Talk:Catholic Church

Social teaching

The enumeration of these seemed too much for the main article:

The Church enumerates "corporal works of mercy" and "spiritual works of mercy" as follows:

Corporal Works of Mercy	Spiritual Works of Mercy
1. To feed the hungry.	1. To instruct the ignorant.
2. To give drink to the thirsty.	2. To counsel the doubtful
3. To clothe the naked.	3. To admonish sinners.
4. To harbour the harbourless (shelter the homeless).	4. To bear wrongs patiently.
5. To visit the sick.	5. To forgive offences willingly.
6. To ransom the captive.	6. To comfort the afflicted.
7. To bury the dead.	7. To pray for both the living and the dead.

Schreck

I presume that the unspecified book by Schreck repeatedly cited in the article is Alan Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, which is not freely available. I wonder how accurate are the statements attributed to it. One in particular is the statement that the New Testament was never compiled before the Codex Vaticanus was written. The article about that manuscript says that, as it now exists, it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation; that it may never have contained Revelation, and that it probably contained New Testament apocrypha. Did Schreck write what the article attributes to him? It is to be hoped that he did, for otherwise doubt is cast on the accuracy of the other statements attributed to him. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

When I read this, I presumed the text meant to convey that the Codex Vaticanus was the oldest extant compilation, not necessary the first. It was poorly written, but when I revised it, I tried to leave it semantically equivalent to not break the attribution. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation

Schreck, Alan (1999). The Essential Catholic Catechism. Servant Publications. ISBN 1-56955-128-6.

• First added to the bibliography, and as a footnote source on 13 March 2008 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=198105376&oldid=197894523).
• Deleted from bibliography on 31 January 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=474253029&oldid=474189952)

Edit

I have thought it best to replace the material on the Catholic canon of Scripture attributed to Schreck with what I think is clearer and surer material. Schreck seems to have attached disproportionate importance to that one manuscript, whether in the nonsense version attributed to him in this article ("the New Testament writings first found" in that manuscript), which says the writings, not just the list of them, were found nowhere until then, or in the transcription of his words given, since 15 May 2008, in the misnamed article "Easter Letter" ("The present list of New Testament writings was first founded [surely a mistyping!] in the Codex Vaticanus from Rome around A.D. 340 ..."). The article is misnamed, because it is about only one of the many circular letters that Athanasius (this was his 39th!) and other Bishops of Alexandria sent annually to inform of the date on which Easter was to be celebrated that year. Surely something less schrecklich than Schreck can be found. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

/* Contemporary issues#Social teachings */

The social teaching's segment seemed to hover out of place as its own section, and is relevant to several points in the Contemporary Issue section. I am still not certain if it is a good fit there, so a revert would not be taken personally. --Zfish118 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Faith (rather than reason)

Believing something by faith does not exclude reason and we are exhored not to abandon that very reason by the Catholic Church. The assertion is most definitely not in any cited source, is not in any accurate source, and has no place in the lede section. Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what wording is concerning you. The word "reason" does not exist in the lead. No comparison of faith and reason is made. I cannot see any assertion that faith excludes reason. Personally, I think it does, but it's not necessary to say so in the articles on every religion, but that's a different discussion, so there's no need to say it in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

See the addition made by this edit which was the second time the wording was inserted in the lede. I have removed it since then. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! Perhaps you should be more careful coming here and complaining about something that ISN'T in the article, without explaining the situation a bit better. Oh well, I won't fight your removal of the comment, but as I say, surely faith and reason are somewhat different things. On some levels they are, virtually by definition, mutually exclusive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're really interested in the feelings of the Church in this matter, I'd suggest reading the theological greats, starting with Thomas Aquinas. None of them would agree that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Elizium23 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of referring me to the thoughts of a man of absolute faith on how rational faith is? You need to also look at the thoughts of men (and women) of reason who reject faith entirely. (Why, oh why, do religious people come here trying to convince us all that their faith is rational? Please find a more appropriate forum. And, before any of the haters start attacking me here, please note that at no stage have I condemned faith.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has veered from the subject matter and become far too personal, so I shall be exiting here. Elizium23 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Having and expressing a view that is different from yours is not a personal matter in any way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic is that the church does not teach faith and reason to be mutually exclusive, which was misrepresented in the article. The writings of Saint Thomas are a source for the factual claim that the church teaches their compatibility, not necessarily the accuracy of the church's teaching. Discussing or defending personal beliefs or interpretations is inappropriate for the talk page. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

John Paul II's Encyclical Fides et Ratio is an excellent resource if someone is interested in this topic. HiLo, "religious" people are here to convince you or anyone else of anything. Should an editor be here it is because they are interested in making the article here. I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask why do you always try to convince us that we are not rational in our beliefs? The shoes easily fits the other foot also. --^StormRider 06:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Canon (Doctrine section)

Perhaps a bit more clarity and context regarding the acceptance of the New Testament canon east and west is needed. I added a footnote explaining Luther's dispute, but I am uncertain about the only some "place them at three different status levels". There is no discussion as to what these levels are or why it there is any dispute. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex abuse crisis in lead section

I recently reverted a series of edits from the article's lead section that misrepresented the sexual abuse scandal. Firstly, every organization has a small percentage of members with unfortunate pedophilic tendencies; this alone is not notable. What is notable about the church's scandal is that it grossly mishandled a significant number of abuse incidents and accusations. The lead should accurately reflect this. There used to be a neutrally phrased reference to the scandal in the lead developed through consensus. This should be restored. I am editing on my phone and cannot do this right now. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the edits inappropriately used statistics presumably for clergy as a whole, and misrepresented them as applying to the more limited subset of clergy within the hierarchy, which is not necessarily the case. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)