Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Concupiscence

@Oct13: I've reverted your recent addition because I don't think it adds any information for the benefit of the reader that wasn't already in the text; it just increases our (over-)reliance on interpretation of primary sources and our use of jargon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Oct13 (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's bring this to GA status

Tensions have been running a little high lately by some of the editors, myself included, who have worked on this article in the past. As a gesture of good faith, and in an effort to collaborate together towards a common goal in order to build good will, I would like to propose an effort to bring this article to GA, or perhaps even Featured, status. I chose this article for two reasons: 1) it the main article on the topic with eight daughter articles, and 2) it has been more or less stable for several months.

I am going to issue invitations to members of the LGBT and Catholic Wikiprojects, and specifically invite editors who have made one of the last 500 edits to this article, @Roscelese, Oct13, Contaldo80, Genericusername57, Mathglot, Samf4u, Shellwood, Meters, Epiphyllumlover, Materialscientist, Jungegift, Bradv, Socrates Socratis, NADOAM, Auric, I dream of horses, Ira Leviton, Rathfelder, TonyBallioni, PaleoNeonate, Meatsgains, PPEMES, Aspening, Dlohcierekim, Dlohcierekim, Verbose., Cmn.jcs, Jon Kolbert, Gerda Arendt, Nowak Kowalski, Northamerica1000, Lionelt, Ryn78, Zyxw, Kind Tennis Fan, Gdcarroll, and Marauder40:. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: Sorry, I've no interest in this article. If you wish to improve the thing to GA status, my advice would be to take it up with members of the related WikiProjects. DlohCierekim 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Slugger O'Toole: Appreciate the ping. I agree with User:Dlohcierekim that WikiProjects would be a good place to advertise for this. I've got nothing against improving the article, I'm just not "a GA person". But if you organize an improvement task list, GA-based or otherwise, and you have a specific issue under discussion that you want my input on, you're more than welcome to ping me again. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What changes need to be made to the article? Oct13 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are six criteria:

1. Well written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral
5. Stable:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

More details on each criterion can be found at WP:Good article criteria. I am going to begin by cleaning up the citations. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with bringing the article up to good article status. But I do have serious concerns about your involvement in leading this - based on issues raised by a range of other editors on a number of articles (along with an ongoing ANI). I would want to be absolutely convinced that "improving" the article isn't a cover to strengthen the Catholic "voice" at the expense of the gay "voice. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no agenda other than the one previously stated. Additionally, you will notice that the LGBT Wikiproject was notified before the Catholic Wikiproject. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Your editing record does not give me cause for comfort. But for the timebeing I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted a few of the recent destructive changes to the article wording. GA should be about making the article clearer, not about making it say less with more words. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't find your description of the edits as "destructive" to be helpful or to be WP:AGF. That said, I am reverting your change in the lead. As the article states, "In various countries, members of the Catholic Church have intervened on occasions both to both support efforts to decriminalize homosexuality, and also to ensure it remains an offence under criminal law." With that in mind, I don't believe your version to be accurate. Several of your other edits were very helpful, though, and I appreciate them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

In neither case is your wording an improvement. LGBT Catholics are "able" to have sex, so that's not an accurate description of Dignity's activities, and our article indicates that most of the Church's political activity has been against, rather than for, gay rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your point able LGBT people being "able" to have sex is a fair point. How do you like this instead? "Organizations such as DignityUSA, which advocates for the removal of the prohibition against homosexual acts..." The problem with your wording for the lede is that you are making a blanket statement which, as you point out, is not universally true. I'm open to suggestions for alternative language that is both accurate and concise, but am strggling to come up with something different. Do you have any suggestions? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern is, as ever, representing the sources with appropriate WP:WEIGHT, a part of our WP:NPOV policy. I could support the addition of "primarily" against LGBT rights. Re Dignity, I think you already know that that's not a good description. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:WIEGHT also talks about the juxtaposition of statements. Saying one group wants LGBT people to have rights and the other wants them to be chaste as if those two positions were diametrically opposed to one another and mutually exclusive is not NPOV either. The History section already has two line about organizations like Dignity and Courage. I am going to move them down to the Pastoral Care section. This, I think, solves two problems. First, they probably better belong there anyway. Secondly, it talks about the organizations without mentioning anything specific. What do you think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting "diametrically opposed" from. The two groups have two different briefs, that's all. Re the potential move, I don't understand your logic in moving Dignity there, even if Courage probably belongs there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right that "diametrically opposed" wasn't the best way to phrase it. My apologies. I still have an issue with your wording in that you are juxtaposing "rights" with "chastity." One can have full rights and still be chaste, or be promiscuous and oppressed. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger - under a recent AfD against you a number of editors raised concerns about partiality in editing. I have said I am happy to improve the quality of this article. But I am not content to see issues critical of Catholicism being brushed aside and replaced with a robust Catholic narrative. This does everyone a disservice to everyone. Can I advise you to be more careful about ensuring absolute impartiality and neutrality in the edits that you make on what is an incredibly sensitive subject matter. If you don't think you're up to this then I'd ask you to please step back. You need to ensure that other editors have confidence in you to represent all sides of the discussion. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I proposed an effort to improve this article three weeks ago and pinged 40 other editors, including you, looking for help. I then stepped back and was looking for someone else to take the lead. No one, including you, did. You haven't made any edits here in two months... until today, and when you did they resulted in a number of citation errors that I will now go in and fix. To your more general point, I always try to be NPOV. I sometimes fail, here and in myriad other ways. I look to other editors to catch those mistakes and fix them as I strive to do better. Again, I would welcome your efforts to improve the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I see it as an issue that "article insufficiently displays the beneficence of the Church" is not in fact an issue standing in the way of the article's GA status. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made dozens of edits to this article in the last few days. I don't think that's a fair description of the sum total of my efforts. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Luckily, it wasn't intended to be. It is very tiresome to have to deal with tendentious editing even if it comprises only a part of someone's edits. In addition to walking back the destructive wording I already mentioned, I also cleaned up some wording and restored some spuriously removed material, since it very clearly is in the source and therefore not unverified or OR. Please revert yourself re: the Church's political activity. You do not have consensus to add this word salad, which is a clear WP:WEIGHT violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what about your edit you believed to be a "compromise" in any way or indeed to make it less salad-like. Again, gain consensus for your wording by arguing for its compliance with policy or changing it to conform to policy, instead of attempting to force it through tendentiously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I disagree that including the basis by which they make decisions is a WEIGHT issue. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Catholic Church makes decisions on the basis of Catholicism" is self-evident and unnecessary to include. If you're confused about WEIGHT, you could reread the parts where I have explained it to you.

Slugger, I directly quoted for you the part of Siker's book that refers to educational and athletic employment and to military recruitment, and the references to adoption, employing teachers, and public housing are in the very first paragraph of the other cited source (which also a bit further down talks about coaches and military recruitment). I don't generally do this, but I'm going to recommend that you take a step back from this article until you can improve your tendentious editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "on the basis of Catholicism." As you well know, "Catholicism" is a huge thing. Catholic Social Teaching is a very specific subset of that thing. As to Siker, I read page 194, which is what you cited. (It was originally 193.) I didn't find what you were talking about. After your most recent comment, I went back in searched the book. I think I found what you are talking about on page 195. That source says "the Church teaches that discrimination based on sexual orientation is justified in the employment of teachers and coaches and in military recruitment" (my emphasis). In addition to being on the wrong page, it also doesn't talk about public housing, athletics, or adoption, all of which you included. Another source, which you didn't cite, may, but then we run into WP:SYNTH issues if it doesn't explicitly say what you are claiming. Additionally, and this is the bigger point, there is a huge difference between teaching that something may be "justified" in some circumstances and "actively opposing" it in all, which is what you said. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Teaching that discrimination based on sexual orientation is ever for any reason justified is exactly the point here. It's not. As actual social science and psychological organizations have emphasized for decades, there is zero reason to think that gay and lesbian people shouldn't be teachers or coaches or in the military. Any "teaching" to the contrary is inherently based on nothing more than scare-mongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, are you saying that you think teaching that someone may be prohibited from doing something is the same as actively opposing someone from doing something? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @NorthBySouthBaranof:. I think ultimately it doesn't really matter "why"; the addition of "teaching" is immaterial regardless of whatever other information about the teaching is added at that place in the article. All we need to do is state clearly that the Church opposes antidiscrimination measures for employment, housing etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, yes? Why would it not? If I teach that "it's justified for black people to be prohibited from marrying white people," I'm a racist. Full stop, game over, the end. If someone teaches that "it's justified for gay people to be prohibited from teaching," they're a homophobe. Full stop, game over, the end. The Catholic Church, at least in the United States, is on record advocating that it be legal to fire gay people for no other reason than that they're gay. That's literally the definition of homophobia.

If the Catholic Church really believes these things to be true and is proud of its position (based on nothing more than something written down in a book of myths a couple thousand years ago) that I, and millions of other people, am a dangerous, "disordered" threat to children and society, why are you attempting to obfuscate the truth with word-salads like "Catholic social teaching"? Be open, be out, be proud - the church wants to discriminate against me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the Church's position is right or wrong. That's not for us to decide. The issue is whether a source that says the Church teaches that such discrimination is permissible in some instances is the same as saying that the Church is actively discriminating. I contend that those are not the same things. Look at another example: Say the Church teaches that it is acceptable for a parent to sometimes deny a child a cookie. That is not the same thing as the Church telling parents never to give their children cookies. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Your analogy is idiotic - gay people are not children wanting cookies, they're human beings entitled to equal protection under the law. By teaching that it is ever acceptable to discriminate against gay people because they are gay, then yes, the Church is actively encouraging the relegation of LGBT people to second-class citizenship. That's not my opinion, that's what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you didn't like my analogy. I fundamentally disagree, however, that teaching that something is sometimes permissible is the same as actively pursuing it. I have reread the source, and do not find the list of rights that you have enumerated. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger it is evident that a number of editors have expressed serious concerns about tendentious editing. I remind you of the AfD and advise you to step back and re-think. It is irrelevant whether I have or have not heeded your call to get the article to GA status or that I haven't edited apparently (?) for 2 months. I am still watching the article. Your edits never fail to strengthen language that supports the official line of the Catholic church and that actually really worries me. Improving the article is one think; brining it into line with the position of one particular organization is another. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge three articles

Merge this article, History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, and Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Three articles that say the same thing is redundant. Oct13 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

They were only recently forked out, so you'd have to look in the talkpage and archives for the reasoning behind that. BTW, the source you just removed is just Dignity quoting "On the Pastoral Care," although I don't have a problem with the edit you made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The key point is that the Catholic Church and homosexuality is seen as the parent article from which the others emerge and discuss the issues in more depth. So they're not really saying the same thing. I have no problem with merging but at the same time I would not agree with losing the great detail available in the other articles. Bringing all that material into one article could create a long article. Again I'm not against long articles but I know the editor who originally forked this thing thought otherwise. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE give guidelines for how big each article should be. If you add the readable prose of those three articles (12k+30k+13k) you get 55k of prose. That size may be acceptable, but when you consider it in context of all the other daughter articles, it makes sense to keep them spun off. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Political activity section in the lede

Roscelese and I had a discussion above about how to describe the Church's political activity in the lede. I think that as they support some legislation and oppose others, it is best to describe the basis on which they make decisions and leave the details to the main body. Roscelese wants to say that the Church is active to oppose gay rights. I took a quick look at what the main article states about the Church's activity on decriminalization of gay sex acts. As you can see from the table below, I have found 10 statements where they supported decriminalization, five where they opposed it, and one neutral. Based on this, I don't think it is accurate to say that their political activities are primarily to oppose gay rights. For this reason I am reverting. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support decriminalization	Oppose decriminalization	Neutral
In the 1960s, the Catholic Church supported the call of the Wolfenden report to introduce legislation to decriminalise homosexual acts in England and Wales.[16]	Cardinal Williams did issue a statement opposing homosexual law reform.	In New Zealand in the 1980s, although the Church declined to submit a formal response to the parliamentary enquiry on decriminalization,
In Australia, CardinalArchbishop Norman Thomas Gilroy supported efforts begun in the 1970s to likewise change the law.[17]	In the 1970s and 1980s in Belize,[20] and India,[21] the local churches opposed the decriminalization of homosexual acts.
In the United States the Catholic National Federation of Priests' Councilsdeclared their opposition to "all civil laws which make consensual homosexual acts between adults a crime."[18]	In Uganda, some bishops joined other religious leaders in calling on parliamentarians to make progress in enacting a anti-homosexuality bill.
These positions were against those of the Vatican.	Rather he blamed fundamentalist US Christian groups as well as "individual Catholics, including some bishops," for encouraging greater criminal sanctions
However, in later years, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the archbishop of Mumbai, spoke out against India’s anti-sodomy law.	In Kenya, a single Catholic bishop welcomed a ruling from the High Court in May 2019 which upheld the laws against gay sex.
Gracias, a President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India and one of the eight members of Pope Francis's Council of Cardinal Advisers, declared it wrong to make gay people criminals, since the Catholic Church "teaches that homosexuals have the same dignity of every human being and condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse."
Days after a law was signed criminalizing homosexual acts in Nigeria, an editorial in "The Southern Cross" (a newspaper run jointly by the bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland) criticised the law, calling on the Catholic Church in Africa to stand with the powerless and "sound the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals."
At least one bishop argued that the Catholic Church would "defend any person with a homosexual orientation who is being harassed, who is being imprisoned, who is being punished.
In 2015, Bishop Giuseppe Franzelli in the Diocese of Lira, denied that the Catholic Church in Uganda is institutionally behind any push towards anti-gay legislation, and called for "respect and love" for gay people.[
The Papal Nuncio to Uganda, Archbishop Michael Blume, voiced concern and shock at the bill.

If we were speaking only about decriminalization, this might be valid assuming that it represented the balance of the sources (which, to be clear, is a big "assuming"). But we're not, and you know we're not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to make an effort here. Would you like to run a larger analysis so we can both be working with the same group of data? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that since the data we have already show that the church is much more active against gay rights than for them, if you want to show the opposite, it is you that needs to bring in more data. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Roscelese - no consensus to change the wording. Slugger I think you really are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is clear the Church does all it can to ignore or resist LGBT rights but you seem to want to present activity as benign. I like the point made by NorthbySouthBaranf - be proud about what the church does in terms of discriminating. They do it because they believe it is important to do so - don't try and apologise for them as this is disrespectful to those with strongly held beliefs.

Political activity section

NorthBySouthBaranof has joined the editing on this article and I am glad to have another set of eyes. I look forward to collaborating with him. However, he recently added a few sentences to the article which I then reverted. He did not come to talk but instead reinsterted the material. So as to avoid an edit war, I'd like to take up my objections to each addition here.

First he adds the words "and has actively opposed the extension of significant civil rights legislation, such as nondiscrimination in public housing, educational or athletic employment, adoption, or military recruitment, to gay men and lesbians" to the end of an existing sentence. He offers no source with these edits, but in the past has attributed it to page 194 of Siker. I have read Siker and do not see where he says the Church has opposed civil rights legislation in those areas. I previously made this comment above.

Next he adds a new sentence reading "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a statement which "claims nondiscrimination legislation protecting LGBT people promotes immoral sexual behavior, endangers our children, and threatens religious liberty," according to two Catholic theologians." This is properly sourced, however, as I explained in my reversion edit summary, I believe it to be an WP:UNDUE level of detail for this article. This is a parent article for a number of child articles. The appropriate level of WP:DETAIL is that "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article." I contend that adding information about a specific statement made by a specific bishops conference about a specific piece of legislation is not general summary information. I would welcome the addition of this information to the child article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That section is sourced to the NCR article as well, I'll be happy to add more specific refs as we go on. There is literally nothing UNDUE about a single sentence in an article of this length. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This LA Times article helpfully discusses the Catholic Church's stance here: The Vatican has declared its support for discrimination against gay people in such areas as public housing, family health benefits and the hiring of teachers, coaches and military personnel because government should deny certain privileges to gay people to promote the traditional family and protect society.. Good reference for this material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, again per WP:DETAIL. Why are you only including actions taken in the United States? The Catholic Church is a global institution. Again, I believe this material is better suited for the child article. How do you respond to the guidance above that "the parent article should have general summary information"? Do you believe this long list of specifics is a general summary? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do; it neatly explains how the Church has specifically and actively advocated for discrimination against LGBT people. We can and certainly should expand the section with more refs and discussion about things outside the United States. This article is not too long; in fact, its sections (at mere paragraph length) are probably too short. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. This article is supposed to have summaries of the main article. Some months back a separate political activity article was created. Since it has been WP:SPLIT, that's where all those details should go. The WP:SUMMARY left here should not be so long. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to file an RFC to get broader input and consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the arguments made by NorthBySouthBaranof. Slugger I remind you of WP:BRD - work to achieve consensus. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the political activity section

Is a list of specific policy positions an appropriate level of WP:DETAIL in the WP:SUMMARY of the Church's political activity or do those details properly belong in the child article? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I restored long-standing material under dissent and defence of teaching. Slugger you were BOLD, I REVERTED, under WP:BRD the onus is on you to discuss and achieve consensus. Failure to do so will be evidence of disruptive editing. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am always willing to discuss and come to a consensus. Your style of simply making rollback reverts throws out the baby with the bathwater, however. I made a series of edits, explaining each one as I went. Twice. You came in and simply undid all that work. In so doing, you also reinserted copyrighted material, among other problems. We can not simply copy and paste text into an article, as has recently been explained to you by other editors. See WP:DCV. You have also restored material that is unsourced. See WP:V and WP:BLP. In other cases, you are restoring language that is not supported by the sources. You also removed failed verification tags, which is not a BRD issue. Please be more careful in your editing. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You continue to violate WP:BRD. I've asked you to specifically discuss the issues one by one and reach consensus for your changes. It is not sufficient to argue that your preferred version is the right one. If you fail to discuss the issues in detail then it surely is only another example of your disruptive editing - on which you have been called out by a number of other editors now. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Catholic league

This article is about the Catholic Church, as an institution, and homosexuality. Discussion about outside organizations are often relevant, but we are bound to make sure they maintain WP:DUE weight. In the Defense of Church teaching section we have one sentence about the Knights of Columbus, one on the Catholic Medical Association, and two on Life Teen. There are, on the other hand, eight long sentences on the Catholic League. Most of those sentences are not about defending the Church's teaching but about issues that are tangential at best: a parade, a TV show, and "corporate America." Some of them are even unsourced. I am going to trim it down to give it the same WP:WEIGHT as the other organizations. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Desecration of the Eucharist

As part of Contaldo's rollback style reverts, which I described above as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he changed "desecrated the Eucharist" to "desecrated a communion wafer." I have reverted for several reasons. First, he has agreed to this language in the past, so I assume this was an error of incautious editing. Secondly, this section is a WP:SS of a main article, in which case we should use language that is "quite similar" to that of the parent article. In this case, the parent uses Eucharist. Third, the linked article uses Eucharist as well. For these reasons I am editing to say Eucharist. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Using the term "Eucharist"

The article describes a protest in St Patrick's cathedral by some gay activists. Should we keep the term "Eucharist" when describing their actions or is another term more relevant here? Contaldo80 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - There are four sources cited for this section in the article. None of them uses the term "Eucharist" (which is a term only Roman Catholics use). Instead the sources use "communion wafer". The Eucharist more correctly refers to the rite in which sacramental bread is used.Contaldo80 (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment What do you mean by Roman Catholics? First, I favor a strict constructionist approach. I would call them Catholics with a Capital C. "Eucharist" has a Greek origin although this is WP:Circular, read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_East_and_Latin_West#Use_with_regard_to_Christianity . Ironic why would the Catholic Church which uses Latin as her ecclesiastical language use a word with Greek origin. Just a thought.Manabimasu (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - According to multiple sources, the Eucharist is the term used for the rite which includes the ingestion of both sacramental bread and sacramental wine, and not for the communion wafer or for any physical item used in said rite. Those items are always referred to as "consecrated bread" or "sacramental bread", and never by the term for the ritual. I'm going to assume that this was a simple conflation of the terms, and since the focus of the discussion if on the Catholic Church, I just hope this issue is resolved before somebody brings up transubstantiation. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. As explained above, the parent article and the linked article both use the term "Eucharist." The term "communion wafer" could refer to the wafer either before or after consecration. If before, there is no sacrilege. It is because this act took place after the consecration that it became a scandal. Saying Eucharist instead of communion wafer is thus more precise, reduces ambiguity, and avoids any potential confusion. Additionally, Contaldo is mistaken. Many Christian denominations use the term Eucharist (and, to PraiseVivec's point, many others also believe in the Real Presence). Even if they didn't, this article is about the Catholic Church, and Catholics use the term Eucharist to describe both the rite and the physical elements of the rite, as explained in the article: "Communicants, those who consume the elements, may speak of 'receiving the Eucharist'..." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The linked article also uses the same set of sources and they all say "communion wafer" too rather than "eucharist". So this line of reasoning is a red herring. I'm also highly doubtful that "Many Christian denominations use the term Eucharist" and that "many others also believe in the Real Presence". But that is neither here nor there. The main issue stands that the cited sources use communion wafer rather eucharist and insisting that "eucharist" be the word used to highlight the sense of scandal sounds pretty much like pushing a POV to me. Any more scandalous that the hierarchy of the Catholic church prohibited condom use and thus allowed many people to die a horrible death from AIDS? I feel like we are trying to favour one type of "scandal" or outrage above another. This isn't neutral. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Condoms and horrible deaths from AIDS? Talk about a red herring. It is true that some sources may use "communion wafer." Others may use "Eucharist." We are not bound to follow any outside organization's style, however. We have our own Manual of Style, and it says to use language that is "quite similar to the summary in [the] parent article." The parent article uses "Eucharist." You have not made an argument why we should not follow that guideline here. To give another example, I could find plenty of sources that talk about Leo the Great, or even Pope Saint Leo the Great. That does not mean we have to use those terms, however. Here at Wikipedia, we simply refer to him as Pope Leo I. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• No The word "eucharist" properly applies to the whole Mass or "Eucharistic celebration". To reduce the Mass to the Communion bread is a mistake that Catholic liturgists have been trying to correct for at least 55 years, since the Second Vatican Council. "Communion bread" is the proper term here. Jzsj (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• No but keep the quotation I want to keep a WP:NPOV but User:Contaldo80 has a point about WP:SS. To do so, from this specific source http://www.actuporalhistory.org/interviews/images/keane.pdf

Don’t summarize but cite from the source this quote. In an interview, Tom Keane accounts,

I put my hands out, and suddenly I have the Communion wafer in my hands, and the priest says, “This is the body of Christ,” and I say, “Opposing safe-sex education is murder.” Then I sort of—I didn’t really know what to do, and I think in some sense, some part of me was sort of saying, “Well, fine. You guys think you can tell us that you reject us, that we don’t belong, so I’m going to reject you.” So I took it and I crushed it and dropped it.

Manabimasu (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The above quotation seems neither clear, nor very relevant to the topic of the article, nor significant in the light of what any number of persons might say about the Church. Unless its meaning and relevance is clarified I see no reason for including it in this article. Jzsj (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If the above quotation is not relevant, I would suggest changing "eucharist" to "host" if so needed.Manabimasu (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Manabimasu, I have mentioned SS twice, but I don't think Contaldo has. Can you clarify who you think has a point? I also agree with Jzsj that we shouldn't be quoting from Keane's interview at length here due to WP:WEIGHT concerns. Perhaps we could add more in the child article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole I need better clarification on what is the parent article. In Contaldo80 defense, he could just call WP:IAR. I would change to a more relevant term which is host. <The following is WP:COI>"Communion bread" is well -... the person was receiving after consecration and Catholics know that this "bread" is no longer "bread" —> Transubstantiation. Also, wafer does not have the right semantic touch see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wafer the examples are more of a protestant idea of the incident. That is why host is better because the definition of consecrated bread is secular and less of conflict see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/host#h69945940852520 .

I would agree that "host" is best, or "Communion host" to be clearer. Jzsj (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Though it isn't my first choice, I could live with "Communion host."--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) – mostly based on what the sources say, but also per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. The term Eucharist is not well understood by non-Catholics (or communion-based Churches such as Anglicans and Episcopalians), whereas communion host is clearer to most. It might be true that one would desecrate the Eucharist by defiling the host; but the sources here seem to focus specifically on the host, thus so must we. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Parent article

@Jzsj: has asked a few times about parent and child articles. A little more than a year ago, we had a discussion about how this article was WP:TOOBIG. The decision was made to WP:SPLIT this article. This, being the main article, remained as the parent article. Smaller, child, articles were WP:SPINOUT. When this happens, a WP:SUMMARY is left here in the parent article, and a more robust discussion of the particular topic is housed at the child article. In this particular case, we have child articles for Catholic teaching on homosexuality, History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, Pastoral care for gay Catholics, Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, etc. Hope this clears it up.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

• "active politically on issues of LGBT rights, primarily to oppose them" - Restored from overly wordy "active politically on issues of LGBT rights to support or oppose civil government legislation on the basis of Catholic Social Teaching, which often rejects civil rights for LGBT people or endorses discrimination against them." @NorthBySouthBaranof:, I see where you're coming from but I see no reason not to use the more concise language; obviously the church acts based on church teaching, and "support or oppose" adds nothing.
• "but also can make an individual less culpable for it" - Removed because the source explicitly notes that homosexuality does not make an individual less culpable for gay sex and claims it is demeaning to say so.
• Removed spurious "failed verification" tags for sourced statements about the Church's favoring of discrimination. The specific quotations have even been provided on talk or in edit summaries. Remember, just because a source is paywalled for you doesn't mean it isn't citable. I've restored the previous organization of the paragraph as there was no reason to arbitrarily separate the same issues into 2 paragraphs. The issue with the Shaw source is that he might not be considered authoritative, not that his source doesn't unambiguously advocate discrimination in the military; as for Catholic Social Services, if it's not actually affiliated with the church, please do let us know.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Further, removed the unbalanced "sensitivity" quotation from the teaching overview (why include that, but not the bit about which kinds of discrimination are just and necessary?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am, for now, going to revert two of these. The first is the clause attributed to Siker. If you read the last paragraph of page 192, which spills onto 193, you will see that a person's culpability will vary. The paragraph you are referencing says that a homosexual orientation does not mean someone is "always" inculpable. By extension, there must then be times when someone is culpable, or at least less so. Secondly, I am restoring the part about the need to treat LBGT people with respect. No where else in the article does it say this. Several sections below, however, it talks about when discrimination may be justified (in much greater detail that I think is warranted, in fact). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If that is the concern, the sensible thing to do would obviously be to move it down to the appropriate section, rather than pretending it's a meaningful part of the overview. Re Siker, so am I to understand that you're also planning to add, any second now, a corresponding statement that natural homosexuality does not alleviate culpability for gay sex, since that's also in the source? It seemed to me that omitting it was better, but you seem to be intentionally adding something that the source openly states is an edge case in preference to what the source states is the more common state of affairs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure which section you think would be more appropriate for the line about respect, but I am open to hearing your suggestion. The reference is for that sentence is to the Catechism, as is the first sentence of that paragraph. Both are equally the Church's teaching. Regarding Siker, he says "the Church encourages its confessors to note that on occasion a homosexual person's ability to maintain total, lifelong sexual abstinence may likewise be compromised." That doesn't sound like an edge case to me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in the very, very next paragraph it specifically notes that since only completely mentally compulsive behavior is excused, and it is an "unfounded and demeaning assumption" that homosexuality turns you into someone who can't stop yourself from having gay sex, it's still culpable. I take it you stopped reading at the bit you quoted, and that now that you've gotten the hint to read further, you'll undo your POV edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I went to the source material which Siker references. It states, in relevant part, "In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well." As it so happens, this one quotation speaks to both of your concerns. I'll add the reference to both bits. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you're aware that your addition misrepresents the source, but wish to add it anyway? Let's just not go there. I think just removing the misleading addition is preferable to adding something silly like "but usually does not" or "in the rare cases where homosexuality is so extreme as to constitute a mental compulsion." In any case, we are at the point in the WP:BRD cycle where it is time for you to try to gain consensus from other users for your addition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not an accurate summary of what I was saying, and I don't appreciate having my motives impugned. I also think you are misreading the source. Take a look again. It is not saying that culpability is diminished when "homosexuality is so extreme as to constitute a mental compulsion." It is that having a homosexual orientation is not so compulsive as to force people, against what would otherwise be their will, to sex with someone of the same gender. What is demeaning, the source is saying, is the idea that just because someone is gay that they can't help but have sex. That their animal instincts take over and they can't control themselves. In other words, gay people (and straight ones, for that matter) should be able to restrain themselves. Additionally, I think you are misunderstanding what BRD requires. There was a stable version here for a long time. You came in, were Bold, and made some changes. I Reverted them. Now is is upon you to Discuss and build consensus for them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

After stating that you wanted to include the puff text because you believe it balances the sourced statements about discrimination, why are you intentionally keeping it in the wrong section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you repeatedly referring to it as "puff." It is every bit as much the teaching of the church as anything else in that section. Additionally, I do not think it should be there to "balance" anything else out. I think that is the best place for it. I don't think that treating someone with respect is a "political activity." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no, dude, your addition of the claim from Siker is extremely recent. (In fact, the stable version of the article used to point out that the sources say homosexuality does not remove culpability for gay sex, since that's what's in the sources.) Based on your comment, you seem to understand that the takeaway from the source is the opposite of what you're claiming, so it's mystifying to me that you're attempting to edit-war in your misrepresentation. Is there some sort of opposite-day game going on that no one tipped me off about? Regardless, you must follow the WP:BRD cycle. Your addition has been rejected, and you must now seek broader consensus for your addition of new text. You are not a new user and I shouldn't need to explain this to you.

As for the puff quote, this just comes back round to my earlier question: why does that belong there, and not their support for discrimination? You've explicitly said above, where we all can see it, that you think it needs to be in the article because the article also talks about their support for discrimination (ie. balance). Why privilege one over the other when both are teachings? Do you know something the rest of us don't about the authority of the CDF? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That clause has been there for at least five weeks. That is not "extremely recent" by any stretch of the imagination. That is long enough to be an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. You are also, again, misreading my comments. You originally tried to remove the sentence all together. You did not originally try to move it. In your edit summary, you asked "Why this, but not the part about how it's important to discriminate for the common good?" My comment above was explaining about why I thought it should be included there. In that context, I said it should remain there because the point was not made anywhere else in the article, unlike the discussion about discrimination. It was never about "balance." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As you're well aware, I was blocked, and if you're appealing to the implicit consent of Contaldo80 (talk · contribs), NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs), and Jzsj (talk · contribs), let's ping them to confirm. Obviously my moving the puffery to the section you seemed to be suggesting it belonged in was an attempt at compromise, but I guess that didn't work. Answer the question: why privilege one over the other when both are teachings? Do you know something the rest of us don't about the authority of the CDF? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you were blocked and unable to contribute, but the clock does not stop simply because you can't participate. Even if it did, there was a full week between when you were unblocked and when you decided to delete this text. Additionally, I believe Jzsj is also blocked as of June 24th. So, his WP:SILENCE over the course of the two weeks before he was blocked will have to be indicative of his consent. The answer to your question is the same as it was before: we don't need to mention discrimination twice in a parent article. I would be just as opposed to placing the content about respect in two places. It is unnecessary and undue. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)