Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Church teaching section

On Feburary 1st Roscelese added the following sentence to the Church teaching section: "It therefore holds that homosexuality is inherently a tendency towards sin." I objected to the statement in this form, and there has been a bit of an edit war over the last few weeks, for which I am partly responsible. Mea culpa. I have tried to reword the sentence so that it better reflects reality, and have tried to add additional sources showing that my interpretation is supported by reliable sources. Rosclese refuses to allow any changes to it, save for adding a single character in the form of an indefinite article. She has reverted every edit I have attempted. Since we have failed to reach consensus on it, I have removed it from the main page per WP:NOCON. I would like to work on it here and, when we do reach consensus, to place it back in the article. My preferred version is "It therefore holds that being homosexual makes one inclined towards this particular sin" but, as can be seen from my edits, I am open to finding a suitable compromise. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, "makes one inclined" is akin, per the cited source, to saying that kleptomania "makes one inclined" towards the sin of stealing, rather than being itself an inclination. Your attempts to obfuscate this point over the past couple of weeks (months?) are a waste of everyone's time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the wording that Roscelese inserted - this seems a correct interpretation to be. I don't see the need find further compromise language. Surely the consensus is therefore to keep that version and not remove it? In fact I don't really like the general approach in that section at all - trying to imply that the church teaches homosexuality is a sin because it is sex outside marriage is misleading. It can never approve of it - even if people were to be married: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved". Contaldo80 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The inclination is not an act, and the inclination itself is not a sin. The orientation is also not an inclination. From one of the sources I added but you deleted: "Of course, heterosexual persons not uncommonly have disordered sexual inclinations as well. It is not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered." I am not trying to obfuscate. Just the opposite, in fact. The fact that we have been edit warring over this shows that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS. When that happens, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I tired to move the ball forward by getting a discussion going here. Since you have rejected that offer and have simply reinserted the disputed language, I will escalate the matter rather than continue to edit war. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How is the quoted sentence you added about disordered heterosexual inclinations remotely relevant to Church teachings about homosexuality? Seems to me, it's an attempt to whitewash the homophobic view of the Church by saying something like, "Look, we're not really homophobic, see here, we condemn heterosexual inclinations when they get weird, too." The statement is irrelevant in this article, although I would certainly support its inclusion in Catholic Church and sexuality. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested that "it would be enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered", so this is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You say above that "kleptomania 'makes one inclined' towards the sin of stealing." You do not say that kleptomania makes you inclined towards sin. I have tried to say in the past that homosexuality makes one inclined towards a particular sin. Since we apparently agree on this, I will edit it to say so. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What about my previous comment was so unclear to you that you interpreted a "no" as a "yes"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way you described kleptomania, I thought your position had changed. Why is it OK to say that kleptomania makes one inclined towards a particular sin, but we must say that homosexuality makes one inclined towards sin more generally? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the particularity is not the issue with your phrasing. If it were, there would have been no need for your recent edit, since the text you removed was already specific. Again, what about my previous comment was so unclear to you that you interpreted a "no" as a "yes"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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.