Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Sexual abuse crisis

Likewise, the paragraph covering the sexual abuse crisis used provide Reader with some context. Here's the old paragraph

In 2001, major lawsuits emerged primarily in the United States and Europe, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.[449] In the U.S., the country with the vast majority of sex-abuse cases,[450] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[451][452] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[449][452][453][454] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[453][455] Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[456] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that similar problems affect other institutions with much greater frequency,[457][458][459] a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi.[460] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[461][462] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[180][455][463]

Here's the new paragraph

Since the end of the twentieth century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada and other countries.

The new paragraph gives Reader zero information about a notable criticism. It never tells Reader what reforms the Church took to prevent future abuse, how many priests were accused and how this abuse compares to other similar institutions - all omissions that make it slant anti-Catholic POV. I support a trim to these areas but I do not support the present trim that eliminates so many important facts. I think it violates FAC criteria and makes the article violate WP:NPOV. NancyHeise ^talk 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this article was going to go on a diet. Now it was just handed a large box of doughnuts. The idea about downsizing is that something has to go, and usually when downsizing takes place there is a "hiring freeze". People will always argue that we need more staff here, there, etc. but the hiring freeze is essential when downsizing takes place. I have no personal views about these two topics, but do feel that regardless of the cravings for doughnuts of any type they should be resisted right now. History2007 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Nancy all the extra material you want to add is pro-Catholic apolegetics, deflecting, minimising and denying the extent of the problem. Again, I dispute your assertion that omissions of your pro--Catholic POV gives the current section an "anti-Catholic POV", it is simply a NPOV statement of fact. I would also be more inclined to take seriously your claim to be adhering to FA/NPOV in this area if you were also proposing to expand it to include such notable aspects of the issue as the Irish Ferns/Ryan reports, bishops meetings, Pope's letter etc. Haldraper (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Haldraper I think whether the doughnuts were made by a Catholic or Protestant is beside the point, given that they should not be consumed at all at this point in the article diet, given that there is "clear consensus" that this article is overweight. So that discussion will just lengthen the debate, and the fact that additional material is not a good idea in the middle of an overall trim should be the main reason for NOT doing any of this expansion at all. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed History, I just wanted to set the record straight as to why they were trimmed in the first place and respond to Nancy's continuing and rather ludicrous claims of "anti-Catholic POV" on this page. Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually at this point, since the lock has come off, given that 4 people have given ideas on the histo-section trim above, you could be the 5th vote and just trim whatever 2 of the 4 agreed on. That will start the trim based on a 5 way agreement anyway. I will hereby be the 6th vote for whatever gets trimmed because to repeat the obvious: there is consensus that this article is overweight. The BEST way will be to start by just deleting all those sentences that everyone agreed were not needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Three of five is not consensus to remove referenced material. The article may be overweight and benefit from trimming, but important matter should not be removed without agreement. We need to proceed on as full a consensus as possible, rather than launch into pointless disputes. Xandar 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record - I like doughnuts. I also think it is unreasonable to trim the most notable contoversies almost completely out of the history section when FA criteria ask us to cover these as well as to provide Reader with context. The current trim does not meet these standards. If you were to take a look at any other encyclopedia's article on the Catholic Church you would see that this subject warrants a longer article. We are allowed to use tertiary sources like these to help us create a basic outline for our articles as well as to discover where scholarly consensus resides on certain issues. I have participated in almost every effort to trim this article. We trim it and go to FA where a multitude of editors then ask us to include more, not less information. This has happened four times over several years now. NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, your arguments suffer from WP:Recentism. Neither the sex abuse scandal nor WWII are anywhere close to "the most notable controversies" of the history of the Catholic Church. What about the Great Schism? The Reformation/Counter-Reformation? The dual popes? We need to gain some perspective here - the history needs to cover 2000 years, not just the last 60. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All of those controversies are mentioned and the latter ones have more discussion than the sex abuse and WWII paragraphs. At least the former controversies have context, sex abuse and WWII don't and that's why I'm bringing it up. Why not treat all the controversies the same and provide Reader with both sides of the argument in accordance with WP:NPOV and FAC criteria which require context? I find it amazing that you are not endorsing allowing us to tell Reader what steps the Church has taken to prevent future abuse. That is an important part of the history of the Church - a reform. NancyHeise ^talk 05:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem Nancy is that the previous version of the text went way beyond describing the "steps that the Church has taken to prevent future abuse" and started to indulge in apologetics ~~including the old saw about "well, abuse in the Church isn't as bad as it is in some other institutions such as public schools".~~ (Actually, that old saw was not in the version quoted by Nancy) including the defense about "psychological counseling" which is more detail than is necessary at this level.

As I wrote above, I would support adding a single sentence to communicate that the Church has indeed responded to the scandals with reforms which ensure that abuse is prevented, detected and handled expeditiously and effectively. We need not get into the defense of past actions by the Catholic hierarchy. I actually think that the "psychological counseling" is an example of social science gone bad and that the bishops found it convenient to believe that priests could be rehabilitated. It's not entirely their fault that they were wrong. However, this kind of detailed discussion is not appropriate for a summary article such as this one.

--Richard S (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a sentence to propose to include this? I provided the previous para to help with this effort because it had all the references we need. NancyHeise ^talk 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Engaging prose

There's an old joke which I will adapt for Catholic sensibilities:

"Father Joe can make an hour long conversation seem like it lasted only 5 minutes. On the other hand, Father Steve can make a 5 minute sermon seem like it lasted an hour."

We keep talking about how the article is too long and then focus on specific sections that we think are too long. To some extent, this is a worthwhile endeavor. However, in the context of the above joke, I would like to suggest that part of what makes a section too long is not its raw length in words but whether the prose is engaging or not.

For example in the discussion of the Church in medieval times, part of the problem is that we talk about all these specific facts ("trees" as I called them) but we never really tell the reader what it is exactly that we want to tell them. If we just came right out and said "The Church was responsible for much of the culture, civilization and learning in medieval Europe" and then provided a few examples to support that assertion, the whole section would be a lot more readable. If the reader doesn't know where you are trying to lead him, then why should you be surprised if his attention wanders and he gets bored reading your text?

--Richard S (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I vaguely remember something like that being in the article once upon a time. Someone thought phrasing things that way was pov and fought pretty hard to remove it. If I find the discussion in the archives, I'll stick it here. I do certainly like wording it like that, but I also have little doubt that someone will have a huge problem with it and call it pov, though I imagine it could survive for a few months in the article before someone does that.Farsight001 (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for, but I didn't remember it properly. It was the cultural section, and it's style is still in the current article. Plus it wasn't fought very hard against either. Oh well. Farsight001 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As Farsight says. That's the trouble. If we put in a sweeping statement like that someone is going to attack it. So we just add strictly-referenced trees. I certainly believe the prose of much of the history section needs improvement, but this is difficult until we have content stability. The thing with themes is they make a passage easier to understand, but it is very difficult to get themes that everyone will consider neutral. Xandar 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked IP

I've blocked User:24.247.21.54 for 24 hours, so please don't semi the article yet. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

First Sentence Questionable

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest and original Christian church." Can we state without qualification that it is THE original Christian church? It is very close to the root, but if you compare the claim with that of the Orthodox Church it falls short of absolute proof. (In fact, they both fall short if you use other measures than what they measure themselves by.) I think this statement is pretty Eurocentric, frankly. Would it not be better to say, "The Catholic Church ... considers itself the world's largest and original Christian church"?Klbrogdon (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Now gone. Someone changed that recently I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church is a cult

The Catholic Church fits under the official definition of "cult." I don't see why that fact is not mentioned at all in this article about the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.128.110.253 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

By the scholarly definition of cult, yes, the Catholic Church, along with every other religion, is technically a cult. However, the word has such an extreme negative connotation that simply "religion" is the preferred word. In addition, religion is actually more descriptive and thus a better choice. Hence there would be no point in adding it and if we added it here, we would need to add it to all religion articles, which some people would simply never be open too. It's a can of worms that's more trouble than it's worth.Farsight001 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Farsight, "cult" has negative POV connotations that would just invite controversy and would not serve the purposes of [WP:NPOV]]. I think the word "religion" does meet NPOV. NancyHeise ^talk 14:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Condoms issue (part 2)

Nancy and/or Xandar, please answer these questions (with citations to reliable sources, please): 1) What is the Church's position with respect to the use of condoms? 2) Who argues that the Church's position wrt the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS? 3) How has the Church responded to criticism of its stance wrt the use of condoms and the spread of AIDS? 4) Who says that the results of the scientific studies support the position of the Church? 5) Who says that the results of the scientific studies refute the criticisms of the Church? --Richard S (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Digression into personal attacks collapsed Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Church had always taught that the ban on contraception, specifically in the form of condoms, was under the ban because of sexually transmitted diseases then this argument would have some merit but since that is not the case, i.e the argument is based on more direct reasoning from a Roman Catholic moral perspective, it reads as another amateur apologetic's effort. In my opinion there is enough editors of good will on wikipedia (even though the most competent like Hermakurha has been driven away by the fanatics) to transform this article. The main obstacle to this is Xandar and Nany Heisse who seem to believe, perhaps (mis)interpreting John 7:1-10, that there is such as thing as "holy" lying and dissimulation. IMO they both rely on the ignorance of people who are not knowledgeable in Roman Catholicism and/or never take the time to read through and check the references to see the inherent dishonesty of both. This article, as with all others they have tarnished with there bigoted additions, would be much improved if administrators on Wikipedia would take time out to research in depth their unbalanced and extremely pov contributions and simply ban them. They both represent the worst facets of Roman Catholicism in their tenuous relationship to honesty - and this comes from a person who is essentially inclusive of opinions he doesn't agree with. I have also no doubt they attribute this to "persecution" but this invariably comes not from the poor or marginalised of the world but those who live in very rich countries, from middle class backgrounds, and who do not remotely know what persecution is. Anybody who has had any dealings with such zealots know that change never comes from internal volition but from the outside and its patently obvious that this holds true with Nancy and Xandar. Taam (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to distance myself from the strong personal attacks emanating from Taam and Pmanderson. While I agree with much of the substance of what is being charged (i.e. the inappropriate efforts at apologetics), strong words like "lying" and "dissimulation" represent such an abject failure to assume good faith that I cannot in good conscience allow such attacks to stand without raising an objection. As frustrating as Wikipedia may be, it would be a much worse experience without a minimum level of civility. --Richard S (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I certainly don't always agree with you or other editors opinions but the human condition involves uncertainty and recognition of diverse opinions that one may be radically opposed to. In this context I do assume your own good faith but I would be a liar if I accepted that Nancy or Xander shared the same essential love for honesty - there is no evidence I can see that they value such precepts if it gets in the way of glorifying something which has survived quite well without their dissimulation. Sorry if I have offended you personally but I feel it is now long past the stage of putting on a wiki face to observe some legal code of false etiquette. Taam (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Taam. You have simply leapt in here with a load of personal abuse and fanatical anti-catholicism. You have made no attempt to engage constructively with this discussion. Just exactly what is your purpose in being here on this page? You accuse long-term editors of dishonesty, but in presenting no proof to back up your accusations you show that any dishonesty here lies in yourself. Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for your anti-Catholic views. We are all free to insist that issues are covered in a fair and balanced manner, based on a fair selection of reliable references. If you don't like that. Tough. Xandar 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't have asked for a better reply to demonstrate the points I made with regard to you and Nancy. You live in a world in which people either support your own sectarian view or they are anti-catholic. It's a monochromatic world with no shades of gray and certainly no color. In this hostile world you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy and persecutor. If you look through my attempts to contribute to the article, backed up with reliable sources, (including ones used by yourself and Nancy), you will see I didn't get anywhere. Your standard tactic is to shout "anti-catholic" to anyone who doesn't share your malleable conception of honesty. I stand by my comments that you and Nancy not only are a negative influence in this article but also a positive deterrent to those honestly searching for truth and attracted to Catholicism. Taam (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Taam. Your initial post above not only accused editors, without evidence, of lying and dishonesty, but added that this was part of the system of the Catholic Church. I think that approach clearly reveals out your position and your extreme POV bias on these issues. The simple fact is that people wishing to slant the article in a negative or positive direction are not going to get their way without providing sound argument and references to prove their point. Some people seem to think that because editors do not roll over and accept every proposed change that serves an anti-catholic, or pro-catholic POV, or repeats some urban legend that "everybody knows is true", this is bias. No. It is proper rigour in ensuring this article does not become a collection of innuendo and Dan Brown-level information. Some people want to just jump in here "straighten the article out" to reflect their prejudices, and then fly into a huff when their preconceptions are challenged. That's not the way we work. Xandar 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see that you are only reinforcing my opinion on different standards of honesty? I never said anything about the "system of the Catholic Church" in the above post - you do this repeatedly. I could indeed discuss such matters outside of Wikipedia and give you my straightforward opinions but you have no way of knowing these at present or whether you consider them positive or negative. I repeat my invitation to go through the contributions I attempted to make using your own reliable sources, e.g Catholic Encyclopedia, Chadwick etc and see that I got nowhere. You constantly assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be anti-catholic and this to me is mere bluster to put off the casual reader who will not take the time to see through your tactics. Indeed this is one of the grounds on which I think you should be banned. With regard to "holy lying" - yes it is my experience that some zealots think it is legitimate to bend, suppress, or distort truth for the "cause" but I also am familiar with Christians, and Catholics in particular, who would think it very wrong to do so. Goodnight Taam (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be banned it is you. You have again repeated your still unsubstantiated allegations and slanders regarding lying, "holy" or otherwise by editors. It is time now for you to come up with examples of this alleged lying by the editors you accuse, or apologise. Even in the above you deny making accusations against the Catholic Church. To quote you directly. "They both represent the worst facets of Roman Catholicism in their tenuous relationship to honesty". This is clearly a part of a prejudiced attack on the Catholic Church and Catholics as being dishonest and liars. I think this reveals your appalling attitude to fellow editors and to Catholics in general, as does your failure to attempt any positive contribution before beginning your ranting here. Xandar 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard. You asked for answers to several questions. Again these matters are often complex. I'll try and give some refs as requested, but this is in no way comprehensive.

The Church's position with respect to the use of condoms is bound up in the rules on contraception, available here. This would suggest a strong negative on condoms - but not specifically. And there have been no authoritative pronouncements on condoms as AIDS prevention tools. You have already posted the Pope's most recent comments on condom use and aids, which are fairly detailed. Also here and here. An additional opinion here.
As far as I can see it is largely journalists and some AIDS organisations that support condom distribution that criticise the Church position. more rabid view more nuanced.
Church response to criticism of its stance? The papal article above, and see below.
Who says that the results of the scientific studies support the position of the Church? there is this, and [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92702 this]. There's this This general review In view of criticisms of the Harvard source I add Washington Post I also add this book from researcher Helen Epstein, reviewed here.
Who says that the results of the scientific studies refute the criticisms of the Church? The main studies used, as far as I can see, tend to be those that measure something else, such as the 80%-90% alleged success rate for condoms in preventing transmission quoted here. This begs the question of how safe protection is that holds a 20% failure rate. So there is a cross-purpose between the quoted stats. Some sources emphasise the success rates in the population, others emphasise lab tests on condoms. Xandar 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.

My feeling is that current Wikipedia rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive. But I would suggest a banner on the top of the talk page advising new editors of what awaits them on this talk page. How about Dante: "Abandon hope all ye enter here" [1].

At least this joke may calm some nerves for a short while before the debate heats up again. My guess is that the debate will not go very far anyway and will be forgotten in 9 months, so you guys should probably try to stay calm..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Xandar for providing a thorough review of this issue. I am amazed that objectors here think this is a non-issue when it is a major criticism of the Church, one that has significant press coverage and multiple sources for us to choose from. All I am trying to do is include the fact that scientific studies [2] and seriously respected AIDS researchers [3] have publicly supported the pope on this issue after the pope and the Church have been severely criticized for its position on condoms[4]. NancyHeise ^talk 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if the tables were reversed and Green were advocating a position which was contrary to the Church and the Pope, you would be insisting that it is "not on" to claim that a single scientific study emanating from a single project contradicted the claims of the Church and the Pope. And yet, now that Green is supporting the Pope (but not really as the BBC interview points out), you and Nancy want to claim that "scientific studies" and "seriously respected AIDS researchers" have publicly supported the Pope on this issue.

I suggest that you reread the articles and note the following: most of the reporting is from editorials (Harvard Crimson) and "news articles" that are re-reporting of the same story (i.e. no matter how many "sources" you pile up, the ultimate source is the same story about Edward Green). In other discussions, you have used the "same story reported through multiple channels" argument to dismiss claims of multiple sources. Why does that argument not apply here?

This Harvard Crimson piece is an opinion piece by "Christopher B. Lacaria ’09, a Crimson editorial writer" who was an undergraduate senior majoring in history at the time he wrote the piece.

This Harvard Crimson article is a news article. However, has anybody bothered to notice that The Harvard Crimson is an undergraduate newspaper?

This Washington Post opinion piece is by "Thomas J. Reese, S.J., is Senior Fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University." Reese opines about Ed Green's work.

Have you noted that the BBC interviewer pointedly challenges Green on the concept that he "supports the Pope" and that Green admits that he does not agree with the Pope fully? William Crawley (BBC): How can you believe that condom promotion should be a back up strategy and also believe that "condom distribution is making matters worse in Africa"?

I still maintain that this is too much detail for this article. However, if we must discuss it, let us describe this accurately rather than in a way which overstates the claim of support for the Pope's stance.

I will try to eschew derogatory language but I would really invite you to review the quality of the source here and consider rewording the article text to match what the true situation is.

The article text should read something like:

One maverick "politically incorrect" scientist argues that the results of a single scientific study "supports" the assertions of the Pope except that what the scientist advocates "fidelity and monogamy with condoms as a backup strategy" are not what the Church advocates. That notwithstanding, a number of media channels including the undergraduate newspaper at a leading U.S. university and conservative publications such as The National Review have picked up the story in order to argue that "scientific studies support the Church's position with respect to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

After all, if the National Review and The Harvard Crimson get it wrong, why should Wikipedia bother to get it right?

--Richard S (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing... I guess I ought not presume to teach the Church how to formulate and argue its doctrine. This piece (of ....) from the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics argues that the Church does indeed concern itself with efficacy as well as morality in its stance on use of condoms. Hugh Henry asserts that "the message of the Church about condoms is not just about alleged leakage, but also about their inefficacy because of breakage, slippage, lack of quality control (especially under conditions faced in poor countries) and, above all, their impermissibility on moral grounds." The article also quotes Cardinal Trujillo as asserting that condoms have "have holes which can leak HIV". Why is there not a stampede to include these quotes in the article text as well? --Richard S (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article by Cardinal Trujillo (his position seems to be other in the church) regarding this topic: FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX: A Reflection by His Eminence. There are storys out there about sub-standard condomes: 'Sub-standard' condoms found (News24) and KENYAN GOVT WITHDRAWS SUB-STANDARD CONDOMS FOUND TO HAVE HOLES. If this is true, it's would just be unbelieveable. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link to Cardinal Trujillo's defense of his remarks during the BBC interview. I am now thinking that the problem is that the current article text does not capture this controversy accurately and thus winds up suggesting that this is a problem where the Church "needs" scientific support. Rather than quibble as to whether Green's support of the Pope is relevant or not, we might wish to work first on presenting the Church's position first rather than the criticism first. After all, if the criticism is wrong, we start out on the wrong foot by presenting the "wrong" position and responding to it. Put another way, we have let the critics frame the topic and thus the topic suffers from working inside that framework.

The Church's position as explained by both the Pope and Cardinal Trujillo is that all responsible sex must occur within the framework of a faithful, monogamous relationship and that condoms have a non-zero risk of transmitting AIDS.

There is some debate as to viruses being smaller than sperm cells but, as far as I can tell, the bottom line is that condoms do prevent the transmission of AIDS most of the time. I think the "substandard" condoms issue is a red herring. After all, the existence of "substandard" condoms suggests that condoms which meet the standards are probably efficacious.

Relying on condoms to prevent transmission of AIDS can result in a false sense of security because of the problem of "leakage and breakage".

However, from the Catholic Church's perspective, the problem with condoms is not their efficacy (or lack thereof) in preventing transmission when used correctly but rather their effect on public behavior and public policy. The Church is concerned that promotion of condom use will lead to irresponsible, risky sexual behavior (promiscuity and prostitution). Both individuals and governments could come to rely on condoms as the primary line of defense rather than emphasizing the need for "partner fidelity".

Now, the pragmatic argument for this comes from an argument that, even where condoms are promoted, they are used only 5% of the time. Thus, even doubling the usage of condoms would only result in a 5% reduction in the transmission of AIDS. The question comes down to whether it is more feasible to increase the usage of condoms or to increase the rate of "partner fidelity". This is not really a "science" question, it is a social science and public policy question and "scientific studies" as to which approach is better have to be suspect if only because it's not an "either/or" type question.

Now, in this context, we can look at Ed Green whose work is only a single study. What Ed Green's work does is suggest that "partner fidelity" does matter very much (Duh, we knew that. It doesn't take a "scientific study" to prove it.). He advocates a multi-pronged approach (partner fidelity AND promotion of condom use). Thus, his work doesn't "vindicate" the Church's approach although it does lend it some legitimacy.

In summary, I oppose the article text as written because it has this "Church was criticized for X. But, wait, scientific studies vindicated the Church's position!" approach. As explained above, the current text doesn't explain what the Church's position is nor does it accurately portray the strength or relevance of the so-called "scientific study". This isn't a question of "science". It's a question of public policy based upon public response to policy initiatives. In plain English, are people more likely to be faithful to their partners or more likely to use condoms? Why are we surprised that the pragmatic answer is: "Why not promote both behaviors concurrently?"

I'm going to start working on fixing the article text. Any help in this regard would be much appreciated.

--Richard S (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we're getting somewhere. Just a side note to condoms. I remember a story (from todays point of view an anticatholic one) about holes in condoms and someone from the catholic church, where I thougt that the catholic person was not truthfull about the holes in condomes. But it turns out he had a point regarding low quality condoms. So this is not just a red hering, but there is certainly absolutly no need to include it here. BTW, thanks for your intellectual honesty and I'd like to help (but english is not my first language...). --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea that prof Green is a "lone maverick" is not borne out by the facts where even pro-condom campaigners can come up with no evidence for successful reduction of AIDS in Africa where condom use has been the central methodology. And there is evidence that sexual restraint practices DO have positive outcomes in countries where put into practice. I've added links to Helen Epstein's book above. Whether Green or Epstein (or any other researcher) personally agree with every element of Church Policy is a red herring. What is being quoted is their research and that of others which rebuts the principal criticism levelled at the Church. Therefore, as has previously been said, we cannot have a criticism of the Church on so contentious a topic without also airing the defense. Xandar 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You edit stating:

However research has emerged to support the Church's position.409 410

is a complete stretch, especially when reading the sources you are providing. Did you ever read the adjustments I made and the links I provided? You are relying on a debunked theory and 2003 data, which I had put in updated sources with more current information.Aids surges in Philippines AIDS cases seen on the rise in Philippines There is no 'research' indicating otherwise, most certainly not any research that 'supports' any indication that condom use does not prevent the spread HIV/AIDS. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. Of course if people do not use condoms, they will not work. But it's a proven fact that using a condom greatly reduces the risk of spreading the disease. You will either have to revert back to the change I made to that section, or make a better edit than the one you currently have, which is not acceptable and does not represent the current facts. It's greatly misleading, to say the least. DD2K (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

According to your own sources DD2K:Most of those who contracted HIV were males in their 20s who had same sex relationships and mostly from highly urbanised areas around Manila. Condom use among the most at-risk, including homosexual men, female sex workers and their male clients, remained below 90 per cent, he said. and Nevertheless, the status of HIV infection in the Philippines has been classified as low prevalence, meaning that less than 0.1 percent of the population and less than 5.0 percent of people in high-risk groups were infected. This was despite the low usage of condoms in the Catholic-majority country, where the powerful church frowns on artificial methods of contraception.. So the methods the church is advocating are also working for the general population in this country. Of course high-risk groups are not following the teaching of the church, so why should they in regard to condoms? Even your new sources are supporting Xandar point. At least when you're intellectually honest. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. It does NOT support the edit by Xandar. You, and he, are using WP:OR and calling it 'research'. Which is definitely not within the scope of Wikipedia rules. There is no source provided by Xandar to justify the addition he made here:

However research has emerged to support the Church's position

Not in the opinion piece in the Washington Post he cited about the possible reasons why the spread of HIV/AIDS has continued to increase in some areas of Africa despite the availability of condoms in those areas, now the 7 year old link concerning the relatively low infection rate in the Philippines. The links I provided(1, 2) suggest that the Philippines are one of but a small number of nations that have infection rates that are increasing in a drastic manner, despite still having a relatively low overall infection rate. It does not matter who the people are that are part of the current infection surge in the Philippines, what matters is that there are current warnings of a surge in infections spreading infections into an epidemic and that is cited by reliable sources. You can't take a 7 year old report and insert it into an opinion piece to make the kind of claim that Xandar did. I am a Catholic, but a moderate in terms of what I will or will not defend the church in. I can see some problems with this article in terms of a sort of 'witch hunt' towards the church, in some areas. But in this area, there can be no real fact-based, scientific defense. The overwhelming consensus from reliable sources, the scientific community, health care professionals and those who deal with this specific issue is that the use of condoms helps stop the spread of HIV/AIDS infections. The best one can do in terms of giving the church some defense on their stance is to also include the fact that fidelity and abstinence are also effective tools. Even though it's not within the powers of the government to control human interaction, it is within the power of governments to make condoms available. Along with education, those are the tools that have been proven to stop, and reverse, the infection rate. We can only make these things into consideration if we are going to pass the 'laugh test' and be intellectually honest. DD2K (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DD2K, I fear you misunderstand the sources. First, research suggesting condoms control AIDS is often based on the testing of condoms under lab conditions, not in the real world. Real world measurements show that condoms in use are only about 80% effective in stopping transmission. Continuous high risk sexual behaviour (ie promiscuity) is therefore still like playing Russian Roulette, with the knowledge that if you play long enough, you are going to lose. Moreover the alleged "safety" of using condoms encourages more high risk behaviour. Secondly, real life research in Africa has shown that the distribution of condoms is associated with a HIGHER rate of AIDS infection, not a lower one. Further research, mentioned in the sources I quoted, shows that countries following the Church recommended actions have a far lower AIDS rate than similar countries following the condom-led approach. This is not "opinion". This is fact. And it is fact that supports the Church's position. That is why it is needed for a balanced overview of the issue.

If we are including people saying the church's position on AIDS is irresponsible, which is a very serious allegation, we must include the evidence that counters that accusation. It's as if we had an article saying that people accuse Whippo Ice Cream of killing children. If there is reputable evidence that Whippo Ice cream is not killing children, it needs to be in. Xandar 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right Xandar. After Richard edits it looks for me more NPOV than before. What I still miss in the article is that the church provides up to 25% of the aid for HIV/AIDS(direct or indirect) and has (prevention) programmes regarding mother-to-child transmission, stigma and others. Just to mention condoms is from my point of view, not enought. Might not belong here, but I was to lazy to open a new topic. Sorry! Sadly the article Catholic Church and AIDS is mainly talking about the condom controversy... --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, it is not true that if a serious allegation is made, then we MUST "include the evidence that counters that accusation". This is part of what I call an inclination towards apologetics. Now, I admit that we could tone down the strong language in the accusation (I was just quoting what was in the sources) but, at the end of the day, all we need to say is that the Church has been criticized and then maybe in broad brush strokes describe the refutation. (Basically, that the Church emphasizes partner fidelity over condoms which it deems to be unreliable and tending to promote risky sexual behavior.)

By now, you should know me well enough to know that I am not an inveterately harsh critic of the Church. The reason my last edit made the text seem POV was that I was in a hurry at the time and I figured someone else would add a sentence to balance it out although I do not support sentences along the lines of "scientific studies support the Church's position".

My major objection to the previous text was the assertion that "scientific studies support the Church's position". That is an interpretation and cannot be asserted as fact. What is fact is that "many Catholics point to some statistical studies as supportive of the Church's position that partner fidelity can be more effective than promoting the use of condoms". I know that's a mouthful but it accurately describes the situation rather than illegitimately suggesting that "scientific studies" support the Church's position that condoms should not be promoted at all. No study that I know of supports that position. What I object to is the attempt to take studies such as Ed Green's research and categorize it simplistically as "supporting the Church's position". Green's research does not do that. In general, we must always draw a distinction between what a study actually finds and how those findings are interpreted. (The research simply concludes that partner fidelity might be more important than condom usage.) Despite his loudmouth, iconoclastic claim that his data supports the Church's position, when pinned down by the BBC, he backs away from his claim and fails to actually say that he supports the Church's opposition to condoms. (He supports promotion of condoms as a "backup strategy" whereas the Church so far appears to categorically reject the use of condoms. I say "appears" because it hasn't actually made any official pronouncements to that effect although most Catholics believe that it has.) There continues to be debate within the Church as to whether condoms can be used legitimately if the goal is disease prevention rather than contraception. This should also be presented. Now, I would prefer that most of the preceding discussion be presented in Catholic Church and AIDS rather than in this article but, if we must discuss the details in this article, let's at least get the details right rather than writing blithering nonsense like "scientific studies support the Church's position". --Richard S (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that we still seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Another is that we need to get the gist of a complex topic into a couple of sentences. Firstly, you are assuming that to support the Church's position any study must support all the reasoning behind the Church's position. But what we are discussing in terms of THIS criticism is a very simple allegation - that the Church's position on condoms is dangerous and irresponsible (code for killing people). Now either the Church's position is killing people or it isn't. I would personally say that virtually ALL the evidence available points to the accusation not being true. (No increased infection rate among Catholics, lower infection rates where sexual restraint rather than condom use have been the leading policies, increased infection rate where condoms have been the lead resource). This is not my OR but comes from several reliable sources. You are in fact doing OR by trying to unravel Green's position by reference to the BBC interview. The fact that someone who believes in condoms says that condoms aren't working is a plus for integrity. Nor does it matter whether he goes all the way with the Church - on the issue IN QUESTION, whether the Church's position is dangerous and irresponsible, he backs the Church.

Secondly, is inserting the scientific evidence "apologetic"? Not at all. This is a notable controversy, and so, for NPOV, all sides must be properly presented. If the Church is being accused by AIDS agencies of being "irresponsible and dangerous" with regard to HIV, then it is not adequate to limit the response to "the church believes it is right", when there is objective evidence in its support. The appropriate form is "the church cites scientific evidence from x to refute the criticism." Xandar 03:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right Xandar and I believe that one of the reasons that Richard changed this to This stance has been criticized by many public health officials and AIDS activists although some research suggests that partner fidelity combined with access to condoms has proved more effective in stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa., which is maybe not perfect, but much more balanced and fair. The article Catholic Church and AIDS should go into more detail, but right know is a pure mess. Let's work there together.BTW, would it make sense/allowed to copy or move this discussion to the "CC and AIDS" article? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable Controversies

The article was recently trimmed in some areas in an effort to make it shorter. Although there are several FA's that are longer than this proposed article and there are other areas of this article that could be reworded more concisely, the trimmed areas included the most controversial elements such as World War II and the sexual abuse crisis. These trims eliminated key information related to the controversies that provided Reader with context - an FA criteria. I am not in favor of these trims and would like to see these areas discussed again. NancyHeise ^talk 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, you are radically misrepresenting the purpose of the trimming. It was not as you claim to make the page shorter (we only cut a few sentences from what is still a very long page) but to achieve a NPOV in the sections concerned. It seems to me you want to restore a pro-Catholic POV to them, something that will lead to more edit-warring, blocking and page protection, not I would suggest the best way of achieving your stated aim of FA status. Haldraper (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion below. I welcome improvements, I am not stuck on one wording. I do not support omission of basic facts that exist in every other encyclopedia on the subject and in all scholarly works and university textbooks. We have a story to tell Reader and right now the trimmed text fails to do this. FA criteria requires coverage of notable controversies and providing Reader with context. I would like the article to meet these criteria instead of skipping them. NancyHeise ^talk 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Here's the World War II paragraph before the trim:

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.[393][394] Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge[393][395][396][397] which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority.[397][398][399][400] Pius XII, elected pope in March,1939, sought to prevent war by intervening with the leaders of European countries.[402] After the war began in September 1939, he "sought to limit the extension of the conflict, to assist its victims, and to reach a just peace".[402] Pius XII's October 1939 encyclical Summi Pontificatus condemned the invasion of Poland.[402] He condemned the 1940 Nazi invasions.[402] When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded by increasing deportations,[398] rounding up 92 Catholic converts including Edith Stein, who were then deported and murdered.[403] According to some scholars, "the brutality of the retaliation made an enormous impression on Pius XII"[403] who felt that further denunciations would only lead the Nazis to extend their persecution to more people.[404] When allied governments pressed the Pope to strengthen his condemnations, he feared that such action would be counterproductive and only provoke further persecutions.[404] In Poland alone, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests and even more were imprisoned.[405] After the war, Pius XII's efforts to protect their people were recognised by prominent Jews including Albert Einstein and Rabbi Isaac Herzog.[406] However, the Church has also been accused by some of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[407][408] Prominent members of the Jewish community have contradicted these criticisms.[409] The Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide interviewed war survivors and concluded that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands". Some historians dispute this estimate[410] while others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust.[411] Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall.[412]

Here's the section afterward

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.[367][368] Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge[367][369][370][371] which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority.[371][372][373][374] After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions.[376] During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.[375] In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis.[377] However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[378][379] Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.[380][381][382]

I think that new World War II section eliminates a lot of important information that should have been kept rather than tossed. I think it slants very anti-Catholic POV and I can not support this article for FA with such a poor representation of such a notable controversy. NancyHeise ^talk 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us Nancy, where does this section have anything like a "very anti-Catholic POV" as you claim? I honestly think it's in your head and that it would never strike a general reader as such. Let's go it through it sentence by sentence:

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.

Statement of fact: NPOV

Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.

Statement of fact: NPOV

Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.

Statement of fact: NPOV

I know you want more pro-Catholic POV, that does not make the current section anti-Catholic. Haldraper (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the statements you list as NPOV are actually negative comments. And many of the statements listed as "pro-catholic" are statements of fact. So the list above is a trifle skewed. Xandar 01:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, we want to tell Reader the story. It is not a pro-Catholic pov to tell them the story as it is relayed by the scholars. However, it is anti-Catholic pov to omit the most significant facts that tell Reader what the Church actually did during the war. The recent trim tells them nothing. It doesn't even tell them enough about the controversy but barly mentions that there is one. This does not meet FA criteria and in fact leaves Reader with an insufficient article text.NancyHeise ^talk 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, let's go through the sentences that I tagged as NPOV that you say are 'negative' - I assume you mean have an anti-Catholic POV - and see if we can identify it.

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.

I would argue this is a historical fact: surely you don't dispute that? It doesn't place any judgement on that fact, either condemning or excusing the Church's action because we cut out all that background (arrests of priests in Bavaria, negotiations under the Weimar republic, Catholic schools and the Zentrumspartei voting for the Enabling Act) to get a sentence that is neither pro or anti-Catholic but NPOV.

The concordat is a fact, but, as you will know, the very selection and mentioning facts can be POV. Even more so, if it is done without proper context. So, if the article says the Church signed a concordat with Nazi Germany, why is this being mentioned? The article doesn't mention other concordats such as that with Argentina. Mention of this one alone can therefore imply to the average reader that the Church had some special relationship with Nazi Germany. That's why I would list it as a negative statement rather than neutral. Xandar 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.

This is here to balance the previous sentence about Pius' efforts to protect the Jews in WWII. Again it is a fact that these criticisms have been made by a numerous academics and journalists. What do you propose, that we don't mention them at all?

Not at all. What I was saying that this was not a neutral, as you had listed it, but a negative statement. Xandar 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.

This if anything is pro-Catholic as it casts doubt on the preceding statement but on its own is I think a fairly NPOV way of tying up the issue.

Nancy, I dispute your assertion that the section tells the reader nothing about "what the Church actually did during the war". It tells them:

After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions.

During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.

In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis.

I know "you want to tell Reader the story" of the glorious Catholic Church "as it is relayed by [your favourite Catholic] scholars." Wikipedia I'm afraid is not the place for that. Haldraper (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just scanning the lead up to WWII , the treatment of the Spanish Civil War and the lamentable pro-fascist stance of many Catholics, (all it says is some clergy were killed - well so was Lorca, so were many republicans, Simone Weil one of the most admirable beautiful souls who ever lived was on the anarchist not the catholic/fascist side..switching countries, in fact that whole anti-dreyfus, anti-leftist, La Croix Action Française anti-semitic tinged style, a lot of clergy supported this way of thinking, the ideological thought-world for the triumph of the far-right was far from always being attacked by Catholicism Sayerslle (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

" Soon the alliance between sword and altar was re-created..because the Nationalists lacked intellectuals of any stature the clergy filled that role for Franco..The Bishops of Pamplona and Zaragoza and the Archbishop of Santiago already used the terms 'crusade' and 'Gods war' to characterise the rebel cause..The Bishop of Salamnca graciously offered Franco his palace in which to establish the Nationalist HQ..Francisco Francos victories were celebrated with Te Deums..etc etc.." Francisco Salvado Palgrave Macmillan The Spanish Civil War.. Sayerslle (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, like many, you are not considering these matters in adequate context. Anti-leftism in France has a lot to do with the French revolution persecutions and the later anti-clericalism of the 1900 left. So "Blaming" the Church for being largely anti-left is a little like blaming someone who is being mugged of being anti-mugger. There is the old adage that it takes two to make a fight.

This bubbles over into Spain where the vicious anti-clericalism of Anarchists and Communists on the left led to the killings of (not just "some clergy" but) nearly 7,000 priests, monks and nuns! The even larger-scale activities of similar groups in Russia principally against the Orthodox Church, shows that this was not an isolated phenomenon, but part of the ideology of these groups. If one of the policies of your faction is slaughtering priests and burning down churches, then don't be surprised if some in the Church support your enemies. Xandar 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

adequate context is exactly what is missing from the red terror bit of the spanish civil war in the history section. if the clergy were on the side of the Nazis dropping bombs on Guernica that's bad isnt it? When you say 'theres an old adage ' etc what do you expect etc?, again thats sheer worldly thinking, it shows Jesus wasted his breath when he said turn the other cheek, love your enemy etc..The clergy in Spain had no business siding with fascism and Nazism full stop. If theyd have followed what Jesus said then the anarchists would have had no reason to hate them. Sayerslle (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. Haldraper, the World War II paragraph omits the fact that all scholarly books tell us that the Church and Pope Pius XII in particular were hailed as heros of World War II for their efforts to work against the Nazi's and communists and help Jews escape. The "debate" only emerged after a fictional play called "The Deputy" which is widely believed to have been the work of communist propaganda. We can link to the "debate" after we tell reader the facts of how the Church and Pius were recognized for their efforts during the war. I think that the work of Pinchas Lapide should be mentioned in the article because his work is hailed as the definitive work by a Jewish scholar on the subject. We had wording and refs that included this important fact and I think it is very POV to exclude this. NancyHeise ^talk 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I call BS on the assertion that "all scholarly books tell us that the Church and Pope Pius XII in particular were hailed as heros of World War II for their efforts to work against the Nazi's and communists and help Jews escape." Perhaps the ones you read have said so, but, as I and others have stated repeatedly, the selection of books used in the history section is not ideal. There are scholars who think Pius was not a hero of World War II. There is controversy about this, and we can't pretend there isn't just because we don't agree with some of the conclusions. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No. After the war the Church and Pius were hailed as heroes for their work. This is a fact. The criticisms started, strangely enough, in Germany, in the 1960s. Xandar 00:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

One reason that newspaper accounts aren't considered the very best sources available is because they are often written without access to all of the facts - or by people who aren't qualified to judge - or lack the appropriate context to make proper interpretations. That is why we are supposed to rely on recent academic scholarship. Ideally, in those works historians have greater access to information than 30+ years ago, and, ideally, the historians have enough context - and are further removed from the events - to make proper interpretations. Karanacs (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No one needs to use newspapers for this section, all WWII Church history is easily found in respectable sources on both Church and World War II history. Karanacs, I have provide sources that support my assertions. You have not provided sources that support yours. The Church and Pius were hailed as heros, this is a fact oft repeated in all histories of the Church and World War II that discuss the Church's involvement. The only reason I can think of why you may find this astonishing is because maybe you have not researched the issue. The fact that some scholars don't agree is what I want to include in the article along with the fact that others do. I am not the one trying to gloss over a major controversy. I am trying to meet FAC criteria and WP:NPOV but whenever I try to do this, someone calls me a POV pusher. It is not POV to want actual facts in the article that are also in most respectable history books on the subject. NancyHeise ^talk 06:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All scholarly books tell us the Church and Pius XII were hailed as heroes? As if the people in the wreckage of Europe after the war didn't have better things to do than hail the Pope as a hero. I'd say Anne Frank was a heroine, the Warsaw ghetto uprising would have greater claims to the adjective heroic. Just looking quickly on Amazon, in Frank J.Coppa's 'Papacy, the Jews and the Holocaust' I find Despite the controversy surrounding PIus XII's silence during WW2... September 10 1943, the Germans occupy Rome after the fall of Mussolini, October 16 1943, roundup Roman Jews, deport to the camps Pius XII preserved his diplomatic approach even when the Germans rounded up the Jews of Rome in October 1943 'under his very windows'...In Charles Gallaghers 'Vatican Secret Diplomacy' his Christmas Message of 1942, fell tragically short of a clear condemnation of such systematic moral evil..he did not mention Nazism by name but condemned Marxist socialism at length.. The twentieth century was such a terrible mess it was incredibly difficult to take a good line, but whatever, it looks well short of heroic. Sayerslle (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is an example of how the dynamic on this Talk Page tends to break down. It's true that some people hailed Pius XII as a hero. You may not agree but some people do think that way and, IMO, they are not completely wrong. I don't doubt that he did discreetly save many, many Jews from the Holocaust. Read Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

Was Pius somewhat more circumspect in his public pronouncements? Yes, he certainly was. Was this cowardice or judicious discretion? That's a matter of opinion. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Give the man a break. He's sitting in the Vatican which is in the middle of Fascist Italy which by the way is a subservient lapdog to Nazi Germany. There are Catholics throughout Nazi-occupied Europe who will bear the consequences of anything Pius says. There is evidence that Pius wanted to be stronger in his opposition but saw that approach as being empty words which would bring real retribution on Catholics and Jews alike. The bottom line is that the debate continues to this day and, AFAICT, is often informed by people's prejudices (i.e. whether you are a Catholic, a Jew or an atheist).

First of all, there is not enough space to go into this controversy in any detail. The previous version of the text went into way too much detail. Secondly, it is not the job of this or any Wikipedia article to defend the Catholic Church against criticism. We should simply note that the criticism exists and move on. If there is a subsidiary article that treats the controversy in more detail, we should link to it. That's all.

--Richard S (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't speak out in case it 'would bring real retribution on Catholics and Jews alike' ? He's sitting in the Vatican which by the way is in the middle of Fascist (and Catholic) Italy, which by the way is subservient to Nazi Germany - I'm not an idiot, I did gather that, - though by 1943 the Allies were advancing on Rome and Mussolini was gone, but still, keep mum, don't want to make things worse - if you are in a cattle truck about to meet Mengele, how much worse can it get? Sayerslle (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, I admit that your points have some validity. I just think this is not a case where everything is black-or-white. The Pope is pastor over all Catholics and, even in 1943, there were still many Catholics under Nazi occupation.

However, IMO, this discussion has gone off the rails. I am afraid you are in search of the TRUTH. This is a bad idea. The truth is that there are differing opinions regarding Pius XII. It doesn't matter what you think or I think or even what the group of editors of this article think. Even if you convinced all of the editors of this article that Pius XII was worthy of criticism for his action/inaction during WWII, the fact is that there are people in the "real world" who defend Pius XII. It is not our job to determine if they are right or wrong. It is our job to report the fact that such a POV exists and to present that POV in an NPOV way without giving it undue weight. At this point in time, I am not able to determine whether the mainstream opinion is that propounded by the critics of Pius or his defenders. Thus, I suggest that we simply present the existence of the controversy without suggesting that either side is right. Of course, this article is not the place to discuss the details of the controversy. Articles such as Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust are more appropriate places to delve into such details.

--Richard S (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the entire discussion has now been derailed by new accusations of POV pushing against those of us who are trying to put forth good faith improvements - I was just wondering if Sayerslle knows - since he mentioned Anne Frank- that she along with a vast population of Jews were hidden by Catholic families who were encouraged to do so by their faith and the Vatican? [5] They did so knowing that the Nazi penalty for hiding jews was death.[6]. This book clearly states the controversy that we are trying to cover in our article. [7] It is not pov pushing to tell Reader that the Church actually did something on a very large scale that helped a huge number of Jews escape the Nazis - its just a well known fact acknowledged by all historians - and one our article has glossed over. NancyHeise ^talk 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a very narrow understanding of what the Church is...what it shaped, and controlled, or sought to restrain, etc...whole areas, Vichy France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany, Croatia, shot through with Catholicism for centuries, , gave themselves up to mass murder -massive percentages of Catholics got in line behind tyrrany,- you claim Christianity brought civilization to Europe , but then I dont understand how the middle of the twentieth century happened. Either Catholicism was not to be blamed , therefore not as influential in shaping things as you claim, or else, yes influential, well then , culpableSayerslle (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is where we stick to what the Church did as opposed to what some Catholics did against the preaching of the Church (see Mit brennender Sorge). Not sure what percentage of Europe was Catholic when WWII broke out but I think its fairly well known that the massacre-ing regimes (Nazis and Communists) were atheists who were trying to engineer some kind of superrace of humans using scientific methods - completely against Catholic teachings. That said, you may not know that our article used to include mention of We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah and John Paul II's apology to Jews for past sins committed against them by the Church and Catholics and human beings in general. I supported keeping that text in the article because it showed an important historical event - I still support putting that in there but others here were more interested in having a short article and trimmed it out. NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Institutions section

I think this could be expanded. I do not agree to the cuts recently made to this section but Im not going to argue. There are recent news articles claiming that the Church operates a quarter of all the world's hospitals and this is notable enough to be mentioned in this section. We should also consider mentioning that a substantial number of all the schools in third world countries as well as the US are run by the Church. I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers of these institutions without giving them context as to what they mean. NancyHeise ^talk 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our propaganda hound is back. Really, Nancy, we are not here to praise the church - or to damn her - especially by quoting misleading or dishonest statistics like this. The number affiliated with the church may be that - although I suspect that this is counting apples and oranges (what is a hospital? do Bellevue and a missionary station in the brush each count as one?) - but operated by the church is going too far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The image (at right) Nancy keeps removing as unsourced, is in fact sourced on its image page; as I know because Nancy was told so. It is now sourced here, and in the article. I trust this nonsense will now cease; if not, I intend to note it as further evidence of Nancy's endemic bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our personal-attack hound is back. Please try to stick to facts and be constructive. Xandar 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratios vs numbers

I think the statement that "I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers ... without giving them context as to what they mean" is true not just here, but in general. Most people will find it hard to understand numbers without knowing the comparative ratios. It is one thing to say company X owns Y supermarkets, but MUCH more informative if one also says that company X owns 24% of all supermarkets in the US. So these ratios should be stated in most cases. Some type of map will be informative.

I do not understand the situation with the map. Personally I find maps very informative in general, be they about churches, supermarkets or product usage maps. There is a source on the map page on Wikimedia, but the stated source has no map, just numbers. How do we know that the numbers correspond to the map? But a map would be very nice if a reliable one can be found. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this map in our article before. I put it there. It was roundly tossed by many editors who kept saying it was unsourced. I am not in favor of keeping unsourced information in the article, it will not pass through FA so why keep putting this in there? NancyHeise ^talk 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I went to the map page and removed the claim that it has a source. So as is, it is unsourced. I left a message for the person who loaded the map to see what the source was. Have not had a response yet. The data "looks right" but that does not constitute a source. I think if no source is found the map has to go, but I do wish a new map could be found. This current unsourced map was informative to me, and I would hope that a sourced one can be found. As for FA passage, I pay no attention to ratings, what matters is how informative the article is with reliable sources. History2007 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing citations of the actual source used is academic fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic fraud? Come on you can do better than that..... You need to get more creative with your insults here. Use some more complicated terminology to release your frustrations, it will help you deep down........ (do the dots bother you?).... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... History2007 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map consists of the countries of the world tinted by percentage of Catholics. It makes, therefore, two claims: the boundaries of the countries, which are - on that scale - uncontroversial, and the percentage of Catholics, which the source supports. Which of them does History2007 insist is unsourced? (We could not simply take a map from the source if it had one; that would be copyright violation on the creative act of drawing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we know the numbers on the website correspond to the shadings/colorings on the map? Manual verification? History2007 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map violates Wikipedia policies regarding statistics. You can say what the source says about stats but you can't interpret them yourself. Making your own map violates that rule and that's why it was deleted long ago when I tried to use it. NancyHeise ^talk 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I could ask no better illustration of the fraud which has caused this article to be protected.

The map shows France, for example, as orange.
Its label shows that orange means "60-79% Catholic".
The source cited says that France is 75.54% Catholic.
Where is the "interpretation"? The policies that forbid it admit simple arithmetic, even above the level of 60 < 75.54.

I will be back in a week to see if Nancy and History2007 have been barred, as they deserve to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation: You are relying on a manual verification of the data by checking the numbers for France. Did you check Lithuania? How about Belgium? How about Madagascar? Did you check them all or just the home of Mona Lisa? How do we know you did not make an arithmetic error anywhere? Do Wikipedia editors need to gather in groups to count numbers on maps? I do not think so..... And are you leaving us for a week? Sigh...... History2007 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrors! I'm checking the data by looking at the map (and seeing it appears reasonable), selecting a country, and looking at the source (the same would be required to check the data if we presented it as as a table).

Are these scare italics about manual intended to insist on some sort of OCR, which is less reliable than the human eye, especially for things like this, where the format differs radically?

How do we know I didn't make an arithmetic error anywhere? Because I didn't do any arithmetic. I observed immediately that 75.54 (which the source states) is more than 60, as I observed immediately that the image of France is orange.

History2007 is free to check Lithuania, Belgium, and Madagascar for himself; since the source is in numerical order, it won't take him much longer to do the whole map; the only real difficulty will be checking that the Guyanese states not in the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the map as concerned, it tends to mislead by having a bottom limit of 20% catholic population, which makes it appear that there are no significant numbers of Catholics in major parts of the world where in fact millions of catholics live. If the map is to be retained it probably needs a 10% field. Xandar 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No more than it tends to mislead by suggesting 20% for Saudi Arabia. But this is the same thing again: if it doesn't push my POV, it's anti-Catholic. Please stop before an admin sees you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it turned out that said map was full of errors anyway. So moot point. History2007 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it turned out that there were two cases where the color does not reflect the source (Lithuania, for example, is 80.01% Catholic, but is shown in the 60-79 range - I'm whelmed), and one where the source is almost certainly wrong itself. The former may well be due to the source being updated since the map was drawn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no and not so, as usual. In the "proposed correction" a few African spots that were yellow are now green. Which is correct I am not sure, but there are inconsistencies beyond Lithuania which I had picked by pure chance as an example. Translation: I was right to question the accuracy of the map. Period. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PMAnderson, there were many more errors (or at least, discrepancies between the source and the map). I put my corrected version of the map here so that you can see the differences. Ucucha 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

← I very much like the concept of having a map. However, there's still errors in the data. For example, Syria is less than 10% Catholic, while Lebanon is approximately one-quater Catholic. There's other data in the source which looks suspicious as well; for example, the population of the United Sates is approximately 307 million, not 285 million. (The two links I've supplied are to the CIA World Fact Book, which is a fairly reliable source for country demographics.) Does anyone have thoughts on how to fix this mess? Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes (though note that the source actually gives no data for Lebanon; cf. my version of the map). The source is also questionable because it is apparently from the Church itself, and thus not independent of the subject. The best way to proceed would be to create a map on the basis of an independent reliable source that lists sensible percentages for all countries, but such a source may not exist. Ucucha 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha has a point, and my position against church sources has been outlined elsewhere. In this case, my suggestion is to use the revised version by Ucucha (or similar), with a caption along the following lines: "Catholic church figures for church adherents as a proportion of the population". As long as the reader knows the source is the church, i would accept this unless there is a reliable source with contrary figures. If there is, then we might have to abandon the exercise, or use multiple sources for the map, and a footnote discussing them.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We can not use this map because it is the creation of a Wikipedia editor who is interpreting stats in violation of WP:stat. It will not pass through the FA process, it sandwiches the text in the section. I am not in favor of including this in the article again when it has already been tossed for these same reasons before. NancyHeise ^talk 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to read where WP:Stat advises against such maps. Ucucha 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that it mentions anything about these sort of maps. Majoreditor (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic schools data can be improved

This book published by the respectable and non-Catholic Church affiliated Routledge publishing company contains valuable information we can use to expand the information on Catholic schools. Please see pages 149-151 [8]. Notable points I think should be included in the article are:

Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education
Over 50 million children attend Catholic schools around the world
In some countries, these schools represent the main school system, "particularly in some African countries"
There are a lot of points we could cover, please see the source and offer your suggestions. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can look at that later, but I do not know how to get a map out of the book, given the copyright issues. I searched for a map, and the one that has a source is called SPAM in the Wikidatabase. The 50 million children number is interesting and significant and if a ratio can be added will be useful. If that section gets much larger, it will justify its own article (title to be decided) but will b einteresting. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back Nancy but you seem to have returned with some bad, POV-pushing habits. For e.g., do you really, honestly, hand on heart think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? I just had a quick look at your source which mentions exam results for Catholic schools in Britain. If you're going to put that in as a plus for the Church, I'm going to have to dig out the data that suggests that far from it being a result of their "religious ethos" it's actually because of social selection, middle-class parents being more motivated to impress the parish priest, more able to contribute resources etc. We don't want to go down the tennis match road again do we? Haldraper (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, that opposing argument is addressed on the very pages of the Routledge book I provided as a source. It says that this analogy is not supported by evidence. I provided a solid reference with actual respectable facts about the Catholic Schools in an effort to improve our Catholic Institutions section. I am not POV pushing, I am information pushing. What is POV about the source I have cited? Here it is again, pages 149-151 [9]NancyHeise ^talk 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Nancy, I'll play the game! You really think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? It's hardly surprising is it that the book discounts the opposing argument to the one it's making is it! But don't worry, I know plenty of reliable sources that show just what I'm saying if you really want me to go get them. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is practically undecidable if they are respected or not. I can not see how one can readily prove or disprove that statement. And respect is a very soft (and culturally varied) concept. It will take $100 million in opinion research fees to even approximate the validity of that statement. Now if anyone has the funds ready, I will be glad to start the research next week.... History2007 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, do you need an assistant? I come very cheap, expenses only! Haldraper (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly contains research to suggest that Catholic schools are more effective than many state schools, though I don't know if we can fit that in here. The number of children attending Catholic schools though, and their pervasiveness in some countries is notable, and should be shoehorned in if we can. We could probably use a separate article on Catholic schools. Xandar 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading page 149 (150 is not available to me for a preview), I'm unsure what time period the "50 million" number is coming from. Many of the studies quoted are from the 1960s through 1980s, which seems a bit outdated. I think that if we want to include this type of info we ought to look for more recent studies published in journals, rather than a non-university press book that focuses more on outdated studies. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, the book is published by Routledge which has as good or better reputation for fact checking as University presses. Are you suggesting that a Routledge book is inferior to a University press? NancyHeise ^talk 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the book is not citing old data, it cites various studies from 1960's all the way to 2001 on page 149 [10] that all say Catholic school students performed better. This information should be in our Catholic Institutions section, it comes from a seriously NPOV source and is published by Routledge. How can anyone not want this in the article? NancyHeise ^talk 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons not to want this in the article - many of which have been listed above this post. One major reason not yet mentioned is that Google book previews often don't give enough information to verify that what you see is placed in the appropriate context (I, for example, can't view page 150). I'd want us to have read the entire chapter at the very least. Second, we have no idea whether this is scholarly consensus, or just the interpretations of the scholar who wrote this chapter in the book. Third, the book is vague on some of the numbers (there were 50 million students...when? is that current? is that a count of all students in the last X years? The book is not clear.) Fourth, some of the studies cited are quite old. Education in the US has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and I suspect that is the same in other countries as well. Fifth, a lot of what I could read was specific to studies done in Britain, and we cannot extrapolate from that. Sixth, "quality education" is a value judgement, and different scholars/individuals may have very different interpretations of what that means. Does it mean students make X score on an assessment test? That Y % of students graduate? Seventh, I didn't actually read anything that claimed that "Catholic schools around the world are respected for quality education". I think that claim issynthesis and an exaggeration. Eighth, there are myriad reasons why Catholic schools represent the only - or main - schools in an area, and if you are the only school, how can one judge whether the education provided is better or worse in that region? There's nothing to compare it to. Karanacs (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Google is not God. If you want to check a book source, and Google doesn't provide a free preview of the page(s) you want to see, I'd suggest finding a library. If they don't have a copy, ask about an interlibrary loan. There's more than one way to check a source. Gentgeen (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with you there - the ILL department at my library knows me well. The problem occurs when editors use partial Google book previews as sources for inserting new information into the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the preview noted above leaves anything to the imagination. The author makes a point and backs it up with scientific research. The book is not written by the Catholic Church, it is a scholarly summary of studies on the issue and I think it is important information to include in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Enlightenment

I'll have to dig around for it but I read somewhere that there are something like three waves of anti-clericalism, one of which begins with the Enlightenment. So, I think we should document that point more explicitly as an overarching theme and then tie various examples of anti-clerical violence to it.

To this end, I went to look at the section on "Enlightenment". It appears that the title of this section is meant to be more the name of a chronological period than a discussion of the Enlightenment itself. The flow of the text is choppy and the topics in this section are disjointed and unrelated to each other. This section needs some serious rewriting.

I will present the current text and add my critique. --Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Current text

In 1685, King Louis XIV of France revoked the Edict of Nantes ending a century-long experiment in religious toleration of Protestant Hugenots. A philosophical and cultural movement known as "the Enlightenment" also led to a decline in the power and influence of the Church over Western society, as ideologies such as rationalism, secularism, nationalism, anti-clericalism, liberalism and freemasonry challenged it.[341]

The first sentence in this section is a bit strange. The first sentence in a section should provide either an overview or a lead-in to the main topic. This sentence does neither. The only reason that I can see for it being here is that someone wanted it included in the article and since it doesn't quite fit in the previous section, "Age of Discovery", it had to be put here.

There is then a bit of a non sequitur, abrupt jump from the Edict of Nantes to the presentation of the Enlightenment. This could lead the unsophisticated reader to infer that the Edict of Nantes had something to do with the Enlightenment. (Yes, I know that if you parse it carefully, the second sentence includes the word "also" which would imply that there is no causal link but we shouldn't require the reader to read that carefully.)

In any event, if the section is titled "Enlightenment", the text should primarily be about the Enlightenment as it relates to the history of the Church. This is the place where I would introduce the "new wave of anti-clericalism" and the violence spawned by it over the next two centuries.

--Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Current text

In the French revolution of 1789, attacks on the wealth of the Church and associated grievances led to the wholesale nationalisation of church property in France.[342] Large numbers of French priests refused to take an oath of compliance to the National Assembly. Subsequently the Church was outlawed and replaced by a Cult of Reason.[342] All monasteries were destroyed, 30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.[342]

I think it would be useful to tie the anti-clerical violence of the French Revolution to the anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment. Something like "One of the first manifestations of anti-clerical violence occurred during the French Revolution of 1789". --Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Current text

When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy, he imprisoned Pope Pius VI, who died after six weeks of captivity.

This is too much detail. It's a bit weird in the context of the next sentence. We should either say more or say less. I vote for removing it. --Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Current text

Napoleon later re-established the Catholic Church in France through the Concordat of 1801.[343] The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival and the return of the Papal States.[344][345][344]

"The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival" - We should clarify where this "Catholic revival" took place. Just in France or throughout the Catholic countries of Europe? I think I would drop the bit about the return of the Papal States. This is the first time in the article that we mention them and they weren't under French control for all that long (less than 20 years in total). --Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Current text

In the Americas, Franciscan priest Junípero Serra founded a series of new missions in cooperation with the Spanish government and military.[346] Pope Gregory XVI challenged Spanish and Portuguese policy by appointing his own candidates as colonial bishops. He also condemned slavery and the slave trade in the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus, and approved the ordination of native clergy in the face of government racism.[347]

In South America, Jesuit missionaries sought to protect native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. In China, despite Jesuit efforts to find compromise, the Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in 1721.[340] These events added fuel to growing criticism of the Jesuits, who were seen to symbolize the independent power of the Church, and in 1773 European rulers united to force Pope Clement XIV to dissolve the order.[348] The Jesuits were eventually restored in the 1814 papal bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum.[349]

What the...? How did we jump from the French revolution to Junipero Serra, the Jesuit reductions and the suppression of the Jesuits? First of all, this is out of chronological order. The French revolution and Napoleon are 19th century. Serra, the Jesuit reductions and the suppression of the Jesuits are mostly 17th and 18th century. (OK, the restoration of the Jesuits is 19th century). Secondly, none of this is related to the Enlightenment as a philosophical / ideological theme. My inclination is to move these two paragraphs to the "Age of Discovery" section since most of it is about the Spanish colonization of the Americas.--Richard S (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Junipero Serro bit is much too detailed for here, and makes it sound like that was the first Catholic expansion in North America (or at least what is now the US). That is absolutely not the case, and to profile him so highly is the essence of undue weight. Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest having a look at some other encyclopedias to see what they cover and in what depth. Wikipedia allows us to use tertiary sources to do this as well as to find out what scholarly consensus is on different subjects. Karanacs Junipero Serra undue weight comment is surprising to me and I think some more research is needed to help us decide a better way to hand out weight. I think that is the most fair way of making the decision. Can we all go to the library this weekend and look up various encyclopedias, write down what they say and bring it to this page for analyzation? Part of our problem is that some people just don't know what is important - someone wanted to eliminate the Chinese Rites controversy recently and I don't think they understand the significance of that event in Church history. NancyHeise ^talk 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How can that be a surprise? I first brought that up in May 2008 [11][12]. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that comment just got lost in the zillions of other comments tossed my way through all the FACs. Sorry for forgetting you have brought this up before. I seem to think that the Spanish missions in the US were kind of important parts of Church history as well as US history and I don't understand why you disagree. The major cities of the American West were established by these missions. NancyHeise ^talk 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with about 50% of this. The Revocation of the Ed of N was very important for the Englightenment as it ended toleration in France; Voltaire & others wrote very extensively about it and its consequences. The Enlightment also led to very extensive but peaceful interference and confiscation of Church property by the Ancien Regime, especially under Emperor Joseph II, with his Edict on Idle Institutions etc. This used to be in, but now seems to have come out. There were similar moves in Portugal & elsewhere. I don't really follow your point about chronology - the French Revolution (1789) is 18th century & over by 1800. The eclipse of the Jesuits is very much the same period. I think we have mentioned the Papal States before - if not they should certainly be re-added! Maybe not needed here. The revival of the church, in alliance with conservative political forces, is a feature of most or all European Catholic countries, certainly including Ireland for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

About the revocation of the Edict of Nantes... as important as this was, is this the seminal event that "launches" the Enlightenment? It seems a strange way to introduce the topic. Imagine that this section is a mini-article. What should the lead sentence say?

About chronology... my point was that Serra and the Jesuit reductions predate the French Revolution. Also, they are arguably more relevant to the previous section, "Age of Discovery" than to this section, "Enlightenment".

--Richard S (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The enlightenment section was originally twice its present size, which accounts for some of the choppiness. I agree that the Junipero Serra material might fit better in the section above. The fate of the Jesuits overlaps both, since it was "first stage" enlightenment politicians (those in power before the revolutions) who had it in for the Jesuits. The Edict of Nantes and the imprisonment of the Pope do need to be in there somewhere too, since both were pivotal events. With these reservations, I can see how the enlightenment-anti-clerical theme would be useful in providing flow to the section. Xandar 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section and the one before it ("Age of Discovery"). Hopefully, these rewrites are an improvement. I know some editors are trying to trim this article but jumping around from point to point without "connecting the dots" for the reader just makes for boring and confusing prose which makes reading the article tedious and long. We've got to carry the reader along and explain to him what we're trying to say rather than just throwing out a bunch of disjointed facts and leaving it to him to figure out what it's all supposed to mean. --Richard S (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of Philip II, V S Pritchett called his the first totalitarian state in Europe, with power over land from Holland, to North Africa, Latin America and the Philippines. Military and religious might. Isn't it not so much 'not doing enough to liberate the Indians'.. as being part of the power that is invading. This is from Ida Gorres, a Catholic, in her diaries - " If I were a pagan, a non-European pagan, I'd have one big objection, one special complaint which would certinly bar my way to the Faith: the fact that the baptised, the white race, have come to be the pest, the curse, the disintegrating ferment for the rest of the world, generally speaking. We, as a body, what is called Christendom, quite apart from the individuals. That we've branded the whole world with the awful stigma of ugliness, robbing it of its soul, spoiling, violating. By their fruits you shall know them." Sayerslle (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I do appreciate your efforts and the structure is now a lot more coherent but you do need to reference what you write and some of it did seem slightly POV. Haldraper (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The structure is better, but the Englightment para not good - it makes it sound as if the E was primarily an anti-church, or anti-religious movement, which it certainly wasn't. And adding unrefed material like this is no use at all. There is nothing about the changed nature of the renewed church & so on. Will certainly need redoing. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Wikipedia is an incremental, collaborative process. I make the improvements that I can and hope that others will build on what I do. The bottom line is, if what I wrote is better than what was there before, I have contributed to the project. If you see opportunities for further improvements, then fix it. --Richard S (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper removed some text that I wrote on the grounds that it was unreferenced and POV. I hate the term "unreferenced" because it usually is a code word for "I don't agree with the assertion". Fine, let's discuss the assertion and figure out where we disagree and how we can agree. There are two components to the text that was deleted. Here's the first part.

A philosophical and cultural movement known as "the Enlightenment" attacked the power and influence of the Church over Western society.[343] Eighteenth century writers such as Voltaire and the Encyclopedists wrote biting critiques and satires exposing priestly corruption and the excesses of Catholic institutional power. One target of their criticism was the 1685 revocation of the Edict of Nantes which ended a century-long policy of religious toleration of Protestant Huguenots.

Johnbod disliked my contribution because "it makes it sound as if the E was primarily an anti-church, or anti-religious movement, which it certainly wasn't". I agree that the Enlightenment was not primarily an anti-church or anti-religious movement. I'd like to ask, "Do you guys think that the previous text was superior? And why?

Here's the previous text:

A philosophical and cultural movement known as "the Enlightenment" also led to a decline in the power and influence of the Church over Western society, as ideologies such as rationalism, secularism, nationalism, anti-clericalism, liberalism and freemasonry challenged it.[341]

I agree with Johnbod's assertion about the Enlightenment not being primarily an anti-Church movement. Does the above sentence do a better job of characterizing the Enlightenment?

Now for the second part:

Many scholars view the attacks of Enlightenment philosophes as the inspiration for the French Revolution's direct assault on the privileges of the Catholic Church, including the state's confiscation of Church property, the execution of anti-revolutionary churchmen, and mob actions inflicting severe damage to Catholic shrines and art.

I really don't think the linkage of the Enlightenment to the French Revolution is that uncommon an assertion. What I was trying to say was that some of what the Enlightenment philosophes wrote contributed to the violent anti-clericalism of the French Revolution. I think the issues we are grappling with are:

1) Granted, the Enlightenment was not primarily an anti-Church movement

2) The blame for the anticlerical violence of the French Revolution cannot be laid entirely at the door of the Enlightenment. As pointed out, there were other things going on in France which made it ripe for revolution.

3) Assertion #2 is also true for other anticlerical violence of the 19th and 20th centuries

4) Nonetheless, there is a substantial POV that the secular, anti-Church positions of the Enlightenment contributed to the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution and the subsequent anticlericalism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

5) Is the POV in #4 a consensus of historians or is it a minority viewpoint?

6) Despite the conditions unique to France prior the the French Revolution, revolutionary fervor did sweep Europe in the 19th century (most notable example is the Paris Commune). The reasons for this are complicated and outside the scope of this article. However, I suspect that the Church tended to side with the establishment rather than with the revolutionaries. I think it is important to note that the Church was almost never on the side of the revolutionaries and that much of anti-clericalism is rooted in this.

You got a better way to explain all this, please help me.

--Richard S (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

After the Commune they built the horrible Basilique du Sacré-Coeur, to "expiate the crimes of the communards"..I think there is a Louise Michel avenue now near the basilica, to try and even things out.. ....In 1793 the Marquis de Sade headed a delegation to the National Convention to read a petition which proposed the abolition of Christian worship - " Tyranny and religious superstition were nurtured in the same cradle, both were daughters of fanaticism, both were served by those useless creatures known as the priest in the temple and the monarch on the throne; having a common foundation they could not but protect each other. " The Church seemed generally to side with reaction..the left generally didn't trust priests, ... I was thinking that , (stealing an idea of History 2007) , why not create a franglais article, see how they tackle the subject of the Church and its history , and the Enlightenment, after all they are a much more Catholic country in their blood so to speak, and take stuff worth taking from their article. Sayerslle (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Temporal power and wealth

Nancy wrote "Our article already has a sentence like this in the French Revolution paragraph "In the French revolution of 1789, attacks on the wealth of the Church and associated grievances led to the wholesale nationalisation of church property in France."

Yes, it's true that we mention wealth in that sentence but, as a result, there winds up being the suggestion that "attacks on the wealth of the Church" might be unique to the French Revolution which is only true in the sense that it was the first of a series of such attacks. It also glosses over the real issue which is not just wealth but power.

Look, rewind to the days of Constantine and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion. Emperors meddle with Church affairs and bishops meddle in political affairs. Religion and state are intertwined. Yes, emperors and bishops have power struggles but nobody sees anything untoward about this. It's just the way the system is set up. Sometimes, the emperor wins and sometimes the bishop wins but this is the way the game is played.

However, sometime after the turn of the millenium, opinions start to change about the desirability of doing things this way. (This is a gross oversimplification). It's no longer just about who is winning in this round of the game. People start to argue that the game is badly structured.

You have things like the Investiture Controversy where the Church says to the monarch, "You should not have any say over religious appointments". Part of the Reformation is about the overweening wealth of abbots and bishops and their ability to use their wealth and power with impunity. There is a Reformation-era wave of anti-clericalism which is precursor to but different from Enlightenment anti-clericalism. The English Reformation is not so much one of theology but rather one of ecclesiology. Who is the head of the Church of England? The Pope? Or the King of England? This is why some Anglicans still see themselves as Catholics. Their reformation is arguably more a schism than a difference in theology. Of course, the Church of England becomes the target of some of the same criticisms that had previously been aimed at the Catholic Church.

And throw into this mix the European wars of religion which is not just about Protestants vs. Catholics but also about the assumption that religious uniformity is important to the stability and security of the state.

And now you move into the Enlightenment which is just a bunch of eggheads writing stuff except some people actually believe it and start implementing the ideas. And this is where Enlightenment anti-clericalism springs from. It's rooted in the earlier forms of anti-clericalism but it has an atheistic, secular flavor which the Reformation-era anti-clericalism didn't have.

There's grass-roots anti-clericalism in which the populace targets the clerics and religious (the ground troops of the Church, as it were) and there's a different kind of anti-clericalism where governments target the wealth and power of the Church as an institution.

I reject Nancy's evocation of using anti-semitic arguments to justify the Holocaust as a reason why we shouldn't get into this topic. This ain't the same kind of animal and you wouldn't see it that way unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool defender of the Church. The above narrative isn't really subject to charges of POV. This is the way this stuff is taught in most history books. Admittedly, the Enlightenment and secular POV has the upperhand in public schools and academe but we are supposed to give most weight to the mainstream position, right? This is definitely the mainstream position.

Arguments about whether the Church "stole" or otherwise coerced its wealth are beside the point. The point here is that many Western societies came to the conclusion that the Church should not have so much wealth and power nor such an integral role in the running of the State and efforts were made to dismantle the power structure of the Church. Sometimes, this was done by means of anticlerical violence. Other times, it was done a little more peacefully (think of the loss of the Papal States to Italy).

Now, you may take one side or the other in these disputes. You might be in favor of Sir Thomas More over Henry VIII. You might favor the Enlightenment philosophes or you might favor the Church. If we take one side or the other in our text, we violate NPOV. However, if we fail to present the above as an important theme of Church history, then we have done the reader a disservice.

This isn't just a "forest". It's like the Amazon jungle. If you don't get this, then you were sleeping in Western Civilization 101 and you missed one of the primary drivers of the last 1000 years of history.

--Richard S (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I don't think anyone is arguing with you about what happened here, I just provided a POV that had not yet been considered in the ongoing thread and I wanted to add what I know so we can arrive at some sort of idea of what an NPOV paragraph might include in order to cover all sides. None of us can put anything into the article if we don't have sources so I think we should go do that now. I am going to the library tomorrow AM to take a look at tertiary sources' treatments of Church history again and see how they treat WWII, Spanish civil war et al in their Catholic Church articles. I'll also look at their bibliographies to see what books they suggest. I'll post what I find out maybe tomorrow afternoon. I hope others plan to do some research too. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another element of this is that the so-called "power" of the Church is often mythologised and exaggerated. From Constantine to 1000AD Bishops and Abbots were generally appointed by secular rulers and often for very secular reasons. Any power they held generally came from their education and ability to spread ideas. There was the struggle of the investiture controversy after 1000 AD, but by and large many key appointments remained in secular hands. Key bishoprics and Abbeys were given to political supporters and favourites. So a lot of the "power" of the Church, even in medieval periods was ephemeral. Church power was further weakened at the Reformation, when the Catholic Church was at one point left with just the Hapsburgs and the Kings of France as supporters. This allowed the secular rulers to regain full authority over selection of Bishops and Abbots almost everywhere but in Italy. In France the bishops were nearly all aristocrats given their positions as pay-offs by the King. In the Spanish Empire bishops took orders from the King and were forbidden to communicate directly with Rome. This led to the divergence of views between bishops and common clergy in the 18th century. "The Church" as such was not seen by people as a big force of oppression for these reasons. The famous French revolution cartoon tells the story where the Aristocrats are shown burdening the peasants. The church is not however illustrated as part of the burden, but as sharing in supporting the burden of the ruling class - but only by pushing up with one finger. Xandar 00:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly true that power within the church was much more widely diffused than in recent centuries - the orders were difficult for the papacy or crown to control. Communication was also far more difficult until the late Middle Ages. Hence during the Avignon period schisms most church activities just carried on with relatively little impact. Johnbod (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, I think you are again trying too hard to differentiate between the "Church" and the clergy. This article is not about the actions of the popes, but the actions of the organization - and the bishops/abbots/etc played a large role in governing the organization. You've pushed hard to include information on what individual bishops/orders have done when it reflects well on the Church (such as the American bishops condeming slavery in parts of the 19th century or when the Jesuits tried to protect some native peoples) - it makes no sense, then, to exclude what the hierarchy has done just because it is not completely positive. I have seen many sources discussing the political power of the Church in the Middle Ages (pre-Reformation) - I would be very interested in seeing those which say that this was more an exaggeration or myth. Can you provide some? Karanacs 14:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is naive sources tend to speak of "the power of the church" as though it was all doing the same thing. On some things there was unity of purpose and action, but in many areas, especially anything political, there were churchmen on all sides of any argument, far more than would be the case post-Reformation, let alone post-1815 or today. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean and agree. The key is that the Church did have a significant impact on secular decisions. Whether there was unity in the arguments is another story, but the Church often played a large role in decision-making processes (archbishops often held key political positions as well) and tended to come out on the winning side more often than not. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, any winning side in medieval politics had several bishops on it; but so did the losing one! Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Enlightenment - Part 2

The French article covers this in some detail. However my French is not that good: PS. Sacre Coeur is absolutely gorgeous.

À la veille de la Révolution française, 95% de la population rurale française sont des pascalisants, c'est-à-dire qu'ils vont à la messe au moins le jour de la fête de Pâques, mais dans ce paysage apparemment monotone de conformisme religieux, les rapports de mission des Lazaristes couvrant la période de 1683 à 1714 dans la région de Montauban, font état de zones d'insuccès, et deux siècles plus tard, ces mêmes régions présenteront les mêmes caractéristiques d'une faiblesse de la pratique religieuse[93].

On the eve of the French Revolution, 95% of the French rural population were pascalisants, that is to say, they attended Mass at least on the day of Easter, but in this seemingly monotonous landscape of religious conformity, the mission reports of the Lazaristes covering the period 1683 to 1714 in the region of Montauban, show areas of failure, and two centuries later, these regions exhibited the same characteristics of a weak religious practice[93]. (In short, the rural French were just barely practicing Catholics. - Richard)

Le phénomène de déchristianisation de masse, sensible en France à partir de 1750 n'a souvent été qu'un abandon de conformisme, c'est-à-dire des composantes de l'attitude chrétienne ayant plus à voir avec la coutume et la contrainte qu'avec la foi. Depuis le IVe concile du Latran en 1215, tout fidèle parvenu à l'âge du discernement est tenu de communier au moins une fois par an dans l'église de sa paroisse sous peine d'excommunication et après la mort, de privation de sépulture chrétienne. Au XVIIIe siècle, il y a bien la tentative, par exemple à travers les visites pastorales des évêques, d'exercer une surveillance plus étroite sur la pratique religieuse des fidèles, mais en pratique, les sanctions sont rares et l'État n'intervient que par intermittence pour assurer le respect du dimanche[93].

The phenomenon of mass deChristianization, as evidenced in France from 1750 was not so much a flight from conformity, that is to say elements of the Christian attitude having more to do with custom and mores than with faith. Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the faithful who have reached at the age of reason were required to receive communion at least once a year in his parish church on pain of excommunication and after death, to be deprived of Christian burial. In the eighteenth century, there were many efforts, for example through the pastoral visits of bishops to exercise closer supervision over the practice of religious believers, but in practice the penalties were rare and the state intervened only intermittently to ensure respect for Sunday worsip.

Il est banal de constater le contraste entre la tièdeur religieuse du XVIIIe siècle et la ferveur chrétienne du XVIIe siècle marquée par des grands mystiques comme Jean de la Croix ou Thérèse d'Avila. En fait, le courant de contestation libertin existe depuis le début du XVIIe siècle. La remise en cause du christianisme ne se produit pas seulement en France, mais aussi en Italie et en Angleterre. Elle interagit avec le panthéisme et le rationalisme positif de Spinoza[94].

It is banal to note the contrast between the religious tepidness of the eighteenth century and the Christian fervor of the seventeenth century marked by great mystics like John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila. In fact, the current of libertine challenge has existed since the early seventeenth century. The questioning of Christianity did not occur only in France but also in Italy and England. It is related to pantheism and Spinoza's positive rationalism.

Le XVIIIe siècle dirige contre la religion en général, mais plus particulièrement contre le christianisme, une série d'attaques convergentes, plus ou moins virulentes que l'on peut illustrer par le Dictionnaire historique et critique de Bayle, en 1697, le Dictionnaire philosophique de Voltaire en 1764. Voltaire mène une guerre frontale aussi bien contre le Christ que contre l'Église avec le célèbre mot d'ordre « Écrasez l'infâme ». Il est à l'origine d'un anticléricalisme qui demeurera jusqu'au XXe siècle une des composantes de la bougeoisie occidentale. Il reproche à l'Église d'enfermer la croyance dans une suite de légendes inconsistantes, de conduire à une théocratie profitable aux prêtres,bref, de consacrer une société étrangère à la raison[95].

The eighteenth century targeted religion in general, but especially aimed against Christianity, a series of convergent attacks more or less virulent than can be illustrated by the Historical and Critical Dictionary of Bayle, in 1697, the Philosophical Dictionary Voltaire in 1764. Voltaire mounted a frontal assault both against Christ and against the Church with the famous slogan "Crush the infamous". He is at the origin of an anticlericalism which would remain until the twentieth century, a component of the Western bourgeoisie. He accused the Church of confining faith within a series of inconsistent legends, to lead to a theocracy beneficial to priests, in short, to consecrate a society which was a stranger to reason.

Si les idées de Voltaire sont incontestablement antichrétiennes, celles du Siècle des Lumières en général, sont intégrées au sein de certaines mouvances catholiques comme le Joséphisme en Autriche où le despote éclairé Joseph II considère que l'Église d'Autriche doit aussi bénéficier du rationalisme et des idées de progrès, sous la houlette de l'État plus que sous celle de Rome. En France, les mêmes idées nourrissent le Gallicanisme qui ne bénéficie pas de l'appui d'un souverain et qui devra attendre la Révolution de 1789 pour s'épanouir.

If Voltaire's ideas were clearly anti-Christian, those of the Enlightenment in general, are embedded within certain Catholic spheres of influence as the Josephism of Austria, where the enlightened despot, Joseph II decided that the Church of Austria should also benefit from the rationalism and ideas of progress, under the leadership of the state rather than under that of Rome. In France, the same ideas fed Gallicanism which does not enjoy the support of a sovereign and which had to wait for the Revolution of 1789 in order to flourish.

La Révolution française qui constituera un traumatisme pour l'Église n'est pas, à l'origine un complot dirigé contre la foi[95]. Mais c'est dans une position de faiblesse et de fatigue que l'Église aborde cette épreuve. Des huit papes qui se succèdent de 1700 à 1800, seul Benoît XIV sort de la médiocrité. À Rome, le temps des mondanités est de retour[94]. Récession démographique dans les monastères. Les querelles internes sont une autre cause de l'affaiblissement de l'Église: sous la pression conjointe des Franciscains et des Dominicains, mais aussi à cause de la jalousie du clergé séculier et de la suspicion des divers États catholiques qui redoutent leur puissance occulte, en 1773, Clément XIV décide la suppression des jésuites, l'ordre où l'on prononçait un voeu spécial d'obéissance au pape[94].

La révolution française est un évènement marquant de l'histoire de l'Église, pas seulement parce que depuis la défection des pays protestants et le déclin de l'Espagne, la France devient le pays catholique par excellence, mais aussi parce que par la conquête, la Révolution française s'exportera sur une partie de l'Europe. Quels qu'aient été les succès de l'anticléricalisme voltairien, les premiers artisans de la Révolution ne rêvent pas de dresser la nation contre l'Église, mais au contraire de les rapprocher. Les mouvances gallicane et janséniste du clergé français sont à l'aise dans le patriotisme révolutionnaire, et la réforme du mode de scrutin des États généraux est une victoire écrasante pour le bas-clergé et le monde des curés produit par la réforme catholique[96].

Preuve de l'adhésion des élus du clergé aux idéaux révolutionnaires, dans la nuit du 4 août 1789, les ecclésiastiques abandonnent leurs droits et leurs revenus à la nation. L'Église se retrouve ainsi privée de ressources, ce qui justifie quelques mois plus tard la sécularisation - on dirait aujourd'hui nationalisation - des biens d'Église, sécularisation étendue en février 1790, à celle des ordres et des congrégations, entraînant la fermeture des couvents de contemplatifs et la suppression des voeux monastiques. Ces bouleversements sont accomplis au milieu d'une indifférence à peu près unanime, évêques et curés ne voyant pas sans déplaisir la disparition de rivaux gênants jalousés pour leurs richesses[96].

La rupture définitive entre la Révolution et l'Église apparaît dès l'été 1790 lorsque la Constitution civile du clergé, conséquence d'un gallicanisme extrême implique la rupture de fait avec Rome pour les « prêtres jureurs » qui acceptent de prêter serment à la constitution. Un conflit résulte de cette situation entre le pouvoir révolutionnaire et les « prêtres réfractaires » fidèles à Rome, qui s'exacerbe à partir de la Commune de Paris en août 1792: il devient interdit de porter un costume ecclésiastique, des églises sont fermées ou détruites. Cette politique de déchristianisation n'eut pas que des effets négatifs pour l'Église puisque l'épreuve semble avoir raffermi la foi du peuple chrétien qui redemande des prêtres, poussant ainsi Bonaparte à rétablir le culte et des relations normales avec le Saint-Siège par le biais du Concordat de 1801[96]. Xandar 03:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite so! Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, the Basilique du Sacré-Coeur is gorgeous is POV.. Did you say how many priests and nuns were murdered before 1936 yet? The Sacre Coeur is kitsch, Notre Dame de Paris is gorgeous. You aint right about anything..Do you think Vladimir Tretchikoff better than Raoul Dufy? Actually the French articles were much emptier than I expected, not the mine of information I thought they might be. I should have looked first. The Church hated the Second Republic all along it seems . How many killed before they embraced Franco. Kitsch , and lies. Sayerslle (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholic Church

The text about the establishment of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope at Vatican I has this sentence:

Reaction to the pronouncement resulted in the breakaway of a group of mainly German churches which subsequently formed the Old Catholic Church.[352]

Do we really need this? I know it's true and it's referenced but is it really important to have in a broad overview of Church history? I propose deleting this sentence.

--Richard S (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it in. It is the only significant Catholic breakaway since the Reformation, & this short sentence covers it fine. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One of our FAC reviewers was a german who was amazed that this was not talked about more in our article. Apparently there are a lot of Old Catholic Churches in Germany. Since I am German in name only - I did not know this : ) NancyHeise ^talk 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Again. When you see snippets like that in the article, it's generally because they have been asked for. On this, I would agree with Johnbod that the uinformation is quite notable, and the space saved by removing it is not great. Xandar 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we should explain to the reader why this is notable. I knew that the Old Caatholics existed but I didn't understand that they were the "only significant breakway since the Reformation". Can this characterization be sourced? --Richard S (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As a nominal lifelong Catholic I've never heard of it. As it is in the article now it takes up as much space as Spain in the 20th century and the Reconquista isn't mentioned at all as far as I cansee, except tangentially. Some editor, or group, it seems to me should take hold of the thing, have an idea of a general narrative, with key themes and tell a story of some kind. Otherwise it just becomes a mass of disconnected sentences that become, as Macbeth said 'a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing'. Maybe that will be the Church's epitaph come to think of it. Sayerslle (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is indeed in constant danger of beoming "a mass of disconnected sentences". One major factor is that there is a constant stream of editors coming in who are only interested in ONE THING, and insist that that thing is added/expanded/removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could get answers to straight questions it would help. Maybe its as much a constant stream of edits, and reverts , coming from those who are interested in glorifying ONE THING, and when they dodge straight questions about fundamental honesty their friends of similar outlook/prejudices/belief kick them away - until the next wave of wikipedians reads the article and thinks , bloody hell, thats biased, or got cranky ideas of priorities. Sayerslle (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose review of sexual abuse crisis text

Nancy, I think you, Xandar and I are agreed that too much was cut from the original text. In the past couple of months, I have broadened my understanding of the scandal to realize that it didn't actually start in the U.S. Partly because I am an American and partly because the vast majority of cases have occurred in the U.S., I have had a very U.S.-centric view of the scandal as have most of the other editors who have been involved in the topic. Here is how I would rewrite it given my broadened view of the scandals:

Starting in the 1990s, a series of allegations were made in Ireland, Canada and the U.S. that charged a number of Catholic clergy and members of religious orders with having abused minors physically and sexually over several decades. By 2001, the public perception of these allegations developed to consider that these alleged abuses, taken together, constituted a significant problem in a number of countries. Some of the accused priests were prosecuted, convicted and jailed; some members of the Catholic hierarchy resigned over allegations that they had mishandled the reports of abuse when they were originally made. The impact of financial settlements with victims caused some dioceses to close churches and schools; in some cases, dioceses chose bankruptcy as a means of dealing with the lawsuits. In response to the scandal, the Vatican and various episcopal conferences instituted new procedures and processes to ensure that abuse was prevented as much as possible and reported and handled in an expeditious and effective manner.

--Richard S (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, your edits to the article to correct this paragraph were just reverted by Haldraper - who has not joined us in this discussion. NancyHeise ^talk 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, it's no fun having one's edits reverted but that's the "joy" of WP:BRD. Haldraper's edit summary said "RV to NPOV text agreed on talk page after long discussion". My first reaction was "What long discussion?" but, after some digging, I found the discussion here.

I agree with Nancy that the trimming effort has gone too far and reduced treatment of this topic to near triviality. I think the problem is that the "original" text had so much focus on the U.S. and was too much canted towards apologetics that most of the sentences became candidates for deletion. However, we didn't replace the deleted sentences with anything of substance and so the remaining text became a nearly vacuous statement.

My primary interest is not defending the Church but in communicating substantive, valuable information to the reader. The current text doesn't do that. (It's a camel i.e. a horse designed by committee.) If we treated all of the history of the Church in this way, the entire history section would be reduced to a laundry list of topics without any substantive explanation of what the issue was about. IMO, this approach takes WP:SUMMARY style too far.

I'd like to present a number of versions that have been either in the text or proposed by various editors (the proposals were simply the ones that were easiest to find in the "long discussion" referred to by Haldraper. Of course, I think my version is the best but perhaps other editors will disagree with me. Of course, they're wrong but I'm open to hearing why they think they're right. ;-)

--Richard S (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Original text

The "original" text:

In 2001, major lawsuits emerged primarily in the United States and Europe, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.[449] In the U.S., the country with the vast majority of sex-abuse cases,[450] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[451][452] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[449][452][453][454] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[453][455] Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[456] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that similar problems affect other institutions with much greater frequency,[457][458][459] a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi.[460] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[461][462] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[180][455][463]

The above text is too U.S.-centric. It also focuses on sexual abuse and omits the very major scandal of Ireland's childcare system run by the Catholic Church where children were abused physically and sexually. Including the experience of Ireland and Canada pushes the "start" of the scandal back into the 1990s. The "back and forth" about psychiatric counseling is excessive detail for a summary-level article such as this one and smacks of apologetics.. The quote from John Paul II is excessive detail. The bit about "media coverage" is apologetics; save it for Catholic sex abuse cases. The original text suggests that the reforms instituted by the U.S. Church were limited to the U.S. Church. If nothing else, Canada beat the U.S. to the institution of reforms by nearly a decade. (The reason Canada didn't have a scandal when the U.S. did is that it went through its catharsis a decade earlier. The reforms instituted by the U.S. and Candadian Churches have probably been instituted around the world. We need to dig for better sources to establish that assertion but let's stop being lazy and find them. --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Version proposed by Karanacs

A version proposed by Karanacs:

Beginning in 2001, dioceses in the United States and Europe began to face public accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.[11] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[11][12][13][14][15] On the grounds that the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the Church prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[16][17][18]

Omits the heavy financial impact of the scandal. Also omits the reforms to prevent abuse and handle it expeditiously when it does occur. --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard that the original text - which Xandar wants to reinsert- suffers from both US-centricity and apologetics on behalf of the Church. On the former point, I also note that like Mr Dick's King Charles' head in 'David Copperfield' Nancy's shameful and morally offensive exercise in favourably (mis)comparing the number of sexual assualts by Catholic priests with allegedly indentical incidents in US schools has again popped up.

I think Karanacs' version is OK with two caveats:

1.change 'Europe' to 'Ireland' and add 'Australia' and wikilink the pages on the scandals there.

2.cut the last sentence which is POV - just because the Church believes there is a a link between homosexuality and paedophilia doesn't mean Wikipedia has to repeat that assumption - and replace it with the quote we had from John Paul II condemning the abuse. Haldraper (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Version proposed by Xandar

A version proposed by Xandar:

Beginning in 2001, dioceses in the United States and Ireland began to face public accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.[11] One study found that four percent of U.S. priests faced some sort of sexual accusation.[450][451] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[11][12][13][14][19] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that such behavior could be cured through counseling.[452][454] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions,[456][457][458] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including background checks for all Church employees;[460][461] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[16][17][20]

Statistic of four percent is U.S. centric. Contains "back and forth" text about psychiatric counseling. Focuses on reforms by the U.S. church rather than worldwide. No mention of "other countries". --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Version proposed by Richardshusr

My "proposed" text

Starting in the 1990s, a series of allegations were made in Ireland, Canada and the U.S. that charged a number of Catholic clergy and members of religious orders with having abused minors physically and sexually over several decades.[413] By 2001, the public perception of these allegations developed to consider that these alleged abuses, taken together, constituted a significant problem in a number of countries. Some of the accused priests were prosecuted, convicted and jailed; some members of the Catholic hierarchy resigned over allegations that they had mishandled the reports of abuse when they were originally made. The impact of multi-million dollar financial settlements with victims caused some dioceses to close churches and schools; in some cases, dioceses chose bankruptcy as a means of dealing with the lawsuits.[414][415][416][417] [418] [419] In response to the scandal, the Vatican and various episcopal conferences instituted new procedures and processes to ensure that abuse was prevented as much as possible and reported and handled in an expeditious and effective manner.[420][421][422]In addition, the Vatican issued guidelines to bar those with "deep seated homosexual tendencies" from the sacrament of Holy Orders.[165][423]

The above text only mentions Ireland, Canada and the U.S. It doesn't mention Australia which is the locus of another major sexual abuse scandal. I'm not sure when that scandal erupted and how to add Australia without making the paragraph even longer. The treatment of the bishops simply says "allegations that they had mishandled the reports of abuse when they were originally made". Some will say that this doesn't say enough about the secrecy, failure to report the abuse to the police and reassignment of known abusers to other parishes. However, adding these points will likely result in others wanting to mention that psychiatric counseling was the treatment recommended by medical and psychological professionals. In the interest of brevity, I propose we not say anything more on the topic in this article. There are a number of subsidiary articles that go into the details in much greater depth. --Richard S (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your version is OK but could be more concise. Instead of listing all the countries where abuse was a problem you could just say "Mainly in some English-speaking countries" or something to that effect to condense it. The text already wikilinks to Catholic sex abuse cases that gives Reader sufficient detail of which countries. I doubt you can mention the mishandling of abusive priests by bishops in this article without mentioning the reason why they sent those priests back after counseling so I would omit that too since it is also in the wikilinked article. What this article mainly needs to tell Reader is:

describe the event
how did it affect or change the Church
how did the Church react to prevent it from happening again

To provide context, I would include the instance of abuse in US public schools "ten times worse than in the Catholic Church" as well because the Church operates the world's largest school system and it seems that abusers seem to be attracted to working in institutions that involve minors. Otherwise it gives Reader the impression that it is a problem specific only to the Catholic Church when our supplied sources suggest otherwise. NancyHeise ^talk 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence is too specific and does not properly show the breadth of the scandal (which has not been confined to English-speaking countries). On the other hand, the second sentence seems like fluff and I think should be removed. I would also drop the last sentence - the "deep seated homosexual tendencies" ban was one of the "preventative" measures that the Church instituted - it's not necessary in this article to go into that level of detail. As for Nancy's suggestion of returning the US public school information, we've gone over that in depth many times, and consensus is that the proposed addtion is pro-Catholic apologia, is too US-centric, and is synthesis. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My intent is to suggest that, although the sexual abuse scandal is a phenomenon that has occurred in a number of countries, the awareness of the problem started in Canada, Ireland and the United States. Scandals cropped up in these countries in the 1990s (well, a couple of scandals became known in the 1980s but the media attention didn't really start until the 1990s. The scandal has been dominated mostly by the scandals in the U.S. and Ireland with Canada and Australia being somewhat less prominent in the news reports (although I doubt that Catholics in Australia would feel that the scandal was less important because it was smaller in numbers). If you can help draft wording that gets this idea across?

You wrote that "the second sentence seems like fluff and I think should be removed". Yeh, I was trying to preserve the mention of the year 2001 as a pivotal moment in the development of the scandal. The idea that I was trying to communicate is that the scandal began to explode with the Pulitzer-winning coverage by the Boston Globe. I read somewhere that the coverage of the Irish scandal for the Irish in the U.S. fed the U.S. scandal and the coverage of the U.S. scandal fed the Irish scandal. Basically, a bunch of national scandals merged into a global scandal. If you can propose a better way to get these ideas across, I would love to hear it.

--Richard S (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not married to one wording but I disagree that we can omit mention of what the Church did to prevent future abuse. This was an important event and part of the core informtion needed to describe the controversy. NancyHeise ^talk 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to post this here before we continue this discussion because I think the trim violated this core Wikipedia principle. This is from Wikipedia's Five Pillars page [13] regarding WP:NPOV which is one of Wikipedia's core five pillars and something we need to really pay attention to here : "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution." NancyHeise ^talk 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on a general agreement that the previous trim was too drastic and also based on the various proposals here. I have simply added the steps taken by the Church to prevent future abuse as all of the other proposals have included. Haldraper has tagged this as somehow being in violation of NPOV but I disagree. He says in his edit summary that it is homophobic. I think that regardless of what anyone thinks of an institutions actions to reform, these actions are important to include in a notable controversy. NancyHeise ^talk 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

About sourcing

Haldraper and Johnbod have castigated for me for inserting unsourced material. Since this is the second time in a short period, I think it would be useful for me to explain my view about sourcing which is different from that of several editors of this article.

First of all, I will point out that most of Wikipedia is unsourced and most articles have far fewer citations than this article. I say this not to suggest that this article should have fewer references but to suggest that a slavish requirement that every sentence be sourced before it is inserted is, IMO, overly stringent.

Quite frankly, I don't usually work from sources and then write text. Sometimes, I will work from web material resulting from a Google search. Many times, I write what I think is sourceable and then figure that, if it is sourceable, other Wikipedia editors will come along and provide a source if a source is required. This is, after all, the purpose of the {{citation needed}} tag. I will often tag other people's contributions with this tag, not because I dispute the assertion but because I think having a citation will be helpful. At times, I will even tag my own text for the same reason.

I think it is far more important that we write good, encyclopedic text and worry about the sourcing later because if the text is good, the source can be found and other editors probably have better access to sources than I do.

While we're on the topic, I will comment that I reject the notion that material cannot be removed from an article just because it is sourced. My mantra in this regard is: Just because it is sourced does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. And just because it belongs in Wikipedia does not mean it belongs in this particular location in this particular article.

If you don't like the way I contribute to articles, then feel free to revert me or improve my contribution by adding a source. However, before you revert me simply for lacking a source, please consider whether what I've written is an improvement on what was there before. If it is, then please help me by finding a source.

--Richard S (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is very heavily sourced because it needs to be. Ok it is often too heavily sourced, and not always to ideal sources, but heavier than usual referencing is definitely required. Your new text included a whole short (too short imo) paragraph without references. Generally most new texts in the article are not as heavily sourced as what they replaced. I hear what you are saying, but one of the ways the article is not improving at present is in referencing. An improved text with worse referencing may not be a gain overall. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking about this very thing just today when I was on my way to the library. After the last FAC I had full knowledge that the article text correctly reflected the cited refs. All that was supposedly needed to bring the page to FA then was to work with Marskell to reword certain sections to present a more neutral POV. I was engaged in doing this with him [14] when I was drawn into the name dispute by two editors who could not allow us to tell Reader that Catholic Church was the official title of the Church (we needed to tell them this because the article name was Roman Catholic Church). That dispute went on for a year and was only successfully ended with the mediation.[15] I had intended to follow through with Marskell's suggestions but the page became again embroiled in more conflict from various other editors and since then it has just kept coming without end. Now the article has had so many edit wars and unreferenced rewrites that I would have to now go through and check every source (at least in the history section, not other sections) to make sure article text correctly reflects the source. I intend to do this so we can once again have a starting place with which to begin the process for FA but I would like to ask everyone here to please not rewrite sections unless you have appropriate sources to use as references. Richard, I appreciate your very useful reword capabilities but you are a little too far ahead of me and I don't see anyone else helping with sources. Do you think you could help out a little more in providing sources for your rewrites? NancyHeise ^talk 19:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Its also honest use of sources. Last night you quoted Hilari Raguer and finished with "Azanas well known dictum that 'Spain has ceased to be Catholic' has always been put forward as the final proof of a policy deliberately carried out against the Church by the Republic." You finished there. On Amazon you can 'look inside' the book, which is £90 so its a good job, and the quote , then continues " To interpret it correctly, however, one must look at the political and parliamentary context in which it was pronounced.." She actually finishes the little section by saying, " Azanas's words were twisted into a justification of the crusade of 1936". In other words the exact opposite is said in the text of what you tried to palm off. Sources have got to be used honestly. I'm convinced you're an apologist. Sayerslle (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence. She does not attribute the Church to doing the twisting and neither do any of the other sources I investigated this morning. In fact, most sources do not attribute any wrongdoing to the Church at all but define the different sides in political rather than religious motivations. The encyclopedias never mention the Church as an instigator either. Please see my summary of sources here: [16]. I have more to add on SCW but you can see what's there for now. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

'The encyclopedias never mention the Church as an instigator either' - what is this new Aunt Sally..who said any such thing ..I'm saying you twisted the quote, you twist everything, anyway, I think the spanish sentence was ok, I would have stuck at richards formulation, now it's changed again...'Politics is about power - who did the Church want to see have power..and then how was that power used. Why not watch Ken Loach Land and Freedom, try a different diet.Sayerslle (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not twist the quote, it came straight from the book. You just decided to read further into items that had nothing at all to do with the Church or this article adn have decided that I have somehow twisted something. To prove it, here's the page on Googlebooks where I got the quote [17] and here's the diff to my edit where I quote the book on this talk page [18]. Can you please tell me what is different about them? NancyHeise ^talk 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What is different is that you present the first half of the thing being said, and then stop, before getting to the point where the writer says, 'this interpretation is wrong' - not because I'm reading further in to unrelated things but reading the very next intimately related sentences. Maybe the Falange was mainly hindu, I dont know. Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

From Spain, the Root and the Flower 1985 University of California Press page 319 "The Spanish civil war was one of the cruelest struggles in history. Any civil war is bound to be divisive, but one which is fought along ideological lines divides the country right down the middle, family from family, brother from brother, father from son, friend from friend; it causes splits and hatreds in the basic fabric of family and community life which are not healed for many generations. Add to this the passionate and quickly stirred nature of the Spanish temperament, and you have the makings of a full-fledged blood bath of the most horrible kind. This is exactly what happened in Spain. The Loyalists, so called because they supported the Republic, went on a rampage killing priests, nuns, and all others thought to be Franco sympathizers. The Nationalists, so called because they imagined that their revolt reflected a strong national sentiment against the Republic, as they advanced picked out those who had supported the Republic in each of the regions and towns which fell into their hands, stood them against the walls, and shot them. About 100,000 Spaniards were killed in these brutal reprisals. The residue of brutality which still lives in Spain today is a deep-seated and awful presence." This book says Franco and his military were Spanish army called back from the war with the Moors in N. Africa. Nowhere does this book say the Church organized an army and went out shooting people so I don't know what your beef is with the Church or me in particular. I am just trying to help you, Richard and the others on this page to come to some sort of new, consensus agreed article text covering the Spanish Civil War. You could help if you would stop the personal attacks and try to work constructively with the rest of us. Here's the other sources and encyclopedia's versions of this war with regards to the Church as well [[19]. NancyHeise ^talk 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to sourcing, I do feel that on THIS article in particular, every major piece of new material needs to be sourced, at least in its essentials. This is for several reasons, 1) The contentiousness of the article, with people challenging just about everything bar the full stops, we need to be able to check, balance and reference facts and theories that appear. 2) The need to maintain the article at something close to the level of a Featured standard article. 3) To resist the temtation towards OR and synthesis. I think it is quite acceptable to write some text without using references, but before adding it, it would be best to search up some refs that back what you say. This also prevents errors. Again, to repeat what has been said earlier, as an aid to preventing instability and edit wars in the article, it would be best if significant new text were proposed and agreed on in this talk page before being inserted. Xandar 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, in principle, I agree. In practice, there are some areas where things were so horrid that I felt some effort needed to be made to fix things. If unsourced material is such a horror for some of you, then take my unsourced contributions as a motivation to fix things. I have generally refrained from making significant contributions to the article text but it just seemed like the "Age of Discovery" and "Enlightenment" sections were way out of whack. In a similar though slightly different vein, I felt it was preferable to edit Sayerslle's text than to revert it as reversion tends to annoy and irritate people into suspecting "ownership". --Richard S (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In general I think Richard's contributions help calm the page and work toward NPOV but I agree with Xandar that it would be extremely helpful for all editors to get some sources that meet WP:RS before they decide to be bold and edit the article. A lot of people seem to have preconceived ideas about the Church that are unreferenceable at times and this turns into an edit war and nurtures a battleground mentality. I think Septentrionalis/PMAnderson was guilty of this often because he never took the time to learn about what he was contesting or provide sources which supported his arguments, he just went to war on the article page. That should be discouraged. NancyHeise ^talk 14:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see myself contributing much in the way of text - I never have here. I don't have that many compact & easily accessible sources on most areas, & those I do are mostly not the sort of central & current academic studies we should be aspiring to use here. As I said at the latest Rfc, there is something of a hole here, which lies at the heart of many of the problems - we have no one editor with really good knowledge of & access to the best class of sources, who is perceived as neutral by most (all would be unattainable I think). If you are not already pretty familiar with the subject it is all so much harder & fraught with perils of being too reliant on one source etc. I offered to draft a little bit on the inquisition & started to do so before finding I didn't have ideal sources to hand. Then there is the unappetising prospect of writing something which will only survive for 5 minutes, like most text on the controversial areas here. I mostly write on art history, where I have excellent sources to hand, & where if you do it properly the first time it is unlikely to be changed much over a long period - as is also the case in the satellite historical articles here, I suspect. But not on this page. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We all have different talents. Johnbod, you are knowledgable enough to help us come to consensus one issues and work out reasonable article text with the sources other post to the page for consideration. NancyHeise ^talk 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

re History: State religion of the Roman Empire

This section, which focusses upon the Emperor Constantine's action to define and impose doctrinal orthodoxy through the First seven Ecumenical Councils, relates primarily to the history of the Orthodox Church rather than the Catholic church. The events mentioned all happen in and around Constantinople and not Rome. They could be described as part of the prehistory of the Catholic Church before the Bishop of Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church [from the 'undivided church' might be a NPOV phrase] - or the Councils could be described as 'The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Or we could stick to the broadly NPOV account we have! Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

...and avoid POVs such as "The Bishop of Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church" or "The Orthodox Church was formed in the 11th Century when it broke away from the Catholic Church." Sigh. Majoreditor (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not propose the inclusion of either phrase in the article. The point is that the Emperor Constantine's activities in and around Constantinople in the 4th Century cannot be described primarily as part of the history of the Church of Rome. The Orthodox Church have an equal (and, in their view, far better) claim to call it an exclusive part of their history. We should avoid both extremes. If the article is to achieve NPOV it should be worded so as to be equally acceptable to the Orthodox Church. There should be no need for differences between the accounts of the history of the Church prior to the Great Schism in this article and in the Orthodox Church article as prior to that date they share a common history. --Tediouspedant (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you worry. The Orthodox Inspectors visit regularly. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point that the two denominations "share a common history" is key. The first seven Ecumenical Councils are not exclusive to the Church of Constantinople any more than it may be considered exclusive to the Church of Antioch or of Rome, or of Alexandria ... they all contributed to the Councils. I would caution, however, against assuming that the Great Schism is *the* great dividing point in the history of the various churches of the Pentarchy; many historians point to a more gradual rupture rather than a clean break in the 11th century. Majoreditor (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Our article text includes coverage of when the church split into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. This did not occur until after Constantine's activities so it would be WP:OR for anyone to suggest that this was not part of the Catholic Church's history. We don't have any reliable mainstream sources the meet WP:RS or WP:reliable source examples that say it is strictly part of the Orthodox Church's history. However, it may be that there are some WP:fringe views saying this. Tediouspedant, if you have new sources to offer to support your assertions we welcome this kind of contribution and ask you to please place them on this talk page for discussion. What you are asking is nowhere to be found in any major encyclopedia or university textbook which we are allowed to use to discover scholarly consensus on major themes. NancyHeise ^talk 14:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeise - I don't think that I've made any assertion that disagrees with anything you have said. I'm just aware that readers who don't know their history or who don't carefully read the entire article can all too easily anachronistically assume (for example) that the Council of Nicaea was an exclusively Catholic event or that Constantine was only associated with the Orthodox Church. The article does not make factual errors in relation to these points - but any misunderstandings could be prevented by consistently using a distinctive self-explanatory name for the Church prior to any schism (possibly 'undivided church' or 'early church') and using Roman Catholic Church (or other standard phrase) consistently to refer to that denomination in times clearly subsequent to schism (I recognize schism was a process, not a single event). The terminology is not entirely clear or consistent. 'The Church' is sometimes ambiguously used as shorthand for the Catholic Church in sentences where this could be misunderstood to refer to both denominations - but sometimes it is used to refer to the early undivided church and so genuinely does apply to the history of both denominations. [I should also mention that Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church,western church, Church of Rome and See of Rome are used apparently interchangeably - as are Orthodox Church, Eastern Church and See of Constantinople. This is virtually inevitable in a collectively written article, but I don't know whether they have subtle differences in meaning or whether the uninitiated might assume that they do.] Church of Rome is used as a phrase in several places where it is unclear whether it is referring to an autonomous institution or to part of a still united church. --Tediouspedant (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your concern. However, I disagree that we need to change our terminology becuase other encyclopedias use the same format we have adopted. We are not doing anything unusual here, our treatment is in line with other mainstream sources. NancyHeise ^talk 18:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That sort of discontinuity is inevitable when the article is in the state of constant disorganized editing by many hands that it has been this year. If and when we ever get a more stable version these can be made sense of. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted text that was restored by NancyHeise

Nancy, I reverted some of your recent edits, specifically the ones which restored the previous text of the "Industrial Age" section. In the process, I also reverted some of your image edits. I'm sorry for that; those reversions were "collateral damage" of reverting to the point before you started modifying the text of the "Industrial Age" section. I have no opinion one way or the other on the image edits.

The text that was deleted was indeed discussed. The fact that you were not present does not mean it was not discussed. Not every edit that is made to this article requires that you and/or Xandar be present for and agree to that edit. That would imply ownership. There is a strong sense that this article is too long and needs to be trimmed. IMO, some editors want the article trimmed more than I feel is beneficial to the article. My opinion notwithstanding, the text deletions were the result of some significant analysis and discussion. The fact that you don't agree with the deletions and feel justified in reverting them suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. These are some of the issues that were raised in the WP:RFARB.

Now, I think that would be perfectly legitimate for you to reopen the discussion on some or all of the deletions. The decisions were made by a small group of editors and I can imagine that there are arguments for and against deletion that have not been made. However, until you can show that there is a majority (dare I even ask for a consensus?) of editors that want it restored, I would ask that you leave it deleted. Now, you may argue that there wasn't/isn't a consensus to delete it. I would respond that a majority of editors responding to each proposed deletion favored the deletion. Admittedly, two out of three or three out of five is a very thin consensus if it could even be called that. Some of the deletions may very well be subject to review. If you want to conduct straw polls on each deletion that you dispute, please do so. We might find that more polling and more discussion identifies some passages that should be restored. However, until then, please abandon the attitude that a single editor (no matter how knowledgeable) can come in and overturn the consensus on the Talk Page.

--Richard S (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I did not delete anything except a quote in a ref which was irrelevant to the page and unnecessarily added to overal KB. If you take a look at my edits you will see that I have reworded, reorganized and added references rather than cut. I think you have jumped to conclusions here instead of assuming good faith. I have made time to implement ideas that we have discussed on this page and those for which I have accumulated sources to support. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what I readded, you and Haldraper have been going through the article and making changes that were not necessarily agreed to by other editors. I for one was absent from the page for much of the past three months when you guys did your trim. I think that your trim made a lot of sections say things that are not in the cited refs and I am trying to go through and correct that oversight. I appreciate your efforts but I also have to put in my two cents if I happen to have the refs. I don't think my edits are controversial. I have asked Haldraper to specify what exactly is POV about them below. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

==Tags added by Haldraper== + - There are two tags added to the article by Haldraper disputing the neutrality of the article sections "Industrial Age" and "Church today". I added "Church today because it has been discussed on this page that we needed a conclusion to our article. I also researched how other encyclopedia's end their articles and found that they too ended them with a discussion of the presiding pope and his actions. Thus, I retrieved part of our previous "Church today" section that had our references and removed parts of it I felt were possible too much detail, leaving only the basic facts. I would like to know what Haldraper disputes about it as being in violation of NPOV. Likewise, I reworded some parts of the Industrial section to make the flow of logical events correct and match the references. Please indicate what is POV because I am just trying to make our article text reflect the cited sources. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

I have filed an arbitration request for this article at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church. If you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

I am also unsure if I included all the appropriate parties. Please add any if you think that I overlooked someone. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I consider the request very ill-judged since none of the preliminary dispute resolution procedures have been entered into with respect to the stated complaints. Xandar 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also consider the request somewhat ill-judged but for different reasons.

As for Xandar's assertion that "none of the preliminary dispute resolution procedures have been entered into with respect to the stated complaints", this is true but it is wikilawyering. It is hard enough to get anything done without having to issue an RFC for each content dispute. The problem is not the arbitration of individual issues, it is a general intransigence and tendency towards pro-Catholic apologetics.

I can understand a desire to make sure the Church's perspective is adequately presented. However, Nancy and Xandar stretch credulity and good faith too far by making arguments which are just too outrageous. The resulting battleground mentality makes working on this article difficult and joyless.

The reason that I consider the request ill-judged is that it is hard to see what Karanacs expects from ARBCOM. I don't expect and would not support a topic ban or article ban on Xandar or NancyHeise. The most I would support would be some sort of censure with maybe a short-term ban to make the point. Actually, if I were to support any sanction, it would be against PManderson whose incivility has gone way beyond the pale. There are others such as Taam who should get some sort of sanction as well but PManderson is by far and away the most egregious of the lot.

--Richard S (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what I expect from Arbcom either. I do agree with you that the gross incivility (on all sides) needs to stop. It could also be useful for Arbcom to identify which editors have behavior problems, as none of us seems to believe that we are responsible for the atmosphere here. Perhaps with an uninvolved group saying that editor ABC and editor ZYX are acting inappropriately, those editors would be more motivated to change their behavior. I'm out of ideas - the bottom line was that this process is not working. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with Richardshusr both on here and on the Arbitration page. I am not sure whether I am supposed to comment on the arbitration page since I wasn't listed as a party. But I disagree on one part with Richard. Richard (and others) give the impression that Nancy and Xandar are always doing things to only present a pro-Catholic church perspective. I see their comments coming from multiple reasons, not always that. Sometimes it can be trying to make sure both sides are presented. Sometimes it is making sure FAC issues are presented. A perfect example of this is the latest discussions about WWII, pedophilia, and AIDS being mentioned. Several people are claiming recentism, others are claiming POV, etc. The fact is, if those things aren't mentioned in a NPOV way it won't pass FAC because your average "voter" will object because they will think they are being glossed over. No matter what we say about it being a 2000 year old institution and recentism, they will have to be addressed in a NPOV way. But I don't see either Xandar or Nancy's comments only being from a pro-Catholic POV as many on here suggest. I see some defending of RS. I see some defending of what was written by them. I see some just defending the opposite view. Above all I see Nancy being pretty civil when responding to criticism, making mistakes at times, but in general taking the brunt of what is dished out in stride. Much better then some people on the other "side". Marauder40 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly comment there, & also (if you want) add yourself to the not-very-exclusive list of parties; I don't think that makes much difference either way. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that Nancy has been far more civil than many of her detractors and has put up with a lot from them. I'd be more defensive of her except that the substance of many of the attacks has merit and so what I would wish for is that Nancy would hear the criticism and that the critics would learn to be civil.

As for commenting on the arbitration, look at some previous ARBCOM cases. I think the standard phrase is "Statement by uninvolved third-party". In this case, I think it's no so clear-cut who is "involved" and who is "uninvolved". There are certainly a group of editors who have been less intensely involved but who have watched this Talk Page enough to have an opinion. --Richard S (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't pick parties based on who I thought was most "wrong" - I added editors who have posted here very recently, and I know I missed some. Anyone is welcome to add more parties, and I'm sure the arbitrators or clerks will remove those whose behavior they don't intend to investigate. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

← I concur with Richard's statement. While I sympathize with editors who are frustrated by Nancy, I am disappointed with the way that Karanacs glosses over the wretched behavior from PMAnderson. Really, Karanacs, has it not occured to you that PMA's over-the-top comments may do as much to discourage editors from contributing to this article as Nancy and Xandar combined? Majoreditor (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I would like to know what others think I have not yet heard regarding criticisms. Since the RFC was closed at the end of November, I have been virtually absent from the page - providing a total of 24 edits over half of which were minor and none of which were contentious. You have just agreed with me in the section above that the sexual abuse section is too concise and could use another sentence to tell Reader how the Church instituted reforms to prevent further abuse. Would the article be more NPOV and better off if I had not pointed out this problem with that section? I thought I was being helpful by telling everyone that it was unbalanced and it appears that you and Maurauder agree that my efforts are not an obstruction. What do you think I am missing regarding hearing criticisms because I thought I had already accomplished that goal. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I had noted your absence or lower rate of editing. I wasn't sure if that was due to Wikipedia-related issues such as the RFC or due to other issues such as personal obligations. I noticed you dropped your activity around the holidays and never completely returned.

I think the truth (for me, at least) is that it is hard to separate you and Xandar in my mind. Thus, the complaints that I had about your interactions from last year are continued in complaints that I have about Xandar's interactgions this year. I confess that I have not made much effort to distinguish your interactions this year (low and mild compared to Xandar) from Xandar's. Moreover, your effort to insert the Ed Green material as well as your response to the "worldliness of the Church" proposal make me feel like nothing has changed. This may be an incorrect judgment on my part but I'm just telling you my thought process. If I have misjudged you and you have been making an effort to change, then I'm sorry for not assuming enough good faith.

--Richard S (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My efforts regarding the Ed Green material amounted to bringing this new developement to the talk page. The same with my response to "worldliness of the Church". In both instances I proposed information that was not being considered by others in their evaluations. In neither instance did I make any edits to the article. Do you consider my actions disruptive? I thought I was keeping other editors informed of new developements and other points of view in an effort to assist the forward motion toward NPOV. I also feel that if Xandar were not on this page, it would have long ago devolved into an ridiculous article with virtually zero balance. I appreciate his efforts here very much. I am shocked at the hostility leveled at him because I don't see him acting in any way that obstructs the article. NancyHeise ^talk 16:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, regarding your comment here [20] I agree with your comment about the length of the article. After participating in the last three downsizing efforts that made the article ready for FAC each time, I have become weary of doing it only to find out when we get to FAC that the vast majority of reviewers want to see more information in the article not less.

[I transferred this comment from NancyHeise here from my Talk Page] --Richard S (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I am just wondering though - which details you think in the present article are put in solely to defend the Church from controversies? I think we are getting to the core of the problem of this talk page with this item. Some of us think certain pieces of information constitute an important part of the story of the Church - like letting Reader know what the Church did during WWII that worked against the Nazis and helped Jews - others consider such information to be pushing a pro-Catholic POV. To what extent is this article allowed to tell Reader facts about the Church that happen to be good? We have been tackled for being pro-Catholic every time we mention things like the Church is the largest Christian denomination and such. Sometimes facts are just facts, not pro-Catholic POV. NancyHeise ^talk 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I think the issue is an emphasis on "letting the Reader know what the Church did...etc". I think the issue is letting these concerns drive a desire to get stuff into this article, especially in the main article text. This results in text that is overly long and one that reads like a paean to the Church.

My comments are motivated by text such as this:

After the war, Pius XII's efforts to protect their people were recognised by prominent Jews including Albert Einstein and Rabbi Isaac Herzog.[410] However, the Church has also been accused by some of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[411][412] Prominent members of the Jewish community have contradicted these criticisms.[413] The Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide interviewed war survivors and concluded that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands". Some historians dispute this estimate[414] while others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust.[415]

The mention of Einstein, Herzog and Lapide are just too much detail that is only here in an attempt to win the debate. All of this can be discussed in a subsidiary article. The insistence that it remain in this article seems indicative of a tendency towards apologetics.

In 2001, major lawsuits emerged primarily in the United States and Europe, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.[445] In the U.S., the country with the vast majority of sex-abuse cases,[446] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[447][448] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[445][448][449][450] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[449][451] Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[452] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that similar problems affect other institutions with much greater frequency,[453][454][455] a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi.[456] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[457][458] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[175][451][459]

Text makes a couple efforts to diminish the scandal or excuse the conduct of the bishops. These are arguably encyclopedic topics but should be covered in subsidiary articles. Their presence here leads to feeling that the article is canted towards apologetics.

Your response to my current proposal for this text was that we would need to add in some text about why the bishops handled the scandal in the way that they did e.g. psychiatric counseling being the "prevailing pychology of the times".

The Church also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which provides the Pope with information on scientific matters[233] and whose international membership includes British physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes.

I expressed my objection to this sentence. It seems to be trite and trivial information that is only here to establish that the Church is not anti-science. Once again, this is not unencyclopedic. It's just out of place in a summary-level article such as this one. It would make more sense in Catholic Church and science.

In general, I've only seen you work towards putting in pro-Catholic material. I've never seen you come in and say "Hey, I just learned this negative point about the Church that we have forgotten to put into the article." I have seen you react to negative information by responding "Oh but we must now include this other positive material to counterbalance that negative stuff".

Now, I will admit that some of the text listed above is no longer in the article. However, you have expressed a desire to restore some of it.

This attitude is, perhaps, part of what has motivated the RFARB. It is the sense that it is impossible to make progress on this article without you or Xandar coming back and wanting to revert back to your preferred version of the text.

There seems to be a certain amount of "tone deafness" wherein you and Xandar seem to reject the arguments of others. Understandably, those arguments will not always be right. However, some of them do make sense and deserve to be heard.

Moreover, the fact that your arguments almost always take the side of defending the Church or glorifying it (e.g. the Cultural Influence section). I know that Farsight001 and Str1977 don't see it that way. That's their right. You asked what my view was and that's what I have given you.

--Richard S (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I have certainly not hidden my personal religious affiliation from anyone - its on my userpage - everyone knows that I am a convert to the Catholic Church and believe it is what it says it is. On that note, I think that this article has more than its fair share of editors who have a particularly negative opinion of the Church. Interestingly, none of us thinks we are pushing any sort of POV.
The way we've handled this phenomenon is to eliminate discussion of personal opinions and just get the facts from the best sources. What I found when doing this is that most of the time, what scholars say about the Church is not what some editors here want to hear - it doesn't seem to fit with their preconceived opinions of the Church. Everyone can go to the library to find sources to support their position but in practice really, no one does. They just get upset with me for actually doing some research.
One example of this is when Karanacs wanted me to put something in the article about how bad the Church was because it prohibited divorce. This was seen by her to have caused some sort of harm to women. I did not know this and believed she must know something that I did not so I did some research. What I found was just the opposite. There were truckloads of scholarly sources attesting to how the Church, by spreading Christianity, helped improve women's lives - requiring a man to be faithful and keep only one wife all his life. This was not only in specialized scholarly sources, it was in university textbooks covering the History of Western Civilization. Apparently, women's status in all civilizations around the world before Christianity came along was pretty inferior and disrespected - they were cattle.
Another example was when an editor wanted us to include some information about how the Church was not in existence until the 4th century. Her theory was that there were some scholars out there who did not recognize that the institution that exists today - began in Rome in the first century. I used her own sources to try to find this assertion - her sources never made this claim. In fact, a thorough research effort turned up that no scholar actually makes this claim. Instead of acknowleding the facts, people get upset with me for presenting what actually exists in modern scholarship. This was the case also with the slavery battle. Please remember it was me - who did the research to find the various points of view for the Origin and Mission section - that includes all points of view including unfriendly ones.
I think it is valuable to the Wikipedia process to have people coming to the page from various points of view. We all have access to information that others may not have. Taam was useful in helping us include information in the last FAC about the Shoah and John Paul II's apology (which was trimmed out by others eventually). I thought that information improved the article and did not support the trim. I suspect Taam is Jewish from his edits but I'm not sure - he just seemed to know alot about the Jewish point of view. Haldraper is an atheist - he told me on my talk page and I was the person who invited him to come participate on the Catholic Church article - he's still here providing us with his particular brand of edits. Should we discourage people from editing who come to the article from a particular point of view? I think if we did that we would have to ban everyone because everyone has a personal belief of some sort, even if it is none. NancyHeise ^talk 02:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem, Nancy, is that you (and Xandar to a certain extent) appear to argue that if you find something - anything - in a book then it must be "true" and must be the scholarly consenus. If others then present opposing points of view - also sourced to scholars - you completely dismiss their sources because the one you found doesn't say that. Scholars have differing opinions, which is why it is necessary to read a wide range of books by a wide range of scholars with a wide range of affiliations. Because of that, one must also accept that the first book one reads is not necessarily the only major viewpoint. Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, Can you provide a link to where I have done this? I don't remember ever tossing someone's source for having an opposing viewpoint. On the contrary, I have sought out opposing viewpoints to place them into the article. What I do rememember is others tossing my sources that expressed opposing viewpoints because they did not like the fact that some scholars have differing viewpoints - see Harmakheru [21][22] and Taam in the last FAC [23] and Carlaude in the Good Article Reassessment [24]and other editors here [25] and here [26]. NancyHeise ^talk 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have previously provided a large number of sources which describe ways in which the Catholic Church has oppressed women - including by the prohibition of divorce. Awadewit and others (including Harmekheru later) similarly provided a large number of sources that disagreed with part of the traditional Catholic narrative on its founding. A number of other editors on this very talk page have agreed that the sources said what Harmekheru and Awadewit proposed - and have said that some of your sources do not say what you have asserted they do. This does not always mean that your sources are "wrong", just that they do not present the only mainstream viewpoint, and thus should not be the only mainstream viewpoint presented. Yet, once again, you have made a statement above that relies on your original conviction that your sources are right and there are no other valid scholarly opinions, as if we did not have weeks and months of discussion on those very issues you used as examples. This is why I get frustrated with you, Nancy - it appears as if you completely ignore any argument that does not support your position, no matter how weak your position may be or how strong the other arguments (sources) may be, and we are left, once again, to rehash an issue from the very beginning. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, I am only one editor on this page. There are multiple editors here that have agreed with me and all Wikipedia text evolves through consensus. If I have gone against consensus somewhere and inserted article text or sources that had not previously been agreed on the talk page, please provide a diff. NancyHeise ^talk 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And now you have changed the argument to a different subject - we were discussing the way you treat sources during talk page discussions, and now you instead ask for "proof" of something I hadn't mentioned yet. This is another familiar - and unwelcome - tactic. Please stay focused. Karanacs (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs. Editors here have always been open to new sources. However you and some others have sometimes come here and seemed to say "Your sources are rubbish. Our sources represent the truth." On the issue of women for example, I'm not going back now to find the exact archive page, but you brought some references in which people stated opinions about the Church opressing women, but with no specifics, even though I asked for them. I said that it would be okay to use this as opinion but not as unqualified fact, and that other balancing opinions would need to be quoted. As far as I remember you did not agree with that proposal and the discussion moved on to other topics. The point being that, though you may not realise it, you and some others with a similar viewpoint tend to hold that you possess the "truth," and that people questioning your outlook are acting illegitimately or as "Catholic apologists." Things are not that black or white. The truth on women - as on many issues, is that there are several, often opposing viewpoints, and that neither is "Correct". Xandar 02:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt that there are scholars who hold the opinions listed in this article (including, as in your example, about the effect of the Church on women's status), nor have I ever suggested that that particular opinion should be stripped from the article. My concern, is that this is not the only mainstream opinion, yet it is the only one being presented, and it is being presented as "fact" rather than opinion. If it seems that I am often arguing the "negative" side, it is because the "positive" side is already included in the article, and this needs to be balanced. The "positive" viewpoint is just that - a viewpoint, an opinion - and we should not be presenting that as the "TRUTH" either. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy is correct in saying that I am an atheist although I prefer the term 'lapsed Catholic atheist', or as Dave Allen used to say "I'm a Catholic who doesn't believe in God". Having followed the classic pattern of being a practicing Catholic until lapsing from the faith when I went to university, I am self-aware enough to recognise that the Church still has an influence on who I am culturally, the way I think about things etc and like many lapsed Catholics still take an interest in its affairs.

I'd forgotten Nancy is a convert: it explains a lot :-) Haldraper (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dum Diversas

I deleted this text from the article...

Just before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453,^[1] in an effort to combat the spread of Islam, Pope Nicholas V granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452).

The problem is that this text was at the beginning of the "Age of Discovery" section and it just seemed like an awkward introduction to the topic so I wrote a new one.

I know that we discussed at some length (and with some heat) the question of the Church's posture towards slavery and there is a desire to present information such as this. However, I feel that this is not the appropriate place to do it because it is disruptive to the flow of the narrative. In truth, this sort of stuff belongs in Catholic Church and slavery but I also understand the desire of some editors to make some mention of the topic in this article.

Can anyone suggest a better way to present the topic?

--Richard S (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If we take out the part about the Church being influential in ending slavery then I don't have a problem in taking out the alternative presentation. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

yea, if we delete dum diversas we will be hammered at FAC. Its in the article because of FAC where we were accused of being POVers for not having it in there. I was the person who added it in response to the comments and provided the ref. Why am I telling you this? Because I am tired of being labled POV when I am just a nice Wikipedia editor who wants to improve an article that I happen to know something about. NancyHeise ^talk 21:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And the reason the Dum Diversas was requested was as a refutation of other text already in the article which made it sound as if the Church has only ever tried to get rid of slavery. That made the article too POV towards the church. As I said, take out both arguments about slavery and there should be no issue. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs do you really think we will pass through FAC without including something on the Church and slavery? I don't understand why you are so into chopping information out of this article. What kind of article do you think we should have anyway? One that mentions no history at all? I have been exploring other encyclopedia's articles on the Church and their histories are very long and detailed. I don't think ours has to be so long but I think that this subject warrants more than what you are suggesting based on the weight it is given by other encyclopedias. NancyHeise ^talk 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably OK to remove the material per Karanacs' suggestion provided that it's in the appropriate sub-articles. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is another case of "forest" vs. "trees". To me, the forest is "The position of the Catholic Church with respect to slavery has evolved over the centuries in conjunction with the attitudes of Western civilization. In antiquity, it accepted slavery as part of the fabric of society and focused on urging slaveowners to treat their slaves humanely. However, since the medieval period, the Church has steadily shifted its stance towards slavery so that it became more clearly opposed to slavery." You might want to tweak that but I think it captures the basic facts.

To me, it is far more important to describe the forest along the lines of the above paragraph. By comparison, trying to score points by describing an individual tree like Dum Diversas is problematic. First of all, most readers won't know what you're trying to get at and thus your point will be lost on them. Secondly, the discussion of slavery winds up being spread out over several sections and because slavery is not a major theme like anti-clericalism, few readers will connect the descriptions of various trees and build a picture of the forest.

(P.S. to Nancy... this is an example of Karanacs committing the same offense that I charged you with. This is an example of a relatively unimportant item that is only in the article to "balance" the claim that the Church helped to abolish slavery. This kind of sub rosa debate is not good writing. I am far more in favor of just getting the discussion out on the table and telling the reader what we want him to know.)

P.P.S. There are apparently some Catholics who refuse to concede that the Church has changed its position on slavery over the years. Apparently, the subtext is that some people want to argue that, if the Church can change its position on slavery, it can also change its position on other things such as ordination of women, celibacy of clergy, etc. etc. In opposition to that argument, some Catholics argue that, in fact, the Church has never changed its position with respect to slavery. --Richard S (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I have thought about your point and I have come to agree with you in principle. A higher level summary might help rid the article of the machine gun apologetics and lead to a more nuanced exposition that gives greater emphasis on the spiritual dimension of the Church that some(!) might argue animates it. Take for example the development of the church from being persecuted into a persecuting church, right through to the Declaration of Religious freedom in V2; slavery as the accepted socio-economic norm into which she appears in the world, serfdom, through to outright rejection in all forms and affirmation of the dignity of the human person, also in V2; contraception ("unitive and procreative") and the issue of condoms/aids brought together... and so on. Probably you and Karanacs have enough detachment, no matter your beliefs, to restructure the article accordingly but this is never going to happen with the present editor profile, is it? Taam (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I sort of agree with Richard here. He wrote the note we have on slavery and I think it is helpful. The reason why I think we need to have some discussion of slavery including Dum Diversas and Church efforts at abolition is because such a big stink was made of this issue in one of the FACs, I think the first or second one. There was quite a lot of passion involved and Im just trying to respect our past efforts that included quite a lot of fine editors. NancyHeise ^talk 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

I took a look at some other encyclopedias handling of their Catholic Church articles and made some notes and suggestions for improvements to this article See [27] I invite others to comment on these ideas on this page. The Spanish Civil War and World War II are lightly covered in these encyclopedias but they also devote much more space to things our article covers too lightly I think like missions and education. Encyclopedia Americana had a section for missions and another for Catholic education that were each as long as the history section. I'm not proposing that here but I think that we should consider expanding the Catholic institutions section and discuss the missionary activity of the Church around the world a little more. I did not see anything about the worldliness of the Church but I did notice a lot more information on the spiritual life of the Church as it advanced through the years. Please take a look and let's discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, do you want us to comment here or on that page?

Despite criticisms by other editors of recentism, I support talking about the "Church Today" and the challenges that it faces. However, we must be clear to specify whose list of challenges we are presenting (i.e. is it a list of challenges that the Church thinks it faces or one that was developed by someone outside the Church).

I support talking about spiritual writers such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross but we must do more than just mention them. If we are going to talk about the spiritual history of the Church, we should make it one of our "themes" and talk about the development of this aspect over two millenia. It's bad writing to just mention Teresa of Avila in passing without explaining who she was and why she was important.

I like the Encyclopedia Americana's treatment of the Spanish Civil War. The New Catholic Encyclopedia treatment is too detailed and unsurprisingly has a pro-Catholic POV.

I also like the Encyclopedia Americana's treatment of WWII. I think the previous version of this article had too much detail (Einstein, Pinchas Lapide, etc.). The level of detail in the EA article seems about right.

I agree that we should discuss missionary activity further although some mention will need to be made of the negative effects of such activity. Despite those negative effects, much good work was done in the form of schools and hospitals.

In an earlier discussion, you suggested that we should include an assertion about the respect for the quality of Catholic schools. I thought that approach was wrong-headed. The problem in asserting the quality of Catholic schools is that is sounds too self-congratulatory and thus POV. I would focus on the importance of bringing education where none had existed before. In a world where public education is the norm, Catholic schools are just an alternative, perhaps a superior alternative but still just an alternative. It is easy to forget that, in a world where public education did not exist at all, Catholic schools were transformative.

--Richard S (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments here except the one about not including the scientific evidence regarding the quality of Catholic schools. I think it is unscientific and unencyclopedic to omit it. The source I suggested using has negative information about the schools as well such as that they pick the "cream of the crop" etc. I think we need to be telling people what scholars and scientists say about Catholic institutions. Please, Richard, don't be so trigger happy with the accusations of "self-congratulatory" - I have not been accusing you like this when you bring forward things that provide a negative piece of information. I really just want to be able to work together without all that. Sometimes, facts are just facts, not pov pushing. NancyHeise ^talk 14:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had ruled out stuff about the quality of the schools; Catholic schools function in entirely different ways in different countries & the whole issue is way too complex to address here. It would make a very long article by itself. But Catholic school is utterly pathetic, and amazingly on WP, does't mention the US once. It still gets about 6,000 views a month. Hey ho! Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree its pathetic but it does mention the US, its just down further on the page with its own one paragraph section. I have not yet proposed any wording for the expansion of the Catholic institution section of this article's discussion of Catholic educational institutions. I am still in the research stage. I would appreciate some help with this. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes - don't know how i missed that. But even the rather better Catholic schools in the United States advances no claims as to quality. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Africa

Haldraper has accused me of POV pushing because I added facts about Africa in the Catholic institutions section and the industrial age that discuss the introduction and presence of Catholic education in that country. Our article never tells Reader about the many persecutions against Catholics and other Christians by Muslims in that country. It never tells Reader about the child sacrifice and polygamy that is commonly practiced there by paganists. There is no mention of female genital destruction and other practices that the Church has consistently fought against. I have not introduced these relevant items into the article but I think the POV accusers do not realize that there is a lot of stuff we could introduce that would help Reader have a better understanding of Catholicism in Africa. Omission of these relevant items makes me think that the article slants toward an anti-Catholic POV. NancyHeise ^talk 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Africa is a continent, not a country Nancy. What about this picture for showing some of the effects of Catholic Belgiums arrival in the Congo?

Sayerslle (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Only someone wearing special spectacles issued by someone like Hutton Gibson could possibly think "the article slants toward an anti-Catholic POV" as Nancy bizarrely claims. Haldraper (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a reference that says The Catholic Church ordered these childrens mutilations? Are you sure they weren't caught stealing by Muslims and punished under Sharia Law which proscribes cutting off the hands of theives? Right next to Congo is a Muslim country that is known for the massacre of present day African Catholics. In addition to trying to impose sharia law, they are known for mass genocide, raping of Catholic women, destroying their villages and killing the men.NancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even more bizarre! No-one said the "Catholic Church ordered these childrens mutilations", it was the Belgian imperial authorities as the caption makes perfectly clear. Haldraper (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why are we even discussing this picture? This article is about the Catholic Church, not a secular ruler. NancyHeise ^talk 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"This article is about the Catholic Church". Yes, not the alleged persecution of Christians in Sudan or Muslim sharia law in Africa that you seem to want to add to the page. Haldraper (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm probably wrong to have added an inflammatory picture. Leopold II was a Roman Catholic ruler, and his country Roman Catholic. If the Church can't shape the hearts and minds of any of its adherents, it's pretty rubbish. Nancy is keen to claim all the advances of 'civilization' for the Church but to be absent when that 'civilization' acts grotesquely. Sayerslle (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, according to Nancy the Zentrumspartei were part of the Church when they were being persecuted into forcing the Pope to sign the Reichskonkordat but politicians who just happened to be Catholics when they voted for the Enabling Act that gave the Nazis dictatorial powers in order to protect the status of Catholic schools. Haldraper (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to know where any scholarly source connects the actions of Leopold to the Church - as far as I know there are no Church teachings that proscribe the cutting off of children's hands - I do know that Muslim Sharia law allows that punishment. Surprisingly, there are Catholics who do not follow the Church's teachings. NancyHeise ^talk 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of missionaries there, I'm sure you'll tell us they condemned the regime in the Belgian Congo that funded the building of cathedrals in Brussels? Haldraper (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And if there are Catholics who don't follow the Church's teachings - a bit of bathos really when discussing Leopold, why in hell isn't he excommunicated ? Sayerslle (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the editorial development of this page. Limit the discussion here to proposed changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to go ask a priest those questions. I am just putting facts on the page per scholarly sources. You could help if you would do the same instead of hashing out your personal gripes against the Church on this page. NancyHeise ^talk 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, as a lapsed Catholic atheist you're the nearest I get to talking to a priest these days :-) Haldraper (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is no fault of mine! I teach religious education to children who are new to the faith and are preparing to receive the sacraments RCIC. I tell them that if your mother makes you dinner, it doesn't get inside you unless you go sit at the table, pick up a fork and put it inside you. Where I live there are four Catholic Churches within five miles of my house each way. The Bible has been the number one bestselling book of all time every year since the printing press was invented up to the present day. I don't know how God or his priests could make themselves much more available to those with questions. NancyHeise ^talk 21:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's no change to the article being proposed, this thread needs to end. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a specific change to hand but the paragraph that begins By the close of the 19th century..' in the 'industrial age section, seems very benignant and , though I will need to go away and read, my instinct is that , in the Congo for example, the arrival of Catholic imperialism, with its wonderful priests, and educators,as well as its butcherers and robber rubber-barons was , all-in -all a calamity for the country - and that the paragraph is POV.Sayerslle (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"though I will need to go away and read" - sounds like a good next step, for everyone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There's Adam Hochschilds King Leopolds Ghost, that might have stuff about Catholic influence in the Congo, or Roger Casement's The Eyes of another Race, Roger Casement's Congo Report and 1903 Diary. I s there anything about magdalene laundries yet? Sayerslle (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interject. But this is just to say that its not productive to try to bring every crime by a "Catholic" nation or group and place it at the door of the Church. Just as we do not hold the Anglican Church responsible for the Amritsar massacre or the Irish Famine, the Lutheran Church responsible for Herero and Namaqua Genocide or the Baptist Church responsible for segregation and the bombing of Vietnam. And Congo at the time of the atrocities quoted was not under the Belgian government, but the personal fief of King Leopold. As Nancy says, improvement of the text on Africa is possible, but lets have it balanced. Xandar 00:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

True, though personally I reserve the right to hold various forms of Leftist totalitarianism at least largely responsible for the various massive fatalities in those parts of the world unfortunate enough to be controlled by them. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Xandar? The Anglican Church were major landowners during the Irish famine who watched their tenants starve. There have since been belated apologies for that, as well as for their having been slaveowners in the Caribbean. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please you guys, the last thing we need is to get off onto an English/Irish tangent. NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

re History: Persecution

The statement that Early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to worship Roman rulers as gods and were thus subject to persecution is referenced but remains a highly contentious explanation. Few objective accounts of reasons have survived to counterbalance vast quantities of hagiography of martyrs. The explanation does not seem to adequately explain why some religious minorities appear to have been perceived as more of a threat than others. G.E.M. de Ste. Croix in "Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?" in Past and Present 26 (1963), 6-38, regarded it as improbable that there was ever a general law specifically proscribing Christianity, a notion which, as far as I am aware, no specialist in Roman public law and administration has ever been willing to entertain, popular as it has been among ecclesiastical historians. (p. 14). With regard to process, Ste. Croix observed: It is important to remember that the standard procedure in punishing Christians was 'accusatory' and not 'inquistorial.': a governor would not normally take action until a formal denunciation (delatio nominis) was issued by a delator, a man who was prepared not merely to inform but actually to conduct the prosecution in person, and to take the risk of being himself arraigned on a charge of calumnia, malicious persecution, if he failed to make out a sufficient case. The matter is covered in a more balanced manner in the article Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are asking for a little too much detail than is necessary for this article. I don't know of any scholar who contests that Christians were persecuted in large numbers on and off by various Roman Emperors for the first three hundred years. We have wikilinked our article to others where it is discussed in greater detail. Per WP:summary style, we are just trying to provide Reader with an overview of the situation and the links that will allow him/her to find more information if they desire to read more on persecutions in that era. Maybe you can take a look at those other articles and improve them. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he is asking for less detail. As with most of the historical section, the text is making a claim which scholarship will not support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an insanely minor quibble

The article currently states that "more than one-sixth of the world's population" belongs to the Catholic Church. The number cited is 1.115 billion Catholics, from the 2007 Pontifical Yearbook. The US Census Bureau Population Clock says that the world's population is 6.8 billion people. 1.115 divided by 6.8 is 16.4 percent. One divided by six is 16.6 (repeating) percent. Like I said, it's a very minor quibble, but would it be better to say instead that about one-sixth of the world's population is Catholic? Or maybe near one-sixth of the world's population is Catholic? Just as a matter of general interest, the world's population is rising extremely quickly, and it won't be long before "more than" or "above" will have to become "just under" or something like that.

By the way (in a total aside)....Haldraper you're in this article too?!?!?! What are the freaking odds?? Damn this is going to be good. Don't worry I won't settle into my stalinist tendencies this time, unless you really want me to. I just wanted to bring up this point because I think it deserves attention. Deal with it as you wish.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, one more thing. Before I get accused of original research (yeah I know it's coming, settle down tiger), finding reputable sources from a few years ago (or even very recently) saying that over one-sixth of the world's population is Catholic won't really solve the problem if that claim isn't true today. Again, I know....verifiability, not truth (down kitten). But I'm sure it's easy to find reputable sources that use the word about, just as it's easy to find sources that say more than or above. And either way, the current version of the article includes no citation about this particular point. It gives the number of Catholics and (magically) claims they're over 1/6 of the world's population.

Caveats above directed in anticipation at what I'll hear from Haldraper. The rest of you can ignore everything, and if you're confused right now, don't worry about it. It's the will of "god."UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, welcome to the bearpit! You may wish to leave now if you value your sanity! Haldraper (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi UberCryxic, we have used the term "over" because of the citation to the CIA Worldfactbook citation which gives the percentage of Catholics in the world at 16.99% [28] as of today. Since this source uses census figures instead of just baptismal records, this figure includes people who have self identified themselves as Catholics. I see that Haldraper immediately removed this source and our text per your comment without gathering consensus. I disagree with that and am going to replace it until a new consensus is developed here with sufficient input from interested parties. NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Raper, you should know me well enough by now to realize that I do not value my sanity. But anyway, let's stick to the topic at hand. I am suggesting that we say about instead of more than. I don't want another war with you. I come in peace this time. What's your opinion on my proposal?

Nancy, you didn't really address the fundamental problem, which makes sense because it would invalidate your position. If it's as simple as finding a reputable source, then I think we can end this debate quickly. Just give me a few minutes and I'll find plenty of reputable sources saying about—or something to that effect—instead of more than. But I don't want to pursue that path if you will not agree, in principle, to change the article based on those new sources, and on the information that I have provided.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, let's make something clear, just so no one is confused: the CIA uses other reputable sources to to give its figures. In other words, those numbers are not, in general, original research. In particular, the 2007 study it cites for atheists being 2.3% percent of the world population comes from one analysis in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, and I suspect the Catholic figures originate from other reputable sources that were written several years ago. Anyway, I don't want to explicitly second-guess the CIA, although it's very easy to do knowing that it's one of the most deceptive organizations in American history. My main point is that we should seek scholarly sources written recently, but I insist on saying about to better reflect current reality. I want both verifiability (the hard sources), as demanded by Wikipedia policy, and truth. I don't think I'm asking for much at all. I'm floating these ideas to better understand what you all think about them before I move forward.

Some more general points about the article itself: the categorization is all screwed up and this article is way too big at nearly 200 kb. On the first point, history sections generally always go first, not last (as in this article). On the second point, the article could benefit from some good summary style, with unnecessary details being hitched off to daughter articles.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your using old information. You are using the 2007 figures, here's the 2009 figures and another source that puts the figure at "more than" one sixth of the world's population (17.4%)[29]. I prefere the CIA Worldfactbook even though it offers a lesser figure of 16.99% which is also "more than" one sixth..... BTW, CIA worldfactbook is using figures from July 2009. I just want to keep the most current information in the article, do you know of any scholarly sources published since July 2009 that use more current figures than we have used in the article? NancyHeise ^talk 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I resent the subtle implication that the CIA is a scholarly source, although I'll agree that it's a reputable source (but those two things are different). I also don't think we should set hard deadlines like provide me something after July 2009. That's a pretty contrived standard (why not choose August 2009 or February 2010?). All we need is something reasonably recent (as in, from the last decade until now).

Anyway, here are some recent and legitimate scholarly sources that say something to the effect of what I'm proposing:

From 2006:

The Catholic Church and the nation-state: comparative perspectives p. 40:

Approximately one-sixth of the world's population is at least nominally Catholic.

From 2008:

Roman Catholicism is by far the largest of the world's religions, with a global membership of over 1.1 billion souls, or approximately one-sixth of the world's population

From 2008:

Routledge handbook of religion and politics p. 48

The oldest institution on earth, the Roman Catholic Church sustains a far-flung flock whose billion adherents comprise one-sixth of the globe's population.

I could provide more, but you get the point. As I mentioned above, there are also recent scholarly and reputable sources that say Catholics constitute more than one-sixth of the world's population. In other words, the sources describe the percentage of Catholics relative to the world population in different terms, which presents a challenge for us here, who have to interpret the vague and uncertain terminology accordingly. Based on the above sources, and on the evidence I presented before about the numbers given by the Church failing to match the proportion when compared to global population figures by the US Census Bureau, I will rewrite the sentence to say "approximately one-sixth of the world's population."UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And again, you can't argue "those sources are old" because the trends are going against you. In other words, the world population is rising at a much faster rate than the number of Catholics, so the ratio of the latter to the former will only keep going down, for the foreseeable future at least. But either way, those sources are recent enough to merit inclusion in the article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I like the Routledge book and appreciate your research, I am going to argue that your sources are old : ) Here's why: None of these are more current or more reliable than the CIA worldfactbook. I provided you with a link to a news article citing the 2009 Pontifical Yearbook [30] which has the most recent figures and none of your sources here could have possibly taken these into account as they were published before it was. We are just trying to give Reader the most current information sourced to an independent reliable source and CIA meets that criteria. Yours books do not trump this source. NancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, arguing that "0.33%" is "more than" is not really worth the text. These numbers (of Catholics and of world population) are estimates to begin with, and they are constantly changing. "Approximately" is generally taken to mean anything from "just a little bit under" to "just a little bit over". That means it would definitely cover "1/6 +0.33%". "More than" to me would generally mean that it is a lot more than rather than a teeny bit. Given that other scholarly sources (much more scholarly than the CIA) use the term "approximately", and the meaning is essentially the same for the data we are discussing, Nancy, can you better articulate why you believe "approximately" is incorrect? Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "approximately" is incorrect but I do believe it is Less Correct than "more than" based on the most recent figures of world population and Catholic population which the scholarly sources do not have because they are old compared to the CIA worldfactbook and the 2009 Pontifical Yearbook[31] which put the number of Catholics at 16.99% and 17.4% respectively which is (a lot) more than six percent (16.6) of world population. I would like to use the more accurate term and the most current, independent, reliable source. NancyHeise ^talk 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why you want to use an older source instead of the most current one or a less accurate term as opposed to a more accurate one? NancyHeise ^talk 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Academic sources are considered more reliable than the CIA source. The CIA source is an estimate anyway, so the numbers cannot be "exact". Given that lots of academic sources say "approximately" and a few reliable sources say "more than", and the difference is actually pretty small, (six-tenths of a percent is not that much), it seems better to err on the more cautious estimate. Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, no reputable source trumps any other reputable source (with certain reasonable exceptions), and if that's the assumption under which you're working, we won't get very far here. I don't see this battle as one of my sources are better than your sources. All of our sources are good. I'll admit that from the start, and I wish you would do the same. The important point to understand is that the sources disagree or, if they don't explicitly disagree, they characterize the information using different terminology. There's no good reason why the terminology of some reputable sources should sink the terminology of other reputable sources. That's called whitewashing (history, in this case), and I advise you to avoid doing it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that says older academic sources for stastics are more reliable than newer, independent US government agency websites for world statitics? There are some sources that are better than others and the two of you are asking us to use older sources rather than a newer one - gosh its the United States Government - what academic source has better access to statistical information than the US government? NancyHeise ^talk 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your position Uber; of course the most recent source is of more value than an older source when the topic is population. It makes no sense to assume that a 1990 Census is just as valid when discussing population as a 2000 Census. More importantly, just qualify the statement, "As of July 2009...". When you qualify the statement there is no opportunity to mislead readers and it immediately reflects the source used. --^StormRider 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people are fundamentally missing the point of this debate, and it happens often in Wikipedia when editors deal with sources that disagree. Karanacs is making the same mistake as Nancy, arguing in the oppose direction that the sources presented above are more reliable than those disclosed by her. Here is where the editorial muscle of Wikipedia needs to show some flexibility. Reputable sources are great, but I've been through too many edit wars to know scholars with different agendas (yes, they have them too) disagree with one another as well. Take the Battle of Borodino or the Battle of Krasnoi during the French invasion of Russia in 1812. If you read Western sources by the most distinguished historians, both are French victories. If you read Russian sources by the most distinguished historians, Borodino was a major strategic Russian victory and Krasnoi was a Russian victory outright. That's the kind of situation we're facing here, and I don't want people to suffer from any illusions that their sources are somehow right or superior. The introductory sentence should say "approximately" not just because of those sources, but also because—given the current sociological circumstances surrounding this article—it seems like a reasonable compromise. "More than" is biased in one direction and is not supported by some reputable sources. "Less than" or "nearly" is biased in the other direction and is also not supported by other reputable sources. The best solution is to say "approximately," which covers both interpretations, and to move on from this silly fight.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rider, you have to be kidding. Your own comparison is absurd. 1990 versus 2000 is totally different from 2009 versus 2008, and I'm not done yet with the sources. Relax everybody: there's more coming.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not kidding. For something that is an "insanely minor quibble" you seem to be investing a great deal of effort and time. Generally, on this type of topic I always go with the most current reference. Yes, there is a difference between 1990 and 2000...just as there is a difference between 2008 and 2009. It is the very nature of the difference that makes the current reference so valid and important.

Please, don't try an compare a population, which is only counting, to a country's historical reinterpretation of past wars. One is limited to counting and the othere is a complete interpretation of facts.

I don't have a horse in the race and when so recent a reference is used and then disputed because all other older references don't say the state the same thing in identical language, then it is obvious that we really are talking about an insanely stupid quibble. Move on.--^StormRider 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The difference between 1990 and 2000 is not comparable to the difference between 2008 and 2009. Now I'm no physicist (oh wait, I am), but the first two have a separation of 10 years and the others of one year. It seems unbelievable to seriously suggest that a source which is one year more current should hold all the weight while the others should be discarded, as you are doing. The comparison to the wars was meant to show that reputable sources sometimes disagree in how they characterize certain (important) issues, and when they do disagree, Wikipedia needs to reflect the views of both sides (provided those views also meet other notability requirements), not just one. There are recent (very) reputable sources that explicitly use "approximately" and make no mention of the number of Catholics being "more than" one-sixth of the world population. This article should adopt their terminology.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See my suggestion about this below.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary suspension of editing rights

Resolved

Today's blocks go to Sayerslle:

"your pal Nancy used a source above in the debate, and hid its real meaning by using it so selectively it became a lie. Mote - log - its in the gospels you never read," 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

and Taam:

"OK how about this team: Xandar and Nancy can attack when required but defensive possession football is their main interest. You just cannot get the ball off them, and that's the complaint of their own side who are always shouting for a turn!" 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't impede progress on the article, since they mostly seemed to be using sports chat to insult people. Anyway, it's disruptive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems way over the top to me. The first example is typical of the cut and thrust on this page. Taam's stuff is humourous, I thought it was very funny and I'm sure most other editors did too. Haldraper (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That kind of cut and thrust and faux-humorous insult is disruptive, and has got the page where it is today. We aren't going to have any more of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Both unblocked following discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Last week I collapsed a section that I thought was unnecessarily rough commentary on users rather than content. I don't know that it's appropriate for me to do this a lot, as I'm obviously highly involved in the discussions. Can we agree that it's okay for Tom - and others to be nominated? - to cap or even remove our comments (whole or partial) if he feels they are veering too far away from content? We haven't tried this much in the past, and it may be helpful to diffuse the tensions - or at least stop them from getting worse. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Nancy, for that very thinly veiled personal attack against me. Was it really necessary to accompany praise for one user with abuse pointed out others, whether named or not? Karanacs (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment I responded to, since it has been removed. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved my "thank you" comment to Tom's talk page since Karanacs is offended I did not include her name in there somewhere. NancyHeise ^talk 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked the comment - and you weren't mentioned, Karanacs> Xandar 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this back and forth isn't productive. It's better to move on from arguing about one another to ... arguing about the article :) Majoreditor (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Derailing a discussion about this article into a discussion of individual users is not helpful. I don't understand why this is hard for some people. Just because someone holds a different viewpoint doesn't mean you should start putting them in a negative light. Everyone here has the encyclopedia's interests in mind, we just have different ideas of what should be here. POV is balanced when we discuss it and come to a consensus. I appreciate your actions to keep a lid on disruptive behavior. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion I, Cryxic (Consensus)

I can tell from the discussions above that even the most minor things spark wars in this talk page. That's cool. We'll take it step by step. I propose we drop the stuff about proportionality altogether and simply start off the article with the following sentence:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church with more than a billion members.

Simple, quick, straightforward.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this. There's no need to include the other statistics in the lead - this makes a pretty big impact and is relatively uncontroversial (I think). Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't support it because if you look at almost every book written about the Church including the major encyclopedias, they begin by telling you how old and how big and how important the Church is. FAC criteria require us to provide context and, for the average Reader who does not know how many a billion people are, we provide that in step with other fine encyclopedias. NancyHeise ^talk 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect if people know what "prayer and worship" means then they are well aware of what "billion" means ;) Karanacs (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, no actually. See Long and short scales - in traditional British English (long scale) a billion is 1,000 US billions (short scale). If it isn't in that words to avoid page it should be. "The two systems can be a subject of misunderstanding or controversy. Differences in opinion as to which system should be used can evoke resentment between adherents, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[8]" we say. You learn something every day on this page. I haven't looked at the issue itself - I now avoid any threads on the first paragraph completely. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, your reasons for not agreeing to this compromise are not good enough. Per Karanacs, readers will understand the intrinsic importance of the figure.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS has specific provisions on the usage of billion: use the short scale, because most anglophones - including most living Britons - will understand it. The history of the ambiguity (which most people will not know) nevertheless deserves an article, just as cat does - or have we moved it to Felis domestica? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Switching to Consensus because S.I and S.II are related. We're done with the first two Suggestions. Move on to the others please. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, we don't decide consensus if its only been up for consideration for one day. I think the general courtesy to other editors is to give them a week at least. Are we in a hurry or something? NancyHeise ^talk 07:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no hurry. It's just that all the major parties have spoken, or enough to conclude that we have a quorum. I don't see the need to drag it out, especially since other pressing matters await us (see below).UberCryxic ^(talk) 08:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're going to get a good measure of consensus from 4 or 5 people's comments over 24 hours. Also, the result might have more credibility if someone uninvolved determined which reasons were good enough, and whether consensus had been reached. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I have no problem if you want to determine when consensus has been reached. But at the same time, I don't want to sit here arguing eternally over whether we have, in fact, reached consensus. We all seem like fairly experienced editors here, and I know all too well people can use those kinds of dirty tactics to stall and drag out debate—your basic Wikipedia version of a filibuster. Filibustering seems like the dominant leitmotif of these talk pages. We need some cloture mechanism to end that filibuster. Oh and an interesting tidbit on cloture: like the legislative successes of modern abolitionism, it started during the French Revolution. At some point, we have to act decisively, even if feelings get hurt (and they inevitably will on such a controversial topic). I just want us all to realize that we will always have some irreconcilable differences here (ie. there will always be a few people who will disagree on any given topic), but that's never a good reason to hold back from changing and improving the article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally some other uninvolved but experienced editor(s), admin or not, could do that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can find one of those uninvolved people, that would be great (where can we find one?) :) I do agree about waiting at least a few days. I, for one, don't edit on weekends...others seem to have similar patterns where they don't edit for defined time periods. However, apart from those of us who are most active, there seem to be few comments from the gallery. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to wave my hands around grasping for attention, but I'm one of those "uninvolved people," in the sense that I just came across this article two days ago and have only made one single edit to it (which was changing "more than" to "approximately" in the first sentence; very controversial I know). Now, I also have major gripes about the current version of the article (so you could question my neutrality), but I qualify as uninvolved, especially when you consider the fact that many of the users arguing here have done so for several years. One of those users essentially became my arch-nemesis in a dispute with another article, but we eventually worked our differences and we seem to be (amazingly) in agreement over several major points in this article. In other words, I have very strong ideas about where this article needs to go, but I don't have any friends or allies here, which is more than I can say for a few other editors.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Spain in the 1930s

The sentence on the Spanish situation in the 30s read: " During the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War over 6,ooo priests and nuns were killed by republicans and anarchists." That was it . Xandar ticks that bit of history off his list. Since then I've tried to add a bit of adequate context which Xandar agrees is sadly lacking so often, and added a sentence I read from Antony Beevor, a respected historian I believe, that said liberal catholic reaction against the unholy trinity -landowners/Church/Franco was strengthened by a book the writer Georges Bernanos wrote. Whilst I make no claims for my additions, they are probably clumsy and hasty because I felt the sentence as it stood so egregiously POV tilted but in general, I believe the article is better 40 pages long with interesting links to follow and a suggestion of the complexity of things than say 20 pages of nauseating apologetics. Farsight said on the arbitration page that as a psychologist , he doesnt like bullies, well the majority of edits, over 4000 by Nancy, and Xandar is next highest, are ganging up and kicking the s**t out of NPOV. Farsight -eyewash more like. Sayerslle (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think all those Nancy & Xandar have disagreed with are exhibiting NPOV? I suggest reading further here & in the archives, where you will also find a strong consensus (about the only thing everyone agrees with) that the article is already too long & cannot be allowed to expand overall. We just have no space for "adequate context" on this or just about any aspect of the subject. That has to be in the articles linked to from here. Stalin had his reasons for religious persecution too; why not expand on them also? Meanwhile you never seem to have edited the relevant linked article Red Terror (Spain), which does not seem to contain the more detailed material you tried to add here. That is the place for it. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at Sayerslle's edits to this section. The sentences he changed do not agree with some of the citations at the end of them, particularly the one to Owen Chadwick. Regarding Sayerslle's comments on my and Xandar's number of edits - please see when most of these occurred - we are the ones who took the article through four peer reviews and FACs and provided most of the core material. Having the majority of edits does not necessarily mean a person is a bully - it might mean they know something about the subject matter and took the time to put referenced material on the page and do so with the help of four peer reveiws and FAC comments. NancyHeise ^talk 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I 100% don't believe Nancy and Xandar are neutral or strive for NPOV. Do you, then. Johnbod are you saying the single sentence, about the Red Terror, standing alone is sufficient, or has to be sufficient because of reasons of space? What has Stalin got to do with the sentence I'm addressing. Is mentioning a lowlife who has the label 'communist' meant to scare away debate about the killings of anarchists and communists? Anyway , if I remember Homage to Catalonia correctly Stalin and Franco were pretty much on the same side, against the anarchists and Trotskyists. ... leave it with the one sentence then, I think its shabby. I'll just go off anyway, maybe I'll start a page about Bernanos's book, he seems an interesting person. I didn't cite Chadwicks book, NancyHeise, that must be the source for the 6000 nuns and priests killed. (In fact it doesn't say which book by Owen Chadwick is referenced anyway, so its useless really as a citation , shabby . The 6000 comes from 'butlers lives of the saints' , that sounds neutral .) Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't what you said before; you said all their efforts "are ganging up and kicking the s**t out of NPOV". So you are happy for the next sentence just to give Stalin's death-toll, but not for the Spanish to get the same treatment? Because he was "a lowlife who has the label 'communist'"? Where's the NPOV there? I do believe the single sentence, standing alone, has to be sufficient because of reasons of space; at least until I see a draft that adds useful context without adding much length, which yours certainly did not. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, you changed a sentence that was cited to Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity. You inserted material from another book and then left the citation to Chadwick which does not say what you added to the sentence. See [32]. If you insert material into a cited sentence you need to check to make sure it still matches the cited source or you can make your own freestanding sentence cited to a new source. Better still, you can come to the talk page and kindly point out the fault you see in the article and suggest a new wording and/or sources with collaboration from other interested editors. After your changes here, I think the article is too heavy on the Spanish Civil War details that have nothing to do with the subject of this article - the Church. It is enough to wikilink the war as we had already done and mention the effects of the war on the Church - killing many priests and nuns. Do you know of an organization of priests and nuns who were killing leftists? I did not notice any such thing in any source, not even your new ones, so that is why we did not mention it. NancyHeise ^talk 17:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, the text you inserted goes into way too much detail. It would probably be too much detail in any Wikipedia article but it is especially excessive in this summary-level article. (Well, maybe in an article about Georges Bernanos) That said, I think you have a point about "context". Anti-clericalism didn't just spring up out of nowhere. There were reasons for it and decrying the slaughter of priests and nuns is a bit like decrying the killing of soldiers in an army. While one can argue that non-violent actions should never provoke violent retribution, the fact is that many on the left viewed the Church as part of an oppressive establishment that needed to be rooted out and eliminated. I'm not saying I agree or support that POV. However, it needs to be presented as it is a very notable element of the leftist worldview. I have tried to tighten up your text so that if focuses on the key point while leaving out some of the extraneous detail, especially about Antony Beevor and Georges Bernanos. I wiped out all of the citations as I didn't know which citations supported my new text. Please review my text and add citations as appropriate. --Richard S (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I'm providing you with the quote from Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity page 240 to help here "Compare the Spanish civil war of 1936: Spain was a very Catholic country, yet Spanish republicans and anarchists all over the country murdered priests and nuns who had done them no wrong. They were symbols (though only in part the reality) of conservatism. But a more important reason is that they did good, and in a desperate fight you must pass the point of no return by doing something unforgivable; to shoot nuns who minister to the sick is the most unforgiveable of acts." I would like to also point out that Owen Chadwick is not a Catholic. NancyHeise ^talk 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that Bernanos was a right wing Catholic , so not a leftist o.k, and he saw close up what the Catholic supported fascists did in majorca, and he changed his support of Franco, He quoted, disparagingly, a Jesuit priest who told Bernanos 2 million rojos , reds, would have to be killed before Spain was cleansed. One tiny story, from Giles Tremlett, Ghosts of Spain book - "29 december 1936 , Falange, the only party approved by Franco, will deal with Pilar Espinosa, Virtudes de la Puente, and Valeria Granada. Pilar and Virtudes are Republican sympathisers, the other , a Falangists wife wants killed for personal reasons, jealousy. Pilar is 43. She can read, one of the few in the village , and subscribes to El Socialista. She is an enemy of Franco's National Catholic crusade. The three women and Pilar's 14 year old daughter are taken by the blue shirted falangists to a a small warehouse where the local priest questions them and asks if they want him to hear their confession. They are then bundled into a lorry. It stops once, and Pilar's daughter is thrown out. ('My mother gave me a hug and that was the last I saw of her, I ran back through the rain and shut myself into the house..) Just before Candelada, it ends with Valeriana, the youngest, and pregnant, has her skull smashed and her belly and womb ripped open . The other two are shot through the head. A peasant finds them the next morning. " Tremletts book again, 2006, he says he wanted to talk to someone and went to a church with his local contact. His local contact Mariano , refused to enter. This is in 2006 , and it still divides peoople, Mariano says " You have to understand..the Church, the landowners and Franco were one and the same thing." From Beevor again, p.102 'Protestants in El Barraco, near Avila, were killed on the urging of priests.. " Chadwicks words look strange. Beevor says clergy were not murdered all over the country p.102 the church was untouched in the Basque country.. As for the text as it is at present I think it is much better - whether it will survive Xandars and Nancys scrutiny, ..well.. Sayerslle (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if it will survive the scrutiny and size reduction all parts of the article are undergoing - see several threads above. I think it is too long; why should Spain get so much more space than Latin America? I'm surprised Richard kept so much frankly. I repeat, you should add this stuff at the article on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to rethink this whole "too long" thing. Xandar and I have always been of the attitude that we could trim a bit here and a bit there but that a radical slashing of 25-33% was not likely to be an improvement. I went through this whole article line-by-line and could only find 5% to delete. Other editors are more of the radical "slash and burn" school. They do want to see 25%+ reduction in length.

My concern about length is not so much about overall length. It's about wordiness and especially about indulging in detailed discussions of controversies or mentioning of relatively unimportant stuff. Of course, what is important is a matter of judgment and it is reasonable to debate whether it is important to mention Teresa d'Avila, Bartolomé de Las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria by name. Whether it is important to mention the Second Council of Lyon and Council of Florence by name. I understand the desire to provide the reader with links but I think we get carried away and the links actually detract from the readability of the text.

Above all, I want to root out details which are put in solely to defend the Church from controversies. Better to just mention the controversy and provide a link to an article which delves into the details.

--Richard S (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, why don't you put it back then, exactly how it was "During the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War over 6000 priests and nuns were killed by Republicans and anarchists. " Thats how it was. If people wonder why, well they can deduce that they're just mindless murderers, reds, so leave it at that. Or they can follow the link to the Red Terror, that's good. Theres more about attacks on priests they can read there. Not that Catholic Spain ever dealt harshly with its opponents. butter wouldn't melt again. I just wanted some context, that's all , sorry to have exasperated you I'm sure. put it back to how it was, or why go on about it Sayerslle (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, the Church (topic of this article), is not Catholic Spain. We have to be careful to attribute to the Church that which scholars are offering and not impose the acts of certain "Catholics" who were not operating with permission or in the name of the Church with authority to do so -certainly not within the teachings of their faith. NancyHeise ^talk 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thats very convenient. All I believe is that the Spanish Civil War was an important moment for the Catholic Church in Spain, it certainly merits inclusion in the history section, but the single sentence was inadequate and tendentious. Sayerslle (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, drawing distinctions between what "the Church" does and what "Catholics" do is all very nice to do from the comfort of an easy chair. In practice, the Church is perceived as what the Catholics do not just what the Pope says in its encyclicals and papal bulls. It is rare that the real world draws a distinction between the Vatican and the local hierarchy. Yes, there may be times when the local hierarchy is running out-of-control but, most of the time, they have the implicit blessing of the Pope and the Vatican.

If I understand him correctly, what Sayerslle wants is to establish that the leftists had reasons for their anti-clerical violence even if we condemn that violence today. It's like trying to explain the Ku Klux Klan without explaining the antebellum South, slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan doesn't target African-Americans for no reason. Their hatred (at least originally) was based on a sense of having been abused and downtrodden by freed slaves and carpetbaggers. Doesn't mean I suport the Klan's actions or philosophy. However, in order to understand history, you have to set their actions in context.

In truth, the anti-clericalism of the Spanish left, the Russian communists and the Latin American left is all rooted in the anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment which first reared its ugly head during the French Revolution. The anti-clericalism of the Enlightenment is partly a reaction to the "worldly" entanglements of a Church which had temporal power as well as spiritual power. Bishops who were lavishly wealthy and had one or more wives and illegitimate children. Pope who were the pawns of the rich and powerful such as the Medici. Parish priests who could determine who could marry, who could be baptized as legitimate and who could be buried on sacred ground.

This is the story that is inadequately told. Not that I want to insert the entire paragraph above into the article but this article makes it sound as if anti-clericalism sprang up from a vacuum. It didn't.

Separation of church and state is important to Western civilization. Why? Because it wasn't always so. It's not just that the state wanted to meddle in the church. It's that the church wanted to enlist the support of the state as the "established religion". Protestants in the U.S. wanted freedom of religion from the established Church of England. (Of course, that didn't stop them from discriminating against Roman Catholics)

--Richard S (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I disagree with your logic there. I think it is most helpful to the article to put personal opinions aside and stick to what the scholars actually say about these events. I provided a source and quote - Owen Chadwick [33] - he said what he said and he did not say what you just said. You and others here are welcome to provide sources to round out the section. I was just trying to help. NancyHeise ^talk 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, you know, this is going to be a little bit hard for me because I tend to agree more with Chadwick than with the leftists. That is, I certainly wouldn't advocate killing priests and religious for political reasons. It's clear that most priests and religious were just "doing their job" as God had called them to do.

However, here's the problem... the leftist ideology (most notably Marxist/Leninism) saw the Church as an integral part of oppressive power structure. As an example, consider that under the Ancien Régime in France (i.e. before the French Revolution), the Church constituted the First Estate (see Estates of the Realm. There's a reason for the anti-clericalism in Europe, Russia and Latin America. The leftists are rooting out the established power structure so that they can neutralize its power and exert their own.

You don't have to agree with the leftist ideology. You just need to understand what their line of thinking was and how it guided their actions. If you insist, I can go find sources for this but it really is common knowledge for anybody who has studied history of the last two and a half centuries.

I think what Sayerslle is wanting to establish is that the Church sided with Franco during the Spanish Civil War. This is not a controversial assetion. Franco was a conservative who supported the monarchy and the Church. The Church, in turn, supported Franco and even signed a concordat in 1953 which recognized Catholicism as the official religion of Spain. The Church later distanced itself from Franco and criticized his regime (I forget the details but anyway this isn't directly relevant to my point.)

The Orthodox Church sided with the Tsar and later the White Russians. This is also not a controversial assertion. They also were persecuted by the Bolsheviks. We should mention that the Catholics were not uniquely persecuted by the Bolsheviks. All religions were. The Russian Orthodox got the worst of it because they were the dominant religion. Catholics also got their fair share but it's a bit curious to mention only the Catholics and not the Orthodox. There's a strange lack of context in doing so.

I'll skip over the discussion of anti-clericalism in Latin America. We've already discussed that on this Talk Page (the discussion is now archived). Once again, the anti-clericalism was largely driven by the liberals and leftists. Once again, the Church was perceived by the leftists as part of the power structure, in partnership with the landowners. Expropriation of Church property was a means of breaking down that power structure. (NB: Some expropriation of Church property did not also involve expropriation of the landowners' property so things are not quite clear-cut.)

My point, however, is that anti-clericalism has an ideological basis rooted in class-struggle. You may not see things this way. That's your right. However, it is a fact that this POV exists and was a very integral part of the leftist worldview.

--Richard S (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I don't know what Sayerslle's politics are and whether he sides with the Falangists or the Republicans. I think it is generally politically correct these days to side with the Republicans despite excesses such as the Red Terror. Sayerslle seems to be on the side of the Republicans.

My objective is not to attempt a justification of the anti-clerical violence in Spain or elsewhere. My objective is to explain the purported rationale behind the anti-clerical violence even if I personally reject the validity of that rationale. This is what NPOV means.

Chadwick's language is very emotive. It is indeed a tragedy for the parish priests and nuns to be slaughtered as part of a larger class struggle. However, that doesn't mean we have to write the article focusing on the human pathos and ignoring the larger socioeconomic political struggle that was the backdrop to the killings.

--Richard S (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Johnbod below, putting my stuff first to keep the train of thought together)

Nancy, let's focus on what Chadwick actually says...

"They were symbols (though only in part the reality) of conservatism."

Chadwick is saying that priests and nuns were assaulted and killed because they were the symbols of conservatism (however, they were not really fully instruments of conservatism i.e. they were not quite the instruments of the power structure that the leftists portrayed them to be). And this is the tragedy, most of them were probably sincere innocents who were slaughtered for what their Church represented rather than for the evil that they themselves did.

Chadwick continues...

"But a more important reason is that they did good, and in a desperate fight you must pass the point of no return by doing something unforgivable; to shoot nuns who minister to the sick is the most unforgiveable of acts."

I gotta say that I don't follow this completely. It seems that Chadwick has left the realm of historical analysis and has moved to judging what was done. He is expressing his disgust at the reprehensibility of killing nuns who minister to the sick. OK, fine. Most of us wouldn't endorse such killing. But how is what he said different from what I've said? I would assert that Chadwick does not disagree with me. He just didn't bother to spell it out because this is stuff that any student of modern history knows.

--Richard S (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Anti-clericalism, which we used to have in around the 18th century I think, is indeed a "broader theme" that might be worth develoiping, & also the post-1815 Restorations alliances of the Church with "reaction". But Sayerslle's totally apologetics stuff about Spain is the wrong way & place to do it. It has exactly the tone that people complain about from Nancy & Zandar. Does he really think any of that justifies killing 6,000 clerics anyway? Perhaps he does. There is ample coverage of Bolshevik persecution of the Orthodox Church in articles on those subjects. I repeat, we just don't have room for "context" here - we have room for basic statements & links, that's all. You seem to be departing considerably from principles you have always accepted in discussing other areas. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, with respect to my specific edit of Sayerslle's new text, you're probably right that it is "de trop" (too much). I would be satisfied to just make the point that the Church sided with Franco and that further reinforced the anticlericalism of the leftist Republicans and anarchists. BTW, in Latin America, the Church sided with the Spanish monarchy which did not endear it to the revolutionaries fighting for independence from Spain. Similarly, as I've said above, the Orthodox Church sided with the Tsar which did not endear it to the Bolsheviks. My point is the leftists haven't liked the Church for a couple of centuries. This is the context of the anti-clerical violence. The violence didn't "just happen". --Richard S (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think that was my point actually. But this is not the place or the way to make it. And these are exactly the sort of "excuses" that have been, and continue to be removed, on the Catholic side, elsewhere in the article. The St Bartholemew's Day Massacre "didn't just happen" either. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, I would ask for a modicum of good faith here. I am not interested in "excusing" any of the anti-clerical violence. However, unless the reader understands the river of anticlericalism that flows from the Enlightenment through the French Revolution and into the 19th and 20th century, these look like isolated events. That is how the article presents them because it doesn't make any effort to link them together and "connect the dots" for the reader. When I talked about "themes" for this article, anti-clericalism is one of the themes that I think is important. Yes, all of this is related to the issue of temporal vs. spiritual power and the issue of separation of church and state as well. However, if we leave those alone for the time being, the minimum that we should be doing is connecting the dots for the reader so that he understands that all of these waves of anti-clerical are generally considered to be part of the same phenomenon (i.e. leftist anti-clericalism against a Church perceived to be an integral part of a conservative, reactionary and repressive power structure). Yes, that's leftist Marxist rhetoric and, as I've said, we don't have to believe or endorse the rhetoric. However, it's seems almost ignorant to act as if that rhetoric never existed and as if it didn't have a very real influence in instigating the violence. --Richard S (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced material isn't a good idea, neither is not mentioning the Spanish bishops' support for Franco during the civil war. I've fixed both. Haldraper (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, as you said above:"Above all, I want to root out details which are put in solely to defend the Church from controversies. Better to just mention the controversy and provide a link to an article which delves into the details." Sauce for the goose.... Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. First point, I've changed round the existing sentence to put events in the right order. The quoted bishops support for Franco came AFTER the massacres of thousands of clergy - not before. Big and important difference. If people have just been killing thousands of priests and nuns, it is highly likely anyone is going to give support to the other side - especially after the example of what had recently happened in Russia. Secondly, unlike Richard, I think a little bit of context is necessary. However detail of the sort some wanted to add was quite out of place. On the issue of WHY anti-clericals and communists hated the Church so much and whether that justified their actions against innocent clerics. There are many reasons for this. Does it justify a half-paragraph somewhere? That goes against our trimming needs, and again it would have to be balanced. If we just said, out of the blue, in the USA article "In 200x the USA bombed and attacked Iraq killing 250,000 people." It would be a statement of fact but not a NPOV statement of fact, because, whatever you believe of the rights and wrongs, SOME context is required. The article therefore becomes unhelpful to understanding without a mention of context. We had a similar conversation on the Cathar Wars and elsewhere. Xandar 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a few lines of "broader theme" are worth adding to the passage discussed above about the emergence from the French Revolutionary period. Of course the church was part of the Ancien Regime establishment, but had its share of "progressives", like Abbé Sieyès and Talleyrand. After 1815 the church took a much more politically engaged stance, on the side of conservatism, and policed its clergy much more. This really stayed in place until after WW2. As for Spain, the fact of the deaths is sufficiently significant to be worth mentioning by itself, and if context were added, the belief in revolutionary terror as a tool would be the first thing to be added, imo. There will always be people who get in the way of other people's political aspirations; the belief that killing them all is justified is fortunately relatively rare. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So now it's 6,800 priests and religious killed, and then the Church, only after these 6800 are killed quite understandably, (though contrary to Jesus? er , not only is it wrong to kill, its wrong to even think ill of your brother gospel of Matthew, can't see Xandar making it past that saying , love your enemy have you ever read the gospels? , but then what has Jesus to do with Roman Catholic practice - "theres only ever been one Christian and he died on the cross" nietzsche)..so only after the revolutionary terror, those horrid people , political red people who believe that killing is justified if they feel their political aims hampered, so after all the red terror, then the Church , finally, outraged out of all moderation decides to back Franco. After which zero priests and nuns are killed. All the evil on one side, all the goodness on the other - the kind of simplistic , totalitarian vision one hoped the 20th century had discredited. Funny how the likes of George Orwell and Laurie Lee and Simone Weil decided to throw their hand in with the bloodthirsty rapists and killers - Xandar, and Nancy and Johnbod - or George Orwell, Laurie Lee and Simone Weil. Bloody hell . What was that Yeats poem , the worst are filled with a passionate conviction they have all the answers, all the good on their side? - the best are full of doubts? something like that..Xandars edit can't stand because it reads like the Church backed Franco after the Civil War had finished, and then he has left the reference that describes their endorsement of Franco in 36. Seems rank dishonest, chicanery.Sayerslle (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To name but one, Orwell's disillusionment with the Left when he actually saw the war in Spain was famously the crucial moment of his career. But of course there are some romantics left ... That Yeats quote is well off base - check what it really is ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity") & ask yourself who it might apply to here! Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Orwell served with a Trotskyite/ anarchist group in Spain what he saw in Spain famously turned him against the Stalinist Left, he remained a man of the Left til he died . o.k.. Trotsky, Snowball in Animal Farm I think , Napoleon the Stalin pig who kills Snowball - the fact you think he became disilllusioned with the entire Left , when he saw the Trotskyist/anarchist POUM he served with betrayed by The Stalinist Communists shows you don't know what you are on about. ..Thanks for clearing up the Yeats quote, the fact that you are very sure and convinced you know who it applies to means you sure don't lack all conviction. Are you supporting the lacking all conviction Xandar, the neutral and fair and un-filled with passionate intensity Xandar's, new disgraceful edit. I guess you are. What a shower. Sayerslle (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the big "themes" that I've been envisioning. I don't have sources handy (as Richard says, the basics are pretty common knowledge), but I'd foresee a few paragraphs on the power of the Church as a major landholder/policy influencer in large swaths of Europe and Latin America (where the countries were "officially" Catholic), and how this led to resentment - and revolution - in certain countries. We don't need to go into the details of the individual revolutions - while we might mention that this caused issues in countries X, Y, and Z, we don't need to say how many clergy were killed in country X, and we don't need to go into details on who inspired the particular revolutions and how any allegiances changed. It's basically the same story, with different plot twists thrown in here and there. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Karanacs. That is what I've been trying to get at. You and I may not agree on exactly how much detail to go into. My sense of it is that we have to avoid simply describing "trees" and focus on the "forest". If we do describe trees, it should be in aid of describing the forest. And, we should tell the reader what the forest looks like before we go into describing the trees. This is an important "theme" that is sort of hinted at in the current text but not made explicit. I would add this important contextual theme and reduce the amount of text devoted to describing "trees". (Or at least put those in Notes). --Richard S (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Our article already has a sentence like this in the French Revolution paragraph "In the French revolution of 1789, attacks on the wealth of the Church and associated grievances led to the wholesale nationalisation of church property in France.[342" I am not against placing something into the article regarding Church wealth but I think it would help if someone here could come up with a source to support the desired article text suggested by Richard and Karanacs though.

On another note, the logic that Richard is suggesting above regarding finding the reasons behind the anticlericalism could apply to any number of horrible scenarios like for instance the Holocaust. Following Richard's line of thought we could then assume that the Jews were doing something to provoke the Nazi's into killing them. I do not support it that kind of logic because its WP:OR and speculation - some people like Hitler are just plain mean and invent excuses to harm others. We don't need to massage their reasons for doing so unless one of you can find this sort of apologia oft repeated in mainstream sources of Spanish Civil War history.

Please also remember when researching Church wealth that the Church did not forcibly take money from anyone - people give it to them and they use it to build structures that are used by lots of people like hospitals, schools, churches, leprosies, that help people of all faiths (see the article section on Catholic institutions) Presently, in Venezuela, like in many communist or dictatorial countries, there arises a dictator who thinks that the Church properties should be nationalized and they just go and take them. The result is that a lot of poor people who were previously helped by the Church are left out in the cold while the dictator pays off his military backers with the properties - so what used to be used for helping many people - ends up in the hands of an elite few. That's the flip side. I am offering it to help provide POV balance to this discussion - not promote pro Catholic apologia so please be respectful of my contribution as I am of yours. NancyHeise ^talk 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So a fascistic stroke silences the talk on the fascist bit . Mucho ruido y pocas nueces (a lot of noise but few walnuts) - But whatever, the Civil War remains the most important event in 20th century Spanish history, probably several centuries - "the moment when Franco unleashed war , a cruzada , a Roman Catholic crusade against what he saw as a conspiracy of Marxists, and their 'Jewish spirit', and against separatists. Not just to defeat, but to eradicate the enemy. a repeat of what Franco considered one of the most glorious moments of Spanish history - the Christian Reconquista of Spain from the Moors, which led to the forced conversion or expulsion of Spains Muslims and in 1492, the Spanish Jews. And this important event in Catholic history is reduced to - 'just tell dear Reader, that priests and nuns were killed by anarchists'. I dunno. Not very illuminating really. Sayerslle (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the article about the Spanish Civil War. It's the article about the Church. Sayerslle may not like that fact, but the massacres of priests and nuns came before the statements of the bishops in favour of Franco, and many of these totally-unprovoked killings occurred before Franco's coup. Reversing the sequence in the article would be to manipulate the facts unacceptably.

Karanacs said:

I'd foresee a few paragraphs on the power of the Church as a major landholder/policy influencer in large swaths of Europe and Latin America (where the countries were "officially" Catholic), and how this led to resentment - and revolution - in certain countries. We don't need to go into the details of the individual revolutions - while we might mention that this caused issues in countries X, Y, and Z, we don't need to say how many clergy were killed in country X, and we don't need to go into details on who inspired the particular revolutions and how any allegiances changed.

A) We can't have "a few paragraphs" on the alleged "power" of the Church in Europe and Latin America on concerns of article size and due weight.

B) The statement that "church power" led to resentment and revolution is unproven. Many of the Revolutions in Latin America were led by and supported by churchpeople. In the initial stages they were often pro-Church. What caused these revolutions, including the French, was very complex.. Taxes, lack of social mobility, weak government, hunger, etc. etc. Most historians would agree that he Church's priveleges were tangential at best. Actually the anti-Church actions came in the 2nd phase, when enlightenment politicians took over and were looking for sources of money.

C) There is no reason to conceal statistics of church people killed, especially if, as in Spain, they are significant factor in developments. We are here to present facts rather than theories.

I feel that while the history of anti-clericalism probably has a place in the article, we are talking of a balanced paragraph at most. Xandar 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. I am going to the library tomorrow to see what tertiary sources say about the Spanish Civil War in their articles on the Catholic Church. Wikipedia allows us to use these sources for this type of research. I will try to post my results tomorrow afternoon if I can, I hope others here will be inspired to do some research too. Sayerslle, you are certainly welcome to participate in helping us write a paragraph. We follow WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples when deciding which books to use and we need people who take the time to go find good sources and work with others to come to agreement on article text that meets WP:NPOV. NancyHeise ^talk 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, is he saying the clergy were all killed before the church expressed its support for Franco? The Catholic Church threw its support behind an illegal rebellion against the established and elected government and thats how it was. Looking quickly at the Red Terror wikipedia page it says 38000 rightists killed,- in the white terror, which as the victors was more drawn out after the war as well as during 36-39, 200000 victims according to the wikipedia article. The Catholic Church sided with the German Nazis who bombed Guernica, , the Italian Fascists, and the Spanish Falangists who fought together in Spain. The war dragged on for three years. I would like to know from Xandar how many clergy he says were killed before the military rebellion July 1936 . Franco rests under the altar of a Catholic basilica. A mass killer, no?the name given to those who died fighting for Franco's Nationalist forces los caidos por Dios y por Espana those who fell for God and Spain..I would not like to collaborate with Xandar because I believe he is cynical. How many killed before July 1936 ? Sayerslle (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, we all try to work together without getting upset when others express views different from ours. Please be respectful of Xandar, he has been a key editor in bringing this article up from nothing and has endured a lot of abuse just for his kindness of taking the time to come here and participate. He is very knowledgeable on the subject of the Church and he has often helped improve our article both in prose and sources. He is correct that massive violence against the Church precipitated the Church's and many Catholics support of the opposition. Per Gunpowder and Incense: The Catholic Church and the Spanish Civil War by Hilari Raguer (Routledge 2007) page 25 "The burning of convents on 11 May 1931 ...gave the enemies of the Republic more than enough arguments to persuade Catholics that the Republic was persecuting the Church. To these one might add the sectarian tenor of Article 26 of the Constitution and, to make matters worse, some later laws that deeply affected the feelings not only of the hierarchy but even of the ordinary faithful: viz.: the decree dissolving of the Society of Jesus and the impounding of its goods through the application of the constitutional precept of 23 January ....(author names more laws) ..... Azanas well known dictum that "Spain has ceased to be Catholic" has always been put forward as the final proof of a policy deliberately carried out against the Church by the Republic."NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar said the Church was only against the Republic AFTER the massacre of thousands of clergy, your source says the Church was able to persuade Catholics to oppose it in 1931 after some convents were burned. It amazes me how you openly say, well a convent was burned so obviously 200 000 had to be killed kind of thing. Have you ever read the gospel of Matthew? Do you just love the Church full stop , like its just your vested interest. like your proud when Catholic boys and girls beat the State educated kids with better grades? Again, a totally worldly game to seek to win. That book you read about how Catholicism 'elevated sexual morality' - in Franco's Catholic Spain homosexuals were jailed and shoved in mental institutions, so you know, what is civilized? Sayerslle (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy said above that "Please also remember when researching Church wealth that the Church did not forcibly take money from anyone - people give it to them and they use it to build structures that are used by lots of people like hospitals, schools,..." I think it important to note that none of us have suggested that there is any sort of malfeasance with the way the Church acquired their wealth and properties in previous centuries. The simple fact that they had this much land was enough to cause resentment among leftists. The article has neglected to explain the extent of the church's landholdings in the past, much less how the Church acquired that land (often being granted such by early rulers). This is an oversight (a few sentences should do it). If sources allow, we could also briefly reflect on how lives changed as Church institutions were closed, but we must be careful not to ignore the cases (few though they may be) when secular or other religious institutions took their places. The bottom line is we need a much general look at this topic (and its three strains, as Richard mentions) rather than focusing on a few details. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Karanacs! I am all for providing all sides of the story and that is why I offered the other side that was not previously included in your and Richards discussion about Church wealth. It would be a shame if we ended up with an article that was one sided. I was just wondering what you think of Sayerslle's diatribe just above your edit here. NancyHeise ^talk 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether scholars agree with the diatribe or not (this is not my area), we shouldn't go into too much detail of this particular war. Karanacs (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering what you thought of the personal attacks he is making against me. Does this bother you? Do you see this behaviour as helpful to the evolution of the article? As an admin who frequents this page, do you think that you have anything to say to him to help him develop into a peaceful coworker with the rest of us here? As a human being, does it bother you that another human being is being mean to someone else? NancyHeise ^talk 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I just noticed this. I apologise if I have been mean. I have been warned before I think, I tend to forget that it isn't just words, and ideas being fought over, but a live human being who reads it and can take it personal. I should realise because I've been attacked about things and hated it . I have spent way too long on this talk page. I want to work on the therese of lisieux article and I noticed on the talk page you liked her too, and I thought , oh no , Ive fought with someone who likes Therese, but then I thought it would be insincere to pretend I agreed with you about other stuff. Sayerslle (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Still wondering where Karanacs stands on all of this. NancyHeise ^talk 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to present the self-pity of Falangist propaganda, any more than we are nere to repeat the enlistment brochures of the Abraham Lincoln brigade. Anybody who wants a website on the evils of leftism, rightism, anarchism, clericalism or anti-clericalism should hire a blog; they're not expensive, and you can jerk all the tears you want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 10:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

^ Thomas, pp. 65–66.

[Thomas66-1] Thomas, pp. 65–66.

[1]