Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Appeal

Since the time is approaching when the lock-down on editing this article ends, I appeal to editors to discuss matters, rather than await the freedom to edit-war.

Take the attempt to make Wikipedia say that, "referring to the AIDS epidemic, the letter [Homosexualitatis problema] blamed these organizations for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people". See immediately above, where an editor claims that this interpretation is based on "the sources, primary and secondary". What the one primary source said is: "Even when (1) the practice of homosexuality (2) may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, (3) its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." Instead of speaking of "these organizations" and "gay rights", the letter spoke of advocates of the practice of homosexuality. It envisaged as a possibility, not a certainty, that in 1986 homosexual activity threatened the lives of many. As for the claim about secondary sources, I have asked for a citation of any that supports that editor's interpretation, when other secondary sources readily quote what the document actually says. Of these others, I have given two examples: one explicitly hostile to the Holy See document, and another that presents itself as non-partisan.

Perhaps there is hope for calmer discussion while actual editing is still impeded. Esoglou (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is disappointing that the response to this appeal has simply been to restore without discussion a statement contradicting on three counts both what the document actually says and what is reported by the secondary sources that I have cited. Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"May seriously threaten"

I have edited the article to report accurately that (as already pointed out) the document only said that the practice of homosexuality (gay sexual activity) might pose a threat to life and health, not that it actually did so.

I have also edited, again for accuracy, the statement attributed to McNeill, who wrote of "gay activists". This the Wikipedia editor changed to "gay rights advocates", a very wide expression that fails to report correctly what the document said of "advocates of the practice of homosexuality".

It is surely better to quote a source accurately than to attribute to it an interpretation that expresses the editor's attitude far more than it expresses the source. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note to Padresfan

@Padresfan94: - Hey, I thought I'd left this note earlier! Sorry, guess not. Anyway, re: your edit summary about not all children who are attracted to the same sex being gay/lesbian, I think we can compromise on changing "gay and lesbian" to "gay and bisexual", addressing your concern about leaving out bisexual children while avoiding the poorly-written and POV "same-sex-attracted children"/"child with a homosexual orientation" (which also omits bisexual children - maybe you made a mistake?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Padresfan94:? Since I'm proposing this change specifically to address your concerns, a comment would be nice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think no editor should impose her or his personal tone on the reporting of a document. The letter in question here addresses parents: "You think your adolescent child is experiencing a same-sex attraction and/or you observe attitudes and behaviors that you find confusing or upsetting or with which you disagree. Your son or daughter has made it known that he or she has a homosexual orientation." It nowhere, as far as I can see, uses the terms "gay and lesbian", "gay and bisexual". It should be reported as saying what it says, without having some Wikipedia editor's ideas imposed on it. The document does explicitly speak of same-sex-attracted children and children with a homosexual orientation, doesn't it? What's your objection to reporting what it says? I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss, instead of just reverting, when the block ends tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how about gaining some consensus for these new changes?

I'm even making the section for you guys. Have at it - explain why these recent changes to the article are good, policy-compliant changes and why we should adopt them, and see if other people agree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Take the explanations given above, for instance under the heading "Appeal". Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss, instead of just reverting, when the block ends tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable gay and bisexual Catholics

Section appears to be awkwardly unencyclopedic. No other religion bears such a section. I believe it should be removed. Padresfan94 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic" in what way? It's very well-sourced and obviously germane. Please explain what you mean. I suggest that if you are concerned with the lack of such sections in other articles, you remedy that - for instance, many many sources exist on LGBT Jews. Nor, of course, is the section in this article limited to the authors identified; I know them offhand as people who specifically combined their religion and sexual orientation in their work, rather than simply happening to be both, but presumably other editors could help expand it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh indeed, in that you are totally correct: there are 0 reasons as to why this pointless list should be limited to just the authors you included. So, about 15% of the population is Catholic. About 1.5% of the population is homosexual. Catholicism has been around for 2,000 years. Of all of the notable Catholics who were/are less than totally heterosexual, we should of course list every single one who was notable enough for coverage, yes? Padresfan94 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether there is a parallel in other articles is, I think, irrelevant. Here it is on on-topic. It seems well-written and well-sourced. The heading should reflect the content and make clear that the section is about converts to Catholicism. This I will correct. One could also question the inclusion of the word "bisexual" in the heading, since all the people mentioned seem to have been homosexuals, even if some also engaged in heterosexual sex, as engagement in homosexual sex acts by a heterosexual doesn't make him (or her) cease to be a heterosexual. But I fear that removal of that word would be controversial. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you going on about, the supposed status of somebody who has gay sex but is not gay. That's ridiculous, and should not form any part of our editing behavior here. It makes me seriously question your competency in this topic.

Plenty of famous gays were born Catholic, so your comment about being converts falls flat.

Regarding the new section of notable gay Catholics, I agree it is relevant, and I note that Roscelese has indicated it could use more expansion. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet has done the needful by fixing the disharmony between the content of the section and its original heading.

An editor's seeming to hold that experimenting with a form of sex contrary to the person's own bent changes the person's bent won't make me publicly declare the editor incompetent to edit.

On rereading my previous comment, I see that I was dead on in foreseeing controversy. Esoglou (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not other articles have similar lists speaks to where or not its a good idea. The fact that no other similar article has such a lists speaks volumes. Communism and homosexuality has not similar list because such a list would be unbearably long and would not expand the read's understanding of the topic. Padresfan94 (talk)

Thanks for explaining. The lack of similar lists did not speak loudly and clearly enough for me. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Esoglou for improving clarity vis a vis converts - I agree with you. Aside from that I think the section is interesting and commend the person that started it. I've added in a couple of additional names. At the moment the section looks like its really dealing with British figures and I'd agree we should try and expand it a little. It might also be useful to reference the Oxford Movement (Newman etc). Although it's not certain whether Newman himself was homosexual (strongly possible), the Oxford Movement did have a strong homo-erotic/ homo-social aspect to it. Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehhh, the Oxford Movement seems kind of off-topic to me. Obviously both movements contained a number of gay people, but Oxford wasn't a Catholic movement (Anglo-Catholicism is High High Church Anglican). In my view, this section would be more of an overview of people who were notably both LGB and Catholic - so, not too much detail, but also not duplicative of a list or category where the two categories might simply happen to coincide. (@Binksternet:, can you explain Edwards to us?) Francis Poulenc, John Boswell, Jean Cocteau? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough we don't have to cover the Oxford Movement - I suppose it is a little off-topic. The suggestion I was rather making was that a number of Anglicans from the Oxford Movement (or close to it) converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism. A number of them were homosexual. The "theatricality" of Catholicism (or indeed High Church Anglicanism) did - and continues - to hold an appeal for a number of homosexual men! I'll have better think about how to reflect - maybe it's more suitable for an article on homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood instead.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Edwards differs greatly from the people you and Contaldo inserted, people who uniformly chose as adults to become Catholics and who uniformly, at least after their conversion, lived chastely, as the Catholic Church understands chastity. Perhaps Binksternet just wanted variety. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we need a flavour of both. Those Catholics who were homosexual but not sexually active, and those that were. But I sympathise that this section could become a bit unwieldy unless we're clear about its purpose. I would argue that its about visibility - having some clear examples of gay Catholics, rather than talking about them generically (as the rest of the article does). There are a lot of them after all! Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, I don't know if I would say visibility is the issue. For me, adding the section was more about the fact that it seemed like a large part of the article was missing. There's more to the intersection of homosexuality(/bisexuality) and Catholicism than the law, either canon law or civil law. The lives of gay Catholics are a part of that intersection. My knowledge base happens to be more in writers and composers, but we could also consider, I don't know, James Loney (peace activist) or Daniela Mercury or various politicians. Dan Savage is "culturally Catholic" according to his WP article, but as he is an atheist, that might be somewhat out of scope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm good with that approach. Might we include The Singing Nun please so that we have more gender balance? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: Further to gender balance, I'm also just learning that noted lesbian author Radclyffe Hall was a convert to Catholicism. There's a chapter on her and other well-known early twentieth-century lesbian Catholics in Lesbian Texts and Contexts: Radical Revisions; do you have access to this source? From what I can tell based on citations to this chapter in other sources, the author's argument is that erasure of female sexuality in the RCC offered some cover for lesbians. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Some comments

I have not followed events at this article closely - the entire argument over content has been so boring and disgusting that it tends to drive editors away from trying to improve this article. I have, however, looked over this edit by Roscelese. There are a number of changes I disagree with. I note that Roscelese's edit adds the words "at both the religious and civil levels" to one sentence, "(including non-discrimination)" to a second, and "reflecting a wide range of opinions within the global church" to a third. In each of these cases, I believe the sentences concerned would be better without the added words, which seem like unnecessary minutiae or even something approaching editorial commentary. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just restoring an older version from before a number of non-consensus edits took place; I wouldn't have a problem with some of these smaller changes, it's just things I couldn't be bothered to do (although I did think about removing the "wide range of opinions" bit myself as it doesn't seem warranted based on the sources currently present). Re: religious and civil levels - I'm not sure who added it, but their motivation might have been to clarify that it's not just in a religious sphere that the RCC opposes it. Do you think we could change that to "opposes the introduction of same-sex civil marriage"? Re non-discrimination, now obviously it's one of the rights they've acted against, but just as obviously it's encompassed in "other rights", so that seems like more of a stylistic choice - although if you're getting at moving non-discrimination to before "other rights", that seems good stylistically. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no you are not. You are reverting a series of edits by editors who you disagree with and supporting a series of edits by editors you do agree with. By your own admission, you have not reverted edits without reading them. Shouting over and over again that yours is the consensus version does not make it so. Padresfan94 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether Roscelese did not or did not revert without reading (I presume that Padresfan94 meant to write "now", not "not"), she certainly did blanket-revert blindly everything that differed from her own preferred text, whatever the merits of the individual intervening edits. I have again, below, appealed to her to discuss questions instead and not to qualify her own text as "consensus", when it is quite clear that that is what it is not. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It was me that originally added "religious and civil". I'm still quite keen to keep it if we can - although open to a better phrasing if necessary. The point I was making (as Roscelese suggests) is that the Catholic church doesn't just not allow same-sex marriages in its own churches, it opposes the recognition of same-sex marriage even at the secular level - civil ceremonies etc. I think that's a very important point - and one that isn't made elsewhere in the article. It thinks they are bad for society more widely. Someone not familar with the intricacies of same-sex marriage may simply think (wrongly) the issue is about not forcing churches to perform ceremonies which conflict with their beliefs. The current position of the Catholic church has gone much further than that. Are people happy to try and reflect the point somewhere? I'm open to suggestions on how to word, however.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think my suggestion above of "same-sex civil marriage" accomplishes what you need it to accomplish? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me. I think the distinction needs to be made in order to bring clarity. I still read or hear stuff from time to time that makes the (mistaken) argument that governments are forcing churches to perform gay marriages against their beliefs. It's an important nuance that shouldn't be overlooked. The Catholic church has been against the principle of same-sex marriage, wherever it is performed.Contaldo80 (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@ImprovingWiki: since you're the first to have brought it up as an issue - what do you think of this proposed change? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the suggestion. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since civil and religious aren't exactly levels, perhaps this text:

and opposes introduction of same-sex marriage at both the religious and civil levels.

would be better like this:

and opposes the introduction of both civil and religious same-sex marriage.

and opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage in all forms, both civil and religious.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong objections to this, but I also don't think it's necessary to mention religious. We go into extensive detail about their opposition to homosexuality and statements that marriage cannot exist between two people of the same sex, but it's less that they oppose same-sex religious marriage so much as that in the RCC view a Catholic same-sex marriage doesn't exist. But, like I said, no objections to retaining "religious", and I think "forms" is better than "levels", you're right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Catholic Church is not "opposed to homosexuality" Padresfan94 (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But of course it is. "Homosexuality" includes sexual behavior. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Catholic Church's view, there is really not a distinction between civil and religious marriage. The distinction is between natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Non-Catholics have valid civil marriages; if both are baptized then it is sacramental, otherwise it is natural. Also, what Roscelese said regarding the belief that it is an impossibility. What the Church opposes is the redefinition of marriage. Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the sentence in question, the first half says what the church believes. The second half makes a different point, that the Church opposes the creation/recognition of a legal status called same-sex marriage on the part of civil authorities. Which the Church as a rule does, no? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the second part says more than that. As well as speaking of the creation/recognition of a legal status called same-sex marriage on the part of civil authorities (a civilly recognized marriage), which is what the cited sources speak of, it goes beyond them by adding "a same-sex marriage at the religious level". Synthesis? Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Think about it the other way around, does one generally say X organization supports homosexual marriage, both at the civil and religious level? No, we generally just say X organizations supports homosexual marriage, so for the same reasons, run it the same way when Y organization is opposed. Leave out the "civil and religious" Padresfan94 (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Church of England permits its members to contract civil same-sex marriages. However, it does not permit such marriages to be solemnized within its own church buildings. If this was just an issue of ecclesiastical process then I'd be relaxed, but the Catholic church has made a big thing about getting involved in domestic politics to argue that the secular state should not recognize gay marriage. In which case we need to say something about it. The Jehovahs Witnesses, for example, don't get involved in political debate - they don't care what the civic authorities allow - they just concern themselves with their internal rules. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Do these discussions always need to turn out so Jesuitical? You can't get married in a Catholic church if you're gay, and the Catholic church has battled against allowing people to get married in civic registry offices if they are gay. Those are the facts. Now it can't be beyond the realms of fantasy to try and find a form of words that reflects that clearly and unambiguously for the lay reader. The third solution "and opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage in all forms, both civil and religious" seems the best to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What you say, Contaldo, may well be true. To put it in Wikipedia, you need only cite a reliable source for it. The sources at present cited do not state that the Catholic Church "opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage in all forms, both civil and religious", the distinctions you are keen to make. Perhaps you can find one that does. Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok that sounds reasonable. I'd appreciate any help though in finding something that fits the bill. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriage edited by Charles Curran says on page 300 that "The most outspoken and consistently negative response to proposals that the state recognise same-sex marriage has come from the Catholic church". Does that do us?http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FIVxM16DT9cC&pg=PA300&dq=catholic+church+not+recognise+civil+gay+marriage&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0pIuVMffHtblat_mgYgJ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=catholic%20church%20not%20recognise%20civil%20gay%20marriage&f=false Contaldo80 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where that speaks of "in all forms, both civil and religious". Do you? Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little off-topic. Can we all agree on including "civil"? And can we all agree on excluding "religious"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do. Esoglou (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for me to. It meets my main concern which is the engagement of the church in national secular politics. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting of 25 September 2014

This revert is regrettable. The corresponding edit summary says: "Rv to pre-protection version. It's been a week and the user attempting to add the new material, which is synthetic and non-neutral, has failed to achieve consensus or even support for it. It's time to admit that it doesn't belong" The new material added in that week had raised no controversy and so does not justify the claim that it "failed to achieve consensus or even support for it". On the contrary, the reverting editor (re)inserted into the article material that has caused great controversy, and that the reverting editor refuses to discuss on the talk page, choosing instead to revert to it repeatedly. It is utterly disingenuous to call it a consensus (!) version.

Credit to where credit is due: the editor is to be commended for afterwards making one partial correction of this reinsertion. However, even there the editor still insists on changing "gay activists" (McNeill's take on the Holy See's "advocates of the practice of homosexuality") to "gay rights activists", without responding to the talk-page remark on this imposing of a personal slant on what McNeill said. Much more of the reinserted material is similarly "synthetic and non-neutral".

How about using the pause on editing for which we have to thank Callenecc to discuss problems?

I have already mentioned the problem of the imposition of "gay rights activists" in place of the correct quotation "gay activists".

There are many more. For instance, would the reverting editor please explain why she sees it as correct to present as uncontradicted Allen's statement that Homosexualitatis problema was released "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States"? That Allen said this is certain and sourced to his book. It is also certain and sourced to L'Osservatore Romano and other newspapers on which the document was published in various languages all on the same day that the document was in fact released simultaneously in English and Italian and various other languages. Why does the reverting editor exclude this sourced information? Happily, some time ago, the other part of Allen's statement, namely that the document was released on 1 October 1986, has after a struggle been removed, making it no longer necessary to state also that all sources other than Allen say it was released instead on 31 October 1986. Why not solve this part too of Allen's statement either by removing it (as has been done for the date) or by mentioning the contradictory information that reliable sources other than Allen give? Exclusion of that information is out of harmony with the principles of neutrality and objectivity. Either solution would be valid. Why not allow one of them, whichever you prefer? Esoglou (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Might one solution be to drop the stuff about when the various documents were released. But then make clear the suggestion that the letter was probably primarily aimed at the US church? I think that's the important point. While the letter ahd universal application, I think we'd improve the article by flagging some of the politics behind it. What do you think? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The when (1 October of 31 October) has already been removed, presumably because editors saw it was impossible to defend what Allen mistakenly said about 1 October. What is in question here is Allen's mistaken suggestion that the letter was primarily aimed at the US church, which he bases on his mistaken belief that the document (not "various documents") was released first in English. Esoglou (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it could be helpful to see if we can find any other sources that support Allen's argument that the letter was primarily aimed at the US. I strongly suspect it was - it has a ring of truth about it. The timing seems too coincidental otherwise - and wouldn't have been a priority unless it reflected some wider political concern. It was obviously aimed at cracking-down on certain "liberal" tendencies that had begun to emerge in those churches based in the west. I'll have a hunt around and see what others say, but welcome any help (either for or against the idea). But, I agree, we need some solid sources - otherwise my views remain essentially original research! Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The question I have raised here is the presentation of Allen's statement that the document was released first in English as uncontradicted fact. That should either be removed or be accompanied by the evidence that the document was published simultaneously in several languages. Many sources show that Allen was mistaken in thinking it came out first in English. These many sources say nothing about whether it was or was not aimed at the United States. That is a distinct question that should be discussed on its own merits. Esoglou (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Esoglou, as the person that originally put in Allen's claim that the document came out first in English I'm relatively relaxed about removing that specific point from the text. But if that was done, then I would at the same time like to ensure we have some text that makes the point that several commentators/ writers argue the document was specifically aimed at the US. That, for me, remains the most significant and interesting issue. Regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to insert a well-sourced statement that the document is considered (by some Americans) as directed specifically at the United States, surely nobody will object. I certainly won't. Indeed, I might do it myself. You realize of course that an inference drawn from a mistaken idea that the letter was issued at first in English is not a reliable source. You can do better than that. In fact you already have with the Gene Burns article. Esoglou (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Let's have a think then about how we best use the Gene Burns article, as I agree this looks the most solid source we have so far on this issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Article by Gene Burns

Gene Burns here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7wuAo7LRdzwC&pg=PA78&dq=On+the+Pastoral+Care+of+Homosexual+Persons+aimed+at+us&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1hkpVNe2KdbmauqIgrgC&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=On%20the%20Pastoral%20Care%20of%20Homosexual%20Persons%20aimed%20at%20us&f=false seems to support the argument that the letter was responding to developments in the american church specifically. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually having read the whole article by Burns I think it's rather interesting and seems to address some of the issues the article still lacks. While I think the article captures the theology and history rather well now - what happened when/ who said what? etc. It still lacks a discussion of some of the politics - the "left/right" divide if you like. Burns argues that the papacy - or the Roman curia - is more focused on sexual authority today because it is the only area where it is able to exercise authority (following the effective geopolitical withdrawal of the 19th century). Actions by Paul VI, and John Paul II in particular need to be seen in the light of that. Would welcome thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good find. I didn't read the whole thing, but I did check the statement you mentioned about it being directed primarily at the United States. We can add that (=adding in the citation) to our list of edits to make when protection expires, or if there's consensus for a bunch of small edits like that, compile an edit request. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request of 28 September 2014

It has been pointed out above that, in the section 1.1.4, the phrase "gay rights activists" is unfaithful to the cited source, which says "gay activists". Nobody has defended the altered text or given an explanation for making the change. I request that the word "rights" be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would you delete a word that is used FOUR times in the source in the same context? In a source which discusses primarily gay rights? I find your request a bit disingenuous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The context is this:

Cardinal Ratzinger's letter even suggested that it is gay activists and the professionals who try to help gays achieve self-acceptance who are responsible for the AIDS epidemic: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remained undeterred and refused to consider the magnitude of the risks involved."

Please show how the word is used four times in that context. For all I know, McNeill may in other contexts have spoken of "gay rights activists" hundreds of times, but I don't find it here. You surely don't mean that, because someone somewhere spoke of "rights", you are free to synthesize its inclusion in everything else he says! Or do you? Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

From the two sentences immediately before the sentence you cite, the context is abundantly clear that gay rights is meant. No synthesis is necessary. Again, I find your request disingenuous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

McNeill's "gay activists" is his interpretation of the CDF's "advocates of the practice of homosexuality" (no mention of "rights"). You say it isn't synthesis to take a mention of "rights" shortly before and join it with "gay activists" to make "gay rights activists", thereby moving what you attribute to McNeill further away from what McNeill commented on? Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that it is not synthesis. And "advocates of the practice of homosexuality" is a bizarre term that means nothing in the real world outside of the twisted mind of certain Roman Catholic clerics who are so driven by unadulterated hatred of gay people that they deny they even exist, and so don't require any rights. Again, Esgolou, Wikipedia is not the place for apologetics. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Vicious attack on people of faith noted, I will support Esoglou's request. It seems to me that "gay rights activists" is WP:OR. Shouldn't we simply report what the sources say, without reading our personal interpretations, complete with our sometimes-venomous biases, into them? Elizium23 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that McNeill is referring to activists for other causes who coincidentally are gay? (eg. Ezra Nawi or pre-70s Bayard Rustin) Otherwise, gay rights activists (or LGBT rights activists as is current usage, although it might feel a little anachronistic) is an obvious paraphrase. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no grounds whatever for presenting McNeill as saying the CDF letter spoke of campaigners for such things as same-sex marriage. The letter spoke of "advocates of the practice of homosexuality", and McNeill rightly said it spoke of "gay activists". He did not claim that the letter spoke of "gay rights activists". It is an unsourced falsehood, seemingly based on preconceived ideas, to say he did. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is synthesis. It is also distortion (to fit in with the preconceived notion that Dominus Vobisdu expressed). It should be removed. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not synthesis, rather it is a perfectly suitable and constructive summary of the cited source. Support "gay rights activists" as accurate and well-sourced. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I did some googling to see if secondary sources identified a more specific topic under the heading of gay rights that the letter could be referring to (eg. health access?) in the interest of possibly offering more options, and didn't find anything more specific. I did find an article in AIDS Policy & Law that paraphrases this part of the document as "Vatican Alludes to AIDS: A Vatican letter sent to all Roman Catholic bishops Oct. 30 condemns homosexuality as an 'objective disorder' and says gay rights advocates seem undeterred by the risks it poses" and this book likewise identifying "those who advocate gay rights"/"those who advocate rights and freedom for homosexuals" as the target. I also found this letter, interestingly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an even more evident synthesis to apply what others say to a statement about what McNeill said: "The letter, McNeill writes, blamed AIDS on gay rights activists". So Dominus Vobisdu has two companion synthesizers of ideas they form elsewhere. People who insist on having their synthesis in the article in spite of absence of consensus. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou I know that you are vigilant (quite rightly) in making sure that the text respects and reflects the sources. Might it help a little if we therefore changed the reference in the para from McNeill to Kowalewski? Because he does explicitly refer to "gay rights advocates". Would you feel more comfortable with that? Regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's really unnecessary. The fact that we have a bunch of sources describing gay rights advocates instead of some mythical beings that go around encouraging lots of sexual activity argues for putting this in WP's voice, not for promoting and marginalizing single sources at random. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(To clarify, McNeill is the only one I've found in my cursory searching that identifies mental health professionals as well as gay rights activists, so if we want to be extra careful about attribution we could change the sentence to "Referring to the AIDS epidemic,[63][64] the letter blamed AIDS on gay rights activists[cite][cite][cite] and, McNeill writes, on gay-accepting mental health professionals."[cite]) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Did McNeill say what you have put into his mouth? Or is what you have put into his mouth something that you have synthesized? He did say "gay activists". He did not say "gay rights activists". If you judge "gay activists" to mean "gay rights activists", why are you so insistent in changing what he said? Esoglou (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It was good of you, Roscelese, to abandon, in your parenthetic comment of 20:16 yesterday, the claim that McNeill said that the CDF letter blamed gay rights activists. By all means make a proposal for the inclusion of some other statement, but the word "rights" in what is falsely attributed to McNeill, which is in question here, should be removed. Do you agree? Esoglou (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Your new proposal has no chance, in its present form, of being accepted, since you are stating, "the letter blamed AIDS on gay rights activists", instead of saying: "Writers A, B, and C say the letter blamed AIDS on gay rights activists".) Esoglou (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Contaldo, for recognizing that what is in the article is unfounded. That should be fixed. Afterwards we can consider other proposals. Esoglou (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there are no grounds for presenting McNeill as saying the CDF letter spoke of campaigners for such things as same-sex marriage. The letter spoke of "advocates of the practice of homosexuality", and McNeill rightly said it spoke of "gay activists". He did not claim that the letter spoke of "gay rights activists". That misrepresentation of McNeill should be removed. Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support the distance between the current wording as the source is Original Reaearch Padresfan94 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Are you happy then for me to go ahead and change the McNeill reference to Kowalewski in the body of the text? Shall we keep McNeill in the reference as well? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: There isn't a conclusive consensus for this (please, remember that protected edit requests should only be made after a consensus is found). Also, the claim that "gay rights activists" is original research is debatable given the mention of civil rights earlier in the paragraph. The alternative reading, of activists for some undefined thing who are also gay, seems a lot less likely. Remember that "no original research" does not mean that we have to use the source's exact words - see Wikipedia:These are not original research#Paraphrasing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern papal views

I was thinking of seperating out some of the specific papal interventions on the topic and putting them together under a new heading - "Modern papal views" or somesuch wording. This would have sub-sections on John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. At the moment the stuff said by Francis gets a little bit lost, and it might be quite nice to draw out some of the engagement by JP and Benedict more clearly. While avoiding, of course, including the material on various church documents etc. I know that it's difficult to seperate the pope from what the church does, but the point would be to give a flavour of how they personally - as people - have approached the issue of homosexuality. All have been faithful to Church teaching - but there are different ways this can be done. I think it could be intesting for the reader. What do people think? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As no-one has commented on this then I can assume there is general assent and that the changes can be made. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

I'd like to put a reference in to Nigerian Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama. When Nigeria's law punishing homosexuality was signed into law recently he described it as "courageous" and a "step in the right direction". He is now reported as saying that the Church will defend any person with homosexual orientation "who is being harassed, who is being imprisoned, whoe is being punished". We only need a sentence and I think it should go under the section dealing with criminalisation. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As no-one has commented on this then I can assume there is general assent and that the changes can be made. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Synod

This is to flag that we need some text to reflect the outcomes of the Synod at the weekend. Although it did not see any major change in the approcah of the Church to gay people - it was nevertheless a significant milestone (the first time the issue had been dealt with on such a scale). I suggest we reference the wording in the original document, as well as the final watered down version. We also need to keep an eye on developments. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Roscelese's personal consensus

This reverting has been, so to speak, explained as "Oh please, you know you don't have consensus for this." A better explanation than lack of Roscelese's consensus is surely needed. The edit she reverted is very well sourced. It is highly pertinent. For the sake of balance, it is even required, because of Allen's mistaken statement that the document was originally issued in English (in spite of the incipit, the first words of the original text, being in Latin!) and that it was released at the beginning of October, when all the other many sources say it was published at Halloween and not on different dates according to different languages. If anything should be removed, it is Allen's lone and amply contradicted claim. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Cloonmore (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of at least pretending this is about content or policy and that you didn't return to this article after five years to battle me or back up your buddy with absolutely no awareness of what's going on, I'd like to hear, in your own words, why you think we should include this original research as a means of undermining a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hitting the multiply and reliably sourced edit with "this original research" is no more enlightening than hitting it with "Oh please, you know you don't have consensus for this". Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pretending"?? You rolled back the addition of sourced information to this article with a bare comment about a lack of consensus and no discussion on Talk. I, OTOH, have helped contribute to a consensus here. And now you arrive a day late and a dollar short talking about OR and making wild accusations of my editing on some pretense, being a "buddy" of another editor, and here only to "battle" you? (Note: self flattery is never attractive.) Please try to AGF every now and then, won't you? (BTW, a friendly reminder, Rosc: I think your rollback was an abuse of Twinkle, and not your first. Please be more careful about that lest something bad happen to your TW privileges.) Cloonmore (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cloonmore - I haven't seen you around recently on this article. But I'd like to say that I don't think arriving with veiled threats (as above) is a good start. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What veiled threat? Cloonmore (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Please be more careful about that lest something bad happen to your TW privileges". Although actually not that veiled. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not veiled, and not a threat. Cloonmore (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question: I'd like to hear, in your own words, why you think we should include this original research as a means of undermining a reliable source. Taking a bunch of news articles and using them as primary sources to go "look, they were published on this date so this reliable secondary source is wrong" is OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strawman, Rosc. The article doesn't say "this reliable secondary source is wrong." If it did, then I might agree that it's OR. But how 'bout this? You take a deep breath, re-read the stuff you have a problem with, then come back and state what your new objection is (you know, the one you didn't see the need to articulate when you rolled back the edit). Who knows, maybe we can find common ground? Cloonmore (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you having trouble understanding why it's original research? Do you need me to explain further? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear, in your own words, Roscelese, on what grounds you maintain we should include a statement by one journalist as a means of annihilating (undermining isn't enough for you) what a whole series of reliable sources such as John J. McNeill's book and well-known newspapers – not to speak of perhaps less reliable sources such as a Rainbow Sash Movement statement – unanimously state about the publication of the document on Friday 31 October 1986. It is difficult to see how you manage to do so with a straight face and in good faith. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This link to the Vatican's own website has the letter in English with a date of 1 October 1986: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html It would seem to support Allen's argument. Unless someone has another explanation? This book by Mark Jordan also makes the argument that Ratzinger was aiming the letter at gay activists/ church supporters in the US rather than the world at large - which is the key point here isn't it? (incidentally the annual conference of US bishops took place on 4 November - and John Paul II took the unusual step of sending a letter directly): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A8qfobm2BOwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Homosexualitatis+problema+1986&source=bl&ots=9SxyymHPHQ&sig=CBGACQyYeik7OGDMkXs5_rPdvFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9n5XVNedCcLYaunsgZgG&ved=0CEEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Homosexualitatis%20problema%201986&f=false Contaldo80 (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The link that you have discovered now and that has been in the article perhaps since the article first mentioned the document is to the text of letter on the Holy See website. The document bears the date 1 October, but only Allen says it was published on that date. Documents of that importance are published some days after the date of signing. For a recent example, see Lumen fidei.

If you think a statement by Jordan says the letter was directed specifically at the United States, do please cite it. At present the article contains no more than a tentative inference from a multi-contradicted claim that the document was issued in English before appearing in other languages. An actual statement about a country aimed at would improve the article considerably. Hitherto only one editor has argued for deletion of reliable sources that concordantly contradict what a lone source says, and so you need not be afraid that anyone else would delete out of hand an addition by you of what a reliable source actually says. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hang on what are you saying happened on the 1 October then? Just a private signing - no publicity? I don't think we make any changes to this passage until we've collectively understood what's going in with the various dates. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that, unless new evidence is produced, the article should not be restricted to Allen's solitary opinion that the document was, by exception, released on the very day on which the Prefect and the Secretary signed it within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for agreeing that the article should not hide what other books and newspapers report about how the Congregation did not in fact depart from the regular practice of publishing the document only after having the text printed in various languages in preparation for the pre-announced press conference that normally accompanies the release of such documents. Just imagine the reaction of the episcopal conferences if in this instance, as Allen says, the conferences had to learn from the press about a letter addressed to them, instead of being, as usual, sent the text beforehand in the local language or languages (under press embargo until the date of publication), so as to be prepared for reactions from the press and the faithful! Esoglou (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

While the information on the multiple language publishing of On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons does seem on-topic for a section devoted to this publication, the phrase "In reality" stands out as inappropriate editorial commentary. As far as I can see, none of the refs cited specifically referred to correcting the previous source, which is what seems to be implied by "in reality", so edited that out [1].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept your edit as immeasurably more collaborative than the habit of reverting, although I do think that, in view of WP:WEIGHT, the contradiction between the lone voice of Allen and the concordant statement by absolutely all the other sources ought to be made explicit. Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied below in "Various language publications of On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" section. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of outright misrepresentation

An editor whose edit summaries, rather than statements of objective facts, are highly personal expressions has reverted an edit with what sounds like, but perhaps is not intended to be, an accusation of bad faith. She has added what might also seem to be another accusation of bad faith: "Don't attribute words to people that they never said." I have restored the citations, quoting the actual words the authors used. What then are the words that they never said and that I have attributed to them? It would be good also if the editor would be kind enough to explain why she insists that saying that Jeanne (Jeanine) Deckers was "initially" a Dominican sister is better than saying she was such "at one time". Some sources say she entered the convent to get away from her family, which is where I would think she was "initially".

I refrain from echoing these accusations and that of being "so determined to make statements about people's sexual orientation that you neglect WP policy". Esoglou (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been Roscelese's response:

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Esoglou, you need better sources, because all these look unreliable from what I can see. But Roscelese is removing maintenance tags with her revert, and that's disruptive. Elizium23 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book, but I've asked Contaldo, who added it, to field this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We all have access to the book, and it says nothing about a lesbian relationship. The words are "Une amitié très affectueuse les lie peu à peu". I hereby propose the removal of the entire passage until it can be verified beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suggest 2-3 solid sources with explicit assertions. Elizium23 (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for the link. I did some Googling earlier and found a number of other sources which would seem to support the statement, but like I said, I don't want to field this one, so I will leave it to Contaldo to add sources that state it more explicitly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: when you get back, please do add some sources that confirm this. The Dictionnaire is a good source but isn't as unambiguous as we might like and as other sources are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Elizium23, for undoing what I think Roscelese should herself have self-reverted, since she could defend neither her claim that Decker was initially a Dominican nun nor her removal of the request for a quotation of the statement, claimed to be found in the Dictionnaire des femmes belges: XIXe et XXe siècles, saying that the Decker-Pécher relationship was lesbian. Thank you also for finding an Internet link to the relevant pages of that book. The link I found, this one, gave for the pages on Decker: "No preview available for this page". I fear that the editor who gave this Dictionnaire as the source for his claim that "she began a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher" may have simply taken, almost at random, a citation in the article Singing Nun and attached it to his claim. I hope that this is not true, for if it were, that editor would indeed merit the reproaches that Roscelese bandied about: "outright misrepresentation"; "attributing words to people that they never said"; "introducing incorrect information into articles"; doing so without "first discussing things on the article's talk page". I don't expect her to apologize for her accusations, nor do I ask her to. They tell much more about her and her attitude than about me.

I think you were somewhat too exigent about sources. In response to the presentation as fact that the relationship was of lesbian character, a presentation that seems to be without foundation. Surely, especially when taken together, a biography by a named writer reproduced on a sufficiently serious website like www.marichesse.com; an entry in a website devoted to the "Histoire du 20ème siècle: Les principaux événements de 1938 à 2014"; an entry in a website that gives biographies of deceased celebrities, that give concordant information are not to be ignored. The fourth source I gave was a signed biography hosted on the website of the LGBT Centre of Angers, which confirmed that Decker denied she was a homosexual, although without adding the adverb "farouchement" with which another of the sources described her denial. It isn't fair to her to attribute to her what she so strongly denied, and I don't believe the editors of the English Wikipedia are incomparably more intelligent than the editors of the French Wikipedia which gives the mother-daughter explanation of the relationship. At least for the present, your "citation needed" tag is enough. Esoglou (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Culpability

We come to the next of the statements insisted on by an editor who thinks that "it's not your job to publish your original thoughts about sexual sins" applies only to others.

On the basis of the text of the 1986 Homosexualitatis problema document, she repeatedly insists that it declares that, "as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation". Would she now be so good as to quote the words of the document that she believes mean that? Her claim seems instead to be in flat-out contradiction to the document's statement about the possibility of reduction and even removal of culpability.

The corrected text now states: "Circumstances, the letter said, can diminish or eliminate an individual's culpability, and can also augment it," - This surely corresponds to the document's "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". – "but it rejected the idea that homosexual activity is always totally compulsive and therefore inculpable for a homosexual person" – Again, this surely corresponds to the document's "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."

If someone claims that in some way this does not correspond to what the document says, I will either discuss the claim or modify the wording accordingly, instead of just attributing the claim to bad faith on the part of the claimant. Esoglou (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that User:Roscelese has again reverted to her own original thoughts about sexual sins, without discussing on the talk page the fact that those thoughts are not in the cited source. Isn't that vandalism? Or something similar? Esoglou (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:TE Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I think you're probably a good faith editor, so perhaps you would like to explain why you think the change is an improvement so that you can build consensus? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Two points here, and I believe this applies to both versions proposed. Where is the terminology and connection to "natural orientation" coming from? Is it in one of the offline sources? Also, what is the reason for the cumbersome-sounding "homosexual sexual activity", is there an objection to dropping the middle word? Other than the first question, Esoglou's version also uses more terminology direct from the letter, and would seem to be slightly preferable here. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re "natural", I'm trying to paraphrase without gratuitous quoting (per the document's more wordy reference to sexual orientation not being a choice, but activity being a choice). Copying large chunks of text with minimal change is a perennial problem with Esoglou, but we should be summarizing, not reprinting - our goal isn't to convey the document's message in the same language it uses except where there's potential for ambiguity or the sources have commented on the language. That's why we can and should state, in plain and simple language, that the document said sexual activity was not compulsive and that orientation didn't mitigate culpability, rather than faffing about with all the other hypothetical circumstances that might mitigate or exacerbate any sexual sins. I don't have a problem removing "sexual" from the phrase. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: just checking that you're aware I replied. Do you have any defense to make of the vague and rambly version? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no good defense of the poor Allen source being relied on heavily to claim many things, in the face of overwhelming contradiction by MANY, other superior sources. That much is clear. The onus is not on us to defend its omission but for you to support its inclusion, and you have not credibly done so. Furthermore, Esoglou's summary of the contentious letter in question is superior because it better matches the spirit of the letter and does not delve into weird interpretations such as compulsive/orientation/culpability like the other one does. I have not seen a cogent defense of Roscelese's preferred version other than a host of edit summaries slinging the usual tired accusations against Esoglou's personal abilities as an editor. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about Allen - we're not citing Allen for issues of culpability/lack thereof. The question here is how to summarize, as succinctly and accurately as possible, what the letter says about the culpability of homosexual activity. Do you consider it important to include the idea that circumstances (but we don't know which ones) might make such activity more culpable? How about the idea that circumstances (we still don't know which ones) might make it less culpable? I don't see the point of either of these, since the document doesn't go into enough detail to give the reader any idea what it's talking about, and they basically cancel each other out. The issue it's directly addressing (this is section 11) is whether or not being gay is a mitigating circumstance, and it says it's not, because the activity itself is the result of free choice. Is there another way you would suggest summing up this idea? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Elizium23 was making a well-founded comment on Roscelese's insistent reverting to her own text, even when the weakness of its claims of sourcing are made evident. Roscelese here admits that, with regard to the culpability of homosexual activity on the part of homosexual persons, "the document doesn't go into enough detail to give the reader any idea what it's talking about". Yet with Roscelesian logic she insists at the same time that the document does state that homosexual orientation does not mitigate the culpability of homosexual behaviour. And so she has not, indeed cannot, respond to the challenge to quote whatever phrase in the document makes, according to her, that statement. Esoglou (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese, I presume you sincerely believe your claim that the document says orientation doesn't mitigate culpability. The document itself is the only source you cite for this claim. So I presume you believe you can quote some chunk, large or small, of the document that says what you claim. Please, now at last quote the words of the document on which you base your claim that Homosexualitatis problema says that any culpability that pertains to homosexual activity is not mitigated by natural (homosexual) orientation. Faithful summarizing is good. False attribution is not. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your unsourced claim that the document says homosexual orientation does not mitigate culpability for a homosexual action, without at least attempting to quote the statement in the primary source that you imagine is the basis for your claim. I am restoring the text that is based not only on the primary source's "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" (the contrary of a claim that it never mitigates culpability), but also on a secondary source. Esoglou (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruption

It is ironic that an editor who disrupts the sourced work of others by blanket-reverting it, calls it disruption to provide sourced information about someone to balance what has been said about her without, as Roscelese herself admits, citing a valid source, to provide information based on a wiki-reliable published book and on newspapers of international reputation, and to provide other well-sourced information, while the blanket-reverter herself refuses to discuss her claims on this talk page. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe she is hoping that the page will be locked while her version is up?

Thanks for your work tracking down all of these sources, by the way. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Give Roscelese credit for having discussed the question, if not here, at least elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Various language publications of On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

I recently edited this paragraph in response to an inquiry on the original research noticeboard:

"Designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, writes John L. Allen, Jr., the letter was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States".[56] In reality, it appeared simultaneously on 31 October 1986 in many languages, including Italian and Latin,[57] Italian,[58][59][60] Spanish,[61] and English,[62] as confirmed also by John J. McNeill.[63]"

As I mentioned in above section, the multiple language publishing of On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons does seem on-topic for a section devoted to this letter, but the phrase "In reality" stands out as editorial commentary. As far as I can see, none of the refs cited specifically referred to correcting the previous source, which is what seems to be implied by "in reality". I have similar concerns regarding "simultaneously" and "as confirmed also by John J McNeil". It doesn't look like McNeil is confirming that this other guy made a mistake, rather just reporting languages published. Also, Oct 1 and Oct 31 aren't exactly simultaneous, so this is confusing, I suppose the implication is the other guy got the English release date wrong, but I think we need a RS commenting "this guy got it wrong" to explicitly correct him. This reads to me as editorial commentary, with the wiki editors commenting on the incorrectness of the previous source, and if I understand WP:NOR, we'd need a reliable source commentator saying he got it wrong to do that. I edited out this additional commentary, as I agree it seems to perhaps suggest original research, but left in the details about various language publication.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's the source: [2] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BoboMeowCat, for courteously informing that a discussion had been started elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(copy and paste from above section to centralize discussion)

I accept your edit as immeasurably more collaborative than the habit of reverting, although I do think that, in view of WP:WEIGHT, the contradiction between the lone voice of Allen and the concordant statement by absolutely all the other sources ought to be made explicit. Esoglou (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, I see your point regarding the contradiction. It seems when there is a contradiction between reliable sources, the typical solution is to specify the source and what the source said, so here we could say John Allen says in (source) that the letter was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States", while the others sources say differently. The problem is the other sources do not explicitly say differently. These do not appear to be sources reporting that it was released in Italian, Spanish etc, these are links to newspapers where it is actually being released in those languages. While I suppose it could be argued that it is not original research to note the language of the source, this does seem iffy, and going beyond that seems problematic. As far as I can see, the only source reporting on date/language of the letter is http://www.johnjmcneill.com/TCTH.HTML. Websites are often not considered reliable source but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I'm not terribly familiar with the subject matter. What is John McNeil's significance? Is there something that makes his website an authority on the subject?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In view of what you say, it would be clearer and decidedly better to cite only the newspapers that give 31 October as the date of publication in Italian and those that, together perhaps with McNeill, give 31 October as the date of publication in English. Will you do the needful? I mentioned McNeill simply for fear that Roscelese would find grounds for objection to citing only newspapers. He does give 31 October, not 1 October, as the date of publication. But I think the newspapers are enough. If the year had been somewhat later, it would have been much easier to find records of them on the Internet. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are requesting, how do you propose the section should be written and referenced?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My reply was too rushed. I apologize. What about something like this (which you will know how to improve)?

According to John L. Allen, Jr., the letter, designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States".<citation> However, John J. McNeill gives 31 October 1986 as the date of publication<citation> and newspaper records show that this was the date of publication both in Italian<citation> and in English.<citation>

There is no need to state that, as usual, the text was released simultaneously also in French, German, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish - not to mention Latin, which was and is the sole really official text. Esoglou (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm personally not comfortable with that wording. I think the statement is iffy as it currently stands with respect to original research, and "newspaper records show" seems to take it further in that direction. Perhaps we'll get more input from WP:OR noticeboard. Also, why is Spanish etc no longer relevant and is there any solid argument for http://www.johnjmcneill.com/TCTH.HTML being a RS under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? If not, I'm not convinced we should be using the source. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Allen didn't mention Spanish (nor Latin - I wonder how he would explain the naming of the document by its first words in Latin). If you don't like "newspaper reports", say "L'Unità etc. gave it as published on 31 October." There's no original research in that, and I am surprised to hear that citing four Italian newspapers cannot be summarized as "Italian newspaper reports" without going into original research. I am also surprised that the reliability of John McNeill, who was a protester against the document and so had a special interest in it, should be in any way questioned with regard to the objective fact of the date of publication, which is not a question of opinion or valuation. But that is enough for today. Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand how it can be considered original research to state the simple fact that some Italian and English newspapers present the document as published on 31 October 1986, and citing the newspapers themselves as proof. The statement about the date of publication says nothing of the opinions expressed in the articles. Naturally, L'Unità, as the Italian Communist newspaper, gives a very negative account of the document. They are all witnesses to the simple fact of publication on 31 October 1986, and that is all that is stated. I also still do not understand how context can possibly be considered as casting doubt on the accuracy of John McNeill's statement about the date of publication. It is Allen's statements that context puts in doubt: he himself has described the book in which they appear as unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis (see his own words). And yet someone is still putting immense effort into presenting as incontrovertible truth Allen's evidently false statements (documents of that kind are never published on the date given as that of signature), and in trying to exclude from Wikipedia even a mention of documented facts that demonstrate the falsity of those statements. Esoglou (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While I await some explanation of the expressed opinion that it is original research to state that a book and several newspapers say Homosexualitatis problema was published on 31 October 1986, citing Internet-available texts of the book and the newspapers, I also ask User:BoboMeowCat and anyone else interested if there is any valid reason to exclude mention of Allen's own disavowal of his cited book - or indeed, since this disavowal means that Allen's book is not a wiki-reliable source, if there is any valid reason not to delete, as I have repeatedly suggested but never implemented, both Allen's isolated curious notion and the unanimous contrary declaration of all other sources that speak of the question.

Only a little extra effort is needed to add more books and newspapers that give the true date of publication. I have added a few. So, if Allen's statement is to be kept, the passage must be rephrased to read (of course with the citations given as footnotes, not as parentheses as here to facilitate immediate clicking):

In a book that he later described as unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis (John L. Allen, Jr., "Pondering the first draft of history", in National Catholic Reporter, 26 April 2005), John L. Allen, Jr. said that the letter, designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States" (John L. Allen, Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger (original title: Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith), A&C Black, p. 201). Several books give 31 October 1986, not 1 October 1986, as the date of publication (John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual (Beacon Press, 1993); same author, Freedom Glorious Freedom, p. 313; Donald Godfrey, Gays and Grays, Lexington Books 2008, p. 175; Howell Williams, Homosexuality and the American Catholic Church, p. 111); and newspapers of the time show that this was the date of publication both in Italian (L'Unità, 31 ottobre 1986; La Stampa, 31 ottobre 1986; La Repubblica, 31 ottobre 1986) and in English (The San Bernardino County Sun, 31 October 1986; The Times (London), 31 October 1986; New York Times, 31 October 1986; Chicago Sun-Times, 31 October 1986 (requires subscription)).

Isn't it much neater simply to omit Allen's unsupported and obviously mistaken notion? Esoglou (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm replying because I was pinged, but honestly, as someone not that familiar with the subject matter, I find much of your comment confusing. I find "newspaper records show" concerning because it's the wiki editors who have noticed the newspaper records indicate there is a contradiction in dates. I think we need a RS commentator doing that to explicitly say something like this on WP. I think when presenting the dates we need to avoid editorializing, and that we cannot lead readers to that contradiction explicitly, but perhaps we will get more input from OR noticeboard. I'm not familiar enough with the Allen source to give an opinion on the rest of your comment.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to know anything whatever about the subject, User:BoboMeowCat, to understand "The document was published on 31 October 1968", and to see whether the cited books (now increased from 1 to 4) and the cited newspapers (the English-language ones similarly increased from 1 to 4) say so. The phrase "newspaper records show", which for some reason troubles you, is gone. The proposed text just says that Allen says the document was published on 1 October 1968; and that certain books and certain newspapers say it was published on 31 October 1968. I don't see why the text should have to say, backed up by a reliable source, that there is a contradiction. The reader doesn't have to be told that. Nor do I see how Allen's later-disavowed statement must be treated as so privileged that no other statement about the date of publication is allowed to be given unless it makes mention of Allen's (wrong) idea. The newspapers obviously couldn't mention Allen's idea: they appeared immediately after publication of the document, years before Allen wrote the book that has a paragraph or two about the 1968 document. If you see that as an obstacle, let us mention first what every source except one says about the date of publication, and then perhaps, if you will allow it (and if it is really of sufficient weight), also give what Allen says.

In case what I have now written might give the impression that I am annoyed with you, I must say explicitly that, on the contrary, I am warmly grateful to you for discussing the matter, so that together we can clarify it. Your action contrasts with refusal to discuss. Besides, were it not for you, I would not have got around to searching for a surviving Internet record of that negative comment by Allen himself about his book, which I remembered him making, but I did not recall his exact words, and I had forgotten that he expressed himself quite so strongly. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be time to post in the article itself the revised text based also on additional reliable sources. I still think it would be better to omit Allen's self-disparaged statement, together with the much better-sourced statements about the date of publication of the article. But perhaps the ardent support for Allen's statement by at least one editor here persists. So I don't dare to remove it. Esoglou (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat:, I've removed the whole OR ramble over the date since there was never consensus for it anyway - if you think it's important to include the newspapers, is there a particular way you'd like to phrase it and add it back in? As I think I've mentioned in the past, I'm not picky about the date we say it was released on, I just want to eschew these deliberate in-article attempts to undermine a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. Do you accept that it is legitimate to state that four named and sourced books say that the document was published on 31 October 1968? (You make some unspecified objection to citing the newspapers but say nothing of the books, which surely are no less authoritative than a single book whose author has described it as unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis.) Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would explain why you use the term "reliable source" to speak of a book whose author called it, as I have said, unbalanced, ill-informed and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis, and if you would give your explanation either here or below at #Reliability of a certain solitary source. Esoglou (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So if you repeat a falsehood often enough will it become truth? Author John Allen does not in fact say that his book is unbalanced, ill-informed, or veering off. He says that if he had the chance to write it again it would better informed and balanced, with less veering. At no point does Allen say his discussion of the pastoral letter is problematic, which is really your point. So you have no support for your position. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is: How does it, as a single source (one too that its author say should be more balanced, better informed, and less inclined to veer off, compare with the several sources that contradict it? Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Let's keep discussion of Allen in this section. Isn't it possible that the 1 October date and the 31 October date are referring to different things? The same Linacre Quarterly article already cited in the article also gives 1 October [3]. No one's asking anyone else to deny the evidence of our eyes that the newspapers published the document on such and such a date - but, as I said, I don't care about which date in October anyway, so this is just of interest to you, hopefully. Gareth Moore, like Allen, also writes that the letter seems to have been written in English and translated into other languages, rather than the English being a translation as with other documents. [4] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not only possible but fact that the 1 October date and the 31 October date are referring to different things. 1 October was the date of finalization of the document, the date that the document bears. Then it was translated into various languages. (Most often, the real original is in Italian, the usual working language in the Vatican, and since translation from Italian into Latin takes longer than into a modern language, the Latin text is usually the last one completed.) When the texts in the various languages were finally approved, they were printed and distributed to the nunciatures. Then, a day or so before the actual publication at a late-morning press conference in Rome, the text was given under embargo to the press in the hope that their write-up about it, which they could publish at the exact hour of the official publication, would be an objective account, not rushed remarks on learning that something had been published. In the United States, the advance text was given to them in English. What else could you expect? But in France it was given in French, in Argentina and Spain in Spanish ... Then finally came the actual publication. In the noticeboard discussion, Bromley86 says that Allen's mistake should not even be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I have only asked that you would be so kind objective as to allow Wikipedia to state that other books said something different from what Allen said and that newspapers, both in English and in Italian, of 31 October 1986 gave as news, not as something that had occurred weeks before, information about the document's publication and quoted from it. But you have repeatedly deleted any such mention. You have done so yet again, instead of discussing the question.

By the way, you have badly misunderstood or misrepresented Gareth Moore. He did not make Allen's mistake of thinking that the document had been released in English "rather than Italian". He simply stated what has been often been remarked about such documents, that the modern-language versions sometimes differ somewhat from the official Latin text. As I already mentioned, the modern-language versions are most often not based on the Latin text. Esoglou (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Move?

I would like to open a discussion about changing the title of this article. Our WP:Article titles policy tells us to avoid titles containing "and". I don't yet have a suggestion for what the title should be ... I just know that we need to come up with a more appropriate title. So... let's discuss... suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded, I make a start by suggesting "Catholic teaching on homosexuality". Esoglou (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing the title of the article to what is currently a section heading has the disadvantage that other sections are liable to be perceived as "criticism sections". Since a whole series of articles might be seen as falling foul of this policy I suggest a centralised discussion at LGBT and religion topics. William Avery (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough... I have started a centralized discussion, as you have suggested. Would you please notify those who regularly edit in the related topic area? Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

William Avery's remark is interesting as perhaps indicating that the actual article is essentially about "Criticisms of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality", which may be a more exact and therefore a better title. I disagree with the idea that the place to discuss the question is at LGBT and religion topics. The question concerns more than that, being closely related to articles such as Catholic Church and abortion. A seemingly minimal change of title would be to "Catholic Church and homosexuality", for uniformity with the many article titles that begin: "Catholic Church and ..." But if, as William Avery's remark may hint, the article is essentially about homosexual views of the Catholic Church, rather than about Catholic teaching on homosexuality, it should then continue to be part of the perhaps even longer series of articles whose titles begin: "Homosexuality and ..." The choice of order is significant. Esoglou (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

All of which misses the point I am trying to make... X religion and homosexuality would have the exact same problem as Homosexuality and X religion. The problem is with using the word "and" as a way to link to two topics. A centralized discussion seems like a good idea, since there are multiple articles involved. I don't really care where that discussion takes place. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A wikiproject could be a good place, but since it looks like discussion already began at Talk:LGBT and religion topics, I've posted there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar about the disadvantage of "X and Y" articles, among other reasons because, as I said, of the significance of the choice of order. If what is in mind is a decision about what to do with "X and Y" articles in general, though with particular reference to this article, I disagree that LGBT and religion topics is the place for a definitive discussion on an issue that concerns more than LGBT and religion. If what is in mind is a decision about the title of this article alone, I think this is the place to discuss it. But if discussion at LGBT and religion topics turns up something suitable for here, I will be happy to learn of it. Esoglou (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Most other religions' articles seem to be titled "x and sexual orientation", which I would favor. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Otherstuffexists is never a good argument... yes, there are other articles that are titled "x and sexual orientation"... but the policy is that we shouldn't have such titles. Hence the need for a centralized discussion to figure out what their titles should be. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and though I mooted the idea of central discussion above, I have to admit that the combination dealt with on this page seems to have a rather special quality. William Avery (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of a certain solitary source

Can a book that its own author described as unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis be treated as a reliable source for a statement that other books contradict?

This query is in reference to the first paragraph in the section On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Allen merely said he would write the book better if given a second chance. That does not make his first edition an unreliable source for the very simple observation that a letter published in English appeared to be aimed at Americans, the obvious place to aim such a letter, a country where there are vocal homosexuals looking to win their basic human rights. Your tag is trivial. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He literally says that he wanted to write a preface explaining how wrong that he was and that he was sad that some of the books were reprinted without one. He is not just saying that he would have written it better. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, the contradiction is about the date of publication: 1 October 1986, says Allen; 31 October 1986, say all the others. As you put it, Allen "merely said" that, if given a second chance, he would write the book in a less unbalanced, less ill-informed way, tending less to veer off into judgement ahead of sober analysis. So then, is Allen's book, which he admitted was insufficiently balanced, insufficiently well-informed, and too inclined to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis, and which is contradicted by many other sources, reliable for the date of publication?

Allen also says Homosexualitatis problema was released in English rather than Italian. Reliable sources say it was released in English on 31 October 1986, and reliable sources say it was released in Italian on 31 October 1986. Is Allen's book, which he admitted was insufficiently balanced, insufficiently well-informed, and too inclined to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis, and which is contradicted by many other sources, reliable for the claim that it was released in English rather than Italian?

Those are the two points on which Allen is contradicted by reliable sources, which said nothing about the idea you preferred to veer off to, the idea that, because the United States is, you say, "a country where there are vocal homosexuals looking to win their basic human rights", the letter must have been aimed at that country.

So, User:Binksternet, is Allen's self-disparaged book a reliable source for the two statements on which he is contradicted by other sources? You have removed the question tag, but the question remains. It awaits an answer. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What part of reliable source do you not understand? The book by Allen is a suitable source for our use. Your attempt to diminish its reliability is puerile. In terms of importance, this is a non-issue. Leave it alone. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree, User:Binksternet, that the definition of reliable source applies to the following books for the statement that the document was published on 31 October 1986: book 1 (the text of the preface to the 4th edition is also given here); book 2, p. 313; book 3, p. 175; book 4, p. 111? Do you agree that the definition of reliable source applies to the following newspapers that give 31 October 1986 as the date of publication in Italian: L'Unità; La Stampa; La Repubblica? Do you agree that the definition of reliable source applies to the following newspapers that give 31 October 1986 as the date of publication of the document in English: The San Bernardino County Sun; The Times (London); New York Times Chicago Sun-Times? Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not having made it explicit from the start within this section that the question of the reliability of Allen's book was meant within the context of the on-going discussion of the correctness of the action by you, Binksternet, and by Roscelese in persistently deleting from Wikipedia any reference to sources that disagreed with Allen's claim, sources that I consider certainly reliable. But since you have not responded when I made the connection explicit, I have placed the question on the noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this, because I have no idea of the reliability of Allen's book as a whole. However, on the two specific points of (a) release date and (b) release of the English version ahead of any other, he appears to be mistaken. There wasn't much interest on the RSN, but, when I looked into it, it was clear to me that on ~31st newspapers in various countries reported on something new, which would not have been the case if it had been released on the 1st. Attempts to present both sides of the "argument" make the article look very clunky. I'd suggest just ignoring Allen on this point and making no reference to it in the article.

I'd suggest simply adding the correct date to the first sentence, first para and ditching the second sentence, first para. So:

On 31 October 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic Church entitled On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which gives instructions on how the clergy should deal with and respond to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

Personally, I wouldn't go for a wall-of-cites, so L' Unita & Chicago Sun Times should be fine.

Anyone wanting to argue that this document was actually published in the USA (or in English anywhere else) on the 1st really needs to explain why it was reported, in the USA, as being released on the 31st. Better yet would be a cite to a report dated the 1st. Bromley86 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bromley86 that Allen's reliability on this point seems questionable, and that attempting to present both sides makes the article look clunky. Seems simpler to just leave it out. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your edit of the first sentence is fine, but disagree with the proposal to remove the second sentence. Why not simply remove "1 October 1986" from the second sentence? Insufficiently precise diction re: the date doesn't make the entire book inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a diction issue, it's a fact issue. That doesn't invalidate the book, to my mind, but it does invalidate anything he has to say on the release date. Thus, there are elements of the second sentence that need to be cut. So:

Designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, writes John L. Allen, Jr., - Fine.

the letter was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States". - Factually incorrect, needs cutting.

The reason why I suggested cutting the whole second sentence, rather than just the 2nd half, was that I felt the rest of the section sufficiently addressed it. On that I was wrong; the rest of the section doesn't mention the Persona Humana and doesn't mention the rise of sympathy for homosexuals in the public and within the church.

So, something like this (I'd put Allen's name in the cite, but it's fine if you want it in the text): It was designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and was prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy. Bromley86 (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't care about the release date. Allen isn't the only source pointing out that the English version seems to be the original, though, ([5]) which was one of the facts I was trying to avoid losing. Is there another way you would suggest phrasing that information? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What Roscelese calls one of the facts she was trying to avoid losing is not a fact. Allen does not say that the English version seems to be the original: that is an original-research interpretation. Allen says the document was released in English rather than in Italian. For him, it was. Not for journalists in other countries. Its release was given as news in English by the United States and English media on the day that it was given as news in Italian in Italy, as news in Latin on L'Osservatore Romano, as News in Spanish in Spain, ... Allen doesn't actually deny this. The second source that was referred to says the English version gives the impression of being original more than the Latin. The exact same could be said of the Italian version, the French version ... That source does not say "the letter was released in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States".

Bromley86's version of 16:42 today is objective. It was not objective, but POV, to insert Allen's statement about release in English "rather than Italian", stripped of the contradictory evidence, together with a speculative remark of Allen's that he based on no more than that amply contradicted statement. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note 11? Too weak, I'm afraid. He doesn't say that it was released first, only that he has a "strong impression". Anyway, even if he's right, I can't see any benefit of saying that it was written in English; clearly, it was written in one language, which may have been English (although, given where it was penned, Italian or Latin might seem more likely, but perhaps English is more widely used in the Vatican than I assumed), before being translated into the others. Bromley86 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Italian is the main working language" (source). Naturally. Esoglou (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you consider including it if phrased as speculation by authors A and B? Since they're both reliable sources, even a speculation that it was written in a different language from the one these documents are usually in may be worth including. (There are also other sources that say so, but in order to be extra careful, I haven't bothered pulling out any sources that refer to Allen's book in any context, even if they do not cite it for this.) Hm, I do find other sources in searching more: the same statement is in Nugent & Gramick's Building Bridges (not as academic as the others, but they were obviously very close to the issue) and in a work by Elizabeth Stuart (it's cited/attributed in another RS but it's snippet view so I haven't found out which work of hers it is), who says English-speaking countries. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Moore's point seems very (inexplicably) Anglocentric; assuming, as Esoglou notes and as common sense might dictate, that the working language is Italian, he should be comparing the English version to the Italian. If there were discrepancies there, then maybe his point could be developed (although this is moot, because no one has suggested that there is any difference between the living-language versions). Even then though, he makes no case that there's any effect that comes out of it being translated from a living to a dead language rather than v.v. I've made my case on the Allen point - no need to note a source if it's unreliable (on this one point; I'm not making a case that Allen is otherwise unreliable).

Regarding Nugent & Gramick, I can't see the whole text, but if you can supply a quote I should be able to see some of the context here. Can't comment on Stuart.

In summary though, I just don't see the need for it. The one person who actually states that it was aimed at a particular audience (in his case, via the English language release date) has been shown to be factually wrong. Bromley86 (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

From Nugent and Gramick: "The fact that the letter was written in English, and not in Latin or Italian, led many analysts and commentators to believe that it was directed to the English speaking countries, particularly the United States. They further maintained that it was an attempt to halt the pastoral, theological, and even episcopal developments taking place in the United States." This, it turns out, references Gramick and Nugent 1988 (The Vatican and homosexuality: reactions to the "Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons"), the authors' earlier work on the subject which goes into more detail. "Unlike most other Vatican statements, the original version of the letter on homosexuality was written in English. This is not surprising since it is generally thought that the target audience for the letter was the U.S. Catholic Church. It is this Church which more than any other has devoted a significant amount of energy to developing both the pastoral and the theological aspects of the topic of homosexuality. According to some observers familiar with Roman documents, the Vatican letter evidences a style and phraseology which distinguish it from previous Roman documents. Some commentators have also suggested that the letter or an initial draft might have originated in the United States (the St. Ignatius Institute in San Francisco has been mentioned) or at least been the work of a North American member of the Roman Curia." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And Stuart, cited: "Elizabeth Stuart remarks that since the Letter was written in English and not in Latin or Italian, it was addressed primarily to the English-speaking countries, which were felt to have gone too far in their tolerant attitude towards homosexuals." Because of snippet view I'm not able to see if any more of Stuart's observations are mentioned, but the work cited is Chosen: Gay Catholic priests tell their stories. This is also in snippet view! I can confirm that she says this, but I don't see that she goes into more detail than that about the original language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This shows that Allen, though inaccurate, can be said not to be a solitary source. Admittedly, he is solitary in his claim that Homosexualitatis problema was released in English rather than in Italian: the news of its publication appeared simultaneously in Italian and in English and, if this particular claim of his is put in Wikipedia, it must be attributed to him and be accompanied by the evidence against it. But Allen has good company on what he says about the probably chief destination of Homosexualitatis problema, although Allen presents the idea as a conclusion to draw from a false premiss. Good evidence has now been presented for believing that Homosexualitatis problema was originally written in English (although released in several languages simultaneously). That provides much better grounds than what Allen gave for taking it that Homosexualitatis problema was issued with an eye particularly on the United States. The original drafts of documents of the Holy See are indeed sometimes in a language other than Italian. It is well known, for instance, that the original draft for Pope Paul VI's Populorum progressio was written in French by Paul Poupard. It was joked that, in the pope's signature to the document, "Paulus PP. VI", the "PP" stood for "Paul Poupard", and it was also amusingly said that the Latin translation (and sole official text) chose as the document's incipit "Populorum progressio" because its initial letters correspond to those of "Paul Poupard". Esoglou (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved! More than sensible to include the point now. Gramick in The Vatican and homosexuality is by far the most comprehensive, so let's use that (the language is likely also more accurate as I doubt that the various assertions have ever been officially confirmed). Bromley86 (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have wording in mind, or should we adapt the previous version of the text in the article? I think that based on the observations of Gramick, Nugent, and Stuart, we can simply put the information in our own words and remove the attribution to John Allen, making the sentence "Designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, the letter was aimed at the United States and originally written in English." Possibly adding the speculation that it was written in the USA, if you think it's useful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, but slightly too assertive, and does mentioning that it may have been written in English add anything, especially to the average reader? I'd also avoid mention of the possible US connection re. the drafting; it's enough that we draw attention to the likely targeting, the drafting process is really part of the evidence that supports that statement (which we don't need to provide). I'd suggest the below (or anything similar):

Designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy,<Allen> it is generally thought that the letter was aimed at the Church in the United States.<TVaH>

BTW, Stuart is imprecise to say "the English-speaking countries". Sure, I understand that they mean Western English-speaking countries, but Nigeria has four times the Catholics that the UK does and (admittedly this is an assumption) I doubt anyone was overly concerned that they were soft on homosexuals. So I'd suggest that we stick with what Gramick/Nugent say in The Vatican and Homosexuality and retain the US-targeting (as you do). Bromley86 (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree about Stuart's imprecision (and would not suggest using her wording) and am fine with your text. Although I do think the language of its drafting is relevant and interesting, especially if we consider it appropriate to include the possibility that it was written in the US/by Americans, you're right that it also is evidence to back up the statement we make about its being aimed at the US. You've got a dangling participle though, can we write "the letter was aimed, it is generally thought, at the church in the US"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese's grammatical correction is good.

The proposed text needs revision to rid it of the suggestion that the Catholic Church does not tolerate homosexual orientation! To avoid any reflex rejection of a proposal by me, I leave it to Bromley86 to adjust the text. It should not be difficult. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you might have to. From what I can see of the edit history, I think you're talking about a preference for attributing this to Allen (John L. Allen, Jr. says the letter was . . .). I don't see a need for that - this is an introductory paragraph, so surely we can summarise the intent of the document without reference to one person's work?

Aside from which, this article will end up in permanent protection, or someone will be blocked, if you two can't manage to tolerate each other. Bromley86 (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not talking about attribution. Saying that the Church merely "tolerates" homosexual orientation, as distinct from homosexual activity, does not accord with, for instance, the language of CCC 2358 (as distinct from CCC 2357). Worse, the phrase "designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation" even suggests that the Church may not even "tolerate" homosexual orientation! As far as I know, Allen said nothing so strange. Am I wrong? You can surely summarize the intent of the document better than that. I would indicate the place, early in the document, where it indicates its intent, but again I am afraid of Roscelese's lack of tolerance of me and of what I say. I am sorry she is saying: "I'm not talking to you any more." I have no difficulty in tolerating her. On the contrary. Somewhere she has said that I "admit" trying to attract her attention. I have been appealing for it. But she continues to play hard to get. So, unless you greatly surprise me by being unable to summarize the intent of the document better than by speaking of "tolerance" of homosexual orientation, I still think it better to leave it to you to fix. Esoglou (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be careful with the use of "tolerate".

I'm still reluctant about Allen because he latter admitted that his works were in error and that they were written with a political motivation.

I could give rewriting the text a shot. Padresfan94 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of other editors' work

Unless I am mistaken, the work of Jodosma, CHelvetica, and BoboMeowCat has been deleted without explanation, first by Roscelese and then again by Binksternet. Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a point or problem with those edits, or are you just stirring the shit pot? Because you aren't saying anything, and as those edits all had summaries, you still managed to be incorrect. Dennis - 2¢ 19:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:Dennis Brown, I did think (and still think) that Roscelese was not referring to those editors in her edit summary:

"I made a post on the talk page" != "I succeeded in gaining consensus for my new additions" - that's not how WP:BRD works. Instead, gain consensus for your changes by suggesting things that aren't ludicrous POV original research. Also rmv blog links.

Accordingly, I restored the edits made by those three editors, but not my own edit, which is what I thought Roscelese was referring to. I thought I was doing them a favour, while not insisting on immediate restoration of my own work, against which I thought Roscelese was reacting, and which I expected to be able to restore later in modified form after presenting it next morning for calmer discussion away from here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

I apologize for a mistyping late (for me) that night and moreover, even if, after all, I was not wrong in thinking what I thought, I apologize too for provoking you into using that language. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring without discussion

With this edit Roscelese has once again inserted her claim that the letter Homosexualitatis problema said that, "as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation", still without using discussion to try to gain consensus for her claim.

She cites generically the primary source, but refuses to indicate on what phrase she bases her claim that the document says that a person's homosexual tendency in no way diminishes the culpability of that person's homosexual activity.

She cites in support of that claim of hers even a source that actually states the contrary: "the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions"! Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

With this edit Roscelese has again edit-warred back to the text that she will not discuss, and has moreover marked her doing so as a minor edit. Esoglou (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With this edit she has done it again. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Repeated reverting without discussing. Esoglou (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I again appeal to Roscelese to discuss the matter and explain

a) how she can interpret as a denial of the possibility of any reduction of culpability a statement that, while rejecting the assumption that homosexual tendency always totally remove culpability, expressly states that circumstances may '"reduce or remove culpability"!

b) how she can justify once again inserting this strange interpretation, for which she has never obtained consensus, instead of discussing the matter, which has been raised here and, below, at #Mitigation of a homosexual's culpability for homosexual acts

c) how she can present as supporting her interpretation the statement by a reliable secondary source: "The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy: kleptomania is a persistent psychological impulse to steal even in the absence of economic need. Now, no one makes himself a kleptomaniac, and no one really wants to be one. Also, the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions." Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information

With this edit Roscelese has deleted information that Jeanine Deckers never admitted being a homosexual. This is stated in a book that, while admitting she had not examined it, Roscelese declared to be "a low-quality source anyway". For this view she won no support whatever on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, where it drew the response that the book had a reliable publisher and: "It's even got mainstream media coverage that describes it favorably as a curated collection of stories of 'provocateurs'." No source, reliable or unreliable, has been cited as contradicting the statement that Deckers never admitted being a homosexual. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

With this edit Roscelese has again edit-warred back to the text that she will not discuss, and has moreover marked her doing so as a minor edit. Esoglou (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

With this edit she has done it again. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think someone should investigate/report her for inappropriate use of the rollback function, something I have warned her before about. Of course nobody will do anything about it, since they let her walk all over WP violating rules like 1rr, this one etc. and very rarely do anything about it. The fact that a report against her went "stale" is very telling.Marauder40 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Repeated reverting without discussing. Esoglou (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marauder40: FYI: I have raised the subject with the editor. m.o.p 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also thanks for stepping in this article has been painful to watch.Marauder40 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Full protection (again)

Roscelese mentioned that some oversight might be helpful here. I should note that I'm offering to act as a mediator in a solely-unofficial capacity. If anybody would like to seek a more structured form of dispute resolution, please see here. Since Thanksgiving is short, I have work to do, and I'd like to help resolve this in an expedient fashion - can anyone briefly summarize the dispute? No unnecessary finger pointing, please. m.o.p 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The current dispute centers on whether:

1. John Allen's statement re: the release date and language of Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons should be omitted, or instead included but accompanied by the statement that his book is "unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis" and a number of other sources giving a different date;

2. the letter's statement about the culpability of homosexuality should be summarized as "as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation" or as "circumstances can diminish or eliminate or also augment an individual's culpability;

3. a claim contradicting other sources' statement about Jeanine Deckers' sexual orientation can be cited to an inaccessible source and to another source which doesn't mention her sexual orientation.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First a reply to Roscelese. Thank you for discussing.

1. The edits that you reverted have not been including the statement that his book is "unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis". As long as Allen's statement remained that the document the document was released in English rather than Italian and that this alleged fact suggested the document was meant for the United States, there was every reason to include also the sources that gave one and the same date for the publication in English and Italian (and in various other languages).

2. Correct. Now why not quote the words of the primary source on which you base your interpretation, and explain how the cited secondary source contradicts your interpretation?

3. WP:YESPOV. Neither source is inaccessible. The Wikipedian who disagreed with you on the noticeboard had no difficulty in accessing it and in addition finding that other sources cite it as reliable. The other source states that this former nun was living a chaste life, which is not without relevance in connection with the statement you were putting in, not as a report, but in Wikipedia's voice, that she was in a homosexual relationship. Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Now for my reply to Master of Puppets.

Thank you for your offer to help. The dispute, as Roscelese says, is about three passages. I hope the following is helpful. It is too late in the day for me to try to improve it. Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mitigation of a homosexual's culpability for homosexual acts

As indicated above, Roscelese wishes Wikipedia to say that the document Homosexualitatis problema states that, "as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation". She will not say what are the words of the document on which she bases her claim, and I deny that the document says that. Roscelese objects to exact quotations and insists on paraphrases, which I accept to please her, as long as the paraphrases adhere to the text of the document. So I give a close account of what is actually in the document, and in addition give a secondary source which expressly speaks of mitigation of culpability. Roscelese strangely has kept the reference to that secondary source in her own text.

My text is:

The letter rejects the idea that homosexual activity is always totally compulsive and therefore inculpable for a homosexual person, while it also states that circumstances can diminish or eliminate or also augment an individual's culpability. Homosexualitatis problema, 11 and Robert J. Dempsey, "The Catholic Church's Teaching about Same-Sex Marriage" in The Linacre Quarterly, vol 75 (2008), p. 77 Robert J. Dempsey interprets the Congregation as saying of the effect of a homosexual tendency on an individual's culpability what can be said also of the effect of a kleptomaniac tendency on a person's culpability for his stealing. Robert J. Dempsey, "The Catholic Church's Teaching about Same-Sex Marriage" in The Linacre Quarterly, vol 75 (2008), p. 77

Roscelese's text is:

The letter said that, as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation Homosexualitatis problema and Robert J. Dempsey, "The Catholic Church's Teaching about Same-Sex Marriage" in The Linacre Quarterly, vol 75 (2008), p. 77 Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, below, has said: "I don't think there's any disagreement as to what the source says - we can all see perfectly well that the letter denies, and that the secondary source indicates it denying, that the fact of being gay removes culpability for homosexuality, because the individual still has the choice to behave or not to behave in a manner the church considers wrong (this is in section 11)." The whole disagreement is precisely about her claim that the document denies that the fact of being gay "does not mitigate" culpability for homosexual activity. What the document denies is that the activity is always and totally inculpable. It does not deny that the activity may sometimes be inculpable. It does not deny that the activity may be partly inculpable because of the tendency. On the contrary, it explicitly states that "in a given instance" (though not always) circumstances reduce culpability (i.e., make the action not totally, but only partly culpable) or remove culpability (i.e., make the action completely inculpable). That, surely, is what "we can all (except Roscelese) see perfectly well". It is what is perfectly well seen also by the cited secondary source, which says the document's presentation of the homosexual tendency can be compared to the tendency of kleptomania, which diminishes the kleptomaniac's culpability but does not make stealing licit.

Here is the text of section 11, in which I have bolded what I think is most essential, inviting Roscelese to bold whatever else she thinks is most essential:

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. 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 in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deckers

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she is reported to have begun a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher.Reference: Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. p. 204. She herself never admitted being a homosexual,Thierry Ardisson, Cyril Drouhet, Joseph Vebret, Dictionnaire des provocateurs (EDI8 - PLON, 2010, ISBN 978-2-25921285-4) and she was said to be maintaining a chaste life.Gordy, Margaret (8 February 1979). "'Singing Nun' makes comeback". Youngstown Daily Vindicator. Retrieved 14 November 2014.

of which Roscelese will only allow:

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she began a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher. Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. p. 204.

The question has already been raised above and elsewhere Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, below, repeats that she cannot access this source. I can. So can User:0x0077BE, as stated here. Can Master of Puppets access it? Here, for Roscelese's benefit, is what the book says: "À la fin de l'année 1964, retournée à la vie civile, elle [Jeanine Deckers] retrouve Annie Pécher, une amie d'adolescence. L'amour de sa vie aussi, même si elle n'avouera jamais son homosexualité" (emphasis added). Surely a reliable source for "She herself never admitted being a homosexual." (I leave aside the web-based, rather than printed, sources that say this, and that even speak of a mother-daughter relationship between the two, sources that the editors of the French Wikipedia see no difficulty about citing.)

Roscelese, below, also repeats her opinion that it is not allowable in this context to report that a reliable source says that this ex-nun was living a chaste life, on the grounds that the cited source says nothing of homosexuality in her regard (but of course not, if it believed she was living a chaste life) and does not mention her alleged homosexual partner (but of course not, if it believed she was living a chaste life). I beg to differ. I don't think that reports that anybody had an extramarital sexual relationship of any kind should make it impossible in Wikipedia to mention reports that speak of that person's chaste lifestyle. One might as well claim that reports (as here) that a person was living chastely exclude from mention in Wikipedia reports of sexual misbehaviour by that person. WP:YESPOV.

Roscelese has not (yet?) defended her stating in Wikipedia's voice that Deckers was in fact in a homosexual relationship. This is surely a request for a simple straightforward uncontroversial modification. Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have struck out the remark about sources (such as this) comparing the relationship between the two to a mother-daughter relationship, since Roscelese seems to want to provoke a side-issue discussion about something that is not in either version that the dispute is about. Esoglou (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Claim that Homosexualitatis problema was published first in English and consequent surmise

Roscelese has been repeatedly reverting back to this text:

In October 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic Church entitled On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which gives instructions on how the clergy should deal with and respond to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Siker, Jeffrey S. (2007). Homosexuality And Religion: An Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p. 163. Designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy, writes John L. Allen, Jr., the letter was released on 1 October 1986 "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States". John L. Allen, Benedict XVI: A Biography, Continuum, 2005{rp|201}}

She has refused to allow any mention to be made of the evidence that 31 October 1986 (Rome time) was the date of the publication both in English and Italian (and in Latin and in Spanish ...) The evidence for that is summed up here.

Today an advance has been made, and I congratulate her for giving heed on this point to what others say. Her latest provisional text is:

In October 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter addressed to all the bishops of the Catholic Church entitled On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which gives instructions on how the clergy should deal with and respond to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Siker, Jeffrey S. (2007). Homosexuality And Religion: An Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. p. 163. It was designed to remove any ambiguity about tolerance of homosexual orientation proceeding from the 1975 document Persona Humana and was prompted by the growing influence of gay-accepting groups and clergy.' John L. Allen, Benedict XVI: A Biography, Continuum, 2005

I would be happy with this, if there were not the threat to restore something like the previous text, still with no mention of the contradictory evidence; and I would also ask that what Allen says should be attributed to him and not put in Wikipedia's voice, in view of the fact that Allen himself has admitted that the cited book had correctly been called "Manichean journalism" and has also declared: "If I were to write the book again today, I'm sure it would be more balanced, better informed, and less prone to veer off into judgment ahead of sober analysis." (source). That does not have to be quoted in the article, but it is an element to consider in view of WP:WEIGHT. Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, below, has not said whether she intends to restore, as incontrovertible fact, her claim that Homosexualitatis problema was published first in English and must therefore have been intended for the United States. If she doesn't restore it in that form, the problem is gone. There remains my request that what Allen is now cited for be attributed to him and not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. "When in doubt, attribute" is surely a good rule of thumb. Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

Thank you both for providing a broken-down representation of the conflict.

A crux of the point seems to be a disagreement on what the cited text says. Experience dictates that, in a situation like this, we agree to pull complete quotes from the material for any contentious section - that way, we provide both adequate attribution and there is no concern about biased paraphrasing. Would this be an acceptable solution when it comes to quotations?

@Roscelese: You're welcome to give me your side of things in reply to Esoglou's above text. Do you feel they're adequately representing your concerns? m.o.p 02:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For the culpability thing? I don't think there's any disagreement as to what the source says - we can all see perfectly well that the letter denies, and that the secondary source indicates it denying, that the fact of being gay removes culpability for homosexuality, because the individual still has the choice to behave or not to behave in a manner the church considers wrong (this is in section 11). The question is whether we should also be rambling on about how some vague unidentified circumstances could mitigate culpability and some other vague unidentified circumstances could aggravate it, when the only circumstances identified in the document are those of the individual's sexual orientation. There's no reason to include this hedging and waffling solely for the purpose of including more text from the document, which is a persistent goal of editors on this page who see the opportunity to use WP as a free PR venue for the church. Which gets at the quotation issue; in cases where a paraphrase could be ambiguous or where the wording itself is important I've been happy to retain quotations, but there's no ambiguity here and the document is worded in such a way that a quotation would require us to use at least three sentences when a one-sentence paraphrase is perfectly adequate for accuracy and weight.

I'll keep the rest of my comment brief, since I have no interest in what Esoglou has to say and am basically summing up what I've said elsewhere on this page in a short and easy form for the sake of mediation. For the publication date, I am and have always been indifferent as to what date we say; I'm trying to avoid the deliberate in-text undermining of a reliable source through misrepresentation and synth. The language issue is one I'm talking about with Bromley up-page and I'm sure we'll come to a satisfactory result one way or another. For Deckers, I'd like someone who doesn't have a history of misrepresenting sources to push an agenda to confirm the Dictionnaire des provocateurs claim, since I can't access it, but the Daily Vindicator source, which doesn't mention her sexual orientation or her female partner at all, is not admissible as a counterpoint to the claim that she did have one - WP:OR again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The basic difficulty is, as Roscelese herself says, that she has "no interest in what Esoglou has to say". At present the article is full of one-sidedly POV edits introduced by her, not singly but many at a time. I have taken to raising problems in her text one at a time, with intervals of a week or more, in the hope of getting her, if not to accept my corrections one at a time (doubtless too much to hope for), at least to discuss what I have to say about the problems one at a time, instead of continuing, with no discussion other than an edit summary often in the form of a personal insult, to blanket-revert all edits by other editors. Even when these three points are settled, one way or another, many more points remain that have already been explicitly disputed in the past, and I hope to live to get perhaps even to the last of them progressively, one at a time. Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou has hit on the crux of this matter. The fact is that the current dispute is only a symptom. This article has long been a WP:BATTLEGROUND for two factions who have been in a protracted cycle of fruitless discussion and edit-wars. Personally I feel that Roscelese is on the wrong side of policy here, however her faction has been much more effective in edit-warring to push their preferred versions in, as can especially be seen right now as WP:The wrong version has been full-protected. If Master of Puppets really wants to help this dispute, he will address with a wider view the problems that have long been festering here and in other Catholic/LGBT/abortion-related articles where Roscelese and Esoglou have been clashing for, what, years? with no good results evident. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that the block has expired, what do we do? Back to reverting and counter-reverting (in the opposite order in this case)?

Roscelese's call to another editor to join her has alerted me to the expiry. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So, here we go again. But I have raised the question again at WP:ANI. Perhaps this time the result with be something more than an agreement about one of the three passages by all except Roscelese, who then proceeds to ignore the agreement and to edit in line with her own ideas. Esoglou (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-protected before there's further edit warring. m.o.p 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Further on Deckers

I have no dog in this hunt, as my non-history (other than one point via the RSN) of editing on homosexual or RC articles should confirm.

On the subject of Dictionnaire des provocateurs, it appears to be a reliable source to me; it also has a multi-page section on Jeanine Deckers. I'd suggest that it's more reliable than The Age micro-cite used to support her lesbianism in her The Singing Nun article. Likewise, there's less depth to the From Abba to Zoom cite than the Dictionnaire des provocateurs. The God's Continent cite looks more serious to me, although again it only mentions her in passing; it has been misrepresented in TSN article to say that she was a lesbian, as it (accurately) says "probably lived in a lesbian relationship." The final cite used is another junk fun-facts publication where the finer details of sexuality will not be considered.

This cite is used in her article, but not for her lesbian status. It's far more detailed than the 4 cites used to support her sexuality. It's a 1.3 page bio, from a bio dictionary dedicated to Belgians. My French is rusty, and it's not possible to run it through a machine translator, but I can see no mention of lesbian or homosexual (it twice calls Annie Pécher "sa compagne", which is companion, not lover).

This seems open and shut to me; she was very likely homosexual, whether she physically acted on those impulses or not. However, it's certainly worth noting that she appears never to have openly acknowledged that. I suppose there's an argument that people didn't (assuming they didn't) in the mid-80s, but as we have a reliable source saying it, in it goes.

In the absence of a much stronger source, ideally from her, saying that she was lesbian, I think Esoglou's approach is preferable. I would advise, both here an in the TSN article, that the various junk cites are replaced with more reliable ones. I'd favour the God's Continent, which seems to be the most serious of the English-language ones, and the Dictionnaire des provocateurs. Bromley86 (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Quick addendum. The Vindicator article is irrelevant to her sexual preferences (as it doesn't mention them), but it seems fair to include it here as an explanation of her sexual practices. It's from an interview with her and she describes herself as chaste on a date that would be halfway through her "relationship" with her companion/lover. This is relevant. Bromley86 (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to access Chadwick's The Singing Nun Story: The Life and Death of Soeur Sourire, which would seem to be a sensible source to use. Unfortunately, no online copy. I did see this review, which is of course not usable in the article, but which seems well written and which might be of use here to see how Chadwick presents the issue. From that review, "She and Pécher were constantly being “accused” of being lesbians, although Deckers swore they were platonic friends. Whatever form their relationship took, their lifelong partnership and deep love for each other is rare—rare indeed. The troubled Deckers probably wouldn’t have lasted as long as she did without her devoted Annie." Bromley86 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll shut up in a minute. Chadwick's blog:Yet, it is another fictionalized account of her life and is based on the assumption that Deckers and her companion of 25 years, Annie Pecher, were lovers. The beauty of writing fiction is that one does not have to be burdoned by the facts. In Music from the Soul: The Singing Nun Story we tried to present a clear picture without too much speculation. The only two people who know the reality of their relationship are dead. I certainly do not argue that the two women loved each other and were very devoted, but they cannot speak for themselves and it is not up to any of us to “out” either one of them. As far as Jeannine was concerned, she never really stopped being a nun even after leaving Fichermont. It should be remembered that Jeannine and Annie took vows of celibacy not required by the laity, so in my view it is disrespectful to assume that they broke those vows. . . When she tried to get help for psychological problems it lead to a dependency on prescription drugs and her intense struggle with her sexuality is one in which many can identify. Bromley86 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I pointed this out on the Singing Nun talkpage, but information about her relationship with Pécher is copiously sourced and appears to be common knowledge; I do speak French, by the way, and "compagne" is absolutely used for a female romantic partner/life partner. (Its English equivalent, "companion", is falling out of use in favor of "partner" and with the advent of SSM, but it's also not uncommon.) Now that a quotation from the Dictionnaire des provocateurs has been presented, I think we can consider including the bit about her remaining in the closet, but since it states that Pécher was the love of her life, it's not really a strong source against the idea that she was gay, you know? As for the rest, that kind of user-generated content (the comment on Authorsden) isn't considered a reliable source. Likewise I'm not sure why we would even be bothering to cite a source that the author admits is fiction. So I think we can ignore those and rely on reliable sources only. With the Vindicator source, I can see what you're saying about its irrelevance to her sexual orientation, but even as far as practice, but that's a statement that, while potentially useful in an article on Deckers, can only be used here through original synthesis. Maybe by "vow of chastity" the article author (because it's not Deckers's own words) means that she does not live with a man. We don't know what implications the article has for her lesbian relationship because it simply does not mention it at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It may be common knowledge and copiously sourced, but as I've pointed out the sources currently used are either sub-par, compared to other the sources I mentioned, or are misquoted.

I don't speak French, but a dictionary would indicate that it can mean either partner or companion.[6][7][8][9] You may be correct though; I wouldn't know. What's the French word for two female, non-lesbian, non-sexual, live-in companions?

I don't blame you missing it, as that was a wall of text, but you've got entirely the wrong end of the stick over Chadwick. We can't ignore someone who has written a bio on her (it's reffed in the Further Reading section of TSN article). He was referring to someone else's work in that first sentence re. fiction; in terms of reliability, it absolutely trumps pop-culture-type references. I merely mentioned the review as something that would help us to see where he was coming from; it was superseded by his own words on his blog.

We disagree on the Vindicator source. It's an interview with the subject published in a reliable source. I.e, quote marks or not, it's her own words. By the use of the word chastity, the obvious meaning is sexual abstinence. Or is there a work-around that allows someone to be chaste, whether a nun or a civilian, whilst having sexual relations with a woman? If we're talking about famous homosexual ex-nun Catholics, whether they consummate, for want of a better expression, is IMO relevant.

Finally, I don't think she belongs here. Yes, she was famous. Yes, she was (I assume, given that she "still considers herself a nun") Catholic. She probably was a lesbian. But there's enough evidence that she may not have been to make me think she should be excluded from here. Is there really such a paucity of notable homosexual Catholics that we need to scrape the barrel? What about Warhol, for example? Bromley86 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, seems Warhol was a Ruthenian Catholic. Bromley86 (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That would not exclude him from the scope of this article. Ruthenians are in communion with Rome. They are members of the Catholic Church; while many of them will say they are not Roman Catholic, they mean they are not members of the Latin Church. There is no article about Homosexuality and Eastern Catholicism, so Warhol would fit here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you check out the sources I listed on the talk page? They are definitely superior to these other sources.

The point I'm trying to make about "compagne" isn't that it definitively indicates that Pécher was a romantic partner, but rather that neither it nor "amie" (friend, but also girlfriend) can be used to prove that she wasn't, because of how words work.

Okay, I misinterpreted the situation with Chadwick. However, looking further actually makes the situation even worse; Chadwick admits that she did not have access to any of Deckers's personal documents and is a novice at the French language, her book is published through a pay-to-publish agency with no editorial oversight, and her site is full of rants and conspiracy theories. Let's abandon this train of thought and focus on the reliable sources.

I strongly disagree that we can assume anything in the author's voice is merely a paraphrase of Deckers's own words. The article, again, does not mention Pécher at all, and it seems extremely improbable that this statement means "she's in a relationship, but not having sex" as opposed to "she's not in a relationship with a man," which would be a perfectly logical definition of "chastity" to many for whom female homosexuality does not cross their radar. If we are interested in whether or not she was actually having sex with Pécher, we need to find a source that actually mentions Pécher, instead of making original-research assumptions based on sources that do not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

PS. while I started this section, I didn't add Deckers; I think User:Contaldo80 added her in the interest of gender balance, since we already named a bunch of male writers? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources. (a) Sauvat (Sœur Sourire) - per French WP, this says they did have sex. But no link, and the French WP presents dissenting positions. Have you read it? (b) Ollivier - couldn't find what this refers to, but it seems it may be fictionalised. (c) The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars - junk ref; it'll just say what tabloids say. The "probably" book from OUP is God's Continent, which deals with this correctly (if exceedingly briefly). The key here is the Sauvat one and on what she bases (assuming she does) her mention of them having sex.

Compagne. If someone says companion, but not lover, then that's because they don't want (for whatever reason) to be definitive about it.

Chadwick. Okay, the self-pub invalidates her book as a source. She, apparently, now translates French as a career, so not a novice at that. You should also note that, again apparently, no one other than Maddelein had access to Decker's personal documents, so the same brush can be used to tar every cite we have.

We can't ignore interviews with her where she talks about elements of her sexuality. The simplest interpretation is that the report says what she said and that she abstained from sexual relations (of any sort, at that time, and if she wasn't lying). Bromley86 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we'd be considering fr.wiki's account of a mother-daughter relationship over Sauvat's when fr.wiki doesn't even provide a citation for the former claim. Sauvat may be inaccessible, but it verifiably says (I say this because I doubt the blurb contradicts the book) they were romantically involved and it's a better source than some Wiki editor. (In fact, since I'm reminded that I do have an account on fr.wiki, I think I will go remove that uncited and apparently uncitable claim.) Ollivier is fictionalized, yes, so I wouldn't want to rely on it. Simmonds (Dead Rock Stars) has a stupid title, but it's from a publisher that we'd probably consider reliable for any other biographical claim for a deceased individual and it's cited all over WP. Would you want to pursue Sauvat's book through resource request, or use it to source Deckers's relationship with Pécher without stating whether or not it was sexual? I personally see little reason to find a source to affirm that it was sexual since we don't currently have any reliable sources denying it - although if we still disagree on how to handle the author's interpretation of her "vow of chastity", we might either pursue another opinion, or see what Sauvat has to say (fr.wiki says that her biography has Deckers and Pécher consummating their relationship after some years living together, so this could have been later). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The side issues to which Roscelese is trying to divert attention are easily dealt with. Nobody is saying the French Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia-reliable source. It is only an additional indication that Wikipedia doesn't have to present one view as the only one, indeed to present it as undisputed fact, as Roscelese so often, and here too, insists on Wikipedia doing, in spite of WP:YESPOV. Bromley86 has pointed to weaknesses in the sources that Roscelese would cite. Roscelese is free to point to weaknesses in the sources that Bromley86 would cite. There are self-confessed weaknesses in Allen's book about Ratzinger, but nobody has said that that book should not be cited – only that, in Wikipedia, mention is also permitted of evidence that disagrees with some point in the book. There is no justification for stating in Wikipedia's voice that Deckers and Pécher were lesbian sexual partners, with no suggestion that anyone doubts that statement, as Roscelese has in her edit-warring been insisting. This, the point the dispute is about, is indicated above, where Roscelese refuses to discuss it, preferring to talk instead about side issues. Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that Olliver is fictionalised, so of course we won't be using it!

I'm not suggesting we reproduce the French wiki's (unsourced) text. Regarding Sauvat, I'd be extremely concerned about using it unseen. It was added to the French WP by an editor who, thoughtfully, said that they were adding it from memory.[10] I.e. it's likely Sauvat said it, but it is just one person's recollection, and that's without anyone here evaluating whether it's a good source or not (other than the standard reliable source criteria). That's not good enough. I don't want to request the resource as this area isn't something I'm particularly interested in and, as someone who can just about follow French, I wouldn't be a good reviewer.

Re. who should prove what, the person asserting something needs to prove it. The better sources we've so far seen here equivocate on her sexuality, leaning towards lesbianism. In that situation, I don't need to find sources denying she's a lesbian, as I'm more than happy to go with the God's Continent wording ("probably"). Against that, things like the Dead Rock Stars are, as I've said, tabloid trash (look at the reviews on Amazon to see what some thought of the accuracy of entries; it's been shown to be wanting on the RSN before).

All that said, I now suggest we unequivocate on the lesbian issue. As I suggested above, although there is the possibility that Maddelein literally sexed-up the biographies that he was involved in (as sex sells), he's certainly a source that should be represented. I can't access them, but the Dutch Sœur Sourire. Zie me graag apparently does say she was a lesbian, based on her diaries. Interestingly, she apparently became one (a practicing lesbian, that is) after the Vindicator piece, so she was chaste at that time. So I'd suggest ditching all of the trash cites currently in use and referring to this interview (in the original Dutch, naturally). Assuming the publisher of Sœur Sourire. Zie me graag (Davidsfonds) is kosher. Bromley86 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, good find on the interview! The user who added the Sauvat cite is still active, so if you think it's a good idea, I could leave a note asking him to dig up the quotation/page/whatever; or, if you think it's enough and there's no worry about misinterpreting the Google Translate, we could use this interview to back up the statement of her romantic/sexual relationship (noting eventually if you feel it necessary, which is also what Sauvat says, seemingly). The blurb on Sauvat's book also states that she was in love with Pécher, which obviously doesn't say anything about sex or lack thereof, but which, if the book itself remains inaccessible, confirms what position it takes on the idea that they had a mother-daughter relationship. Davidsfonds appears to be a cultural organization that publishes books on Flemish people and arts - so, might not come out on top in a contest with a better source, but probably adequate for our needs in the lack of any contradictory sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

_{(mediator's note)} Just in case anyone's wondering, I'm still following the discussion. Since consensus is developing, I'm going to act as an observer until further guidance is required. m.o.p 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have you around, M.O.P. This business has been going on for a while, so just let us all know if you need summaries of stuff stretching further back, précis/quotations of sources you can't access, etc. Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It is good to know that Master of Puppets is optimistic about consensus appearing, so as not to have to extend the block to ensure that a conclusion comes from discussion. Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here, though headed "General", has concentrated almost exclusively on one of the three disputed passages. Should someone now propose a concrete text as a replacement for one or both of the rival texts of this passage? Roscelese? Bromley86 (if he returns)? Master of Puppets? me? Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On the strength of access to the diaries, I'm happy that she can fairly be described as lesbian (as opposed to "probably a lesbian"). The chaste aspect, therefore, is not relevant to this article (it is to hers though, where it really should mention that she was chaste until about 1980). My only niggling concern is the phrasing in the interview ("from about 1980", rather than "from 1980"; it seems to me likely that a biographer would remember such a salacious date with a fair degree of accuracy). Not a big deal though, so I'd recommend effectively the same text as Roscelese initially supported, with the interview cited (and Sauvat, if the editor adding personally sees it):

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985) was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire. She was a Belgian singer-songwriter and was at one time a member of the Dominican Order. After leaving the order, she began a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher. Bromley86 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in case, and since I'm not the original writer of the passage, I'll +1 my support. Maybe we should also add more about Deckers's musical work before and/or after leaving the order? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bromley86. I presume you will want to add the source from the Gaylive website that you found: Interview: Leen Van Den Berg over Sœur Sourire: Zie me graag. And don't you think that, to avoid suggesting that she left the convent for that purpose, the text should say: "After leaving the order in 1966, she began in about 1980 a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher"? (The "about 1980" puzzled you, but that presumably means that her diary nowhere said: "Today I for the first time had sex with Annie", and only had entries that (especially in "about 1980") not always expressly indicated the existence of a sexual relationship.) Esoglou (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Replying to both of you here. Having re-read the suggested text, I don't think we need to mention Annie's name (it doesn't add anything here). I'm not sure that much needs to be added about her career, as this is a brief entry in this article (c.f. Bert Edwards), but wouldn't object if you think it's necessary. Perhaps instead include something about her journey; how she considered herself a nun even after she left, although it looked clunky when I tried it. Good point about stressing the fact she didn't leave and immediately begin a lesbian relationship, and thanks for pointing out the fact she may not have been entirely descriptive in her diary; that makes sense!

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985) was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire. She was a Belgian singer-songwriter and was at one time a member of the Dominican Order. After leaving the order, she later began a lesbian relationship.

I'm trying to avoid putting too much extraneous info in, but no problem if you guys do want the dates in there. I was trying to shoe-horn in the idea that she became increasingly critical of Catholic doctrine, but in the end didn't because that might then require us to mention pressures on her, her mental state, etc. I couldn't date the ref. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I accept this text. (I would prefer to have the dates, as I proposed, but I presume Roscelese would not accept that proposal.) If Roscelese too accepts Bromley86's text, we can go on to consider the other two passages, on which I have tried to initiate discussion above. Esoglou (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Her most famous songs are Dominique and the pill song, right? (Or at least the pill song is notorious, although it didn't do as well as her other songs.) I think a single sentence might well encapsulate her relationship to the church before and after leaving the order and provide a small and useful background, something to the effect that she was known for religious music like "Dominique" and remained a believer throughout her life, but also was critical of some church doctrines and performed a song about the pill.

I think the "after...later" construction is awkward; "she left the order and later began..." would be fine if "after..." sounds odd to you. I do think, though, that mentioning her partner's name is helpful, less because Pécher is notable (she is not) than because, without a name, it sounds kind of vague and fleeting, when that doesn't reflect the facts of the matter. Is there another way you'd suggest reformulating that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems Master of Puppets was too optimistic. "After...later" sounds odd to Roscelese. I accepted it, preferring not to raise difficulties about its lack of precision: it should have said that Deckers left the convent in 1966 and fourteen years later began a homosexual relationship with someone who, as a young girl, had a strong crush on her since before she entered the convent, who went regularly to visit her in her convent, got herself a shack to live in near the house where Deckers lived when studying in Leuven, who fell into a deep depression when it seemed Deckers was to go to a mission country, and to whom Deckers clearly declared, on agreeing to live with her, that there were to be no homosexual relations between them, and with regard to whom Deckers was faithful to that declaration for fourteen years, though the two of them lived alone in the same house. All of this is in the one source that is now cited, and is related to the topic of this article on "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism". But now that Roscelese knows I accept Bromley86's proposal, she wants to bring in Deckers's song on the Pill, Deckers's relationship with the Catholic Church (on whose teaching on homosexuality Deckers never made a song, for or against) ... any stick, it seems, with which to beat the Catholic Church. These questions may be matter for an article about Deckers, but not for an article on "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism". Esoglou (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I accept Bromley86's text. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, been busy elsewhere. You're right Roscelese; the "after ... later" arose because I removed a part of the sentence (specifically, I had a bit about her still considering herself a nun, but it didn't really work). Whilst awkward, I think after-later may be the best way to keep it brief yet indicate that she didn't leave to pursue a lesbian relationship. Happy to have something in there about her continuing faith, which might also fix the awkwardness; I don't think this article is the place to delve further into her mental state/issues with the church/etc. Also, the addition of something like "lifelong friend" addresses the fact that it wasn't just a casual relationship.

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985) was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire. She was a Belgian singer-songwriter and was at one time a member of the Dominican Order. After leaving the order, she remained a devout Catholic. She later began a lesbian relationship with a lifelong friend. Bromley86 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good call on "lifelong friend." I agree that this isn't the place to talk about her mental health or financial issues; to talk about her career, may I suggest...

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, was a Belgian singer-songwriter. She became known for her song "Dominique" about the founder of the Dominican Order, of which she was a member. After leaving the order, she remained a devout Catholic and continued releasing music, including "La pilule d'or," about the contraceptive pill. She later began a lesbian relationship with a lifelong friend.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete "devout". Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I was trying to get that idea that she considered herself a nun, remained chaste and prayed multiple times a day in there, but I can see how other aspects of her might conflict with "devout", so scratch that. @Roscelese: Esoglou has expressed a heavy preference for the pill point not to go in, in this article, and I think he's right. Bromley86 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? Sources tend to point out that she essentially continued living as a nun after leaving the order, with frequent prayer, teaching religion, etc. The Vindicator source has this, as does [11] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Which WP:RS uses the term "devout"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What other language would you suggest to succinctly convey this information? I think I can speak for both Bromley and myself in being interested in your opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Practicing" might cover it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the same information is conveyed, but I also don't really have an issue with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Re the pill song, can you explain why? Other than "Dominique," it appears to be her most notable song and is frequently mentioned along with her, suggesting that it is appropriate to mention in a one-sentence summary of her career. After all, we're not just listing gay people, we're giving some context for who they were. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Deckers wrote the song La pilule d'or in 1967 (source – listen to it and read the text). It was in 1968 that the Catholic Church ruled out the pill in question as a moral means of avoiding conception. In 1967 many faithful Catholics believed that the Pope was about to declare its use permitted. That idea was pushed by, along with many other media both Catholic and secular, the English Catholic weekly, The Tablet, to such an extent that it was jokingly said it should change its name to The Pill. If for some reason that song must be mentioned in relation to homosexuality and Roman Catholicism – though one would have thought contraception irrelevant to homosexuality! – that important circumstance must also be mentioned.

"The context of who they were". More important than the writing and singing of that song in 1967, and far more relevant to homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, is the fact that, though living together with someone longing to have homosexual relations with her, Deckers refused to have such relations with her for fourteen years after being released from her religious vows but during which she chose to keep them. That is what deserves mention.

Here, while I would not insist on every detail, is something to reflect on:

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985) was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire. She was a Belgian singer-songwriter and was at one time a member of the Dominican Order. After leaving the order, she remained for long faithful to the vows she had taken, but after fourteen years began a lesbian relationship with a lifelong admirer, with whom she committed suicide. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point re. the pill and dates; so it definitely shouldn't go in. I prefer your text to mine: the passing of time is covered without loads of dates, the "admirer" point accurately (whilst briefly) covers the relationship and "vows" avoids any issues with devout. I also like that you've got the manner of death, which is fairly significant, in without discussing why she did it (that's what the wikilink is for). Bromley86 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on her music? She isn't famous for her sexual orientation. Esoglou's text is also poorly written from a grammar/style perspective and seems intended to evoke scandal. Your text of "lifelong friend" and Elizium's of "practicing" is better, as they do not suggest that she ceased to be Catholic upon beginning her relationship or that she was taking advantage of Pécher. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Singer-songwriter" covers her music (one could argue that she's not particularly famous for her music (plural) anyway), but if we were mentioning a song, it'd be Dominique, surely (not that I think we need to)? I'd accept "friend", but "admirer" does seem to succinctly accurately describe their relationship; Pecher appears to have been significantly ahead of the intimacy curve in their relationship. I somehow missed the "she remained for long faithful to"; that needs fixing. Simplicity would suggest "she remained faithful to" (vows of chastity covering all sexual relationships). There's no real scandal point here; if you vow not to bump uglies, it doesn't really matter what sort of uglies they are. Bromley86 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair point about "singer-songwriter", I suppose we don't identify individual works of most of the writers. (De profundis yes, but that's more to support "Wilde was into Catholicism and it affected his work" than as an overview of his oeuvre, whereas for Deckers, this fact is obvious and it's the LGBT status that we've had to talk more about sourcing for.) Note that I did include "Dominique" in my proposed text, though. I still prefer "friend" to "admirer" - I don't think the latter successfully gets across what you're trying to get across, and it omits the fact that they were, well, friends. Do you have a suggestion for wording that retains the elements that you want to keep without suggesting that she ceased to be a religious Catholic at any point? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Friend" is not the best description of Annie Pécher's relation to Jeanine Deckers. It might explain her repeated visits to Jeanine in the convent, but scarcely her taking care to get herself a shack (een kot) near where Jeanine lived when studying in Leuven, her falling into a deep depression and attempting suicide when it seemed that Jeanine was going to be sent to a mission country, and, above all, Jeanine's making it clear to her, when they went to live in the same house, that she did not wish to enter into a relationship with her and wanted simply to live together as friends. Esoglou (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "for long" is excessive, in view of the following "fourteen years". Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Other notable homosexual Catholics

Seeing as we're in danger of agreeing on Deckers, how about finding some other notable homosexual Catholics to argue about? Quick notability test - do they have a (well written) WP article? Henri Nouwen mirrors Deckers in many ways, without the unhappy ending. Rembert Weakland has outed himself.[12] I don't think there's enough solid evidence on Francis Spellman to include him here, but I may be wrong. I'd suggest that James Alison isn't notable enough. Hans Hermann Groër is, but we'd likely end up in a protracted debate as to whether he was homosexual or just an abuser. Keith O'Brien is a possible. Outside the clergy, there's Duncan James, YSL, Liberace, Siegfried Sassoon. A lot of the people on this list are questionable, but I've only scanned it so there may be more. Bromley86 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've mentioned a few up above - Radclyffe Hall (do you have access to that source I mentioned? it's not a verifiability issue, but it might be nice to get that source rather than sources citing that source), Francis Poulenc, Jean Cocteau, John Boswell. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of committing the ultimate faux pas, in debating terms, the starting point should be the WP article. Radclyffe Hall - no access to the source; sorry. She's poorly cited as a lesbian (I'm sure she was), but she's not cited at all as a Catholic. Francis Poulenc seems fine to me. Not so Jean Cocteau who isn't conclusively identified as gay in the WP article (other than one uncited bisexual reference). John Boswell seems to be fine on both homosexuality and Catholicism, but may or may not be notable in this case (not arguing either way, just noting it). Bromley86 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize that basing this on their WP articles is an issue...obviously that's a deficiency in the articles, not in the available information. As I said, not only was Hall verifiably both lesbian and Catholic, there's an entire chapter on the intersection of those identities for her and other writers of the time; Cocteau is also copiously sourced (with regard to gay or bisexual, I've seen different sources saying both). I mean, we could take this section as a jumping-off point for improving the articles on the people in question, but we shouldn't be held back by deficiencies in other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue the reverse, because those articles will presumably have editors policing changes to them, so anything massively controversial will be dealt with there. Of course, that's in theory; hence WP's less-than-stellar reputation. Even then though, it's another check-and-balance. Having had a quick look though, Hall does seem to have been Catholic. Bromley86 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you greatly overestimate the number of eyes on these sorts of articles :P My recommendation is that we write up what we find over here, and then generously share it with the biographical articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to think the proportion of homosexuals is any lower among Catholics, notable or not, than among non-Catholics. There has been no arguing about Oscar Wilde, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Alfred Douglas, Marc-André Raffalovich, Robert Hugh Benson, Frederick Rolfe, John Gray, or Albert Augustine Edwards. For all I know, some might question the listing of one or more of the artists Donatello, Botticelli, Leonardo, Caravaggio, Michelangelo Buonarotti, but nobody here seems to be sufficiently interested in seeing whether any of these denied being homosexual, as Deckers did. Anyone who thinks the present examples are not enough can surely find many more about whom there would be no arguing – and many too whom they could select precisely for the sake of arguing. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy Warhol as mentioned above. But perhaps the threshold for inclusion should be a criterion such as: the person contributed in some way to shaping attitudes to homosexuality in the Church. This is, after all, not a list article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right perspective to take at all, because it continues assuming that Catholicism is a nebulous collection of texts instead of a religion practiced by people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought Warhol was a good one, but is he a Roman Catholic (I've no idea whether or not Ruthenian Catholic is considered the same)?I hadn't seen this post by Elezium23. Bromley86 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 synod

This is currently under Political Activity, and while it may have implications for future political activity, I'm not sure that it is itself political activity. Shall we move it under, say, History of Church Teaching? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's mislabeled. May it would fit under Church teaching or Defense of Church teaching Padresfan94 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure Defense would make sense, as that seems geared at encompassing non-church entities that agree with the church's anti-gay positions, while the synod is obviously a church entity. I think including it under Modern Age in the History of Teaching section makes more sense than under Teaching, since it focuses more on the events and less on the content of any documents put forward; it might also be possible to include mention of the instrumentum under Teaching, but I don't think I would. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think we can cut a lot of text here. It's not necessary to give a blow-by-blow. When the article protection expires, let's all work on trimming it together. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The section suffers from recentism. It is about preparation for a synod assembly that was a preparation for a main assembly to be held in 2015, which will submit proposals as preparation for a document (an "apostolic exhortation") by Pope Francis. Only when that document is published will it be possible to speak of Church teaching on the topic. In spite of that, the logical place for the section, if kept, is doubtless immediately after History of Church teaching on homosexuality#Modern age. Esoglou (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

New section on "Pastoral care of homosexual persons"

Everything is so convoluted that I'm starting a fresh section here. As I see it, the user interested in changing the presentation of the content of "Pastoral care of homosexual persons" has failed to gain consensus for his version, and discussion has ceased. Is there anyone else who has new arguments to make about why the newly proposed, lengthier and less coherent version should be used? Otherwise, per BRD, it will obviously be necessary to revert the bold edit that has failed to gain consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your preferred version has no consensus either, considering the objections that have already been raised above and the reverts which led to the full-protection. I suggest you get out of the mindset of reverting everybody else when you don't personally agree with every single thing in the edits. I suggest getting out of the mindset of demanding that the article reflect your preferred version until your personal critieria of consensus are met. I suggest that consensus is more than just people agreeing with you on the talk page but also people who are willing to tolerate your edits by not reverting them. Please read the essay, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Elizium23 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have new arguments to make about why the newly proposed, lengthier and less coherent version should be used? Alternately, are there other changes that you might propose in the hope of gaining consensus for those? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

While its true that some parts of it are longer, the proposed new wording seems to have the benefit of being closer in accuracy to the source material. Padresfan94 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. "Some unidentified circumstances may make it worse, and some other unidentified circumstances may excuse it", without identification of either, are essentially meaningless and seem to cancel each other out, leaving us with the only concrete statement that section makes, that being gay doesn't excuse it. That section is evidently responding to specific rhetoric saying that same-sex sexual activity isn't culpable for people who are gay; theoretically, we might be able to find an example in a secondary source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)