Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Roman Empire history - "destined ... for ... prominence"

Concerns on the following statement.

Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence; it was considered the see of Peter and Paul, it was located in the capital of the empire, church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes, and it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world.

This is not NPOV at all. Regardless of Bokenkotter's opinions this is not all consistent with modern scholarship. Specifically,

• "destined ... for ... prominence" - This is not at all true. It was only the due to the circumstances in the late Middle Ages that Rome finally rose to preminence.
• Rome was not the Empire's capital. It had not been for a long time. At the time of this council Constantine had moved the capital to Constantinople (I believe Nicomedia was the capital before).
• "obtaining the Roman biship's support" - This is at best ridiculously overstated (although a common assertion of the Roman Catholic Church). The churches of the western provinces to a great degree looked to Rome for leadership but the majority of the Christian world, the eastern Mediterranean, looked to Antioch and Alexandria, and later Constantinople.
• "wealthy and known for supporting" - Again, true only in the western provinces which were not the majority of Christians.

Since the statement is referenced I'll simply wait for commentary.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as your points go:

• Rome "rose to prominence" long before the middle ages. There aren't many sources that deny the prominence of the Roman papacy from the 4th Century onward, and there are sources for Roman pre-eminence in the second century.
• Rome was not the Empire's sole capital after Constantine, granted. However the empire in the west was still officially ruled from Rome until 470 or so.
• You dispute the attitude of the Eastern Churches to Rome, but this seems to be your opinion. To alter the text we would need reliable references that made the points you claim.
• The same applies to your claims about Rome not supporting Eastern Christians. Rome certainly collected for the Church in Palestine in Biblical times.

Making changes to the referenced text requires firm references that support another viewpoint. Xandar 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, your assertions are mostly not correct.

• This stuff about the capital is patently incorrect. First, at the end of Constantine's reign, Constantinople was the sole capital. It is true that during various times before and after Constantine there were two or more capitals but starting with Diocletian (3rd-4th century) Rome was never again the capital and gradually waned in importance (see The Art of Rome pg. 211 or The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire pg. 92).
• I do not think you know your history on the Pope's role. Take a look at The Next Christendom in the section "The Next Christendom". This provides a nice clarification of the popular misconceptions about Christian history in classical times. Also History of the World Christian Movement Ch. 28 which talks about how Christians in the East and West viewed Rome and Constantinople in the classical and Medieval times. Despite Roman assertions of "Papal supremacy" starting in the 3rd century, Rome was never actually seen as having any major authority outside the West until the time of Charlemagne. Even at that, the Patriarch of Rome did not overshadow the Patriarch of Constantinople until well after the beginning of the second millenium.
• It is true that during the era of the early Church the Christian community in Rome did do more for the overall Christian community but so did other Christian communities in the Empire. By the time of Constantine the patriarchates were becoming more firmly established and divided, and Rome was no longer as important, politically and economically, in the Empire. Rome became focused entirely on the western provinces. Also remember that during the "dark ages" the Western Church as a united institution virtually winked out of existence (the Pope technically still ruled the Western Church but because of the overall disintegration of the West he mostly only had actual control of Rome). It was Charlemagne that really rebuilt the Western Church. Even at that, the Pope's importance was only really recognized in the West until Constantinople began to finally fall apart in the 12th century.

The stories you are quoting are medieval Western European propaganda that has been around for centuries (and are still quoted in many non-scholarly sources as well as Church sources). Nevertheless, these views have been discredited in modern scholarly circles. When using references we have to be careful about quoting sources that actually reflect scholarly consensus. Obviously you can always find some source to back up almost any viewpoint and, with matters of religion and politics, it is easy to find viewpoints that genuine scholars consider severely biased.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus for a minute on this phrase "Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence". Regardless of whether Rome was prominent or preminent and when it became so, the assertion "Rome had certain qualities that destined it..." is not a fact but an opinion requiring historical interpretation. Wikipedia must not state things like this as fact; it is not encyclopedic. If we want to say "some historians assert..." or "certain historians assert...", that might be acceptable as long as it is a significant opinion in the academic community. We must separate facts (which in this case are challenged by Mcorazao) from causality (which usually is a matter of historical interpretation). --Richard (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Mcorazao: (NOTE: Please assume good faith when I ask the following questions. I ask them not in any rhetorical or disputative manner because I honestly don't know quite enough to propose a reasonable modification to the challenged sentence due to my ignorance of the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church.)

It would seem that as time passed, the primacy of the three dioceses sanctioned by the council evolved into two spheres of influence: the Western church which acknowledged the primacy of Rome and the Eastern church which did what? (refused to acknowledge the primacy of Rome and asserted the primacy of each patriarchate) I understand that the current situation in the Eastern Orthodox Church involves 13(14) autocephalous churches which are independent collegial peers. But how did we go from Rome, Alexandria and Antioch to the current situation and how does Constantinople/Byzantium play a role in this? Was Constantinople ever considered to have primacy over the other Eastern dioceses or were Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch always peers as they are today? If the primacy of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were sanctioned by the council, how did Constantinople rise to prominence? I know why Constantinople was important politically, economically and militarily. What I'm asking here is whether there was any overt official manner by which Constantinople came to prominence or if it was just a tacit acceptance that the secular importance of Constantinople gave the patriarch of Constantinople more influence.

--Richard (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well no one call John Romer :>) Mcorazao Rome has always had the primacy of "first"

among equals. This can be seen as a tradition for example in Pre-Ecumenical Councils

like the Council of Carthage. The Byzantine have and will always have love for Rome.

She is still the primacy. It is just that one could say the role has gone

to her head. But Byzantium doesn't hate anyone. The Orthodox love all christians.

Including Roman ones (BTW that would include ourselves). The see of rome is

still even now the first among equals. We can works on our differences

honestly about history without denying history.

Maybe, just Maybe though we could remember better if people wouldn't close our

Universities (University of Constantinople) and burn down our libraries

(Library of Constantinople) hey every little bit helps..

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, several issues so let me take these one at a time.

First we have to be careful about terminology. The "primacy" thing has always been a bone of contention. When I used the term in the above section I used it in the sense that it has been used by the Roman Catholic Church for the past 1500 or so years but let's go back to how this originated. Basically the councils/emperor established that 3 patriarchs had authority over all of the other bishops. The 3 patriarchs were explicitly designated as equals but nevertheless giving them a hierarchy among them. The Patriarch of Rome, the Pope, was therefore primus inter pares, first among equals. What this meant in practical terms was never formally stated. The Pope's gradually began to assert that this meant they were the boss of the whole Church. The other patriarchs, however, always rejected (frankly scoffed at) this assertion. If you notice the ecumenical councils of the Church were never held anywhere near the West (including Rome) until the second millenium and, of course, these were not recognized by any patriarchs except the Pope.

In answer to Richard's specific questions:

• Eastern church which did what - Essentially the "Eastern" patriarch recognized the Pope's authority over his diocese and allowed his name to come first in official listings and that was about it.
• go from Rome, Alexandria and Antioch to the current situation - Well, Jerusalem got added eventually because it was decided that Jerusalem was too important to Christian history to be excluded. Constantinople got added because it had become the Empire's wealthiest city and the Eastern emperors wanted the city's importance recognized by the Church. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated the huge Churches out in Russia and other regions asserted their independence effectively saying that they were no longer going to be subordinate to a See that had become so diminished in its political prestige. So the number of patriarchs rapidly expanded.
• Was Constantinople ever considered to have primacy - Well, once Constantinople was added to the list of patriarchs it was considered second to Rome. Practically speaking, Constantinople had the de facto leadership role over the entire Roman Church (including Rome) until Rome aligned itself with Charlemagne (although the Popes still continued to assert that they had authority, authority that they were never able to assert outside of the West, and sometimes not even in the West).
• were Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch always peers as they are today - Well, they were always technically equals as stated by law. But back in the days when Constantinople was the most powerful city on earth (literally) it did exercise a good measure of authority. Now, bear in mind that in parallel to the official Roman Church (i.e. what is now the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches) there were parallel dioceses (in particular the Oriental Orthodox Church) which did not recognize any of these dioceses. So that adds another dimension of complexity.
• how did Constantinople rise to prominence - Practically speaking Constantinople became a formal patriarchate when Justinian I said it was. That decision was officially sanctioned by the Church at a council shortly thereafter.
• if it was just a tacit acceptance that the secular importance - These are awkward questions to answer. Constantinople's becoming a formal patrarichate was done officially but the reasons are more tricky to address. If you ask Church officials today they will probably give you all sorts of ecumenical justifications for it. If you ask a cynical secular historian they will tell you that the Church simply rubber-stamped what the emperor wanted for political reasons.

Hope those answers help. The point is, though, is that Rome was never "destined" for any special position. Obviously Rome was going to have some importance early on simply because of its historical position in the Empire. But if you were, say, a Persian scholar in 750 CE you would likely presume that the western part of the Church was simply going to wither away given that Rome was now little more than a large village in the midst of decaying ruins and Rome's actual control over most of its congregations was mostly theoretical. If somebody were to have suggested that Rome was destined to become the seat of power for the largest religious entity on the planet you would probably have laughed.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao, thank you for your answers. They are pretty much what I expected but I wanted to confirm my assumptions since I know very little in this area.

You wrote:

Despite Roman assertions of "Papal supremacy" starting in the 3rd century, Rome was never actually seen as having any major authority outside the West until the time of Charlemagne. Even at that, the Patriarch of Rome did not overshadow the Patriarch of Constantinople until well after the beginning of the second millenium.

Can you provide a citation for this?

It is true that during the era of the early Church the Christian community in Rome did do more for the overall Christian community but so did other Christian communities in the Empire.

This needs some clarification. What did Rome do and what did the other Christian communities do?

By the time of Constantine the patriarchates were becoming more firmly established and divided, and Rome was no longer as important, politically and economically, in the Empire. Rome became focused entirely on the western provinces.

Again, a citation would help

Also remember that during the "dark ages" the Western Church as a united institution virtually winked out of existence (the Pope technically still ruled the Western Church but because of the overall disintegration of the West he mostly only had actual control of Rome). It was Charlemagne that really rebuilt the Western Church. Even at that, the Pope's importance was only really recognized in the West until Constantinople began to finally fall apart in the 12th century.

Citation needed here also.

Also, please review History of Christianity and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm not sure but I think the relevant passage in each article was written by User:LoveMonkey. In any event, the text in those articles does not reflect the points that you made. I'm not as familiar with the article on History of the Roman Catholic Church but I would bet that it does not reflect these points either.

To avoid duplication of effort, I propose that we hash out here any new text that reflects the points that you make and include proper citations and only then copy that text to the other articles.

--Richard (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mcorazao, I fear you may be feeding your prior assumptions into some of your sources. The next Christendom is not a book that details in any detail whatsoever about the period we are concerned with, and also has a point of view to stress, which is the growth of the non-Roman/European Church. The Art of Rome again is not really a book with much relevance to this topic. History of the World Christian Movement, is your only solid source, and it does not appear to be making the clear claims that you make for it.

On factual matters, the primacy of Rome was established very early, and we have solid references for this. (Perhaps you have a different view of what "primacy" consists of, but that is a different matter.) Clement's letter to the Church in Corinth provides an early example, as well as the famous words of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus in the 2nd Century. So the wording of the Council of Nicea did not create the Papal Primacy, it existed long before that.

The argument that Rome was not important because the Pope did not attend the Ecumenical Councils in person, again is not one with which the standard histories would tend to agree. The reasons that Popes did not attend in person were many, including the danger of the journey and the risk of becoming physically subject to the Byzantine Emperor. The pope sent legates to each Council, and their views were authoritative. A particular example is the Council of Ephesus, where both the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople were on the opposite side of the issue, but the Council adopted and acclaimed the views of the Pope, saying "Peter has spoken." Xandar 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in detail but some quick comments.

• I think History of the World Christian Movement explains some of what I was saying pretty well. The other ones are less authoritative but they are not comic books. I cited them specifically because the sections I mentioned provided some nice illustrations of what I am saying.
• Again, you're getting caught up in the word primacy. In a specific sense, the primacy of the Pope was established early. But the Roman Catholic Church has asserted that this meant the Pope had authority over the entire imperial Church and such interpretation was never generally accepted outside of the West. The Eastern dioceses did, to varying degrees at different times, respect Rome's honorary position in the Church which, at various times, led to flattering statements like "Peter has spoken" but these sorts of things should not be taken out of context (i.e. if the Pope articulated a viewpoint that a bishop liked they might temporarily argue in favor of the Pope's authority for self-serving reasons but they might just as easily ignore the Pope when they disagreed). Truthfully my impression (although I have not read it explicitly) is that Rome did gain a small degree of real authority in the Church (albeit tenuously) during the late 4th century. But it is clear that by the time of Justinian Rome's real authority did not extend beyond the West despite papal assertions to the contrary.
• I didn't say anything about the Pope's not attending ecumenical councils. I don't know where you are getting that.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we are in danger of trying to determine what the truth is/was? There are probably at least 3 opinions about what the truth was: the view of the Western church, the view of the Eastern church and the view of contemporary historians. IMO, we should spend less time arguing about what really happened and go the sources. It is likely that we can only make a brief summary of the issues in this article and then go into greater detail in the "History of..." articles. Let us spend less emotion on determining which POV is right and spend our efforts documenting the POVs that exist. BTW, I just reviewed History of the Papacy which was largely my creation and it does not make the points that Mcorazao raises either. --Richard (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Richardshur and Xandar. The article text in Roman Empire that is being discussed here is cited to the most oft used University textbook on Roman Catholic Church history in the English speaking world, Bokenkotter's A Concise History of The Catholic Church. Per WP:Reliable source examples, this is the top source we could possibly be using and is representative of the mainstream view. NancyHeise ^talk 15:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I'm afraid I wasn't making my point clear. If we can source Mcorazao's assertions, we should include them. Bokenkotter may be representative of the mainstream Western view but he probably doesn't represent the Eastern view and, as Mcorazao seems to be asserting, there may be a separate modern academic view. In addition, the "Western" view may not be monolithic. Protestants might view the primacy of the Bishop of Rome differently from the way the Catholic Church views it. It is not our job to portray the History of the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church sees it but as the world sees it (in all its multi-faceted POVs). Bokenkotter may or may not represent the mainstream view but there are dissenters even among Catholics (see the section on Bokenkotter below).

--Richard (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Views however have to be properly weighted, as per the Policy, WP:UNDUE. In other words majority mainstream views should be far more prominent than minority views, and small minority views should not be given space at all. The inclusion or prominence given to a certain view therefore depends on how reliable the source for that view is, and how wide, serious and respected is the support for that view.

On presenting Protestant and Orthodox views of Catholic organization, beliefs and practices; this is not normally the article for that, unless the matter is a highly important one and the particular view is vitally important to the reader's understanding of that. Otherwise the article would just be a mess of denominational critiques. Xandar 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation continues below under the section entitled Bokenkotter. NancyHeise ^talk 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

An anonymous editor has added pictures to the article and changed some other pictures. I want to explain here that we eliminated pictures in those sections as a result of the last peer review when it became clear that the article size was a problem for some Readers with dial-up. I would like to trim some of those new pictures but I am wondering what others think about them. I personally preferred the picture of the ordination at Our Lady of the Angels to the present picture of ordination. Please let me know what you prefer. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed those edits (to text as well) & thought, though obviously well-meaning, they all needed looking at. I'd feel free to restore as you like. The two saint pictures could certainly be improved on, if we want pictures in those places. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion... I like the Divine Name of God picture and the new crucifix, however the "Saints" picture is poor quality, badly placed, and makes too many images in that location. The pictures have also now got too varied in size. The priestly ordination picture is too big. The Bernini, Holy Spirit as a dove, is too small. Xandar 19:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bokenkotter

Well, since Nancy asserted Bokenkotter represented the mainstream view, I thought I'd Google "Bokenkotter" to see what turned up.

I was surprised to find criticism of Bokenkotter's 'Concise History of the Catholic Church.' as "an appallingly liberal text apparently undermining the Church's magisterial authority, and piling error upon hand-wringing error onto its appraisal of the Mean Old Church".

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2006/09/bokenkotters_hi.html

Now, I'm not in any position to evaluate Bokenkotter or the criticisms leveled at his work in the above link. However, I figured I'd share this with everyone and ask that we not accept Bokenkotter as "the gospel truth". We should look at multiple sources and seek to incorporate all significant POVs.

--Richard (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The criticism seems to state, however, that far from being "too favourable to the Catholic Church" as many here have said or implied, Bokenkotter actually errs in the other direction. Xandar 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and the sentences questioned earlier regarding papal primacy are cited not just to Bokenkotter but also to Henry Chadwick, Edward Norman, John Vidmar, John Barker (a Routeledge published book), and Klaus Schatz, a Liturgical Press. These sentences are not singly referenced but are double and triple refd to scholarly books of various POV's or no POV's to show Reader that they represent agreement of scholars on the subject. If a different POV could have been found, it would have been included. NancyHeise ^talk 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the phrase 'destined' causes folks to recoil. As for the case for Constantinople, please recall that Eusebius coined the Pentarchy as a way to explain the church structure of his time. We must understand that prior to Constantine, Rome had greater status. We must also look at St. Augustine's City of God, where he draws the relationship with Rome and the Church. Not Constantinople, mind you but Rome. While it may seem difficult or foreign to place ourselves in the shoes of Late Antiquity, to a young Church, Rome was the immovable object, of some 1500 years of history. The Church compared itself with Rome, in the idea that it was timeless. This is why regardless of Constantine's desire to shift to the east, the Church would maintain themselves in Rome, because they sought to identify themselves with the larger authority at the time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to "Supreme Authority" : Pope, College of Cardinals or both?

Hi all,

I was Googling "Papal primacy" and ran across this URL Papal Primacy from about.com

What I found interesting was this section...

Catholic bishops drew back a bit from the doctrine of papal primacy during the Second Vatican Council. Here they opted instead for a vision of church administration which looked a bit more like the church during the first millennium: collegial, communal, and a joint operation among a group of equals rather than an absolute monarchy under a single ruler.

They didn’t go so far as to say that the pope didn’t exercise supreme authority over the church, but they did insist that all bishops share in this authority. The idea is supposed to be that the Christian community is one that consists of communion of local churches which do not entirely give up their authority because of the membership in a larger organization. The pope is conceived of as a symbol of unity and a person who is supposed to work to ensure the continuation of that unity.

There is, naturally, debate among Catholics about the extent of the authority of popes. Some argue that the pope really is like an absolute monarch who wields absolute authority and to whom absolute obedience is due. Others argue that dissent from papal pronouncements is not only not forbidden, but is necessary for a healthy Christian community.

Now, I know that about.com is not a reliable source but look past that for a minute and evaluate what was written. To me, that is an NPOV and encyclopedic summary of the topic. It describes two forces at work: those that "argue that the pope really is like an absolute monarch who wields absolute authority" and those that "that dissent from papal pronouncements is not only not forbidden, but is necessary for a healthy Christian community".

If we can find reliable sources to establish that, as the about.com article asserts, there is a tension between the collegial College of Bishops model and the authoritarian and monarchical model, then we should do so. Relying on primary sources like Lumen Gentium is a bad idea. We should look for secondary sources (Catholic ones with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur if you insist) that describe this tension.

This tension is not new although the latest wave of it probably did start with Vatican II. This goes all the way back to the ancient questions of what "primus inter pares" (first among equals) means.

--Richard (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Hey Richard I have already posted the Eastern view, the Pope has primacy as the first among equals. This meant that the East considered the Pope as a high authority and that he was equal to the other Patriarchs. That the extent of it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to source this to a reliable source. I'm sure you have many of them. Can you provide one or two of the best such sources?

--Richard (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, we have presented the differing views on the origins of the church including the papacy in the Origins and Missions section. These are sourced to the top scholarly sources that are most oft cited per Googlescholar per each view. Papal primacy is discussed in the Teaching Authority section and in the lead, both of which are correct as of this writing and referenced to more than just Lumen Gentium, to Canon Law, Dr. Alan Schreck (Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur) and another source inserted by Defteri. Papal authority is not a disputed item in the Church but outside of the Church. Church law says "x" and that is what we have placed in the article. The fact that there have been some dissenting theologians throughout church history including some who have broken away from the Church itself (Henry VIII and Martin Luther as well as more recent one like Hans Kung) are discussed in History section. What more would you like to see and where do you want to see it discussed? We were trying to keep the article as concise as possible and eliminated scholarly speculation on a number of issues both pro and anti Catholic as well as some neutral insights. For instance, there were some scholars, non-Catholics who discussed the advantages to European society that came out of the religious wars (religious tolerance) and the Church's ability to spread Christianity even through periods of internal corruption during the middle ages. Other editors told us to eliminate or refrain from placing such commentary in the article and stick to the facts out of size considerations. Would you agree? NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, you raise a bunch of different points and ask a question "what more would you like to see...etc" which requires some effort on my part to compose a cogent answer. So, please understand if I don't make a direct response to you immediately. I hope to give you a better answer if I put some thought into it than if I just dash off a "top of the head" answer. Part of my answer to your question will come out as I treat specific topics such as the one that is the title of this section. --Richard (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. The "About.com" article, I would not personally see it as NPOV, since I believe it gives greatly undue weight to people allegedly challenging Papal authority from within the Church. I don't see huge evidence of that sort of challenge, outside a small western Liberal fringe. Conciliarism was far stronger in the 1400s. That's why much better references would be needed to put that sort of statement in Wikipedia. Xandar 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xandar, I think that raising conciliarism is a red herring. As the lead sentence of that article states "Conciliarism, ... was a reform movement in the 14th and 15th century ... which held that final authority in spiritual matters resided with the Roman Church as corporation of Christians, embodied by a general church council, not with the pope."

Consider, in contrast, what the article on Vatican II says in the "Issues" section under the subsection "The Bishops"...

The role of the bishops of the Church was brought into renewed prominence, especially when seen collectively, as a college that has succeeded to that of the Apostles in teaching and governing the Church. This college does not exist without its head, the successor of St. Peter. Accordingly, claims made by some, that the Council gave the Church two separate earthly heads, the College of Bishops and the Pope, were countered by the Preliminary Explanatory Note added to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium and printed at the end of the text.[1] This Note states: "There is no such thing as the college without its head ... and in the college the head preserves intact his function as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church. In other words it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken together, but between the Roman Pontiff by himself and the Roman Pontiff along with the bishops."

Now I know that Wikipedia articles are also not reliable sources and the above passage suffers from the fact that it cites a primary source (Lumen Gentium) rather than a secondary source. Nonetheless, I think the Vatican II article probably is headed in the right direction and we and that we should head in that direction. We should look for a secondary source that accurately portrays what the different positions were behind this discussion at Vatican II and what has transpired in the 40 years since. And then we need to capture all that in a sentence or two.

--Richard (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to be fighting a battle that is already resolved. I thought there was still open discussion regarding the lead being changed from ""The pope, currently Benedict XVI, is the Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[8] "

The current text of the lead reads "The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance is the pope,[8] currently Pope Benedict XVI who holds supreme authority over the Church in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head." I think the current text is OK. Does everybody else agree? If so, I'll just shut up. If not, I've found a couple more sources that help shed light on this.

--Richard (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And I should have thanked NancyHeise for attending to my request in this regard. Defteri (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Latin rite of Catholicism believes that the Magisterium (the Pope and the college of cardinals that support him) is the ultimate authority. Since Latin rite Catholics believe that the Pope represents Christ on earth, they believe also that it is necessary to submit to him. So in regards to the title of this discussion, the answer (in regards to the Roman/Latin rite is, the Pope and the College of Cardinals. I corrected the title of this discussion. Thanks.

Primacy vs. Prominence

Can I remind editors that this meant to be an *encyclopedia* article and not just a presentation of - or apologia for - the Roman Catholic Church's official (there's that word again!) understandings of itself. Therefore it is expected to represent various viewpoints in a balanced manner, not just those of Roman Catholics - and not just those with an archconservative interpretation of things. From a scholarly perspective the article is riddled with all kinds of questionable assertions and reads like the worst kind of Catholic Truth Society pamphlet. Unfortunately it seems obvious that a couple of editors are determined to keep it at the level of propaganda instead of real scholarship. Afterwriting (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, some people write more quickly than I and I was planning to write on a different topic first but since Afterwriting has started, I will carry on. Afterwriting captures one of my major concerns about this article. I do agree with Xandar that this article should be primarily about the Catholic Church's definition of itself and its beliefs, mentioning but not spending too much space on opposing and differing views held by those outside the church. However, within the church there is still a wide range of opinions and this spectrum should be captured in the article.

Moreover, there is a difference between beliefs and interpretations of history. This article should not spend much time if any on the differences between Catholic beliefs and non-Catholic beliefs (Christian or otherwise). The article would be interminably long.

However, we cannot state a Catholic interpretation of history as if it were historical fact even if it is the mainstream view of Catholic historians. The following are facts about the Diocese of Rome in the 5th century...

1. it was considered the see of Peter and Paul,
2. it was located in the capital of the empire,
3. church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes,
4. it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world.

However, that these were "certain qualities that destined (Rome) for particular prominence" is an interpretation of the facts. The fact that Bokenkotter is a respected writer of college textbooks does not make it any less an interpretation. Therefore, it should be stated as an interpretation (e.g. "Bokenkotter asserts..." or "According to Bokenkotter,...") rather than as a fact with a citation to Bokenkotter. In general, we have to be careful about paraphrasing a quote from Bokenkotter (or anyone else) and placing it in an article uncritically as if it were the gospel truth. --Richard (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses—Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch—Rome was considered the see of Peter and Paul, it was located in the capital of the empire, church scholars were desirous of obtaining the Roman bishop's support in doctrinal disputes, and it was wealthy and known for supporting other churches around the world. According to Bokenkotter, these qualities destined Rome for particular prominence.[cite]" Would that be a problem? It seems to me that most cases of seeming bias in this article could be fixed with some fairly minor rephrasing. Gimmetrow 05:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would look for a source that said something more along the lines of, "Although this council sanctioned the primacy of three dioceses, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, Rome and Constantinople eventually eclipsed Alexandria and Antioch. Rome's claim to prominence was based on etc., etc."

My major problem with the Bokenkotter quote is the sentence "Rome had certain qualities that destined it for particular prominence". This is excessively flowery prose and is an interpretation of history. It's great when writing a book for a popular audience but it is an inappropriate style for an encyclopedia.

Also, the quote from Bokenkotter essentially disses Constantinople and makes it sound like Rome rose to prominence over Antioch, Alexandria and all other dioceses when, as I suggested above, the truth is more accurately stated as Rome and Constantinople being two stars both rising to prominence in the West and East respectively. Mcorazao seems to be arguing that Constantinople's star actually rose earlier and faster. I haven't seen any sources yet to support his assertion but his arguments are at least plausible. Let's make sure that we are not falling into a trap of Western-centric thinking.

--Richard (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I like Gimmetrow's proposal for rephrasing that sentence. No matter how fast Constantinople's star rose, it was never considered to be in prominence above Rome. Please see the last sentence of the Roman Empire section. The Council of Chalcedon elevated Constantinople to a position second after Rome - this is cited both to the university textbook Bokenkotter as well as the university textbook, Western Civilization, the Continuing Experiment written by 7 university professors of various universities beginning with Thomas Noble. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy. Mcorazao is arguing that Rome always had primacy (primus inter pares) but not highest prominence. As I've said, he hasn't provided sources to back up this POV. I'm taking a neutral stance that allows for the possibility that there is a Western view and an Eastern view. --Richard (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... here's a website that provides the Eastern (at least) POV... The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom. The relevant stuff starts with the fifth paragraph (the one that starts with "But in the centuries that followed, the unity of the Mediterranean world gradually disappeared.")

Here's an important paragraph from the above source:

The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.

We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.

Also look at the section on "Barbarian and Byzantine rule" in the Wikipedia article on the History of Rome.

Now, I understand that neither of these sources are reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, I think we can find reliable sources that say the same thing. The key here is that we have to be willing to look for them and to accept sources which contradict the Western POV. --Richard (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The source above, though well-written, is still a source which is getting over a particular (Eastern Orthodox) viewpoint. And just as the Western Church can read back its own current view of papal primacy on the past, so too can the Eastern Church, to justify its present position, downgrade the view held of the Papacy by the Eastern Church before the schism. Orthodox accounts are, for example, liable to downplay the political hold of the Emperors over the Constantinople patriarchate on policy and other matters. So care is still needed in finding a reliable source for this issue. Xandar 21:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely in favor of including other POV's and I appreciate the help Richard. But this source says the same thing our text says "the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church." This is what the Western Church believes too and the Council representing all the bishops, Council of Chalcedon made a decision to elevate Constantinople to a position second to Rome. This is not a debateable topic but a fact found in all history books. However, these statements "The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative;" and "Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church" appears more like scholarly speculation which we can include to show the different interpretations of that decision by East and West. I would rather find some other way to bring out this difference if we can find it. Richard did you read further down in the History section to see the whole story of how the schism occurred? It was not at Council of Chalcedon but during the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople that the schism became decisive. NancyHeise ^talk 22:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not having gotten back sooner. There had been some additional references requested so let me provide a few.

• Meyendorff, John: The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, pg. 19-21.

This is a well-respected text on Orthodox history. The section discusses how the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople was viewed in the East and the real authority each had. Among other things it states

Under John the Faster (582-595), the title of "ecumenical patriarch" was adopted by the archbishop of the capital (Constantinople). This title was interpreted by Pope Gregory the Great as a challenge to papal primacy, but, in fact, it did not imply a claim to universal jurisdiction but rather to a permanent and essentially political position in the oikumene, i.e., the orbis christianorum (christian world), ideally headed by the emperor.

...

In the eight century, the diocese of Illyricum and also southern Italy were included in the patriarchate (of Constantinople) at the expense of the church of Rome.

This section explains that, although the Pope's primacy was theoretically respected, ultimately the Pope had no real power in the East and, until Charlemagne's rise, had diminishing power in the West.

• Hutton, William Holden: The Church and the Barbarians, pg. 66-68

This discusses the 6th century struggles for power between bishops in the East and Rome. The point to observe is that the Rome's authority outside of the West was clearly not well established.

• Fahlbusch, Erwin: The Encyclopedia of Christianity, pg. 273

This discussion is slightly biased toward the West but nevertheless states

In theological controversies Rome and its bishops were inferior in numbers and competence to Eastern theologians.

...

Though claiming to be the final appeals court, Rome still had no central function in the church of the West.

This is discussing the Church around and after the 4th century. Clearly they are disputing both Rome's political and doctrinal authority in the Church.

• Frend, W. H. C.: The Early Church, pg. 75

The book states

Rome ... was a wealthy, influential, but none the less a curiously obscure Church. With the exception of Adoptionists it never produced a theological school of its own, and down to the time of Leo, elected no bishop who could claim world authority through his own personality.

This statement is talking particularly about the first couple of centuries of the Church. Although the book does go on to discuss Rome's increasing influence in the Church up to the 4th century this statement (in addition to others) is making the point that Rome was not a predominant theological authority in the early Church, even by the 3rd century. The book does discuss the fact that Rome gained authority in the Church up through the 3rd-4th century due to the city's importance (which began to wane in the 3rd century). But even at that it does not imply that Rome ever had strict authority in any matters over the whole Church.

• Liddel, Peter P.: From the Dark Ages to the Renaissance, pp. 27-28

The book states, regarding the Middle Ages

In practice Christianity largely functioned on a kingdom-by-kingdom basis, as kings appointed bishops and were unwilling to allow too much contact with other Churches ...

...

The role of the papacy in the post-Roman period was extremely limited. In preceding centuries, the papacy had established its reputation as a bastion of orthodoxy, but the ability of individual popes to intervene in a set of events depended upon their location. In central and sourthern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, popes enjoyed full metropolitan powers. ... Elsewhere popes had ... little active influence.

The full text discusses the fact that, during the Middle Ages, until Charlemagne's unification efforts, Rome had virtually no real authority in the West (much less the East) outside of specific nearby regions. This not only included organizational matters but also doctrine and rites.

I will point out a concern that the rebuttals all seem to focus around sources specifically centered around the Roman Catholic Church as well as Wikipedia articles centered around the same. If you read references focused on Eastern Orthodoxy or Byzantine history, or any Wikipedia article focused on the same, you will see the points I am making. Since we are talking about how the East viewed the West, these latter references would seem to be the more important. I hope this isn't deliberate bias on the part of the authors here.

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think the statement about Rome's "destiny" should just be removed. Frankly I think that there should be clarification that Rome's assertions of authority over the Church were never generally accepted but, since it appears there will not be consensus on this, perhaps removing statements like the first one will have to suffice. I tend to think the suggestion of discussing multiple points of view in this article is generally not a good idea as it will confuse more than elucidate. Perhaps a single statement somewhere mentioning that many non-Roman-Catholic dispute Rome's assertions of authority is as far as that should go in the article.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not suggest your proposed wording here? I think stating that Rome's assertions of authority "were never generally accepted", is not backed by the sources though. Xandar 11:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar that "were never generally accepted" is probably not the right formulation to use. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the following text from our article on Pope Leo I...

At the Second Council of Ephesus, Leo's representatives delivered his famous Tome (Latin text, a letter), or statement of the faith of the Roman Church in the form of a letter addressed to Flavian, which repeats, in close adherence to Augustine, the formulas of western Christology, without really touching the problem that was agitating the East. The council did not read the letter, and paid no attention to the protests of Leo's legates, but deposed Flavian and Eusebius, who appealed to Rome.

Leo demanded of the emperor that an ecumenical council should be held in Italy, and in the meantime, at a Roman synod in October, 449, repudiated all the decisions of the "Robber Synod." Without going into a critical examination of its dogmatic decrees, in his letters to the emperor and others he demanded the deposition of Eutyches as a Manichean and Docetic heretic.

With the death of Theodosius II in 450 and the sudden change in the Eastern situation, Anatolius, the new patriarch of Constantinople fulfilled Leo's requirements, and his Tome was everywhere read and recognized.

Leo was now no longer desirous of having a council, especially since it was not to be held in Italy. Instead, it was called to meet at Nicaea, then subsequently transferred to Chalcedon, where his legates held at least an honorary presidency, and where the bishops recognized him as the interpreter of the voice of Peter and as the head of their body, requesting of him the confirmation of their decrees. He firmly declined to confirm their disciplinary arrangements, which seemed to allow Constantinople a practically equal authority with Rome and regarded the civil importance of a city as a determining factor in its ecclesiastical position; but he strongly supported its dogmatic decrees, especially when, after the accession of the Emperor Leo I (457) there seemed to be a disposition toward compromise with the Eutychians.

If the above is an accurate account of historical events, it suggests a pontiff that is struggling to influence the Eastern church with limited success only when the emperor of the Byzantine empire agrees with him. I think it is not appropriate to have text that suggests that the Roman pontiff was in tight control of the entire Christian church from Peter until the Iconoclasm controversy in the 8th century. The wording "never generally accepted" is perhaps a bit too strong. What Mcorazao seems to be suggesting is that there was a general deference to Rome on doctrinal issues, especially because the East, having a heavy Greek philosophical bent, tended to get into a lot of doctrinal disputes and they appealed to Rome as a neutral third-party. In terms of ecclesiological authority, however, the claim is that the East never acceded to Rome's claims.

--Richard (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I think I mostly agree with what you are saying here at the end. However, I still think you folks are trying too hard to find an excuse to see the Pope as having more authority than he actually possessed. I am not married to the explicit wording "never generally accepted" but I think it is generally accurate. As I mentioned the Patriarch of Rome gained some standing in the 3rd and 4th centuries but, although the Pope's primacy was at times used as an excuse to support the position of one faction or another, his real authority, even in matters of doctrine, was not particularly greater than his other counterparts (and often was less). Again, though, it seems that we will never agree on that so I'm proposing simply removing statements that imply the Pope's having more authority than the other Patriarch's (the primacy can be mentioned but there should not be an implication of unbalanced authority).

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this on the web. It's a student paper written apparently by someone attending Catholic University of America. Now, I know this is definitely not a reliable source. I'm not suggesting that it is.

However, I'm curious whether the editors of this article agree with the general thrust of the paper's thesis. The paper relies on only one source Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, The Papacy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992). I would like to know is whether anyone is familiar with Schimmelpfennig in general and this work in particular. Is Schimmelpfennig a reliable source? --Richard (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally I can't say I agree with the thrust of the essay. It is unduly based on one book by Bernhard Schimmelpfennig - who has come up before in discussions here as having a Liberal and radical view of the early church as an atomised confederacy, with groups often holding differing beliefs. It is a view, but a liberal minority view (in the West at least), and certainly not a fact, as Mcorazao seems to argue. One error in the essay is that it lends undue weight to the title "Pope", which is an unofficial title, simply related to "Father" and "Patriarch". I think most people would agree that there was always a Primacy of honour, and of theological purity throughout the Church. On issues of direct governance, I'm sure Patriarchs (and others) have often stood on their episcopal authority, and said the equivalent of "This is my patch." But that doesn't amount to a rejection of Papal primacy. In this I think it is a mistake to read the Eastern and Coptic church's views on the papacy NOW (or even in the 12th Century) and assume that those were the views held in 600 or 800AD before the schism. Anyway what I'm saying is that we do need some solid references for big changes. If a minor rewording is proposed, lets see if it is agreeable. Xandar 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have cited several sources that say much the same thing, albeit not nearly so succinctly. As far as whether I agree with the whole essay the main thrust seems to me consistent with modern scholarship on the subject. To be honest I am not particularly familiar with Schimmelpfennig so I cannot speak to how out of the mainstream he is in general. But it is certainly true that there is really nothing in the way of hard evidence to prove continuity of succession from Peter to the current patriarchs or even that Peter was clearly seen as the leader of the community in Rome.

I will point out again that we have to be careful about placing too much emphasis on religious sources when talking about the scholarly community. The Roman Catholic Church obviously has explicit reasons to be biased.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Origins of the East-West Schism

User:NancyHeise wrote: "Richard did you read further down in the History section to see the whole story of how the schism occurred? It was not at Council of Chalcedon but during the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople that the schism became decisive. "

Nancy, what point are you trying to make? Your suggestion highlights exactly the point that I'm trying to make. This article doesn't mention differences between East and West arising until the Iconoclasm controversy of the 8th century. In response to your suggestion that I read the History section of this article, I would like to suggest that you read History of Rome#Barbarian and Byzantine rule, East-West Schism#Rise of Rome and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church#Tensions between the East and the West.

I think you will see a different historical narrative being put forth in these articles. The facts are the same but there are different opinions regarding the interpretation of the facts as to when the first cracks between East and West started (that is, those articles present a less Roman-centric POV).

These are not facts but interpretations of history but the interpretation presented is that the roots of the schism run all the way back to Constantine's movement of the capital to Constantinople. I am not trying to argue that those articles are "right" and this article is "wrong". However, IMO, it's just a horrible idea to assert that THIS article is supposed to present the Catholic view of history and other articles are supposed to present the Orthodox view. Why should the reader read multiple articles with multiple POVs and then have to synthesize across articles to build a unified understanding of the theological and ecclesiological landscape? That's just plain unencyclopedic. Is it what you'd expect from the Encyclopedia Britannica? Is it what you would ask for if you were an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I think the exact same view of history should be presented in all articles that treat the topic. That is, all the narratives should be NPOV, presenting all the significant POVs. Not "the mainstream Catholic view" in the Roman Catholic Church article and "the mainstream Orthodox view" in the Eastern Orthodox Church article. Yes, each article will emphasize different points based on the subject of the article but we should never have one article say "X is true" and another say "X is not true". Instead, both articles should say "Some say X is true and others say X is not true."

NB: The assertion of the above paragraph is intended to apply ONLY to the "History" sections of articles and NOT to the "Beliefs and Practices" sections.

--Richard (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I agree with you completely. It seems to surprise people that I am not out to create a Roman Catholic POV of history, I am just putting the facts on the page as they appear in the university textbooks and most oft cited scholarly works that we have chosen to use in this article after much discussion with many editors over several months last year. The sources you see as references are those representing all notable POV's and on sensitive issues, we took care to include multiple authors of various POV's to support the sentences which is why those sentences have several refs after them. The facts on Chalcedon and papal primacy have been treated in that regard. The article is a summary of events, not a detailed expose so we can not possible be expected to include every possible perception of every event over 2000 years! :) If you would like to insert a different wording using different sources I don't have a problem but I think we should respect what the sources used actually say about these issues. These are not POV pop culture history books, these are the best scholarly works and university textbooks we could find using the best authors reflected on Googlescholar. NancyHeise ^talk 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed by Nancy Heise

User:NancyHeise has filed a Request for Mediation. I have archived this Talk Page up to and including the RFC. Now that a request for mediation has been filed, there seems little point to continuing the RFC until we know whether or not the request for mediation has been accepted or not. Besides, this Talk Page was way too long and was in desperate need of archiving. Let's continue other open topics but park the "official name" discussion until mediation either starts or is declined. I note, by the way, that seemed to be now new participants in the RFC discussion. In other words, we requested comment and got none. --Richard (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the RFC section should have been kept, since it provides a summary of both sides of the discussion at the point it has now reached. So I am giving a link to it here. Defteri (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I considered doing that but decided against it as it would have required having two copies of the RFC (one in the archive and one elsewhere). There is a link to it in the Request for Mediation. If there is a consensus for it, we could create a standalone copy of it in Talk:Roman Catholic Church/RFC or a similar title. --Richard (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested for East-West Schism

Please look at my comment on Talk:East-West Schism titled "Theological Issues". I propose a new article Theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to factor out the lengthy theological discussion which is now dominating the article. I recognize that the proposed article title is excessively long and that comparison articles in general are tricky to manage. That's why I'm looking for feedback to see if there are other solutions.

--Richard (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be an interesting article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a great idea for an article. I think it is articles like that that make Wikipedia interesting. I encourage it but I am not going to work on it at present. I am working on something non-controversial, an RCC version of the Ten Commandments. [2] NancyHeise ^talk 02:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I thought you were kidding but I followed the link and it turns out that you are serious. I have my doubts about the title and scope of your article because, as we all know, there is only one set of Ten Commandments, not a Hebrew one, an RCC one and a Protestant one. IMO, a better title would be Ten Commandments and Roman Catholic teaching. But, I'll leave that discussion for later when you are ready to go prime time with the article.

(the previous paragraph was written in earnest, what follows was written in jest)

In the meantime, here is a piece that I wrote before I realized you were serious. You will see that I have made a diligent effort to offend as many editors as possible and make sure that everybody's sacred cow is gored at least once if not multiple times.

But, Nancy, you know of course that the Eastern Orthodox POV pushers are going to come and insist that they only recognize the first seven commandments as ecumenical because the last three were not properly convoked by God. And then we are going to have to make sure that the Orthodox version of the Ten Commandments gets equal time so as not to give undue weight to the RCC version. And remember that the Anglicans are also Catholic but, for reasons that inexplicable, their version of the Ten commandments don't include the one to give fealty to the Bishop of Rome. Remember also that although some Catholic writers may be of the opinion that the commandments were destined to become timeless, this destiny was not obvious to all while Moses was carrying the tablets down from Mount Sinai. It was only after Charlemagne gave his support to the Pope that the commandments achieved their prominence and even then, only in the West. And, finally, don't forget that the massacre of the Huguenots was committed by Louis XIV and therefore does not constitute a criticism of the Catholic Church per se. (to understand this last one, see Talk:Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

--Richard (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard, are you sure you mean the Ten Commandments? Because the thing of which the Eastern Orthodox only see seven as binding are the first seven Ecumenical Counils, from Nicaea I in 325AD to Nicaea II in 787AD. Not seven of the Ten Commandments.

Anastasis777 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the Ten Commandments but you obviously didn't get the preamble where I tried to make it crystal clear that the indented text was meant as a satirical poke-in-the-ribs at several of the current disputes both in the real world and on Wikipedia. The comment about the EOs only accepting the first seven commandments was a veiled reference to the fact that they only accept the first 7 ecumenical councils. But, of course, it's much funnier if you just get the joke without my having to explain it. --Richard (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I was concerned about the title too and I appreciate your suggestions. Before I make the page official I intend to solicit help for an appropriate title. NancyHeise ^talk 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I have created the article proposed above under the title Catholic - Orthodox theological differences as suggested by User:Xandar. The text for this "new" article was extracted from East-West Schism and presents primarily the Eastern Orthodox perspective as most of it was written by an Orthodox Wikipedian (User:LoveMonkey). It sure could use some balance by providing the Catholic perspective. (hint, hint: volunteers wanted) --Richard (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent the sooner we get the issue(s) clearly posted the easier it will be to address them (and also reconcile them).

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the page is an excellent idea and something that should go to FA because it is an interesting subject. I can help provide Catholic side but I do not know very much about Orthodox church. I have some very good sources that discuss the differences and history that could help. NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help to improve Pastor aeternus

I was surprised to find that, while we have an article on Lumen Gentium, there was no article on Pastor aeternus. Instead, it redirected to Papal infallibility#Dogmatic definition of 1870. This didn't seem right so I created an article and put some basic information in it. I need help fleshing this out as I don't know much about the topic. --Richard (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another great idea. Richard, I was looking forward to tinkering with my Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church) article experiment before I get to other articles but this one is worth expanding. Thanks for creating it and for your contributions to that article. NancyHeise ^talk 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lefebvre Bishops

Perhaps something should be added to the article about the rescinding of the excommunications of the Lefebvre Bishops by Pope Benedict, and possible reconciliation with the SSPX. Xandar 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. What do you think of maybe putting it into Vatican II section of history right after the mention of the traditionalist groups? Maybe just add a sentence that summarizes the schism and reconciliation? Other ideas? NancyHeise ^talk 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to let things flush themselves out a little. Right now it is a little hot button of an issue especially related to the one that is a Holocaust denier. Right now it smells a little like recentism. Maybe after a couple months when things calm down (or spin up.) Marauder40 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Williamson page has been a mess the past few days between his sycophantic minions and his detractors. No need to bring that drama here until the dust settles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with whatever is decided. I just thought it newsworthy. Xandar 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be recentism to make too much of this. The whole issue will soon be forgotten. This article covers the history of 20+ centuries and uncounted billions of people. This issue concerns a handful of people and their very small flock that were in schism for less than a generation. -- Secisek (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is more important for inter-faith relations than the church itself. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Infobox

User Secizek has resized the Catholic Church infobox, (Template:Catholic Church), at the top of the article. (It is also used on some other articles). I reverted it once, but Secizek has partially put it back to the smaller version, claiming that this is a format "agreed" elsewhere. The differences are: A) The box is somewhat narrower, reducing the size of the Vatican picture quite significantly; B) The font of the text has been reduced in size from 12pt to 11pt. I'm not keen on the changes, which seem to make it harder to read and see. I certainly wouldn't want it reduced to the ultra-narrow shape used in Template:Anglicanism, which I think is Secizek's model. What do others think? I'm not sure that any particular shape or font size are mandatory. Xandar 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to see it even thinner; currently the text is centered with a lot of extra space on both sides. The picture size is where we agree; I personally enjoy "seeing" St. Peter's and prefer a larger picture. However, having said that, the trade-off for me is acceptable. I prefer to see narrower boxes that do not dominate the screen of an article. It is acknowledged that this is strictly a personal issue, but its my two cents. BTW, on my screen the Anglican template also is quite wide with just a narrow, centered strip of typing. Does template width change with screen size?--^StormRider 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a preference, I thought either way was fine. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the box width is pretty "hard". It was set to the width normally used for article infoboxes, (eg Catholic Ecumenical Councils not the one used on the Christianity page, which i think ugly and not very user-friendly. I certainly can't think of any benefit to the tiny font now on our template. That certainly needs to go back to 12pt I think. Xandar 11:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask Secisek to elaborate on why the format was agreed to this size and where did that agreement take place. NancyHeise ^talk 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I explained every one of my changes in detail as I made them on the template talk page, which is where this discussion belongs. I find it amusing that you would assume I want it "reduced to the ultra-narrow shape used in Template:Anglicanism, which (you) think is Secizek's (sic) model" - that template was redesigned to follow YOUR model. So the "ultra-narrow shape" is in fact a size of 30% - versus the current 32% of the RCC template. Let's not be dramatic. Is 2% really that large of a difference? I also see the RCC template was cribbed from an earlier Anglican one to begin with. Let's move this discussion where it belongs. -- Secisek (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It has come to me attention that there are two such templates and they need to be merged. See the template talk page. -- Secisek (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever everyone agrees to do at that page. NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems a merge was in order and it went rather smooth - all amicable. -- Secisek (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Seek assistance with Christian heresy and List of Christian heresies

I have done a major rework of Christian heresy and, as part of that effort, I extracted the "List of Christian heresies" section and created the List of Christian heresies article.

I recognize that both articles still need a lot of work. I invite you to review these two articles and give me your feedback on their respective Talk Pages. I have already indicated Talk:List of Christian heresies some areas where I need some help.

Thank you.

--Richard (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I think these are very good articles and very well done for beginning articles. I am sorry I am not more helpful, I am still working little by little on my Roman Catholic Church version of the Ten Commandments when I have some Wikipedia time.NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion requested for an RFC on East-West Schism

There is a newly-opened request for comment over on Talk:East-West Schism.

The specific locus of the current dispute is the section titled "The Heart as Noetic or Intuitive faculty".

However, on a grander scale, this long-running dispute is over the amount of detailed theological treatment that is appropriate for the topic. The proposal is that East-West Schism be limited primarily to a high level historical narrative aimed at a general audience (high school / college level education without theological training) and that the detailed theological treatment be reserved for the article on Catholic - Orthodox theological differences. Your feedback is solicited.

--Richard (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on proposed text for East-West Schism

As some of you know, there is a dispute on East-West Schism regarding theological issues that divide the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There has been a long discussion (not as long as the one here on "official name of the Church") but long nonethless.

I have proposed new text that seeks to break the current logjam but I am really quite ignorant about Catholic and Orthodox theology (as I have proven on a couple of occasions here) and so I am concerned that I may not be accurately representing the Catholic perspective on these issues.

If you are interested in these kinds of things, please take a look at Talk:East-West Schism under the section "Proposed introductory paragraph for "Theological Issues" section".

Thanks.

--Richard (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name suggestions solicited

I have created a temporary article on the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Teaching here [3] that I would like make permanent but I need help to find just the right article name. Please feel free to post suggestions either here or on my user page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Great article! However I don't think the current name is right. The Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church) makes it sound like there is another set of ten commandments for the Catholic Church. I would suggest something like The Ten Commandments in Catholicism, or The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Christianity or perhaps The Ten Commandments in Catholic Theology or The Ten Commandments: Catholic Development and Understanding. Xandar 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the Ten Commandments in Catholicism but I think we might need to call it the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism to avoid the name arguments with Anglicans. :) NancyHeise ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after considering it some more, I think I prefer your other suggestion, Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Theology. Does anyone else have an opinion? already done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I screwed up the name in my first try with an inadvertant period at the end and I capped Theology by mistake so I had to make another page, I think I got this one right. See The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. I'll put in a request to delete the other one here [4] NancyHeise ^talk 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Do you think it wants to go into the Theology section of our (suddenly thinner again) Catholic Template? Xandar 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was weird, I was just looking at that template and thinking the same thing that you just posted and came here to ask the same question. I think we should replace the wikilink to the ten commandments in that template with the new catholic specific page but I don't know how to do that. NancyHeise ^talk 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added it in the "Background" section. Xandar 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks XandarNancyHeise ^talk 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholics or Christians?

I found this paragraph in Jews in the Middle Ages...

By the 10th century most of Europe was under Catholic rule. However this left a privileged niche for Jews in the new order. Catholics were forbidden by their scriptures to charge interest to fellow Christians; therefore the only men from whom loans could be secured were Jews. While this status did not always lead to peaceful conditions for the Jewish people, they were the most compatible non-Catholics for the position due to their shared devotion with Catholics to the same Abrahamic God.

I found the use of the word "Catholic" in this passage a bit strange. Here's my reasoning... While it's true that the Catholic Church referred to it self as such before the 10th century, did anyone refer to Christians as "Catholics" at that time? After all, there are no Protestants yet. For that matter, there are probably no "Orthodox Christians" at that time either. As far as I know, everybody is still just "Christian" at that point in time. So... isn't it anachronistic to use the word "Catholic" in the paragraph above?

--Richard (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "Catholic" is being used to differentiate from other Christian and pseudo-Christian groups like Copts and Bogomils. Also I believe it was the Church specifically, which set the rule against Usury, rather than it being something necessarily followed by everyone who called themselves Christian.Xandar 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there was no contrast at that time between Catholic and Orthodox. Because of the translations into modern languages, most Catholics today are unaware that the Roman-Rite Mass speaks of the celebrant being united with "omnibus orthodoxis et catholicae fidei cultoribus" (literally, with all the orthodox ...). And please don't call the Copts pseudo-Christians. In Europe, at that time, the Copts were considered to be neither Catholic nor Orthodox, heretical, in fact, but Christian. In Egypt, it was the Copts who were generally considered Catholic and Orthodox. Platia (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the usury rule was imposed by the organization that has officially called itself the Catholic Church from very early beginnings to the present day, and because there are other groups that called themselved Christians who did not consider themselves part of the organization called the Catholic Church, it is more correct to use the term Catholic. Also, the passage on usury was orinally added based on information that came from a book on the history of the Catholic Church, not a history of Christianity. 65.10.249.52 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't dispute that the usury rule was promulgated by the institution that has called itself the Catholic Church from "very early beginning". I'm just asking if the adherents of that church were called Catholics at that time and, if they weren't, then usage of the word "Catholics" would be an anachronism. Maybe we could resolve the issue by mentioning the Catholic Church more and trying to avoid usage of the word "Catholics" when discussing this period of history. Question: Is it just me that's worried about this? How do the history books handle this issue? --Richard (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I think that we can safely use the word Catholic for that time period and I think it would be confusing to use any other word in this short article on this large subject. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states under the definition of "Catholic": "Finally the word Catholic is used of individual Christians insofar as they belong to the Catholic Church and are orthodox in their belief." If there were no other churches in Europe at that time, then all of the European Christians were essentially members of the one church, the Catholic Church.NancyHeise ^talk 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm... well, I'm not convinced by these arguments but let me shift the focus to some other related questions. The above-quoted passage says "By the 10th century most of Europe was under Catholic rule." Well, taken literally, this suggests that Europe was under the rule of the Catholic Church and, of course, that's not technically true. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "under the rule of Catholic monarchs" or "under the rule of Christian monarchs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)

I agree with the comment about the danger of attributing to the Church or the Pope what (Roman) Catholic monarchs or armies did. The sack of Constantinople is a particularly striking example. But the essential question is: What is the word "Catholic" opposed to here? If "most of Europe" was ruled by the monarchs in question, who ruled the rest of Europe? Muslims in Spain? Then we should say "Christian", not "Catholic". Pagans in the north? Again, "Christian", not "Catholic". Eastern Christians in the East? But they too were Catholic and Orthodox, just like the Christians in the West. Were some areas still ruled by heretics (Arians)? Only then, I think, would the use of "Catholic" be justified. Platia (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the whole I agree with this, and it is the usual practice of historians. Pre-Reformation, you usually only see "Catholic" being used in contexts like the Crusades, whether in the Levant or the Albigensian ones, ie where non-Catholic Christians are also involved. Of course "most of Europe", at least by the 12th century say, excludes many Orthodox kingdoms, so it might be ok in that case. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should specify Catholic monarch rule or maybe just say Christian rule. However, the ruling on usury came from the Church itself, not monarchs and maybe that could be specified as well. NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but the Orthodox had just the same rules afaik. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholics are Christians. Have you ever heard the term "Catholic Christian"? Originally Catholics were called Christians, until one of them started calling themselves "Catholics", which means 'universal'. When the Reformation occurred, people started making a wrong distinction between Catholic and Christian.

Inappropriate comment flag

Hey guys,

I'm a Wiki-layman but I just thought I'd flag the fact that "They like boys" appears under the Subheading of Teaching Authority'. I've got no idea how to edit it out and was wondering whether a more experienced Wikipedian (?) could.

I'm also an agnostic so I don't really care about the connotation but more the fact that this is in a very informative and well constructed Wiki article.

Cheers T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.204.179 (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, someone else already changed it by the time I came by to take a look. NancyHeise ^talk 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic" as defined by Academic American Encyclopedia

This encyclopedia is cited by 92 books per [http://www.amazon.com/Academic-American-Encyclopedia-Inc-Grolier/dp/0717220680]

from page 211 of Volume 4:

"Catholic - The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning "universal". It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (d. about AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished true believers from false believers. After the break (1054) between the Western church and the Eastern church, it was used to identify the Western church, the Eastern church was called orthodox. At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a distinction was made between "Roman" Catholics and members of the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the time of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. In popular usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with the Church of Rome." This excerpt was authored by John E. Booty, it is found on page 211 of Volume 4 of Academic American Encyclopedia, year 1995 published by Grolier, Inc. ISBN 0717220591

NancyHeise ^talk 15:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Rome claims the phrase "the one true Church" as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches, doesn't it? This, in spite of the [http://www.amazon.com/C-S-Lewis-Catholic-Church/dp/0898709792 claim] by a certain Hutchins that it is foolish for any church to claim the title of the one true church.

Many are the views that you find propounded in authoritative-seeming books. The Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition 2008 says: "The term 'Roman Church', when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome". As you know, this has been shown here to be false. It also says that "Roman Catholic" is a 19th-century British coinage and merely serves to distinguish that church from other churches that are "Catholic". That also has been shown to be false. What is found in an arguably (to some extent) "reliable source" doesn't have to be blindly accepted into the article. The same encyclopedia also says: "Its commonest title in official use is Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." That this is the commonest title in official use is worse than doubtful, but that there are several official titles, not just one, seems clear. Soidi (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment fails to offer anything of salient value here. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to indicate that interpreting a statement that a church claims some title or other (even such as "the largest church in the world") as a statement that the church has adopted this as its official name could be classified as an expression of personal opinion or as original research. Platia (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Platia. The use of the present wording of Catholic being the official name is not based on the chain of logic you describe. It's all in the many pages above Xandar 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar and the editor with the name I can not pronounce! Soidi could possibly change my mind in the matter if he could provide sources to support his opinion but after many months of arguments, he has never produced one source that meets WP:RS or WP:Reliable source examples even though I have asked for them many times. NancyHeise ^talk 22:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica supports article text use of "officially"  : See the definition of "Catholic" here [5] where it states, "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". NancyHeise ^talk 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Church of Rome is officially and in popular parlance known as the Catholic Church. But is this the only name by which it is officially known? There are several names of which that Church makes official use and that can thus be called official names for it. "Catholic Church" is just one of them.

(Unimportant question: Is it possible that your source for this quotation is really this, which seems to be a wiki, allowing changes by casual editors? In any case, the quotation should not be given as from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is only a quotation that claims to be from an out-of-date edition of almost exactly a century ago.)

Platia is obviously right. An entity's claim to a particular title, such as "the one true Church" or "the largest Church in the world" does not mean that that particular title is the one and only official name of the entity. Defteri (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guys will call black white if it suits you regardless of the sources! Please read the definition of "Catholic" in Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is reproduced on Googlebooks at this link here: [6]. After it states, "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". it goes on to say that Roman Catholic is a name "tolerated" by the Church, it is not an official name. Also, why have you never produced any sources to support your theory that the Church has more than one official name? We now have seven that say it has only one and Catholic Church is it. This argument is appearing to me more and more to be just harrassment. NancyHeise ^talk 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you turn the black of "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church" (a description, by the way, of the deprecated situation "on the continent of Europe" in 1911) into the white of "the Church has only one official name". Defteri (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Its easy when you look at the definition of Academic American Encyclopedia where it states "the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title". Please tell me where you read in either of those two encyclopedias where the Church has more than one official name. NancyHeise ^talk 16:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Academic American Encyclopedia does not say that the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its one and only title, does it? The Pope claims "Vicar of Jesus Christ" as his title. Does that mean that he does not claim the titles of "Successor of the Chief of the Apostles", "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", etc.? Defteri (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"College of Bishops"

I just wanted to make it known that it actually isn't the College of Bishops, it's the College of Cardinals.

In Roman Catholic hierarchy there are priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. The Magisterium is actually made up of the College of Cardinals.

Can someone please take the time to make these changes?

Thanks.

71.115.247.173 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Actually, if you look at the citations provided and at the articles on College of Bishops and College of Cardinals, you will find that it is really the College of Bishops that should be referenced by the sentence in question. The idea that the College of Cardinals is the source of the Magisterium is a popular misconception.

--Richard (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, the pope, all cardinals, archbishops and bishops are all "bishops". NancyHeise ^talk 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I should know. In the Roman Rite, they are referred to as the College of Cardinals, it is NOT a myth that they are the Magisterium. And technically, ALL of them are priests. And yes, Cardinals are 'promoted' archbishops. 71.115.247.173 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the articles on Magisterium, College of Bishops and College of Cardinals? If you think we have it wrong, would you care to provide some verifiable citations to reliable sources who make the same assertion that you are making? --Richard (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Teenager says he doesn't believe in God

My 18 year old who is a senior in high school informs his father and I yesterday he doesn't believe! We're not sure where this is coming from, he says he doesn't believe what he can't see.

Sorry, this is not the appropriate place for discussions such as this. Please consult WP:TALK for our guidelines regarding the use of article Talk Pages. --Richard (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As Richard says, this is not the appropriate place for discussions like this. The talk page is only for article improvement. I will go a step further though, and suggest that you ask for assistance on the forums at catholic.com. They would be happy to help. Farsight001 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual vs. Temporal Power of the Papacy

Please read my comment on Talk:History of the Papacy#Spiritual vs. Temporal Power of the Papacy. The comment is addressed to Lima but I placed it on the article talk page so as to provide a central point of discussion for other editors to provide their input.

--Richard (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I Love God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.236.135 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Proposal

It seems somewhat ridiculous that an article which states that the Catholic Church it is officially known as the Catholic Church is called Roman Catholic. It is important to note that the Catholic Church is actually a collaboration of 23 sui juris particular churches, and only one of these is the rite colloquially called Roman. However, this term is discouraged as it generally refers specifically to the Diocese of Rome, and alternative terms such as Latin Rite are used instead. This is why I suggest changing the name of this article to reflect the name of the Catholic Church more accurately. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed ad nauseam previously. "Roman Catholic" is an NPOV way of distinguishing it from any other churches claiming the name "Catholic". As a Catholic (choir, liturgy planning committee, etc), I have no problem with the current name and see no reason to change it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but surely it would be a more accurate article if the name reflected the content. Also, seeing as "Catholic Church" already redirects to here, it is clearly not a name which is already used by a different article. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church (disambiguation) shows that the meaning of the term is disputed. Platia (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the Churches listed in the disambiguation page has claimed as its title "Catholic Church" but rather claim "catholicity" - totally different issue. The article name is currently under discussion to move to Catholic Church because scholarly sources and many tertiary sources state that the Church has "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. We have no sources claiming that any other organization claims this same title. NancyHeise ^talk 00:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I support renaming the article per TMM Dowd. This isn't a NPOV issue but rather an issue of using the name which is most commonly used in reference to the Church. Majoreditor (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the Church

You explain it well that the name of Church is Catholic Church and that is just the matter of rite (Latine, Byzantine, Malabar, Kaldeian) to be Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic or other, so, please rename the article - from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church only!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinj (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The actual situation is historically much more complicated than this. It can, for instance, be argued that the Eastern Catholic churches, are actually separate churches which are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and under papal authority. Many Eastern Catholics actually consider themselves as still being Orthodox Christians who are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church rather than being "members" of the same church. Others, of course, would want to argue against this view. Afterwriting (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If that is a fact or not, it does not matter. The offical name which so called Roman or Latin Church used is CATHOLIC CHURCH, and that should be respected. Beside, there are NO "eastern Catholic Churches" as separate Churches, there are just branches of the same Church, Catholic Church, only with separate rites. That is only and uniqe teaching of ALL Catholics on the world.

See also:

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? (by Kenneth D. Whitehead)

Text from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm removed

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinj (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No intelligent person with an informed knowledge of church history takes Whitehead's polemical, biased, simplistic, misleading and factually defective opinions on this issue seriously. His writings on this issue are next to worthless. Afterwriting (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire! The book by Kenneth Whitehead is the only source used by worldwide Catholic media EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor to explain the name of the Church [7]. The editorial staff of EWTN includes this academic expert [8]. Whitehead was featured on the program Catholic Answers which this same academic oversees. Also, EWTN is a member of SIGNIS, whose board includes a representative of the Roman Curia. Evidently a lot of experts in Catholic church history take this guy seriously. NancyHeise ^talk 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is the proper name of the Church, and I'm beginning to feel that the only way of ending the interminable argument with certain people over the official name description may be to make the change of article title back to Catholic Church. There are people who would raise trouble about that, but we're getting trouble now with the name at "Roman Catholic Church", which is not the proper or official name of the Church. We may have to think seriously about making the change. Xandar 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 18:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if Whitehead is the "only source" used by EWTN and Our Sunday Visitor, Nancy? This proves absolutely nothing - so why you keep going on defending him ad neauseum I can't begin to imagine. Whitehead - and you and Xandar - have not provided any authoritative and incontrovertable evidence to support these claims and you keep rejecting much more substantial evidence that contradicts Whitehead's claims. When you or Xandar can provide an official Vatican document that clearly states that there is only one "official" or "proper" name for the church you will be taken more seriously - until then your - and Whitehead's - claims remain only personal opinions. Afterwriting (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it would be a more accurate article if the name reflected the content. Also, seeing as "Catholic Church" already redirects to here, it is clearly not a name which is already used by a different article. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is further discussion of the naming issue and the cointinuing dispute over the first line of the article atWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Roman_Catholic_Church Xandar 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Afterwriting - We have a total of 7 sources that support Whitehead including Encycopedia Brittanica [9] and Academic American Encyclopedia[10]. NancyHeise ^talk 20:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The footnote on this subject is the strangest note that I have yet seen in Wikipedia. I hesitate to introduce another piece of evidence, but when the Constitution of Ireland was being drafted in 1937, the Irish government consulted with the Holy See to determine the "official" name of the Church. Note that in Ireland the name of the church is a somewhat controversial matter, and the term "Roman Catholic" is used by Protestants and sometimes felt to be vaguely insulting. The term that was eventually used in the English-language version of the Constitution was "Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church". I understand that this formula was used by the Council of Trent.Shoneen (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The First Vatican Council, not the Council of Trent. Soidi (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to include this bit of information but we need to have a source that says it. I have just searched Googlebooks and the web and I can't find any book or source that says Irish government consulted with Holy See to determine the name of the Church. Do you have a source that can help us locate this? NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that say De Valera did consult the Pope. See Mining the Gap: An Investigation of Discontinuities in the Irish Constitution. None, as far as I know, that say the Pope explicitly blessed the Constitution or any part of it. But it seems that at least the Holy See made no negative remark on it. Soidi (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it shorthand as the Catholic Church, but officially, It IS the Roman Catholic church, largely because of it's origins.... stupid more... Jerusalem logically would have been more important.

Lead Changes

Shoneen. The article lead has been developed and negotiated over a long period by many editors. So can you please not make any significant changes to the lead without discussion here first. Thank you. Xandar 12:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag

If we are disputing just one word "officially", it seems to be a bit extreme to use the "Disputed" tag. If we are disputing a good chunk of the Note, then I guess the "Disputed" tag is appropriate. IMO, it doesn't really matter if there once was a consensus for the lead sentence and note; if there is at least one bona-fide editor that disputes the accuracy of the article, then the "Disputed" tag is appropriate.

Consensus requires unanimity although sometimes a super-majority is substituted for a true consensus. If a consensus once existed, it doesn't now. Even if all 15 of the previous editors still agree with the lead, there are at least 4 editors who don't. That represents, at best, a thin consensus.

--Richard (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed dispute "a good chuck of the Note", since I think the phrasing, selection and ordering shows bias. The {{dubious}} template "is for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability." That describes the situation pretty well. This dispute has been ongoing for months. I strongly object to any attempt to remove this tag until and unless the dispute is resolved. Gimmetrow 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Gimmetrow is not getting his way here, he is embarking on another attempt to raise the temperature and embark on edit-warring to subvert the currently agreed wording. I have removed the unprincipled "dubious" template from the lead, since this wording is referenced and is the current consensus agreed wording. The use of the dubious template is an improper attempt to short-circuit an agreement and place a personal and unreferenced POV in the article. The proper use of the template is to highlight somewhere an error might have entered the article and stimulate a discussion. There IS a discussion, and I doubt that anyone considers it not to have been a thoroughgoing one. The point of this tempate is therefore strictly to insert an unreferenced POV. Xandar 11:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Way to AGF, Xandar. The purpose of the template is to alert readers to a disputed text so those readers will not continue to be misled, as they have been for months while this discussion has dragged on. This is not a game, Xandar. Gimmetrow 14:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, you are being provacative in your efforts. I also removed the tag because until a new consensus is arrived, the old still stands. We are making a good faith effort to address your concerns through mediation. We are even agreeing to change the lead sentence and the note to address those concerns - just for you! Yet you continue to be provacative and unhelpful to the process by your actions. Please stop. We want to come to intelligent agreement on the issue without this wasteful provacative unhelpful actions like this tag that only make matters worse. NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Richard, WP:Consensus states:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent if - and only if - there is adequate exposure to the community."

It was noted that in the last WP:FAC, there were 24 supports and 13 opposes. Only one of the opposes was for the use of the term "official" in the lead sentence. Because silence implies consenst, I think it is clear that we meet the criteria for consensus. We are being nice to Gimmetrow because he is just so bent out of shape over the use of this approved term that we are trying to find another acceptable alternative while still allowing Reader to see the details concerning the name in a note.NancyHeise ^talk 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, first of all, WP:Silence and consensus is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Secondly, I find it difficult to follow your leap of logic that uses WP:Silence and consensus to justify the sentence "Because silence implies consent, I think it is clear that we meet the criteria for consensus". That is not what the essay says at all. It is arguing that you can assume consensus until the silence has been broken. The silence never existed in that there was always at least one voice (Soidi) who objected. If you chose to override that one voice on the basis of a 15-1 supermajority, that is understandable. However, since there are at least 4 editors who are "not silent" and are objecting, you can no longer assume the existence of a consensus based on silence.

Here is what the lead of WP:Silence and consensus says:

Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when you try to build on it.

In wiki-editing, it is difficult to get positive affirmation for your edits (disaffirmation comes with a revert). No matter how many people on a talk page say they support an edit, sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus.

Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.

--Richard (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Richard and Gimmetrow: there is clearly no consensus now. And Nancy and Xandar have persistently managed, by the method they have again displayed, to keep the article clear of even the slightest hint that their view is not the only one. But I think we should let them have their way here for some time more. We have enough on hands with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. Soidi (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi. The "old" consensus was quite thoroughgoing, and has been challenged by interested parties who seems to be newcomers to the article. And there is more than a "hint" in the current text that Roman Catholic Church is used toidentify the Church by many people. We are trying to restablish a workable consensus. Your problem is a lack of reliable sources to support the position you favour. Even if this issue is a hobbyhorse of yours, the article has to reflect the referenced facts. Xandar 11:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Xandar, your comment about "newcomers to the article" is an ad hominem argument. It is preferable to critique the substance of the argument rather than against the person(s) making the argument.

Besides, I'd be interested to know what your definition of "newcomer" is. Here are some "earliest" edits for you to consider

• Xandar - May 6, 2004,
• Lima - August 28, 2004,
• Gimmetrow - May 30, 2006,
• Richardshusr - April 14, 2006,
• Soidi - July 22, 2007,
• NancyHeise - January, 16, 2008
• Defteri - July 24, 2008

Now, to be fair, Nancy's earliest edits were to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami starting with August 11, 2007 but that still leaves her as the second most recent "newcomer" to this article. I propose that we ban her and Defteri from this discussion and continue on with the "oldtimers".  :^)

Seriously, Nancy's relative recentness should be ample proof that dedication and hard work are more important than calendar time since one's first edit. I remain in awe of her prodigious efforts to improve this article over the last 15 months.

You may also note that User:Soidi is a sock for User:Lima who is almost as much of an oldtimer as you are. So... can we please stop this injured tone of "it's the newcomers who understand nothing about this article who are making all the trouble"?

--Richard (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point - which is that Soidi, Defteri, Afterwriting and others have come into this article largely on this issue only, and seemingly largely to push an intractable point of view on the naming of the Church. None have been substantive constructive contributors to the article and its development. Soidi in particular has been a single-issue campaigner on this issue for nine months, with virtually all of his hundreds of WP edits devoted to this issue. I think that is certainly a relevant point to raise after nine months of obstructionism from this POV group on this issue. They have driven away many of the genuine editors working on this page, who just cannot take the continuous attitude being pushed. Xandar 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I was responding to the literal words you wrote although I do understand that there is a bit of acrimony between the two camps which leads to an unwillingness to assume good faith. Nancy has characterized Soidi as a troll and argued that the other camp has been guilty of harassment which she feels somebody in authority should do something about. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies being what they are, I doubt that she will get the remediation that she seeks.

I would imagine the other side has similar feelings of injury and woundedness based on feelings that your side owns the article.

To all this, I can only counsel that we remain civil and assume good faith.

As one more attempt to establish that you are working with bona-fide editors, I offer the following:

[*http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Afterwriting&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Afterwriting]]

[*http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Gimmetrow&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Gimmetrow]]

• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Defteri&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Defteri]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Soidi&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Soidi]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Lima&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Lima]]
• http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Richardshusr&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Count analysis of Richardshusr]]

In particular, consider the number of edits to Roman Catholic Church: Gimmetrow (155), Soidi (58), Lima (620!), Xandar (452).

Of course, all of these pale in comparison to the astounding 4089 from NancyHeise.

I provide no edit count for myself on this article because Roman Catholic Church is not one of my top ten most-edited articles. I readily admit that I have not made very many edits to this article because I have consistently deferred to other editors who are more knowledgeable and who have better access to sources. So, as proof of my bona fides, I point instead to the fact that 6 of my top 10 most-edited articles and 5 of my top 10 most-edited talk pages are related to Christianity; many of these are related to Catholicism. I put my efforts on articles that get less attention and can benefit more from my efforts. I have worked on many more Christianity-related pages than Soxred's count analysis would indicate. It's just that I work on so many Chrisitanity-related pages that I have made less than 124 edits to them. Take a look at my last 500 contributions as just an example.

--Richard (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What leads you to believe Soidi is a sockpuppet of Lima? And why are sockpuppets being used anyway. I have long been suspicious of the similarity in viewpoint and language of Soidi and defteri, and so have others. My point stands that neither Soidid, defteri or Afterwriting have made notable positive contributions to the article in concert with the other editors here. Gimmetrow has edits, but mostly as one of the admins for the page. Xandar 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Check Lima's userpage. I for one believe it, as their tone had a noticably similar quality.

FWIW, as a longtime editor of articles on this topic, I am finding some behavior of several of the particpants quite disappointing, and it dissuades me from adding to the discussion, something I think I could do quite constructively. It does amaze me, however, that no one (that I recall seeing) has pointed out there are two contexts of the naming issue, what the topic calls itself and what it is called from the outside, and that the discussion seems to be focused on one finding description that describes both simultaneously. Everyone is finding out that they are not synonymous, and cannot reasonably be combined as if they were. But (to borrow a favorite expression of Vatican watchers) this is a both/and situation, not an either/or. Describe both with the contexts made clear. Besides on a lighter note, it is not as if you have a scarcity of sources for either context :). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Lima's use of Soidi as a sock, he states that he uses Soidi when he "expects obstruction". Presumably, he thinks it is useful to have a "nice" persona and a contentious one. Lima's edits as Lima are still somewhat contentious so I'm not sure what the purpose of the sock is. Soidi's edit count suggests that some of the characteristics of a single purpose account. Over 2/3 of Soidi's edits are to pages related to this dispute. SPA's are not forbidden by Wikipedia policy but many users find the use of SPA's to be controversial.

Afterwriting has made 2268 live edits to 633 unique articles. If this is a sock puppet, it is an elaborate and dedicated effort. Defteri has made 570 live edits to 187 unique articles over 9 months. This is more possibly a sock but it still takes a lot of effort to maintain that level of editing just in order to create a sock. I would suggest that, in the face of this evidence, it is more prudent to assume good faith than to suspect a sock.

--Richard (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that Afterwriting might be a sock-puppet. Xandar 23:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually have enough time - or inclination - to make major edits. My principal editing role is concerned with style and POV problems in articles I've looked at. Afterwriting (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Diocese of Hawaii name explanation

It was suggested by some that "Roman Catholic" was one of several official names of the Church arguing that the Church does not have one official name. The editors making this suggestion pointed to the official website of the Diocese of Hawaii [11] whose legal copyright is in the name of "Roman Catholic Church in Hawaii" visible on the webpage. I emailed the Diocese regarding the matter and received the following reply. The FAC director, user:Raul654 told me just to post it, no formal uploading was necessary. I obtained permission from the sender to post both the email and his name and position but was asked to omit his personal email address which I have done. If anyone wishes to verify this they can contact the Diocese of Hawaii the same way I did, email them at the published address on their website. Text of email:

Aloha Nancy –

The Catholic Church in Hawaii consists of many different elements: the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu, the various parishes, the houses of several religious orders, various Catholic schools and health care institutions, Catholic Charities Hawaii, etc.

The term "Roman Catholic Church in the State of Hawaii" is the name of the civil corporation in Hawaii that includes the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and all of the Catholic parishes. This civil corporation does not include the Catholic religious orders or various other Catholic institutions (schools, health care institutions, charities) which are in Hawaii.

The Diocese of Honolulu and all those Catholic parishes and institutions located within the territory of the diocese (which includes the entire state of Hawaii) are part of the Latin ritual Church and in full communion with the pope, who is bishop of Rome. (There are no Eastern Catholic parishes or institutions in the state of Hawaii, other than a small mission which operates out of Holy Trinity Church in Hawaii Kai.)

The term “Roman” strictly speaking refers to the liturgical usage of the Latin Church. The term “Roman Catholic” reflects common usage and this is reflected in the title of the civil corporation. However, this is imprecise usage and in official documents of the Catholic Church that come out of the Vatican, the Catholic Church never refers to itself as the “Roman Catholic Church” but rather as the “Catholic Church.” What is “Roman” is our liturgy.

Wikipedia is not being precise in its terminology.

Fr. Mark Gantley

---

Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL Judicial Vicar and Director of Canonical Affairs Mission Cooperative Coordinator Diocese of Honolulu The Diocesan Tribunal and Office of Canonical Affairs St. Stephen Diocesan Center 6301 Pali Hwy. Kane'ohe, HI 96744

NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"... in official documents of the Catholic Church that come out of the Vatican, the Catholic Church never refers to itself as the 'Roman Catholic Church' ..." This claim is incorrect and ignorant as examples of official Vatican documents that refer to the church as the RCC do exist. Why people are in denial about this is incomprehensible to me. Afterwriting (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect there probably have been some documents which speak of the 'Roman Catholic Church', but can't think of any offhand. Can anyone provide a citation to confirm this? Chonak (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some papal documents, which I presume outrank a declaration by a judicial vicar or the Diocese of Honolulu.

• In Divini Illius Magistri, Pope Pius XI wrote: "In the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing."
• In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII wrote "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing."
• In top-level agreements with other Churches, the Popes have called their Church the Roman Catholic Church:
  • 1965-12-07 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople
  • 1967-10-28 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople
  • 1971-10-27 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church
  • 1977-04-29 Pope Paul VI with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan
  • 1982-05-29 Pope John Paul II with Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey
  • 2006-11-23 Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
  • 2006-11-30 Pope Benedict XVI with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople
• Other examples of the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" by Pope John Paul II:
  • 1979-09-29 to the President of Ireland, Dr P. J. Hillery
  • 1980-11-17 to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany
  • 1980-06-25 on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana
  • 1985-05-18 to the people of Mechelen, Belgium
  • 1989-06-07 to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 1989-06-29 to a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
  • 1980-03-24 at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome
  • 1991-06-05 at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland
  • 1991-06-09 to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw
  • 1991-10-18 at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil ("Chiesa Cattolica apostolica Romana")
  • 1991-10-20 at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil ("Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana")
• And by Pope Benedict XVI:
  • 2006-05-25 in Warsaw Soidi (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi. We've seen most of these scrappy ecumenical documents before. Spending all these hours searching through every Vatican document in the past thirty years and coming up with these few bits actually counts against your argument. RCC is just not in normal usage. Just checking the German document, in Italian, comes up with Chiesa Cattolica, ie Catholic Church. The Irish report of papal speeches is mostly Catholic Church too. The one mention of Roman Catholic is in a response to the Irish president, who probably introduced that term. And Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana, from your Brazilian find, translates to "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" NOT "Roman Catholic Church". Xandar 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is used. Right?

Chonak asked if "Roman Catholic Church" is used, not if it is the most frequently used.

And Afterwriting rightly said that the claim that in official documents of the Catholic Church that come out of the Vatican, the Catholic Church never refers to itself as the Roman Catholic Church "is incorrect and ignorant, as examples of official Vatican documents that refer to the church as the RCC do exist." Soidi (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As we can see from the response from the Diocese of Honolulu, the Church uses the term Roman Catholic to specify the Latin rite part of the Church. Unless there is a scholar who can give an expert opinion on why the Church used the term Roman Catholic in those agreements, we have to go with our reliable references, we can't interpret the Church's intentions on our own as you previously did with the Diocese of Honolulu's use of the term. NancyHeise ^talk 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no recollection of ever interpreting, one way or another, the Diocese of Honolulu's use of the term "Roman Catholic". Did I really? In any case, I can't help thinking that the Bishop of Honolulu's use of the term is somewhat less significant that its use by the Bishop or Rome. Afterwriting's (and Chonak's) comment on Father Gantley's claim is correct. Soidi (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a well-known Roman (Rome-based) canonist (not an Anglican but a Catholic/Roman Catholic canonist) wrote, "There can be no doubt that we can speak of the Catholic Church throughout the world as the Roman Catholic Church. This way of speaking since the sixteenth century has become quite common among our theologians, and is found consecrated in the Profession of Faith which converts are bound to make when received into the Church - 'I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ.' Here the term 'Roman' plainly applies to the whole Church, and not merely to the local Church of Rome, 'the Mother and Mistress of all Churches'." See The Life of Cardinal Vaughan Part Two, by J. G. Snead Cox p. 236-237. Soidi (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Soldi, for the above references ( which are certainly not "scrappy" ones as Xandar asserts ). Yet further clear evidence to disprove the false and ignorant claims of Whitehead and others. Perhaps we can post them to the good vicar general in Hawaii? Afterwriting (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that people involved in this dispute also read Cardinal Vaughan's comments on the use of "Roman Catholic" on page 238 of the above quoted reference. Very interesting. Afterwriting (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Material on Limbo

A paragraph on Limbo was removed at 14:20, 22 March 2009, for the reason that the concept of Limbo is in the realm of theology and not magisterial teaching. May I suggest adding the information to the article on Roman Catholic theology, which currently does not mention Limbo? Here is the content:

A study approved by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 January 2007 and published with the approval of Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, indicates as possible a further afterlife state: "The theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis."

-- Chonak (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the theory of the Limbo of Children, on the existence of an afterlife state of natural happiness but without the vision of God, should not be eliminated altogether from the article. It was accepted in the ordinary magisterium of Popes Sixtus V and Pius X (see Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died), and has never been repudiated. It deserves, at the very least, a footnote. Soidi (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The only items on the RCC page under Beliefs are those that are also in the Catechism. Limbo is not listed as a state of afterlife and it is thus excluded from this article. NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Limbo should be represented as an historical curiosity or feature in some contemporary "traditionalists'" beliefs. It should certainly never be implied that it is dogma or generally current! Pietru (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It should certainly never be implied that it is dogma, but neither should it be implied that it is merely a historical curiosity. The Church has not said that the past positive teaching of Popes and Catholic theologians on the existence of Limbo was wrong. On the contrary the Church still sees what they taught as a possible theological opinion. Is there anything in the following that is false or inexact?

The Church recognizes as possible (Document of the International Theological Commission, approved by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 January 2007) the opinion that an afterlife state exists of merely natural happiness, without the vision of God. The existence of this state, to which the name of Limbo has been given, has never been the object of a dogmatic statement by the Church but, as well as being admitted as a possible theological hypothesis by Pope Benedict XVI, it has been positively taught, as part of the ordinary magisterium, by Pope Sixtus V, who in his Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588 stated that those who commit abortion "exclude a soul from the blessed vision of God", and by Pope Pius X, who said: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory" (Past Catholic statements on the fate of unbaptized infants, etc. who have died). Soidi (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has found fault with this statement, is there any reason why the Church's recognition of the possibility of this form of afterlife cannot be mentioned in the article? Soidi (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement on Limbo should not be included because it is not part of official Catholic Doctrine. Limbo is not listed as one of the states of afterlife in the Catechism and is not found in Catechetical books used to teach the faith to children and new members of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in the United States and History of Roman Catholicism in the United States

Hi all,

I've been working on expanding and improving History of Roman Catholicism in the United States. Please take a look at it and give me suggestions on areas for improvement. I am particularly looking for areas that I may have missed. One area that comes to mind is social services and institutions in the United States. Another is Catholic universities such as Georgetown, Catholic University, etc. Anything else?

Also, please take a look at Roman Catholicism in the United States. This seems like a very poor attempt (really not even a "Start") considering the importance and breadth of scope. The current article doesn't really do the topic justice.

--Richard (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh I never even knew these articles existed! Maybe I will get around to helping out after I finish my present issues on Wikipedia. Thanks Richard! NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot that needs doing on the History article, particularly in the pre 19th Century area. Xandar 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well... this is generally a problem with any article involving history of the United States. How much space should we devote to the history of the land which later became the United States during the period before it became the United States (i.e. the period from St. Augustine, Florida to roughly 1776-1789)? Does this warrant a separate article (e.g. History of Roman Catholicism in colonial North America)? There already are articles on Spanish missions in California,Arizona,Florida,Georgia. I assume that there are similar articles about the French and British colonies in North America although I'm not sure if these articles focus on Catholicism in those missions and colonies per se. I'm not sure how much history exists specifically about the Catholic church in that period. Most of the material that I've found about the history of Catholicism in the United States seems to be focused on the 19th and 20th centuries. I am open to learning more about Catholicism in the pre-1776 era if you can point me in the right direction.

I just came across this news article announcing the "tens of thousands" of new converts (figure does not include infant baptisms) to the Catholic Church in the United States in 2009. See http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15551 I think that should go on the US page. NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have time, be bold and add it. Thanx. --Richard (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholics view

Can I publish a Catholic's view of what his experience as a Catholic is like? Alan A. Zucker (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. See WP:NOT. --Richard (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You can try Wikinfo. Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Salvation Outside the Church

I'm not sure if this phrase in the introduction accurately reflects the teaching of the Church and the Catechism paragraph cited does not discuss this:

"it also acknowledges that the Holy Spirit can make use of other Christian communities to bring people to salvation.[27][28]"

Mluehrmann (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! I corrected the reference so it goes to the right paragraph in the Catechism. It originally said para 865 but it should have been 819. I also changed the link so it goes to the page for paragraph 819 here: [12]. I appreciate your help very much. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of dispute with this revert?

[13]. There are a few elements to this revert. Which of them are considered "confused with Evangelicals"? Also, it rather looks like most things were cited to Schreck and Kreeft. Is there some dispute about the content cited to ODWR? Gimmetrow 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question is answered here [14] NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to the Church's stance on homosexuality as one of the challenges facing the Catholic Church

[Moved here from my Talk Page] Can I ask why we went through that sequence on the RCC lead? Gimmetrow 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Which sequence? Are you talking about "homosexuality as a challenge to the church" or the dispute being mediated over the name of the Church? --Richard (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The former, of course. Gimmetrow 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When I first asked you to add the {{cn}} tag, I was shooting from the hip. My objection to your deletion of "homosexuality" was based on general principle and a personal belief that homosexuality was one of the top challenges facing the modern Church. However, after a bit of Googling, I came to the conclusion that when people talk about the challenges facing the Catholic Church, they do not generally list opposition to the Church's stance on homosexuality in the list of the top three. I was not able to find a single article out of six or seven that I looked at that mentioned homosexuality at all. The only article that I found that mentioned homosexuality as a significant challenge mentioned it in reference to the Catholic Church in the United States. The article in question was about the global church, not the U.S. church so I took homosexuality out of the list. Basically, I was reversing myself and deciding that you were right the first time. I guess I could have been more explanatory in my edit summary but there's only so many characters that you can put in there. --Richard (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality was added by someone else, not me or Xandar and it was added after the original cited sentence was already included and cited. I do not object to its deletion.

NancyHeise ^talk

Reversion of edits to "God the Father, original sin, baptism"

[[Moved here from my Talk Page...

Richard, I reverted your edits to God the Father, original sin, baptism section because they were doctrinally incorrect and either uncited or cited to a source that lacks nihil obstat imprimatur.

The Catholic Church does not teach literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. The serpent, tree of life, etc are said to be symbolic language used to transmit in story form, an event that occured at the dawn of human history.

From my catechetical source, which has the highest level of approval from the USCCB for use in teaching the faith, Barry's One Faith, One Lord, page 16

"The story of Adam and Eve taught very important truths of faith. It was the kind of dramatic story that was easy for the ancient Israelites to remember and understand. It was built on symbols that were very familiar to them. The Genesis authors wanted to show God's love for the first humand beings by placing them in a garden filled with running water, lush plants, and trees filled with fruit. To the Israelites, who had been living in or near a desert, the garden was a symbol of happiness and of God's grace. Grace is a sharing in the life and love of God. Having this gift of grace means that God's own life and love are ours, too. The garden is not the only symbol in the story of Adam and Eve. The Genesis authors used objects and actions as symbols as well:

• To the Israelites, the serpent was a symbol of evil. The Israelites worshiped only the one true God. Their pagan neighbors, however, often worshipped serpents.
• Hearing that Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree helped the Israelites to appreciate the power they had as human beings to choose between good and evil.
• Adam and Eve's being sent out of the garden reflected the consequences of turning away from God and the loss of God's grace. The story of the garden dramatizes how close the relationship is between God and humans. But it also tells us about the shattering of that relationship. Adam and Eve did not respond gratefully or lovingly to God. They gave into temptation because they thought their choice would bring them happiness. Adam and Eve turned away from God, selfishly choosing what they wanted rather than what God wanted for them. This story depicts the first sin. We call this sin original sin. Every person is born with original sin. Because of original sin, each one of us is inclined to sin, and each of us is subject to ignorance, suffering, and death. The effects of original sin challenge us throughout life. This simple story from Genesis offers much truth about our relationship with God and our need to be brought back into the life of grace."

Richard, if you want to improve the prose of that section, you are very welcome to do so but please use this source or another one that has nihil obstat, imprimatur. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)\

Very interesting... I had no idea what a hornet's nest I would stir up by what I thought was an innocent insertion of the serpent back into the story of the Fall. Responding to what you wrote will take me longer than I have time for at the moment so I will share with you what I have learned so far and continue this dialogue later.

I'm not actually all that concerned about whether or not we insert the serpent into the text of the article. However, your comments raise some important issues which should be discussed and so I will use this opportunity to do so.

I understand why you considered "devil who assumed the form of a serpent" to be driven by a literalist interpretation of the Bible. However, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. I would have been just as happy to insert "devil who was represented symbolically in the narrative by a serpent".

First and foremost, I remind you once again that works which have nihil obstat and Imprimatur do not inherently represent the sole teaching of the Church on every topic that they cover. Recall that "nihil obstat" means "nothing stands in the way" in Latin. This means that the bishops believe that there is nothing doctrinally wrong with the work to the point where it would constitute heresy and lead the faithful into doctrinal error. That does not mean that the teaching must be believed; simply that it can be believed without fear of being in doctrinal error. This is an important distinction which you seem unable or unwilling to accept because you continually write as if whatever you find in a book with nihil obstat and imprimatur must represent the one and only teaching of the Church. The Church is not quite as doctrinaire as you would make out. It provides leeway for differences of opinion, only coming down hard when someone steps "out of bounds" if you will.

Second, I am not personally a Bible literalist. What you wrote above is perfectly within my personal beliefs about the Bible. However, since you have thrown down the gauntlet, I feel obligated to pick it up in defense of literalism (sort of).

With that preface, I offer to you this commentary about Catholic teaching wrt literal interpretation of the Bible.

Is the Bible true or not?

Note that the above website is the Bellarmine Theological Forum,formerly Catholic Apologetics International. It appears to be a Catholic website. I point this out to show that while what is written here may not have nihil obstat and imprimatur, it is not necessarily completely suspect as a reliable source.

Second, you are being inconsistent with respect to literalism vs. symbolism. If there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to argue that there was a literal serpent. On the other hand, if there was no physical man named Adam and no physical garden called Eden, then it is reasonable to assert that here was no physical serpent either. If Adam and Eve are symbols, then so too is the serpent a symbol. It makes no sense to talk about a symbolic Adam and not mention the symbolic serpent.

It is true that the Catechism does not mention the serpent and talks about the devil directly, referring to the whole incident as figurative language describing " a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man". Fine, the Catechism asserts that the story is a symbolic narrative of a real event. The serpent is part of that symbolic narrative. If we wish to equate the serpent with the devil as the Catechism and others do, we should at least mention the serpent and then indicate that it is a symbol for the devil.

It may be Catholic teaching that the story of the Fall is figurative language for a event that did not literally happen the way it is written in Genesis. However, there is no indication that the Catechism intends us to write the serpent out of the narrative, simply that we should understand that it wasn't a literal talking serpent but the devil in the form of or symbolized by the serpent.

Third, and I don't have time to get into this right now, there are indications that the doctrine of not taking everything in the Bible literally is intended primarily to limit the use of the Bible to assert things which the authors of the Bible had no means of knowing about (e.g. that the universe was created in literally six calendar days or in one of the two specific orders mentioned in the Bible).

--Richard (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I personally don't know if the devil actually took the form of a serpent or if the story uses that as imagery. I think the Church's position is the same, they are not stating it was one or the other, they are saying it could have been either which is why the Church does not get into heated debates over literal interpretation or things like evolution arguments. The point they are trying to drive home is that people were in one state of union with God before the Fall and in another state afterward. The fact of the Fall and its precipitation by an encounter with man and an element of evil is the actual point they drive home and what I was trying to convey in that section without getting too bogged down in the peripherals. NancyHeise ^talk 02:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Need to explain better the foundation of the Pope's power as head of the church

We do not do a good job of explaining why the Pope has the power that he has and on what grounds he lays claim to that power. There are other articles that do that but I think we need to provide a quick summary of the issue and then point the reader to subsidiary articles for details. The second paragraph of the lead section of History of the Roman Catholic Church attempts to do that. I think we should copy that paragraph over here although not necessarily into the lead paragraph.

User:MyTuppenceWorth posted the following at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. Some of the quotes are relevant to this issue as well.

In the language of Christian antiquity, the name, " Church of Rome," may be taken in either of three acceptations. In the narrowest sense, it means no more than the Church of the Diocese of Rome …”, The Church Review [15]

The Catholic encyclopaedic dictionary

ROMAN CHURCH, THE HOLY. i. Strictly, the diocese of Rome, eg, in the expression Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, cardinals being the councillors of the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. ii By extension, synonymous with Latin rite and Western church (qq.v.), eg, as on the title-page of the "Graduale Romanum," "Gradual of the Most Holy Roman Church. . . .”.iii. By further extension, the whole Catholic Church as having its head at Rome. This sense is often used in a semi-hostile way by non-Catholics (cf., Roman Catholic). The Catholic encyclopaedic dictionary [16]

“… it is important not to lose sight of the facts that the election of a pope is the election of a bishop of the diocese of Rome, and that the election is still made by those who are either bishops of the Roman province, or, technically at least, dignitaries of the local Roman Church.”, Dublin Review [17]

“As bishop of the Diocese of Rome (the Roman Church), he is the visible head of the entire Church, with all her particular churches and rites.”, The Catholic Answer Book [18]

“To what Church do the foresaid marks and properties belong ? A. To the Roman Church; not simply as Roman, that is, as restricted within the limits of the territory of the diocese of Rome; but as she is the universal Church, which has for its head and supreme pastor the Roman Pontiff.”, A dogmatic catechism, from the Ital., ed. by the Oblate fathers of st. Charles [19]

“The Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church is the administrator of the property and the revenues of the Holy See, and as such is successor both of the Archdeacon of Rome and of the Vicedominus, the former of whom administered the property of the entire Roman Church, i.e. the Diocese of Rome”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, [20]

In the language of Christian antiquity, the name, " Church of Rome," may be taken in either of three acceptations. In the narrowest sense, it means no more than the Church of the Diocese of Rome …”, The Church Review [21]

Perhaps ‘principally’ is the wrong adverb. According to the sources above ‘Strictly’, ‘technically’, ‘simply’ and ‘narrowest sense’ the Church of Roman Church means the Diocese of Rome. MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

--Richard (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what this post is asking us to do. NancyHeise ^talk 02:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't clear enough. What I'm suggesting is that we copy the text from this edit and find a place for it in this article. We might also use some of the quotes provided by MyTuppenceWorth to elaborate on the text in the edit. --Richard (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we have a essay submitted on the Pope which you may use for wikipedia at: Bible Group Pickings. It's a very well written essay written by reviewer Ty Jackson. Alan A. Zucker (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks for the link. NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Failure of the lead to adequately treat criticism and opposition to the Catholic Church

So... one of my other interests at Wikipedia is the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is an editor (User:Vassilis78) over there who has been complaining about what he claims is the biased characterization of the religion in the article. And, if the truth is told, that article has more negative criticisms of the JWs than this one has of the Catholic Church. However, that is not the main thrust of the issue that I wish to raise.

Vassilis78 argues that articles on religions other than the Jehovah's Witnesses do not have criticisms of the religion in the lead. He points to this article as an example. Since this is an article that I am familiar with, I figured I'd raise the question for discussion here.

Is it reasonable to summarize the most prominent criticisms of a religion in the lead? I think so. I think Vassilis78 has a point but my response would not be to delete the negative information from the Jehovah's Witnesses article but to add more to the lead of this article.

Thoughts?

--Richard (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think this would be on a case-by-case basis. The JWs get as much criticism as they do in part because the church is nontrinitarian, and does not believe Jesus was God. In Chrsitianity, both of those beliefs are definitely non-standard, and tend to make the majority of the comments from trinitarian Christianity rather regular and rather uncharitable, in many cases. For what little it might be worth, I don't think Lutheranism, for example, gets anywhere near as much negative commentary, because Lutheranism is comparatively less specifically objectionable in the eyes of most non-Lutherans. What people would object to about Lutheranism are things they would also object to other, often larger, denominations first.

Having said all that, I think that it is true that the RCC gets a lot of criticism as well, particularly recently for the child sex abuse incidents, clerical celibacy, etc. I could see some mention of the more generally notable objections, like clerical celibacy, the relatively central power of the Papacy, objection to abortion, and some of the other bigger issues in the lead, but I probably wouldn't devote a lot of space to them in the lede, because they may not get as much attention as a lot of other aspects of the church do. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I like to look at other encyclopedias for guidance on this issue to see how they handle it. None of them deal with criticisms in the lead. The last sentence of our lead is wholly devoted to criticisms anyway. Considering the issues covered in the article topic, I think that is reasonable weight given to the subject which is also covered in an article entirely devoted to that topic. Criticism of the Catholic Church is listed as a main in the History section and in See Also. Each section of History deals with specific criticisms of the Church in the manner suggested by Jimbo Wales. I am not in favor of more space devoted to criticism in the lead as the lead is already a large one and already includes mention of major criticisms. NancyHeise ^talk 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do those other encyclopaedias have the same policy of the lead summarizing the article? Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the Encyclopedia Brittanica does because that is what their lead accomplishes. We are allowed to use tertiary sources as tools to help find scholarly agreement on subject matter. Our article made use of these kinds of sources to find this agreement in deciding what to include and what not to include because the subject is so massive. NancyHeise ^talk 02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

largest and oldest

Someone inserted "and oldest" into the lead where it talks about the Church being the largest Christian denomination. I removed this because we have to have a source that says this and because it is something that probably needs to be discussed before insertion. NancyHeise ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of reference another Wikipedia page states that: The History of the Catholic Church is traced by the Church back to apostolic times and thus covers a period of nearly 2,000 years, There is no denomination older than 1100 years. We can use this reference: August Franzen, Kleine Kirchengeschichte Neubearbeitung, Herder,Freiburg,1988, p.11. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from other more substantial issues with your addition of "and oldest", you must use English language sources in English language articles. Also, since the Roman Catholic Church asserts that it manifests the fullness of the historical continuation of "the church" as founded by Christ - an assertion already commented on in the article - the addition of "and oldest" is quite meaningless to Roman Catholics and contentiously POV to many others. The article is already highly overloaded with contentious POV claims and assertions. Afterwriting (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's no rule against foreign refs, though English ones are obviously preferred. Your other point is more important. The Orthodox churches would obviously dispute Rome's claim to be the oldest, so asserting it as fact in the article would obviously violate NPOV. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I double-checked and you are right about the use of non-English sources. They are not, however, advisable due to the difficulties in checking them. Your point about the Orthodox churches is important as they have generally viewed the Roman Catholic Church as schismatic and heretical - especially, at least, until more recent and ecumenical times. Their viewpoint cannot be ignored. Afterwriting (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an argument could be made that the Catholic Church doesn't claim to be the only oldest Christian church. Many Catholic sources will confirm that the Orthodox faith also has "apostolic succession" and will maintain that the two churches were officially one until 1054. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BaronGrackle, this is the Catholic Church viewpoint which sees the Eastern Orthodox as part of the whole church. Pope John Paul II called them the other lung. They are considered an apostolic church by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is viewed as an apostolic church by the Eastern Orthodox. They respect that the primacy given to the pope was one of honor. NancyHeise ^talk 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So... "one of the oldest..." or perhaps "one of the original..." with a Note explaining the existence of other churches claiming descent from an apostolic church? Obviously, the Eastern Orthodox make this claim. Saint Thomas Christians also make this claim although there is an assertion that secular historians believe that the Thomas who brought them Christianity was a different Thomas.

Richard, you forgot to sign your post above this one. Yes I agree, maybe we can say "one of the oldest" with a note attached. I am OK with that and I think it would make the article more accurate and informative. NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't entirely correct to claim that the Orthodox view the Roman Catholic Church as a valid apostolic church - or even as a "church" at all in the most strict sense. Many Orthodox don't even recognise RC baptisms. The position of the Orthodox on Roman Catholicism and other churches is complex and not at all consistent so it is important to not generalise too much about their attitudes to such issues. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm not a regular contributor here, nor very knowledgeable on church history, but I'd like to offer the following suggestion for a compromise position: it seems to me that to even speak of the Roman Catholic church pror to the great schism (c.1054?) is a bit anachronistic. Not even Rome herself would, I think (and I am open to correction on this by those who know better), have claimed to be an independent entity prior to the schism. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the See of Rome is ancient. So would it not be a suitable compromise to avoid making a contentious remark about the ancient standing of the Roman Catholic church, and instead refer to the antiquity of the Roman See? Obviously this still leaves some issue about just how ancient is the Roman See and whether she makes a justified claim to unbroken apostolic succession. But that aside, does the idea of speaking of the See, rather than the Church, of Rome, not perhaps satisfy at least one of the major concerns? -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved section on RCC and POV

The following section has been cut and pasted from my talk page, it belongs here: Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC and POV

I think the main problem with the RCC page is that inevitably the editors who contribute to it are practising Catholics who not only are (understandably) unable to write from a NPOV as required by Wikipedia but see it as their role to defend, excuse and deflect criticsm from the RCC. To go through my rv edits:

1. I think it is OK to say the RCC believes itself to be the continuation of the church founded by Jesus. To say that view is shared by 'many' rather than 'some' historians' is not OK for two reasons. Firstly, how do you quantify 'many': ten out of twenty, fifty out of a hundred? Secondly, there is no consensus amongst historians that Jesus existed as a human being (as opposed to Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln). A historian who asserts that he did is speaking from religious conviction not contemporary evidence.

2. The section on the twentieth century is particularly unbalanced (although the ones on the Middle Ages and European conquest of South America also go out of their way to put the Church in a favourable light). I have no problem with describing the actions of left-wing movements and the regimes in Eastern Europe against the RCC but that should be balanced by a description of the role the Church played in supporting military/fascist regimes in Spain, South America etc.

The use of and captioning of the photograph of the concentration camp being liberated is particularly unbalanced. Why a organisation that lost some two thousand members - as opposed to six million Jews - should seek to present itself as a major victim of the Nazis is beyond me. It is also complicated by the role of the Catholic Centre Party in assisting the Nazis' rise to power in 1933.

3. The sex abuse scandal section is riddled with POV statements that try to put the best case for the Church. The idea that people in the past regarded psychiatric counselling as an suitable alternative to informing the police in cases of child sex abuse is a myth only held by the RCC. Then there is the blurring of homosexuality with paedophilia. Finally, the (from what I can see rather whacky, right-wing commentator) on whose slim shoulders is rested the defence that other institutions are also guilty of turning a blind eye to abuse. I've always found that an odd response to the revelation that the RCC had been engaged in decades-long, systematic abuse of thousands of children: 'Other people did it as well as us'.

4. WYD: 'popular' is subjective, unreferenced and clearly POV.

Ask yourself a simple question: would sometime reading the article as it now stands think it was an objective, encyclopaedic article or one written by adherents of the organisation being described? I think if you're honest, you have to admit it's the latter.Haldraper (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, I'll answer your comments one by one:

• The main contributors to the RCC page are not all Catholics. This was identified in one of our FAC attempts where it turned out that a fair number of contributors are Anglican or of no religious affiliation. There were only three or four known Catholics contributing out of a total of about 20, most of whom identifies as non-Catholic so claims of POV are difficult for many editors to digest here.
• There are virtually no scholarly sources that say Jesus is not a person who actually existed. This is a WP:fringe view wholly unsupported by WP:reliable sources. Use of the word "many" is necessary because the sources used to support the word suggest that "many" historians means including all those throughout history who have held the position that Jesus founded the Church. This comes from our very mainstream Nat. Geographic source as well as the very respected mainstream Haase source, both of which are the products of "many" scholars.
• The Church did not support regimes - individual Catholics supported regimes. The scholarly sources do not speak of any official documents promulgated by the Church in support of regimes. We did include the mention of the one very forceful document condemning Nazism, Mit Brennender Sorge because it constituted the beginning of a wave of persecutions against the Church by the Nazis and because it was so well covered by various Catholic and non-Catholic scholarly sources.
• The picture of the concentration camp was approved at the last peer review as a representative example of the fact that the Church suffered too. It is not POV to include it, it is POV to not include it. The Catholic Centre Party is not part of the Roman Catholic Church organization.
• Sex scandal paragraph was discussed and agreed over several months by many editors. Omission of any sentence deletes relevent referenced and important facts concerning the issue. We may not like information in an article but sometimes it has to be there to tell the whole story from both sides. Here in the US, we have almost weekly cases of sexual abuse of children by public school teachers while we don't see any priest sex abuse cases anymore. The US Dept. of Education issued a report showing that the problem is "10 times worse" in US Pubic Schools than what existed in the Catholic schools. [22] [23] [24] This information is not in our little paragraph even though we have three very prominent references that discuss it. I see any foundation to the charges of POV here. If we wanted to make a POV article, we would certainly have given that information prominence but we didn't.
• WYD is popular, referenced and relevent to Catholicism today. It is an event that takes place every few years and attracts as many people as an Olympic event. It is something that cities have to plan for years in advance to prepare for - not sure how this does not equate to "popular" in your view. NancyHeise ^talk 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree for the most part with Nancy, although acknowledge there is always room for editorial discretion. For example, calling WYD popular is certainly factually accurate and presumably easily sourceable, but one may reasonably point out that "popular" has connotations which may not be ideal to have in an encyclopedic article, and suggest alternatives such as "well attended", or others.

I would encourage the original poster to read the archived discussions about the above topics and recognize that they have not been the first good faith editor to discover that the some public perceptions of this institution and the perception by the totality of reliable sources are often quite discordant. I am sure they will not be the last either. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Baccyak, yes, many people have been surprised to find that scholars actually say what they say about the Church. I have often wondered where all the anti-Catholic POV comes from - certainly not from scholars! : ) Also, I noticed that someone eliminated "popular" from the WYD mention and I have not readded it. I don't care if it is in there, World Youth Day is wikilinked and the fact is made clear on that article's lead section. Its fine with me. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Three quick points:

1. of course there are no scholarly references that disprove the existence of Jesus. How do you disprove the existence of something? Jesus, God, leprechauns? They are all theoretical possibilities but to assert their existence requires evidence.

2. the RCC never supported right-wing dictatorships just individual Catholics? How about the Concordat_of_1953?

3. I think it is offensive and unsupported to claim that it was accepted practice in the past not to report child sex offenders to the police but refer them for counselling instead and that homosexual men are more likely to engage in such activity.

On the prevalence of abuse in US schools, it seems to me beside the point and smacking of moral equivalence.Haldraper (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hal's point #1. While I would like to see an objective discussion of how many historians believe Jesus actually existed, Hal's point is overreaching. You don't need "scholarly references that disprove the existence of Jesus". What you need is to show that there are non-fringe scholarly assertions that Jesus did not exist. Nancy seems to dismiss Christ myth theory as fringe. Hal's task is to to show that it is a viable scholarly position rather than simply a fringe theory.

I agree with Hal's point #2. Like the United States, the Catholic Church has been perceived as supportive of repressive, reactionary regimes starting with the French monarchy and continuing on through Spain, Mexico and Latin America. This perceived support is a contributing factor to anti-clerical violence (cf. Anti-clericalism) in the aforementioned countries. Moreover, while apologists can make arguments about the Reichskonkordat, there is also the argument made in John Cornwell's book, Hitler's Pope' that, while he was a Papal Nuncio, Pius XII deliberately negotiated the Concordat in such a way that Papal authority would be maximized at the expense of the German Catholic Church even if it meant disempowering the German Catholic Church in the face of Nazi oppression.

As for Hal's point #3, the question to ask is: What is meant by "accepted practice"? It appears that it was "standard operating procedure" for bishops in the United States. Was that "accepted practice" morally right and legally defensible? I think the verdict of the 21st century is that it isn't. Does the possibility of fixing a psychological problem via counseling warrant continuing to take risks with the lives of innocent children? Probably not. The article doesn't say that the hope of a cure via counseling did warrant taking those risks. The article says that "some bishops and psychiatrists contended..." If that's what they said, that is what they said. If you can offer sources that refute their contention, we can present those sources as well. You have to remember that the 60s and 70s were a time when people thought homosexuality could be cured by psychiatric treatment. It was not until 1973 that homosexuality was removed from the APA's official list of mental disorders (see Homosexuality and psychology). Now, before you get started, I am not equating child abuse with homosexuality. What I am saying is that before 1973 psychiatrists thought they could cure homosexuality and so it is also possible that they thought they could cure pedophilia as well. Heck, some people still think it is possible to "cure" homosexuality. Now, with respect to pedophilia, our approach seems to be "throw 'em in jail, put them in a sexual offenders registry, chemically castrate them and hound them so that they cannot find a place to work or live". Is this approach more humane than attempting to help them overcome their problem? No. Is it more effective? Possibly. But now we're in the realm of opinion and judgment, not the realm of fact.

Regarding Hal's unnumbered fourth point, so... what exactly do you mean by "moral equivalence"? Aren't the underlying crimes "morally equivalent" regardless of whether they are committed by a priest or by a teacher? I think what you're really trying to say is that "putting the crimes in numerical perspective" doesn't excuse the crime or diminish it in any way. The opposite argument is that media attention on sexual abuse by Catholic priests is out of proportion and thus possibly motivated by an anti-Catholic animus. Personally, I think we should be honest about what people are alleging and get it out in the open. If some people want to play "injured victim" (poor little Catholic me, picked upon by the nasty anti-Catholic media), then we should report that and let the reader decide whether or not they have sympathy for the Catholics. I think there are many Catholics who are the innocent bystanders to a train wreck caused by a few thousand priests and a handful of bishops. Parish churches and parochial schools have been closed to pay the settlements to the victims. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether the media coverage was overblown or not. The Catholic Church finally realized it had a problem and and is taking steps to address it. That's what counts. Time will tell how effective those steps will be.

--Rudy Waltz (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with NancyHeise. Any thorough review of the edit history of the article, and this talk page, makes it clear that the article is hardly written by a group of catholic apologists alone. Some of the more heated debates and edit wars do indeed appear to begin with an editor with a specific POV, although it is just as likely, if not more likely to be someone with an anti-catholic perspective. But the article is so widely monitored that these issues tend to smooth out through consensus to an acceptable NPOV result. Given the nature of the topic, it is inevitable that POV vigilance will be required. The tag is not necessary, and any specific critiques should be dealt with point-by-point in this talk section. Sweeping POV claims with general criticisms and complaints make for good soap-boxing, but are not constructive. --anietor (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of concordats - a lot of people misunderstand what a concordat is. It is an agreement with a neutral or potentially hostile government, to protect the rights of the Church, to its property, freedom of worship etc. It is not a political alliance or form of backing for the government concerned. Xandar 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

John Cornwell's point is that Pacelli (later Pius XII) deliberately negotiated the Reichskonkordat to favor Papal authority rather than the authority of the local bishops, thereby disempowering the German Catholic Church. It is a matter of debate whether Pacelli could have defended the rights of the local bishops and achieved a different concordat with Hitler which favored the German Catholic Church. It's unlikely that Hitler would have respected the rights of the German Catholic Church no matter what the concordat said. Cornwell's point was that Pacelli's philosophy was inclined to ride roughshod over the rights of the local church. Apologists would argue that Pacelli did the best he could in a difficult situation. --Rudy Waltz (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On the history of Spain, there is a complicated background beyond that of the modern legend, including the fact that the Church had been forced into the arms of the Nationalists by the massacres of Catholics by the "Republican" side. See Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War. Xandar 12:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps not the place to go into a deep discussion of Spanish history but I would like to understand more of what Xandar's position is on this topic. It seems to me that the issue is that anti-clericalism was expressed in most of Europe via the Reformation and other subsequent developments such as the French Revolution. The Catholic Church held sway in the Spanish Empire for much longer and the anti-clericalism that swept Europe in earlier centuries did not hit the Spanish Empire until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Franco's regime provided the Church with an exceptional opportunity to enjoy rights that it did not enjoy elsewhere. However, the Church eventually withdrew its support of Franco. I think the argument still holds that the Church has tended to be on the side of the establishment (monarchy in France, landed gentry in Latin America, Franco in Spain, slaveholders in the U.S., etc.) rather than on the side of the "proletariat". (NB: The Russian Orthodox Church was perceived to have the same tainted association with the Russian monarchy and landed aristocracy and thus became the target of the Bolsheviks.) As a result, there is a left-wing anti-clericalism that has often expressed itself in violence. These points should be made, not in a POV attack but in an NPOV dispassionate explanation of history. --Rudy Waltz (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of unbalanced POV in the article and much of it reads like the worst kind of populist and unscholarly tract of 50 years ago. Unfortunately attempts to make it more NPOV are too often rejected by editors who seem to think it's their personal prerogative and responsibility to keep it at the apologist level instead of a more appropriate encyclopedia level. The main way this seems to happen is by invoking the authority of the references, many of which come from some very unscholarly and biased sources. This article deserves a much better standard but there seems to be little hope of this happening, unfortunately, given the way that Wikipedia operates. At least it's not as bad as many other Roman Catholicism articles which seem to be edited by Opus Dei types. Afterwriting (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated scattergun claims of POV such as that made by Afterwriting are not really helpful here. Simply because the article does not chime in with certain individuals' personal prejudices does not mean that it is biased. People who have made such claims before have been challenged to back up specific points with specific reliable references, and have failed to do so. This article is comparable in content with articles on the same subject in established paper encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book. As far as the theory of Rudy Waltz that anti-clerical violence originates in Church co-operation with establishment power, that is a strand of opinion, but not necessarily a universally accepted fact. Xandar 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• RE: Spanish Civil War Our article addresses the anti-clericalism of the Spanish Civil War referenced to Owen Chadwick - a non-Catholic historian expert on the subject. The article states in a neutral manner the point made by Chadwick that large numbers of priests and nuns were killed by republicans and anarchists because they were symbols of conservatism. Perhaps someone could say this is a POV point of view if the historian saying it were a Catholic apologist but it is not. This statement comes from a non-Catholic very respected expert on the subject, a scholar, a source meeting the highest standards of WP:reliable source examples.
• RE: WWII Concordat I have considered putting this in the article but in doing so it would have to also make the point that my scholarly sources make in that the Pope worked very hard to prevent WWII before it began. They discuss his efforts to arrange meetings between the heads of state and each one's acceptance or refusal. The concordat is described as an effort on the part of the Church to exhaust diplomatic efforts before turning to all out war. These sources include both Catholic and non-Catholic. The reason why we did not include them is because I felt it was too much on WWII and did not maintain focus on the Church organization. Mit Brennender Sorge is mentioned because that document precipitated subsequent severe persecution of the Church and murder of thousands of priests. It is a "notable" event with concrete consequences. NancyHeise ^talk 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I would like to bring up possible inclusion of a sentence on the concordat and efforts Pius too toward averting WWII in the next peer review coming up in September. NancyHeise ^talk 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's comments regarding my alleged "unsubstantiated scattergun claims of POV" must certainly be correct as he regularly reminds us of his considerable expertise regarding unsubstantiated POV pushing. Afterwriting (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

HalDraper wrote: "there is no consensus amongst historians that Jesus existed as a human being (as opposed to Napoleon or Abraham Lincoln). A historian who asserts that he did is speaking from religious conviction not contemporary evidence."

The following text is from our article on the Historicity of Jesus:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to various religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.

The four canonical Gospels (most commonly estimated to have been written between 65 and 110 A.D) and the writings of Paul of the New Testament are among the earliest known documents relating to Jesus' life. Some scholars also hypothesize the existence of earlier texts such as the Signs Gospel and the Q document. There are arguments that parts of the Gospel of Thomas are likewise early texts.

Scholarly opinions on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse. At the extremes, they range from the view that they are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus, to the view that they provide no historical information about his life. The sources extant contain little evidence of Jesus' life before the account of Jesus' Baptism, and it has been suggested by many that the events recorded in the gospels cover a period of less than three years. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, differentiating authentic, reliable information from inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.

So... unless Hal wishes to argue against the text above, I think we can conclude that most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus existed. I think we can also reasonably assert that "the historical record confirms that the See of Rome in particular was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning" although it's not 100% clear what relevance this fact has at this particular point in the article.

What I think is shaky is the assertion that "Many scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". First of all, the statement as written contains a bit of an anachronism. There was no point at which Jesus said "I am creating or founding an institution which will be called the Catholic Church". This sentence is shorthand for "the Catholic Church claims to be the continuation of the church founded by Jesus at the event known as the Confession of Peter". Now, there are many challenges to this statement from a number of parties. Not everyone agrees that Jesus meant to confer a primacy to the See of Rome. This view is shared primarily by Catholics and Orthodox and the Orthodox interpret the Primacy of Simon Peter differently than the Catholics do. There are those who question whether Peter was ever in Rome and whether he was ever Bishop of Rome. There are those who question whether there is a legitimate apostolic succession of bishops and particularly whether there is an unbroken line of succession from Peter as the first Bishop of Rome. So... in the context of all these challenges, it's hard to know exactly what is meant by "many scholars agree that...". I think the sentence could be fixed by inserting "Catholic" so as to yield "many Catholic scholars agree that..." but otherwise "many scholars" is too vague and suggests more than can reasonably be claimed.

--Richard (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The point about Jesus as opposed to Lincoln or Napoleon is that there are no contemporary sources pointing to his existence. The fact that most scholars in biblical studies and church history accept his existence can be put down to two things: either they just assume he existed because that's the commonly accepted view (without applying the normal historical method they would apply in other cases) or they are Christians for whom it is a religious conviction that Jesus existed. For these people, it is a case of starting with a predetermined answer (Jesus existed) and then finding or manipulating evidence to support that view. It is the opposite of genuine historical research where you gather evidence and then draw conclusions from it.Haldraper (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I've added the POV tag for three reasons: the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus but also, and mainly, the unbalanced and apologist tone of the sections on child sex abuse and the RCC and right-wing regimes in the twentieth century.Haldraper (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be making some broad assumptions about the approaches of most of these scholars which I don't think is justified. The historicity of Jesus doesn't appear to be an issue in this article since this an article about the Catholic Church and its beliefs, not about the man himself. The article neither validates or invalidates the beliefs and the church's positions; it just states the facts as represented in the sources that were used for the article; stating that these are the beliefs/positions held by the church.

As for the sex abuse scandal, it does appear to focus mainly on corrective the actions and people playing down the scandal, do you have any ideas about what could be done to balance that section? Keeping in mind there is an entire article about this topic which is linked to in the text. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kraftlos, on the first point it would be helpful if you expanded on the basis as you see it that these scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus, i.e. is it contemporary, eyewitness evidence or is it later, second hand hearsay evidence? The historicity of Jesus is relevant because the article not only states (correctly) that the RCC believes itself to have been founded by him but goes on to claim scholarly support for this view.

On the child sex abuse scandal, I think it would be adequate to state the extent of the problem and steps the Church has taken without seeking to compare it favourably to US schools or quoting fringe commentators.Haldraper (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I've modified my comment above to provide the sources used by Historicity of Jesus to back up the assertions made there. verifiability puts the onus on you to challenge the reliability of the sources. You have two basic approaches: (1) you can examine each source and challenge their credibility as a reliable source or (2) you can present a source which challenges the assertion directly. In essence, the way that we put an end to this kind of discussion is by going to the sources. You have made a reasoned argument that suggests that the sources used may be biased because they are religious scholars. You need to first prove that the sources cited are all religious scholars and second provide a source that asserts that all religious scholars suffer from the bias that you assert they do. Otherwise, all this discussion is original research and the sort of thing that goes round and round for pages and pages without any conclusion. --Richard (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I urge you to read the excerpted passage from Historicity of Jesus carefully and then read the full article focusing on the sections titled "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as myth". Then read Christ myth theory. You make valid points, most of which are probably represented in some way in some articles in Wikipedia. The trick here is to determine which is the mainstream opinion and which is the minority opinion (of course, there may not be a single mainstream opinion but rather a number of competing opinions). Feel free to continue your arguments but please back them up with citations to reliable sources rather than relying on your own assumptions and reasoning. --Richard (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I remember, Michael Grant, arguably one of the best informed and most realied upon writers on the Roman Empire/early Christian era of recent years, accepted the assertion that Jesus was a historical person. I acknowledge that there have been heated discussions regarding the subject in earlier eras, but as far as I remember the overwhelming consensus of current historians doesn't question the existence of Jesus. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's important to recognize that the consensus of historians only agrees on a limited number of facts about Jesus (basically, he existed, he taught, was regarded as a healer and was probably crucified). Historians do not accept every word of the Gospels as gospel truth. The evidence for the existence of Socrates is equally scant (or maybe even more so). We know darn little about Socrates except through Plato. It is inappropriate to compare what we know about Jesus to what we know about Napoleon or Lincoln.

Richard/John, afaik there are no contemporary historical sources that refer to Jesus. Most historians just assume he existed because that is the Christian tradition that has held sway in Western Europe since the early fifth century. If you know of any primary evidence for his existence, I would be interested to see it. I am not dogmatically against accepting his historical existence, as long as someone can produce some primary rather than second hand evidence.Haldraper (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, first of all, please stop making edits to the article until you have formed a consensus to do so here on this Talk Page. The next edit/revert cycle will result in the page being protected and/or editors being blocked.

Second, I am not interested in arguing with you on the basis of your logic OR on the basis of my logic either. Doing that is what Wikipedia calls original research. I'm not interested one whit in what "historical evidence" you will or will not accept. Nobody cares what you think. And nobody cares what I think either. What Wikipedia relies on is what the reliable sources think. You might not agree with the "consensus of historians" think. If not, that's your problem, not ours. Your call for "primary evidence" suggests a process which is vulnerable to original research. The goal is not to establish the truth but rather to report on what is accepted as scholarly discourse on the topic. There may be more than one perspective to the truth. We should present all perspectives in an NPOV fashion without giving undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.

Now, please consider what is written at this website. It provides a good summary of what a number of well-respected historians think. Here's another good summary from PBS Frontline The Historian's Task What are the challenges in reconstructing Jesus' world?. Here's another bit from PBS Frontline What can we really know about Jesus?

Here is a list of extra-Biblical sources that mention Jesus (admittedly, some of these quotes are open to debate)

Now, can you quote a primary source contemporary with Jesus or the early Christians that asserts that Jesus didn't exist?

I know it's unlikely to expect that such a source exists but the entire point is that we have more mentions of Jesus than assertions that he didn't exist. I'm not talking about proof that he didn't exist. I'm talking about someone who says "Christians are a bother because they worship someone who never existed!" I would wager that non-Christians were more interested in arguing that Jesus had been executed and was dead, gone and buried than in asserting that he never existed.

I offer this next source simply because it seems relevant although I'm not sure if I agree with it. [Jesus and history, the believer and the historian http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1978].

Finally, I want to point out that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. We've put forth the sources according to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. It's your turn to make your case with reliable sources. If we say that "most historians accept that Jesus existed", all you need to do is present sources that assert that "most historians deny that Jesus existed". Otherwise, this would be a more suitable forum for you to make your arguments. Saying "What you wrote is bullshit" without providing sources to back up the assertion seems to be an acceptable form of rebuttal there.

--Richard (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Richard is saying, this doesn't appear to be a productive discussion. If you want to challenge something, you will need to address existing sources or introduce other reliable sources that state your viewpoint. And again I say that you are making broad assumptions about the scholars represented in the sources of this article that you did not justify. It's not my job to disprove an accusation that is not followed with proper argumentation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As several people have mentioned, the text in the article has been the subject of a lengthy process of referencing, debate and agreement. Removing or altering large swathes of it by an individual editor is therefore NOT the way to proceed. Nor is it right to add POV or other tags to the article because you disagree with some of the content. In both cases the proper thing to do is come to the talk page and discuss your concerns and your hard evidence to back those concerns so that it can be discussed with the existing editors. A page at this stage of development requires significant changes to be made by consensus. Xandar 11:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it overkill or not?

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is wikilinked three times in the article.

• It is in the Roman Catholic Church template at the top of the page
• It is listed at the top of the "History" section as a "further information" link
• It is in See Also

I am not sure that this represents Wikipedia policy. Does anyone have any thoughts on proper presentation here? I can think of some problems that might arise giving this article so many links as charges of excessive weight may be leveled at us. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, mea culpa. I put the link back into the "See also" section not realizing that it was already mentioned as a {{see}} link in the History section. I don't think three links is excessive but it could be cut down to two if you think it necessary. My preference would be to take it out of the {{seealso}} in the History section as the Criticism is not just historical in nature. --Richard (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking it out of the see also section as suggested by Richard is a good idea. --anietor (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment was written incorrectly and thus wound up being confusing. My apologies. The Criticism article is mentioned at the top of the "History" section using the {{see}] template and also in the "See also" section. My recommendation was to take it out of the "History" section. Your comment suggested something different from what I proposed while attributing your approach to me. Please clarify whether you meant to agree with me or offer a different opinion. Thanx and sorry for the confusion. --Richard (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your comment had too many "see"s in it! I think I did, indeed, misunderstand your suggestion. Sorry about that. Actually, I would suggest removing the criticism link from the RCC template box (where it's listed under "background") and removing it from the "History" section (which I believe was your recommendation). --anietor (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with that recommendation too. I am wondering though if it is OK for large articles like RCC to have more than one wikilink to certain articles. Criticism of the Catholic Church encompasses history and beliefs. I think that it might be good to keep it as a See Also and in the template - one at the top and one at the bottom of the page. Also, this page has some linked articles at the very bottom, it is a template of some sort that I think overlaps with the template at the top of the page. One editor complained to me once that the page took too long to upload on his dial-up before we trimmed it significantly. I am wondering if maybe one of these templates could be eliminated. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 01:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at the two templates, the one at the bottom of the page is more comprehensive and I would like to keep that one and eliminate the one at the top of the page. Can we keep the picture of St. Peter's Basilica and toss the template? Consensus? NancyHeise ^talk 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I think the top template is more important. All the major religious articles have a navigation template like this, which is prominent and gives quick links to related articles. If you really must remove a tremplate, the bottom one is the least accessible and least useful, since 95% of users probably never even see it. Actually the templates load separately from the page anyway, so I don't see a great problem. Xandar 14:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I for one would be strongly hesitant to change a template merely for editorial reasons on one particular article. I concur with X that the top template is very standard and important. I do not object to the bottom one either, although admit I tend to use these templates frequently. I recognize the original concern, and think that removing the inline link from the History section would be the right thing to do. That said, the article is quite large so the sky will not fall if it is kept. But in a perfect world, I would remove that one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bad idea to change a template to suit the needs of one article. That said, calling "Criticism" part of "Background" is not great. Perhaps that template needs a redesign. --Richard (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is running towards keeping the navigation template at the top of the page and keeping "Criticism" in the "See also" section. There is not a strong insistence on removing "Criticism" from the "History" section but, if one of the three instances must be removed, that is the one that people support removing. I personally don't like the templates at the bottom as they are often not as useful so the one at the bottom could be removed or kept (no strong consensus in either direction). --Richard (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is really the central hub for all Catholicism articles. I am OK with keeping both templates if it helps people navigate and find other articles. I don't have a strong opinion on removing any links including Criticism. We are trying to help Reader find things not make it more difficult for him or her. Maybe we can address this at the next peer review we are planning for this article in September. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More POV

I've rv to remove POV material. I'll go through it in detail but it falls into two sections: child sex abuse and science:

1. "Some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions, such as the US public school system, with much greater frequency"

The problem with this is it's just not relevant, its only function is to seek to deflect criticsm of the RCC. It is not a question of "the same problems" so is not comparing like with like. Much of the 'abuse' referred to in schools is often minor (inappropriate touching) or consists of consensual relationships between young men and women (or women and men) which in other circumstances would be entirely legal. The same cannot be said of the abuse carried out by Catholic priests which fits neither category.

2."In contrast with periods of perceived religious and scientific intolerance in the past, today's Church seeks dialogue like this with other faiths and Christian denominations."

This is clearly an opinion that is open to debate and therefore POV. It is not an objective fact suitable for a encyclopaedic article. It would be challenged by many within other faith groups, e.g. Muslims, Jews, and many in the scientific community, e.g. those engaged in anti-AIDS work, stem cell research etc.

"It also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body whose international membership includes Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as Charles Hard Townes among many others, and which provides the pope with valuable insights into scientific matters."

It is vague, unreferenced and POV to say it provides "valuable insights". What are they, what have been their effect on the RCC's teaching's? 'Valuable' is a POV word: describe what scientific advice they have provided to the Pope and its consequences and let readers draw their own conclusions.

Haldraper (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper: Please STOP making unagreed POV edits to the main page. You have been told that this is not the way to do things, and that you must discuss and agree significant changes here first - yet you persist. I see from your talk page that you are a new editor, and have been warned many times already for this sort of behaviour on other articles. PLEASE CEASE. Xandar 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with WP:BRD per Xandar, and offer some specific comments to Haldraper's issues:

1) I think I recognize the concern you express here, but I point out you could have expressed it better. For one, that content has significant function beyond what you claim: it serves to clarify how WP:WEIGHT would have us incorporate the previous content. If there is a significant quantity of reliably sourced material about the abuse, but its coverage is incongruous with its content, then the issue is the coverage may be more "newsy" and less encyclopedic. This tends to happen on topics which pique the public's interest; you do not see that type of issue with e.g., symmetric groups. I don't understand your like-vs-like argument, as it is merely a circular one.

The major issue with Dougherty's comment as included is that the section's writing reflects a he-said-she-said editing style which reads like crap, frankly. That is an artifact of the wiki model of editing, whereas often different editors try to get in their particular POVs in, and rather than writing a well synthesized and constructed section, append on something that reads like a retort.

The solution isn't to omit one "side" or the other, which would run into POV problems, but to rewrite the whole thing. It isn't easy, I know, but that would make for a better article.

2) The second part of that sentence should be sourced, or at least the material supporting it should be. Although frankly, that should be very easy to do. The first part is a weasel construction and designed to set up a strawman, one which would be well done to fix: In actuality the Church has historically been one of the most supportive institutions of science known. So yeah, this could be considerably improved.

3) "valuable" almost certainly can be sourced (I am thinking of a Discover Magazine article about a year ago for one) but I would agree it would be better dropped. The Academy should be mentioned in this article, but that amount of qualification here seems excessive. Since it had its own link, that would be the place for all of that stuff. The simple "It also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences." should be adequate. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Xandar and Baccyak - I also want to add that the paragraph on sexual abuse was one of the most discussed - large consensus agreed to present form. The paragraph is a compromise between one that was more pro-Catholic POV and another that was less so. JBMurray wrote the present paragraph and we like it as a compromise between the two former suggestions. The commentator who makes the suggestion that media coverage was excessive also makes the comparison that sex abuse in US public school system is "10 times worse than in the Catholic Church". He says this because Charol Shakeshaft, the woman who conducted the study for the US Dept of Education [25] says this very thing in her analysis - she said "You think the Catholic Church has a problem?" and then she introduces her report that shows it is ten times worse in the public schools.[26] This entire analysis is not in our little paragraph, we only have some commentator's comments that obscure this very big comparison that puts the abuse for Catholic Church in perspective. The Church runs the worlds largest non-governmental school system - it appears that pedophiles are attracted to places where children can be found in abundance - in places both Catholic and not. The commentator's point is just this. My personal question is why were there zillions of news articles about the Catholic Church abuse and less than 5 (USA Today, Associated Press, Newsmax - not sure of more) on the more common and greater problem ("10 times worse") of sexual abuse in the US Public Schools Sytem? NancyHeise ^talk 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As for the Catholicism Today section, I have added to the sentence that Haldraper objects to, the one that says "perceived". It now says "real or perceived". Any objections? I think that is an accurate statement because sometimes it has been real and others just perceived - like now! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While by saying "real or perceived", you have indeed made the statement demonstrably true, it is emptily so, a tautology. I do not think the whole "In contrast" construction is a good one at all, for the reasons I said just above. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• As for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences - "valuable" is already cited to that Discover Magazine article - this is it [27] if anyone wants to read what scientists really think of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Tht's the source, yes. I did not check for "valuable" though because I still am of the opinion that the commentary on the Academy should be consolidated significantly, per my comments above. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• These ideas sound like they'd make a better article. I also echo Baccyak's point that WP:BRD is really the best way to work with content on Wikipedia, there's no reason for an editor to preemptively restrain themselves from editing as long as they follow up on the talkpage if someone objects. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the link to the article by US Catholic bishop objecting to the the ban on ordaining gay priests as blurring the distinction between homosexuality and paedophilia be restored? Haldraper (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be very uncomfortable with this as it was portrayed before reversion. The content seems to qualify a statement which from itself implies the distinction is clarified, not blurred. That is either extraordinary journalistic sloppiness, undue polemics by the ones quoted in the source, or just simple wrong context to use this particular content. I haven't checked which one as it clearly does not improve the article by having the content where it was. That does mean however that it may be possible to use the material in some other way, although again (cf Academy) the level of detail seems excessive for this article of a worldwide organization that is many centuries old. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

When you say 'clarified' what do you mean? The sentence as it stands assumes a link between homosexuality and paedophilia that most in the field (not to mention gay men) would deny.Haldraper (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous sentence '[... and,] because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies"' (emph mine). If you look up paedophilia, you will see it is not about teenage boys, at least formally. The formal meaning here is clearly implied by talking about a "link" between two sets of psychological preferences. Like I said, either someone there didn't do their journalistic homework, someone they quoted is spouting garbage (likely because paedophilia is a far more recognizable and loaded word), or rather that content just doesn't belong there at all. Actually, the last is pretty obvious in any case; perhaps in context the source and its content aren't as problematic, but that context is not here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Catholic casuistry, you're not a Jesuit are you :-)?Haldraper (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the article text states "The US Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[409][410] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[153][408] The sentence is stating a fact not an opinion. The Church took certain steps to prevent future abuse, one of those was to prohibit ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies", their own reason for doing this was based on the fact being that the vast majority of victims were teenage boys. That's the Church's actual reason, we have to state what steps the Church took to prevent future abuse and this is one of those. This is not a slam to homosexuals, this does not say that the Church thinks all homosexuals are paedophils. Where does the article say that? NancyHeise ^talk 02:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No he's probably not a Jesuit, but I wish I was. Gabr-el 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see without reading every word, neither of the sources cited actually says wht the article cites them for, that child abuse was the, or even a, reason for the ban on homosexual priests. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do support the text but to make it easier for others who may not want to read the long versions, I just added a short article that says the same thing. I hope that helps. See new reference here: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409] . NancyHeise ^talk 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All that source says is that was the reason for more effective enforcement of existing poicy: not what the article says. Peter jackson (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you and I'll explain why with links and quotes from the actual sources. The Worldnetdaily source states [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409] "The policy statement is a direct result of the pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church – especially in the U.S. ". The CNS source says [28] "Among issues the board addressed concerning abusive priests were questions of seminary formation, celibacy and homosexual orientation" and "It also noted that the study found 81 percent of the abuse victims were male and 78 percent were between the ages of 11 and 17" and "Noting the preponderance of adolescent males among the victims of clerical sexual abuse of minors, the board devoted several pages of its report to the question of what role sexual orientation of priests played in the abuse scandal. From interviews, evidence and a study of church teachings distinguishing between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity, the board concluded, 'The paramount question in this area must be whether a candidate for the priesthood is capable of living a chaste, celibate life, not what that candidate's sexual orientation must be.' 'But given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the realities of the culture today and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry,' it said." The sentence in the RCC article reflects these sources. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are 2 paragraphs from the worldnet article (quite early on).

"The "Instruction" does not represent a change in church teaching or policy, according to the Vatican.

Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood. Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America."

Isn't that clear enough? The policy already existed. The scandal prompted only more effective enforcement. That also can be called a policy, so you have to look at each context to see which is referrred to. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the previous policy was not enforced because it was more of a suggestion, an instruction issued from the Vatican to direct worldwide seminaries. Seminaries were still left to decide for themselves, ultimately, who to admit and ordain. Each Bishop's conference is allowed to establish their own seminary formation standards. The scandal resulted in this new policy telling the seminaries they absolutely could not ordain men with deep seated homosexual tendencies - something more than a suggestion - something directly resulting from the sex abuse scandals. The source states also "The pending release of the "Instruction," in the face of certain criticism from liberal forces in America and Western Europe, demonstrates the determination of the Vatican to improve the quality of priestly ministry and to protect the church from some of the scandals that have recently shaken the Catholic community – and no doubt deterred many men from entering priestly training." NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so far so good. Nevertheless, mentioning the recent strict rule without mentioning the preexisting vague policy is liable to give many readers the false impression that the church was quite happy with homosexual priests until recently. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I am not sure of a concise way to fit that in there but will work on it. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

child abuse - just allegations?

One of my concerns in the last FAC for this article was that it dismissed the sex abuse cases as merely allegations, even though the Church has repeatedly admitted that some cases actually happened. Looking at the current version "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001 claiming some priests had sexually abused minors.[402] In the US, the country with the vast majority of sex abuse cases,[403] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the US from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[404][405] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations,". Whilst I don't doubt that some allegations are still disputed or were even disproved, I do think that the article should make it clear that a large amount of child abuse actually did take place. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Because some of the cases have been disproved, even if that is a small percentage, "allegations" is a correct term. I think the fact the article also contains the statement "because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys" it would thus be difficult to infer that the "vast majority" were untrue allegations. NancyHeise ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find it useful to look at the lead to 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal (formerly titled Catholic sex abuse cases). The article itself needs a lot of work but the lead is in pretty good shape (even if I do say so myself, having written much of it). The point that the lead is trying to make is that there are allegations and accusations which lead to criminal charges and convictions. However, if you look at the the study commissioned by the USCCB, the numbers run like this 4392 priests accused, 384 charged, 252 convicted. This is not say that every one of the other 4008 priests were innocent, just that they were not charged (could have died, found unfit for trial or the evidence may not have been sufficient to prosecute). I think it would be good to summarize the main points from the lead of 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal here. --Richard (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, that article is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the paragraph. I agree it is a great analysis of the whole situation. The paragraph in RCC already contains the most vital information and adheres to WP:summary style that makes use of wikilinks like this to provide more information. NancyHeise ^talk 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I agree that the article should make clear that 4% were alleged to have committed abuse, but I think it currently reads in such a way that all cases are still challenged. I've now read and slightly tweaked 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal; and I think we should try and rephrase this paragraph in such a way as to make clear that some abuse is acknowledged to have taken place. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "the vast majority of victims" does that already. I don't think stating the fact that only 6% of the accused were convicted will help make the point you want to make. "vast majority of victims" is, I think, more descriptive. NancyHeise ^talk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm open to improvements of the section of this article on the abuse scandals, including some indication of percentage of allegations proven, the current wording is the result of a long process of discussion and agreement among many editors. Caution also has to be maintained on portrayal of this subject as part of the larger article. One factor is Undue Weight. Another is that the approach should be factual rather than sensational. As such, I am not happy with the approach in the lead to the main abuse article. Statements such as "As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and cover-up " and "A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime" are both opinionated and misleading, making factual allegations against the motives of Catholic bishops which are unproven, as well as not making clear what was standard practice for dealing with abuse allegations at the time. The claim that there is a "world crisis" is also wrong. The article itself has some very serious errors, huge exaggerations and false material that is easily checkable. I will post more on the article talk page. Xandar 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, not for the first time it has been suggested that moving people on, referring them for counselling, but not informing the police, was 'standard practice', rather than just the practice of the RCC, in cases of alleged child sex abuse in the past so is something it should not be criticised for. Can you back this up with some evidence apart from bishops now asserting that this was the case? Haldraper (talk)

An incredibly small percentage of child abuse allegations were generally reported to police until quite recently. There are reports which make reference to these practices - for example the following report into practice in US Public schools during the 1990s, where less than 1% of alleged abusers were reported to the police, and the practice of sending abusers on to other schools without informing the new school or school board even had a name - "passing on the trash." Full report:In Loco Parentis Report

Xandar 11:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We're back to US schools again. I think a major problem with this whole section is that it is too US-centric. I know numerically the US has the most cases but there is also the ratio of cases to population to take into account. The Ryan Report that has just come out detailing the decades of physical and sexual abuse of thousands of children carried out by priests and nuns in Ireland describes the way in which the RCC not only covered this up but the collusion of doctors, social workers, police, teachers and civil servants. Not too surprising given at the time in Ireland the Church was not so much above the law as in effect the law in all matters political, moral and social.Haldraper (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, reading the report you just linked to confirms what I said before on this subject. Much of the 'abuse' referred to in schools is often minor (suggestive comments/inappropriate touching) or consists of consensual relationships between young men and women (or women and men) which in other circumstances would be entirely legal. Read the wiki entry on the Ryan Report produced by the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse which has page after page detailing the horrors of institutionalised physical and sexual assault of children. You are not comparing like with like and your persistence in this amounts to an attempt to minimise the real abuse carried out by your Church.Haldraper (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the Ireland abuse is a report on the many schools, orphanages and shelters run by the Church which was the country's source of social services. If you look at US foster care system and child services, you find basically the same pattern of abuse. If you want to compare apples to apples, we need to include this comparison. Some abuse happens just because the only people willing to take care of indigents is the Church - and the church makes use of a lot of volunteer help - not all of that volunteer help is qualified - which is why the US Church implemented the Charter for the Protection of Young People. This Charter was the first to require all people, including volunteers, who work with children in the Church environment to be fingerprinted and have a background check. Even moms voluteering at their children's schools now have to do this - I had to do this. The public schools don't do this. NancyHeise ^talk 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nancy but you are just deluding yourself here. The abuse in Ireland happened to the extent it did because of the dominant role of the Church there from independence in the 20's up until the 90's. It told teachers, doctors, civil servants journalists,social workers and government ministers what to do. No one, including the victims, felt they could speak out against the Church in a society so rigidly and pervasively controlled by it. Ireland's integration into the EU has led to progress on human rights issues (including access to contraception and divorce for the first time since the 20's) and consequently a loosening of the grip the RCC had on Irish society, allowing the media and victims to finally expose the abuse and the Church's collusion in covering it up.Haldraper (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your remarks about US-centrism. It's interesting that even those complaining on this page that the RCC has been singled out don't seem to have mentioned that an Anglican diocese in Canada was actually bankrupted by child abuse suits. Peter jackson (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we would also see the US Public School System bankrupted too by abuse lawsuits if the lawyers weren't restricted by law as to how much they can receive. That's why they never bother to sue - they can't win a huge judgement because the law caps it at something like a hundred thousand dollars. This is done so that the innocent taxpayers who had nothing to do with the abuse aren't required to pay for someone else's mistake. However, the same logic does not apply to innocent Catholics like me - we have to pay for someone else's mistake and then some - to the point of closing inner city schools where the kids then get tossed into a school system (the public schools) where the problem is "ten times worse" - doesn't make sense to me. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you haven't answered the point - in fact you've underlined it in your last post - as to why the section is so US-centred when it's an international issue. As with Xandar, you also seem determined to carry on equating often minor incidents in US schools with the kind of institutionalised, systematic abuse uncovered by the Ryan Report, to which journalists, politicians etc under the thumb of the RCC turned a blind eye for decades.Haldraper (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, the issue is US centered because we have refs that say the whole sex abuse issue is US centered. The "vast majority" of all sex abuse cases worldwide were in the US. We have indicated in our paragraph this referenced fact and referenced why. NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Haldraper, I think you are confusing the Ireland report with the priest sex abuse scandals. The Ireland report was on abuse (physical, emotional and sexual) that existed in Ireland's orphanages, shelters, homes, schools, (social services provided by the Catholic Church). The abuse in that report was not specifically carried out by priests nor even specifically by adults and most of it was not sexual abuse. That is an entirely different issue than the priest sex abuse scandals. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper the report I referred you to covers all levels of sexual abuse, not just "minor" matters, as you put them, just as the Irish report did, and the Irish report listed "minor" matters too. The US schools report covers only four years, however, while the Irish report covered a period of nearly sixty years. In addition the Irish report collected details over a period of nine years with large sums of money (hundreds of thousands of pounds) given out to respondents on the basis of the seriousness of the allegation. In any event you sought proof of other organisations failing to report matters to the police or authorities, and passing on abusers to other schools without warning them - and that point was proven. You have failed to admit this. The US Scouts also have had many allegations with very few prosecutions or reports to the authorities. Turning to Britain. Unfortunately the UK is not so open a society as the US and a lot of details are l;ess accessible. The UK has never done a similar report to the Irish one on abuse in UK secular approved schools, homes and borstals between 1930 and 1990. From the individual incidents that have emerged, I suspect such a report would put the Irish one in the shade. And as Nancy says, the abuse scandals are not worldwide. They are concentrated in the US and Ireland with some cases in Australia. Even in these places the rate of abuse is no higher than among the general population. Xandar 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the notion that the Irish State was somehow terrified of the Church and didn't act on complaints for that reason, is an excuse. Police, the Education Department, (responsible for the institutions), and other officials consistently failed - even in cases when the abuser had nothing to do with the Church. In one prominent case the police refused to act on multiple complaints against one teacher, and, knowing of his abuse over thirty years, the Ministry of Education decided to take no action, and allowed him to finish out his final two years teaching. Xandar 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)