User talk:Mattlafitte

Welcome!

Hello, Mattlafitte, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Misogyny

I've had to remove most of your post on Misogyny again. The thing is, just because the Roman Catholic Church makes a statement like that, at one particular point in time in its history, does not mean that you can make the blanket statement that the Church is not misogynistic. That's a form of [{WP:OR|original research]], which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and you are right to a certain extent. I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the current official teaching of the Catholic Church. I stated "The Roman Catholic Church does not have misogynistic teachings or beliefs." This is referring to the institution and the teachings of the institution. This is not referring to personal beliefs held by members of the institution. This is not a "history of misogyny" and should reflect the current beliefs. I am not trying to argue and I see what you are saying. When reading this article I noticed a lack of the roman catholic view which does differ from some views under ===Christianity=== . As the largest sect of Christianity I saw the need to specifically state the official belief held. Also, I do not want others reading the article to become confused and think that it reflects what the Catholic Church teaches .

I do understand why it can not say what it did. Would the following be a better fit?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church which is the official text of the teachings of The RomanCatholic Church states:

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness. -CCC 369

No, it's not a fit at all. First of all, it's a statement by the Catholic church. At best, we could state, "The Catholic church claims to uphold equality between men and women, as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." That is, just because I say, "I am not a misogynist" doesn't make that true--it just means I've claimed to not be one. But, even more to the point, nothing in that statement actually prevents a misogynistic perspective from the church. Claiming that women have an "inalienable dignity" wouldn't prevent the church from, say, systematic discrimination against women with respect to the holding of authority within the church. Does that make them misogynistic? I don't know, and it doesn't matter, because it would just be my opinion, and that cannot appear in Wikipedia. We need the opinion of reliable sources; the church itself is reliable only for its own claims, not for statements of fact. Please self-revert your latest addition, and bring up this matter on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It is important to anyone who reads this article to be presented with facts. It is misleading to have a subsection of christianity that shows 3 differing opinions and not specify who which christians teach what. I am not qualified to explain or speak about other sects of christianity because I have not been educated in their teaching. Out of respect and common sense, I will not add to this article if I am not informed about that which I am speaking. I, a Roman Catholic, who studies the church teachings, who has done much research on the topics involving men and women, who has spoken to many catholic theologians endorsed by The Church, know that the Church teaches that discrimination of any kind is not condoned. I know church leaders and practices in the church have, at times, been guilty of discrimination. The Church has openly admitted to having discriminated in its passed and asked for forgiveness of those things. Still though, I am not in a position to speak on behalf of the church because I am not of the Magisterium. I am, however, in a position to quote the magisterium by way of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Like many organizations, there are members who claim to represent what the organization teaches when in reality, they are misguided. The addition to the article is not saying "Many catholics believe this". It is not saying what the catholic church believes or practices (thanks to your previous removals which I agree with completely). Any catholic can say what the catholic church teaches, but we should go to the source for what it truly teaches. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an official text published throughout the world for its members to read and know what the church teaches. The addition to the article is a direct quote from official text of the teachings of the catholic church. It is not biased or opinionated to quote the document that an organization published to inform its members on its teachings. It is a fact that this is what the institution of The Church teaches to its followers. The statement I added does not make the catholic church look better or worse. It does not say if they are right or wrong. It is not a history of the Church's actions. It merely separates The Roman Catholic Church from the rest of christianity, so as to be able to represent it's own teachings without being bound by that of non-catholic christian's viewpoints. It is not the opinion of an uneducated person or even that of an expert catholic theologian. It is not even an opinion. It is a statement of what the Catholic Church teaches. The other quotes in the christianity sub-section are opinions and personal beliefs that these people hold.

To show you why a separate statement on Catholicism is needed I will explain to the best of my ability why the opinions of the others do not represent that of the catholic church. If you research Tertullian, who was used to show that christianity is misogynistic, you will find that he left the Roman Catholic Church and joined the Montanists, a heretical sect. Rogers, the first of the quoted experts, and the catholic church interpret the epistles of St. Paul very differently; in a way that is not discriminatory towards women. This is easily evident in the Theology of the Body. David M. Scholer, was the second opinion. He is much closer to the Catholic teaching, but still differs in teachings on ministry of men and women. Margaret J. Rinck, the last of the 3 quoted, is in line with what the church teaches more or less, but that is not sufficient enough to show where the catholic church stands. This subsection will mislead people, which is exactly the opposite of what wikipedia is trying to do. It is important because anyone who is wondering about the teachings of Roman Catholicism might see the subsection labeled christianity and think that the Catholic Church fits in with one of the other opinions. Let each sect show what they teach and then the reader can decide if it is misogyny. I included links to the articles for both the catechism of the catholic church and The Roman Catholic Church, so readers can learn more about what the church is. The teachings and history are available through those links and they can read further if they so desire. As for this article, there is a need to set the Catholic Church's teachings apart from those it is not in line with to accurately convey the information.

The Catechism is separated into paragraphs, and is not meant to have excerpts taken out, but whole paragraphs. This minimizes the chance that someone will quote the Church out of context. Therefore I will include the entire quote. For our discussion, I will paste the quote below and bold the relevant part to this article. I will not bold the actual article so as to leave it in its most pure form as given to the world by the source.

Paragraph 369 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church or CCC 369 states:

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

Further it says:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.-CCC 1935

This, in turn, shows that the catholic church is teaching it's members that all have equal dignity and we are created in perfect equality as human persons. It is a fact that the institution of the catholic church publicly teaches the quotes to it members. It is not a new teaching either, so any argument that the church just decided to say this recently is invalid.

You commented that what the church claims and does can be 2 different things, and you are right. I am stating what they teach, not what they claim or do, regardless if it is the same. It is a fact that they teach what I have quoted. Thank you for pointing out that just because they have the unalienable dignity they won't be discriminated against, I had to find another paragraph for that, which I will add to the article. Once again, it is a quote of what the church teaches, not an opinion of the church.

You commented on "systematic discrimination against women with respect to the holding of authority within the church." I understand where your argument comes from and it is justified if you don't have a full understanding on what the Catholic Church teaches about the differences in roles of men and women. The theology of the body is a great resource if you are interested in what the Catholic Church teaches about man and woman. I did note that you said you don't know if that makes the church misogynistic, because that would be an opinion. This proves my point even more. The facts of what the church teaches should be presented and the reader can decide if it is misogyny. The most basic of the teachings are presented and links are provided to find out more if they are interested. It doesn't matter whose opinion it is because opinions are biased even when trying to avoid it. Sticking to the facts of what each teaches is what will let people decide if one sect or another is misogynistic.

To close, Thank you for catching the mistakes i did make of including original research. That was influenced by my opinion and needed to be removed. However, quotes from the catechism with statements before that only explain the quotes origin, is not opinion. A statement declaring that the Catholic Church teaches CCC 369 and CCC 1935 is in and of itself a fact. I will add the second quote from CCC 1935 to add more relevant teaching of the Catholic Church. I think I have made my case and see no reason to remove relavent facts from an article. Please let me know if you have any more problems or still disagree with what I have added. I truly do wish to make sure we accurate information presented in this article.

I do believe you've slightly misunderstood me. I'm saying that it is possible for the Catholic church to teach CCC 369 and 1935 and still be misogynistic. In fact, what I'm saying is that misogyny is in no way incompatible with those teachings. What I'm saying is that those teachings could be used as a key underpinning and justification for misogyny. Now, I'm not saying the Catholic Church is misogynistic. I'm saying that the information you've presented is in no way relevant to the question of whether or not the CC is misogynistic. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Misogyny

If you want to put that material on Misogyny, you need to find a reliable source that makes that finding. Doing so yourself constitues original research. Wikipedia only uses reliable second sources. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concept of original research and have fixed it. thanks for your cooperation in helping me straighten this out.

Once again, you did no such thing. This time, you quoted one catholic author's interpretation of Genesis, and somehow ascribed it to being the stance of the whole Catholic Church. The source you need, first of all, probably shouldn't be Catholic. But even if it is, you need the source to explicitly state, "The Catholic church is not misogynistic" or "The Catholic Church considers men and women to be equal and does not practice hatred towards women." And then, of course, you need to attribute it as just that one person's opinion. At this point, since you're having difficulty sorting out what is or isn't original research, it will be best if you first post your proposed edits on Talk: Misogyny so that all interested editors can help craft the right language and evaluate if you've got the right source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In the christianity section, the first two sources are similar in style and type of information to Christopher West(the author I quoted) The first of the quoted is Katharine M. Rogers.

Rogers states: The foundations of early Christian misogyny — its guilt about sex, its insistence on female subjection, its dread of female seduction — are all in St. Paul's epistles.

That is her personal interpretation of scripture. To remain consistant, we should allow any reputable person in this field to be quoted with their beliefs and interpretations.

David M. Scholer, is the second man quoted. He is directly linked to Fuller Theological Seminary. His personal interpretation of scripture is given. To remain consistant, we should be able to link someone to the institution in which they practice their faith. Further, this is another example of personal interpretation of scripture.

The quote by Christopher West specifically used the word misogyny and it is very easy to see that he is stating his opinion that Christianity is not misogynistic in it's beliefs. To remain consistant, we must allow quotes of interpretation or personal beliefs held. As another option, we can delete all of the personal opinions to remain consistent, but that would be illogical.

Honestly, I feel as though your personal opinions, which seem to be against The Catholic Church, are influencing your editing of what I am adding. I will take it to the Talk: Misogyny page and get a group of editors opinions so as to best procure non-biased information.

After re-reading the section and your quotation, I agree that I shouldn't have completely removed the information. I've re-added it, though trimmed down for balance, to the article. Apologies--I should have paid more attention to the rest of the info in that section. One final note: whenever you post on a talk page (user talk or article talk), be sure to add four tildes (which looks like this: ~~~~); this will automatically sign the page with your name and time of the comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)