Talk:Pope Francis

Open letter

The open letter signed by 19 theologians is in the news. Perhaps there should be an article. ApexUnderground (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Contraception & the New Yorker

Regarding this edit: The passage being cited in the New Yorker is discussing the reception of Holy Communion by couples who have attempted remarriage. The author also doesn't mention the "internal forum" here, so there is no corresponding source here which that concept could have been drawn from. (It would be preferable to actually use sources which are reliable for Catholic doctrine, and not sensational American newsy outlets, like this article from a dissenting, pro-contraception priest who writes shocking things for a skeptical audience.) Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Does this say more about your own leanings than about The New Yorker magazine, which appeals to educated people, and is well known for "its rigorous fact checking and copy editing,[6][7] its journalism on politics and social issues". And the author here, James Carroll. is a notable author who has published twenty books. Thanks for your note, though, and I will redo the reference in accord with what I find. Jzsj (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It is no secret to any Catholic that when it comes to the mainstream media, 'alternative facts' are preferable to what the Holy Father actually says. But hey, who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that Pope Francis has respected the sensus fidei and is sympathetic to the fact that by 1993 only 13% of Catholics accepted Church teaching on contraception. Jzsj (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Welp, I dunno - in the interview you're quoting, he called it 'evil' Elizium23 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A search of the article does not turn up the word "evil": where are you referring to? And please note that the article is largely about Humanae Vitae and what the author says is largely justified by the quotes from Amoris Laetitia, which I now quote directly. I hope this satisfies. Jzsj (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, now you are performing original research on primary sources. And again you have synthed it into the contraception section when the New Yorker is still not referring to that issue in that part of the article. So now it's worse than when we began. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The article from the start is speaking about the inpact of Humane Vitae on the Church since its very publication, and the way that Pope Francis has responded to this. The inclusion of quotes is because you objected to how The New Yorker synthesizes these quotes. Are you denying that an important point is being made here, that characterizes Pope Francis' approach to church teaching on contraception versus personal conscience? Jzsj (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's defocus a little bit. Let me bring up the poorly-named and likewise poorly-scoped Theology of Pope Francis. Why does this screed on "contraception being A-OK now" belong in this BLP and not the 'Theology[sic]' article? Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely you are aware of the frequency of main articles having a section on a topic that also has its own article. I would suggest that both should focus on Pope Francis in this case, and not just on where he speaks like previous popes. Jzsj (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

SteveMcCluskey, I am confused by your explanation for reverting my edit. You said that the reader may not be aware that criticism comes particularly from theological conservatives and that the article should state that. My version still states that criticism comes from theological conservatives; I simply took out the word "particularly" and added it in later in the sentence. Given my explanation, what is the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I reverted your edit because it focused the conservative criticism of Pope Francis to two main topics " particularly on the question of admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion with the publication of Amoris laetitia and on the question of the alleged cover-up of clergy sexual abuse." The critique of the pope "particularly from theological conservatives" has been much more wide-ranging and applies to almost every aspect of Pope Francis's teachings. See the section on Controversies for specific examples. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I don't think you've read the sentence very carefully at all. Please try doing so again. Right now the content in question reads: "Since 2016, Francis has faced increasingly open criticism, particularly from theological conservatives, on the question of admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion with the publication of Amoris laetitia and on the question of the alleged cover-up of clergy sexual abuse." The fact that the word "particularly" is absent from the final clause makes it seem as though conservative criticism of Pope Francis has focused not just primarily but exclusively on divorce and sex abuse. Transferring the word away from the the penultimate clause and to the final clause recognizes the fact that while Francis's teaching and behavior on divorce and sex abuse may have been the focus of especially high criticism (which is true), criticism of him is much more wide-ranging. It also recognizes the fact that, at least so far as I've been able to find, no significant criticism has been directed at him but from conservatives.

By the way, all of this would have been made clear if you'd read my edit summary, first before reverting and second before responding here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the breadth of the conservative criticism of the Pope, on which we apparently both agree, I've made some further revisions in the lead. I hope these make the point more clearly. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's an improvement over the original version. I suppose I can settle for it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Arabian Peninsula

Hi, the claim is made multiple times in the article that he is the "first pontiff to visit the Arabian Peninsula". The source, however, says it is the "first visit of its kind". So what kind is that? What of Roman Pontiffs who were born in North Africa? Are there really over 260 Bishops of Rome who never went to the Arabian Peninsula? Crusader Popes? Bishops of now-titular bishoprics who were elevated to the papacy? I think we'll need more sources making this specific claim before we can add it back here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

women deacons

Francis set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons in the Catholic Church, but after two years it maintained "sharply different positions" and disbanded.

The above is not true.

The Commission provided a report to Francis in June 2018. Following the Synod for the Pan-Amazon, Francis said he would recall the Commission.