Talk:Catholic Church

Compilation of previous discussions

Note: Please do not datestamp

• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues
• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/Cultural Influence
• Wikipedia:Catholic Church/History - Nazism and Fascism

Potential sources to consult

Note: Please do not datestamp.

History

• Norman, Edward (2008). The Roman Catholic Church: An Illustrated History. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520252516. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Social Teaching

• Sullins, D. Paul; Blasi, Anthony J. (2008), Catholic social thought: American reflections on the Compendium, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0739123114
• Massaro, Thomas (2008), Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0742559971 - written by a priest to show the Catholic perspective

Hierarchy/demographics

• Walsh, Michael (2005), Roman Catholicism: the basics, Routledge, ISBN 0415263808

Source verification

Does anyone have easy access to the sources used in the article? Nancy has expressed on her talk page a fear that after the changes the article won't match the sources. Others have expressed concern on this page that the article didn't match the sources before. The easiest way to figure this out is to get the sources. I've copied the list of sources to User:Karanacs/Catholic Sources. Please strike through any books on this list that you've used to verify and sign that line. I ask that if you find a discrepancy, tag that sentence in the article and create a section on the talk page to discuss rather than just remove. Ideally, we should have several editors agree that the interpretation in the article doesn't match the text before we take further action. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like quite a few of those were not used. I have Madrid's book and he is also a personal friend, I can look and see on the others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp so won't archive. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Datestamp so won't archive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Datestamp so won't archive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 6: Sacred Scripture

This sentence The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. cannot be verified in the cited source. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A more accurate statement would be, "The Catholic Church teaches that divine truth is revealed to the Church through the Deposit of Faith (which contains both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) interpreted by the Magisterium." Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 8: Liberation theology

The sentence on Liberation theology (Pope John Paul II criticised the emergence of liberation theology among some clergy in South America, asserting that the Church should champion the poor unconnected to radicalism and violence.) is cited to a BBC religion overview [1]. Do we consider this an appropriate source for the statement, or should we look for a higher-quality source? Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or should we delete? It is indeed a news item that John Paul II said this; it is indicative of church policy under the last pontiff, but that statement does not constitute policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is too recent for me - without reading more books on the Church in the 20th century I have no idea whether this is important or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd move to strike it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To put the case in full: I do not know whether this is present policy or not - as opposed to one news conference. If it is, it needs a better, secondary, source; if it is not, it has no business here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is present policy; Pope Benedict XVI stated the Church's apprehension about liberation theology here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/benedict_xvi_cautions_against_dangers_of_marxist_liberation_theology/ Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 10: Bauckham?

There is a citation called "Bauckham, p. 373. ", but no corresponding book by that author listed. It's the sole source for Reception of the council has formed the basis of multifaceted internal positions within the Catholic Church since then. A so-called spirit of the times followed the council, influenced by exponents of Nouvelle Théologie such as Karl Rahner. Some dissident liberals such as Hans Küng even claimed Vatican II had not gone far enough. I searched for author=Bauckham in Google Books, and he's written a lot of books; I'm not sure which one this is referring to. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification Issue 12: U of M website

This U of M description of a historical document collection[2] is really not an appropriate source for The Curia functioned as the civil government of the Papal States until 1870.. Surely we can find a better source for this? Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs rewording anyway; the Papal States did have officials. Almost all of the highest ones were Cardinals, but that's not quite the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification issue 18: Middle Ages - question about sentence cited to Duffy

• The papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 774 created a paradigm of Western emperors imposing control over the popes.[43] is cited to Duffy pp. 63 -78. I did combine some sentence during the copyedit. The pre-copyedit version, however, is substantially the same.
• The consequent estrangement led to the creation of the papal states and the papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800. This ultimately created a new problem as successive Western emperors sought to impose an increasingly tight control over the popes.[55][3]

If anyone has access to Duffy, can this statement be verified? The book I'm currently reading, The History of the Medieval World does not verify this sequence in chronology. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• • I doubt it; the coronation which actually took place is usually interpreted as the Pope asserting his own right to elect an Emperor, and not being what Charlemagne had in mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Septentrionalis. Speaking of the coronation, Philip Hughes in vol. 2 p. 145 of his History of the Church (originally published 1935, but several times reprinted) said: "The deed had been done which was to haunt the imagination of the next five hundred years; the pope, so it came to be considered, had made the King of the Franks into the Roman Emperor. This it was - wahtever the realities which, in the mind of Leo III and Charlemagne, underlay that astonishing gesture - which never left the popular imagination, the pope creating the new power and bestowing it upon the Frankish kings, the all powerful king kneeling before the pope to receive it." Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's exactly how it's characterized in the book I'm reading. Essentially, as written, the sentence is quite wrong unless it's verified in Duffy, to which it's cited. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • ONe issue. CHarlemagne wasn't crowned in 774, but in 800. He was in Rome in 774, but wasn't crowned emperor until 800. If Duffy says both 774 AND 800, we've got an issue with Duffy. Charlemagne in 774 appears to have issued some sort of confirmation of his father's gift to the papacy, but the exact nature of what transpired is unclear. This is from Riche's The Carolingians pp. 96-98. Collins Early Medieval Europe p. 282 also says that Charlemagne was in Italy/Rome in 774, but that he was beseiging Pavia (held by the Lombards) and in 774 Pavia fell to Charlemagne and "the Lombard king was required to surrender himself, his family and the royal treasure. The Lombards were obliged to submit to Frankish rule, and Charles himself took the title fo King of the Lombards. By the late summer he had returned to Francia..." which seems to also agree - no crowning by the pope in 774. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a newer edition of Duffy and the page numbers don't match the older edition. In my edition, Duffy puts the papal states creation at the time of the Donation of Pepin (p 88), and Nothing is said to link the creation of the papal states with iconoclasm (which is the missing sentence above). It also says that "Charlemagne "believed that his staus as protector of the Roman Church gave him extensive rights of intervention - Hadrian thought of it as interference - in papal territory." (p 91) and that "The ambiguities of Charlemagne's coronation were to haunt the history of both pope and empire during the Middle Ages." (p 96). Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The book I'm reading has the coronation in 800 as well, so that much should be fixed. Bauer in The History of the Medieval World calls the Donation of Pepin the Sutri Donation. No link between this sequence of events and iconoclasm in her book. Duffy's statement is interesting. Thanks for looking it up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification issue 19: Teutonic Knights

Resolved

 – verified to Norman. The page number was incorrect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The crusades saw the formation of various military orders that provided social services as well as protection of pilgrim routes.[55] The Teutonic Knights, one of the orders, conquered the then-pagan Prussia.[55] is cited to Norman p. 62-65. However I can't find it. I can find that the Knights Hospitallers were created around 1070 and the Knights Templar in 1120 on page 62 [4]. Unless we can verify and place the Teutonic Knights in the relevant timeframe, I like to delete the sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is well known. The first book I found on them dates them to the Third Crusade - as they must be to have conquered Prussia while it was still pagan. (page 4, in case Google Books is recalcitrant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for findind a source. I'll change the reference for the Teutonic Knights, and also add the Hospitallers to the section.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification issue 20: Hus and Hussite Wars

This sentence is citied to Norman but not in book (which I now have): In the 14th century John Wycliffe of England and Jan Hus of Bohemia challenged the Church. The Council of Constance (1414–1417) condemned Hus and ordered his execution, but could not prevent the Hussite Wars in Bohemia. I've tagged as uncited, and we need a new source for it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it likely to be challenged? Aside from the implication that the Council was trying to avoid the wars against heresy, it seems thoroughly uncontroversial and routine. Source from any life of Hus (which should also mention Wycliffe, at least if it's in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in the definition of Catholic Church

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church - this is a wrong statement. The Catholic church is made up of 23 differet rites (parts) and the Roman Catholic rite is just one part of the whole Catholic Church. I would like to see this changed to reflect the truth.

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is an accurate statement of English usage, as the OED would show you; if it has any flaw, it is an understatement: RCC is the normal English term for the whole Church.

The largely separate distinction between the "Roman Catholics", the "Greek Catholics" and the "Chaldaean Catholics" is another matter; is it really important enough to state in the first line? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the current wording is imperfect, but sufficient. And I disagree with Septentrionalis, "Catholic Church" is both the official name and the common parlance. I've almost never heard it referred to as "the Roman Catholic Church", except in Protestant sources. And really the anonymous person who made this section is right that "Roman Catholic" refers almost exclusively to the Latin Rite of the Church, while there are 22 other Rites. However, since both are used at some times to refer to the Catholic Church, the statement as it stands is accurate, albeit imperfect.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the problem with this usage of "Catholic Church" is that "catholic" means "universal" — as for example in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds. There are Christians, therefore, who are part of the Catholic Church in this sense but who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church likes to claim (or imply) that it is the universal church, but it is not actually so. Ondewelle (talk), 25 April 2010

Before the East-West Schism, there was only one Church -at least mainly, as there were some previous schisms that were small in magnitude-, and that was the Catholic Church, the Universal Church. After the Schism, in the West, Catholic Church became equivalent to Roman Catholic Church. The Roman does not refer to the rite, but to primacy. All 23 rites of the Catholic Church are under the Roman Pontif, hence, Roman Catholic Church. The official name of the Orthodox Church is Orthodox Catholic Church. The Eastern Church is also Catholic, as was part of the Catholic Church that split in two. This has nothing to do with the Protestant Reformacion or the eastern rites in communion with Rome.--Coquidragon (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PMA: "RCC is the normal English term for the whole Church."

RA: "I've almost never heard it referred to as "the Roman Catholic Church", except in Protestant sources."

These statements aren't contradictory: the English-speaking world is mostly Protestant. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct to say previous schisms were "small in magnitude". The overwhelming majority of the church in heavily populated Egypt refused to accept the deposition of their Patriarch in the 6th century, & most of their descendants who haven't become Muslims continue to follow his successors the Coptic Popes. Peter jackson (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

history section

Having not looked at the page for a few days, I've just read the history section: I have to say it's not only balanced but more solidly written, well done to the editors involved. Haldraper (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper's comment has motivated me to revisit the History section. I am rereading the section and will leave comments as they occur to me. --Richard S (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Load time

Load time for the page is still very slow, which makes editing difficult. A page size report shows the following;

• File size: 440 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 87 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 94 kB
• Wiki text: 92 kB
• Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6819 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 16 kB

In my view the 94 kB of references is causing a problem. I'm happy to weed out references that are no longer being used, and to shorten the in-text syntax as much as possible. I've had good results with Harvard short notes (in other long articles) that allow the user to click from article to footnotes and click again to the source, all without scrolling. I'm also happy to set this up and convert to Harvard short notes if no one objects. It is a fair amount of work, so will wait for a few days in case objections come in. This is one of the suggestions made in the GA review. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing HTML code really ought to be uncontroversial. The only function of citation templates (as distinct from internal links, like short Harvard) is to provide standard formating for those uncertain of their ability to do it by hand.

Unused references should be brought here to talk; I'm sure some of them are excellent books which simply don't happen to be cited at the moment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand what is being proposed here... are we getting rid of the {{cite}} templates? I'm rather fond of them but I'm Ok with their deletion if they are contributing to the load time problem. --Richard S (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the citation templates are fine in the sources section, but there isn't a need to have them duplicated in the text. Instead, I'd propose substituting Harvard short notes. For an example article see here—an article I'm in the process of expanding from a stub. In the CC article I see two problems: the first is that navigating from the footnote to the source requires a lot of scrolling (my browser never formats columns in the footnote section for some reason, regardless of the markup used); the second is that sections such as doctrine have quite a few citations embedded in the text, in addition to all the citations in the source section. I'd propose to move the in-text citations to the source section. Furthermore, PMAnderson is correct about deleting sources (which I did yesterday as a test); instead I propose those sources not currently used be added to a section called Further reading. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some (only some) of the unnecessary and duplicate in-text citation templates. New page size statistics are as follows:

• File size: 422 kB
  
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 87 kB
  
• References (including all HTML code): 69 kB
  
• Wiki text: 89 kB
  
• Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6845 words) "readable prose size"
  
• References (text only): 13 kB
  

The file is still huge but references decreased by 25 kB. Do the number of internal links add to file size? It's still loading very slowly, but now in about 20 to 30 seconds instead of 30 to 60 seconds.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Massacre Picture

I took out a picture someone had put in the Reformation section purporting to illustrate the Bartholomew Day Massacre, since it was emotive and POV. PMAnderson immediately put the POV picture back, taking out the one of Melk. The Bartholomew Picture should not be in the article for several reasons. 1. It is emotive and misleading. Are we going to have pictures of catholic priests being disembowelled in the UK and France to balance it? 2. It appears in the Catholic Church article, but illustrates an event that was neither planned or organised by the Church - as is implied by its usage in the article. The massacre - if planned at all - was the responsibility of Catherine de Medici and the King of France. The picture is therefore misleading in its implication and POV. 3. It gives undue weight to the incident in the history of the period of the Reformation and Counter-reformation, and seems to have been chosen for negative effect. There are many more salient things that can be utilised to illustrate the reformation era, an era of wars, monasteries, iconoclasm, great figures and councils. The massacre itself is linked in the text to a more detailed article; and that is sufficient weight for this matter in the history of the Church. Xandar 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the perpetual problem with the ceaseless and dubious quest for "balance"; we are not an ad agency. Which is more notable, more typical, and more vivid: the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew, or Melk (even throwing in the free reference to The Name of the Rose)? Neutrality is not denial, nor whitewashing - the educational policies of the Lone Star State are not our model. We do not exist to have a Sympathetic Point of View; Wikiinfo does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, initially I put in Wycliffe, but thought he'd be unacceptable, then placed the St. Bart's image there temporarily. Given the GAN comments above, any image that needs a long caption to tie it to the text shouldn't be used (hence Wycliffe or St. Bart's). I've now put in Erasmus. Will see what happens. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... I tend to agree with Xandar on this one. The St. Bart's day massacre may be widely recognized as a notorious anti-Protestant incident but it is not a good representative of the Reformation era. Erasmus is OK with me. Almost all of the great Protestant figures of the Reformation started out being Catholic. I don't see why we can't have pictures of Luther, Calvin and/or Henry VIII in this section. You can't describe the Reformation without mentioning these names, so why not provide pictures of one or more of them as well? If you must have a non-Protestant, why not include a picture of St. Thomas More? --Richard S (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Almost all of the great Protestant figures of the Reformation started out being Catholic." Er, well, yes, what else could they have been before the Reformation? Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, sorry. I was in a hurry and couldn't think of a better way to say what I meant. The point is that it's like trying to describe the American Civil War without mentioning any of the leaders of the Confederacy. The most famous figures of the Reformation are the Protestants. Can anyone suggest someone of comparable notability who remained Catholic? Yeh, Erasmus, sort of. But, at the end of the day, he was not as influential or notable as the Protestant leaders. I think we should consider having one or two pictures of Protestants even if this is an article about the Catholic Church. --Richard S (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII was opposed to the Reformation anyway. His Church of England was like the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, largely maintaining Catholic doctrine but rejecting papal authority. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I know... nonetheless, his was called the English Reformation and it occurred in approximately the same time period and is notable enough to warrant a paragraph of its own. --Richard S (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What Henry supported varied from year to year, depending on which counsellor he was listening to. In any case, the English Reformation became Protestant immediately after his death; on the scale of this history, those twenty years are a blip. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view the important players in the Reformation are Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin. I'd be happy to see an image of any of them here. Henry jumped on an idea that others spearheaded. As far as I'm concerned we can plug in different images (of Luther et al) until we find one that's not controversial and doesn't require a long caption. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would see Erasmus as a better figure to use in an article on the Catholic Church, for while being a pivotal and critical figure, he remained a Catholic. Xandar 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was the reasoning I used to replace the image of the massacre. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision controversy

The treatment of the circumcision controversies strikes me as having been written for those who are already familiar with the history of Early Christianity and written in such a way to facilitate linking to the subarticles. This results in writing that is less good than it could be.

Let's step away from the links for a moment and focus on what we should be trying to say. The key point here is that there was a controversy on whether Gentiles should become Jews and whether they should follow the Law as codified in the Old Testament and the Talmud. Circumcision is just one of the issues although a rather significant and sensitive one. (excuse the pun) Observing the laws of Kashrut (kosher) is another and there are many, many others such as the observance of the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. The resolution of this controversy in favor of allowing Gentiles to ignore the Law arguably marks a critical turning point in the development of Christianity. Without this, Christianity would have developed to be more like Messianic Judaism. It also is arguably a key reason for the success of Christianity among the Gentiles. We also fail to mention Hellenistic Judaism. My impression is that Christianity's first forays into the Greco-Roman world started with the synagogues of the Jewish diaspora and then (if you credit the New Testament account), upon being rejected there, found fertile soil among the Gentiles. To me, explaining this is much more valuable to the reader than the specifics of the circumcision controversies, the Council of Jerusalem and the letter to Antioch, none of which can be properly understood without the background context in which these events took place. --Richard S (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Law was not codified in the Talmud at the time, because the Talmud did not yet exist; what did exist was an oral tradition, with several different schools, and some of that tradition ultimately made its way into the Talmud centuries later. Also, the resolution of the Jewish/Gentile problem was not to allow Gentiles to "ignore the Law", but rather to relieve them of the obligation to fulfill the ritual and ceremonial portions of it; the moral law remained obligatory, and for a time even some ritual prohibitions (such as the rules against eating blood) were imposed on Gentile Christians for the sake of maintaining table fellowship with Jewish Christians who were still sensitive about such things. But you are correct that the decision not to impose the full rigor of the Law on Gentiles was a critical turning point; without it Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect with little appeal for the rest of the world. Harmakheru ✍ 21:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is a bit of OR on my part but it seems to me that Christianity can be understood as an extension of the tension between Hellenistic Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. Are there reliable sources who take this tack? --Richard S (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We also fail to mention Persecution of Christians in the New Testament which is the Christian support for the narrative that they were rejected by the synagogues of the Jewish diaspora in the Roman Empire. --Richard S (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church maintains the tradition of circumcision. Does the Ethiopian Catholic rite? Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians by the Romans

The current text reads "Conversely, early Christians refused sacrifices to Roman gods, or to worship Roman rulers as gods, and consequently became subject to persecution." I have raised this issue before and yet the current text still provides a glib explanation of the persecution which favors the Christian POV without providing the Roman POV. The current text presents the Christians as poor faithful who are persecuted solely for their refusal to worship Roman gods and the emperor. This is the Christian side of the story. I think a secular historian might see other dimensions to the phenomenon.

Without saying that the Romans were right in persecuting the Christians, I think it's important to explain that the Romans were quite tolerant of other gods and religions. The Jews, after all, were afforded many privileges including not sacrificing to Roman gods or worshiping Roman rulers as gods. I'm not fully competent to argue why the Christians were treated differently from the Jews although I'm sure Roman attitudes towards the Jews changed after the fall of the Second Temple and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Another important difference is that the Christians were proselytizers. AFAIK, the Jews didn't try to get others to worship their god. They just wanted to be free to worship their god in their way. Christians, in contrast, did proselytize and thus brought dissension into families. It is important to take into account the concept of paterfamilias to appreciate the subversiveness of a religion asserting a higher power over a member of a Roman family. Once again, this is OR but I think it's not far from the truth. Are there reliable sources who make similar arguments?

--Richard S (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for the comments. Karanacs and I and PMAnderson are in the process of reading and evaluating sources. Currently Karanacs is traveling, and I've been waiting for a few books to wend their way through the Interlibrary loan system. Certainly these sections all need to be evaluated and possibly re-done. It's a long slow job but I'm sure somebody can address these issues fairly soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, I will have less time for WP. I will comment where I can.

I think Richard's comment on the paterfamilias (a purely Roman institution, remarkable even to the Greeks) takes the wrong level: Roman administration did not concern itself with the solidarity of subject families (and the first Christians were not usually Romani); they concerned themselves with the solidarity of subject cities - as long as they kept their alliance with Rome. This is why the Jews got a pass (mostly) - as long as they were amici et socii, it could be dealt with that they sacrified for the emperor, not to the emperor. But an Athenian citizen who declined to sacrifice to the emperor was undermining the league between Athens and Rome, which was formed by the cults of the emperor and of Roma. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At least in the first century, Jews were avid proselytizers, and there were established procedures for bringing Gentile converts into the community and defining their rights and obligations. There are explicit references to this in the New Testament, and it has been plausibly suggested that the practice of Christian baptism is derived at least in part from the Jewish baptism of proselytes. Harmakheru ✍ 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Jews were active proselyters, although many gentiles were attracted towards Judaism in the 1st Century. On Richard's point, the difference between Jews and Christians - at least until the great revolts, was that the Jews were considered an ethnic-religious group that was no threat to the existing theology. The Romans were also very good at fitting other religions into their system through syncretism, so Isis, Diana and Artemis could be considered the same deity. Christianity threatened both "coping" mechanisms by refusing to have anything to do with the old gods, (and therefore with the divine attributes of Caesar,) while simultaneously recruiting pagans in large numbers. This was hugely subversive. The gods protected the Empire, gave Caesar his authority, and the individual legions were dedicated to them. The Romans were tolerant of religions that fit their system. Others, like the Druids, were wiped out. Xandar 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... there are apparently a number of things wrong with my last comment but I think the thrust of the argument is valid even if some of the supporting theories were off the mark. (I did remember reading that the Jews were proselytizers in the first century but I couldn't remember if that was a mainstream idea or a fringe one.) Xandar writes that Christianity threatened the Roman system of fitting other religions into their system and that this was hugely subversive. That's the point I'm trying to make. The article isn't wrong, it just doesn't get across the right idea. In some sense, it's a question of not presenting Christianity as the victim but rather the aggressor. Xandar's comment suggests that Christianity was a threat which the Romans tried to suppress... and failed. I am not arguing that we should go into great detail on this topic. The detail could be discussed in Early Christianity or History of early Christianity. (Quick check: neither article does a good job of addressing persecution by the Romans). The article on Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire seems to do a good job of discussing the topic here. I'd like to see that section summarized in this article. --Richard S (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should consider the question of "aggression" more carefully. For example, the British National Party's election manifesto published recently calls Islam a "threat" to British/Western society. Similar remarks have been made by many others. Jewish immigrants to Palestine under Turkish & British rule were attacked by many Arabs as "invaders" (& sometimes still are). Such concepts need careful thought. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jews proselytized extensively under the Maccabees; this is why the population of Galilee was overwhelmingly Jewish, even if the Rabbis didn't consider them very good Jews. In the first centuries BC and AD, some non-Jews converted to Judaism (we hear of the groups involved, but not of numbers), and more paid respect to the God of Zion without converting, being circumsized, or always giving up other worships. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with peterJackson that it would be hard to define people refusing to believe and worship as the government ordered, "aggression." The Imperial state was intolerant, although they had reasons (or fears) which thewy beleieved justified that intolerance. In fact Christianity did not destroy the Empire. Xandar 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The proper term is contumacy. The Romans never believed in religious liberty (and continued not to under the Christian Emperors); the Roman Empire was opposed to freedom of speech (and continued to be).

The knee-jerk irrelevance of Xandar's last sentence is one of the things that makes editing with him so tiring. Edward Gibbon has been dead for two centuries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept that "aggressor/victim" is not the best choice of words. I was trying to get across an idea, not specifically to make one side right and the other side wrong. My point, however, remains that any conflict has two sides to it and we have presented only the Christian side (the victor writes the history). Why exactly did the Romans view the Christians as a threat? Especially in the light of their willingness to co-opt other religions? I think we need to explain, if only briefly, this point.

Perhaps we could say something like

"Although the Roman Empire tolerated a wide range of religions as long as they could be reconciled syncretically with the Roman pantheon of gods, Christianity became the target of persecution because of its refusal to be co-opted in the worship of the Roman gods and the worship of the emperor as a god. This refusal was viewed as a threat to the stability of the state and thus the Romans made periodic efforts to suppress Christianity."

(NB: Given the separation of church and state in the 21st century, it's not necessarily obvious to the average reader why Christianity should be considered a threat to the stability of the Roman Empire. Moreover, the Christian narrative tends to focus on the persecution without explaining the socio-political context of the persecution.)

Pmanderson wrote: "The Romans never believed in religious liberty (and continued not to under the Christian Emperors)". It would seem to me that the Roman Empire before Constantine was more tolerant of religions than it was after Constantine. Another piece of "historical legerdemain" that has befuddled me is the way in which Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. What caused this tectonic shift from syncretically accepting the pagan religions of multiple subject nations to imposing a single religion on all nations?

Was Christianity persecuted one month and legally tolerated the next? Presumably, this is not what happened. Why was it chosen to become the official state religion? Presumably, Christianity had grown to the point where it represented at least the largest plurality if not the majority of citizens in the Roman Empire. Did all the pagan religions suddenly become targets of the same kind of persecution as the Christians had before? Did worshipers of Isis become food for the lions in the Coliseum? If not, what was the conversion process like? Did the Christian Church immediately begin to persecute non-believers or was there a period of peaceful coexistence before being Christian was the only option? Once again, there is not room for a lot of detail about this topic in this article but I think it would help the reader if there were at least one or two sentences that explained how (and why) this transition came about.

--Richard S (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Some answers:

• Was Christianity persecuted one month and legally tolerated the next?

  Yes; in May 311 - in the East. Legal toleration in Italy took a whole year, but toleration had rarely been a matter of law; it was a matter of administrative decision.

• Why was it chosen to become the official state religion?

  Because it was the religion of the Emperor, and of his family, until there were enough aggressively Christian emperors that a pagan emperor became impossible. (Estimates of its popularity vary, but 10% is likely.) Emperors had been looking for a unifying religion for a generation or two; if Aurelian had been succeeded by co-religionists, the result might have been less savage. One reconstruction of Constantine's plans is that Christianity was especially suitable for a unifying religion because it was not local in the sense that Jupiter Optimus Maximus was local to Rome, or Athena to Athens.

• Did all the pagan religions suddenly become targets of the same kind of persecution as the Christians had before?

  No, fairly gradually. The position that the worship of Mars and Jupiter was treason took a while to catch on; Constantine could not have enforced it.

• Did worshipers of Isis become food for the lions in the Coliseum?

  No, but the temples of Isis were closed, and sacrifice to her became a capital crime by 435.

• If not, what was the conversion process like? Did the Christian Church immediately begin to persecute non-believers or was there a period of peaceful coexistence before being Christian was the only option?

  There were two or three periods of co-existence; most of them with the Imperial thumb heavily on the scale - this includes Julian. whose thumb was in the other scale. The Imperial government rarely worked by central legislation - the persecutions of the Christians hadn't been "Now all of you kill all the Christians you can catch" either; they were orders to close this temple, or abolish that cult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some of that. Christianity was theoretically illegal until the Edict of Milan, but the law was only sporadically enforced. There were only 2, fairly brief periods of Empire-wide persecution: the Decian about 250 & the so-called Diocletianic (which would better be called Galerian) immediately preceding the Edict (& in fact continuing slightly after it in some areas). Apart from that it was a matter local governors decided. Peter jackson (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

pervasive bias of article

It is not unusual to find in Wikipedia articles of individuals and organizations, a section addressing controversy and established and verifiable wrongs of such party or organization. not only is it well known the Roman Catholic church has knowingly participated in such wrongs but even having admitted to such. There are articles on Wikipedia that link to this article in regards to such issues, but no link or list of links back to such articles. This clearly show a pervasive bias of this article. As a matter of providing unbiased though complete information on this article, Wikipedia should not show bias in cross linking, or not, its own articles. If one was to come to Wikipedia to get a clear and neutral picture of the article subject, would they. Clearly the answer is NO. This needs to be fixed, if only in providing a list of other Wikipedia links that reference this article in a manner that is of importance to those articles.

74.166.12.69 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you babbling about?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance between history and doctrine

I find the history section now considerably more detailed than the beliefs and worship sections, which seem rather brief. The current version has 3938 words for history and 2073 words for doctrine + worship, for a ratio of 1.9:1. The version of 6 March 2010 had about 5450 words for history and 3350 words for beliefs + prayer, for a ratio of 1.62:1. I think either the history section should be pruned more aggressively, or the beliefs section re-developed to proportionate detail. Gimmetrow 03:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are probably desirable; however, unless we are going to basically cut everything before the Reformation (on the grounds that it really belongs in History of Christianity), the RCC does have more history than most subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The history section could be compressed. [5], for instance, seems to have redundant mentions of the significance of councils/synods. Gimmetrow 14:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's presence here

Dear colleagues: I come here because I have had reason to peruse the block log and contribs list of this user today. I noticed that on 15 December he evaded a 48-hour block by promising to avoid this article.

Please be aware that this undertaking had no time-limit. I believe that User:Pmanderson is in breach of that undertaking by posting here. Tony (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but this smacks of wikilawyering. First of all, the block in question was 5 months ago and really is ancient history. The edit war over tags has long since ended. Secondly, Pmanderson's unblock request read "I was careful to stay inside 3RR - and, to be fair, so was Xandar. More importantly, having made my point that he will do anything to defend the text he owns, I have no interest or motive in continuing - and will not; if there is further disruption, I will ask for page protection. In short, I didn't mean to go too far, and I'm sorry I did." The text of his request makes no promise to avoid the article. Secret's unblock contained this text "Ok unblocked, just avoid the article, I know you are a good contributor, but you shouldn't have been edit warring over tags." There is no evidence that Pmanderson agreed to "avoid the article" nor that there was any sort of article ban or topic ban imposed on Pmanderson. Secret's comment in the unblock does not have the force of law. It is perhaps a suggestion rather than an indefinite ban of editing the article. This becomes clear if one actually reads the exchange and the deference which Secret gives to Pmanderson as an "established editor" and "good contributor". In summary, this is a non-issue, the raising of which is unhelpful. --Richard S (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)