doing a great job trimming the fat on this, Richard! I'd love to help out but there's an individual or two whos edits make my blood pressure surge. Keep up the good work!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment is that you are doing a great job, but now the section may be to short. Need some things that the church is doing at present but doesn't smack of recentism. Not sure what those things are yet. Probably need to define "Present" as either 2000 - current or maybe say 1980s - Present (1980 was arbitrary picked as a year that gave Vatican II time to stabilize since there is an entire section on Vatican II.)Marauder40 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What next?

Thanks for the kudos but my problem is... I'm pretty much done and all I've managed to trim is 10,000 bytes from a total of 203,000. Anybody have ideas on what we should do next? --Richard S (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph on missions in California which is way too detailed for this article (especially considering the poor job the article does in general on missions in the Americas). I've been trying to get this taken out or modified for years now. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick list of other things we could cut

• Eucharist is too detailed and likely can be trimmed

I'll take a look at this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• devotional life and prayer seems not to need an entire section - I suspect that most of this can be moved to a sub article

trimmed it back and put it in appropriate section

• There is much too much info on the English Reformation
• The whole paragraph on the dissolution of the Jesuits is uncited and may be too detailed for this article

I say lose it, see below "Age of Discovery"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• The French Revolution info is probably too detailed

I say lose it--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Does Benedict need to be mentioned in the history section or can he just be mentioned in the discussion of Popes? If we need to keep him in the history section, then I think the only thing we need to say n the history section is that he was elected in 2005. The present section in general can be axed and the one line on Benedict moved into the "Second Vatican Council and beyond section"

I second this! Present can be axed!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• The section on Vatican II is too long. I think there is too much detail on liberation theology, and too much on the sexual revolution and other Church rulings on sex and its consequences.

I would say lose paragraphs 3 and 5 altogether.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Mike, the South American missions and reductions are important and need to be included. The same goes for some modern history, and the Liberation Theology issue. I certainly oppose drastic elimination of entire referenced sections of the article. There is a BIG difference between trimming of excess verbiage and detail, and the butchery of whole sections, some of which are there in the first place as a result of complaints and objections to their exclusion. Let's take it SLOW, and reduce wordage through tighter but balanced coverage of the issues, without eliminating significant referenced content. Xandar 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to publish Xandar's rants; please remove the entire section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Eucharist section

Eucharist

The Church holds that Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper

See also: Eucharist (Catholic Church), Catholic liturgy, and Sacraments of the Catholic Church

The Eucharist is celebrated at each Mass and is the center of Catholic worship. The Words of Institution for this sacrament are drawn from the Gospels and a Pauline letter. Catholics believe that at each Mass, the bread and wine become supernaturally transubstantiated into the true Body and Blood of Christ. The Church teaches that Jesus established a New Covenant with humanity through the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist, there are strict rules about its celebration and reception. The ingredients of the bread and wine used in the Mass are specified and Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion. Those who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin are forbidden from this sacrament unless they have received absolution through the sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance). Catholics are not permitted to receive communion in Protestant churches because of their different beliefs and practices regarding Holy Orders and the Eucharist.

That seems much clearer to me and will probably be more accessible to non-Catholics. I like the proposal. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an entire separate piece on Eucharist which can and should include the greater detail.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored the sentence on the continuity of the Eucharist, which I believe to be important. Xandar 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, then maybe it doesn't belong in the Eucharist article if it's covered here? Mever mind, that article is written worse than this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You restored this: "In its main elements and prayers, the Catholic Mass celebrated today, according to professor Alan Schreck, is "almost identical" to the form described in the Didache and First Apology of Justin Martyr in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.[132][133] ." That may be the only "fact" I have issue with in this whole piece. It is not almost identical, that is one man's take on it and it applies undue weight to his point of view. Even if I concede and say, it's "factual enough for wiki" it belongs more in the Mass section than in the Eucharist section. I still doubt that Justin Martyr saw clipped haired former female gym teachers in pants suits distributing the precious blood to folks in cargo shorts while the presbytyr sits in the chair and watches this all go on.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the restored text about the Mass today being "almost identical" could be deleted and presented in a subsidiary article on the Eucharist or the Mass. It's an important point but not necessarily for this article.

In addition, I would delete these two sentences : "The ingredients of the bread and wine used in the Mass are specified and Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion. Those who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin are forbidden from this sacrament unless they have received absolution through the sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance)." This is excessive detail and does not need to be presented in this article. It belongs in the Eucharist (Catholic Church). --Richard S (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard and Mike here. The sentence that Xandar restored may make sense to many Catholics, but I suspect there is not enough context for many non-Catholics and some Catholics to understand what it means. This is the type of detail that doesn't need to be in this article, although it can be included in the article on the Eucharist or Mass if the editors of those articles agree. And, per Richard's point, this article is not a how-to - we don't need all of the details on what happens, just a general overview for those unfamiliar with the sacrament. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Age of Discovery

This seemed to run on and repeat itself unnecesarrily.

Just before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453, in an effort to combat the spread of Islam, Pope Nicholas V granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452). Several decades later European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal and the ensuing patronato system allowed state authorities, not the Vatican, to control all clerical appointments in the new colonies. Although the Spanish monarchs tried to curb abuses committed against the Amerindians by explorers and conquerors, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar, openly rebuked the Spanish rulers of Hispaniola in 1511 for their cruelty and tyranny in dealing with the American natives. King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. The issue resulted in a crisis of conscience in 16th-century Spain and, through the writings of Catholic clergy such as Bartolomé de Las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights and to the birth of modern international law. Enforcement of these laws was lax, and some historians blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians; others point to the Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, Amerindian populations suffered serious decline due to new diseases, inadvertently introduced through contact with Europeans, which created a labor vacuum in the New World.

In 1521 the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan made the first Catholic converts in the Philippines. Elsewhere, Portuguese missionaries under the Spanish Jesuit Francis Xavier evangelized in India, China, and Japan. Church growth in Japan came to a halt in 1597 under the Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu who, in an effort to isolate the country from foreign influences, launched a severe persecution of Christians or Kirishitan's. An underground minority Christian population survived throughout this period of persecution and enforced isolation which was eventually lifted in the 19th century. The Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in China in 1721.

Strongly disagree. Removal of material on Latin American missions would severely disable the articles usefulness and comprehensiveness. This is an article on the WORLD church. Xandar 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This section should not rate more than 2 paragraphs, if it even belongs here. Strip it down, summarize it and see what happens, is it not covered in Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that this article needs to be balanced and comprehensive, which means covering significant events and issues in proportion to their weight as covered by the sources. I'm not opposed to concise coverage, but there needs to be enough to make sense. As I said before, this article is not just available on web wikipedia but is distributed in other forms where link articles may not be available. Xandar 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep most of the above-quoted text except for the discussion of Christianity in Japan and China. (i.e. keep the sentence about Francis Xavier but drop the sentences following that one). As an Asian with ties to both countries, I am personally interested in both but, given our desire to trim the article, I think the details should be presented in subsidiary articles that we link to. --Richard S (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar restored text in the "Age of Discovery" section with this edit. I am inclined to keep the discussion of the Amerindian missions but I would remove the material about the Jesuit reductions and the suppression of the Jesuits. --Richard S (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How far is too far?

It seems that various sections are getting trimmed quite rapidly now. The trims seem ok in many cases, but I feel the trend is about to result in a starvation diet - not a great thing. I think it is still the history section that needs trimming, not elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the history section needs trimming to almost non-existence because there is already an article solely on the history of the Catholic Church. Just take a look at other comparable articles. If a section of it is big enough for it's own article, then the section gets cut to little more than one sentence, referring people to the other article. That's what it should be here too. This article is about what the Catholic Church is anyway, not how it came to be what it is.Farsight001 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. There needs to be an "overview of history" but clearly it is too heavy now, as the stats above show. E.g. Council of Constance, formation of San Francisco & LA (really? like LA is a major Catholic hub these days?) are probably not relevant. But I think the trimming elsewhere should probably stop until the history section is reviewed and trimmed, then an overall assessment can take place. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to trim the fat, the bulk of what I trimmed was either repeated elsewhere in the article or non-essential to the point of this article and covered elsewhere on wiki. The page actually loads quicker now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but much fat remains in history. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll take another look at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we not all on board with this? What good is it to edit out fluff and non-essentials better covered elsewhere if it keeps getting put back in? Reminds me of this neighbor I had named Seamus, he was a packrat, type you'd see on Hoarders. Basement and garage packed so full of crap, his wife hired a dumpster and paid 4 guys to clean it out when he went fishing for a weekend. He came home from fishing, didn't make a scene, but calmly took every last piece of junk from that 18 yard dumpster and placed it back in his basement. I am not removing essentials, but trying to edit this ungodly mess, summary-style. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck it. Good luck, I'm outta here!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between a TRIM (ie keeping the range of coverage in the article, while reducing the verbiage and excess detail), and Butchery - ie removal of major referenced sections of the article covering extremely important events and issues. Some people seem to be confusing this. A trim requires care, effort and compromise. Removing major areas of content, developed over years and months without full agreement is just not on. Xandar 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Butchery is a term used by people with problems of ownership.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. If an article has been assembled by a large number of people over years, often in response to suggestions, complaints, compromise and debate, someone coming in and just chopping whole sections because they think they are irrelevant, is not going to be happily received. Do the same on USA or Russia and you are likely to get a poor response. Xandar 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Reformation Section

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Main articles: Protestant Reformation, English Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and Catholicism and the wars of religion

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church from within. Catholics reformers opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

In 1517, Martin Luther included his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter to several bishops. His theses protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences. Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticized Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into a large and all encompassing European movement called the Protestant Reformation.

Whitby Abbey, England, one of hundreds of monasteries destroyed during the Reformation

The English Reformation under Henry VIII began more as a political than as a theological dispute. When the annulment of his marriage was denied by the pope, Henry had Parliament pass the Acts of Supremacy, 1534, which made him, and not the pope, head of the English Church. Henry initiated and supported the confiscation and dissolution of monasteries, convents and shrines throughout England, Wales and Ireland. Elizabeth I, {second Act of Supremacy, 1558} outlawed Catholic priests and prevented Catholics from educating their children and taking part in political life.

The Catholic Church responded to doctrinal challenges and abuses highlighted by the Reformation at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which became the driving force of the Counter-Reformation. Doctrinally, it reaffirmed central Catholic teachings such as transubstantiation, and the requirement for love and hope as well as faith to attain salvation. It made structural reforms, most importantly by improving the education of the clergy and laity and consolidating the central jurisdiction of the Roman Curia. New religious orders were a fundamental part of this trend. Orders such as the Capuchins, Ursulines, Theatines, Discalced Carmelites, the Barnabites, and especially the Jesuits strengthened rural parishes, improved popular piety, helped to curb corruption within the church, and set examples that would be a strong impetus for Catholic renewal. Organizing their order along a military model, the Jesuits strongly represented the autocratic zeal of the period. Characterized by careful selection, rigorous training, and iron discipline, the Jesuits ensured that the worldliness of the Renaissance Church had no part in their new order.

To popularize Counter-Reformation teachings, the Church encouraged the Baroque style in art, music and architecture.

Toward the latter part of the 17th century, Pope Innocent XI reformed abuses that were occurring in the Church's hierarchy, including simony, nepotism and the lavish papal expenditures that had caused him to inherit a large papal debt. He promoted missionary activity, tried to unite Europe against the Turkish invasion, prevented influential Catholic rulers (including the Emperor) from marrying Protestants but strongly condemned religious persecution.

Not bad as a condensation. However the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too. Xandar 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's excessive detail that belongs in a separate article. Most of the stuff in these sections does. I do not disagree with much of what is being said (the tone may have an apologetic ring to it at times, but it's at the very least 90% accurate), but all of that extraneous stuff makes this piece excessively long and about as boring as a dog's ass. I think the separate individual articles need to be improved, with much of what has been put in here. This piece is simply too long and despite what I am sure are the best intentions of the editors involved, it does not do any service to the Church by being so unweildy. It needs to be summarized, there is too much unnecesarry detail. The byproduct of this is an article which does not inform because it cannot engage the reader. If you really want to improve this article, the key is to improve the seperate pieces and use the lede from those, here. Or just ignore suggestions from people who want to improve it...go and edit war, go through RFC's, take the personal attacks from snarky creeps, and scratch your head when this is still a B-Grade article 4 years from now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can get it concise and comprehensive. The foundation of the Jesuits is a HIGHLY significant event though. Xandar 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar wrote "the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too". The work of the Jesuit missionaries is mentioned in the "Age of Discovery" section. I am going to copy a couple of paragraphs from Counter-Reformation. It may be too long but let's discuss it and see what is really important to say.

Without taking away from the importance of Teresa of Avila as a saint and "Doctor of the Church", I don't see why it is important to mention her in the "History" section. --Richard S (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard. What makes Teresa of Avila so important that she much be mentioned in the article? Why is the foundation of the Jesuits so important? We must justify inclusion of facts in the article - not just trimming. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Teresa can be cut, and the text above gives the Jesuits, who should certainly be in, enough at this level of condensation. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of "Catholic" & "Church"

I wanted to comment that I personally find the considerable frequency of the words "Catholic" and "Church" very tedious. I have removed some completely unecessary repetitions in the past but believe the article would read much better if the use of these two words could be significantly reduced. If any editors feel the same way and up to the task at present I would encourage them to do so. Afterwriting (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation Theology

Xandar restored the section on Liberation Theology with this edit.

I agree with Xandar that it is important to mention Liberation Theology but perhaps a more concise description could be drafted.

Here's the original text:

In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a movement often identified with Gustavo Gutiérrez who was pivotal in expounding the melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching. A cornerstone of the Liberation Theology were ecclesial base communities, groups uniting clergy and laity in social and political action. Although the movement garnered some support among Latin American bishops, it was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. At the 1979 Conference of Latin American Bishops in Puebla, Mexico, Pope John Paul II and conservative bishops attending the conference attempted to rein in the more radical elements of liberation theology; however, the conference did make a formal commitment to a "preferential option for the poor".[394] Archbishop Óscar Romero, a supporter of the movement, became the region's most famous contemporary martyr in 1980, when he was murdered by forces allied with the government of El Salvador while saying Mass.[395] In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today, although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in much of the region.[396]

I would reduce this to:

In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching which united clergy and laity in social and political action. Although the movement garnered some support among Latin American bishops, it was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today.[396]

In particular, the mention of the "challenge of Pentecostalism" is a bit of a non sequitur here.

--Richard S (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the condensation, however I have tweaked it as follows, since the 1979 declaration has been considered significant by commentators.

In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching which united clergy and laity in social and political action. Although Latin American bishops voted in 1979 to make a formal commitment to a "preferential option for the poor", the movement itself was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today.[396] Xandar 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Xandar's version is OK, but I would remove the sentence "Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement" (but retaining the inline cites) as excessive detail - the preceding sentence, with the two cites, is sufficient to indicate that there has been some Papal criticism. Does anyone object to me implementing this? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. Xandar 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Present

Xandar restored the "Present" subsection in the "History" section with this edit.

Below is my sentence-by-sentence analysis...

"The Pope remains an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world."

I dunno. This seems trite to me. This isn't "history", it's about the Pope. Put it in that article.

"As the head of the Holy See, he occasionally addresses the United Nations where the Holy See is the only non-member observer state with all the rights of full membership except voting."

Same point as above. Put it in the article on the Pope and/or the article on the Holy See.

"The 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI saw a continuation of the policies of his predecessors. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love and re-emphasized marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission."

I would be OK with keeping this.

"Following outcry from Muslims over Pope Benedict's Regensburg address, in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor's remarks critical of Islam, a May 2008 summit between the pope and a delegation of Muslims came to an agreement that religion is essentially non-violent, and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith."

This is debatable. It's definitely an example of recentism but we could keep it.

"In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church."

Definitely recentism. We don't know if this will ultimately amount to anything important.

" The Church also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which provides the Pope with information on scientific matters[214] and whose international membership includes British physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes."

As previously argued, this isn't "history". Why is this important other than as a rebuttal to charges that the Church is anti-science? If that is the motivation, then let's do a better job and discuss it in "Cultural influence" or somewhere else other than in the "History" section.

"In politics, the Church actively encourages support for candidates who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity" which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, welcoming and support for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion."

Seems to me this needs some balance. After all, it's not as if this "active encouragement of support" is uncontroversial. Also, as I said previously, this is U.S. centric. Unless we can document that this is an international phenomenon, then this belongs in Catholic Church and politics in the United States.

--Richard S (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Holy See at the UN, there is already a separate article, Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system. -- Bonifacius 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the pre-present section from VaticanII onwards is pretty long too. There are ALL kinds of details here, e.g I just trimmed the names of 2 physicists who report to the Pope! Hello? We are fighting over space here and does it really matter which physicist gets a blessing? I think the Regensburg address is also a storm in a tea cup that is best forgotten. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On that note, someone reverted and put back the physicist names, I see no need fo rthem. I also added 9 characters as a link to Mariology and that was objected to - petty bickering really. I think a link to the general concept of Mariology is appropriate when Mary is discussed for those who arrive on this page need to just get familiar with the term. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your point about the structures created by the Vatican for defecting Anglicans. I said it at the time it was added, as I remember in a tide of enthusiasm from Xandar and Yorkshirian that some 'stray sheep' may be 'coming home'. I think it would be better to wait until some actually do. Regensburg could definely go now as well. Haldraper (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, your memory seems to be short-circuiting. I would love to be directed to the post where I sais that stray sheep were coming home.

Richard, going through your points

1. The sentence regarding the pope as an international leader is important as a summation of a historic review that brings us up to the present. Without it, we are left in limbo as to the current situation.
2. Addressing the UN could go, or be merged with the sentence above.
3. I agree with keeping the Deus Caritas est sentences
4. I'm unsure about Regensberg. It is not perhaps a big an event as it seemed at the time, however Catholic/Muslim conflict/relations remains an important ongoing issue around the world, and mentioning it in some manner seems advisable.
5. New structures for Anglicans. Again, it is a significant development in church terms.
6. Pontifical Academy. I would agree to moving this to Cultural Influences.
7. Political support for pro-life, family life etc. candidates is pretty worldwide in application, and quite a significant matter, since these issues (abortion, euthanasia, minority rights etc) engender a lot of anti-Church opposition and conflict. Xandar 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

re point #1 ("the Pope as international leader"), I would be OK with the text if we present his current status as "international leader" in the context of the past 130 years (since Vatican I and the loss of the Papal States). My original reaction was, "Yawn, so what... that hasn't changed in the last 40 years since I became a Catholic". However, if we consider the turmoil of the first half of the 20th century (loss of Papal States, WWII, secularization of the West, etc.), it is certainly remarkable that the Pope is still relevant today. John XIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are responsible for keeping the Catholic Church relevant (in different ways). Of course, we would have to find a reliable source that says this. Can anyone help?

Re point #3 "Deus Caritas est", I could keep it or lose it. I think it would be better to have a longer paragraph about Benedict XVI in general (what seem to be his objectives, what's he done, what are his plans) and not focus on "Deus Caritas est". Partly, because when I read our article on it, I find it boring. Is it notable for anything other than being Benedict's first encyclical? If we don't mention every encyclical ever issued, then why do we mention this one? Just because it's Benedict's first one and we don't have anything else interesting to say?

Re points #4 & #5 Instead of focusing on Regensberg and the new structures for Anglicans, why not write a paragraph or section on interfaith relations. We have an effort to reach out to the Muslims (after the Church pissed them off), efforts to reach out to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and a move to accomodate defecting Anglicans. Really, all this is an extension of the ecumenism of Vatican II. Which is not to say that the Catholic Church has exactly the same approach to interfaith relations now that it had in the 1960s. Presumably that has evolved. What we need to do is to explain how it has evolved. If we could find a reliable source that synthesises these various interfaith relationships into a single analysis, that would be great.

Re point #7. you wrote "these issues (abortion, euthanasia, minority rights etc) engender a lot of anti-Church opposition and conflict." Yes... but we don't say that. We also don't say that much of the anti-Church opposition and conflict is precisely because of the involvement in politics. There are many (including some Catholics) who would assert that separation of Church and state suggests the Church should not meddle in imposing its moral standards on others via the legal system (of which politicians are a part) and via excommunication and withholding of the Eucharist. IMO, if we are going to mention this "political support" bit, then we should reword it to present what the whole phenomenon is and how it is received instead of throwing out this one innocuous little sentence which, while true, runs the risk of "telling a big lie by telling only a partial truth".

--Richard S (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar,

"Haldraper, your memory seems to be short-circuiting. I would love to be directed to the post where I sais that stray sheep were coming home."

Maybe my memory let me down there, I'm pretty sure Yorkshirian said this but if you didn't I apologise.

"The sentence regarding the pope as an international leader is important as a summation of a historic review that brings us up to the present. Without it, we are left in limbo as to the current situation."

Really? I thought he'd abolished it :-) Haldraper (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think the Vatican II / present section is too long. I have made one suggestion in a separate section of the talk page, above, re a superfluous sentence in the passage on liberation theology. A couple of other points:

• "The sexual revolution of the 1960s precipitated Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) which rejected the use of contraception, including sterilization, asserting that these work against the intimate relationship and moral order of husband and wife by directly opposing God's will." I think the whole last phrase can be removed, with a full stop after "sterilization". People who want more detail can always click through to Humanae Vitae.
• Can other editors explain why we would accept Bokenkotter as a reliable source on controversial matters of church teaching and policy? He is a pastor within the church and presumably representing an official view. i would want different, independent, source(s) for the following elements, currently cited solely to Bokenkotter:

• "Abortion was condemned by the Church as early as the first century, again in the fourteenth century..." (the contemporary point probably fine)
• Wierdly, as the only cite for a whole section on liberation theology. i would have thought there was significant scholarship in relation to this, from outside the church itself.
• Bokenkotter is also relied upon in other sections, but i am confining my specific comments to the Vatical II etc section for now.

• "In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church" What is this doing here? It seems like an awkward bit of recentist add-on. It does not represent a significant doctrinal shift, and so should not be in this overview article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

hamiltonstone, I and others have made this point numerous times. Fr. Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest, Eamon Duffy is a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, Fr. McGonigle and John Vidmar are ordained members of a Catholic religious order, the Dominicans. The standard response is that they are reliable sources because they hold academic posts and have had books published (even if those posts are at Catholic universities which then publish their books). You will also be accused of wanting to exclude Catholic sources from this page. The simple answer is that WP:INDEPENDENT requires us to apply a different measure to those who are ordained or hold official posts in the Church (especially where the text relies solely on them) than, for example, Edward Norman and Anthony Rhodes, both well-respected historians and high-profile converts from Anglicanism to Catholicism, who are used as sources throughout. Haldraper (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would see this as a deal-breaking issue at FA, which i belive is the goal of many editors here. i have written before that church sources are OK for reporting information about aspects of the church, such as describing doctrine or organisational structure. Even in these limited situations, however, they are only OK if other sources do not dispute that informaiton. Once there are other reliable sources disputing the data, the other sources are to be preferred over church sources.

So the question then is, as you note: what is a 'church source'? There are two ways in which a source would not be independent of the church:

• If it is published by the church
• If it is written by a holder of church office.

I would suggest these categories cover anything published by a Caholic University press, unless evidence can be presented that the press is free, both in principle and in practice, to publish material critical of the church and in contradiction of church teaching. The categories also cover any thing written by a pastor, priest etc within the church. There could be exceptions to this, but that would be my general view. I do not think there is a problem with citing material published in refereed sources by lay academics who work at Catholic universities. Applying the above principles, I think there are significant areas of the current article for which there is no third-party reliable source being quoted at all, let alone multiple sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Final Conclave

When I was in college (and now I'm dating myself), I read a book by Malachi Martin entitled "The Final Conclave". In this book, Martin describes the tension between the liberal/progressives and the conservative/traditionalists in the Church. Written in 1978, Martin's thesis was that the selection of the next Pope would be driven by this battle for the soul of the Church.

Well, here we are 32 years later, and we can look back and see how things have played out. Neither side has completely won although my personal take is that the conservatives have been more in the driver's seat than not. Liberation theology has definitely been smacked down.

The shift towards the conservative end of the spectrum is the work of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

What's my point? We don't really talk about this battle for the soul of the Church except that we do mention liberation theology and the traditionalists but the way the end of the history section is written, those issues could be considered by the reader as no more important than Regensberg and "structures for defecting Anglicans".

I think the Catholicism of the 1990s and the 21st century has a different face from the Catholicism of the 1960s in a bunch of different ways. Use of the vernacular in the mass, fewer white Europeans as a percentage of the whole, not so militantly leftist or even progressive, a focus on sexuality and its attendant moral issues, issues regarding adequate supply of clergy.

Now, the above is OR but I think we can find reliable sources who analyze the past quarter century or so of Church history and come up with a very similar list.

This is what I think the end of the article should be about instead of degenerating into a bunch of disconnected bits of recent news that lacks any unifying theme.

NB: In what I wrote above, I am not necessarily in favor of the conservatives or the liberals despite some indications of what my personal position might be. For the purposes of this article, I'm more interested in describing what happened than in advocating that one side should or should not have won.

--Richard S (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to feel the conservatives versus liberals thing is heavily overstated by commentators. Media groups and others tend to have a small cabal of "liberal catholics" who they can go to for rent-a-quotes to try to present a picture of a divided church. However I think the vast majority of clergy and active laity around the world are mainstream, and approve of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. So the "battle for the soul of the Church" thing is over dramatic. We've seen this in protestant denominations, where liberals have dominated, the group seems to diminish and implode due to a lack of enthused believers in the pews. Whereas the more conservative groups flourish.

Vatican II was the big triumph of the Liberals - of whom both Popes Benedict and John Paul were numbered. But I believe this was always a top-down phenomenon, with liberal academics leading the movement, and a more reluctant laity following (or leaving). SO I don't think Liberals v Conservatives is a good theme to guide the final section. The Church versus secular power seems more a theme in the west, whilst elsewhere the Church's relations with other faiths would seem to be the central theme. Xandar 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Other Countries on Sex Abuse Cases by Catholic Priests

Editor Farsight001 reverted my edits adding links to wiki links to articles on sex abuse cases in Canada and other jurisdictions. This editor has previously reverted edits on Catholic sex abuse cases by replacing words confirming the problem is world wide with words suggesting it is limited to a few jurisdictions. See for example this edit by Farsight001:
# 08:44, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) Catholic sex abuse cases ‎ (Undid revision 335070820 by Sturunner (talk)rv pov edits re-added with no explanation given. take to talk first)
203.129.49.145 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) :And? If you're just posting to complain about my edits, then you posted in the wrong place. We actually have a consensus that those things should not be mentioned in that place. This issue has been brought up in the past, which is why I (and others) removed it. It deserves mention in this article. Just not where it was put. Plus it's already mentioned last I checked. There is no need to slap it everywhere like you'd slap fragile stickers on a Fabergé egg you're mailing.Farsight001 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Stricken as requested by Farsight001 below. --Richard S (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misspoke and mis-edited. I saw a similar sized paragraph with two links added, like there was to the paragraph I was ranting about above. I would strike the above if I knew how. Though that brings up another question - why are there so many articles on Catholic sex abuse? It seems that they should exist as one article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The primary (and most valid reason) for so many articles on Catholic sex abuse is that the main article was too long and so we needed subsidiary articles at the country and diocese level to get the details out of the main article. However, there is a problem that there are editors who feel that it is important to put in many details that I think are not relevant. In particular, there is one particular victim who feels it necessary to insert the monetary amount of his settlement as well as some other minor details of the case which he feels are important. I have pushed the principle that, for the most part, names of specific abusers, specific victims, and specific settlements need not be included in Wikipedia articles. I have had limited success in advocating this principle. --Richard S (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

we all wish you limited success. Your 'principle' only works to the advantage of the abusers. If the matter has been ruled upon in open court and a conviction entered on the public record its not for you to then create some'principle' by which the information is suppressed. That only makes it harder for institutions like this to reform the structural problems that lead to so much sexual abuse of children by priests in the first place.203.129.49.145 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Running the stats again

I think it may be a good idea to rerun the size stats now that various trims have taken place. That will provide a better idea of the relative sizes, etc. for trims to stop or continue, etc. It should use the same scripts as before for consistency. I am not sure what the scripts were, so I will have to leave it to KaranaCS and/or Richard who ran them before. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be a beancounter in real-life. My edits (some of which were reverted) amounted to no more than 4% of the total. There is not likely to be any significant shift in the numbers and what shifts there are will tell you little because this should not be an exercise in numbers at that level of detail. If we can get the article down to 150kb, then rerunning the numbers might be of some value. Until then, it would be far better to focus on content. --Richard S (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There were two errors there in Richard. First I am not a beancounter, secondly who said I exist in real-life? I may be an advanced chatbot programmed by my clever designer just to edit these pages in order to win the Turing test. Well, he fooled you so far, until you noticed that computer like numbers. However, given that the "Present" section has disappeared altogether and other sections have hardly been trimmed, the numbers may still say something, e.g. that the High Middle Ages section is still too large. History2007 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentences

I take Richard's point about the consensus to include 'RCC' at the start of the lead - I personally think it could be left to the note to explain - but leaving that aside (and the church/demonination question) there is still too much information thrown in that could easily wait until the demographics section: is the number of Catholics (practicing and lapsed) as a percentage of Christians/the world's population really such an important fact that it has to be presented so prominently?

I therefore propose the following:

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian denomination with more than a billion members.[note 2] It is a communion of the Western, (or Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008."

Haldraper (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am on Richard' side here. A new reader can not be sent to Notes to know what the Roman Catholic Church is. There is so much extra in the article it does not make sense to economize on 5 words upfront. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of historical accuracy, we should be aware that History2007's comment is true but does not capture the real issue at hand here. There was a huge dispute as to whether this article should be title Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. I won't go into the details but the compromise reached after a year of mediation and possibly a million bytes of Talk Page discussion was to title the article Catholic Church and mention both names in the lead sentence. Anything which breaches this compromise is likely to open up the old dispute and we will go around and around for months. As it is, I expect that someone will come along sooner or later to push one side of the dispute or another. Until then, however, I think it is better to let things lay dormant in the interest of peace. --Richard S (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for heaven's sake leave it. There are far too many undiscussed changes being made, which as we have seen from past experience, only causes trouble down the road. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Richard, if you read the Long Island Expressway document[3] I wanted the article called Roman Catholic Church. But the inclusion of the RC term upfront is true in any case. My concern now is the same as Johnbod's in that the edit turmoil we are witnessing within this page now may spin out of control and result in a 2009 world crisis type situation. So I think everyone should try to calm their edits and do things by agreement. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read my proposed opening sentences you will see that both CC and RCC are retained - it is the comparisons between the number of Catholics (both practicing and lapsed) and the total number of Christians/world population that have been cut as unnecessarily prominent for the lead.Haldraper (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for deleting a few numbers (whose correctness no one disputes) and which give a perspective. Why delete those instead of all the other excess baggage elsewhere in the article? Who does it hurt to have these facts there? I find these facts informative. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about decluttering the lead here, I'm not disputing the facts just whether they need to be so prominent. The Catholic Church is the biggest Christian church with over a billion members. That's useful info that a general reader might come here looking for. But Catholics as a percentage of Christians/the world population? That kind of detail belongs in the demographics section.

There is another issue: unlike the lead, the demographics section makes clear that the 1.1 billion figure includes both practicing and lapsed members. I think if you want these figures to stay in the lead we need to make it clear there too. Haldraper (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that I did not know the ratios until I read it in this article. And I actually found it interesting. So I do not see it as "clutter" at all, but useful information. Clutter comes further in the article. The info about the formation of SF&LA is now thankfully gone, but there is clutter further in history. As for lapsed vs nonlapsed, that can of course be clarified, and I wonder how one counts these people anyway. Is there something like a Geiger counter that the priest holds to the head of a Catholic to determine how lapsed he/she is? Are there references for a catholic Geiger counter type device? But more seriously how do these numbers come up? History2007 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see no problem with teh act that there is no "faith meter" for Catholics, but is there one for Christians? If not, it should say number of lapsed Catholics or Christians is not known, for there could be more lapsed non-Catholics than Catholics, who knows? So please modify as such. Thanks. Then I wonder if given that there are physics Noble prize winners who report to the pope, if a few of them could be commissioned to make a faith meter (wink).... but that is another story.... History2007 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007, things are clearer here than you think. If like me you're been baptised a Catholic, then you're a Catholic. Those who follow the obligations of the faith set out in canon law (attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, confess mortal sins at least once a year) are practicing Catholics, those who don't are lapsed. Most other Christian churches do not have a similar codified way of measuring who is a practicing member so don't have the concept of 'lapsed members'.Haldraper (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I did not know it, I bet there are others who do not. But instead of clarifying there, I saw that there is actually a half-written article on lapsed Catholic, so it really needs a link. And the lapsed article seems lapsed itself, and needs a clean up. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• By that test, Martin Luther is a Catholic; and as for the test of practice, you may want to look up "Easter lily" on Urbandictionary (I heard it from an Anglican). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed, we actually agree on something PM. My prayers must be working.... But let me point out that these are rough numbers for all religions, e.g. Wikipedia says that Shinto currently has about 119 million known adherents in Japan. with an obscure reference to some LOC unnamed source. I really have no idea how one measures these things for either Shinto or Pentacostals, etc. By their nature, these are soft numbers, and Catholic numbers may be less soft than others due to a central office etc. (but that is a guess on my part, no sources). History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: it's both appropriate and nornal to list the (approximate) number of adherents in the lead section; see the articles on Anglicanism and on the Orthodox Church. I have no strong opinion as to whether it belongs in the first sentence or later on in the lead section. Perhaps we should leave it as is for now. Majoreditor (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it as is, but not just for now, for a long while. There are just too many edits to the lead, with no noticeable improvements. These are soft numbers, of course, but most new readers would want to know it. Personally, I did not know that Catholics are 1/6 of the world population (until I read it here) because I had not divided the two numbers, so it is useful information. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)