Talk:Catholic Church

Word spell

"History and development of Western civilisation" Correct spell for civilization, instead of what it is.

Undue weight to certain ideas in introduction?

In the introduction, we are carrying a sentence which is basically arguing in favour of the social views of bourgeois liberals in Western Europe and North America, using weasel words. It is essentially using the introduction of this article to lobby in a one sided fashion for homosexuality and the Anglo-liberal vision for feminism.

From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases.

Now, similarly, on the articles for other religions; Orthodox Judaism, Islam and the Orthodox Church, all of these major religions are also opposed to the bourgeois liberal view of sexuality and they also do not permit women to the ranks of their clergy. Is there any particular reason why we are singling out the Catholic Church, other than the fact that... lets call a spade-a-spade, bourgeois liberals of Germanic provenance, particularly those of an Anglo-Saxon hue, have a special little hereditary hard on when it comes to the Catholic Church?

I think we need to come up with a more balanced summary for the late 20th century onward period. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Catholic Church's teachings are uniquely criticized, given the worldwide scope of the church, its involvement in providing healthcare (and thus directly conflicting with many secular sexual health services), in its various roles as employer and education (thus refusing to provide birth control coverage to employees or students), etc. Any one of these issues has had significant coverage, and would be amiss to not mention in the lead. Further, you single out Orthodox Judaism and Islam, neither of which are free from criticism in these areas, especially regarding their treatment of women. Just because those article do not currently mention such criticism, does not mean that the content is not sufficiently notable for inclusion; it simply means those articles are not yet as well developed. Further, I should not have to explain why the worldwide sexual abuse crisis, touching church organizations on every continent, is notable. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

All of the aforementioned religions are also international. Can you point out where in the introduction to the articles Islam and Orthodox Judaism we criticise them in the introduction for not having female clergy and for not endorsing sexual debauchery?

The "secular" argument doesn't wash either, as if this is a magical word. There is no set secular standard on questions of sexuality and the role of women in society. In all of the historical socialist states for example, which are/were state atheist, homosexuality, pornography and so on were also strongly rejected (and still is in secular countries like China and North Korea) and in many cases natalism/the family promoted.

The views currently promoted in the introduction are specifically liberal and when we say liberal, we actually mean Anglo-Saxon/British Empire (the people who invented liberalism). Anglo-Saxons are of course welcome to their unique opinions on social views (which are a very small minority in the world), but I don't think we should have their whining promoted in an extremely one sided and partisan manner in the introduction here. It is a violation of the NPOV policy. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Zfish’s point is that as one of the largest providers of human services in the world, the Catholic Church is in a position where these conflicts are a larger part of the social debate than they are for Orthodox Judaism or other similar groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I happen to have sympathy for the idea that there is undue weight given to the criticism of the Catholic Church's intro. We don't introduce the Islam page by mentioning the wide attribution of its theology as a motivation for terrorism (etc etc). However, statements/phrases like "bourgeois liberals of Germanic provenance", "Anglo-Saxon hue", "sexual debauchery" makes me question whether you are here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). Brough87 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Can you point out where in the introduction to the articles Islam and Orthodox Judaism we criticise them in the introduction for not having female clergy and for not endorsing sexual debauchery? I have already addressed this point: such criticism may indeed be warranted in the lead of those articles; its absence there is not binding precedent against its inclusion here. The Orthodox Judaism article could easily include the Zionism or the treatment of women as relevant criticisms from both within and outside of Judaic culture. Please present an argument specific to this article, explaining why significant content discussed in the article should not be summarized in the lead, or consider this discussion closed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• On purely theoretical grounds, the lead of our article can't give "undue weight" to "certain ideas": either the article itself gives undue weight to those ideas and the lead is an accurate reflection of the article, or the lead does not accurately reflect the article and that (not the undue weight given to certain ideas) is the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Catholic Churches views on sex and non-ordination of women may or may not be worthy of mention in the lead..... the whole sexual abuse case and how the church responded to it was and is huge and absolutely belongs in the intro. TantraYum (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The church's views on sex are perhaps the single most important issue facing the subject of this article currently, and absolutely must be addressed in the lead. Thousands of members are leaving the organization every year due to disagreements on the church's stance on homosexual marriage. The bishops recently completed a world-wide series of synods regarding communion for divorced persons and other pastoral concerns. Two popes wrote major theological works against birth control, and all recent popes explicitly reaffirmed those teachings. Even the refusal to ordain women is a defining and notable trait, as other churches are abandoning the tradition as incompatible with contemporary values.

To omit the church's controversial teachings regarding sex from lead, especially when all such content is developed within the article, is to treat the subject as though no major changes or challenges have arisen since 1950'S. Indeed, I would imagine a major reason readers visit this article is to research the controversial teachings to better understand their impact on current national law and international policy. Not alerting the reader to the most important issues facing the subject of an article, such as the church maintaining controversial teachings despite intense international criticism, is not acceptable. Revisions current wording that better discuss the significance and context of the various criticisms may be appropriate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sexual abuse committed, largely, by priests with homosexual tendencies, should be mentioned in the introduction. As that has recieved widespread coverage in the media, is an objectively existing phenomenon and has led to significant legal battles, pay outs and attempts to reform the problems. The dribble about female clergy and general views on human sexuality should not be highlighted in the introduction, as stances on this is a pure personal and indeed sectarian opinion. Wikipedia isn't Western-Europeanpedia or Anglopedia. Just because the Anglicans, Quakers, Unitarians and post-Protestant "seculars" have given their Saxon thumbs up to something doesn't mean the rest of humanity are obliged to jump in line with the master race. The Catholic view of human sexuality is closer to that shared by most of the world (Africa, the Islamic world, India, China, Eastern Europe, much of the Romance-speaking world) than the minorty Anglo-American, German-Dutch view. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The sexual abuse done by priests is not connected to homosexuality. Good luck referencing that absurd claim. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off topic form the discussion at hand, namely the article promoting the sectarian sexual mores of Anglo-American liberals and demanding the rest of the world come along for the ride, but.... the majority of the sexual abuse committed by criminal priests has been against male youths. Male on male sex acts are, by nature, homosexual. As part of an attempt to combat and reform this problem the Church issued Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders in 2005. Hope that helps. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not connected. The rape of male children are not "male on male sex acts". Pedophilia is not sexual attraction to men, it is sexual attraction to children, not that this has anything to do with the conversation at hand (as long as we are making sure such outrageous claims do not get added into the article). Before you start talking about biases I would address your own, as name calling (i.e. "Anglo-American liberals") has no place on Wikipedia and won't further any claim you are making. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose adding sexual abuse in the lead. The sexual abuse was committed by priests because they did not follow the Catholic Church's doctrine. It is the priest's personal fault and and not the catholic Church's. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

While it goes against doctrine, the Church hierarchy is responsible for the ongoing cover-ups that are linked all the way up to the Papacy itself. The Church is very much responsible for the thousands of cases of abuse by clergy. It's not simply "a priests mistake" but a crime that continues to happen without any actual changes made by the Church to prevent it from continuing. I would say it belongs in the lead because it has become so culturally prevalent in the past few decades. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies state that all issues that received significant coverage be included in the lead. I have not seen any argument that its views on sexuality, covered within the article in quite a bit of depth, should not be in the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I've reverted Claíomh Solais's recent unilateral changes to the lead section because (1) they lack consensus and are at odds with the discussion above, (2) introduce poorly written and vague language, and (3) fail to reflect the body of the article. Claíomh Solais, can you please stay on topic? Your antipathy to "bourgeois liberals" and "Anglo-liberal vision for feminism" (whatever that even means) is utterly irrelevant here. Neutrality^talk 06:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The relevant quick comparison with the lead sections of other major religious denominations makes things rather clear here. But, yeah, then again you may argue that the readers themselves are able to discover how weight is carried out so we editors don't have to bother about it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sections typically comprise four (4) paragraphs. Exceptions may be, including for the prior contents in this paragraph. As seen in the discussion above, however, this paragraph should not reintroduced per WP:NPOV short of attainted article-wide WP:CONSENSUS comprising equivalent paragraphs in lead sections throughout Islam, Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, and Orthodox Judaism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand your rational to REMOVE THE PARAGRAPH; This is unacceptable and disruptive, especially since the discussion has been dormant for months, with a clear consensus to keep or at least not remove the paragraph. The argument that other article do not cover criticism is invalid. Most are not rated "good articles", and thus likely have significant development required. Using lower quality articles as a basis for removal of content in the lead that is is discussed at length within the body of the article is bad practice. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A criticism section is naturally due, as well as possibly a criticism paragraph. That said, being oblivious to the other comparable lead sections while raging over this one quite frankly doesn't give a convincing WP:NPOV vibe, does it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you agree that a "possibly a criticism paragraph" is due, and the consensus on this discussion was to KEEP the paragraph, what made you believe it was appropriate to remove it without reopening discussion? –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, the concern is about Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight, and in this case it is largely contextual. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Luther

"Martin Luther, originally an Augustinian friar, initiated the Protestant Reformation against the Catholic Church in 1517." - this is totally untrue. Martin Luther, and many of the Protestant Reformers, never intended the Reformation to be a movement "against" the Catholic Church. Many of them wanted an internal reform, including Luther. This should be corrected to a more neutral sentence.

What's a member?

I am here for two reasons. Firstly, I find the first sentence unclear, and am told I must discuss before changing it. Secondly, I am also told to check the archives. That's pointless. You try, and see how many hits you get for the words "member" or "members"! So, sorry if this has been discussed before.

The first sentence says the church "is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion members worldwide". "The word "members" is not defined, and could mean anything. My Google translation of the source actually says that 1.3 billion is "the number of baptized Catholics in the world". That's obviously not the same as members. Why don't we use precisely that wording? Surely our policies say we should. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, any baptized Catholic is considered a member of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic theology. If you are baptized, no matter the age, you are joined to the mystical body that is the Catholic Church. You are a "member" of Christ's body. Now, you can distinguish between "baptized members," "confirmed members" (those who have undergone the sacrament of confirmation), "communicant members" (those who are eligible to receive the Eucharist at any given time) and "practicing members" (those who actually consider themselves Catholics and attend church regularly at any given time). But, simple membership in the Catholic Church is determined by baptism. At baptism, a person becomes subject to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Ltwin (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a good source for that definition of "member"? Even if we accept that definition (and why should we?) it still seems a form of synthesis, so I ask again, why don't we use precisely the wording in the source? HiLo48 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that true? That seems problematic as a definition, because the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed by other Christian denominations. You can't be baptised twice. If a person is baptised in another church and converts to Catholicism, at what point do they become a "member"? Regardless, HiLo48 is right: we should use a direct paraphrase of the material in the source. To do otherwise is improper synthesis.--Srleffler (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All people baptized in the Catholic Church are considered members. For an individual from another Christian denomination whose baptism the Catholic Church recognizes as valid, they become a member upon canonical reception into full communion either by a diocesan bishop or a priest. Also, yes, just stick to what the source says. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Reformation in the lead

The lead makes mention of the important East-West schism, but no mention of Protestantism emerging from the Catholic Church, although this is a major event in the Church's history, which could be argued to be the most significant and consequential, with far reaching consequences (major wars, loss of papal influence, etc). I know I could WP:JUSTDOIT but given that this is a highly visible article, I'd rather put the notion here first. — Define Real (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Please check now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That works, thanks! — Define Real (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ninety-five theses

This article says that Luther sent his ninety-five theses to several bishops - but did he not nail them to the church door at Wittenberg? I have heard it said that he put them up on wax. Vorbee (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There is little evidence that he actually nailed it to the Wittenberg church door. The first reference we have to this event was made 30 years after, and Luther never mentions it. Ltwin (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)