This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Why is RFK's photo put adjacent to the lead? I wouldn't even want to put JFK's photo there, let alone RFK's photo. JFK is important because he was the first Catholic President of the United States but RFK was just JFK's attorney-general. I have a lot of admiration for RFK but there is no way that he is the primary icon of Catholic politics in the U.S. The placement of RFK's photo makes no sense to me except as a desire to include RFK's photo somewhere in the article and since we don't actually mention RFK in the article, there is no logical place to put it, so someone apparently stuffed it at the top of the article. Unless someone objects, I will remove it from the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead presumably summarizing the article, says, "In 2015 the Catholic Church has acknowledged a man-made climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. The church says the warming of the planet is rooted in a throwaway culture and the developed world's indifference to the destruction of the planet as it pursues short-term economic gains. The positions of the Church were laid out in encyclical Laudato si'. The publication by Pope Francis puts pressure on Catholics seeking the Republican Party nomination for president of the United States in 2016, including Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum, who "have questioned or denied the established science of human-caused climate change, and have harshly criticized policies designed to tax or regulate the burning of fossil fuels."
For starters, this seems inordinately long in the lead. At best probably deserves no more than two terse sentences.
The pope's statement was not aimed at Jeb Bush, etc. Did the editor, when the pope spoke out against abortion, insert the following in some article: "The pope spoke out against abortion. This puts pressure on Vice President Biden to cast the deciding vote in the Senate..." etc? Probably not.
The statement seems disproportionately aimed. If the National Council of Bishops had said this, maybe.... The pope was speaking to the whole world, or individual leaders. Not US presidential candidates particularly. The columnist writing this decided to make it political. So the columnist is kind of guilty of WP:SYNTH IMO.
Note that this is more about the Pope and climate change than it is about the Catholic Church and American politics. Somewhat non-WP:TOPIC.
I think it probably ought to be totally deleted until the NCCB echoes it, at least. Anyway, it should not be that prominent in the lead. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Leaders of the Catholic church in America took their “marching orders” from the pope’s encyclical on Thursday, fanning out to Congress and the White House to push for action on climate change. The high-level meetings offered a first glimpse of a vast and highly organised effort by the leadership of America’s nearly 80 million Catholics to turn the pope’s moral call for action into reality. “It is our marching orders for advocacy,” Joseph Kurtz, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archbishop of Louisville, said. “It really brings about a new urgency for us.” Representatives of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said they would hold two briefings for members of Congress on Thursday and visit the White House on Friday to promote and explain the pope’s environmental message."
"The Vatican released the itinerary Tuesday for Pope Francis’ first trip to the United States in September, a six-day visit that will take the pontiff from the halls of power to the margins of society. […]While in the United States, Francis will address both Congress and the United Nations, […] Francis is expected to speak on a number of hot-button issues while in the United States, including immigration, poverty, and the environment. He will draw from his encyclical Laudato si’, in which he wrote that climate change is real and caused primarily by human activity, during his talk at the United Nations."
Moved the following here from the section on Immigration:
"The Roman Catholic leadership in the U.S. has opposed restrictions on immigration." cf. This from the USCCB position on Immigration Reform,[3]:"The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right." and in same document, quoting ¶2 of §2241 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption." Mannanan51 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What relevant thing of substance has he done other than be Vice President while Catholic? It's an odd question to ask given I told you why in the edit summary. Remsense ‥ 论23:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He talks about the Catholic Church constantly, he even recently challenged the USCCB. He’s a very large public figure and incredibly vocal as vice presidents go. How is this not substantive enough? LogmanTheBeautiful (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There you go—it wasn't a rhetorical question. Write about that and cite it. It's not worth just having that he's been elected. An oddly prompt response from a third-party with a brand new account, too. Hmm. Remsense ‥ 论23:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that token you might as well delete Biden, Melania Trump & half the other people mentioned on this page? It's literally a Wiki article about CATHOLICS IN POLITICS.
Not to mention Vance is arguably more influenced by Catholic thought then any American Catholic politician in recent memory, his own Wikipedia page says in one of the first paragraphs "Vance is an outspoken critic of childlessness and has acknowledged the influence of Catholic theology on his sociopolitical positions."
Yeah, I generally do want to delete mere name-listing from encyclopedia articles. That's my point in its totality, so I don't get why you're going off into foxholes. I see bad edits in my watchlist, I contest them. Remsense ‥ 论23:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad edit? It's in keep what the page is currently all about? Unless you're going to revamp and rewrite the entire page to avoid naming high profile Catholic politicians I don't see why you have a problem with this edit? Alfred Carbo (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
