Talk:American Catholic Church in the United States

Neutrality?

Is there any verification of the claims made by the author of the document? Revbillaccus is a priest in the group and I'm wondering if this article is more an advertisement than a true informational article. Where are the citations to pages outside of their website?

Where are the supporting links for instance, the lineage on their website is very different from the accepted lineage on http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/The_Costa_lines-_F-J/The_Harms_lineage.html. There also appears to be no documentation for their claim that they are descended from an Old Catholic lineage.

There also appears to be no information regarding the schism between the ACCUS and the ACC which is important information regarding this group and from the history, any information presented is immediately deleted by Revbillaccus which again calls into question the objectivity of this article (or rather Advertisement.)

It also appears (from the history of the page) that the founder's authenticity was called into question (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States&diff=247410078&oldid=246803506) which was immediately deleted by Revbillaccus. I fully believe that piece should be readded, but without such bias. Perhaps a clause that questions the validity and leave it at that.

Also Revbillaccus has been "elected Bishop" So he has a vested interest in supporting claims of validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.56.39 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bp.T.(75.73.56.39) Thank you. There is mention of his becoming the new auxilary bishop already in the article. Regarding the other issues you've been trying to post, please see the next sections below regarding those isssues and feel free to discuss them in those sections. Kjnelan (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the question of validity, they point to their own website rather than the actual documents online or via APA or MLA formats. One such document is easily reached at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

This Article needs better citation and documentation.

Kjnelan (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Angr, should we remove the POV tags on the page? I was the one who first put up the POV-Check. If you think it's okay, then I've no problem with removing the NPOV tags... Kjnelan (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've left tags indicating the need for sources and the expansion of the history section. +Angr 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Religious POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion Does the article adhere to the above or is it an advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjnelan (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While better sourcing is definitely needed, the article seems pretty well neutral, although the bit about an "informed and enlightened conscience" might be a little bit biased. It's certainly not an advertisement. +Angr 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks... Just checking. Kjnelan (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

The following has been posted several times to this article.

"There is serious doubt as to the validity of Lawrence Harms "orders" Over the years he has claimed several sources for his "ordination" as a Roman Catholic priest which could not be verified. Currently he is claiming his ordination as priest was done by an independent bishop Roy Bauer. Bishop Bauer passed away some years ago and there is no independent verification. In addition - Mr Harms has also claimed various degrees from different schools that could not be verified."

Please provide proofs for the allegation before posting it to the article. A post as the one above is very accusitory and derogitory and deserves to have proper references cited to prove the case. And even then one must weigh the possible damage that can be done by posting such information.

Where is the proof? Please post them or make the proper citations.Kjnelan (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Bp. T., please take responsibility for your words and actions while you're at it. It's pretty easy to track your IP address and see what you've edited. It's also easy to reverse IP lookup your IP. Kjnelan (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, since women can never be validly ordained to the priesthood none of the sacraments they minister would be considered valid by the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.184.10 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite true. While marriage would not be considered Valid by the CC, Baptism would as anyone can perform a baptism in certain cases and it would still be considered valid. Reconciliation and Last Rites would still be considered valid as well since they are not viewed with the same litigiousness as say marriage (That's at least 3 sacraments the CC would consider valid). Even in some cases Ordination would still be valid so long as the ordination itself was celebrated by the book, with the right conditions, and with the proper amount of education. The "Roman" church would consider the ordination "illicit", but valid none-the-less. Many Documents have been written on that very thing and are available on the Vatican website. The question now is how the ACCUS meets the notability guidelines. The article gives a great overview of the church, but says nothing about being the first Catholic institution to ordain women. It does not contain anything related to the history and schisms in which it was involved, nor does it discuss any of the liberal theologies to which it subscribes, many of which are considered firsts for the Catholic Church. While they may not be "roman", they are still "catholic" and many of the things that were done in the ACCUS were firsts for Independent Catholicism, which may enhance notability. Unfortunately, the ACCUS may not allow some of the information to be released regarding the schisms, history, and those first time event, nor might they release information regarding recent events and mass exodus from their ranks due in part to an independent investigation of information regarding certain individuals. (kjnelan at a new IP address). 68.32.210.135 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

Bishop Harms' information regarding his Ordination and subsequent consecration can not be verified by independent research. There are two different sets of information regarding his ordination and consecration. One set has Bishop Harms ordained by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boston (located at http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/The_Costa_lines-_F-J/The_Harms_lineage.html), while another more recent version has him ordained by the Old Roman Catholic Church (located at http://www.accus.us/lineage.htm). He was Consecrated in the "Free Catholic Church" on 7 March, 1998, however the Free Catholic Church has denounced, and invalidated his consecration, the documentation for which was sent to every member of the ACCUS in 2008, and which remains on file with, and was verified by the Archdiocese of Boston and The Free Catholic Church.

It is strongly recommended that the page for the American Catholic Church in the United States, and forwarding page ACCUS be considered for removal due to Notability guidelines and that this article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. I have tried to change it to read more neutral, but am coming up short on verifiable and valid third party citations. While the ACCUS does have some notable events in their history, none of it is third party verifiable and much of it is controversial at best. This recommendation is also made for the continued protection of the ACCUS and it's affiliates. (kjnelan at:) 68.32.210.135 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)