Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Referencing

I started on this, all of the inline links have been referenced, they just need to be formatted now. We should probably come to consensus on how to deal with Bible references... Template:bibleverse seems like it could work, but there are problems when the translation is not specified... maybe Template:bibleref would work better? Paul^C/_T+ 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church

I am inserting this response to someone who wrote me insisting that Catholic always be joined by the qualifyer, "Roman." Catholics do not speak of themselves generally as "Roman Catholics" and never have relatively recently and for particular uses only. If "Roman" has to be interjected at every possible use of "Catholic," I will be very strenuously opposed. Here is my response:

Thank you for you note on my talk page. I appreciate that you and many others do not agree with the usage of the term, Catholic, for the the Church based in Rome. I respect you freedom to disagree; however, I do not believe you have the right to tell people how to name themselves. The Catholic Church could claim the rights to all the names of the various Christian Churches saying that their use of their name is "parochial." Of course this would be rude and condescending, and we do not. For instance, we could say that "Baptist" really should only be used to refer to all Christians, since we all practice baptism. Presbyterian--well, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans would all have a much fairer claim to that title than Presbyterians do, since that term is understood to mean "priest," which they do not actually have. Methodists hardly have a method, but many other churches claim to. Everyone claims to be "orthodox", many churches are "episcopal" in their governance. Oh, and precisely which church is not evangelical in some fashion? ...etc., etc. (Not to mention LDS!) So, the first argument is that it is a matter of respect to call churches by how they call themselves. That is a minimum decency that civil people afford eachother.

Also, it drives me crazy that Spanish speakers insist that the Americas are one continent and every on it is an "American," so, US citizens should really be "Unitedstatians," or some such other un-English formulation because it better suites their sensibilities. Let's just say that's not going to happen. In a likewise manner, it is very awkward English to use "Roman" in every reference to Catholicism. No one I know really talks like that. It is just poor sounding English.

Also, there are many Catholic Churches is the original sense of the term that do not call themselves "Roman," such as the Greek Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, etc. By original sense of the term I mean that "catholic" in the early church meant those in communion with the Church of Rome. Ignatius, if you read his discussion on the Church, literally says this! "Roman" Catholic within the Catholic Church means the "Latin Rite" almost always, though sometimes sometimes the term is used for the entire Catholic Church to ''emphasize'' the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, Primate of the West, Vicar of Christ, etc.

Now for the historical/institutional matter: No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform. Also, there was no Western Christian prior to the Reformation(s) that did not understand the Western Church as the Catholic Church. It is very clear that the Catholic Church after the reformation is the same institution that existed before and had alway called itself since Ignatius of Antioch the Catholic Church. The theology of sacraments, ecclesiology, etc. had not changed with the Reformation. So, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim that the Catholic Church ceased to be itself such that it needed to change its name.

Now this is where it gets interesting. The term "Roman Catholic" only came into vogue in the 19th Century for a number of reasons. It was a way for Catholics to distinguish themselves from others who broke away but kept the name, such as the "Old Catholics." It was a way to distinguish Latin Catholics from Eastern Rite Catholics within the Catholic Church. And, most interestingly for this discussion, Anglicans which had never had much use for any claims to being "Catholic" suddenly became interested in the term when the intense study of the previously lost patristic texts showed how ancient the term was and how "Catholic" the early church was in its theology and ecclesiology. Such patristic studies gave rise to the Oxford Movement and eventually the claim to Anglo-Catholicism. Of course, that the Anglican church was clearly protestant historically is demonstrated by such names as "The Protestant Episcopal Church of American," which is the original name of the ECUSA.

The term "Catholic Church" is never used in capitalized form for the "universal Christian church," because that would be confused with the Catholic Church. Except in the creeds, this term is never used without qualification for that purpose. Besides, we are talking about corporate entities, concrete churches. The abstranct sense is not a practical term but a theological conception (which does not make it any less real, but does put it in another distinct specific conversation in which the speakers would know the difference).

While Catholics do occasionally call themselves Roman Catholics (only in the West) we have at no time in history ever ceased to call ourselves simply Catholics. This the name for our Church and ourselves in continuous use from the time of Igantius of Antioch ~107 A.D. Use of "the Catholic Church" is not "parochial," which seems to be an intentionally demeaning term, but is rather historical. Ignatius, by the way, was an Eastern Patriarch (of Antioch) and still claimed communion with the Bishops and especially the Bishop of Rome as the essential way to distinguish orthodox Christianity from false revelations, prophets, philosophies, etc. This explains the strangeness of WP aticles on publications such as the "National Catholic Reporter" with the word Roman interjected at every instance of the word "Catholic" except in the title of the "NCR" and the WP article title on the subject. It is just awkward, forced and ultimately a POV ideological imposition.

Lastly, the use by others of the term "Catholic Church" need not presume that they agree with the Church's historical or theological claims. When I call a Baptist a Baptist, I do not imply that I agree with the Baptist theology of baptism which by definition excludes me, a Catholic, from salvation. If "Catholic Church" is not acceptible, then in justice we should insist on some other qualifier for all the churches (perhaps, "Protestant Baptist," or the even more precise, "Protestant Anglo-Catholics," since all English Catholics are "Anglo-Catholics)."

Thanks for reading. --Vaquero100 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing; and there's a lot of validity in what you say. However, this matter has been extensively discussed and voted on within the last few months (see Archive 2). You can, if you wish, choose to build a new concensus; but I feel that it's unlikely to go a different way soon after a convincing majority in favour of the term "Roman Catholic".

I would question a few of your assertions; I won't cite full sources for them here, because it's late at night and I've already argued most of these points last month, but references for them should be found in the recent name change debates, mostly now in Archive 2:

- Writers within the Church of England have emphasised its right to call itself Catholic, unmodified, since its formation in the 16th century, not only since the 19th century (hence the coining of the term 'Roman Catholic' - an early 17th century coining, not a 19th century one). "I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same" - John Philpot (an Anglican burned by Queen Mary in 1555).

- As far as I'm can see, all official uses of the term 'Roman Catholic' in the Church in question refer to the entire church, never to the Latin Rite church alone; though you're welcome to quote counter-examples. An extensive list of the Church's use of the term can be found in Archive 2 (search for 'Syrian').

- I'm not sure what your point is when you say "No one in the 16th Century argued that the Catholic Church of Trent was a different institution from the one that Luther and the rest protested against and had sought to reform" - as the Council of Trent was around the same time as Luther, this seems to be comparing a thing to itself. Luther DID at least claim, I think, that communion with the Bishop of Rome was not a necessary condition to be the successor of the original Church; and, of course, it was also in the 16th century that the Church of England stated that it was not under the authority of the Pope, but remained Catholic.

I do see your point on how most churches use terms which others might equally claim. However, 'baptist' merely means that the church baptises; which others would not deny; 'episcopal' means that the church has bishops, which others would not deny. Whereas 'catholic' means universal, all-embracing. ECUSA can be Episcopal without implying that any other church is not; the Baptist Church can be Baptist without implying that any other church is not; but, by the literal meaning of the term, if one church is the Catholic Church, then no other church is. If it was a mere label (as I think it is for, say, the Old Catholic Church - they consider themselves to be a church that is Catholic, but not to be the Catholic Church), the argument would hold; but I think that the reason that many editors voted against using the term unreservedly to refer to the Church in communion with the Pope is that, by the very statements which were used to support its use, the church did seem to consider that, in using the term, it was explicitly placing a claim to be the one true catholic church.

The question to me seems to be whether 'Catholic Church' has two different meanings, or only one meaning. If it has two distinct meanings - "the true and universal church" or "the church in communion with the Pope", then to use it to mean "the church in communion with the Pope" is merely to use the idiomatic term chosen by and commonly used to refer to that church, just like "baptist church". However, if it has only one meaning, then to use it as such is to imply that the church in communion with the Pope IS the true and universal church, which is a controversial thesis which, under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to either state agreement or disagreement with.

There may be no answer to which of the above is the case; but the majority at the most recent vote was in favour of maintaining use of the term 'Roman Catholic Church'. TSP 04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well put. But it begs the question: Why does Catholic Church still redirect here instead of to a dab page? Fishhead64 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

TCP, thank you for your continued correspondence. Alas, I have read through most of Archive 2. It is depressing to say the least. There is still so much anti-Catholicism out there!

Regarding the 39 Articles, my point is about incivility not theological differences. Theological differences we must all learn to live with. However, fundamental human dignity demands civility. The 39 Articles continue to be published inside ECUSA hymnals and the BCP, without qualification or apology. I am aware of this because I came across them during a service. It was the singularly most offensive thing to hear a sermon on Love while being called "popish" in writing! My point is that such incivility should not be socially acceptable. It is patently uncivil to foist the term "Roman" on Catholics who only rarely use the term to describe themselves and do so only to make a distinction between Eastern and Western Catholics or between Catholics and others who use the word in the name of their church such as Anglo-Catholics or Old Catholics. Other than that, we really don't use the term.

And, yest, there are two meanings of the term "catholic." The credal formulae as well as the Ignatius of Antioch use the term as a theological claim. In this sense it is not capitalized. "Catholic Church" is a proper noun and therefore is distinct from the technical term. My name is "John" but no one goes around thinking about the etymology of the name. It is just my name and it means me, not "beloved of God," or whatever. This is how proper names work. They come to mean what they refer to and are not limited to etymology.

That the "Roman" qualifier originates in an era of hostility (which aparently is not yet behind us) is clear. The OED, as authoritative as it may be, also conveys the anti-Catholic bias of English society, past and present, and so is not an appropriate source. Forcing the "Roman" qualifier in other words is POV in the most blatant sense.

Regard the matter of the intention behind the term, "Catholic Church," this was answered in Lumen Gentium #8, where the SVC says that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church. It did not say "is" the Catholic Church. This is sacramental language dealing with a mystery beyond human understanding, so the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Holy Church of Christ is intentionally left unclear. This statement is followed by the observation that the means of salvation are present in other churches. So, the Chatholic Church as such does not apply the term "Catholic" in an exclusivist sense as you have claimed. However, Baptists do intend an exclusivist interpretation of their name. That is, by virtue of the Baptist theology of Baptism, their name should be more controversial than "Catholic Church" is.

Catholics have always used the term Catholic Church, well for about 1900 years. It is the identical institution as the one which first called itself "Catholic." There has been no theological or institutional break. This cannot be said of the Anglo-Catholic Church which broke with Rome. Such a break is actually a material change from the faith of Catholics before the Reformation. It is certainly a break from the intention of Ignatius of Antioch who was the first to use the term "catholic" and the first to to report the primacy of Rome, which as he said "presides over" the other churches.

My point is not to say that others should not use the term "Catholic" to describe themselves, though I personally think that is misleading. My point is that people fundamentally have the right to name themselves. If we do not go with this principle then would should begin the long work of scrutinizing the theological claims behind the name of every church to see if using such a name is POV or not. This kind of policing would be intollerable. And so should it be with the "Catholic Church." The claim made by the Catholic Church by using this name as such is a historical and therefore verifiable one, not a theological one (at least not in an exclusivist way). To force the qualifier "Roman," is to claim that this is somehow a different institution than the earlier Church. That burden rests on you, my friend.

Also, that an Anglican martyr called himself "Catholic" is not a proof of much. Modern English is much more modest in the use of capitalization, which is now reserved for proper nouns, unlike in earlier times. While some claims were made for Anglicanism being Catholic before the Oxford Movement, there were just as many or more for its being Protestant. Anglican comprehensiveness requires such contradictions, even as it has the hubris to tell its parent church, 1500 years its senior what her "real" name is.--Vaquero100 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the intent

Right, here we go. I said I'd answer this, so I suppose I should finally do so.

First, I'm not going to address the content of the Book of Common Prayer, and whether the Anglican Church is guilty of uncivil language; it is utterly irrelevant to our purpose here, and I'm sorry I ever got into the question.

I would say, more generally, as a friendly recommendation, that you (and all editors) should consider the the Assume Good Faith guideline, as well as the No Personal Attacks policy. It's a big allegation that people's disagreement with you is based on anti-Catholicism, and ultimately isn't going to help convince people that you are trying to obtain a reasoned concensus based on the facts.

You regard it as 'uncivil' to call the Church in communion with the Pope "Roman Catholic" (or, presumably, anything other than "the Catholic Church", unless you have a better third alternative?) That's fair enough; no-one has suggested it's the Church's preferred term. On the other hand, other churches - who consider the term "the Catholic Church" to refer to the entire sum of the world's Christians - consider it uncivil for one church to claim this title exclusively to itself.

You say that the proper name "the Catholic Church" can be separated from the concept (which I will for convenience express uncapitalised, though it very often is capitalised) "the catholic church". The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Article 9) shows no sign that the Church in question itself recognises such a division; the term is used in both senses without distinction. I don't want to get into any debate about whether the assertion that the Catholic Church (the church headed by the Roman Pontiff) is the catholic church (the one universal church of Christ) is true (this is fairly obviously unprovable); but it does seem to me, from reading the CCC, that the claim is made; and that that is what is meant when the church in question calls itself the Catholic Church; not merely to adopt a name which is coincidentally the same as that applied to the conceptual universal church.

If this is the case, then it is POV to use the term "Catholic Church" to mean "the church in communion with the Pope"; and another term must be found. That is the context in which we have come to the term "Roman Catholic Church"; not that it is the perfect term, or that we do not accept the problems with it; but that the term "Catholic Church" is unacceptable to so many people that another term must be used, and Roman Catholic Church seems the best available. As I have said on several occasions, it is a term the church uses to refer to itself in ecumenical contexts (of which this is, effectively, one).

You object to the OED; I can only say "provide a better source". Wikipedia policy regards it as an appropriate source; if you wish to discount it, you must find one more authoritative. Our chances of establishing fair and verifiable sources seem slim if sources are to be discounted solely on the basis of being written in England. Odd though it may sound, Wikipedia policy is explicit: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability, not truth". We MUST follow the most reliable sources we have - even if we positively knew them to be wrong. As I have said, even the Catholic Encyclopedia accepts the OED account as essentially correct.

To engage in your tangent for a moment, in order to explore context: "Catholics have always used the term" - yes; but what is a Catholic? The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches each regard themselves as equal inheritors in the traditions of the early church, and regard themselves, rather than the church under the Pope, to have been the ones carrying on the true tradition after their respective splits; so they each call themselves Catholic. The Church of England likewise regards itself as the inheritor of the Catholic tradition in England. You may regard the current church under the Pope as the true inheritor of that Catholic tradition; but that is too nebulous a claim to be verified, so is merely an opinion. That is the context in which we come to this debate.

We should not police the theological claims of any church, or any group; that would be Original Research. We are here purely to report. But this means that it is not our place to affirm any claim, just as it is not our place to deny any claim. In the eyes of very many people - including, as far as I can see, the church in question itself - to call a body "the Catholic Church" is to say that it is the universal church of Christ. This is not a universally-acknowledged truth; rather, it is a claim that ~50% of the world's Christians disagree with.

I wish it was as simple as you say, and that this was purely a matter of politeness, and that applying the name "Catholic Church" to the church in communion with the Pope was simply to apply a meaningless set of syllables with no implication of a claim that the church is in fact "the catholic church". Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. That being so, "Roman Catholic Church" - an unambiguous term, objected to by no other group, and accepted and used by the Church itself - seems a better term of identification. TSP 02:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am going to reply to this, and to your points over at Talk:Catholic Evangelical. More urgently, though, I wondered if you could provide a verifiable source for the content you have just added to the article: to wit, that 'subsists in' is intentionally vague; and that the church no longer claims to be the sole source of salvation - i.e. that it no longer affirms that "Outside the church there is no salvation". The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) seems to say otherwise:

" Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"

You may think that's not what it means, but unless you can find a positive source for that (in which case the Feeneyites would very much like to know) it's just your opinion and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. TSP 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After considering it for a while, I've removed this text. Again, I mean no offence by this; but we need to bear in mind how many people look at Wikipedia; text we cannot verify should be left in the article for as short a period as possible. TSP 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if there is merely a hiatus of discussion in this section, but here goes.... If you search the entire 11,500+ articles of the on-line 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia you can see that "Roman Catholic" appears in 46 articles, while "Catholic Church" appears in over 400 articles. This would correspond to the definition in another reference book of 1951, "A Catholic [Encyclopedic] Dictionary" which defines "Roman Catholic" as: "A name used by many English-speaking non-Catholics for members of the Catholic Church, as a qualification of their exclusive right to be called Catholics, and the term recognized for use in official and legal documents. As every Catholic, of whatever rite, looks to Rome as the center of the Church and the seat of her supreme pontiff and head, the expression in itself is unobjectionable and is in fact sometimes employed by them, especially in certain countries of Europe. But its use by Catholics is unnecessary and, having regard to its connotation for many non-Catholics, sometimes to be avoided."

You can also go to www.papalencyclicals.net and do a search. "Catholic Church" is found about 188 times, while "Roman Catholic Church" is found 5 times. It is also possible that since encyclicals are written originally in Latin, the English translators of those 5 may have taken the liberty to add "Roman", but I don't have the time to check this out. Nevertheless. It is quite clear that for Catholics with the papacy, "Catholic Church" is the ideal, while "Roman Catholic Church" can be tolerated depending upon where it is chosen to be used. In articles that are purely of (Roman) Catholic Interest, the ideal should definitely be adhered to, while an article on Anglicanism might do otherwise and use the word "Roman". (Diligens 09:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)) travis hafner

I think that there has been a severe loss in perception of the wider reality here. This is an article abot the views of the RCC, and the view of the RCC is that it is the catholic church. I refer you to the CCC 830-856. These deal specifically with the CHurch's clain to be both Catholic and catholic, and the Church herself draws the distinction. Even where you cite CCC you undermine your own argument, as it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If we do not respect the right of groups to name themselves then we are setting a dangerous precedent. Would you regard wikipedia using the names pro-choice and pro-life as condoning their positions? no neither is referring to the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church in anyway wikipedia supporting their position. However it is clear the the theological basis is largely irrelevant. THere are many good reasons to reserve the right use of The Catholic Church as such. 1) The Church refers to herself as "The one true Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", and we should respect the right of groups to name themselves regardless of any apparent contradictions or whatsoever we might otherwise feel about them. 2) You would be setting a dangerous precedent, you might as well program a bot to change every name in wikipedia to "those who refer to themselves as....." 3) The specific distinction between Roman Catholic Church does not affect the clam that the RCC still claims to be the ONe Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is apparently what people are objecting to, so the argument is faulty, and is either driven by a false idea that obscuring the claim somehow makes it better, or that the relationship between wikipedia and the claim has somehow changed, or it is truly a anticatholic predujice. 4) The Claim of the Catholic Church to be ONe Holy Catholic and Apostolic is a vital peice of doctrine, and should be included in this article anyway as an essential peice of information abotu the CHurch, As soon as this claim is included any arguments about the naming are instantly irrelevant. Phil 20686 19:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Floating the idea of mediation concerning this and other articles

I want to test the waters to see if other users would be prepared to participate in mediation to finally resolve the Roman Catholic Church versus Catholic Church issue, which has been dragging on forever. I was prepared to let sleeping dogs lie, after the apparent consensus to redirect Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church, with a dab page reference at the top of the article. However, Vaquero 100's use of AWB to change any and all reference in every article mentioning "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" has prompted me to consider this remedy, which seems a little more effective then simply using AWB myself to switch all the references back to their original. I need not rehearse the arguments here, since they've been well aired, and I believe that reasonable people can disagree as to the propriety of the designation one way or the other. I also fully recognise that there is passion on either side of this question, hence my desire to seek a mediated settlement. My hope is that disputes over usage could be settled by simple ground rules to which all editors would abide. I recognise that in making this proposal, my own viewpoint may not ultimately prevail. My only interest has been in accuracy of information in Wikipedia, not a proprietary interest in the designation "Catholic Church." If you suuport this proposal, please let me know, and I will submit a case to the Mediation Committee. Fishhead64 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the issue of naming, and to a lesser extent terminology, in this article is settled for the time being by the concensus achieved a month or two ago. Does that also dictate use everywhere in the Encyclopedia? I'm not sure. I'd prefer it if it did, to be honest; and I certainly don't see a cause for deliberately 'piping' links ([[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic Church]]) in order to use a different set of terminology elsewhere. Is there any Wikipedia guideline on consistency of terminology within the Encyclopedia, or does every decision like this have to either be put into explicit policy, or decided for every page individually?

Mediation on the specific act by User:Vaquero100 (in this case, but similar things have been done before) of replacing 'Roman Catholic' with 'Catholic' on large numbers of pages might be worthwhile. TSP 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't support it. --WikiCats 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think a reversion war is a preferable alternative? After all, as TSP notes, something of a consensus had been reached, and now it is being systematically violated by a misuse of AWB to make systematic, controversial changes. How else should this matter be settled, if good faith consensus among editors fails? Fishhead64 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the agreement is that "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" are interchangeable on WP. Yet, before I made these changes on various pages, RCC was the usage in virtually every context on WP. In my opion, it is necessary to introduce some balance into the matter, if these names are in fact interchangeable. Even if there is a consensus on the naming of this page, a considerable victory on the part of Anglicans in officially renaming another Church, the consensus of a relatively few people cannot possible change the usage of the entire WP.

Besides, I think it is very interesting that a number of Anglicans seem to hover around matters of the Catholic Church, always at the ready to prevent her from using her own name! I have not gone to other churches not my own (as they have) to insist they they change their name! I am defending here. The attacks are on their part. (As mentioned before, "Anglo-Catholic," Catholics could insist, could rightly refer to all Catholics in England. In fact, it would be more precise to say those who now call themselves Anglo-Catholic are actually Protestant Anglo-Catholics. Of course, I would never do this, nor would anyone else, because it is a matter of civility to honor one anothers nomenclature for themselves. It is pattently uncivil to go around correct others on the use of their own name. This is, in fact, what Fishhead and others have done and want to enforce, using WP conventions, upon the Catholic Church in all WP references. --Vaquero100 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The concensus was that the article should be called 'Roman Catholic Church'. No debate has been held on whether 'Catholic Church' should also be used in this article; but I would take from that that 'Roman Catholic Church' is at least the preferred term. 'Catholic Church' is currently also used in this article; with a clear Terminology section explaining that, in this context, it is used as a synonym of "Roman Catholic Church". Given that part of the concern about the term 'Catholic Church' was ambiguity, my reading of this would be that 'Catholic Church' should not be used alone in other articles, where it would not have any statement explaining in what context it was being used.

I'm not very interested in a long discussion of 'civility'. The lesser reason for this is that it is utterly subjective. The primary reason, though, is that it is not one of the criteria that Wikipedia policy says should be applied when choosing terms. We are to avoid offensive terms, yes; but 'Roman Catholic Church' is a term used by the Church itself, so I find it hard to regard it as a term offensive to Catholics. Beyond that, the requirement is that we should "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature" (Naming Conventions). If you wish to debate this further, please base your arguments on Wikipedia policy.

As to your allegations about the motives of Anglicans editing this, I refer you again to the Assume Good Faith guideline and the No Personal Attacks policy. I am here to try to write a verifiable, NPOV, high quality article that is accessible to people of all audiences. As I follow the guideline of assuming good faith, I assume that that is why all other Wikipedia editors are here. Please don't turn a debate about content into a sectarian argument. TSP 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, thank you for your cool head. My argument is that the use of "Roman" is the minority term for the Catholic Church. "Catholic Church" is not only the technical name of the Church but its name in everyday use. To insist upon the qualifier, "Roman," in every case is to enshrine the sectarian POV of the Anglican Church in naming the Catholic Church. It is not common sense, nor is it the way most English speakers actually speak. When refering to the Catholic Church, it is most common to say "Catholic Church." That is good common sense. "Roman" is a qualifier used in very particular situations. If there is a Polish National Catholic parish around the corner, it is somewhat more likely that the Catholic parish will employ the qualifier, "Roman." But even that is seldom. Given that there is no other entity on earth called simply the Catholic Church, there really is no confusion or ambiguity in the term. Now, there is one expression the "catholic church" which is a theological theory particular to Anglican use. It is some vague notion of an abstract entity with no visible head or government nor even members except to the eyes of faith--a particular faith, a secatarian faith. That members of that faith feel it is their right to re-name another church to suit their theological ends is the very meaning of POV. Perhaps this issue should cause this page to be placed on the disputed articles list. I suspect that a broadening of the voices on this issue may create a new consensus. --Vaquero100 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not simply Anglican, there are many denominations whose adherents consider themselves Catholic. As TSP points out, the issue is one of ambiguity. If a non-Roman Catholic asserts subscription to the historic Catholic faith on the basis of, say, the apostolic succession of its episcopacy (rather than the recognition of papal supremacy), then issues of self-identification and ambiguity are certainly pertinent. You are right on one level: The ambiguity has its origin in sectarian differences over the definition. No one claims that the denomination recognising papal supremacy isn't Catholic - all the modifier "Roman" does is identify the institution as consisting of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Moreover, as I pointed out, "Roman Catholic" does constitute one element of that communion's self-identity, since it is one that it uses to describe itself in many instances.

It is a stretch to say that English speakers would find "Roman Catholic" unreasonably ambiguous or non-intuitive. Everyone knows what the term means. Everyone knows that it isn't pejorative or misleading. So what exactly is the issue? Why is referring to the institution as "Catholic" so much more preferable to referring to the institution as "Roman Catholic"?

If this discussion has demonstrated anything, I hope, it is that my call for the involvement of the Mediation Committee is certainly warranted. Rather than place this article (and others like it) on the disputed articles list, I think this might be a more effective way of resolving editorial differences in this regard. Fishhead64 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, part of the dispute is the assertion that the addition of "Roman" is per se neutral, and there are add-"Roman"-to-each-occurence-of-"Catholic"-edit-warriors to serve that cause. It's part of what I've mentioned: an editing cabal that denies the Catholic Church self-identification while they impose their own definition upon it. patsw 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion is belied by the fact that "Roman Catholic" is one of the self designations of the communion recognising papal primacy, especially in ecumenical and secular contexts. The articles in question are not under the ownership of any editors, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to tell the story from the perspective of any group or editor. TSP's point about ambiguity is well-taken. Not only Anglicans (and I don't know why we're fixating on them), but many other denominations self-identify as Catholic. Again, I ask, are their claims to self-identification null?

Parenthetically, your accusation of an "editing cabal" is interesting. Quite apart from the evident failure to assume good faith, I invite you to present a shred of evidence as to the existence of such a cabal. Fishhead64 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, your little game on Catholic sacraments is very telling. Interjecting Anglican material on an article that states that it is refering to the "Roman" Catholic Church, but claiming to be confused by the title. You are not that naive and I'm not that foolish. --Vaquero100 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Fishhead, there may be many church that claim to be "catholic" or erroneously claims to be "Catholic," but none other that the Catholic Church cal ls itself the "Catholic Church" as its name. Only one church is named the Catholic Church.

I would like to propose that a new article titled "Catholic church (theological concept). This may solve the concept. When an article refers to the Catholic Church it can link to this article. When an article refers to the "catholic church" or even "Catholic Church" meaing the concept, it can link to "Catholic church (theological concept)." This would disambuguate the entire mess. --Vaquero100 08:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be true that only one church uses "Catholic Church" as its name (though actually it has been suggested in debate elsewhere that the Eastern Orthodox Church does as well - I don't know if there was any evidence produced for this) - but is it that clear when it is being used as a name and when as a description? It becomes even vaguer when you get onto derivatives - "he is a Catholic", "a Catholic priest", "Catholicism"; consider groups like the Society of Catholic Priests - an Anglican organisation - and of course Affirming Catholicism, a large and prominent Anglican group.

Linking can help, but people shouldn't have to follow a link every time a term is used in order to find out what sense it is used in (and Wikipedia content is being mooted for print distribution as well as online, in which case links would be lost). Constantly disambiguating a term is vastly inferior to finding an unambiguous term in the first place. TSP 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, check the edit history in Catholic sacraments. I was not the editor who inserted the section in question. I have to second TSP's point here: Catholic Church is not an unambiguous term. In other words, it is not a term exclusively used by or to refer to the institution recognising papal primacy. Please, let us consent to mediation and find a resolution. Fishhead64 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, I am willing to drop this issue for the moment. My sense is that as the WP editor base continues to grow, the consensus reached by this crowd will not stand. I can see that your tenacity has scared off the Catholics who share my point of view. There is a lot of work to do on WP on matters of Catholic interest. My time will be better spent on those areas. As more Catholic themed articles bring more Catholics to WP, I expect we will debate again. Still, it is perplexing to me how you hound Catholics away from their own church's entry. I hope you too, will find more profitable pursuits with your time. God Bless, --Vaquero100 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, please don't attribute hostile motives to me. If editors who agree with you don't wish to debate towards resolution or agree to the intervention of a third party, that is not my doing. I think that it is telling that rather than engage the points that have been raised concerning the ambiguity of the term "Catholic Church," you prefer rather to wait until you "get the numbers" so your view will prevail, regardless of its merits.

Before we do end this discussion, I wish you would address my central point, which is that after the Reformation there were churches that considered themselves to be in continuity with the historic Catholic Church, but yet did not wish to recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Hence, the term "Roman Catholic" arose to describe those Catholics who remained in communion with Rome, not negating their claims to be Catholic, but negating what had hitherto been an exclusive use of the term in western Christendom to refer to a single institution. It thus arose to address a new reality, one that had not existed prior to the Reformation. If this were a pejorative or misleading term, one would not expect the Roman Communion itself to refer to itself in official documents and discourse as the "Roman Catholic Church," which it does.

So my question is this: Since, (a) the term "Catholic Church" is ambiguous (it can mean different things to different people), and the term "Roman Catholic Church" is unambiguous (it means only one thing, and everyone knows what it means); and (b) the term "Roman Catholic Church" is used as a moniker of self-identification by the institution itself for the sake of clarity, and in respect of other claims, and is not something foisted upon it; then what exactly is your objection to the term "Roman Catholic Church"? In what way does it offend or mislead? Fishhead64 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, I would be glad to discuss this further with you. However, I have addressed many aspects of the above without you even acknowledgeing my points. In short, Catholics have been forced in certain sectors to use this term, though we have always claimed that our Church is properly known as the Catholic Church. Such hounding as experienced here explains our use of the term, to even be permitted in ecumenical dialogue. We have never been satisfied with this "solution" which has in fact benn foisted upone us. If you would be so kind now as to explain precisely how the "Roman" Catholic Church is not the same institution as the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Prove that and I'll not just concede a relatively minor point on WP, I'll leave the Catholic Church!

I think that there may be an element of us both talking past one another, since I had tried to express why the institution was no longer the same after the Reformation. Simply put, it is no longer the same because it split into two factions: Those members of the Catholic Church who recognised the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and those who recognised the primacy of a domestic episcopacy. Hence the ambiguity. The debate is over what constitutes the essential marks of the Catholic faith, and by according the title "Catholic Church" to one institution, a point of view on this debate is being expressed; namely that competing claims are illegitimate.

Clearly, like yourself, there are those who are not pleased with such pluralism, and may reject the claims of others to what is felt should be the proprietary title of a single institution with a single primate, but in all frankness that is neither here nor there. Since the Reformation there has been more than one group that has self-identified as the Catholic Church, a fact recognised even by the Roman Communion by concessions made in self-designation.

Here at WP, also, there needs to be a reasonable way of acknowledging those claims, regardless of what individual editors may think of their legitimacy. The title "Roman Catholic Church" represents a compromise position, one that admittedly may not make everyone happy, but one that acknowledges a real, post-Reformation-world situation - namely that there exists a Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and Catholic Churches (as they identify themselves) who are not. If you can think of a better compromise, I'm all ears (for the reasons outlined by TSP, I don't think Catholic Church (theological concept) cuts it). Fishhead64 20:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First,the Anglican position is interesting, but it has some major holes in it. St. Ignatius of Antioch, himself a Primate of an Eastern See defined what he meant by "catholic" the church of the bishops succeeding from the apostles in presided over by the Bishop of Rome, the See of Peter. This is the sense of the term from St. Ignatius of Antioch until Henry VIII. This is not just bad theology, it is bad history.

Secondly, Henry's break with Rome did not change the Catholic Church in itself any more than the schism of 1054 AD did. None of the qualities of the Church of Rome were lost in either event.

Thirdly, it is repugnant that the only acceptible nomenclature for the the ancient Catholic Church is the moniker invented for it by a few High Church Anglicans. I know a lot of Episcopalians, my father is one. None that I know insist upon this word game. They have less subtle, more forthright objections to the Catholic Church, and they say so. --Vaquero100 22:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I really am done with this for a long while. Take the last word, Fishhead, you seem to need it. --Vaquero100 22:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I find your position curious, Vaquero. If none of the Episcopalians you know express their objections to the Catholic Church in the form of a "word game", why do you assume that the objections here must be a word game dedicated to expressing an Episcopalian POV? Both Fishhead64 and I (I trust you have read my lengthy reply in the section above, by the way?) have been attempting to explain why we feel that it is a Neutral Point of View, not an Anglican point of view, which requires using some name other than that of the universal church to identify the Church under the Roman Pontiff. As you have said, such actions do not fit the typical activities of Anglicans wishing to somehow malign another church; but if you insist on regarding them as such, there doesn't seem to be much we can do to dissuade you. TSP 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Vaquero, I do have one final word on this matter. You have nowhere responded positively to my invitation to seek mediation, but have instead chosen to impute hostile motives, bad theology, fringe-movement zealotry, and incivil "hounding" while you await an influx of like-minded editors who will impose their will concerning the nomenclature. This is unfortunate, and not at all the outcome for which I had hoped when I first made the mediation proposal. Perhaps the most depressing of all outcomes is the suggestion that my motives spring from a latent anti-Roman Catholicism. Given that I have an excellent collegial relationship with a number of Roman Catholic laity, clergy, and religious, much of it springing from my deep involvement in the local ecumenical and interfaith movement, this suggestion leaves me quite floored.

With the mediation option apparently off the table, however, I suppose other avenues of dispute resolution will need to be considered. Fishhead64 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A concise way of putting it is that the Catholic Church, according to the consensus of the current, editors here lacks the competence, authority, and credibility to self-identify. patsw 04:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And the other Catholic Churches? What of their competence, authority, and credibility? You've never actually addressed that question, namely, the ambiguity question. Fishhead64 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If Christ founded a single universal church as is implied by the term Catholic. Obviously there can be no physically separate governance of that church. Thus making any body of governance’s claiming to be the universal church and founded by Jesus of Nazareth an exclusive claim. If something is universal it is all inclusive. If it is all inclusive there is no other.

The name ‘catholic church’ is the name given to the group in question by itself thus it seems most consistent with the wikipedia guidelines.

The identity section of the wikipedia recomends: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.

Otherwise, why don’t we hop over to the article on Islam and replace the term with ‘Muhammadism’. The term used for centuries in the west to describe the heresy of Islam.

Vatican Documents and Copyrights

Does anyone know if a Vatican Declariation can be freely published anywhere? Please see Quaesitum est for example. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Simonapro 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

I spoke to some Jesuits, and they told me that any teaching material on the vatican website, including encyclicals etc is to me made freely available to all. I think that you can safely use anything off the vatican websites, they are not going to complain unless you deliberately misuse it. Phil 20686 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

First off i am not a lawyer. I think in general catholics view any encyclicle letters and thing like the code of cannon law as public domain. The traditions that govern the use of these kind of items date back to long before any system of copyrite existed. They are made as public statements and are considered to be public knowledge. I know I have seen these things feely published in several places. There may be some copyrite law involved with specific translations , not unlike the issues you get into with reprinting an english version of a homer's illiad. If you really want to know I'd recommend: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_decreto-lev_en.html

according the the vatican web page all copywrite of vatican issued documents is assinged to this publishing house with the contact page I have included http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20050531_comunicato-lev_en.html how to contact them: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/en/contatti_en.htm --chistofishman 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The national bishops conference has the right to authorize printings and translations of new papal documents, asking for royalties if such are in keeping with the country's economy and usages, in which case, half of the royalties go to the conference, the other half to Libreria Editrice Vaticana. It is only right that those who make a profit from publishing such documents should be asked to pay royalties, if it is customary in their country. I think it extremely doubtful that publishing the text of a short document such as the one concerned here would in any case be considered a breach of copyright. How else can one report on its contents except by quoting it? In a highly developed country such as the United States, the bishops conference should be able to give the information desired. I cannot. Lima 08:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article from Catholic News regarding the Vatican's enforcement of copyrighted materials: [1] Delta x 01:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church as a non-Christian church

This text was entered into the intro by User:70.109.67.196, edited by me and removed by User Musical Linguist on the grounds that it "still has inaccuarcies and doesn't belong in intro - if anywhere".

[begin disputed text] Many non-Catholics, however, take issue with defining the Catholic Church as Christian because of its inclusion of various practices that seem at odds with Biblical teaching. These include the veneration of specific saints, the practice of Marianism (i.e. veneration of the Virgin Mary as a saint) and the teaching of such non-Biblical ideas as limbo, purgatory, and the forgiveness of sin through works based on "church tradition" rather than relying solely on the Bible. For these reasons, many Christians charge that the teachings of the Church are more cult-like and rooted in pagan traditions than in fundamental Christian teaching. [end disputed text]

I'm willing to discuss the charge that it has "inaccuracies". I thought I took those out (like the one equating the Virgin Mary to Jesus as a "co-Savior"). If User Musical Linguist or anyone else would point out the remaining inaccuracies, we should correct them.

As to the assertion that this text does not belong in the intro, I disagree. If the Catholic Church claims to be not only a Christian church but THE Christian church and there is an opinion among a significant number of people that it is NOT a Christian church, then that opinion should be acknowledged.

In order to be encyclopedic, this article needs to discuss the Catholic Church from an NPOV perspective. This is not just rabid irrational anti-Catholicism. It is a charge that goes to the core of the division between Catholics and Protestants. To ignore it is basically to assert that the Protestants have no claim to legitimacy. That would be a highly POV position.

--Richard 14:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a no-brainer. Biblicism is a particular strain in Christianity - indeed one that is far more novel than traditional Roman Catholic beliefs. This article is no place to re-fight the Reformation: There are many strains of Christianity, just as there are many strains of Catholicism. Fishhead64 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, this is a "brainer." The assertion, unqualified, that these teachings are "non-Biblical" is highly POV -- just as one instance, the "works" controversy depends on how you read the Epistle of James (not, the Catholics hold it as important, it was Luther who dismissed it as "an epistle of straw", wo which position is "non-Biblical"? Dpe4nds on who you ask). Further, this notion of "church tradition" implies the usual Protestant misunderstanding of the term. "Tradition" here does not mean custom. Traditio is that which is handed down -- Catholics believe that the whole "deposit of faith" was given by Christ to the apostles. That's tradition -- the written part of the larger tradition are the scriptures which, the Church says, must be interpreted in the context of the community founded by Christ. Agree or disagree, fine, but this paragraph STILL misrepresents Catholic ideas, and really in ways that an encyclopedia is supposed to correct.

Unsigned note, presumably by User:Amherst5282

Umm, isn't this what I said? Fishhead64 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I like User:Amherst5282's revision of the text. We should not "refight the Reformation" but we should document it and the continuing differences between Catholics and Protestants. Not very much in the intro and not even with much detail in this article.

I don't think the basic differences should be addressed in Anti-Catholicism because I see that as a place to document the most antagonistic hostility against the Church.

More "mainstream" differences should be discussed somewhere else like Protestantism and Reformation. I haven't looked at those articles yet but there should be references to these issues somewhere in this article as well with pointers to the relevant articles.

--Richard 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption, I'm an Episcopalian not a Catholic, but isn't the doctrine of purgatory based on teaching found in the books of the Apocrypha? So if you were to acknowledge these books as part of the Bible then wouldn't this doctrine in fact be Biblical from a certain point of view?

Indeed, the Church views the doctrines of purgatory, the Real Presence and the need for good works as scripturally supported (after all, the latter is a pretty major topic of the Letter of James. So the assertion that these are non-Biblical is very much POV. BTW, yes, some of the cites come from Maccabees, which is deuterocanonical, but there are cites from the Gospel as well. Slac speak up! 07:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If scripture is considered an appropriate basis in these discussions, then I would like to site Ephesians 2, specifically verse 8 and 9, "⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast." This scripture is not ambiguous. And James in his letter does not say that our works have a part in earning our salvation. He is saying that works accompany true faith. To jump from the idea of accompaniment of faith to earning of salvation is non sequitor, especially given that the interpretation goes boldly against other scriptures.

I am not here to fight the reformation, though I would be pleased to help you reform your understanding. My argument is POV, based on the understanding that scripture is foundational, and the Catholic position is also POV, as it includes non-canonical scriptures. The description and documentation of both positions is what becomes NPOV, though leaving out one position would be POV. Based on the entire scripture, it may very easily be considered a non-Biblical teaching to say that salvation is at all deserved as a reward (even if that is "by grace"). Isaiah 64:6 "...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags...". --MatthewWilder 20:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Assessment of Church Doctrine Section"

The Assessment of Church Doctrine" section has been copied in its entirety to the Anti-Catholicism article. It should appear in one place or the other. Which should it be. Either way, it really needs to come off of one of the articles--rote repetition is unencyclopedic. --Vaquero100 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, sort of. I'm the one who copied it there. My thought is that this article should provide a summary and the Anti-Catholicism article should provide a more detailed treatment. If you are so motivated, you might trim the treatment in this article or expand the treatment in the Anti-Catholicism article. If not, I'll try to get around to it soon.

I'm also thinking about a better title for the "Assessment of Church Doctrine" section. I have to look at the article again but maybe it should be something like "Opposition to Church Doctrine", "Debate over Church Doctrine" or just "Opposition to the Roman Catholic Church". I think there was a section titled "Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church" but it got thrown out earlier.

My real problem is that the Anti-Catholicism article was and still is a mess despite my initial efforts to put some rational organization to it. It's definitely a work in progress.

--Richard 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of that content belongs in Anti-Catholicism. The Anti-Catholicism article is analagous to the 'racism' or 'sexism' article; it relates specifically to prejudice against catholics. This is not the same as criticism of the Catholic Church, just as criticism of a any person or organisation is not necessarily homophobia. The inclusion of this material in the Anti-Catholicism article is analogous to the Anti-Semitism article containing a full list of criticisms of the state of Israel.

Having an "Assessment of Church Doctrine" section is pretty peculiar here as well. It seems entirely outside Wikipedia's scope to seek to "assess" doctrine. I think this section started out as the "Criticism of the Catholic Church" section, which is a valid thing to exist (though it would be better split up, so criticism of priestly celibacy was included in the section mentioning celibacy, etc.); but it got so full of explanations of why people didn't think a certain criticism was valid that it stopped being about criticisms at all and got renamed to something that should not exist. There's also the Criticism of the Catholic Church, which is pretty clearly a POV Fork which should be merged back into this article. There's quite a big mess here which needs a proper clear-out. TSP 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree very much with TSP also. All of that was going through my head as I was putting stuff in the Anti-Catholicism article. See what I wrote about reorganization and expansion on the Talk:Anti-Catholicism page.

I started putting stuff in the Anti-Catholicism page because I didn't know where else to put it. If you read what I wrote on the Talk:Anti-Catholicism page about there being three manifestations of anti-Catholicism, you'll get the sense of where I'm trying to go with this. I believe there are three separate issues to treat: (1) differences of doctrine e.g. saints, sacraments, etc. (2) differences of church governance e.g. supremacy and infallibility of the Pope and (3) bigotry along the lines of anti-Semitism.

I figured I'd put all that stuff in Anti-Catholicism for now and, by creating the content, hopefully prod people into helping me figure out where things should go.

Obviously, I've at least succeeded in getting TSP to look at the articles and start thinking about where different things should go. I'd like to hear from other people on this question so we can form a consensus.

I am not mounting this as a POV attack on the Catholic church. I just think that these are important issues that have influenced both historical events and current events. Pretending they aren't there won't make them go away. An NPOV treatment would present both sides without coming down on either side except where there is an overwhelming consensus that an allegation is non-factual e.g. in the case of blood libel about the Mass.

--Richard 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. I hope somebody is also planning on writing an extensive treatment of Christian monotheistic "assessment" of Hindu polytheism, a Hindu's critique of Buddhism, an animists assessment of Anglicanism, as well as a Platonist's disagreement with Kantian metaphysics, a Heavy Metal fan's critique of disco, and a Frenchman's disdain for California wines.

Does the Lutheran article have a point-by-point debate from the Canons of the Council of Trent? will somebody write an extensive critique of whether apostolic polity is refelected in Anglican orders? Is somebody going to allow pages of Raymond Brown and John Meier tearing apart Fundamentalist Biblical interpretation in an article about "Bible-based" churches? Where is the Eric von Daniken view, as in Chariots of the Gods, that ALL earthly religion is actually reflective of extraterrestrial visitation by UFOs to ancient peoples -- shouldn't some paragraphs about that appear in EVERY religion article? Hmmm? And if the Catholic article must include everybody else's disagreements with catholics, why does it not also contain a point by point refutation of everybody else's ideas by Catholics? If you have an "assessment of Church Doctrine" section, does one need not also a Catholic assessment of every other religion's doctrines on the face of the earth? Tell you what: how about just laying out Catholic teaching in the Catholic article, and leaving it at that? An encylopedia article -- on anything -- need not contain everybody's "assessment" of everybody else's opinions. Lay out the information, and leave people to do their own assessing. ASnything else strikes me mightily like an agenda masquerading as scholarship.Amherst5282 03:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP and Amherst, thanks for your comments. This is the kind of conversation I was hoping to prod in this section. Richard, I agree that internal controversies within the Catholic Church fit with a description of the Church. Recognizing the controversy over women's ordination, for example can be done in a neutral way by just showing that it exists and reporting some of the arguments on each side. It does not need to be presented as, for example an Anglican critique. Perhaps there is a way forward by recognizing internal controversies with a brief summation. Criticisms from other groups, especially if they have to do with their purpose for separation can be refered to with a link to that denomination etc. Perhaps just saying there were several major break offs in Church history, including 1054ad, the 16th century and 1870 with links to those groups for further elucidation would be sufficient.

If we must have Protestant "assessments" on the Catholic page, then I have a few choice suggestions for the criticisms section on the Biblical Christianity page such as their being: ahistorical, non-liturgical, non-apostolic, prone to twisting doctrine, a predilection for marketeering, spiritual fads, theological gimmickery and the like. There is plenty of documentation on all of these. Not to be uncharitable, but it is a constant puzzlement that criticism of Catholicism is practically a social virtue, when the same spirit aimed at other groups remains intollerable. Can we have some balance and reasonableness here? Thanks, everyone for your efforts to make these pages more reasonable. --Vaquero100 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with the thrust of Amherst5282 and -Vaquero100's most recent comments. I do agree with Vaquero100's comment that internal debates over Church doctrine should be documented here. The question is "what is internal?". If certain Latin-rite Eastern Orthodox churches do not accept the primacy of the Pope, that is documented almost in passing but not explained in any great detail. Presumably it is discussed in more detail in the article on those churches. (To Do item for Richard: research this - is it discussed in more detail there?).

It occurs to me that some of this discussion may more properly belong in the article on Christianity because these debates are internal to Christianity. (To Do item for Richard: research this - are they discussed there?).).

As for the "what about the other guys?" argument, piffle. I would expect the article on Communism to have a critique of Communism and similarly for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses. (To Do item for Richard: research this).

Now, on a slightly different tack, you guys are too wrapped up in defending the Catholic Church just as there are some guys who are really wrapped up in defending the United States. If you could step back and take an objective view, opposition to the Catholic Church has been a major theme throughout Western history since the Reformation (and a little bit before). So to has opposition to imperialism, colonialism and to Communism (since at least 1917). (To Do item for Richard: research this - how are attacks against these philosophies handled?).

NB: It may be that it is easier to attack these philosophies because fewer people feel compelled to rise to their defense. I'll check it out.

As you can see from the above, I have a bit of Wiki-reading to do. I'll report back on my findings.

Now, before you get hot under the collar, I'm not trying to make the same moral judgment and tar all of those with the same brush and then throw Catholicism into the pot. My point is that huge parts of Western history cannot be comprehended without understanding these conflicts. I'm not trying to put these things in Wikipedia to attack the Church. I'm trying to document the attacks on the church because they explain things that have happened and are happening today.

I don't care (for the moment) if the Reformation was right or wrong. I do care that it happened and that it was turning point for the Catholic church, the "Christian" church (whatever you understand that to mean) and Western civilization.

--Richard 04:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK... I concede... My review of what I believe to be relevant articles turns up the following: None of the following articles contain criticism of the religion - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism. I'm a bit dismayed. IMO, both the Judaism and Islam articles should have something documenting criticism of those religions.

None of these articles contain explicit criticism of the belief/philosophy - Nazism, socialism, fascism

The Communism article has a short paragraph documenting the social stigma due to anti-communist sentiment in the U.S. Otherwise, there is little if any criticism of it in the article itself.

The following articles do have a fairly strong implicit criticism of the belief/philosophy - imperialism, colonialism

The Zionism article does have a link to {{Anti-Zionism]] but there is otherwise not much discussion of anti-Zionism in the Zionism article.

My conclusion? Although I disagree with it, I will yield to the standing practice and admit that the Roman Catholic Church article has far more extensive treatment of criticism and opposition than other articles that might be expected to treat criticism of an institution/belief/philosphy.

Although I am not happy with the title of the Anti-Catholicism article, I suspect the more standard treatment would be to put most of the criticism into an article of that sort. See Talk:Anti-Catholicism for the discussion of why the article title is not appropriate for ALL criticisms of the Catholic church. In a nutshell, the argument is that Anti-Catholicism should be reserved for bigotry that is along the lines of Anti-Semitism.

--Richard 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that's not a balanced comparison. This article is not Catholicism or Christianity; it's Roman Catholic Church - an organisation, not a belief. So the correct comparison is not with Anglicanism, Buddhism, Zionism, Communism; but with Church of England, World Fellowship of Buddhists, Israel, Soviet Union (I've had trouble finding exact equivalents in other faiths, as most don't have international organisations in the mould of the Roman Catholic Church). Mormonism doesn't contain much criticism; but Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. If there is noteworthy criticism of the Church, the article should contain it; shuffling it off into another article will very likely create a POV Fork, which should be avoided.

On the other hand, as I say, criticism and controversy probably shouldn't be in a section of its own either. Controversy about priestly celibacy should be in the section on priestly celibacy, and so on. If the article is to be divided (and it is terribly long) it should be done by subject area, not by picking off 'criticism' away from neutral and positive points of view. TSP 02:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP and Fishead, I wonder if you two might help me fill out the outline I have begun on the Anglicanism page. I doubt it will last long without your full support, in the interest of not letting the Anglican page not be presented from any Anglican POV, which you agree is really quite unacceptible. I am eager to see your energetic contributions. --Vaquero100 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are several issues with the approach you've taken there.

The first is that few of the criticisms you mentioned were related to Anglicanism - as I've said above, criticisms will usually be directed at a body, not at a belief system. Adding criticisms to Church of England or Anglican Communion would be more valid; and certainly criticisms have been made. One issue is that the Church of England and Anglican Communion articles are very sparse on doctrinal matters as a whole; so many issues on which both positive and negative opinions should be reported are not covered at all.

The second is that Wikipedia is only here to report the criticisms that have been made; not to draw out a framework in which we think criticisms should be made. It is utterly unencyclopedic to start with a framework then look for criticisms that fit it; it is our role only to report the criticisms that exist. It's true that the criticism section here isn't very well-sourced - the entire article is desperately lacking sources, as I've said on several occasions - but that's still a step up from starting without even details of what the criticisms are, let alone who made them.

The third is that all the titles you proposed expressed a clear Point of View. Compare the criticism sections on this page - "Ordination reserved to men", "Reforms of the Second Vatican Council"; with the ones you proposed - "Inadequacy of Anglican orders", "Anglican crimes against humanity on faithful English Catholics".

So, please do add prominent known opinions (positive and negative) to Anglican-related pages - most of them could do with the attention. Setting out headings then asking for criticisms that fit them is unlikely to result in a balanced approach, however. TSP 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case you missed it, I have already said that ideally articles should not have a criticism section. However, this should be achieved by mentioning both positive and negative prominent views in the approporiate sections of the article, not by omitting all mention of negative views or covering them only in a separate article. TSP 14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

this is a troll comment

-- some go so far as to identify Catholicism with the "Great Whore of Babylon" of the Book of Revelation.. I find this lead simply a troll comment in an aritcle whose lead is overtly anti-catholic. Plz remove. --h y dka t 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I would be fine to leave it out but it is not a troll comment. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the intro because it is documenting an extreme position. Nonetheless, besides the specific statement being true, it is part of documenting a wider position among a significant number of Christians.

I've had people say this to me, "Catholics aren't Christian". One was a Baptist, another was a Seventh-Day Adventist. Reality is: some people truly believe this stuff. Their pastors teach it to them. So, it's not a troll comment.

--Richard 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it belongs in criticism and not the lead. Leads should be pretty vanilla. They should not talk about critics to start off. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

why why not transfer the criticism out of the lead? at-least most of it? The lead, with the criticism, is too much a opinion former. --h y dka t 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I did already. I would rather say it here, then do what I said I was doing. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition

I placed a ^{[citation needed]} marker on the section on the inquisition a few days ago, but no-one seems to have responded so I'll ask here:

While Pope John Paul II apologized for certain historic excesses in May 1995, many historians, even non-Catholics, have seen that there have been some exaggerations on the negative roles played by the Church in the Inquisition.

Name some of these "many historians".

In fact, over the several centuries of operation the number of excutions due to this kind of "treason" was significantly less than the same practices carried out in Protestant England and parts of Germany, according to preliminary findings of a team of scholars reviewing the meticulously kept trial records.

Which scholars? Cite them. This assertion doesn't entirely make sense, given that the Episcopal Inquisition began in 1184, and England became Protestant in 1534, so any comparison between executions by the Inquisition and by "Protestant England" over "the several centuries of operation" must be scoped differently from what is suggested.

These scholars point out that the Inquision began as a way of protecting Europe from the covert penetration by the Turks who led some violent attacks against Christian coastal towns. These historians say that it is difficult, if not unhistorical, to judge by present day standards the threats, issues and resources which the leaders of that time were faced with.

For this the source is Warren Carrol, History of Christendom. He cites a number of historians. I will have to go back to the book to get their names. Marax 07:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which historians, which scholars? At the moment this section is utterly unencyclopedic; if no-one can source it it's probably best to remove it entirely. TSP 23:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, you are right, this material needs to be documented. Inquisition by Edward Peters is one of several books published in English which does just this. Peters is also the author of the highly acclaimed Torture, and is the Henry Charles Lea Professor of Medieval History at the University of Pennsylvania. He is no slouch, and is highly repected in the field. There are others, but it may take me a while to find the references.

TSP, if you are still looking for more authorities on the Inquisition matter, I have added several more external links as well as book references. This is a growing field and more evidence is expected as the study of the original court records progresses. Interestingly, the current estimates for the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition are in the 3,000 to 6,000 executions (in Spain and the New World) compared to about 50,000 executions in the English witch trials alone which of course do not include the thousands of Catholics executed in the same period as the Inquisition by the English crown. --Vaquero100 00:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Witch trial suggests (with sources, even though the article itself is marked for cleanup at the moment) that the generally-accepted estimate of 40-60,000 for witch trial executions is for the whole of Europe, not just England - This breakdown estimates 35-64,000 total, 300-1000 in England, with Germany being the largest contributor. In any case, if the comparison is with witch trials (which went on in Catholic and Protestant countries, separately from the inquisition), it should say so; 'due to this kind of "treason"' seems to be trying to hide the differences between the cases. I'm just trying to get an idea of what the assertions in this section actually mean.

There's one source there now, which is a good start; though it's not clear which of the assertions it is the source for. If we want to keep these "some historians", "many scholars" comments, though we should specifically state at least one person or group who has expressed each view. TSP 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Spanish article for inquisition (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisici%C3%B3n) it says that only 36 witches were executed in Spain out of 125,000 court proceedings. This is in contrary to what Vaquero has said.

In Spain, there has been a lot of research and work done into the inquisition and the general picture is that it was more official and legal than previously understood. The tales about the Spanish Inquisition is what is now considered part of the "black legend", an assortment of criticism on Spain and its imperialistic practices by a protestant north envious of the riches and powers delivered by the colonies.

I am no expert, but before posting any defamatory comments on Spain’s history, reasonable references have to be provided.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ecumenical Councils

According to the article as it stands, an Ecumenical Council is one called by the Pope, and this point is now being insisted upon. Could someone please tell me for which of the first seven this was true? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we know you're Orthodox and so have to use the article to push the Orthodox theology of how wrong the pope is. On the other hand, the article is meant to explain the Catholic Church's own self-understanding. In that theology: Christ founded the Church over which he set the apostles as the leadership, imparting to them what would later be called the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them what would later be called bishops. Within that college of apostles, say Catholics, Peter was given a unique role as the pin of unity -- the apostles were to stay united to one another by staying united to Peter. hence, a meeting of the apostles, in Catholic view, was just a committee meeting unless Peter was among them or at least endorsing such a meeting, in which case it becomes a true meeting of the apostolic college, hence a council. The first was therefore the Council of Jerusalem around 50 AD. In Catholic theology, the bishops of the world AS A GROUP are the successors of the apostles AS A GROUP, with one exception: that role of Peter within the apostolic college is carried on by the Pope. Hence, a meeting of the 2200 (or so) Catholic bishops of the world is merely a committee meeting unless the Pope is present or at least endorses it, at which point it again becomes a meeting of the apostolic college and therefore an ecumenical council.

Hence, a council, as Catholics define the term, is not merely "very high" in its authority as somebody tried to water down the Catholic position. It is, in fact, the highest authority. The first 7 Councils may not have been called by the Pope in the sense that he wrote out the invitation cards, but without papal endorsement of the event and its resolutions/canons, the Catholic Church would not recognize them as true ecumenical councils. Thus, catholic Theology in retrospect accepts as authoritative meetinmgs of the apostolic college Jerusalem (for which the only records we have are contained in the Acts of the Apostles), and the 21 Councils listed started from Nicaea.

The Orthodox, of course, recognize no such Petrine office, and so the Pope's involvement with, say, Nicaea was of no more significance than the involvement of the bishop of Hippo Regius or of Caesarea Maritima. This is, however, the article explaining Catholic theology, and so should reflect their interpretation of what constitutes an ecumenical council. Disputes as to whether Catholics are right, or the pope is a bum and a usurper, or whatever, belong in a different article.Amherst5282 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention was simply to point out that as phrased the article propounds a standard that would exclude the first seven councils, which you admit he did not call. (Actually he didn't call them in any meaningful sense of the word.) Nor did he "endorse" some of them until long after the fact. (Which acceptance on his part is far more important to the Orthodox than you seem to think.) My subsidiary point, which I am not insisting on (as you might have noticed were you not predisposed to believe me hostile) was that as a practical matter a sitting Pope is superior to a Council. If it cannot be called without his approval, and if it cannot take effect without his confirmation, then a Pope can effectively block anything a Council wishes to do no matter how superior it might be in theory. That it would be nevertheless binding on subsequent Popes is why I'm not pressing the point. But please review WP:CIVIL before replying here again. It will make a more pleasant experience for everyone. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is presently stated reflects the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church since the Great Schism when the only surviving Roman emporer (at Constantinople) could no longer perform the function of his predecessors in calling a council because he was not a member of the Catholic Church. Admittedly, the pope has assumed this role, and thus it is stated. Practically speaking these requirements may make the pope over a council, but these stipulations are important in order that a council not overtake the papacy which was attempted at the Council of Basel.

While I can't speak for Amherst, I can say that there is a considerable frustration for Catholics who try to edit this article because a significant number of non-Catholics "hover" over every edit to ensure that this articile on the Catholic Church reflects their particular angle on theology. This constant antagonism is part of the constant experience of Catholics in life as our Church is continually the object of redicule which would never be tolerated as socially acceptable if aimed at any other religion, social group or ethnicity. So, I make no apologies for my own reactions, at least. --Vaquero100 05:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, cowboy. I think it is good that there is input from non-Catholics, so that the interaction will ensure objectivity. Lima 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(Response to Vaquero100, not Lima) I admit this article is on my watchlist. Is that "hovering"? If so, then I'm hovering in a great many places.

But this is an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. This article is not only for Roman Catholics to edit, but for anyone with a valuable contribution to make, just like any other article. There is frustration all around when someone's particular POV is insufficiently represented; in this, the article is far from unique. Nor is your experience as a Roman Catholic in real life unique. It's suffered by Christians everywhere.

To the point of the content here, surely you can see there's considerable cause for confusion? Think of a reader who knows nothing at all about these subjects trying to learn about them from Wikipedia. He reads here that the Roman Catholics do not believe a council is ecumenical unless (among other considerations) it's called by a Pope. Then he goes to the article about, say, the First Council of Constantinople where he reads that it's an ecumenical council accepted by the Roman Catholic Church among others -- dogmatically that is; some canons are problematic -- but that not only was it not called by a Pope but that perhaps he wasn't invited and in any event didn't attend. (And in fact didn't even send a legation. My class notes tell me it was originally intended as a local council only.) Doesn't this look like a contradiction? Some explanation is probably therefore in order. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lima, thanks for the comment. I have no problem with imput for all quarters as long as it isn't just pushing an agenda. Of course this is an open forum and discussion and consensus is a value. But, in my experience in the past couple of months working on this article and Talk, the only acceptible way to present the Catholic Church is from somebody else's self-serving perspective. I do not mean to be uncharitable or uncivil, but there are times one has to take a stand for what is just. I dont see a hoard of Continuing Anglicans insisting that every reference to the Anglican Communion be changed to the "Canterburian Anglican Communion" because "Anglican" is an ambiguous term. Though, to be just, based on the argumentation on this page, this should be thoroughly pursued. Do you deny such attempts to hijack this article? I dont see long sections on the Anglican articles cricizing or assessing its theology, problematic as it may be. Anyway, thanks for the comment, Lima, and for your many thoughtful contributions to WP. I do appreciate your work, Cowboy. --Vaquero100 06:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

TCC, thanks for your comments, also. I will work on some phrasing, if you haven't already, to clarify the point on ecumenical councils.

Regarding your point that all Christians suffer the same opposition, I challenge you to pay a bit more attention. Catholic, like other Christians, have to deal with the the negativity of the secular culture. However, Catholics in particular are a target of the secular culture because of our teachings on sexuality among other things, which many other churches have either abandoned or remained silent on. In addition to this we have to deal with the implicit and explicit anti-Catholicism of other Christians. As a Catholic, I have never heard nor given a homily critical of another religious group--ever. Yet, this is routine among other Christian churches against the Catholic church. Being from the American South, I know well what I speak. --Vaquero100 06:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is merely a personal observation, and I do not wish it to be the subject of comment by others, at least here. It is only natural that, in view of their origin, Protestant Churches devote a certain amount of energy to attacking the Catholic Church. What surprised me, when for a while I followed the Eastern Orthodox Church article, was how much energy was there spent on talking about (and almost always misrepresenting) the teaching and practice of the (Roman) Catholic Church. I made this comment on its Talk page (and won the approval of an Orthodox contributor) before deciding not to follow that article further. It would be a sad mistake to devote energy on the Roman Catholic Church page and on its Talk page to attacking other Churches. I hope this will never happen. It is perhaps excusable for Protestant Churches to define themselves, to some extent, by their disagreement with the Catholic Church. It is undignified for either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church to seem in any way to define themselves by their differences from another Church. Lima 08:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lima. If we could have tens of editors who hold that the Catholic Church has the competence, authority, and credibility to self-define, we could actually have a Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church in which the Catholic Church defines its origin and mission according to what the Catholic Church teaches and not what its critics have to say. patsw 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

By its very nature, an institution's self-definition does not represent a neutral point of view. Nor, obviously, does that of an institution which has a vested interest in undermining that definition. A definition needs to reflect the real-world situation. To compare the few thousand self-identified Anglicans not in communion with the See of Canterbury to the tens of millions of self-identified Catholics who are not in communion with the See of Rome is absurd. Having said that, I am all for mentioning dissenting groups like the Anglican Catholic Church or the Reformed Episcopal Church on the Anglicanism page or in pages on Anglicanism in which their practice differs from mainstream Anglicanism.

The same situation pertains to ecumenical councils. Ecumenical councils are councils of the bishops of the Catholic Church, however one wants to define that. The Orthodox, Roman, and Anglican communions define it differently. That's reality. That reality needs to be reflected in discourse if an encyclopedia is going to be accurate. Fishhead64 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise it is absurd to presume that all 70 million Anglicans call themselves catholics when there remains no consensus among Anglicans even to the meaning of the Eucharist. My friend, you speak for a small (and dwindling) faction within your church. I come from a long line of Episcopalians who shun the term "catholic." Such distain for things catholic is not just a private matter among them either, I have heard it from their pulpit myself--and in a tone I have never heard or used in a Catholic homily. If you have trouble believing me for some reason, I can tell you the exact occasion--it was the Sunday following the "embrace" of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope John Paul II on his visit to England around 1982. Some welcome.--Vaquero100 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, you miss my central point, which goes to the essential POV-ness of expressing self-identity as reality. I acknowledged that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander with respect to minority Anglican movements - but you seem unwilling to do so with analogous Catholic traditions, perhaps as a result of the hostility that you've endured. I have no doubt about the veracity of your claims - I'm well aware of hostility towards the Roman Catholic Church in some quarters of the Anglican Church. Some of this stems from a reformed self-identity, and some of it from a belief that the Roman Communion has broken with Catholic tradition. This, in fact, illustrates my point about the perils of basing definitions solely on self-identity, but you don't seem to make the connection.

I'm sorry that you've had an unhappy experience with intolerance among members of your family and their parish priests, but this isn't about that. Since you mention him, the present spiritual head of the Anglican Communion self-identifies as Catholic, and identifies Anglicanism as a movement of the Catholic Church (see, for example, his chapter "Teaching the Truth in Living Tradition: Affirming Catholicism in the Anglican Church, Boston, 1992). In fact, I don't know of any who have repudiated that description. But this is not just about the claims of the Anglican Communion. It is about the claims of the Orthodox Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Ecumenical Catholic Church, and others. Fishhead64 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, one must deal with the historal fact that not all of the early ecumenical councils were called specifically at the request of the pope, although all ecumenical have eventually been acknowledged as such by the popes. However, I would submit that there is a certain utility, even in a NPOV environment to allowing a degree of self definition. Otherwise, one gets sucked into allowing for the alternative viewpoints of anyone who chooses to form and express an opinion. There is, after all, an entitly called the (Roman)Catholic Church which has certain teachings, history and characteristics. If various other groups want to argue that the Catholic Church is in fact a subset group within a larger group of the same name, of which these other groups are also a part, that is all well and good. However, since acknowledging such a claim to bear weight would in fact redefine the Catholic Church to be something other than what the Catholic Church says it in fact is -- allowing every voice equal weight would seem to present a problem. If one presents the claim on Anglicans to be Catholic to have weight, than one by definition presents the Catholic Church as being wrong in saying that the Anglicans are in fact no such thing.Brendanhodge 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be longer but suppose it were changed to:

"The highest authority in the Catholic Church is an ecumenical council, a gathering of bishops summoned from all over the world to address doctrinal questions and whose decrees are subsequently promulgated by the pope."

Though in reading the section over, adressing ecumenical councils under the heading of Relations With Other Christian Churchs seems a little stream of consciousness to me.Brendanhodge 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"One gets sucked into allowing the viewpoints of anyone"? How do you figure that a free-for-all is sanctioned through maintaining a neutral stance? Taking into account the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Nestorians, Old Catholics, etc., there are probably about 500 million people who consider themselves to be part of the Catholic Church: This is hardly a fringe rabble, and hardly constitutes some novel redefinition. Rather, it is acknowledging a reality, namely, that there are a number of Catholic denominations that do not recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. This has been the state of affairs since the fifth century.

Nobody wants to undermine the Roman Communion's claim to being a Catholic Church, merely to challenge its exclusive proprietary claim to being the Catholic Church, bar others as though their self-definitions were of no consequence, or were false, or were mistaken or misleading in some way.

There is a problem, but it is easily soluble. The term Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous, it is one understood by everyone, it recognises the existence of other traditions' claims to being Catholic, and it is part of the Roman Communion's own self-identity (see Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, for example). Where's the problem with this solution? It seems to address all possible objections. Fishhead64 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendanhodge, Thanks for your good sense. Don't get discouraged. While this page has a couple of guard dogs intent on disenfranchising the Catholic Church from her 19 Century old name, I am confident that in the long run a more reasonable and just consensus will be achieved on this page, though it may seem like awaiting the Parousia.

Thanks also, Brendanhodge, for thinking through the wording on on the ecumenical councils. Of course it belongs elsewhere, but as you can see it is a challenge to find a coherent article when so many of the contributors mostly contribute their own POV remarks. I am trying to tidy up the "Contoversial Teachings" section which already reads much better, but there is a lot more work to do, if you have any interest. Thanks, again. --Vaquero100 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions Ecumenical Councils in the section about relations with other Christian Churches, not in a section on Catholic teaching. I think there is therefore no need whatever, at least in this section, to try to set forth Catholic theology about what precisely constitutes an Ecumenical Council. (There is no dogmatic definition about the4 matter, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not discuss it.) I have therefore made bold to change the text to fit the context. Differences about which councils to classify as Ecumenical Councils are now mentioned merely only as leading to the statement that the consequent splits sometimes concern terminology, rather than substance. (Changing this wording has led me to retouch other parts of the same section also.) Lima 07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

An "Ecumenical Council" has no relationship to the historically modern invented concept of "ecumenism" other than sharing the basic Greek, etymological root of "entire world". For that reason I prefer to call it a "General Council", which has also been commonly used historically. I think it avoids any confusion. Anyway, the definition of what a General Council is, is not a matter of theology and it is not a controversial issue. Never has been a controversy until AFTER 1965 and only by those who were troubled by the outcome of Vatican II. Before and during Vatican II it was widely proclaimed a General (or Ecumenical) Council, and accepted as easily as the fact that the pope lives at the Vatican. It is defined simply by the fact that the Bishops (of the entire world) do something they never do - all at once go and meet somewhere together, deliberating on matters of doctrine, for which the pope gives the final yea or nay making it represent what "the Church" teaches. This is the solemn, or extraordinary, magisterium at work. That all these bishops physically do this is not a matter of theology. It is simply a matter ordinary fact. There were 19 General Councils before Vatican II, and the fact of them was not a controversy once the pope approved of the results. (Diligens 09:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

The difficulty is that the general councils convened by the Pope only include those bishops in communion with him, as Bishop of Rome. "Ecumenical" is misleading in this case, since hundreds of bishops of other Catholic communions are excluded. Fishhead64 14:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is the term which is used. We are here to report only common usage. Yes, the modern understanding of 'ecumenical' has gone a different way from the sense in which it is used in the term 'ecumenical council'; but this remains the common term for such a thing, and there is no other meaning claiming the term. The article needs to make sure it's clear what sense the term is used in, that's all. TSP 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "Ecumenical Council" (or Oecumenical) has long been in usage by the (Roman) Catholic Church. Other groups that call themselves "catholic" are not known for doing so. The term by itself is well-understood on that point. However, with the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's I agree that using the term can be easily confusing because ecumenism was a relatively new thing on the world scene, and the ecumenical movement has been been given continual emphasis since then, so I think describing a council with the word "Ecumenical" should be avoided. It is sort of like using the term "gay" today in meaning joyful, which was completely appropriate before the 60's, and still remains a denotation in modern dictionaries, but people simply avoid using it because it diverts attention from comprehending a simple sentence when it is used to simply mean joyful or lighthearted. Furthermore, and very importantly, if you do a keyword search in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (of over 11,500 articles) for the term "ecumenical council" as opposed to "general council", you will find that 97 articles use ecumenical but that 260 of them use general council. It would appear that "General Council" is already well-established as the preferential Catholic term to use for the laity, and it also avoids that extra aforementioned problem created since the 60's. BTW, the term "ecumenism" is completely absent from that 1913 Encyclopedia. (Diligens 15:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

True, and perhaps that avoids enough problems to be worth switching to.

We are urged to follow common rather than official usage, though; and a Google Search for, for example "ecumenical council" Nicea gets 873 hits; whereas "ecumenical council" Nicea gets 38,000. That does seem like a pretty big majority for ecumenical council being the common usage. Admittedly the figures are much less conclusive when accompanied by Vatican or Trent - I'm not sure why that is - possibly ecumenical is more common for councils before the Great Schism, and the two are about equal for those after? (In case you're wondering, comparing "ecumenical council" and "general council" alone is pointless, because the latter turns up things like the Bar Council).

Other groups than the Roman Catholic Church may not hold ecumenical councils; but all of them recognise at least some of them; so many English-speakers outside the Roman Catholic Church will have an awareness of the terms. TSP 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the wording actually used in the article section discussed here is neither "Ecumenical Councils" not "General Councils", but "Ecumenical or General Councils"? Can't everyone be satisfied with this? What's the fuss about? Lima 16:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize it! Fair enough to me. (Diligens 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Propose merging this article with Catholicism

I'm sure this proposal will raise a ruckus. I just don't see the point of having both articles. I know that, if you read the intro to the Catholicism article, it sounds like there is a plausible distinction between this article and that one. However, if you read the Catholicism article, you will find that 75% of that content is duplicated here. So again, what's the point?

--Richard 05:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Having just read through Catholicism, that doesn't seem to me to be the case. Catholicism contains quite an extensive, but not in my opinion excessive, section on the Roman Catholic Church (mostly on terminology); but the majority of the article is on the history and interrelationship of those bodies.

I have removed a section which simply seemed to duplicate Catholic Sacrament, and which was almost purely from a Roman Catholic perspective; but the rest of the article seems appropriately general, and refers to all churches that consider themselves 'Catholic', not only to the church this article describes. TSP 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review this sentence from the Christianity portal

This is from the Christianity portal (Portal:Christianity)

"Catholicism: The Roman Catholic Church, the largest single body — which includes several Eastern Catholic rites — with more than 1 billion baptised members."

Issue #1: "more than 1 billion baptised members" sounds like McDonald's and the number could be a little more accurate

Issue #2: "includes several Eastern Catholic rites" - Is this the best way to describe those churches?

--Richard 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Never one to hold back, I changed it to this:

Catholicism: With more than one billion adherants, the Roman Catholic Church is most immediately identified with the Latin Rite, which is the predominant form of Catholicism in Western Europe, Africa and the Americas, however the Catholic Church also includes several Eastern Catholic rites.

Better? I know "Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church" can be a ticklish issue. I tried to get around that by emphasizing that within the (Roman) Catholic Church there are both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites. I'm still not satisfied with the feel of the final clause, though, as it seems like the Eastern Rites are simply tacked on at the end. I was trying to think of some modifying clause "several Eastern Catholic rites which..." to give it a more completed feeling and describe the situation more clearly, but I couldn't think of anything. Do feel free to ammend further.Brendanhodge 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a change (in the 1980s?) in Vatican policy and they are not to referred to as Eastern Rites, but as Churches. Certainly that seems to be the context of the Eastern Rite wikipedia article. MnJWalker 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This article itself states: "Since then, (i.e. the 1980s), the term Rite, once the normal term, is rarely used to refer to these Churches, but has not fallen altogether out of use." It is found, for instance, in the Annuario Pontificio.

Where to put criticism of Catholic doctrine and church governance?

The discussion of moving text from the Anti-Catholicism article to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article involves the organization of at least three articles: Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism. I feel that we should have a single discussion on this topic rather than three separate discussions on the Talk Pages of each of the relevant articles. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy. Please make any comments or suggestions at that page.

--Richard 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We shall discuss it here, or make a RfM please. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by RfM? A "Request for Mediation"?

It's a bad idea to discuss it in three separate places i.e. here and in Talk:Anti-Catholicism and in Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church. That's why I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy.

I hope we don't have to vote on where we are going to have the discussion. Sheesh.

--Richard 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Move. Frankly the Criticism article and AntiCatholic article, the ROman, Catholic and Catholicism Article could be merged into one article but consensus was never reached. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will NOT make a Request for Move or a Proposal for Merger. It's clear that many of the folks who edit Roman Catholic Church do not want more criticism of Catholicism in that article. It's also clear that many people who edit Anti-Catholicism want to restrict that article to being about irrational bigotry along the lines of anti-Semitism. So, the logical place for issues about "opposition to church doctrine and church governance" is Criticism of the Catholic Church, a strategy which four people have endorsed and which you oppose for reasons which you have yet to state.

The obvious place to discuss issues of strategy about what goes in various articles and to coordinate the efforts of multiple editors across multiple pages related to Catholicism is the Strategy subpage of the Catholicism WikiProject, to wit, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy.

P.S. I agree with you that all three articles should be merged into one article but I have "read the tea leaves" and I can tell that there would be strong opposition to such a proposal. I have better things to do with my time than tilt against windmills.

--Richard 19:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to work with people instead of coming on like that. We need more indians not more chiefs. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say the same of you and in spades. You have been plenty arbitrary about wanting to things your way, even going so far as to nominate a page I created for deletion.

All I was saying in my comment above is that, having read this Talk Page, I could tell that there would be strong opposition to a proposal to merge the articles. And, the discussion to date, has proven me correct.

For me to refuse your demand that I issue a proposal to merge the articles wasn't my trying to be a "chief". It was my refusing to be your "indian". I didn't and still don't really care that much about whether the articles are merged or not. If you want the articles to be merged, it was incumbent on you to make the proposals to merge.

As for "tilting against windmills", why should I be expected to spend time and energy trying to convince others of a proposal whose outcome wasn't that important to me? I was and still am willing to work within the current article structure. Why should I allow you to co-opt me into your agenda for these articles? Oh, that's right, we need more "indians" and I got nominated. Thanks but no thanks.

And please stop lecturing me about "working with people". Sounds to me like a euphemism for "doing things your way".

--Richard 09:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass Merging

I think we spread our efforts too thinly. Lets get a consensus to move Anti-Catholicism Roman Catholic Church Criticism of the Catholic Church and Catholicism here, and make it one workable article. SPlitting can be done on specific *issues. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the contents of all the above articles could be merged into Roman Catholic Church with Catholicism being reserved for explaining those churches who self-identify as Catholic but not Roman Catholic. --Richard 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also OK with merging Roman Catholic Church and Criticism of the Catholic Church while leaving anti-Catholicism to handle irrational anti-Catholic bigotry.

I would like to remind everyone part of the issue is a continuation of the "Assessment of Church Doctrine Section" discussion (#27 in the TOC for this page). Because Vaquero100 seemed to feel that Protestant criticism of the Church did not belong in this article, I brought it over to Anti-Catholicism and then moved it to Criticism of the Catholic Church.

--Richard 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

having just scannned through all three of these articles being considered for merging. It seems to me any resulting article woule be HUGE if it kept even most of the topics treated justly. --chistofishman 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree largely with Chistofishman. It should be noted that this article is already around 3 times the recommended maximum size for articles. I think that Criticism of the Catholic Church should be merged in here (and indeed should never have been split off from here). Catholicism is quite, quite different and explicitly should not be merged in here (though could be merged with both Catholic and Catholic Church (disambiguation), at either of the first two names or some other one). Anti-Catholicism should not be merged in here, I don't think, just as Anti-Semitism shouldn't be merged with Jew; however, it should be cleaned up to only include actual anti-Catholicism (that is, irrational prejudice and discrimination against Catholics), as distinct from criticism of the Catholic Church. TSP 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Second. This article is already long enough, don't merge it with anything.--T. Anthony 08:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the current length of the article should be an argument against merging. Just because the article is too long doesn't mean that the Criticism of the Catholic Church material shouldn't be merged in. The Roman Catholic Church article is way too long because the "Liturgy" section is way too long as is the "Hierarchical Constitution of the Church" section. We could address the "too long" problem by moving those sections into subsidiary articles.

Thus, I would suggest that a better rationale for keeping the articles separate would be the one made below by User:Vaquero100 in which he argues that putting controversial topics into the Roman Catholic Church article would tend to make for turgid and convoluted prose. I am coming to agree with this point of view and am becoming less in favor of merging the articles.

--Richard 09:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. I checked what removing the entire liturgy and hierarchy sections would accomplish and I still got "This page is 61 kilobytes long this may be longer than is preferable." This is the same length as the Hinduism article and that's with it pretty well gutted. Still the reason you mention is maybe a better one.--T. Anthony 11:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism articles look like they've had a lot of stuff just pasted into them from other places, so they're both very spottily written. As a matter of principle, it seems to me that there might be enough to say from a strictly historical perspective on the topic of Anti-Catholicism to merit a separate article -- though half of the current content doesn't relate to that. I'm not sure I see the point of the Criticism article, unless it's simply a good way to keep the content from taking up too much space in the Catholic Church article.Brendanhodge 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia, a long treatment should be in a book, we can't cover every topic in detail. We can cover individual topics in detail. We have four survey articles that need merging, and we can pick off things topic by topic. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(Rm vote until we have spoken, dont jump the gun please.) Dominick ^(TALK) 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

People have been speaking about this forever. It doesn't need a lot of discussion to determine which way the wind is blowing (that's what a straw vote is). It also helps focus discussion if we know which of the various options has the most support.

--Richard 03:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

First, thanks to Dominick for giving us the opportunity to think through a reorganization of this and other Catholic Church related pages. I have been thinking about this for some time now. The alternate solution that occurs to me is in a rather different direction. So, I beg your patience and consideration.

At first glance the idea of merging the three articles looks like a great idea. Theoretically, it makes perfect sense. Practically, it is problematic, as I see it.

First, this is a very popular topic for criticism. There is a lot of negativity out there about the Catholic Church, so there is a constant stream of edits along this line. Then Catholics come along and need to respond to every criticism line for line, which makes for very awkward reading. (I tried to simplify the "Assessing Catholic doctrine" section into a "Controversial Teachings" section starting with a brief outline of the teaching, a coherent paragraph to summarize the criticisms and a brief paragraph with some Catholic responses. The steamlining which made for smoother reading lasted about 2 days before someone came along and inserted a Catholic defense line-for-line again in the criticisms paragraph. I am not protective of my writing, but the defensive impulse seems to demand two arguments for every sentence--which is a bit maddening for the reader.) All of this works against this article being very useful to the beginner, the way it is currently presented.

This RCC article is trying to say far too much about far too few topics. A single article attempting to address everything from the episcopate, to the reforms of Vatican II, to liturgy, to priestly celibacy, to ecumenism, to the nature of God, to the Inquisition, to the contributions of the CC to society, etc. etc., will never be very workable. Image what this article will look like once the Pro-Choice and Gay Movement folks, God bless them, and the conservative Catholics decided this article is the best place for their war turf!!

So, I would like to propose we make MORE articles, perhaps all linked together with an organizational box (whatever those are called on WP). For example, moving the "Sacraments" off this page was a big improvement. They are no longer lost on this page and now have room to develop (perhaps into 7 separate articles eventually) without being out of proportion to this general page. So, perhaps we could have a series of articles tied together. This RCC page could then offer a brief summary of each topic with a link to each separate main article. We might do well to employ the opening (identification) paragraph of earch linked article as the summary on the RCC page. This would make the RCC page a general introduction to the various topics and a kind of "index" to the array of articles, afterall there are not many churches you can write an entire 28-volume encyclopedia about.

Perhaps the array of articles could look somethng like this:

Roman Catholic Church--with a brief paragraph on each of many topics referring readers to Main Articles for each, including:

Catholic Sacraments
CC and Scripture
Tradition in the CC
Eastern Rite Churches in the CC
CC and pro-life issues
CC and Church-State relations
CC and Reformation theology
CC and diplomatic relations
CC and the UN
Vatican City
CC government (ecclesiology)
CC and the theology of priesthood
CC and education
CC and higher education
CC and the medical profession (industry)
CC and biomedical ethics
CC the legal profession
The Catholic parish
The priestless Catholic parish
CC and the arts
Faith and Reason in the CC
CC and Catholic politicians
CC and Evolution
CC and the Sciences
CC and the "Anglican Use"
Catholic teachings on sexual morality
Spiritualities and prayer forms of the CC
CC and Vocational discernment
CC and business ethics
Government of the CC
The Papacy in scripture, tradition, and history
Early Church History
Medieval Church History
CC perspectives on the Reformation
CC and Modern History
Pacifism and the Just War theory in the CC
CC and the wars of religion
Historically Catholic nations
Saints in the CC
Marian doctrines of the CC
CC and the Evanglical Christian movements
Catholic apologetics
Liturgy in the CC
Catholicism and Ecumenism (way too much energy on this page has to do with what the CC says about other religions etc.)
History of Religious Life in the CC
RCIA in the CC
The Reforms of Vatican II
The Vatican II era in the CC(1961-1978)
The John Paul II era in the CC(1978-2005)
Mysticism and the CC
Canon Law in the CC
... and whatever else I am missing...

Seriously, these are just the topics I came up with off the top of my head! All of these a significant topics. None is minor, and most have made the headlines of major media outlets at some point in recent years. All of these deserve mention and linkage from this RCC main article.

Many of these topics already exist as independent articles, in which case there is no need for a long discourse on them on this page. For example, there are already two very long articles on the Inquisition, both of which are hotly debated. Unfortunately, there is now a growing section on this page regarding the Inquisition with the same debates beginning to take place citing the same references etc. This is a tremendous waste of energy when we have an encyclopedia to write!

This brings me to another related matter. Some of these topics are confusing to read because they overlap with other Churches. For example. I reorganized the "Canon law" article to separate out Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox sections. But these really should be separate articles, because there is so much more to say (for example, about the canon law of marriage, including the annulment process, not to mention reserved absolution, impediments, the canon law of priesthood and religious life, etc., in the CC ) that doesn't fit with this presently joint article. Besides, I am sure there is much more to say about canon law in the Anglican and Orthodox Churches. My point is simply that when articles get conceptually or materially unwieldly, dividing them makes more sense than merging them.

Lastly, and this may be more controversial, I would suggest that criticism sections be attatched to their related articles rather than grouped in one article called "Criticisms of the RCC." When grouped like this they are always out of context from what they are specifically criticising. For instance, "women's ordination" or "a married priesthood" criticisms really go with an article like "theology of the priesthood in the CC." Or the criticisms article could be organized in the same way as the RCC page with brief summaries and a link to the proper Catholic article with criticism section. (So the criticisms related to the gay movement would link to "Catholic teachings on sexual morality.")

In short, this RCC main article is trying to say far too much on far too few topics. We would do well to:

Summarize topics with links to the relevant articles.
Perhaps employ the first (identification) paragraph of the article as this summary with a "For more see X link."
Join criticisms to the articles they apply to.
Separate out Catholic topics from other articles where needed.
Create an RCC articles reference box for easier navigation.

Thanks again for your patience and for the opportunity to talk about these organizational matters.

Salud! --User:Vaquero100 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of this. Whether quite so many articles are needed I'm not sure - but on the other hand, Wiki Is Not Paper, and if we could produce a good-quality article on each of those subjects it would be amazing. TSP 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A few little further thoughts:

* I strongly feel that the first of your alternatives (that is, criticism incorporated into the pages on each topic) is superior to the second (a separate set of criticism pages arranged on the same basis).

* Some topics covered by this article are general to all Christianity. If there is not particularly a distinctive RC view on them, it may be possible to simply summarise here, then link to the general page on the topic.

* Is it possible to keep the 'Roman Catholic' rather than 'Catholic' terminology throughout this entire heirachy of articles, rather than just on this page? To an extent I care less about this page - it has a terminology section explaining what it means, after all - but spreading 'Catholic' to mean this church around other pages (particularly ones mentioning other churches that call themselves Catholic) can be genuinely confusing and ambiguous. TSP 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I echo TSP's comments, for the most part. I am more strongly of the opinion that a proliferation of articles can create a confusing mess. Where consolidation can occur, be it between topics or be it between Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations, it should.

And, of course, as you might expect by now, I have objections to the the use of the term Catholic instead of Roman Catholic because of the inherent ambiguity. I honestly am beginning to think that this whole question of Catholic vs. Roman Catholic will only be solved through arbitration. Fishhead64 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line proble is this, we have four articles on a similar topic. We can branch topic by topic. We dont need overlap. Thats my problem, not branching. Sure we can have an article on each topic braching from ONE article. That is the proposal. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Roman Catholic Church and Criticism of the Catholic Church. Catholicism is entirely different. I think Anti-Catholicism is probably distinct as well. TSP 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Roman Catholic Church and Catholicism are entirely different! Merging them would be unhelpful. Jpeob 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why they could not branch from a single central article? Dominick ^(TALK) 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquera100's proposal is an excellent one. As a user who knows next to nothing about the subjects I found the main article a bit overwhelming; breaking it up a bit would be a big help.

Dominick. I am trying to imagine what it would look like if either RCC or Catholicism was to branch off the other, being the central article. As I see it from the users' point of view, anyone who wants the RCC article will likely search on "Catholic Church" or "Catholicism", as that is how English speakers refer to what WP now calls the RCC. Arbitrarily they will get either the "Catholicism" article or the "RCC", which are very different articles. So, as long as these articles have these names, there will be two points of entry into this question. The only way I see to have everything come off a single article would be to give the "Catholicism" article a different name like "Catholicism (General sense)" or maybe "Catholicism (Theological sense)" or some such thing. To tell the truth I would not want the central article to be the present "Catholicism" article. That would just make everyone who is looking for the common sense use have to go through another article to find what they are looking for. At least now they have a 50/50 chance of finding what they are looking for on the first click. At least this is how I am imagining your suggestion of a single central article. Maybe you have another way in mind that I am missing. BTW, I would support the idea of the present "Catholicism" article (which really is not what most people will be looking for) becoming Catholicism (Generals sense)"-or whatever. Right now it is anything but the common sense use of the term. --Vaquero100 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why God (or at least, the god of Wikipedia) created redirects. Fishhead64 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think this would create a problem with that Anglican guy who kept insisting that Anglicans are catholic (Catholic?) too.

I think we're trying to solve too many problems all at the same time.

I believe that, in light of the opinions expressed above, we are looking at three separate articles:

# RCC,

# Catholicism (to include the Eastern-rite churches, Anglicans and whoever else lays claim to the name "Catholic") and

# Anti-Catholicism (bigotry along the lines of anti-Semitism).

Thus, what we're really talking about is whether "Criticism of the Catholic Church" should be folded back into "Roman Catholic Church".

You may remember that a couple of weeks ago, I did a survey of Wikipedia articles on religions and ideologies. I found that none of those articles included as much criticism of the religion or ideology as the RCC article has right now. It was based on that research that I decided not to push for more criticism of Catholicism to be included in the RCC church.

Let's focus on this question: Shall we merge "Criticism of the CC" with "RCC"? After you resolve that question, the rest of the questions can be addressed individually.

The articles that Vaquero100 suggested can be extracted from RCC and expanded over a period of time.

--Richard 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason that Catholicism can talk about the Anglican or Orthodox schism. If there needs to be a better PoV treatment that can work. There is a way to branch that off the main article. It isn't hard. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100 I am in general agreement with your proposal. However, the specific articles proposed pose some issues. In general, one should look at any proposed article titled "CC and X" and ask whether there is a need for such an article or rather just an article titled "X". Thus, the proposed title "CC and Reformation Theology" begs the question "Why not just Reformation Theology"? --Richard 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Vaquero100's suggestion. Generally, I'd say the subjects suggested are indeed worthy topics (for instance "Catholic Church and Bioethics" would at best be a minority viewpoint in a "Bioethics" article, and quite possibly would be considered too POV to be included at all. And yet, the fact that the Church teaches what she teaches is clearly a topic worthy of reportage, whether one agrees with it or not. Almost makes one with for a full-blown CatholicWikiPedia.

The difficulty, of course, is editorial control. If we have 'criticisms' listed, it seems like we're inviting both excessive insertion of additional criticisms and then even more excessive defenses against them. Is there any chance that as an NPOV move we could limit criticism sections strictly to specific statements by known authors, e.g. "Hans Kung has questioned the doctrine of nulla salus ex ecclesia claiming that..."

Any chance that would reduce strife?Brendanhodge 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for your question. As I said, these were titles pretty much off my head and I am not wedded to them. The general concept I have in mind though is that the Church has a position on just about everything. Someone interested in how these teachings or positions hold together and relate to one another requires that the Church's ideas are systematically presented and not just afterthoughts on the topic X. So, for instance an article on the CC and biomedical ethics will be able to do a better job at addressing the issue (not biomedical ethics, but the Church's position on biomedical ethics) than an afterthought knee-jerk defensive paragraph tacked on by a frustrated Catholic. The Catholic Church has the most comprehensive body of teaching on most matters of philosophy, political philosophy, ethics or morality, economics, armed conflict, anthropology, etc. which touch upon virtually every dimension of life. If X is a topic, CC and X is most likely to be a real topic as well.

To address the topic you raised, CC and Protestant Theology, this is an enormous topic. There are different facets of Protestant Theology where the Church has changed it's position over time, others it absolutely will not. There have been eras rigidity and triumphalism, and eras of detente. Just the past 50 years have seen chilly relations become more ecumenical, and then take huge steps back (Anglican Churches, for example). In other cases Protestant theology has shifted dramatically. The "Great Realignment," which Robert Wuthnow calls the most significant shift in Western Christianity since the Reformation (the movement of Protestants out of historical churches into non-denomiational ones) has made much of the ecumenical progress with mainline churches moot. The ECUSA is now half the size it was 40 years ago (approx. it's been awhile since I read the book). So, as the ecumenical movement has progressed over thirty years qualitatively, quantitatively we are now slipping, with the most dynamic Protestant churches now considerable more hostile to Catholicism than the churches their memberships left.

The article could make observations such as liturgy in the vernacular, a tenet of the Reformation rejected by the CC 400 years, now accepted. The theology of priesthood and Eucharist are discussed today in ways more familiar to Protestants (preaching and communal celebration), without giving up the very dimensions upon which we most differ (minister of sacrifice and sacrifice). The joint documents with the Lutherans on justification are fascinating and represent real break-throughs. Similar documents with Anglicans and Lutherans on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry have also been landmarks in progress. However, ordination of women and gays..........

Anyway, you get the point. The the desciption of the article is on its way to being article-length itself.

My real concern is this: We have an encyclopedia to write but we are often missing the forest for the trees. There are too many join articles that are stuck in tit-for-tat, line for line elbowing for Anglican this, Catholic that, Orthodox something else. As I mentioned above, the Canon Law article is a perfect example of this. It started as a stub. Somebody wrote a bunch of stuff mostly Catholic in nature. Then someone wove in Anglican material and likwise Orthodox material. It was a nightmare to read. Fine, that is just a matter of sorting and putting in subheadings. But, then there is the matter of Catholic Canon Law--which is a legal masterpiece with jurisprudence literally dating to the Roman Empire, with brilliant legal concepts and terminology. How was this little general article on Canon Law going to bring all that together? It couldn't. Now just going through the links to "Canon law (Catholic Church)" which number 307 out of the former total of 500+ many were articles on just those same wonderful ancient legal concepts and terms. Someone reading one of those dense and learned and rich articles probably clicked on the Canon Law link only to find a pathetic 3-paragraph glorified glossary/disambig. page and learned nothing and found no links to pages where they might learn something. Now I am hoping that the Catholic Canon Law page will have a decent history section. An entire list of related terminology articles many of which already exist. Perhaps many people smarter than I will write sections comparing Canon Law to ancient Roman Law, it contribution to Common Law, Napoleanic law, etc. etc. I would hope that the Anglican article would give its own history, how church and civil law were/are related and how Canon law does or does not come into play regarding major Church and Communion issues, conflicts, etc.

My point is that trying artificially to hold articles together merely because different body use the same terms can keep the project from become truly encyclopedic. It does not bother me in the least the creation of new such articles begin with stubs at times, that is how articles get their start. Many of these common articles are merely the product of a lack of vision on the part of the original stub makers. I doubt that if the person who made the Canon law stub had half a notion of the complexity and richness of the topic, s/he would have made just one common stub stuitable for little more than a definition.

Wow, I have dragged on.....sorry, it's the evangelical preacher in me (from my father's side). --Vaquero100 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer the orginal questions about the 3 articles. I agree with what has been said above. Anti-Catholicism is a legit article as long as it parallels "anti-semitism" in scope as the first paragrph now reads. This is Scott Hahn's definition, btw.

Catholicism, though I don't really like it, is a reasonable compromise, at least for the time being. (I dont think a random sampling of English speakers would agree with it in the way they actually speak or fill in search engine blanks).

Criticisms, as I see it will fit well in the context of each article they address. Hopefully, the articles will be well enough written so that when a reader gets to the criticism section, s/he will have a good idea what the Catholic response would be or at least where the conceptual impasse lies. (Not that articles should be written with an apologetic tone or intent. Catholic ideas should always be expressed on their own terms, first.--Vaquero100 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I've tried to clean up the second paragraph of the lead section, which had ceased to make any grammatical sense. I'm not sure, though that I'm happy the statements it makes are NPOV. I'm mostly concerned about the clause:

"The Church has consistently identified itself as the "Catholic Church" since the second century"

This seems to present as fact that the Church now based in Rome is synonymous with the undivided church of the second century. Wouldn't that be disputed by, for example, the Eastern Orthodox churches? TSP 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I was looking to post such a point but you beat me to it by two days. The formal breakup into a Western Catholic Church and an Eastern Orthodox Church does not occur until the 11th Century, so this clause breaks Wikipedia guidelines on historicity and should be removed. MnJWalker 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to TSP) Very much so, yes. This related directly to the argument over "Catholic". I'd go even farther than MnJWalker and say the break wasn't definitive until the 13th century. The mutual excommunications of 1054 were something of an inflection point in relations, but did not actually break off intercommunion. In fact, the Popes of Rome had disappeared from the diptychs of Constantinople some time earlier. No one knows exactly why, and it had no practical effect until later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The question of continuity of historical identity is, of course, a tricky one. However, it seems like it would be difficult to make the argument that there is some definative gap or point of separation between what is currently called the Catholic Church and what called itself the Catholic Church in the 2nd century. This should not necessarily be odius to the Orthodox, in that they too can claim to have historical identity with the 2nd century Church. (Anglicans might be on shakier ground since there was a period during which the CofE was fairly Protestant before Anglo-Catholicism became all the rage again in the 1800s -- but that's their own lookout.)Brendanhodge 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It can hardly be a consistent self-identity, when there are huge swaths of the Catholic Church which are not in communion with Rome. There must be a way of being able to maintain the conviction that the institution is the same (self-identity), while at the same time acknowledging the reality that the Catholic Communion recognises different primates. Fishhead64 15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... There are only "huge swaths of the Catholic Church which are not in communion with Rome" if you assume a defination of "Catholic" contrary to everyday English usage. For instance, if one of my co-workers asks me "What religion are you" and I reply "Catholic" she will not ask "Oh, do you mean you're Anglican or Orthodox?" Rather, she will assume that I belong to that historical entity which has for the nearly 2000 years consisted of those Christians who remain faithful to the deposit of faith and in union with the see of Rome.

This whole line of conversation seems depressingly like if I insisted that because I live in Texas and Texas was once a part of Mexico, that all Mexicans call themselves members of "Southern Mexico" or "Mexicans in Union with Mexico City".Brendanhodge 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We've debated this one a lot. There is some value to that argument on a common usage basis. On the other hand, "Catholic" is unambiguous there only because of the sense in which you use it - if you said "Catholic" you meant it in the sense of "I am a member of the universal church of Christ, which I do not believe subsists in any one visible denomination", then that wouldn't actually be an answer to the question (if you meant that you'd probably say "Christian"); so they can reasonably assume you don't mean that. On the other hand, I know a number of, for example, Anglican clergy who would identify themselves as "Catholic" (Affirming Catholicism has been mentioned a number of times), and no-one assumes they've given up their Anglican orders for communion with Romeusers; and pretty much every Christian stands up on a Sunday and declares they believe in 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church', and a very large number of them don't mean communion with Rome.

It's like a bit like America. If you said "I'm American", no-one would say "Canadian or Argentinian?"; they'd assume you meant the United States of America, as it is the only country which uses the term in that sense. However, few would dispute that there are large swathes of America which are not the United States of America. Should our America page be about the continent or to the larger concept? The actual answer is that it refers to both. Similarly, Budweiser - surely the world's largest-selling beer should be entitled to its own name? Wikipedia says not; it acknowledges both claimants to the name. TSP 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the question of the statement: "The Catholic Church typically refers to itself as the Catholic Church, among other descriptions, and has done so consistently since the second century, when the term Catholic Church was first used." The problem is not whether the present church we know as the (Roman) Catholic Church is in historical continuity with the 2nd century church, but what type of institution existed in the 2nd century to make this claim, and to what extent it claimed **consistently** the title of Catholic. Many scholars date Catholic Christianity from the time when Christianity became the state religion (380) of the Roman Empire and had already instituted the power of ecumenical councils to come to a common (catholic?) mind. Was Catholic in earlier centuries used other than as a way of meaning orthodox as opposed to heretical? I think that this sentence is deeply problematic because it suggests that the self-understanding of the present Catholic Church was already present in the 2nd century, whereas Cyprian in the 3rd century could still argue vigorously against their being authority above that of the metropolitan bishop. An argument that was repudiating the right of the Bishop of Rome to interfere in the affiars of the church in Carthage. A casual reader might take from the sentence in question that in the 2nd century there was already a structure of a supreme pontiff, which was not the case, no matter how much some bishops of Rome in the 2nd and 3rd century might have wished it were so. MnJWalker 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Didache

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Didache#Didache_Title_Translation_Question

Anyone interested in looking into this one. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)]

Catholic teaching regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible

We appear to have a new section that's just been contributed. Not to be tiresome, but it strikes me as being rather too detailed to be a section of this entry, though I suppose it could be set up as an independant article. If it is included here, is "Controversial Church History" really the place for it?Brendanhodge 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Subsists in" in Lumen Gentium

Quoting you from above TSP:

Sorry, I am going to reply to this, and to your points over at Talk:Catholic Evangelical. More urgently, though, I wondered if you could provide a verifiable source for the content you have just added to the article: to wit, that 'subsists in' is intentionally vague; and that the church no longer claims to be the sole source of salvation - i.e. that it no longer affirms that "Outside the church there is no salvation". The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) seems to say otherwise:

" Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"

You may think that's not what it means, but unless you can find a positive source for that (in which case the Feeneyites would very much like to know) it's just your opinion and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. TSP 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

After considering it for a while, I've removed this text. Again, I mean no offence by this; but we need to bear in mind how many people look at Wikipedia; text we cannot verify should be left in the article for as short a period as possible. TSP 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Subsits in" is not vague. It is the English that is vague. the same word in Latin comes from the verb "essere" (to be) and suggests being concretized...ie, the Church of Chris is made concrete in the Catholic church.DaveTroy 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

TSP, you of little faith. Of course I can come up with some citations for the "subsitit en" discussion. I admire your interest in Catholic theology which is no minor field. To interpret a complex document like LG, you are going to have to put down your CCC--which is nothing more than a brief "headline" summary compared to the Church's theological corpus.

Actually Lumen Gentium, para. 8 is a significant, if arcane, topic in Catholic theological circles. LG itself is a theological masterpiece, but not easily interpreted on a cursory reading nor without a thorough education in Catholic systematic theology. The document makes huge strides forward in ecclesiology by employing an analogical argument based on sacramental and Christological language.

The interpretive key to the document is in the first paragraph:

"Since the Church, in Christ, is in the nature of sacrament--a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men--she here purposes, for the benefit of the faithful and of the whole world, to set forth, as clearly as possible, and in the tradition laid down by earlier Councils, her own nature and universal mission." (LG, para. 1)

This is the sacramental part. LG says that "the Church is a sign and instrument of communion of God and of unity among all men." In making this statement the document takes itself out of a merely literal world view into a mystical one. Mystical language can only be analogical because it deals with what in itself cannot be fully grasped. This is a flag to the theologian to look for arguments by analogy, both implicit and explicit. Comparisons make up the entire first third of the document.

The most subtle of these analogies is in paragraph 8b. After describing the Church of Christ as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, LG goes on to say that this one church “subsists in” (subsistit en) the Catholic Church. In all of the Church’s body of teaching this verb is only used in describing the relation of the one person of Christ and the dual nature of the Incarnation: the one person of Christ subsists in two natures.

This is the intentionally vague term. None of the Christological councils, Nicea, Chalcedon, etc, would dare try to explain literally how the Incarnation was possible, but philosophically needed to explore the relationship between the second Person of the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. "Subsistit en" literally means "stands under," which doesn’t make a lot of sense. We might say "dwells in." This language avoids making any claims of how this is true in any physical, or we might say, scientific way, while still defining the relation of one person, human and divine (as opposed to Nestorius’ formula akin to two persons in two natures, etc.).

Back to LG, to say the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church does two things both of which were novel in Catholic theology up to that point. First, it makes a distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. (Notice here that the statement if translated into Anglican language would read "the Catholic Church" subsists in the "Roman Catholic Church." This is further specific evidence that in Catholic theology, Catholic always means the Church in the concrete and never in the abstract.) Second, the statement relates the Church of Christ to the Catholic Church but without making any specific claims regarding how the two are related exactly. But, forced to translate it into sensible English, “dwells in,” would be the closest.

Now, the paragraph continues to clarify this vague term somewhat:

“Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.” (LG 8b)

Now if this oblique reference to Nicea seems far fetched, back up to LG 8a:

“The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible organization[9] through which he communicates truth and grace to all men. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complete reality which comes together from a human and a divine element.[10] For this reason the Church is compared, not without significance, to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature, inseparably united to him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a somewhat similar way, does the social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ who vivifies it, in the building up of the body."

Based on LG 8, John Paul writes in "Ut Unum Sint," his landmark document on ecumenism:

"It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Unitatis Redintegratio, para. 3, quoted in Ut Unum Sint, para. 10)

"To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian communities, the one church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church "recognizes that in many ways she is linked" with these communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit." (Ut Unum Sint, para. 11).

This document, "Communionis Notio," gives further explication of the relationship of the Universal Church and the particular churches. It is a bit dense, but the pertinent material is in paragraphs 17 and 18: Communionis Notio But then if one still wondered if this were just “is” in disguise, you should know that this is one of the “proofs” of sedevacantists that the Council was false, for in their mind this statement contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This kind of argumentation can be found a this link:

[2]

For further reading so you don’t have to trust me on the topic, follow this link:

[3]

BTW, TSP, your reference to the Feeneyites was actually a bad one for you, because it proved my point. The Feeneyites in the 1950’s, led by Fr. Feeney, S.J. were excommunicated from the Catholic Church for Feeney’s teaching in a narrow and literal way “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.” After their excommunication (and consequent loss of salvation by their own theology) most of the movement including the padre recanted their position and were reconciled. So, even BEFORE Vatican II the church already affirmed that “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” was not to be understood in the most narrow, literal interpretation, namely the confines of the Catholic Church. --Vaquero100 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's theologically fascinating, and I shall read all the sources linked to in due course.

However, for us to assert - without Original Research - that the statement is intentionally vague, we must find some reputable and verifiable commentator who has said that it is the case. It is not enough for us to reason that it must be; that is exactly what the No Original Research policy prohibits.

I'm aware of the Feeneyites, and I did wonder whether the example would be taken the wrong way; but it is my understanding that Feeney was excommunicated for repeated failure to follow authority, not for his theological views. My point was that (as I understand it) Feeney contended, and the Church denied, that the Church had abandoned extra ecclesiam nulla salus; and that if there was proof that this really was the case, they would be extremely interested to know about it. It was a flippant remark in any case, so probably best left by the wayside. TSP 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Read on, TSP. It is in the last link. I can find more.

I'm afraid that I have difficulty considering a "prophetic book" as a "reliable and reputable source". In any case, it still only states that that commentator considers the term ambiguous; not that there is any evidence that it is intentionally ambiguous. I suppose it might just about be substantial enough to say "some commentators, such as Atila Sinke Guimaraes, consider the term ambiguous" if you really wanted (but not in the lead section).

More, and more reputable, sources do appear to be needed. TSP 03:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now,TSP, when you are ready to pick up your Catechism again, read a little further than last time:

The Church holds that, among those who "do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter ... those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (CCC, 838), and that "(t)hose who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways" (CCC, 839). --Vaquero100 01:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, just about. "certain, though imperfect" leaves a great deal of room for variation - it seems to roughly mean "somewhere between none and all". I don't think that the "those who have not..." extract is relevant at all - that just seems to be an introductory sentence to what follows - "related ... in various ways" could mean anything.

However - which, if I have not previously conceded it, I should have - the catechism clearly does state that salvation can be found outside the church, by those unaware of it. My reading of what you wrote - which may have been unfair - was that you meant that the Roman Catholic Church acknowledged that salvation could be found in other churches; which I'm not yet sure that it does (though that may be what the second paragraph of Lumen Gentium 8 is intended to suggest).

One final matter: all this debate on what is true (and indeed verifiable still leaves aside the important question of what is to be included in the Lead Section. I really don't think that this debate does belong there - certainly the question of the meaning of 'subsist' is not something the average reader will want to find in the introductory two-paragraph summary of the Church, nor is it something that it would serve the Church's cause to include there. We need to find a form of words which is concise, accurate and uncontroversial; bearing in mind that all facts do not need to be covered in the Lead Section. TSP 03:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that doesn't "belong" but just needed to go there until the correction "sank in." Now that we are past that stage, I may reframe my "Subsists in" comments into an article to which others can refer.

Lead paragraphs should be the easiest part of an article. But there is so much contention here, that can't agree on the basics. I frankly don't buy the argument that the article can't state directly the Church's self understanding. What other article wouldn't? None of this crap goes on on the Anglican page. I frankly do wonder why people with such axes to grind make themselves the final authority on this page, especially when they are not so well infomed as they present themselves.

You know it takes me at least 50 times the effort to research and rebut your "doubts" about a statement I write as it takes you to erase it. On many articles people who have questions about a statement put a "citation needed" flag on it and raise the question on the talk page. You know, TSP, you do not need to just delete. Twice this week I have provided you with lengthy (time consuming), well researched replies to your "doubts." The first of which, you never even acknowledged. So if you run across something is new to you, you need not treat it as wrong unless you know for a fact it is wrong. Then by all means be quick about what you must do.

I'd be willing to work on the opening paragraph but at this point you and Fishhead are far too set on blocking anything a Catholic would recognise. How can we get far together when we cannot agree on the name of the oldest institution on the planet? Frankly, at present I don't have a lot of hope for this page until some attitudes change. I come here daily just make sure this thing doesn't turn into an "example page" for the Anti-Catholicism article. For all your interest in the topic, I find your treatment of the subject often abusive. I am praying for better times. --Vaquero100 06:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not me who is establishing these standards; they are Wikipedia's standards. In theory, pretty much everything in this article is subject to instant deletion. Every statement in Wikipedia should be sourced and verifiable. That is how Wikipedia works. All I am doing is flagging up the most blatant examples of where statements appear to be be made without justification. If you don't want statements deleted, all you need to do is accompany them with a reputable source when you post them.

The Verifiability policy, one of Wikipedia's three core content-guiding policies, is extremely clear:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

I'm sorry I haven't replied to your statements on St Ignatius of Antioch (though I dispute '50 times' - my deletion was based on a reading of most if Ignatius' letters and a search for sources asserting that St Ignatius did state that Catholicism required communion with Rome (of which I found none), while your reply was largely based on here, so the effort seems about comparable). I've been trying to work out whether I think that a concession from some members of a group that would normally oppose a certain conclusion constitutes an sufficient source for that conclusion. I'm still not sure I'm convinced it does. In addition, the debate seems to have been taken up by Lima, who is probably better qualified to comment than I. TSP 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to be dragged into this particular debate, but since you seem to have particularly strong feeelings regarding what I believe is my defence against an exclusivist use of the term "Catholic," I guess I am. Indeed, the only axe I've ever had to grind concerns the total disregard for the ambiguity of the word "Catholic," which no one - including yourself - has ever refuted. Even when a perfectly acceptable alternative is available - acceptable to me and the Vatican, for example - it is stubbornly resisted. Self-definition is fine, but it does not exhaust what constitutes a definition. Moreover, when there is a trespass on the self-definition of others, a reasonable, mutually acceptable compromise is usually found. Hence, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission was fine and well to the authorities in your Communion.

In contrast, you and other editors of this article seem to believe that self-definition is the be all and end all of acceptable definition, and anything further strays into anti-Catholicism. If you cannot see the absurdity of such a black-and-white demarcation, then I too am tempted to pray for better times and a transformation of perspective. Otherwise, patently unhistorical statements such as:

The Church traces its origins to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, in particular Peter, the leader of the Apostles, who is traditionally regarded as the first Pope.

will continue to be passed off as a sufficient definition of the origin of the Roman Catholic Church, for example. Fishhead64 07:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP and Fishhead, I admire your tenacity, but the truth will prevail. You will not hold WP hostage forever. I know it is hard for you to accept the difference between Jesus Christ and Henry VIII. It is very important for Anglicans to spin fictions and beg the universe to recognise them as fact. The Catholic Church has the historical unbroken line to Peter and thus to Jesus. This is the teaching of the Church Fathers who attest to these fundamental facts which you must disdain, diminish or disregard. The Catholic Church, BTW, has no difficulty recognising apostolic succession in separated churches, such as the the Old Catholic Church--no problem whatsoever. And there would be no problem with recognising this succession in the Anglican Churches if it were to exist. But Anglo-Catholics have to forget so much to hold onto their illusion. They have to forget the presbyterian years. They have to forget that in most churches in the US, for example a "communion service" was only held 2-4 times a year before the 1960's, and forget that the ECUSA first called itself the "Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA," and forget Clement of Rome, and Ignatius and Ireneus except to freely quote them where convenient. Catholic theology is deep and rich and a system that employs reason. For Catholics, a statement and its opposite cannot at once be true. But "Anglican Comprehensiveness" is that peculiar "virtue" whereby reason is suspended in order to avoid confrontation with the truth which is so often inconvenient. --Vaquero100 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are straying into attacks. No Anglican has difficulty distinguishing between Jesus and Henry VII. Nor do most Anglicans deny their protestant and reformed nature; they simply do not see that as antithetical to Catholicism, but rather a reform of the Catholic church in response to protests about some of its activities. As to apostolic succession, many Anglican bishops nowadays can trace their succession through the Old Catholic as well as the Anglican lines (as the two have been in communion for some decades), so if the apostolic succession was lost in the Anglican churches but not in the Old Catholic churches, it is in the process of being restored.

The church is divided; that I regret, as would Ignatius and all the rest. But when they were alive the church was not divided, and I'm not sure that I see their words advocating one unified church as automatically meaning that the church with the closest structural resemblance to the then undivided church solely constitutes the true church. Again, feel free to source statements otherwise.

But, in any case, this is not relevant to our purpose. I have no problem with anyone wishing the Truth to triumph; only if they wish for any truths which are not generally accepted in the world to triumph here and now on Wikipedia. If a truth is generally-accepted, that's great; you should have no trouble finding a number of reputable sources for it. If it is accepted by even some people, you should have no trouble naming some prominent adherents. If it is a new and exciting idea, then, however true, it does not belong on Wikipedia until a reputable source can be cited for it.

You might note that I actually voted for this article to be moved to Catholic Church. However, the vast majority of people voted that it should not be. That is the concensus; Concensus and Wikipedia's policies are all that I am trying to defend here. TSP 11:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a page called Anti-Anglicanism, since that - rather the substance of the issues I raised - constitutes the bulk of your response. My point was imply that the Christian Church in general can claim Scriptural warrant for its existence, and many different Communions can claim apostolic succession through Peter. I only ask from the article on the Roman Catholic Church what I would expect from the one on the Anglican Communion or any other denomination, namely, a description of the institutional origin. Not just the legends, but verifiable history.

Finally, to answer your particular point about apostolic succession: There is no evidence that apostolic succession was ever broken in the Anglican Communion, even during the period of the Commonwealth - given that Puritan presbyterians did not believe in the existence of an episcopate, the consecration issue was irrelevant. With the restoration eleven years later, the surviving bishops went on to consecrate subsequent bishops. In any event, ARCIC's 1973 statement, Ministry and Ordination essentially shelves the objections of Apostlicae Curae in this and other regards. Fishhead64 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this would be even more odius to some parties, but it seems like a mutual linked section might be in order along the lines of "Although the Catholic Church has historically defined itself as consisting of those Christians who are loyal to the deposit of faith and in union with the See of Rome, some members of some other Christian denominations (provide list of links) maintain that the term should be used more widely to refer to a non-institutional union of all Christians, or all Christians who hold to certain core tenets of the Creed. The institutional Catholic Church has consistently denied this definition of 'Catholic Church'."

Then, in articles such as Anglicanism or Old Catholic Chruch you could have "The Anglican Church maintains that it is in fact one of many 'communions' of Christians who make up the Catholic Church (defining the term to refer to a non-institutional union of all Christians, or all Christians who hold to certain core tenets of the Creed), although the institutional Catholic Church has consistently denied this definition of 'Catholic Church'."

That might at least have the virtue of making everyone equally mad, by presenting all points of view at once.Brendanhodge 18:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Something along these lines is perfectly acceptable to me, but we are still left with the problem of inconsistency in article naming, e.g., Catholic sacraments (which is redirected from Seven Sacraments) vs. Roman Catholic religious order. Rather than try to sort this out in every article (likely with the same people), I wish we could come to some sort of agreement here to use the less ambiguous term "Roman Catholic," which, as I have pointed out, is a moniker perfectly acceptable to the Vatican and other authorities in that Communion. Fishhead64 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a clear explanation of how a church sees its relationship to the body of Christian believers as a whole would benefit the page on any Christian church.

I'm not sure, though, why it's necessary, or helps, to explain in the article on one denomination the beliefs of another denomination. I don't think anyone has tried to do that here, have they? The only issue as far as I've seen is trying to avoid the beliefs of any one denomination being presented as undisputed fact.

Incidentally, be careful with your phrasing - see Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but through use of words like "although", "maintains", and similar, the above examples both have a phrasing bias in favour of the Roman Catholic viewpoint.

I would also say that in situations like this (discussing what a particular Christian group considers "Catholic Church" to mean) it's especially important, simply for lack of ambiguity, to avoid using "Catholic Church" to refer to one specific church. Saying (effectively) "The Catholic Church says it is the Catholic Church"; or "while the Church of England considers itself part of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church disagrees" is bound to be confusing and give a biased impression. TSP 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bracketing years

For my guidance, would someone who knows the Wikipedia "book of rules" better than I do, please tell me whether Psantora was right to put double brackets around the indications of years, thus: [[2006]]. I believed - mistakenly, I must suppose - that this was to be done only if the year was preceded by day and month, in order that both [[1 January]] [[2006]] and [[January 1]] [[2006]] would appear, according to the preference of the reader, either as the majority-choice "1 January 2006" or as "January 1, 2006". I will appreciate instructions. Lima 09:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Chi vuole anda, chi non vuole manda" is an Italian proverb to the effect that, if you really want something, you must do it yourself, not send someone else to do it for you. I have now looked up the Wikipedia Manual of Style - I should have looked for it before -and found the following:

Examples of links which do not respond to readers' date preferences are:

year only. So 1974 → 1974.

Unless someone objects, I intend therefore to remove Psantora's double brackets.

No. On rereading, the ruling seems to me much less clear than I thought. But I still think adding a link to years is unnatural fussiness that (literally) leads nowhere.

Lima 16:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking on your link above and you will see that linking to years does lead somewhere. For example if an article was referring to an event relating to Catholics in Pakistan in 1974, it is useful to have the linked year article tell you that this was the year in which India detonated its first nuclear bomb. MnJWalker 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

MnJWalker is right, strictly speaking, and I was wrong. However, I still think it is of little or no use for someone who sees that event A took place in year X to click on the link for year X and then plough through month after month of events in that month - events for which only the year is given are not listed, and, more important, there is no general overview of the year to highlight the most important events, which is what I had in mind - in the hope of finding something of relevance to event A, from which he started. But I accept that others have a different opinion. Lima 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Trying to bring closure to the discussion regarding organization of articles

User:Dominick proposed merging three articles Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism.

User:Vaquero100 made an alternate proposal which suggests, in essence, that the Roman Catholic Church article be split into a plethora of detailed subsidiary articles. which would incorporate the criticisms specific to each article's topic within each subsidiary article. The Roman Catholic Church article would remain but as a high-level summary article and without a "Criticisms" section.

I think we are reaching a consensus on executing Vaquero100's proposal but it's hard to tell because the discussion has been so verbose and only a few people have commented on his proposal.

It seems to be generally agreed that the Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism articles *should be kept. Catholicism covers Roman Catholicism AND all other churches that lay claim to the name "Catholic". Anti-Catholicism is an article which describes the bigotry against the Catholic Church along the lines of anti-Semitism. This is not to say that all sides are happy with this solution (especially the Catholicism article). However, this seems to be a compromise which addresses the issues raised by Anglicans and others.

Since there has been no discussion on the topic of organization of articles in a day and a half, I would suggest that we move towards a vote unless somebody chimes in with a new idea which is different from what has already been floated.

I would like to call a "straw vote" to see if there is a consensus.

The rules of this "straw vote" would be:

1) No discussion please. If you wish to comment, please do so on this page but below the actual vote section.

2) No decision will be made unless there is an overwhelming consensus (like 8 to 1). Even then, we would hope to convince the holdout(s) to change their vote to make the consensus unanimous.

3) If no one proposal garners an overwhelming consensus, then the proposal with the most votes does NOT automatically "win". However, it would be nice if this vote narrows the discussion to the top two proposals and indicates which one is favored.

4) Please note that there are VOTES FOR and VOTES AGAINST. If you feel that you are adamantly against a particular proposal, feel free to vote AGAINST that proposal. You can vote AGAINST as many proposals as you wish but please only vote FOR one proposal.

Here are the main options that have been discussed...

A) Keep the status quo - four articles: Catholicism,Roman Catholic Church,Criticism of the Catholic Church,Anti-Catholicism. (NB: This is the only proposal which keeps the Criticism of the Catholic Church article.)

- - Votes FOR ***

- - Votes AGAINST ***

B) Dominick's original proposal - two articles: Catholicism,Roman Catholic Church

- - Votes FOR ***

~~#Dominick ^(TALK) 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)~~

- - Votes AGAINST ***

C) Vaquero100's counter-proposal - three articles + numerous subsidiary articles: Catholicism,Roman Catholic Church,Anti-Catholicism

- - Votes FOR ***

late

--Dominick ^(TALK) 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

- - Votes AGAINST ***

--Richard 07:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered voting, at first for Vaquero's proposal and then for Dominick's, but as I look at the details above, I find that I can't agree, and may have a different proposal that makes more sense.

I think that it is conceivable that ANY and EVERY article on WP could have a section or sub-section of "criticisms". I think that it is silly for an encyclopedia to include anything other than links to other articles within WP that are opposed in some way. For example, the article on Roman Catholicism should simply have a passing mention, with link, that Protestantism was created in opposition to Catholicism. That's all. That is what links are for, to keep articles in their place with a focus and cut down on redundant drive space. Conceivably you can have an article on bathtub or umbrella while having a whole sub-section within the articles for "criticisms", which to me, the concept is foreign to a respectable Encyclopedia, as rule.

As for anti-Catholicism, that should, likewise for the above reason, not be a section within Catholicism or Roman Catholic Church. The college dictionary doesn't even have the word or any form of it. In English it is legitimate to add anti- to words freely for the sake of communication, but the entity under question here really is not recognized officially. You can conceivably be anti-anything, but adding ISMS to them really goes off the deep end, as that suffix suggests something organized and systematic, and they already exist as Protestantism, Judaism, Freemasonry and Satanism, etc., where links can easily be including briefly.

I propose that only Catholicism and Roman Catholic Church exist as articles and that mere links be briefly formed within them to anything that, as a truly organized and systematic entity, was formed and works in opposition, such as Satanism, Freemasonry and Protestantism, possibly Humanism, etc., to be determined as a separate discussion since they are not essential to the articles themselves. I think that if Anti-Catholicism exists, at most it should merely be a Category with a list of links to articles of real entities, such as the ones I mentioned. There really is no organized, systematic anti-catholicism, as such, other than really describing other entities in a group, thus category. (Diligens 09:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

'ism' is simply the standard English way of turning an adjective into a noun; I don't think it implies more than that. I also don't think that anti-catholicism has to be organised or systematic to deserve an article, if such a thing exists and can be documented. Though, on the other hand, are you sure there isn't (and has not been - past events are relevant too) systematic anti-Catholicism? While it's true that most of the stuff documented in the Anti-Catholicism article isn't Anti-Catholicism at all (what on earth is the Eleanor Roosevelt section doing there?) some of the stuff in the common themes in popular media section does seem to qualify. TSP 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think "anti-Catholicism" exists, that's why I think it should be a category. Categories are general and have specifics listed in them. They also have a short explanation amounting to a definition of sorts. You don't find a person saying, "I am into anti-Catholicism" without invariably finding that he adheres to specific classes of isms that oppose Catholicism. Standing on its own, it fits the pattern of a generic category, not something that deserves an article. Also, the very fact that the Dictionary defines "-ism" as "An action, practice, or process" all connote something organized that can be explained, understood, argued, written about and followed with some reasoning without reference to another ism. I don't see "anti-Catholicism" fitting that. I see it as a convenient, quick and generic way of not getting into a specific subject but still suggesting there is something more organized behind the opposition that is itself another ISM in its own right. (You can't just make a noun an ism. You don't have rock and then rockism, or cloud and then cloudism.) It cannot be ignored that there is something significant in the fact that my college dictionary simply doesn't have that word. (I know! Get my money back for that faulty dictionary!) (Diligens 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Stub starter We ought to have one overreaching article, a small one, that would start people up. We can't meet every minority opinion, and we can't white wash some things like Dilgens proposes. We need criticism in the article or it will appear PoV. We can have a balance meet criticisms and cover the main Catholic position. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing in the word "white wash" doesn't address the several points I have made in detail. Whitewashing means to conceal. There is nothing PoV or concealing about linking to information rather than explicitly including it. For instance, sometimes its appropriate to cite a quote, and sometimes it appropriate to create a footnote link within a text, and sometimes it is merely good to put a link at the bottom of an article. All of them are means of connecting information in an orderly and proper manner that doesn't take away from what the article is really about. WP is becoming bloated with link abuses & unprofessional redundancy when more links and references should be used. Articles about a subject should not be filled with criticism sections when the criticisms can be easily linked to in articles that are dedicated to those. That is the purpose of links, and the purpose of categories. (Diligens 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

I have a counter-proposal:

I think having a list of subsidiary critical articles for every Roman Catholic topic under the Sun is an unnecessary exercising in forking.
I think creating an Anti-Catholicism category which includes articles such as Protestantism should be strongly rejected. This implies that Protestant denominations (and other groups) are, per se anti-Roman Catholic, whereas they may simply reject certain Roman Catholic tenets. Rejection is not the same as opposition.
I believe that Anti-Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church should be merged into one article, called Criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. This would address concerns about the ambiguity of the term "Catholic" and the confusion between Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.
Detailed critcisims of all aspect of Roman Catholicism, its structure and theology, should be included in this new page, perhaps including a section called "Anti-Catholicism" that details some of the more violent and derogatory movements against the Roman Catholic Church. The main article, Roman Catholic Church, should obviously mention the schisms that divided the unitary Communion, but we need to be cognizant that it is a summary article. Fishhead64 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that people are rushing these discussions. Not everyone in the public can spend hours a day on Wikipedia. You should give 24 hours to respond. What is the rush?

As for no.1 here, that is obviously an extreme. But unfortunately you are fostering that extremme and setting precedents by seeking to add "criticism" sections to articles. That is going to make Wikipedia go down hil. If you are an Anglican, and the raison d'etre of that ism was protesting the RCC in the first place, you ought to add your Anglican criticisms of the RCC in the Anglican article.

As for no.2 here, it is mistaken. What you are promoting is against the historical record. Protestants "protested" and opposition. Yes Protestants rejected AND opposed. That is on record. You can't change history nor the tenets of Protestantism. Each Protestant article should be the place for criticisms of the RCC.

No. 3 is already taken care of.

No. 4 is a natural result of you being Anglican and PoV.

I also think that rushing into consensus without giving the public time, as well as basically ignoring another detailed proposal (mine) is violating NPOV and truly working toward a consensus. (Diligens 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

1.The list of articles I included in the initial "alternate proposal" was an exercise in imagination--not fantacy, but imagination. The point was simply that the present article is unwieldly because you cant fit everything you want to say about the Catholic Church in one article. Also, on many topics Catholic teaching does deserve a separate article from the general one. Two examples were given: Canon Law and CC and bioethics. The present article is already trying to address about 10 -12 topics, which is impossible to do well here. So, at least to start with, we could have a general summary article with about 10-12 references to other articles. To start with we could have these branch articles which are largely already written and included in this article:

CC Liturgy
Catholic Sacraments (already exists)
CC Episcopacy
CC Theology of Priesthood
CC Papacy
CC Cardinalate
CC Episcopacy
CC Priesthood and Diaconate
CC Consecrated life
CC and Ecumenism
CC Sin and Redemption
CC Scripture
CC Particular churches and the Eastern Rites

If other articles are to be written, great. I wasn't trying force anything but just show the impossibility of a single article trying to be comprehensive in any sense.

2. Is anti-Semitism itself an organized entity? Or racism? I don't think so. Now there are anti-Semitic organizations, and racist ones. Likewise, just in the US there have been anti-Catholic organizations such as the KKK and the Know-Nothings Party. The phenomenon of anti-Catholicism is well documented. I think the "Common themes in media" is just a beginning. Closely related would be the arts such as the elephant-dung Madonna and the crucifix in urine. These are good examples because bigotry is irrational and seeks expression in the irrational or at least the non-rational. There is a ton of documentation here.

3 Well, you know where I think the criticisms should go--in the secondary articles where they can be voiced in the context of the particular relevant content.

4 Despite my well voiced opinion on the CC vs. RCC topic. I have never proposed that the RCC article have a different name. It is important to recognise the conflict in terms. However, what I am opposed to is the forced exclusive use of RCC. In order to account for the common usage of the English language I think it is appropriate to say RCC at the head of an article, but thereafter use CC. The constant repetition of RCC throughout an article is cumbersome and tedious and is not the way the English language is used.

5 I think the Catholicsim page needs to remain in order to explain and at length disambiguate the term (though I don't think that this is truly an ambiguous term for your average English speaker). At the same time all the liturgical and sacramental content is redundant and out to be merged with the relavant articles.

--Vaquero100 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Vaquero100's suggestion will probably produce the most managable article both in terms of readability and dissipating conflict. (It would be a lot less mess to deal with criticism of celibacy in an article on CC Priesthood than it would be to deal with all the various citicisms of the Catholic Church in a single article.)

I suppose the remaining question is: would these articles all be titled Catholic Church X or Roman Catholic Church X. My personal preference would be for CC rather than RCC, both out of sheer cussedness and because some articles would sound silly that way, e.g. Roman Catholic Church Eastern Rites.

Also, it seems like there could be little confusion since the invisible 'greater catholic church' of which some disputants believe the CC/RCC is merely a part is in fact so amorphous that there's not a whole lot to say about it. No one would imagine Catholic Church Canon Law was about the wider sense of 'Catholic Church' because that thing (if it exists as anything other than a Mere High Church Christianity) clearly doesn't have a code of canon law. Nor could Catholic Church and Bio-Ethics refer to the wider meaning of 'Catholic Church' since that group doesn't have anything resembling a unified thinking on Bio-Ethics.

However, if it's necessary in order to insure peace, I think it could be worth it to agree to name all the articles using the Roman Catholic Church phrase rather than Catholic Church -- if only so that we can be left to write the articles in relative peace.Brendanhodge 19:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The ojection to the use of CC is well documented here on WP. We have an entire article devoted to the subject under the heading "Catholicism," an article heading which the great majority of users would assume reports on the RCC. This article is called the RCC. In the interest of compromise, it is in the best interest of normal use of the English language to use CC in other articles. I have no problem directing readers to the "Catholicism" article from the various CC articles to document the difference of perspective. If there is no compromise on this issue, then WP will in effect be enshrining a POV into policy which is absolutely untenable. --Vaquero100 23:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Concensus has been sought. A vote has been taken. Objections were voiced at the time; the majority of editors involved found the arguments for "Roman Catholic Church" more convincing than those for "Catholic Church".

This does not mean that there is an imbalance, in which Wikipedia has preferred one person's Point Of View, and now you must find places to express your Point Of View to balance it. It means that the decision has been made on which term here best expresses a NEUTRAL point of view. It's possible that the decision may be different in a different setting; but we do NOT make decisions on the basis of balancing a bias in one place with an opposite bias elsewhere; we make them on the grounds of fairly representing - but not endorsing - all views with appropriate prominence, in all places.

As I have explained many, many times, there are good NPOV, not Protestant POV, reasons for adopting a title other than 'Catholic Church' for the church described by this article. Not all those who voted for "Roman Catholic Church" were non-Catholics. Not all those who voted for "Catholic Church" were Catholics. This does not have to turn into a sectarian fight. As it happens, I voted for "Catholic Church"; but that turned out to be a minority opinion.

Please, please, please assume good faith and be civil. If you are going to assume that every decision that you disagree with is an enshrinement of POV, despite the arguments put and the fact that people on the same side of your perceived fence disagree with you, then I find it very hard to see how the spirit necessary for the production of an encyclopedia like this one is going to be sustained.

I'm sorry, I really have tried to keep this on a professional level - though I have been drawn into some irrelevant arguments on personal views, for which I apologise; but I am finding it very difficult when you keep disputing the majority decision that has been made, and referring to it as if it is the personal biased decision of a few editors. I'm sorry that you don't like it; but ultimately, we must agree to concede to work within the decision that the community has made, and not wage a personal war against it. TSP 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to put up for a vote the question of CC vs. RCC on all topics, then that vote should be taken across all CC articles in order for it to be representative. --Vaquero100 23:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I have to concede that this would be fairer; unwillingly only because I and others have spent many hours debating this issue already, and consider all that needs saying to have been said. TSP 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WP is an ever_growing body of knowlege, and editors and readers. Whatis concensus by a few at one point will not always remain so. I was not an editor at the time of the last ballot. I do not accept it and will not accept it. It is plainly unjust. To have an Anglican tell me to just roll over an accept a POV which by the way is the position of his church is without credibility in the extreme. --Vaquero100 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The concensus is only a couple of months old. When it was made, Wikipedia had about a million editors. Now it has a few hundred more. I know you would like to have been involved; but we can't treat every vote as invalid straight away simply because new editors have arrived. Numbers certainly aren't everything; but the vote was over 2:1 in favour of the current solution. Your presence would not have changed the result.

As I have said, as it happens, I did not vote for this solution. I am not here to push a POV. I am here to find the neutral POV; if you are not, I am going to have great difficulty working with you.

Your user page states as one of your Wikipedia aims is "Defense of the Catholic Church in the use of her name". I admire your strong views; but Wikipedia is not the place for them. William Pietri said it best:

Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.

I hope that we can work together on acheiving a neutral presentation for these complex matters; but if you are here to push a particular view, I can't see how that is going to happen. TSP 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, your words are well-chosen. To be truly NPOV, you would do well to direct them toward Fishhead as well. He clearly has no interest here but to push his POV--which at the moment has prevailed.

I have been frustrated with him at times also; but I have not generally been directly in debate with him (and his presence here is irregular). As it happened Fishhead64's preferences, whatever his reasons for promoting them, coincide with the established concensus; so, even if I have sometimes disagreed with his logic, I didn't have cause to address it because I agreed with his conclusions. Perhaps I should have in any case, but these debates get complex enough without addressing every point even from those whose conclusions you agree with! I have a few times said that my remarks, while said in response to one person, apply to all of us. In a sense I have no real wish to examine people's reasons for being involved in Wikipedia; in an ideal world, all debates would be on the topic, not on the identities of those involved. Perhaps there is sometimes a need to address motivations, though, to show that we are "squeaky clean" (which is why, for example, I mention my Anglican church membership on my user page; to be open about my potential biases).

Incidentally, I read a very good thing earlier today - the NPOV Tutorial, which I hadn't previously been aware of. It certainly made me think about things I hadn't previously noticed, and I think is a very helpful thing for all editors to read. Again, this comes up in this context, but is not aimed at you specifically - I gained from it, and I think that all editors would. I may post it in a new section as a good thing to try to get this article back on-track. TSP 01:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still a wonder to me how the only acceptible name of the CC is one that was born "as a compromise" in merry old England when Catholics would not be emancipated for another two centuries. How could the abused Catholic community in England be in a position to "compromise" on its name? and even more, how could that "compromise" achieved clearly under duress imply a solution for the Catholic Church throughout the world? Whoever those poor Catholics were in the 17th Century, they could not have spoken for the Church at all times and places from that point forward. --Vaquero100 01:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was not a wholly English one. The OED says that it arose in the Spanish Match of 1614 (the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it a little earlier, but at the least the event was significant in bringing it to prominence); in which it was proposed that Prince Charles of England (later Charles I) would marry the Infanta of Spain. Therefore a term was needed for the debate between the Anglican Court of St James (who would probably by preference have called the Church 'Romish') and the Roman Catholic Spanish court (who would have called it 'Catholic'); so 'Roman Catholic' arose, as a legal term which has been the official 'undisputed' term in British usage since, mutually accepted by both churches in relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches, as well as, for example, between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches. TSP 01:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the insistence on RCC is silly, but if using it will end the wrangling, I'm prepared to do it. At the same time, it suggests a certain futility of trying to deal with any controversial or even serious topic within the medium, considering that battles like this must be fought again and again, apparently (as a new comer looking over the archives) at intervals of only a few months. There's a sense in which I wonder if (taking the purpose to be that of developing something even vaguely resembling a comprehensive treatment of Catholicism in a wiki format) it would be necessary to fork off the WP entirely and product a CatholicWikipedia with semi-regulated editorship. This was, after all, what was necessary to produce the actual Catholic Encyclopedia, which treats the history and institution of the Church with considerable depth, whereas the mainstream encyclopedia's treatments of Catholicism range from cursory to barely adequate. However many pixels are spilled over the issue, even if all current parties reach a truce, the battle will simply break out again in another couple months, if not sooner.Brendanhodge 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, you continue to insist I am pushing a POV. I do not think that maintaining that "Catholic Church" and "Catholicism" is ambiguous is a POV; nor that using "Roman Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholicism" to eliminate ambiguity is a POV. My views entirely coincide with those of TSP. I am seeking a neutral, unambiguous term acceptable to all - including the Church in question. "Roman Catholic" fits the bill. How that can be construed as POV-pushing - especiall when it already reflects an established consensus - I fail to see. Fishhead64 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Roman Catholic usage is the same thing. If the Anglican or Orthodox want to deny that, it can be said, but we are tripping this whole thing up on a very minority opinion. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I regret saying something so glib, but I will still say it: Minorities should not be ignored, as if non-existent. I am sorry, but, I admit, not fully repentant. Lima 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets call it!

In the interests of comprimise, I throw my hat into the group and the consnesus the made. I see four votes, and since I am the odd man that voted, I concede. I was hoping to have a "pyramid" os Catholicism, and at least with the Catholicism disambig page we can get there. The semi-"Anglican" comprimise violates the prionciple of least astonishment. We can work that later. We have four people ready to work so lets get to work. What is first (the worst question) Dominick ^(TALK) 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The most important focus seems to me to be this article. In the long-run, a lot of it should be spun out; but we can work on the content here until sections get too big to be here, then spin them off properly, leaving a summary in this article.

I see referencing as a good place to start - not only as an aim of itself, but as a good way to get an article into focus. If we can get every statement in the article into a state where it can be simply referenced from a reputable reference source, then there should be no controversy about the article. Where we get into a mess is when we include subjective statements. If everything in the article was a factual statement which could be, and was, sourced, I think we'd all be a lot better off. (That doesn't mean excluding views; but if we include a view, we need to say who holds that view, and give a source for saying so.) Possibly we should have a 'section of the week', in which we all go all-out to clarify, and find sources for, a particular section - perhaps with the aim that by the end of the week that section should be complete enough to spin off into its own article, leaving just a summary behind here.

It may be worth discussing the structure of the article before setting off on this, though - there's no point trying to expand a section into a terrific section, if what the section is about is fundamentally unencyclopedic. TSP 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

I agree with the sentiments above that the approach we have selected is probably the most work and requires the most planning. Nonetheless, we think it is the best way forward so let's take it on. I would suggest that we use the project page (WP:Catholicism) to organize the work.

Discussion should probably take place here since this seems to be everybody's favorite place to talk but the results of the discussion should be recorded on the project page (or one of its subpages).

Some one or two of us should take the lead in proposing articles and perhaps we should vote on each proposed article (but not very formally). What I mean is, the leader(s) propose 2-3 articles and if no one objects vehemently within 24 hours, we have approved those articles.

The other approach that occurs to me is that we take Vaquero100's list of articles and bang on it until we have a list that we're happy with. I think that will take a long time and you don't always know which articles you want until you have started writing them.

What are your thoughts on this?

P.S. For project leaders, I nominate Vaquero100 (since this was his idea). Does anybody else want to take on the job of organizing this project?

--Richard 04:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't need a leader IMHO, and we should start here if this is the root article. I see no need to involve the project pages. I seriously think we should let things develop here first. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the advantage of Vaquero's system is that we can grap sections that we're interested in and dig on in -- thus ending up with de facto leaders of individual sections. Until we get two people pulling section in radicaly different directions, that should allow us to get the most work done while still keeping it easy and fun.

Working roughly from the top down wouldn't totally hurt either.Brendanhodge 12:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that we can just pick what we want to work on. However, I think it might be useful to record what each of us chooses to work on in the "Tasks" section of the project page. That way, others can help if they wish to. Sometimes, work goes faster when a team of people is working synergistically off each other's ideas.

It also occurred to me that, since one of the goals of this consolidation is to get rid of the Criticism of the Catholic Church article, the topics mentioned in that article should probably get high priority for being turned into an article. Thus, priority should be given to high profile topics like ""CC and human sexuality", "clerical celibacy", "CC and science", "CC and Biblical interpretation".

--Richard 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I didn't really read what TSP said in the section above this one.

The most important focus seems to me to be this article. In the long-run, a lot of it should be spun out; but we can work on the content here until sections get too big to be here, then spin them off properly, leaving a summary in this article. User:TSP

So, if we agree to this, we are saying that we shouldn't just start new articles but should start them as a section in the current article. I don't like this approach but I could live with it if other people prefer TSP's approach. I think sometimes people might prefer to create a new article and then link it in when it's ready. Part of the problem is that a weak start to a section will make the RCC article look yucky. I would prefer to keep the RCC article looking good and keep the "sausage making" hidden in the subsidiary articles. --Richard 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see referencing as a good place to start - not only as an aim of itself, but as a good way to get an article into focus. User:TSP

OK, if you like that kind of thing. It's not where I want to spend my energies but I agree that it would be a big help. --Richard 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly we should have a 'section of the week', in which we all go all-out to clarify, and find sources for, a particular section - perhaps with the aim that by the end of the week that section should be complete enough to spin off into its own article, leaving just a summary behind here. User:TSP

Yes. The project page is a good place to nominate "section of the week" or "article of the week". --Richard 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth discussing the structure of the article before setting off on this, though. User:TSP

Yes, if you have some thoughts on the structure, please present them. --Richard 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like Richard's idea of building what will be a linked article and then actually plugging it in when it's ready for the limelight. Building the sections in situ would keep the main article in an aweful lot of flux...

Maybe some general planning is in order, though it seems like we could also get some good mileage out of just letting people persue their interests.

Is it maybe about time to archive this talk page and get a fresh one focused on working on any structure changes and section drafting.Brendanhodge 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Origins Section

Starting from the top, one of the obvious questions for me is whether the origins section should be expanded slightly into a Origins and History section. The emphasis should be on 'slightly' since although the Catholic Church (can I have a license to use that term in casual conversation since it's shorter?) is an institution with a long history, it is more importantly an institution of creed and grace as covered in sections lower down. To start with, I've pulling in links to the History of the Roman Catholic Church article which appears to be stable and pretty good. Also the History of the Papacy which appears to be a stub.

I'm thinking that (if I'm right in thinking the Origins section should be expanded to Origins and History) then there should probably be one or two more paragraphs giving a quick summary of the History of the Church. Major things that probably need to be mentioned would include the Great Schism and the Reformation. I'm thinking 2-3 short to middling paragraphs tops.Brendanhodge 13:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When did THAT appear? How bizarre. Why isn't that sentence in the Lead Section any more?

Given that History of the Roman Catholic Church exists, what should be here (by my reading of the content forking guidelines is a brief, NPOV summary of that article, accompanied by a link to it.

It should be below 'Terminology', though - 'administrative' sections which are about the article, not about the subject of the article, should be first (after the lead section, of course). (You could argue they should be last; but they certainly shouldn't be arbitrarily in the middle.)

The stuff on grace and so on needs cleaning up quite a bit; putting it into a historical context might be useful, if it was possible. At the least it needs to be nailed down to definite, specific, sourceable teachings. At the moment I'd have trouble finding a source for a single sentence of the Beliefs section. TSP 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it moved down a couple weeks ago, but I was brand new at that point and figured other people must have had some idea why... Agree with you on what ought to be there, though for now I'd only had a chance to put in a quick link to the history pages.Brendanhodge 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" vs. "Roman Catholic Church"

OK, let me try my hand at this.

User:Fishhead64 insists that "Catholic" applies to a wide range of believers including Anglicans.

Thus, we have Catholic Church which redirects to Roman Catholic Church with a note referring the reader to Catholic Church (disambiguation) where the distinction between the wider meaning of "Catholic" is disambiguated from "Roman Catholic".

Does the status quo described above capture the consensus agreement that was established?

If not, why not?

However, the existing article titles notwithstanding, there is a further issue since we have now agreed to User:Vaquero100's proposal to create a plethora of articles such as "Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy". Presumably, User:Fishhead64's objection is that this article should be titled "Roman Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy" instead because the RCC cannot claim to state what the "Catholic Church" doctrine is on clerical celibacy (there being no single entity called the Catholic Church, there obviously cannot be a Catholic Church doctrine on anything).

Did I get that right?

Other than being irritating to prepend the word "Roman" before each of the article titles, is Fishhead64's demand that impossible to work with? Other than the niggling principle of feeling that the "Roman Catholic Church" = the "Catholic Church" in most people's minds, what it will it hurt to prepend "Roman" in front of all the article titles? Since you won't likely get any other titles with the same words in them, typing "Catholic Church doctrine on human sexuality" is likely to pull up "Roman Catholic Church doctrine on human sexuality" anyways.

I suggest that we give in to Fishhead64 and move on.

--Richard 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if we give in to Fishhead on the titles, I would propose the within the text of the articles, CC will suffice. I think it is important in the name of compromise that WP in some way recognise in its writing policy the Catholic Church's preferred name and the normal usage of the English language. Without at least this recognition, this debate, I promise you will not end. --Vaquero100 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Within articles on Roman Catholic topics, sure. I'd probably put "Roman Catholic Church" the first time, then "Catholic Church" afterwards (it would be a bit unnatural to use only "Catholic" from the start, given that most of these articles will have "Roman Catholic" in the title). Within articles on other topics, though, there's more chance of ambiguity - as we found out over at Catholic Evangelical, where replacing "Roman Catholic" with "Catholic" made the article decidedly ambiguous, as "Catholic" was being used with two entirely different meanings at the same time.

I'm really more concerned about passing uses in articles than I am about article titles. As has been said, it's probably true that "Canon law (Catholic Church)" couldn't mean anything other than what it does (though it may be worth specifying one consistent style all the same). On the other hand, a statement in an non-Catholic-themed article like, say, "Charles I always considered himself to be a member of the Catholic Church" could be validly understood with two entirely different meanings, depending on which meaning of 'Catholic' you think is being used.

I'd say use Roman Catholic first; then Catholic or Roman Catholic afterwards, depending on personal preference; unless another meaning of "Catholic" is used in the article, or the article is about a group that considers itself Catholic but not Roman Catholic, in which case Roman Catholic throughout.

This may seem to some too inclined towards the 'Roman'; but as I say, really the only place where I'm particularly concerned about the choice between the two terms is in article text where the term could reasonably be taken to have another meaning; which is more likely to be the case in passing references in non-Catholic articles than in articles on Catholic subjects, which can be expected to have with well-defined terms. (I think there are some language issues here - I suspect that 'Roman Catholic' sounds a lot more natural to a British English speaker than to an American English speaker. so I don't find constant usage of 'Roman Catholic' unnatural, whereas I know some other users feel it is.)

On a related matter, we may want to write something on similar lines to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism) to get down whatever we decide on; so any future debates can be held there, rather than independently on every single article page. TSP 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

TSP, I think you have found a workable solution. My only concern is the case of a clearly RC topic after the first mandatory RC reference. Leaving it optional to use RCC or CC thereafter is really pushing the argument just a little further down the line. If we are talking about a policy of style, there should be a more clear guideline that preserves the compromise we are presently discussing. If we do not clarify this, then we are condemning ourselves or others to a future debate. I am now averse to debate when justice is an issue. Justice is always worth the effort necessary to achieve it, regardless of the odds. So, lets not leave this window of ambiguity open, otherwise I see revert wars and long bitter battles on the horizon. --Vaquero100 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I was really just acknowledging differences in language - in British English, even internally in the Church the term 'Roman Catholic' is not infrequently used (for example, my local diocese's pages are headed "The Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle"), so there may be some British Catholics who feel more comfortable on British Catholic topics using that term (and the national varieties of English guidelines suggest they should be able to as long as that doesn't cause confusion); and the general informal principle of trying not to prescribe where there seems no harm in not prescribing. I imagine that pretty much all articles purely on specifically Catholic subjects will use 'Catholic' throughout; whereas articles on other churches will use 'Roman Catholic' throughout; but then there's a lot of grey in between (I was browsing a few articles on English royalty earlier today, for example, and they, currently use both terms widely depending on context); and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with variable usage there, provided that clarity isn't lost. I'm also wary (I think it's my background in writing electoral systems) of introducing multiple independent constraints; for example, if we have a rule saying that Roman Catholic topics should use "Catholic", and another rule saying that articles which also use "Catholic" to have another meaning should use "Roman Catholic", then articles like Catholicism and Catholic Evangelical might be seen as falling into both categories, and therefore have a contradiction.

Just having some rules should mean that if someone turns up replacing Catholic with Roman Catholic throughout articles saying "This is the right term!", other editors can point to the policy and say, "No, look, we've agreed this; Catholic is a perfectly acceptable term in this context". It doesn't seem necessary to me to specify where terms must be used - except where necessary to avoid ambiguity - to acheive this. TSP 03:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the good will and accommodation being shown here. I am perfectly content with the article title as "RCC and x" followed by first reference "RCC" and subsequent references "CC." Again, my only concern is with ambiguity and differentiating between Catholicism as a broad movement in Christianity, and that part of the movement which lends its allegiance to the Pope. I think the "first reference" thing will remove any susbsequent ambiguity. You're sensitivity with regard to this issue is deeply appreciated. Fishhead64 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Fishhead. Indeed, you should be pleased. The proposal thus far advanced requires of you absolutely nothing. We are so close to a just solution here, and yet so far.... The policy proposed forces the hand of Catholics with regard to the name of their own Church and asks nothing of any other writers. This is clearly POV. If it were a just compromise it would require second and following references to be CC. If only one side compromises, there is no compromise. Are we really looking for a middle ground or just advancing a POV in a sleight of hand way? By second reference, I mean RCC or CC in the opening line. If we don't acknowledge the way Catholics refer to themselves up front, this is far from over. --Vaquero100 09:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Warning: theoretical tangent only nominally related to the actual matter at hand ahead

Ah, but it does; because the only voted-on decision of this page is in favour of Roman Catholic Church. At the moment there is no decision which can be pointed to which says that 'Catholic Church' is an acceptable term to use; this would create one. Whereas 'Roman Catholic Church' supporters already have a decision they can point to. Those in favour of "Roman Catholic Church" may consider it likely, given this fact, that they could, if they wanted, force a situation in which Roman Catholic Church is used throughout. They may be right. So arguably it is a concession from the current position to accept that in nearly all situations Catholic Church is as acceptable as Roman Catholic Church.

End of tangent

However, back on the topic itself, I'd be very happy to add "Topics on subjects closely related to the Roman Catholic Church, and not to other churches, should generally use 'Catholic'." The 'and not to other churches' is because the times when ambiguity is most likely is in cases where multiple churches are involved, like Catholicism or Catholic Evangelical (the latter of which, I've just realised, should actually be at Catholic evangelical). Would that suffice? I just don't want to add unnecessary rigid rules, not least because that would imply policing them. TSP 10:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, TSP and Fishhead, I hope you are enjoying your petty power trip. What? do you expect gratitute for the occasion proper use of the English language and the rightful name of an institution you should show a little repect? Yours is the kind of generosity only the fabulously wealthy could appreciate. Still, if RCC is to be required, in justice, CC is also to be required. For once show some decency. --Vaquero100 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm only trying to establish what is justified, under Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and concensus decisions already made, to put into this (putative) document.

I don't really see the value of 'trading' uses. I'm interested in establishing a policy to avoid ambiguity, POV, and unnecessary argument. Compromise between 'opponents' isn't a core principle of Wikipedia; Consensus is, but that is not a matter of different people pushing their own preferences as far as they can manage, but of different people working together towards a common view of what best constitutes an NPOV and verifiable account. That's what I'd like to think we're doing.

Ambiguity and POV are good reasons for restricting the choices users make. I'm really not convinced that 'if RCC is to be required, in justice, CC is also to be required' is. How would we justify this policy to future users? Isn't this encouraging exactly the kind of adherence to concensus, rather than sense, that you were objecting to earlier? As I say, I'm happy for us to issue advice, or usual practice, in favour of Catholic Church (which is, after all, the common usage in (Roman) Catholic circles); but I really feel we need a greater justification for issuing requirements. TSP 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Careful guys (and gals if there are any in this discussion). Let's not destroy a fledgling agreement with personal animosity and attacks.

I've been giving this further thought and I believe we should have all titles include "RCC anc X" regardless of whether there is any possbile confusion between "RCC" and "CC (wider meaning)". At the same time, there should be a parallel set of redirect titles called "CC and X" which, IF THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION between RCC and CC, simply redirect "CC and X" to "RCC and X".

If there IS a possibility of confusion between RCC and CC, then obviously "CC and X" should either be a DAB page or should redirect to "RCC and X" with a comment at the top that says "CC and X" redirects here, for other uses see article Y.

I'm OK with first sentence saying RCC and then CC in the rest of the article.

Question: Should articles like Primacy of the Pontiff and Papal Supremacy be retitled as "RCC and X" or just left as is? I'm inclined to leave them as is but one could argue that they should be retitled "RCC doctine of Papal Supremacy". Thoughts?

Further question to understand how these rules work in practice: Let's say we want to have an article title "Roman Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy".

Do we also have a redirect article title called "Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy" or is it a DAB page that says something like "For Anglican Church doctrine on clerical celibacy, see X. For Orthodox Church doctrine on clerical celibacy, see Y. For RCC doctrine on clerical celibacy, see RCC doctrine on clerical celibacy.

An alternative would be to have CC doctrine on clerical celibacy say something like "Other than the RCC, no other Catholic church has a doctrine requiring clerical celibacy. For the RCC doctrine on clerical celibacy, see RCC doctrine on clerical celibacy.

This alternative might not work on other issues such as homosexuality or the death penalty.

--Richard 16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, a simple redirect would be perfectly fine. I don't think that, even if other churches that call themselves Catholic have a view on a matter, that view would routinely be expected to be found at a page called "(n) and the Catholic Church". Additionally, where a term is only ever found in a Roman Catholic context, it should be left undisambiguated - so, Papal Supremacy is never as far as I know understood in any other context, so should be left as it is - to do otherwise seems to marginalise Catholic views. (Incidentally, Papal supremacy and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff should probably be merged - they seem to be about the same thing).

Where it might be ambiguous, the best bet is probably to leave it as a redirect (just as Catholic Church redirects here), with possibly (if there seems particular danger of a misunderstanding) a note at the top "Marriage in the Catholic Church redirects here. For marriage in Christianity in general, see Christian marriage" (or something).

Others might feel differently, though - as I've said, I'm actually more concerned about mentions in articles than article titles, because that seems to be where there is more danger of ambiguity. TSP 17:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the question is, what kind of ambiguity are we trying to avoid? If I understand correctly, Fishhead's concern is that exclusively using the term "Catholic Church" would imply that only the Roman Catholic Church possesses the attribute of catholicity -- something which those of us who are Catholics do in fact believe to be the case, but which Fishhead and other non-Catholics deny.

However, it starts to sound like some of us are worrying about a different kind of ambiguity -- that of an article creating confusion between an institution called the Roman Catholic Church and an institution called the Catholic Church. (e.g. "Marriage in the Catholic Church" vs. "Marriage in the Roman Catholic Church") This suggests a concern not that Catholics are getting away with asserting as fact their belief that only the Roman Catholic Church possesses catholicity, but instead a belief that someone might confuse the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with those of the Catholic Church. And yet the 'Catholic Church' in the sense that the non-Catholics here are using the term is an invisible union of disparite believers who are in strong dissagreement over matters of doctrine and even whether these other institutions within this loose category are in fact 'churches' in the sacramental and apostolic sense of the term. So it seems silly to worry that an article might suggest that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were in fact the teachings of the Catholic Church (using Fishheads definition for the moment) since a groups which contains everyone from Bishop Spong to Pope Benedict and Patriarch Alexy can't really be said to have 'teachings' in any real sense beyond the very merest of mere Christianity.

I can understand the necessity of (for the sake peace and equity) avoiding the appearance of endorsing the POV that only the RCC is truly 'Catholic' -- however I can't see that there's any rival institution that we need t avoid confusion with. It seems like very useful information to alert the reader that the Orthodox and some Anglican/Episcopalians and Lutherans claim Catholicity as an attribute of their congregations -- even if that's not what the reader is actualy seeking to find out when he/she searches Catholicism but I find it hard to imagine that someone searching for Canon Law (Catholic Church) would actually mean that wider sense of 'Catholic Church' in which Fishhead and others are interested.Brendanhodge 19:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In contexts where a concrete institution is clearly implied, 'Roman' need not be used. That said, it's probably useful to use 'Roman' at least once in any given article, so that if someone DOES come to an article believing that 'Catholic Church' refers to the entire universal church, there is something to tip them off that this isn't the sense in which it's being used here. As to 'Canon Law (Catholic Church)', I don't object to it, but I do vaguely feel for consistency that it would be better to have only one style of the name in titles. This isn't something I feel strongly about, though - as I've said, I'm more concerned about passing references in articles, which is the main place where genuine ambiguity seems to be a danger

(Then again, I also voted for this page to be moved to 'Catholic Church', so my views may not be in the majority on this). TSP 17:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've just realised something: the tension in this debate seems to have settled on being between 'some' and 'must'. I basically don't like 'must' because I don't like prescribing where it's not absolutely necessary; not because of any feeling about the actual issues involved. What I hadn't taken into account is that I think this about the issue in both directions. Would anyone object to this form of words:

Article titles: Article titles should generally use the form 'Roman Catholic' or 'Roman Catholic Church'. A redirect should be provided with the same name and 'Catholic' substituted for 'Roman Catholic'.

Mentions in text: 'Roman Catholic' should be used first in an article, linking to the Roman Catholic Church article. 'Roman Catholic' or 'Catholic' may then be used interchangeably; unless another meaning of "Catholic" is used prominently in the article, or the article is about a group that considers itself Catholic but not Roman Catholic, in which Roman Catholic should be used throughout. In articles on topics pertaining exclusively or principally to the Roman Catholic Church, 'Catholic' should be used unless this causes significant danger of ambiguity.

It may be a bit rough around the edges, but I think it gets across what I'm trying to say. Does anyone have major issues with this? It seems to be what we nearly agreed on a few days ago, but with a bit saying that 'Catholic' should be used when talking about (Roman) Catholic topics. If it meets the requirements of our little group, we should probably invite comment on it from a wider range of editors then try to enshrine it in a similar way as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mormonism). If this form was generally accepted, it would mean we should change mentions, other than the first one and the ones in the Terminology section, of 'Roman Catholic' in this article to 'Catholic'. TSP 17:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.Brendanhodge 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On the nature of "consensus"

I disagree with TSP's comment about not being able to invalidate a past consensus. IMO, every consensus is subject to change precisely because the editors of an article change over timie. A consensus is not a permanent thing like a treaty or a contract. It is an agreement among the current editors of an article (or group of articles). If the current editors reach a different consensus, then the consensus changes. Current editors cannot bind future editors to honor a consensus that they have reached. On the other hand, future editors should respect the decisions of a past consensus or else the article can turn out to be a mess.

Consensus is more like a legal precedent. We should respect a past consensus but we should not feel bound to leave it in place if there is a good reason to change it. After all, it would be the rare consensus that involves more than 20 votes. Choose a different group of 20 voters, and the answer could come out differently. That's one reason that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If a decision is made on a 12-8 majority vote, the shift of 3 votes, could change the decision. If, on the other hand, the decision is based on a 17-3 consensus, then it takes a shift of 8 votes to change the decision

So, consensus can be changed but, if it is a true consensus, it will be hard to overturn it. It would be considered rude to try and change a consensus often unless there was a strong feeling that it was wrong and that those who voted it are likely to change their minds.

--Richard 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that a concensus decision could never be overturned - we certainly shouldn't think we need to adhere to every past decision, no matter how it was made and how long ago. However, this decision is under two months old, involved over 20 editors, several weeks and tens of thousands of words of debate, and was over 2:1 in favour of the current solution. We COULD debate it again each time a new editor arrives. Or we could write an encyclopedia. We can't do both. TSP 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, TSP, that if our writing policy on this issue continues to be as exclusive as it now is, there will always be this debate. Whether objection come from myself or from others is immaterial. I presently am working at the University of Notre Dame in the US. I assure that this is a very, very Catholic institution. Nowhere in our literature save the opening line of our mission statement, does the word Roman appear. It is just absolutely not part of the nomenclature. And there is never any debate or discussion of the subject. If WP gains any real credibility in the future as an encyclopedia, believe me this consensus will be challenged at a far greater degree that it has been thus far. Also, I am a spanish speaker. Iglesia Catolica is the accepted use to such an extent I am not certain how the "Roman" even fits in the expression. Neither "Iglesia Catolica Romana" nor "Iglesia Romana Catolica" is familiar in the slightest.

My point is that we have to take into account how Catholics understand themselves or this will never end. So, if we are about writing an encyclopedia, let's come up with a policy we can all live with and not just the solution suitable to a particular POV. While Fishhead's tenacity is admirable, he ultimately leaves absolutely no room for any position other than his own, and that is really unacceptable and unjust.--Vaquero100 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus in some things should be respected, you are correct. In somthing at variance with real life, like the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, but only the ROMAN Catholic Church is silly and is not to be respected. If we come up with consensus that gravity no longer applies we shall not float into the air. One more important thing than consensus is the principle of least astonishment. It is astonishing that the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church. To the issue of unity among Christians; Anglicans, Orthodox, and others are recognized as schismatics and while they may nominally claim to be Catholic they can't exclusivly make the claim. Christians like Baptists are part of the same Body of Christ though flawed from a Catholic perspective. Baptist, Methodist and other Baptisms are valid as anyone can Baptize anyone else in an emergency. So my point is that we can set up out Catholcism page, and use that as root, and drop the Roman if we all agree this is the common usage, and I think it is, regardless of the flawed current consensus. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Papal church can make an exclusive claim of catholicity and thus are exclusively entitled to be called "The Catholic Church", but, say, the Orthodox cannot? I knew that's what Rome believes, but I hardly expected someone to just come right out and say it as if it were a fact. There are no objective grounds whatseover for making such a claim, and this kind of POV-pushing has no place here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That the Catholic Church calls itself so is no different than the Orthodox Churches claiming that name. Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be catholic and orthodox, but that has never prevented either party from recognizing the others use of their name. Theological claims and corporate names are different things altogether. This has always been recognized in practice until some Anglicans decided to blur the distinction between theological concepts and institutional names. If we were to carry this forward to its logical conclusion, we would have to come up with another name for Baptists, for them to use that name makes the rest of us look like we are not baptists, which of course we are. But we use common sense and do not take offense even when the theological claim of Baptists is that we, in fact, do not have valid baptisms for lack of full immersion. If we have to force the moniker Roman, then we have to force some other qualifier on the Baptists such as Protestant. Anglican likwise must become Canterburian Anglicans etc.

TCC, if you want to argue every point all over again, I am more than willing. In fact, I will be happy to. However, we are trying to find a way forward. If you have a constructive suggestion on a middle ground, I am all ears. However, I will not stand for a "solution" that will condemn these and many other pages to an unending debate. Because there are well over a billion Catholics out there who have a lot to say on the matter. Catholics are about 20% of the world's population. A minority. Since you find it important to listen to minority opinions, then maybe you will give some consideration to the Catholic minority. --Vaquero100 01:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I had no argument with you. I was reacting purely to Dominick's claim of exclusivity -- or rather, his flat denial of the right of anyone else to make an exclusive claim -- which you do not appear to be supporting. I have no intention of arguing every point all over again. I argued all this a month or two ago. Every time it appears to be settled it erupts again a little later. But that was just outrageous.

The distinction between the corporate name and the theological claim has been addressed before. Your illustration is flawed because the concepts are not of equal weight. There's no one laying claim to the name "Baptist" other than the Baptists. We don't have a creed that proclaims we believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and baptist church. "Presbyterian" does not automatically exclude anyone else from having a presbytery. Etc. But if you say the Pope is the head of the "Catholic Church" and no other, that's on a different scale entirely.

Your claim that each other's claimed names have always been allowed by the other side is incorrect. I have seen older books written by Roman Catholics referring to the Orthodox as the "Greek Church", "Eastern schismatics" and others, never once calling it the "Orthodox Church". Admittedly, these have become rare since Vatican II. ("Orthodox Church" is itself a neologism. Historically it's the faith that's orthodox, a faith which is a property of a Church that's catholic. It would be interesting to learn when "Orthodox Church" first came into use; I don't know when that was.) On the other hand, regardless of usage in official documents, I know of very few Orthodox Christians who even use "Roman Catholic". It's usually "Roman church", "Papal church", and so on. Extremists will even avoid the word "church". But one finds avoidance of "Catholic Church" even in official publications where friendly interconfessional relations are not a consideration. (Frankly, I don't care much about what Anglicans had or have to say of the matter.)

I'm sorry, but it's more than a little absurd to take a stand as a minority party with the recent news about a survey establishing Roman Catholics as the majority Christian confession. I quite assure you that numbers of Orthodox are far smaller in the US, and rather smaller worldwide, than the church presided over by the Pope of Rome. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please can we stick to arguments based on Wikipedia rules? I agree with you, Vaquero, that I do not want to get into the debate that TCC was taking us into. On the other hand, Dominick's views on schismatics, as I read them, are wholly irrelevant to our point here. If he has a factual and policy-based point to make, I do not understand what it is, so I would appreciate it if he could make it again. Indeed, can anyone who wishes to make an argument on this please do so in terms of Wikipedia rules?

To address those of Dominick's points which I consider relevant:

I don't believe that the Principle of Least Astonishment takes precedence over Consensus. Both are guidelines, so in that sense, neither takes precedence. However, the Principle of Least Astonishment is a guideline on something we should take into account when making a decision; whereas Consensus is a guideline on the way we make decisions. We need to reach a decision, by concensus, and taking into account all the rules and advice laid down by Wikipedia's guidelines, including among many others the Principle of Least Astonishment. During the original debate on this topic, the Principle of Least Astonishment was brought up (by me, in fact), but, taking this into account, the consensus was the current solution. Just because you feel that a particular guideline was not given sufficient prominence in making the decision does not invalidate the decision; because the decision was made according to the guidelines on how to make decisions.

In fact, the guideline on the Principle of Least Astonishment says this:

Using the principle of least astonishment, you should plan your pages and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them someplace that makes sense.

So, it's true, Catholicism may not take you where the largest number of users expect to go; but it does take you to somewhere else that makes sense (an examination of the different meanings, Roman and otherwise, given to the concept of Catholicism), and gives a prominent link to the place users might have expected to be (Roman Catholic Church) in its first paragraph.

Wikipedia has standards other than the Principle of Least Astonishment, which mean that actually you'll find very many of Wikipedia's links don't take you where the majority of users might expect. For example, Budweiser - the majority of users would expect it to go to a page about the American beer - it is, after all, the world's biggest-selling beer. But it doesn't. Why? Because Neutral Point of View, one of Wikipedia's core policies, trumps Least Astonishment, which is one paragraph in a guideline; and Neutral Point of View - as assessed by Concensus - has decided that it needs to give equal prominence to views other than that most widely-held. Similarly, here, concensus has decided that NPOV requires that space be afforded to discuss a variety of meanings applied to the term 'Catholicism'; which, in the opinion of a supermajority of editors, trumped Least Astonishment. TSP 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, TCC, you have now shown your true colors. "Pope of Rome?" "Papal Church?" "Roman Church?" How about fisheaters while you are at it. I think you have shown your POV quite clearly. Now, can we move forward on a compromise? or shall we continue to have a "consensus" that condemns this and other pages to constant new eruptions of this arguement. If there is no middle ground found, this will never go away. --Vaquero100 02:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we abandon this section, where no good seems to be being done, and move back to the previous one, which was in distinct danger of being productive.... ? TSP 02:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Orthodox were barred from claiming they were descentent from the Catholic Church. Starting from way back the name was used for all Christians who were following what the Church (that includes Eartern and Western) teachings. I am not excluding anyone, but the breaks in Christian unity are not the issue. Pretending there was no break is the issue. No, I think this is important. We obviously don't agree that Catholic means the Universal Church founded by Christ and headquartered in Rome, like it has meant for 2000 years. If this is how things are then why would there be any consensus to the contrary. I can see why the articles have fragmented so badly. We have not defined terms. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"I never said the Orthodox were barred from claiming they were descentent from the Catholic Church." Good, because that's not the issue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been said several times, that the current church headquartered in Rome is equivalent with the (or a putative) united and universal church of the first century is an opinion. I'm not saying it's an incorrect opinion. I'm not saying it's a correct opinion. It is not our place as Wikipedians to say either of those things. It is our place to report facts; which includes the fact that an opinion is held, but does not include reporting the opinion itself as fact. This particular assertion is not sufficiently well-defined to be a fact - there is no universally-accepted method of saying which organisation is the true continuation of a body after that body has split into more than one part. Therefore, our position is only to report what opinions are held on this. Editors' personal views on which opinion is correct are irrelevant. We are here only to report. TSP 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making some progress toward middle ground. Could you PLEASE stop offending the Catholic Church for a moment? Forgive me if this is a bit personal, but she is my wife! --Vaquero100 03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is not an opinion that the Church has existed as the Catholic Church from the start. We have 2000 years of consecutive Bishops of Rome, who act as the visible head of the Church. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

True (at least to an extent; it depends on your views on things like the meaning of 'presides in love' in Ignatius' letters, and on the historicity of the accounts of the early Bishops of Rome). But the property of 'being the same organisation' is not a well-defined one. Let's take a less controversial example, and look at bands. Is a band still the same band if one member leaves (is Queen with Paul Rogers the same band as Queen, or the Manic Street Preachers the same band without Richey James)? If half the members leave (is Lynyrd Skynyrd today the same band as the band which made Free Bird, or Oasis the same band that made Definitely Maybe)? All the members but one (is the Divine Comedy today the same band that made Casanova)? Does it make a difference if the name changes - is New Order the same band as Joy Division (all members but one in common)? What about bands with multiple competing incarnations (there were three sets of Beach Boys at one point) - what defines which is the 'real' one? If one person says "The Beach Boys have always been a close harmony group with songs written by Brian Wilson", another says "The Beach Boys have always been a close harmony group with lead vocals by Mike Love", and another says "The Beach Boys have always been a close harmony group primarily made up of members of the Wilson and Jardine families", who is to say which of those is the right metric?

In all cases, the decision is a subjective one; people will look at who left, who stayed, the reasons for doing so; and will come to different conclusions, which may or may not coincide with things like legal rights to the name (many would say that a Brian Wilson show nowadays is much closer to the real Beach Boys than a Beach Boys show). I don't think it's something where a single metric can be chosen and stated to be an undisputed empirical measure; the fact is that there are different widely-held views on the issue, all of which should be reported without declaring any one to be the only correct one. TSP 12:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, if you can call it that, no family name is meaningful, no nationality nor ethnicity, no church, no institution whatsoever remains the same. I am familiar with Whitehead et al. Process Theology died like 30 years ago. But, if you must resurrect it, then Anglican is a misnomer and so are you, because none of the cells in your body (except ova, if you are a female) are the same ones you were born with. This is a silly argument and really gets us nowhere.

Fortunately Catholic theology is based on something a little more "substantial," natural law (forgive the pun--philosophers gotta have some fun). So, there is an identifiable "nature" of things that makes them what they are. In the case of Catholicism, its nature is hierarchical, apostolic, sacramental, liturgical, evangelical, public, episcopal, sacerdotal, Roman, universal, soteriological, moral, authoritative, social, charitable, etc. Now not all churches fit all of these characteristics of the Catholic "nature." Not all are apostolic: evangelical churches, Batptists, Anglicans (?). Not all are sacramental: the Nazarenes. Not all are evangelical: Amish. Not all are: charitable/moral/soteriological: Assured salvationists. Not all are Roman: Orthodox and all others. Yet, there is this one Church that stands out among the rest who remains the same throughout time in the sense of a perduring nature: The Catholic Church. --Vaquero100 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In Catholic theology, yes. Others conclude otherwise. I am not trying to prove any view right or wrong; merely to say that, on subjective matters like this, different people reach different conclusions from the same data. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to say that any view is the correct one, or decide what is the correct way to make such a decision; merely to report on what views are held, on what basis, and how widely. TSP 14:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an issue of theology, the Church has called itself Catholic from the year 110 by Ignacious, and again a referecne can be shown that Polycarp used the term, and through the years. Nothing is PoV about saying it is the Catholic Church, but saying that the current Church of today is not the Church of Polycarp is seriously PoV. The majority of Christians, as in the largest group, in a published Catechism holds this view. If there are minority views NPoV requires us to mention the view. It is a serious PoV problem to turn this around and deny that the Church of today is not the Church of years ago, as it is easily shown. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help feelng that you're reading a different version of the NPOV policy than I am. The one I'm reading contains this:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

I am not saying we should "deny" anything. I am saying that, given that there are clearly conflicting views on this, we should present all views fairly, but not assert any of them. NPOV certainly does NOT state that we should present as truth the view held by the largest group. TSP 10:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As it sits the view that the Church has been the Catholic Church is supressed, and the view that some Church names "early church that isn't Catholic" existed for 2000 years. When the Orthodox broke away they disagreed with the exercise of the ancient by then (1000 years) primacy (first among equals) of the See of Rome. They took a step away from the "early church that isn't Catholic". Same for Henry VIII. The view that these Churches make up the Body of Christ is not opposed to me. The view that the See of Rome is not the first among equals in the Church and breakaway Churches never left is PoV and can be expressed but not as the primary viewpoint. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Where are you thinking we are expressing something else as a 'primary viewpoint'? What I'm hoping we can do is not to express anything as a 'primary viewpoint', but, in view of the different opinions and the NPOV Policy, to express the various different viewpoints without asserting any of them. (It is sometimes justified, under the Undue Weight section of the NPOV policy, to emphasise that one opinion is vastly the majority one, and the other vastly a minority one; however, in this case, the numbers holding each view are approximately balanced (a billion or so either side); or at least, not imbalanced to the extent that either view is a vastly minority view.)

We seem to be getting into some confusion caused by terminology issues again, I think - what are you meaning by 'Catholic'? As far as I know it is more or less undisputed that:

- A Church existed from the first century or so. This Church is understood by most people to have been, both by name and in the technical sense, Catholic.

- The Church currently based in Rome is one of the Churches which can show descent from this church.

- The Church currently based in Rome is, in common usage in English, frequently called The Catholic Church.

But there are many different viewpoints on the question of:

- Is Church currently based in Rome uniquely, or more than other churches, the successor of this early church?

Certainly we can, and should, express that its members believe it is; give the evidence for it being so; cite some sources that support it being so; and so on. But it seems to me utterly in opposition to the NPOV policy to express that we believe it to be so. (It would be equally in opposition to the policy to express that we believe it not to be so; but I can't see how we're doing that.) TSP 12:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The heading here is the nature of consensus. But even consensus has to be subservient to verifiability. I think people may be getting into re-inventing the wheel. Start from solid ground and look in a dictionary. The fact that dictionaries have several denotations for words is not considered confusion. It simply reflects society and the different usages. My college dictionary has entries for:

catholic
Catholic
Catholic Church
Catholicism

If we are speaking of "Catholic Church", then the dictionary equates that only with "Roman Catholic Church". That is the only usage it shows. If you are merely speaking of the word "Catholic", with a capital, as one word, it could pertain to the Catholic Church, Anglican, Old Catholic or even Eastern Orthodox. Catholicism could pertain to an Catholic church, but it says "especially the Roman Catholic Church". The Dictionary is a reliable source of societal usage, so "consensus" here should be based on determining HOW to conform to this source. (Diligens 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

Remember, however, that yours is not the only dictionary. I don't actually have an OED about my person; but it's my recollection that American English dictionaries will generally define "Catholic Church" as "Roman Catholic Church"; whereas British/International English dictionaries will generally define it as "either the universal Christian Church, or the the Roman Catholic Church". The point is that "Catholic Church" is not a universally unambiguous usage; whereas "Roman Catholic Church" - according to the concensus made on this page - is a more unambiguous usage.

As you say, the ambiguity is greater for other terms like "Catholic", "Catholicism". Possibly I've been overgeneralising and assuming that terms like "Catholic/Roman Catholic", "Catholicism/Roman Catholicism", and "Catholic Church/Roman Catholic Church" would all go together and follow the same rules. It just seems simpler to me if they do.

I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting that the collocation 'Catholic Church' be used unclarified to mean anything other than 'Roman Catholic Church'; just that in some situations it should not be used at all, to avoid ambiguity.

consensus has to be subservient to verifiability - well, they're different things. Consensus is the way we work; Verifiability is something we need to take into account when working. The Consensus page advises that, if you feel that a consensus being made is in violation of Wikipedia policy, you should advertise it on places like the Requests for Comment board to get more editors involved. This was done during the most recent vote, resulting in about 25 editors being involved overall; which reached the current consensus. As I said above, I don't think it's possible to say, "I think the consensus reached didn't take adequate notice of this policy, so I will ignore it"; consensus is the way we decide how to follow policy. TSP 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the objections to the use of "Roman Catholic Church" are as follows:

It is not how the institution refers to itself. But in ecumenical and secular dialogue, it can be. WP is not the Catholic Encyclopedia, it needs to maintain an NPOV.
It advances a certain POV. The POV it advances is that there is more than one definition of the Catholic Church. This is reality, however. Arthur Michael Ramsey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury wrote an entire book on Anglican theology called The Gospel and the Catholic Church, for example. To use "Catholic Church" to refer exclusively to one institution is, arguably, more POV since it perforce rejects other claims. The whole reason "Roman Catholic" gained currency in the first place was to distinguish it from other Catholic denominations.
"Catholic Church" is the term most frequently used by English-speaking people to refer to the institution. This is undoubtedly true - when using the term "Catholic Church," most people intend to refer to the denomination headed by the Bishop of Rome. However, in encyclopedic use, it can be ambiguous. "Catholic sacraments" can mean "sacraments as understood in Catholicism" or "Roman Catholic sacraments." Encyclopedias require a greater degree of specificity than ordinary, casual parlance. Per WP naming policy, "Roman Catholicism" is not "unreasonably ambiguous."

I reciprocate Vaquero's comments, re: tenacity, but in his case it seems to be the sole basis for his argument. No one can reasonably claim that "Roman Catholic" is derogatory (the institution can and does refer to itself that way), ambiguous (everyone knows what the term means, and it is commonly used), inaccurate (it is, in fact, much more precise than the alternative), or agenda-driven (it simply respects competing agendas, hence reduces ambiguity). The sole argument is that this isn't how the institution views itself. That objection can be easily and quickly addressed in the body of a given article. This is why I fully concurred with the consensus proposed above to name articles "RCC and x," first mention "RCC," with "CC" being acceptable subsequently in the article. It addresses my concerns about ambiguity, which is my only concern. So what are any remaining objections, if any? I'm all ears. Fishhead64 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, Fishhead, there is only one institution by the name of the Catholic Church. What you continue to refer to erroneously as the Catholic Church is a concept, an idea. If it is an actual institution, what is the address of its headquarters? What article can be written about it that would be detailed? it's policies? its precise teachings? The prince is naked, my friend. Your Catholic Church at least from a secular point of view is a fiction, a figment of your Anglican imagination desperate for acceptance in the court of public opinion. Anyone looking for your version of the Catholic Church would never confuse it for the an artilce on the actual Catholic Church, which is REAL. --Vaquero100 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(second response)

The problem is that the "current" postion from consensus is not really the NPoV position. It puts the corporeal head of the Catholic Church not really in charge of the Catholic church; when he has always been the first among equals evidences by the extant written works from the first century, in published sources or by its own writings. All the evidence shows the Catholic Church is one body, with others claiming in various degrees to belong to the Church. One indivisible characteristic of Catholicism is the primacy of Peter's Successor, not matter if the Archbishop of Caterbury makes a claim or not. If Wikipedia rules force a definition of Catholic that is at odds with the belief of about 1.2billion Catholics, who all have the same nominal view as evidenced by the Catechism, then the rules are the problem. If you take issues of the Church, abortion, communion, priestly celebacy, even liturgical songs, and look at peoples opinions you would find a lot of variance. As far as historicity of the Church you find few that dispute that, even among Christions who are not Catholic. It is convienent for some to have the opposite view, but that doesn't change the physcial history, written document, and historical record. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be 'forcing' any definition. It should be providing information about all opinions, while affirming none of them.

Yes, there is a common definition, as you say, attested to by a billion or more Christians in communion with Rome. This is disagreed with by a billion or so more Christians not in communion with Rome, who still attest membership of 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church'. Any solution we come to has to take into account both of these facts, as well as any others. Any solution which can only accommodate one of them is not the right solution.

As Vaquero has said, most of these people (the exception, I suppose, being the Eastern Orthodox churches) regard the Catholic Church they claim membership of as an idea, rather than a single concrete establishment; so in contexts where a single concrete establishment is clearly required, there is no ambiguity. In very many contexts, however, this is not clear, so ambiguity remains possible. Fortunately, there is another name - "Roman Catholic Church" - which is used by the Church itself in situations where confusion, ambiguity or offence might be caused by its use of "Catholic Church".

If you think the problem is with Wikipedia's rules, then the place to raise this is on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). TSP 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The personal tone of this makes it hard to discuss with you. Lowering this to a personal disagreement cheapens the points and makes progress impossible. Spewing vective about me and my unreasonablness makes this even harder. Can we talk like adults?

I would say, and it is sourced, Catholics far outnumber other groups, if you remove Orthodox. Fewer denominations in the US make use of the Credo, most hold the Church as having Christ at the head, as does the CAtholic Church. The Catholic church holds that all Christian Churches are part of the Body of Christ and therefore part of the Catholic Church. (My Southern Baptist friends get mad when I say that.) That isn't a contention. My problem in a nutshell is saying that the unmodified Catholic term cant be used by the Church who holds the a See in Rome as the prime See. It would be like taking my surname, and telling me it can't be Smith but now is shall be McSmith. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if anything I've said has appeared to be personal. None of it was meant to be, and I'm not sure which of my remarks could have been; but if anything I said seems to have been offensive, I apologise. It is always harder to convey tone in writing than in speech; I assure you that nothing I wrote was meant as a personal attack.

Catholics probably are the largest group; I didn't mean to deny they were. However, Wikipedia policy is "that where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted". Whether or not one group is larger than the other, there are conflicting views.

If we are denying (that is to say, asserting the opposite of) any particular claim, particularly a widely-held one, then that is certainly a matter for concern and we should deal with it. However, clearly according to the NPOV policy we shouldn't affirm any particular view either. So to an extent, which group is larger doesn't seem to me to be relevant to our purpose as Wikipedians - it is clear that this is a widely-held view, not the view of a small minority; but also that it isn't a universally held view (more than a small minority disagree with it). So we need to present both the view, and the counter-view, but affirm neither. TSP 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking around at articles on other church and can find nothing like what we are encountering here. I almost was willing to settle for "honorable mention" for the Catholic Church's name. Now I realize that neither Fishhead nor TSP will even endorse that as a matter of policy. This is sick. It must be a really bad joke or prank or something. I almost hope they are getting a good laugh out of it and will move on. --Vaquero100 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I am doing no such thing. I'm not sure what you mean by "honorable mention" - as I've said above, I am very happy to say that Catholic should usually be used in articles on Catholic topics, and may be used in the majority of other articles. I'm trying to be as accommodating as I can; but the fact remains that a vote has been taken on this page which decided in favour of Roman Catholic Church as the name for this page; so that needs to be taken into account in any future decisions (unless we choose to rehold that vote). It is that, not any personal preference of mine, which I feel is binding our decision to at least give preference in some circumstances to 'Roman Catholic Church'. TSP 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but we should consider different dictionaries. The Oxford Dictionary is a major contender. However, we are, bottom line, required by WP rules to consider all "reliable" sources for verification. If you don't do it properly, and then make a move, you can legtitimately have some editor come along and legitimately undo what you do, in a flash. For starters, anyone have the modern OED definition of "Catholic Church"?. I will post more later shortly. (Diligens 19:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I suppose the thing that annoys me is not so much calling the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church (which I'm willing to do as both are acceptible names) but rather the insistence that there is something else out there with the same name when there is so demonstrably not. The 'Catholic Church' which some are holding out the existence of is pretty clearly Credal Christainity or Mere Christianity or even just Christianity.

I can see acknowledging that many Christians who are not Catholics (in the traditional sense of the term) insist that they nonetheless possess the attribute of Catholicity within their denominations -- and in that sense the Catholicism article strikes me as a very good idea despite the fact that will almost never be what people are looking for when they type in the word. However, the fuss over 'Catholic Church' seems like a dog-in-the-manger attempt to score extra points against the RCC's claim to catholicity by denying it the name 'Catholic Church' despite the fact there isn't actually any other real institution which names itself such -- even if other organizations do in fact claim Catholicity.

I suppose this is my inherent understanding of religion as a Catholic showing through, in that it seems to me utterly ludicrous to call Credal Christianity as a whole the 'Catholic Church' since however holy it may be, it's about as one and universal as an anarchist pot luck.

However, this need not necessarily preclude my agreeing to and following the compromise that's been laid out. It's just that, while being willing to follow the compromise, I find myself strongly in disagreement with the beliefs of those with whom I need to compromise.Brendanhodge 01:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I often think the stickier the problem, the simpler the misunderstanding. Perhaps the issue is Catholic as a noun versus catholic as an adjective. When an Anglican says the Nicine creed, it would appear they meant "universal church"; when a Catholic says the Creed they would mean an institution, with the Pope at the head. Vaquero's point about under representation is apt. I think the issue is serious, at least to Catholics, and as I said before all Christians belong nominally to the Body of Christ or as we say it, the Catholic church regardless of the obedience to the Pope. Dominick ^(TALK) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

On the surface, Dominick, I pretty much agree, though as a Catholic seeing "catholic" in the creed I am always thinking of it in the adjectival sense. I should not speak for others, but apparently high church Anglicans (TSP and Fishhead) have a captialized Catholic in their prayerbook which would imply the institutional or propers sense of the noun. Frankly, I can't make sense of that. How can you capitalize a concept? If transubstantiation were in the creed, it certainly would not be capitalized because it is an idea. I think there was a mix up in the 19th century. Back then English in keeping with its German roots was written with a lot more capitals. You see this in Vatican I documents, as well. It is my theory that when English became more modest in its capitalization in the early 20th century (which continued throughout the century), theological commitments had just been fixed a generation before during the Oxford Movement, thus Anglicans kept their capitalized "Catholic" as part of a proper noun, while Catholics preserved it as an adjective to avoid the very confusions we are having here. Still, a capitalized Catholic in the creed for a non-Catholic (RC) makes precious little sense to me.

For what it's worth (which shouldn't really be anything, as I'd prefer to argue the facts rather than the identities of the individuals involved), while I've never tried to disguise the fact that I'm an Anglican (I explicitly mentioned it in a reply to you here on the 19th May), I'm actually a member of one of the least high-church churches in my diocese. TSP 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

We seem to be deadlocked on the naming issue; for which I am happy to accept some of the blame. It's clear that other editors don't think I'm acting with NPOV aims, which is fine; but means that anything I do seems unlikely to solve the problem. I'd like to ask some other editors to comment on the issue by listing it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Does that sound sensible? TSP 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I am also frustrated by this seemingly interminable dispute. For me, the RCC and CC have always been one and the same and I have always used the two interchangeably. On the other hand, I have tried to broker a compromise that would satisfy TSP and Fishhead64 and I'm frustrated that it's been so hard to find one.

Despairing of any other solution, I support the RFC but I think it would be good to negotiate a fair and concise statement of the problem first. Having responded to a few RFCs, my experience is that it can be very difficult to wade through an entire discussion thread to figure out what the heck people are talking about.

Can someone compose a "fair and unbiased" statement of the controversy? And can we put it on a separate page so that it doesn't get mixed in with all the other stuff going on on this page? One possibility is the project talk page. Another would be Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Whatever works.

--Richard 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If we agree on the RFC request and dont play dueling RFC requests. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How about agreeing that if you call for an RFC, that you abide by the results? Dominick, you called for an RFC with two other people at the Talk:Traditionalist Catholic page a couple of weeks ago, and when the two people who came didn't rule in your favor, you ignored the results. In this case, it is not likely someone is going to come and read everything here. (Diligens 01:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Dilgens, nonsense is not welcome here. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have to leave, oh well.... (Diligens 03:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Richard, I concur entirely. For the record, I endorsed your proposal, and I thought others did too - but we seem to have somehow fallen into the roundabout again of talking past one another. I agree that this conversation isn't getting anywhere. It's the same half-dozen editors, pretty evenly split. I would suggest that we do the alternative talk page, have each interested editor post a brief statement outlining his/her position (perhaps under the subheadings "Catholic Church," "Roman Catholic Church," and then step back while others weigh in. Fishhead64 23:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I would propose for putting in as one side of the debate in the proposed Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. As mentioned above, I would suggest that other editors put their arguments in, and that we don't get into discussion, but simply post it over at RfC. Fishhead64 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is way too long for an RFC. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dominick. By my reading of the rules, RFCs shouldn't try to put either side - an RFC just needs a neutral explanation of what the issue is and what steps have already been taken to resolve it; not of why anyone believes the decision should come down in either direction. TSP 13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the RFC is a poor solution. It has no solid basis. Several people around the world can easily join WP anew tomorrow and simply might want to change it, and finding that a couple of people by RFC helped decide it will mean nothing. You need verifiability from reliable sources. If not, you have nothing but consensus by a handful of personal opinions. Your look for consensus must be centered around dictionaries and what is commonly represented in the Mass Media. Everyone in the United States who hears on the news "the Catholic Church" thinks immediately of the Rome and the pope. And that is how it is used in the News. The American Dictionaries use it that way. America has the vast majority of the English people in the world, so there is automatically consensus right there. I looked on the BBC news site and even in Britain (whose queen is also the head of the Church there) uses "the Catholic Church" to mean "Roman Catholic". I think it is hands down that "Catholic Church" should be the title. It represents what the majority of English people commonly expect, which is indisputable and among the reliable sources of verifiability it has the greatest consensus. (Diligens 03:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Fellow editors, I am still cogitating on the value of any sort of intervention. If the intervention goes as before, it won't really resolve much. Catholics in the long run will never tolerate such a ridiculous (in my opinion) limitation on the name of this ancient Church. Looking over the list of voters back in March, it seems that Catholics are woefully under-represented. Perhaps this reflects the editor profile on WP, perhaps there are other reasons. In my opinion and I believe that of the man on the street, the last concensus is unreasonable, unjust, and lacking in common sense. As I examine myself on this matter, I come to realize that I and other Catholics will argue this until a more just solution is found, consensus or not. And, this isn't a statement about myself, primarily, but the subject matter. It is simply an untenable result. If it were not I in the argument it will be someone else, but it won't end. So, with regard to with regard to RfC, frankly I am indifferent. --Vaquero100 09:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can respect both views. An RFC is not binding and more editors is a good thing. Dominick ^(TALK) 09:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Given some time to think about it, I am in such profound disagreement with the way this has gone so far.

Status Quo:

If the title of the Church's article is RCC, then
for consistency's sake all other articles related to the Church must be titled RCC. Then
for consistency's sake first mention in bold in all articles must be RCC.

This leaves the actual name of the 2000 year old Catholic Church to some pathetic "honorable mention." This is simply not just.

I would like to propose that all ancillary articles be titled CC and X with CC or RCC in bold for the first mention. This strikes a real balance with the indignity of the title of the lead article. --Vaquero100 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually have a problem with this, so far as the articles on Catholic Church topics go - as you say, there seems to be little danger of confusion there. I can't, of course, speak for anyone but myself on this.

The place where I see a real danger of ambiguity is in articles on other subjects; and particularly where the reference is just "Catholic" or "Catholicism" rather than "Catholic Church" in full, as these can be used in other contexts - as currently at articles like Catholic Evangelical (I know, I keep using the same example - I'm sure there are others).

That does also mean I'm not wholly convinced by titles like "Dissident Catholic theologians", because "Catholic" here could mean "associated with the Catholic Church" or "having a Catholic theology"; I'd like this to be either "Dissident Roman Catholic theologians", or "Dissident theologians in the Catholic Church", "Dissident theologians (Catholic Church)", or similar - both of these seem to be unambiguous to me, whereas the current title seems ambiguous (I think that that John Keble, say, would be commonly termed a 'Catholic theologian', but not a 'Roman Catholic theologian' nor a 'theologian in the Catholic Church'). Does that make sense?

Basically, I'm happy that "Catholic Church" in article titles is tolerably unambiguous (though I think it would still be wise to mention 'Roman' somewhere or other, to allow for the perhaps unlikely event that someone turns up expecting it to be about the universal Christian Church - I'm happy for this to be second, though) - but not that "Catholic" and "Catholicism" are. That seems consistent with what Diligens's dictionary says.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned, I voted for this page to be at Catholic Church, so I may well not represent the majority view of Wikipedia on this. TSP 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, TSP, your comments are helpful. I had not seen how an ambiguity was possible with Category:Dissident Catholic Theologian before. How could one be a dissident from the general sense of the term Catholic? I was thinking. But now I am getting the idea that someone could be a Catholic theologian in the topical sense rather than the denominational sense (he said with distaste for word, denomination). For instance, a liberation theologian could be a dissident from any of a number of churches. Anyway, I can work on changing that. This is what AWB is for!. --Vaquero100 14:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In this regard, TSP, your views do not represent my own. I still fail to see the "injustice" (using Vaquero's term) in using a title which the institution itself accepts in cases of ambiguity. Clearly, if "Roman Catholic" is acceptable to the Vatican, it should be acceptable here, as well. Certainly, those who self-identify as Catholic but do not recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome may equally claim injustice in face of an attempt to stake an exclusive claim on the name. This is why I endorsed Richardshsr's proposal. It had the effect of addressing the ambiguity by titling articles "RCC and x" while allowing the article itself to use the self-identifying term "Catholic Church." Incidentally, the comments I placed on Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name were meant to begin a page that an RfC could refer to - not to be the RfC content itself. Fishhead64 14:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that using the term Catholic as an independent entity that is not in control of the See of Rome. The Orthodox use Catholic as an adjective. They do not claim to have control of the term. In fact the orthodox formed up on the order of national or quasi national Churches and don't claim to be catholic in the same sense that the Catholic church has been historically the universal Church for anyone, anywhere. No orthodox dispute that the Church was in union before 1000 and not in union after 1000, no Catholics would dispute that Orthodoxy is Sui Juris. Both Catholic and Orthodox agree that Anglicanism is not universal, and it is not a Sui Juris church, but broke away from Rome. They could not claim to be universal, but a section with some bounds of the universal Church. You can't separate Catholic from the See of Rome and that is the problem. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "you can't"? People do it all the time. See, for example, Arthur Michael Ramsey's The Gospel and the Catholic Church. Ramsey, one-time Archbishop of Canterbury was clearly not limiting his comments to the institution headquartered in Rome. Once again, if there was a common view of this, we wouldn't be having this rather extensive discussion. Hence, my endorsement of an RfC so we can get some fresh voices in the discussion and hopefully reach some conclusion. If no one objects, I'll get something written up in the next day or so (I'm currently out of town, so my time is a little limited). Once again, I ask only that the same consensus be applied to other articles that was reached so recently with regard to this one. Fishhead64 05:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, this is untrue. Catholicity has nothing to do with the ~~political~~ administrative organization of the Church. It has everything to do with the grace that inheres within it, so that every church, everywhere it subsists in the same faith, has the same grace and the same Spirit. In other words, wherever the Church exists, it is the Church in the fullest sense. This is eminently separable from Rome. I don't expect you to agree with this, but you need to understand that this viewpoint exists. (Although you might find [4] illuminating.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

TCC, this is not true, and I can't belief you, as an Eastern Orthodox, are arguing here about a Roman Catholic Church article. Same faith and same spirit, when they have different doctrines? One arguing opposite meanings of Scripture with another? What kind of spirit do you believe is behind tolerating such contradictions in faith? I suggest if you really want a concise and precise view of Catholicism, you should read The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales. Anyway, as for "administrative organization", Christ founded His Church with a body and soul: "Christ wills His Christian Community to be a Body which is a perfect Society. Its members must be united because they all work together towards a single end....the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements - namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption..." (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis"") (Diligens 10:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

The article [5] is QUITE illuminating TSP:

Lastly, it should be said that among some confused thinkers of the Anglican communion, as also among certain representatives of Modernist opinions, an interpretation of the Catholicity of the Church has lately come into fashion which has little connection with anything that has hitherto fallen under our notice. Starting with the conception familiar in such locutions as "a man of catholic tastes", meaning a man who excludes no rational interest from his sympathies, these writers would persuade us that a catholic church either does or should mean a church endowed with unlimited comprehensiveness, i.e. which is prepared to welcome and assimilate all opinions honestly held, however contradictory.

Who are they referring to, hmmm? It is not amazing that I am in agreement with Dilgens, even as we disagree in many other issues with the Church and the nature of the Church today. Catholicism is indeed tied in part and parcel with the physical Church, as a real institution, not as a matter of Faith or opinion, but a historical fact as understood by many people through the ages, and even better, written out by those many people. The consensus is wrong, and must be changesd. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm at work, so I don't have time to reply to this - I'll try to later if no-one else does, but I was just passing and thought I should point out:

The post you're replying to wasn't written by me, it was written by TCC (User:Csernica), who is quite another person (and not an Anglican, as Diligens seems to think).
The link posted is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is not recognised by Wikipedia as an NPOV source - the guide Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics notes: "The Encyclopedia was written to serve the Catholic Church and reflect its doctrine, therefore nearly every article has a distinct POV and no article should be included word for word."

TSP 12:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(Backing off one indent -- seven is plenty!) The point of the link is that the article does not define "catholic" in terms of union with the Pope of Rome -- although it naturally (due to the built-in and quite natural POV that TSP points out) considers union with Rome as a necessary condition for membership in it.

Of course the Catholic Church is a real, physical institution. Who ever thought it wasn't? The disagreement here is in what human organizations (or set of organizations -- even the church headed by the Pope isn't monolithic) does it uniquely subsist? It it natural that Roman Catholics believe it is theirs. It is equally natural that others believe otherwise -- while at the same time, all using more or less the same definition of "catholic" and not that quoted by Dominick above. That definition is neither contemplated nor implied by anything in this discussion so far, and I can't imagine why anyone would think it was. But based on this, can we please have an understanding about why institutions with a (they believe) equal claim on the name or description of "Catholic Church" might object to it being applied exclusively to that which is the subject of this article in a supposedly neutral place as Wikipedia?

Let me put this another way. In the CCC's description of what is meant by "Catholic" (830-835) the Orthodox Church would subscribe to all of it with the sole exception of 834 which makes Rome the principle of unity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, yes, quite frankly I do object to your taking the lead on an RfC. From what I can see, you have been man-handling this article for far too long. Frankly, I don't see you as a leader or anything close to objective on this matter. TSP has clearly given more leadership to this article than you have. And on this point you are the one who least represents those who have in the discussion in recent weeks. I would much prefer that TSP formulate the RfC. --Vaquero100 06:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, I wish you would ease up on the personal invective just a little bit. Just because we have a legitimate difference of opinion is no reason to be hostile or to impute hostility on the part of those with whom you disagree. I can totally understand and appreciate your position, and your arguments are entirely reasonable. I just happen to disagree with them. Whatever you may think, I am capable of being able to stand at a distance from the debate and describe both sides fully and dispassionately. In the end, I don't care who writes up the RfC just so long as someone does it. Fishhead64 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens and Dominick: Your responses to what I wrote again illuminate the need for an RfC - any one of us can quote authorities to support our interpretations. There is no one right answer. As such, the right answer will need to respect the diversity of interpretations of the term "Catholic Church." Which, incidentally, is precisely what I have argued for. Fishhead64 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church in society: worldwide distribution

I find the following statement biased: "The number of Catholics in the world continues to increase"

It is clearly understood from the rest of the article that membership is reduced to having been baptised. Hence, the mere increase in population leads to such statement being correct.

I maybe critical but it is totally unfair that a social tradition by parents is sufficient to enter the church, but formal written request, in Spain, is necessary to get out. This is contrary to what the text states: "unless they formally renounce membership by, for instance, joining another religion or denomination". If I join any other group I would still be counted as catholic until I formally request in writting that I want out.

Furthermore, I am a cinic and an athiest but I still remain a social animal and want to enjoy social rituals such as marriage or death. So I will baptize my children and the lie will be perpetuated. Hence being catholic is a cultural affair rather than a question of faith alone. The church does not refuse these services because they make profit, if there was no monetary gain, I would be requested to prove my christianity in order to be worthy. This is true of christian universities and schools, where good christian references are a plus if not essential.

My suggestion is that this part of the article should begin with a NPOV discussion along the lines of what a catholic is, instead of at the end, and serious scepticism has to be made on any data, especially that given by the Roman Catholic Church. Think of Muslim countries and how Islam is a major social and political force, whereas in most catholic countries laicism is prevalent. We must find a way to clearly get across that quantity and quality are not the same thing. The church itself follows a strict hierarchical structure, as Orwell would put it, some are more equal than others.

As an exercise of lateral thinking, look at unemployment statistics. Someone who does not want to work is not considered unemployed even though they don’t have a job. Similarly people who want to work, but are not able to do so i.e. forced retirement, are not counted as unemployed. The compromise to this debate is to consider unemployed those who register themselves as such, which in turn may entitle him or her to unemployment benefits. To remain in the registry, it has to be confirmed on a regular basis, every 3 months in most of Europe.

Applying this to the church, I feel weekly attendance should be the true statistics to use, even if many who attend do not fully believe in or practice the credo of the particular church; after all, it is a compromise. Being baptized is nothing but cultural and should not be considered as an indication of faith. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, traditional Catholic law requires Catholics, at a minimum, to go to confession, Mass and Holy Communion at least once a year, during Lent or Easter. And if they don't do so, they no longer are Catholic. People forget that. Also, don't forget the teaching of the Church that merely ONE heresy is enough to make a person cease being Catholic. There are SO many heresies abounding it is astounding. One poll taken shows that about 70% of people who think they are Catholic, deny the doctrine of the Real Presence. And that is just one doctrine. Truly if we were to apply these rules and recount the statistics, Catholics will be but a mere handful. --Diligens 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between belonging and being a member in good standing. If you tell Aunt Tillie her cooking stinks, kick Cousin Kenny, take $500 from Grandpas wallet and tell your Niece she needs a nose job, you still belong as a Smith, but not a member in good standing. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a good analogy. Belonging to a family cannot normally change because you cannot change the biological fact of being born to whomever. However, legally you can cease being a member of a family by being adopted by another. Not a good analogy because nobody is born/created a Catholic. You become a Catholic when you get baptized, which is law and theology. It is also equally law what I expressed above: The Easter duty is Church law (which can be altered), and losing the faith is divine law, which can never be changed, so people who go into heresy cease being Catholic. That is Catholic catechism teaching. As soon as St. Athanasius recognized that the Arians fell into that one heresy, he treated them as non-Catholics - which was about 85% of the clergy at that time in the East. --Diligens 14:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Diligens' point may or may not be true in one sense, but in any case we can't realistically do the recount he suggests with any accuracy. We just need to be explicit about what the statistics we are using are based on, and what they mean; particularly if that is different from what the average reader would expect. I think that the editor above has a point in that figures on church attendance and so on would be useful alongside the official membership figures, to give an impression about how many active members the church has, as well as how many people who are members in theory. I think this might be closer to what the secular reader might expect (most secular readers probably wouldn't think of someone who was brought along to one event as a baby and hasn't attended since as still being a member of the organisation in question, even if it is theologically accurate). Which isn't to say that the official figures don't have value, as long as we're explicit (which we currently are, I think) about their meaning.

So basically, not a major POV problem, as we are currently clear on what the figures we are presenting represent, but more statistics would be nice. TSP 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Spanish version there are some statistics from CIS, the official independent statistical body. When I have more experience I will edit and include them. Basically, only 12% of the population acknowledges that they go to mass regularly.

It is a well known principle of statistics that numbers alone do not posses information without details as to how they have arisen. As encyclopaedists I feel we need to transmit valuable information, and this is not achieved by presenting the Roman Catholic Church's numbers without at the same time discussing in depth what constitute them.

I am not happy with the first paragraph: “The number of Catholics in the world continues to increase” – the use of “continues” sounds biased, specially with the severe decline in attendance over the First world.

“ particularly in Africa and Asia” – statistics are needed here, Catholicism is very limited in these two continents to minority representation in some countries. I believe only Uganda and Rwanda have significant majorities.

“although the religion has lost much of its political influence in the "First World" (e.g. Europe, USA)” – “political influence” is not suitable to describe the decline in faith worship. Furthermore, such influence in Spain was hand in hand with Franco’s fascist regime when the church bloomed and used its power to curtail social and individual freedoms. This was achieved after a bloody war and is still a source of resentment.

“The increase between 1978 and 2000 was 288 million” – again empty numbers without discussing what they represent.

“Protestant evangelicals have succeeded in making inroads into parts of Latin America, but remain a small percentage of the population.” – here we don’t even get any numbers. My Brazilian friends tell me evangelicals now control the biggest media corporation with the highest ratings on their TV channel and are the most active religion.

“In most industrialized countries, church attendance has decreased since the 19th century, though it remains higher than that of other "mainline" Churches.” – What other mainline churches? Is he talking of Islam and Hinduism? This responds to cultural aspects and not religious ones. Religion as a whole is failing; that Catholicism has not had its worshipers stolen to other religions should be of little comfort.

The second paragraph is ok though it would need polishing. We should mention the cultural and worship aspects of religion and hopefully show with statistics (from census and polls) that though culturally the populations remain catholic, worship has dropped severely and that the church is undergoing a relative crisis. One of these crisis is the vocational one, with not enough priests being ordained in Spain to maintain the structure, a fact that has been offset by bringing vocations from African and Latin American Countries. In this sense, starting the articles with “the church continues to grow” is totally biased and does not portray the current state of affairs.

It should be shown in detail how these statistics are drawn in conjunction with what the church considers a catholic to be. It should also be mentioned that some of these statistics have relevance in negotiating with governments the extent of subsidies to be given, and that there is hence a conflict of interest within the church. If the church had to pay 1USD for every catholic, their reported number would drop drastically overnight.

Another issues to be presented is that the church has strict guidelines for heresy, but that in modern times it is limiting its use to theologians and those high in the church’s hierarchy. They don’t bother excommunicating Joes.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear about these other figures - are these just for Spain or worldwide? Obviously if there are worldwide figures from a respected impartial body they'd be good to include. Even local ones may shed some light, though more as a 'side note' to the more general figures. If CIS isn't an impartial or recognised body, it may still be worth including them as a "this group states" note alongside the official figures; people can then make up their own minds how much credence to give to each source. TSP 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok TSP, here is a translation of what can be found in Wikipedia’s Spanish version on the Roman Catholic church hhttp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_Catolica . The truth is that it is far more complete and worked at than this english version, I will consider translating the whole article.

The question put forward by CIS (Centre for Statistical Studies) the official government funded body on statistical matters carried a poll in December 2005:

77,8% of those interviews considered themselves Catholics. The next question was put forward:

¿With what frequency do you go to mass and other religious services, without taking into account social ceremonies such as weddings, first holy communion or funerals?

Nearly never 52,3 % Several times a year 17,2 % Sometimes each month 11,5 % Nearly all Sundays and festivities 15,2 % Several times per week 1,9 %

The link to this poll in CIS webpage was included but is no longer valid.

As you can see, barely 12% of the Spanish society is a good worshiper.

The article also mentions subsidies obtained from governments and how the church’s registry has relevance in negotiations. It also highlights the cultural, social and folklore relevance of the church and how most Spanish are contrary to many of its dogmas such as sexuality or family planning.

This part of the article is under Criticism, but I don’t think being objective or critical should deserve a subheading of its own. Though I understand it may prove useful to avoid an edit war.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 15:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you typed those up wrong, it sounds like 17.1% could be considered fully practicing, and another 11.5% practice to some degree -- though not up to the standards laid down by the Church. The 17.2% who only attend a few times a year cannot be totally discounted, but are clearly not 'practising' in any full sense of the term. Where exactly are you getting the 'barely 12%' figure?

Demographics of religion are definately an interesting topic, as is the question of what constitutes 'growth'. Spain is, of course, notorious for both low church attendence and demographic implosion. Some recent studies suggest that these two phenomina are in fact closely related ^[1] because those actively participating in their religion (paricularly in the case of Catholicism) have significantly higher reproductive rates than those who do not.

There' no doubt in my mind that we should cover current issues with church attendence, fertility, and vocations in the article, but I'm not sure that going after the basic demographic information at the beginning of the article is the best approach here. Generally, all the religion articles (looking is Islam, Buddhism and articles about various Christian denominations) seem to quote a rough number of 'adherants' based on identification rather than practice. While I think we could write some good info on levels of participation, changing the intro demographic number would simply put the article out of sync with other major religion articles.Brendanhodge 16:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In my books, a practising catholic is that who attends church once a week. So we take 15,2% and add to it the 1.9% which goes more than once, this makes 17.1%, but this only include the 77.8% who consider themselves catholics, hence 17.1*0,778 gives 13,3%. I shall refrase it as "barely 13% of spaniards are practising catholics".

Regarding the introduction, I agree that we have to take the Roman Catholic Church statistic for Catholics as the valid one, but we should then point out that it is based on those baptized and hence is more an indication of culture and folklore than an estimate of worship. We can then show the spanish statistics which come from the most respectable statistical agency, incharge of drawing the spanish census and financed by the government to ensure its independence.

Please bear in mind that this is how the article in the Spanish version is structured and in my opinion it is far more informative than the vague version we have at the moment. We can give details and explore other relevant aspects that I have already mentioned.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 17:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A meditation on who is and is not a Catholic

My mantra these days is "Wherever possible, don't argue about controversy, document it and provide citations." Do you feel that the number of Catholics is a misleading number? Document the dispute and the reasons why it is misleading. Got a better number? Insert it."

NB: What follows is my understanding of how the Church operates. I admit that I am less knowledgeable than many other editors so I am happy to hear alternate views.

That said, Diligens may be right about the number of heretics in the pews but, as I understand it, the Catholic Church is not so much interested in stamping out heresy as in stamping out the teaching of it. This is an important distinction and one that allows more discussion to happen in scholarly theological discussion than in sermons by priests in parish churches.

The Church doesn't ask you when you walk in the door if you have abandoned all heresies. It could say "If you believe in any heresy, you cannot enter here." but it doesn't. That's between you and your confessor. The Church asks you to confess the Nicene creed and accept the teaching of the Church. Then it tries to make sure that the teaching of the Church as you receive it from your parish priest is correct.

Look at it this way. A heretic is redeemable if he comes to church and listens to correct teaching. That person is a Catholic. However, a heretic who teaches heresy and calls it the teaching of the Catholic Church is a dangerous person because he spreads the heresy. In extreme cases, after the person spreading the heresy has been counseled, remonstrated and disciplined numerous times, the teacher of heresy is excommunicated. At that point, he is no longer a Catholic.

Also, I could name any number of "non-essential" Catholic teachings that people could not believe and still be Catholic. You could believe that there should be a focus on Jesus and that saints are over-emphasized. You could believe that the Pope isn't really infallible. You could have doubts about transubstaniation vs. consubstantion vs. "just a symbol" and still be Catholic.

I suspect that many Catholics in the pews are either unaware or unconcerned about many theological issues and just show up in the pews because "they are Catholic". If you want to apply Diligens' theological creedal test, many would fail but that doesn't get rid of the inconvenient fact that they are there and they are the trunk of the tree that is the Catholic Church. Can the head say to the torso, "I have no need of you."?

If they are not Catholic, why do you accept their weekly offerings? Why do you administer the Sacraments to them?

In their hearts, many American Catholics do not agree with the Church's teaching on ordination of males only. The Church closing the door on further discussion doesn't change that. Does this mean that they are not Catholic?

Finally, many American Catholics do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control and, to a lesser extent, on abortion. Does this mean they are not Catholic?

When it comes down to it, all that is essential to being Catholic is that you were baptized and that you wish to remain in communion with the Catholic Church. To do this, you should believe in the Trinity, that Jesus died to save your sins, and that He created a church on earth of which the Pope is the only legitimate head. Whether you believe in all the rest is up to you. The Church teaches that you should believe and act according to its teachings. If you sin and don't do all that it teaches, well, that's between you, God and your confessor.

--Richard 14:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for your comments. Just to be precise about Church membership, according to canon law, once baptised, one remains a member of the Catholic Church so long has not made a public pronouncement renouncing the faith (usually understood as adopting another religion or publicly identifying as an atheist). "Good standing" is not really a canonical term, but excommunication is. Excommunication is a permanent or semi-permanent status brought on by ones own actions either publicly (by pronouncement of Rome or other competant authority) or privately (as in abortion, or remarriage without benefit of annulment) requiring extraordinary means for reconciliation. Contrary to public perception, even excommunication does not actually cease ones membership in the Church. Even public dissent on infallible church teachings does not automatically lead to excommunication unless accompanied by public renunciation of the faith. Excommunication as a result of public dissent takes place only when publicly asserted by competent authority. --Vaquero100 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC) I do not think that it is up to us to start an inquisition into who is and isn't a worshiper. Rather we have to present the church's official viewpoint, its practises and, as you say, documented polls that give information as to the extent of worship in our societies.

We should therefore highlight the possibility that people who, when asked, claim to be atheist or believers of other creeds are still counted by Rome as Catholics by virtue of having been baptized and not formally requested to be taken out of their registry. We should also highlight that being Catholic has strong cultural and social stresses which nowadays are more and more independent of creed or worship. As an atheist I am still a catholic in as far as the church considers me one and I want to attend weddings, baptize my children and follow other social rituals. If the church starts to become more selective with respect to its membership, I and my society will seek alternative ways to celebrate such occasions and the divide will be final. In that sense I feel the church has the last word on who is and isn’t a catholic, but that does not stop people from not believing or worshiping. The more information we can provide for the reader to make a good picture of the situation the better the article will be.

So, in my opinion, a catholic is what the church considers one to be and it is up to individuals to formally renounce in writing if they don’t want to continue being counted as one. The church is often heard as "demanding" a certain minimum, but they are not enforcing such demands. As I have said before, if they had to pay 1USD for every Catholic, the 1 billion figure would be drastically reduced overnight. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church's role in civilization - church doctrine and science

This part is an extremely biased catholic POV, first of all because it ignores that science is the application of the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing and refutation.

The church has fostered a monopoly of human knowledge as a means to maintain its hold on societies. This is also based on its theologian tradition and its mainstream use of Latin until very recently.

The article is incorrect in stating that "the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions". The truth is that Muslims did that, and Spain became a focal point during the late medieval period as the Arab translations of Greek and roman texts where translated back into Latin.

However, much of this "knowledge" had very little scientifical ground in as far as the scientific approach was not applied. The invention of the print by Gutenberg broke much of the church’s monopoly in the 15th century and people started to read and think for themselves and develop the scientific method. People like Galilee, Michelangelo, Copernicus or Kepler (whose mother was burnt as a witch). Not surprisingly the opposition of the Catholic Church meant that for the next 400 years, the main shift of scientific discoveries moved to the protestant areas of the north of Europe and England.

I agree that the church fostered education and knowledge, but it hindered true scientific development and is still doing so today. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an excessive case of the pot calling the kettle POV... Certainly, the description you provide does line up with the pop-history consensus of 50 years ago in the English speaking word, but there's actually been a lot of very interesting work down over the last on medieval science, which was not the howling pit of ignorance that many Enlightenment enthusiasts considered it to be.

BTW, I believe it was Kepler's mother's aunt who was burnt as a witch. Kepler's mother was accused of being a witch, but was cleared. And (as with the majority of witch trials and burnings) it was by a Protestant municipality that she was tried. Kepler himself was Protestant, which is one of the reasons Galileo pretty much ignored Kepler's theories -- seeing as Galileo was a highly parisan (and in his way rather devout) Catholic. Copernicus was not only Catholic, but also a clergyman. His works only came under fire decades after his death, as a result of the scuffle that Galileo got himself into by simultaneously personally insulting a powerful pope, and taking on the philosophical/theological academic establishment in what amounted to an all out turf war (in that cosmology was previously considered the pervue of philosophers, not mathematicians -- and philosophers were often paid 5-10x what mathematicians were on university faculties).Brendanhodge 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All universities can trace lineage back to European schools that were founded to train Priests. The University system is a creation largely of the Catholic Church. Now you may make an arguement that the university system world wide has hampered scientific development lately, we can all agree that in the past great minds attended many schools inspired by early universities.

I think pop-history sums it up well. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It maybe pop history, but the fact remains that many of the major classical works were translated from Arab texts and that the medieval church cannot be praised for that. The oldest university, Salamanca, bordered with the Muslim kingdoms in Spain, at a time when Cordoba was the most enlightened capital in the world, under Muslim rule of course.

Teaching and scientific advancement are two different things. I have already expressed that the church has fostered education, but it is also true that in medieval Europe they had the monopoly on such matters. Scientific discoveries, furthermore, require not of an institutional teaching support, but of an atmosphere open to new thought, just as plants need well fertilized soil to grow. Learning and investigating are two different things. Scientific innovation is so fragile you do not need much effort to hamper it.

Kepler had extreme problems of conscience when the results of his observations did not support the perfect "godlike" spheres view of the cosmos. But he was a true scientist at heart and eventually acknowledged the truth of observation (after 20 years I believe) an accepted the elliptical paths of planets implied. That such a mind had these problems is an example of how religion hampers scientific advancement and of how the strength of the scientific method managed to triumph. If I recall correctly Copernicus only had his work published posthumously as he was afraid of the church reaction to his attack on the accepted Ptolemaic model.

That historically scientific development has been stagnant in Mediterranean Catholic countries. Maybe its pop culture but it is a reality too obvious to negate with a few references to modern authors.

As a final note I cannot but picture my grandmother, a devout catholic and an excellent teacher all her life, proud of her achievements and of her teaching of Catholicism and its values. However, when I discussed evolution or the age of the earth, she still believes that it was created by god a few thousand years before the birth of Christ, that dinosaurs did not exist and that it is stupid to think that man can come from soulless animals like chimpanzees. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 18:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that your grandmother may feel that way. My own, grandmother (God rest her soul) felt much the same way -- which led to occasionally arguments as my father (God rest his soul), also a very devout person, was an Astronomy professor and lecturer.

While many people who are devout may find evolution uncomfortable, the Catholic Church has never taught that it is incompatible with the faith. See Cardinal John Henry Newman's comments about Darwin just a few years after the publication or Origin of Species, Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis and John Paul II's letter to the pontifical academy of sciences on the topic in 1996.

While it may be true that Kepler was hesitant to endorse eliptical orbits for philosophical/aesthetic reasons, this is not something restricted to people with religious motivations. Einstein and many of his contemporary physicists had major problems grappling with the idea of the size of the universe changing over time, much less the possiblity that the physical universe as we know it today began at a specific point in time.

As for the prominance of the Islamic influenced universities in Spain -- one must grant you a certain latitude as you are Spanish. But, from what I recall, the most prominant medieval universities were Paris, Oxford and Bologna.Brendanhodge 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was a priest and physicist from the Vatican that finally convinced Einstein that the universe had an origin in time, as Einstein was intent on his perpetual state hypothesis, even though he was very hesitant at first to talk physics with a priest. However, the priest was as Kepler, reasoning out of his theological beliefs. It is also true that mainstream Catholics do not understand religion the way theologians do. Recently my grandfather died, and at one point later on, I had to tactfully point out to my grandmother that he was not in heaven, that he like everyone else would have to await judgement day.

I'm not sure about this. My reading of the Catechism, 1023, suggests otherwise. Slac speak up! 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked wikipedia and you are right, catholics believe Judgement Day to be the final judgment handed down by God. In the meantime they are in hell, heaven and Purgatory. At this point both the pleasures of Heaven and the pains of hell will be perfected in that those present will also be capable of physical pleasure/pain. I may have been influenced by Jehova Witness and their interpretation of the scriptures. Nevertheless it sounds as it is al limbo until God makes a final judgement. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 11:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Catholic doctrine is that each person receives a full judgement at the Particular Judgement immediately after death. At that point, the sould is consigned to heaven, hell or purgatory. Those souls which are consigned to purgatory are certain to reach heaven eventually, but require a period of purgation for their sins before entering heaven. The significance of the General Judgement at the end of the world is that it is public for all to see, rather than private between God and the soul in question. No one's judgement will be 'changed' at the General Judgement.Brendanhodge 12:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to universities, it is not exclusive what we both say. Spain was a source for Arab texts of the classics that had been lost in the early medieval ages. There were also excellent work by Arab erudite who had made considerable advances on early sciences like maths, astrology and medicine. Note that the numbers we use nowadays are arab ones. During the middle ages Muslims were the most advanced culture and Cordoba stood out among all Arab cities. As a curiosity, Arabs in Spain broke away from Damascus and they prayed to Cordoba instead of Meca. It was also common for Muslim kingdoms to fight among themselves, just as Christian ones, and Muslim Christian alliances where normal state of affairs. The Arab palace in Seville, which is a replica of the Alhambra in Granada, was built by Arab artisans for a Spanish king, Peter "the cruel". He was a close friend of the Muslim king of Granada and some said that he was so cruel that he signed his name in Arabic. These are just curiosities, but history has many more surprises.

I still feel that historically the church and its teaching institutions have been pulled by scientific discovery instead of leading the way. They may not have actively and generally hindered the spread of scientific knowledge, but they have not fostered it either and that in my books counts as hindering scientific advancement. Even nowadays, good Spanish scientists are making a name for themselves by working abroad, mainly in the US. Universities here have historically been stagnant pools for mediocrity and we are more famous and proud of our artists and writers, so much that we hardly got to study any Spanish scientist whereas entire school years are devouted to literature including Cervantes and the Quixote..

It is important that we distinguish between SPREAD OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE and SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. The church is definitely guilty of hindering the latter. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cgonzalezdelhoyo (say that five times fast), I think your arguements lack much merit. i went to catholic schools for 15 years in the US. I learned about evolution and the scientific age of the earth. I learned that the bible is to be taken with a grain of salt. I think your arguements might have merit, if they were made 40 years ago.

Cgonzalesdelhoyo: 1) Your observation that Spanish scientists are not praised or famous like Spanish artists does not mean that the Church in which many people in Spain claim membership is to blame; 2) I think funding and sponsoring scientists through the Middle Ages counts as fostering scientific advancement - I also think simply teaching that God is rational and created an orderly, inherently good universe furthers scientific advancement - if God is rational and the universe has order, then that order can be discovered; 3) Ergo, I don't think it's at all definite that the Church is guilty of hindering scientific advancement. --Cheyinka 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Origins & History

I've expanded the Origins and History section, while trying to keep things as short as possible. And, of course, I've kept the links to the longer History of the Roman Catholic Church and History of the Papacy articles. As per Richard's suggestion a while back, I moved the Origins & History section down below the Terminology section.

Comments and suggestions appreciated.Brendanhodge 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work, I think. I like it - concise, NPOV, and plenty of sources. I've moved the Main article and See also links to the top, as that's how I understand the guidelines say it should work. Otherwise, looks good to me at least on a first read-through. TSP 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lima has removed this sentence, The Catholic Church's doctrine and authority are in part derived from its history, and so the Church's history is itself the topic of much contoversy between the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations. saying, "I don't think the Church would agree its doctrine is derived from its history".

She probably has a point about the word choice of 'derived'. Clearly, however, some Church doctrine concerns its history. For instance, it is hardly irrelevant to Church doctrine whether there is an unbroken line of popes stretching back to Peter, whether the pope was always given a certain pride of place in the early Church, whether the current institutional Catholic Church can successfully trace its origins to 1st Century Christianity, etc.

Now, in some ways, I'm happier without that sentence, since my purpose with it was to play a 'get out of controversy free' card by effectively saying: This is the history of the Church which the Church teaches. Others deny this history because that is a way of trying to defeat the Catholic Church's claims. (So, for instance, you have numerous people trying to claim that the institutional Church was an invention of Constantine or Gregory the Great or whoever, in order to try to defeat the claim that the Catholic Church is in fact the historic Church of Christianity.)

So, I'm fine without this kind of disclaimer phrase, but I'd rather have one than have to see a bunch of "but others day" qualifications creep in to maintain 'NPOV'. Are we okay without a disclaimer? And if not, what would be a more appropriate one?Brendanhodge 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My original section on Origins & History only went up through Trent. On thinking about it and reading through the whole article again, I thought it might be helpful to slip in a couple more paragraphs to bring it up to the current day. Tried to keep it as short as I could, but suggestions on length and quality would of course be appreciated.Brendanhodge 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Move all of this expansion to History of the Roman Catholic Church, I'd say. What's the point of having that other article, if these elaborate additions are being placed here instead of in the article meant for such matters? Lima 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Decent point, I suppose. This section is still only 10-20% the length of the detailed article on the history of the Church, but if it's taking up too much space in the main Catholic Church article we could move most of it out and go back down to a fairly short summary.

I suppose one of the questions is, how much detail on any given topic belongs in this article? Is the goal to provide something like a brief outline with all the substance being in the linked articles?Brendanhodge 23:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Relations with Christian Churches

I included some discussion of the Anglican and Lutheran dialogues and Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. I don't know anything about RCC dialogue with other Western traditions, so I haven't included them. The discussion of Ecumenical Councils is sort of hanging out there, decontextualized. I assume it has some bearing on the RCC-Orthodox dialogue, but of course it also has bearing on dialogue with other Western rites. Any comments or concerns? Fishhead64 05:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC proposed wording

To get the ball rolling on this, I propose the following wording. Tell me what you think:

Roman Catholic Church: An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 05:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Roman Catholic Church: An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should merge into one article as Catholicism, and what weight is due for claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. Is "Roman Catholic Church" is an acceptable synonym for "Catholic Church". Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Better - but it only reflects one aspect of the discussion. How about this:

Roman Catholic Church: An ongoing discussion of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Part of the argument relates to whether or not the various articles dealing with the Church should be merged into one, and what it should be called. Underlying the discussion is the claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. Arguments and proposals are outlined by the involved editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal to RfC

It seems to me that the RfC is fine for general referencing on editing issues. However, the issues raised on this talk page are somewhat technical and required a background in the matter to sort it all through, regardless of ones position.

There is a broader pool of editors who have a direct interest in this matter whiom I beleve have not been properly consulted and who might resent any decision that may come from such a conversation, namely the editors of all the various RCC pages. Many of the pages which I would like to see linked to this article are already in the works. For consistency's sake, they should follow any norms we come up with.

Therefore, I would like to propose that we not submit a RfC but move this discussion to WikiProject Catholicism 101 and advertise the discussion on the variousl Catholic related pages.

--Vaquero100 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty with this alternative proposal is that it limits the pool of opinion, largely to editors who are Roman Catholic. The whole purpose of an RFC is precisely to get a broad range of opinions from different editors who may not have a personal stake in the matter. A little more dispassion in this conversation would be greatly welcome. Moreover, given that this will be posted in the religion and philosophy subpage, I don't think we need worry about the absence of expertise. Having said that, the RFC could certainly be highlighted on the project's talk page - but I oppose limiting the circle of input. Fishhead64 21:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, it is interesting that you resist the idea of having the conversation take place at the center of the community of editors who will be most affected. As this conversation could result in confining their use of the name, "Catholic Church," it is really a matter of justice that this conversation not be relegated to some other part of WP.

I could support an RFC if it were a simple one line request with a link to a discussion located on WikiProject Catholicism 101.

My concern is that any result of an RFC will not be accepted by other editors and cause more arguing as we have had here but on a scale much, much broader. Of course, in my opinion this is inevitable, because Catholics in general will not tolerate the prohibition of CC as the name of their Church. --Vaquero100 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

One person's justice is another person's travesty of justice, and no one interest group has ownership of any article. That is really, in a nutshell, the point of taking this to an RFC. I find it interesting that you want to try to limit discussion to those who have a stake in exerting an exclusive, proprietary claim over the name, but what you or I think is neither here nor there. It is, rather, a compelling example of why this discussion needs to be broadedned to include those who might be able to keep a less passionate perspective.

In this most recent comment, as with others, however, you have really shown your hand - namely, that you will not abide by a consensus decision if it does not comport with your own notions of naming. Rather, you'll simply continue to argue that restricting the use of the term "Catholic Church" to the body of an article rather than its header is actually a prohibition, and that such a convention is actually a form of anti-Catholic oppression of the most unjust, incivil, and outrageous degree. I regret that I've been unable to disabuse you of this misconstrual and that we both seem destined to spend our days in endless bickering rather than - oh I don't know - something relevant to being ministers of the Gospel. Fishhead64 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead, you may have noticed that I had taken a break from these discussions over the past few days. I needed some perspective. I realize that you are just playing your role. You are the Protestant who has to view the Catholic Church with suspicion, deny her claims and make sure she doesn't get away with anything. Catholics here are trying to defend their Church. The Catholic Church is always opposed. While the articles on Protestant churches remain serene, this page is a perpetual disaster. Peace comes not with the end of conflict but with the realization that ones purpose is to struggle for justice. There is nothing more plain than the injustice which denies the largest and most ancient institution the use of her verifiable name, confirmed by history, common sense and the everyday use of the English language. This conversation has only just begun, because many are they who will struggle for the simple truth.

On a practical note, if RCC is so inoffensive to Catholics, why do you suppose that the conversation on WikiProject Catholicism 101 will be any different than one on RfC? --Vaquero100 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you defending your Church against? A name that the Vatican itself uses in dialogue with other Catholic denominations, in order to specify the locus of primacy? It could be - and has been - argued that denying the ancient and legitimate claims of other Catholic Churches in order to assert a hegemonic claim is itself unjust and requires equal struggle. Fishhead64 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there is at least a certain comfort to be taken in the fact that while many groups seem to want to apply the term Catholic to their own denominations, these other denominational names are not themselves objects of envy. This in itself seems in some ways a tacit (if unwilling) admission that the Catholic Church in fact possesses the ancient linneage in some other denominations desire to share -- though at the same time unwilling to accept the doctrinal heritage that comes with that linneage.Brendanhodge 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's not quite an accurate portrayal. The problem lies with exclusivity of Roman Catholocism - the claim to the the only way. Other Christians regard the family of Christianity in a larger sense, and while they may not want to join the Roman Catholic church because of a disagreement on some particular doctrine, are still willing to recognize that Roman Catholics are definitely Christian, and also willing to recognize that their own particular group may have some errors too. Pollinator 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of "envy" - whatever that means - it's a question of what constitutes the necessary and sufficient marks of Catholicism. The central issue is primacy - for instance, the Acts of Supremacy establishing the Church of England merely stated that no foreign bishops would have authority in the English realm - so where you stand on that will affect your opinion of whether the C of E and Anglicanism in general is Catholic. Anglicans would say that we still have bishops in apostolic succession, the historic creeds, and the Scriptures, so yeah, it is.

As many editors have pointed out here, the issue is one of self-identity and self-definition. I've said it before and I'll say it again: In a world in which different denominations stake a claim on "Catholic Church," applying the term exclusively to one institution denies the claims of other institutions. These claims, they would argue, are similarly legitimate and ancient, and were not surrendered when the decision was made to reject the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Hence, the difference of opinion. Hence, the creation of the title "Roman Catholic Church" to distinguish those Catholics in communion with Rome from those who are not. And, again, this appellation appears to be entirely acceptable to the institution, since it - in fact - uses it. It therefore must constitute an element of institutional self-identity.

So, rather than continue to make the same points over and over again, can we please refer this to RFC to get some fresh perspectives? Fishhead64 06:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, Fishhead, I don't object to using the RCC term -- that's an area on which I'm willing to accept a level of compromise. But what does annoy me a great deal is A) any sort of insistence that we can't use the terms Catholic and Catholic Church as well and B) the claim that there is some sort of other thing out there called "Catholic Church" with which the Roman Catholic Church might be confused.

Understand, I actually grew up with a circle of friends who were mostly Anglican, not Catholic. So I'm entirely familiar with the fact that Anglicans use the Nicene Creed and consider the adjective 'catholic' to apply to their church. I'm aware that many Anglican's consider it uncharitable in the extreme that Catholics do not allow intercommunion and don't recognize Anglicans and Lutherans as having valid orders. However, I've honestly never met any Anglicans in person who claimed to be members of the Catholic Church. Which is not to say that there aren't some -- clearly you are one such. But since I never even ran into this line of thinking till I found it on Wikipedia, I can't help thinking this is a pretty minority viewpoint even within Anglicanism.

I think it's important to have the Catholicism page to acknowledge the different meanings that people apply to the term "Catholic" or "Catholicism". However, it seems disingenuous to me to put a lot of work into avoiding the ambiguity of confusing the institutional Catholic Church led by the pope with Credal Christendom (if I may coin a term just for the fun of it) as a whole -- simply because I don't think anyone will honestly be confused.

If we wanted to give the issue even more coverage, perhaps someone could write up an article entitled Catholic (attribute) or Catholicity or some such discussing what Protestants mean by 'Catholicity', and then articles like Catholic Evangelical could link to that. I could even be in favor of a link on the Roman Catholic Church page near the top saying "Many other churches not in union with the Roman Catholic Church claim Catholicity as an attribute." But all this fighting over the Catholic Church's name seems like a proxy fight for the fact that Protestants do not believe that there is an actual, visible institution that is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, merely that the general assemblage of believers somehow prossess those attributes.Brendanhodge 15:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We are in agreement, then. I support the sort of solution you outline. Indeed, richardshusr's original proposal was that RCC would be used in article titles and as the first mention, and that CC could be used subsequently. I fully endorse that. My concern from the get-go was one of ambiguity. Fishhead64 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Brendanhodge, you hit the nail on the head. All this "Catholic" talk is just window-dressing. For all of Fishhead's protestation is serves a church which is about to be expelled from the Anglican Communion. Now that is hard to achieve! All this "Catholic talk" is a smoke screen so no one will notice that the Anglican churches in Canada and the US can hardly qualify for being Protestant much less Catholic. Post-Christian? --Vaquero100 14:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think this is only about the Anglican Communion? Please don't assume that my objections are quite as parochial as all that. Fishhead64 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we just get started?

Hey, let's argue less and edit more. Let's just start writing those articles mentioned by Vaquero100 and Brendanhodge and then we can quibble about naming later. We had a fledgling agreement that blew up at the last minute. Let's see what happens if we just write according to Vaquero100's proposal and add Brendanhodge's ideas about "Catholic X" articles where appropriate. If there are enough such articles with substantive content, we will be better able to assess what these arguments in principle mean when applied in practice.

--Richard 03:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Richardshusr, I can't think of anyone who objected to your proposal. I'd rather go with that, and post the RFC. Indeed, I will post the RFC myself. We seem to have beaten the idea to a bloody pulp, but no one has objected to it. Vaquero may wish to cross-post it to the RCC project talk page in order to elicit interest there. I will go with the composite wording outlined above (since no one has indicated any objection to it), and tidy up the Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name page a little. I urge interested editors to post their arguments and proposals there. Fishhead64 05:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic teaching on Scripture

I have replaced the previous text with direct quotes from "The Gift of Scripture". An even better section can be written which better captures the thrust of the teaching in the document. However, it is clear to me that the previous text was a whitewash that attempted to defuse the criticism by deflecting it rather than confronting it and having the honesty and courage to represent "The Gift of Scripture" as what it is, an attack on fundamentalism and its literal interpreation of the Bible.

In particular, there was a unsupported charge about "myth" which needed citation. I have deleted that text but it could be re-inserted if accompanied by a citation.

The next step, in my humble opinion, is to quote the document's teaching about fundamentalism. I'll leave that for another day and possibly another editor.

--Richard 05:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this section of the article altogether out of proportion? It has length enough for a separate article, but not enough importance. Why deal at all, especially in an article on the Catholic Church considered in its totality, with a run-of-the-mill document of just one of the existing 131 bishops conferences and corresponding Eastern-Rite bodies? Headship of the Catholic Church has not been transferred to England and Wales. Besides, this prolix information on what reads as one particular Catholic criticism of fundamentalist interpretation of the Scriptures fits very strangely into the context of non-Catholic criticism of Catholic teaching. Instead of lengthening it further, as is here proposed, I think the whole section should simply be deleted. Lima 06:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the length of the section is out of proportion but the condensed version was a "whitewash" that completely obscured the point of the document. The original "criticism" was a fundamentalist one -- that this document proved the Catholic Church thought significant parts of the Bible were "myth". The condensed version of this section attempted to refute that but did it in a very unsatisfactory way. Better to admit that the document says what it says and meet the criticism head on than to deny it and thus appear disingenuous.

Nonetheless, I agree that this section and others about criticisms of the Catholic Church should be taken out of this article. The consensus that has been reached elsewhere on this Talk Page is that all criticisms should be put either in this article with the topic that is being criticized or in subsidiary articles with titles of the form "Catholic Church and X". For example, this section could be put into an article titled "Catholic doctrine regarding interpretation of Scripture". (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the word "Roman" needs to be included in the title).

If you feel we are ready to start the great Diaspora of content from this article into subsidiary articles, then let's get started.

--Richard 06:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why treat what the England and Wales and the Scottish bishops conferences wrote at some time about Bible interpretation as worthy of detailed treatment more than what other conferences wrote at various times on various topics, attracting indeed in some cases much more notice and criticism that this British book did? I, for one, never heard of the book until I saw posted here quotations inaccurately attributed to a second-hand source about the book, though the book itself is available on line. The newspaper article, which did not set out to criticize the book, is now linked, apparently as the source, to the unverified statement that the book has, allegedly, been criticized. Yes, I admit it has indeed been criticized, but, as far as I can see, only in this Wikipedia article.

"The Bishops also assert that Biblical creation story is just a myth," the Wikipedia article said. Not only did the British bishops not say this, neither did the newspaper. "(T)hey advise that Christians should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible," said Wikipedia. This is something of a distortion of a newspaper article not quite free of distortions, but far more accurate than Wikipedia.

Wikipedia now says that "the Bishops have create dicussions about the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation." The bishops' book does, I understand, discuss what some believe to be prophecies; but I don't believe it was significant enough to create discussion about them.

If this out-of-proportion and out-of-place and (as it stands) out-of-accuracy matter is to be included at all in Wikipedia, wouldn't its proper place be as a section or subsection of an article entitled "Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain"? An article on "Roman Catholic Church and Interpretation of the Bible" would be based instead on documents of Ecumenical Councils and the Holy See, and would provide, at most, a link to the British book.

Lima 12:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC finally posted

I took the bull by the horns and decided to try to get on with this in a constructive manner. Here is what I posted - hope the wording is acceptable to everyone:

Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name: An ongoing discussion (most of which can be found at Talk:Roman Catholic Church) of whether this article, and related articles, should be styled "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Part of the argument relates to whether or not the various articles dealing with the Church should be merged into one, and what it should be called. Underlying the discussion are the claims made by other Churches to be independent from Rome and yet remain Catholic. The involved editors have been invited to contribute arguments and proposals at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name (few have so far done so). A similar debate occurred earlier this year, and can be found archived at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive3.

Lets see how this goes. Fishhead64 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Church of Rome

If the church of Rome is christian why will she not embrace the bible and allow its priests to preach from the bible. -- Anonymous editor

Who says she doesn't? Lima 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

These comments are not relevant to the construction of this article. Such comments belong in a discussion forum.Landroo 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it kinda useless to point that out nearly two months later? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God. I don't know if to cry or laugh with such ignorance. I'm sorry but "If the church of Rome is christian why will she not embrace the bible and allow its priests to preach from the bible." ?? We use the Bible every Sunday (at least), and our priests do read from her every mass!!! Where did you get that crazy idea!?!?

Criticism of the Catholic Church

I just thought I'd comment on this, since I ran across this dispute lately. I don't think this should be merged with Roman Catholic Church, since there is a lot of criticism (some valid and some not) of the church that doesn't fall under the irrational diatribes of the proponents of anti-Catholicism. What we should be doing, IMO, is Wikipedia:Summary style. We should leave Criticisms of the Catholic Church for treatment of criticisms in greater detail, and summarise them on this article here. I think the same should be done for anti-Catholicism. I'm not sure about Catholicism, since I'm not familiar with the etymological background. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you CAN summarise an article called 'Criticisms of the Catholic Church', however. What would it say? "Sometimes the Church has been criticised." (end of summary)? "The Church has been criticised on the following list of topics:"? I think that the existence of this article promotes an approach in which negative viewpoints are moved out of the article, leaving only positive ones in the article - indeed, to be utterly fair, it would need to be matched by a "Praise of the Catholic Church" article, with no points of view at all, including the Church's own, mentioned in the main article. More practically, I think that criticism, as well as praise, of the Church on a particular issue should be mentioned when that issue is mentioned, not separately. If an issue needs to be broken out, it should be done as a whole, not with the positive side left in and the negative side sent elsewhere. TSP 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose all proposed mergers. I currently don't think any of these mergers are needed especially the RCC to Catholicism one as they refer to different topics entirely. Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic. JohnnyBGood

t c 00:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose mergers, as neither necessary nor useful. I agree with JohnnyBGood, except for his over-simplified "Catholic doesn't mean Roman Catholic." Lima 03:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Caption of St Peter statue image

I take it Lima objects to my caption for the St Peter statue. I believe the caption I came up follows Wikipedia:Captions more closely, since it attempts to "draw readers in" to the article. I know the photo depicts a statue, but I believe it the primary purpose of the caption is to impart something about Catholicism. I believe my suggested caption does this. The reasons I didn't include "Statue of St Peter" at the beginning are (1) I believe it's obvious enough, just as an oil painting caption would be, and (2) I believe it's better to use complete sentences in the caption. Lima, do you maybe want to work with me on a compromise wording for it? Slac speak up! 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, of course, more than willing to collaborate.

1. I believe the primary function of the caption of an image is to explain the image. It is for the article to explain Catholicism.

2. What people look for primarily in a caption is an explanation of what is in the image. The image under discussion shows a statue and a building. For most people it is not at all obvious that the statue is of St Peter. For perhaps fewer but still very many people, it is not at all obvious that the building is St Peter's Basilica.

3. The present caption "draws people in to the article" by linking together St Peter, his leadership, the Pope, his leadership, and, for good measure, the Vatican Basilica too.

4. In my view, the proper place for this particular image (and caption) is at the very beginning of the article; but someone has moved it down, without explanation but probably because the start of the article is cluttered with the two long boxes, one on the series of articles on Christianity, the other (which is hideable, but how many of us do hide it?) on the contents of the article.

5. The captions of the images that have been attached longest to this article do fit my idea of what a caption should be. But I notice now for the first time that the texts that accompany some of the most recently added images are what I would call observations, not captions. The caption that explained what the priest is doing in the image that accompanies the section on the Eucharist has also recently been changed into a statement: "Catholics believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or Real Presence, following St. Ignatius of Antioch who said in 106 A.D. that the 'Eucharist is the self-same Body of our Savior Jesus Christ.'" Not everyone looking at that image will understand what the priest is doing.

I would be grateful for the views of others on the captions in this article. I myself, as is obvious, think they should be explanations of the images, not statements that could be, and I think should be, part of the article itself.

Lima 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

as of 5:20 Eastern North American Time, there is a vandalism on the part of Christianity Series Box

Quelle horreur! Fishhead64 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whole section out of place?

How is there a section about "14.2 Social justice, care-giving, and the hospital system" in "14 Controversial Church history"? It's like anti-anti-propaganda...

I will remove it unless someone moves it to a proper place or explain it. --euyyn 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's out of place. I propose moving the section to The Church's role in civilization, where it would be more appropriate. --Ginkgo100 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's roll

It looks like the RfC has yielded a good common sense outcome: the common sense use of CC and X has been supported. So, let's get rolling, folks. I would propose that we start moving the various sections of this article to their new titles and clean this one up. --Vaquero100 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I remind you of this exchange copied from the discussion above, and ask - Have you changed your mind?:

However, the existing article titles notwithstanding, there is a further issue since we have now agreed to User:Vaquero100's proposal to create a plethora of articles such as "Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy". Presumably, User:Fishhead64's objection is that this article should be titled "Roman Catholic Church doctrine on clerical celibacy" instead because the RCC cannot claim to state what the "Catholic Church" doctrine is on clerical celibacy (there being no single entity called the Catholic Church, there obviously cannot be a Catholic Church doctrine on anything).

Did I get that right?

Other than being irritating to prepend the word "Roman" before each of the article titles, is Fishhead64's demand that impossible to work with? Other than the niggling principle of feeling that the "Roman Catholic Church" = the "Catholic Church" in most people's minds, what it will it hurt to prepend "Roman" in front of all the article titles? Since you won't likely get any other titles with the same words in them, typing "Catholic Church doctrine on human sexuality" is likely to pull up "Roman Catholic Church doctrine on human sexuality" anyways.

I suggest that we give in to Fishhead64 and move on.

--Richard 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if we give in to Fishhead on the titles, I would propose the within the text of the articles, CC will suffice. I think it is important in the name of compromise that WP in some way recognise in its writing policy the Catholic Church's preferred name and the normal usage of the English language. Without at least this recognition, this debate, I promise you will not end. --Vaquero100 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead64 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "if" is the operative term in that statement. I have not changed my mind. It is still unacceptible to force the term "Roman" born of Anglican prejudice in an era of Catholic persecution to forever and always be the new name of the Catholic Church.

In your words, it may soon be time to "make bold" and get moving on this project. Your opposition which is clearly POV and anti-Catholic seems to be increasingly replaced by common sense. --Vaquero100 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion about conflicting points of view - and again, I fail to see how an alternative name that is used by the institution itself is hostile to that institution. Are you saying ARCIC is anti-Catholic? Fishhead64 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Conficting points of view are irrelevant here. The Wikipedia naming convention is clear - "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is 'right' or 'wrong', nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons." Furthermore: "The most common use of a name takes precedence". (These are from Wikipedia:Naming conflict) In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) we find "When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use." Fishhead64 improperly wishes to continue to impose what he calls "an alternative name" when he concedes that, "I accept that the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome refers to itself as the “Catholic Church,” and that it is popularly known as such." SynKobiety 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See response at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. Fishhead64 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

2 small changes under the faithful

First, I must say this is a well written section. I did make two changes, however. One: The offices of Chirst (munera) are prophetic, teaching, and ruling. I know many people prefer "royal." It is also true this world is found in Scripture (cf I Peter). However, royal is a description of a person, not an office fullfilled. You don't "royal." That is why the Church refers to teh office as "ruling" or "kingship," the implication is that you are DOING something, not only being something.

Second, I think an edit was made to priesthood that simply wasn't completed. Ministerial priesthood is related to heirarchy, note the priesthood of the faithful has it roots in baptism, not the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the intent at sometime was to highlight the reality of the priesthood of the faithful in the faithful section -- which makes perfect sense. I hope I was faithful to the intent of the editor who correctly recognized only a part of the faithful are memers of the heirarchy.DaveTroy 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WRT "royal" -- those words, although lacking quote marks, were taken directly from the cited section of the CCC. See [6] which is itself quoting Canon 204 of the Code of Canon Law. Since the sources say "royal" that's the adjective that's best to use here. The word does, after all, have implications that "ruling" does not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Royal does conotate ruling, but the CICI '83 on the Vatican website comes from the CLSA version and the Latin translation isn't exactly the greatest. Like the Liturgy, it was a very rapid translation. Currently the translation being used in English in legal circles (at least here in the Roman univerities in the Canon Law depts) is "ruling." At the begining of Book 2 (People of God) the English refers to a "royal function" of the people of God, but the "office" (munerum) is reigning, I would argue. DaveTroy 07:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good News

Alas some good news to be glad about... The reorganization of the RCC article (per "Alternate proposal" section above) is well under way. Excessive material has been moved and incorporated into other articles which are referenced as "Main articles" for the various sections.

An objective sign of progress is this article's length (32 KB is the ideal):

June 10 -- 105 KB
June 17 -- 75 KB

Anyone interested in assisting with this project, please let me know.--Vaquero100 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church Page Project

The project of re-organizing the Catholic Church page is well underway. It will be organized through the WP Project Catholicism 101 page. If you would like to contribute, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. Thanks and God Bless your summer.--Vaquero100 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

distorted Mona Lisa

Will someone who knows how please fix the proportions of the Mona Lisa image? Lima 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

New page

I have created a new page: May crowning because I couldn't find an article on it in Wikipedia. I hope some of the editors here can help expand and change the article while adding appropriate links to it. --ScienceApologist 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

At the moment there are four images of displaying liturgical events, but three of them (all added here by Smith2006) depict practices that are either historical or currently rare in the Catholic Church. The three images in question are:

the 1950s B/W in the "Catholic Life" section
the Fontgombault ordination in the "Mandatory clerical celibacy" section
the 1962 papal Mass in the "Reforms of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council" section

This seems to me as inappropriate as three pictures from the Eastern Churches. One would be fine, to represent the diversity of Catholic practices, but this strikes me as a form of undue weight. I've moved the papal mass and Fontgombault pictures to (I think) better places, and changed the Fontgombault caption to identify it in some way as an indult community. Personally I think the 1950s B/W should be removed - it has a problematic caption, and doesn't seem to relate well to its section. Gimmetrow 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed fully. Lima 06:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that the black and white picture doesn't add much to the article. It would be nice to have a picture of an Eastern-rite "liturgical event"; any ideas on where to look for one? Cheyinka 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ranks problem

WHY IS THIS RE-DIRECTED FROM RANKS ?- IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH RANKS saif ali

Tracked down and fixed, Church rank (Catholic) now points to Roman Catholic Church hierarchy Gimmetrow 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bohermeen image

"Confirmation is given by a bishop in the Latin rite, not by the local Vicar" - This is not an Anglican church, but an Irish Catholic church, in the charge of a "Parish Priest".
"No priests are kneeling, those are confessors ..." - In Smith2006's Church, perhaps others than priests can be confessors. Not in the Catholic Church. Besides, by a tradition that was contrary to the strict rules, Irish priests heard confessions wearing a stole over the soutane (what in many other English-speaking countries is called a cassock) without surplice (cotta).
"... or older acolythes." - In 1950s Ireland there were no "older acolythes", only altar boys. In any case, what would acolythes be doing outside the altar rails?
"They don't wear stoles." - Of course not. The 1950s were before the Second Vatican Council, and concelebration had not yet been restored. Like all the rest, bishop included, they were assisting at Mass said by a single priest.
"There is no bishop." - There is someone wearing episcopal choir dress, presumably a bishop, inside the sanctuary, to the left.
"This must be solemn Communion (renewal of bapt vows)" - This ceremony, in use nowadays in French-speaking countries (communion solennelle or profession de foi), was, I think, introduced in those countries only after the Second Vatican Council. It is unknown in Ireland even now.

This is in regard to my change of 11:53, when I unfortunately forgot to give an edit summary. Lima 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this image doesn't belong here. I've moved the caption to the same image at Traditionalist Catholic. This could be confirmation, the priests in front (in rochets) there to assist with mitre and oils. But there is no sign of mitre, etc. However all the candles are lit including candles on the altar table. Could this be a Mass preceeding some Eucharistic devotion, important enough that other clergy attend? Gimmetrow 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have little recollection of my confirmation in 1940s Ireland. I only remember that, being stubbornly independent even at that age, I refused to join the other children in reciting the customary pledge against drinking alcohol before reaching 18. My memory is of the bishop in a position within the sanctuary similar to that shown in the picture. What tells that the image is of a Confirmation Mass is the dress and age of the girls. Mantillas were not worn at Mass in Ireland; but for First Communion and Confirmation, girls wore white dresses with what Smith2006 calls "bridal veils". Their age fits the practice whereby, on the occasion of the bishop's annual or, in some cases, biennial visit to the parish, children who would have left elementary school before his next visit were confirmed. At any rate, it must be made clear that the picture does not show a typical Sunday Mass of the Tridentine period. Confirmations were held on weekdays. Apart from the families of the confirmands, many other parishioners would come, because of the bishop's presence, and they would have the opportunity afterwards to kiss his ring. (By the way, "rochet" is, strictly speaking, the cotta-like vestment that is part of the choir dress of a bishop. Priests' cottas, usually called surplices in Ireland, and albs of that period very frequently had lace - it was the fashion.) Lima 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize, not for the first time, to Gimmetrow for not having taken his observations seriously enough. I really am sorry, and have no sufficient excuse. The candles he refers to, and to see which I inexcusably failed to take the trouble to look again at the picture, are certainly the candles that used to be put out for Benediction or for the Quarant'Ore (Forty Hours) devotion.

On the other hand, the girls are not wearing a mantilla. Irish women wore hats to Mass, not mantillas, which they looked on as a Spanish custom and would sometimes bring back from a visit to Spain as a curiosity. (The mantillas that I saw brought back were always black, not white, and, if I remember right, shorter than those on the girls in the picture.) So who are the girls? Members of some sodality, like the Children of Mary? I confess I have nothing concrete to propose. Were they perhaps dressed like that for a Eucharistic Procession to follow the Mass? I no longer hold to my previous hypothesis that it is a Confirmation Mass.

The two candlesticks for seven candles each are indeed yet another indication that this Mass was no ordinary 1950s Mass, and the picture shows that, even with the plentiful supply of priests that it displays, Catholics in Ireland hardly ever experienced a High Mass. Lima 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversial church history?

Why is this a separate section? These topics should be covered in the history section like the rest of the history. Dividing the history between "noncontroversial" and "controversial" topics seems kind of arbitrary. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to Affirm the Name of the Catholic Church

There have been a few voices, one in particular, which have tried to chase away anyone willing to argue that the name of this article ought to match the name of the Catholic Church. The debate has raged for months. Now is as good a time as any to affirm the name of the Catholic Church. There are a lot of people who don't want to see this happen for their own POV reasons. I do not expect this to be an easy task. But, the truth is worth working for. I am now working on editing the various arguements that have surfaced thus far. If anyone would like to help, let me know. --Vaquero100 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is always the time to build a consensus among Wikipedians. It is never the time to impose a particular view against the general consensus of Wikipedians.

At the moment the most recent, most definite, and most extensively-debated consensus on the naming of this article is the one from March, currently in Archive 3, in which 17 people voted to keep the page at its current location, against 7 voting otherwise. This does not seem to be 'a few voices, one in particular' (though I am curious as to whether you mean Fishhead64 or me). TSP 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TSP. Long time no chat. Good to see you around again. No, I was not referring to you. As I have looked over the discussion leading to the last vote, it seems to me that it was not altogether argued on the principles of WP, but mostly on people's feelings on the subject. I do not supposed that everyone can put aside their personal feelings on the subject, but the issue should have a chance to be decided on the merits of WP principles, which I think clearly point toward "Catholic Church" as the appropriate title for this article.

--Vaquero100 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church currently redirects to this article as the most relevant topic per WP principles. I'm not clear why the article itself needs renaming. But see Talk:Java for a possibly relevant discussion on whether Java should point to the island or a dab page. Gimmetrow 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article does not appear to conform to WP's guideline on naming conflicts, but its content should be made to follow it, regardless of whether the article's title be changed.

WP:NCON makes some clarifying distinctions about how naming decisions should be made. Has there been any attempt to follow the guideline? Chonak 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is an excellent guideline and an excellent idea for this naming controversy. The guideline page suggests editors weigh in using a box like this one. I just copied and pasted the Wiki code. My vote is for Catholic Church over Roman Catholic Church. For one thing, the entity that is the subject of this article includes a number of eastern Catholic churches which are not Roman except in the narrow sense that they acknowledge the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Criterion	Roman Catholic Church	Catholic Church
1. Most commonly used name in English	0	1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	0	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	0	1
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Naming Conflict guidelines were among the many policies, guidelines and arguments discussed last time a formal vote was taken on this issue (now over in Archive 3); but on that occasion the majority of editors voting decided to retain the current name. TSP 20:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The debate that continues regarding this article name shows that no consensus has been reached. The continued citations of naming conflicts show that there is the appearance that the current article name does not comply with those Naming Conflict guidelines. -SynKobiety 13:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Moves

I hesitate to suggest this in the context of past and current debates about the name of this article. Nonetheless, it has come to my attention that, while most of the pages listed in Category:Roman Catholic Church by country are of the form Roman Catholicism in X, there are two exceptions that I have found which are Catholic Church in Canada and Catholic Church in Sweden.

My proposal, then, is to move Catholic Church in Canada to Roman Catholicism in Canada and Catholic Church in Sweden to Roman Catholicism in Sweden. Yes, I know this goes against the above change in name proposed by Vaquero100.

If and when the name of this article and all the other articles are changed to Catholic Church and Catholic Church in X, I am happy to change the names of the above articles back. However, until that time, it seems to make sense to maintain a consistent naming convention for all Catholic churches in all countries around the world.

NB: These will have to be Requested Moves because each of the articles that I want to move has a redirect from Catholic Church in X and thus the move cannot be done without a delete first.

If there is a consensus to do this, I will post a Requested Move template on the articles in question.

The other way to get this done would be to propose AfD for each of the redirects and then do the move. I figured I'd start the process here, though, since this is where one can find the most people with strong opinions about this issue.

--Richard 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion

While I am not sure I would have thought to add the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion to this talk page, it does seem fitting to some degree. The Catholic Church is the world's largest and in many ways most vocal opponent of legalized abortion. Those who wish "to improve" the quality of WP's presentation on this topic should include the Catholic Church's position in some thorough way. As there are many topics that could fit under the title of this article and the editors of this article have agreed to introduce briefly and give main article links to full articles related to this one, I would propose that an comprehensive article on the Church's position be written and linked here. I will be glad to look over what is out there already and work on this. Thanks, --Vaquero100 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter's and the Papacy.

On the issue of "Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor to Peter" vs. simply stating it as a fact... Vaquero said in his edit summary: "There is plenty of historical evidence for the Petrine succession. If you can prove it is false do so. Succession from Peter is historical fact, not an article of faith."

I'm confused by why you say this is a "historical fact" since "Popehood," or at least "true" Popehood, is by definition a divine office that's basically impossible to check historically. I mean, suppose you grant that there is a Pope and Catholic theology is correct on this supposition. Unless the Pope "looses some things" on heaven and Earth and a historian checks to see that this indeed happened, it's pretty hard to tell who the "true" Pope is, assuming that it even passed on after Peter! As far as we know, it could be some random Christian in Syria.

Now, saying that Roman Catholics believe that the (Roman Catholic) Pope is the descendent of Peter is perfectly fine. Saying that the Pope is the descendent of Peter is roughly equivalent to asserting that Ali's house really was the true sucessor of Muhammad. That's certainly what Shiites believe, but it isn't a universal opinion or historical fact.

As for "The Catholic Church requires celibacy for Latin-Rite priests (with some minor exceptions) and for the bishops of all rites, Latin and Eastern..." the old statement already said "all" for bishops. Seems clear enough to me. SnowFire 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one else claims to be the descendent or successor of Peter, except for fringe groups who elect their own pope in hotel banquet rooms. The question, as far as I understand it, is not whether or not the Pope is the successor as opposed to someone else but whether or not Peter had a successor. It is certainly provable that the Church Fathers thought that the popes of their day were the successors of Peter, and some of the Church Fathers knew Peter. Cheyinka 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, there are clearly multiple points in contention. My point is two-fold. First, there's Pope as a mystic office where the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and has certain divine responsibilities for leading the Church, etc. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, this kind of thing almost by definition is something that needs to be made clear is a religious belief. The Quran says Gabriel appeared to Muhammad, Tibetan Buddhists believe that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the bodhisattva of compassion, and so on. Secondly, there's the (Roman Catholic) Pope as in the administrative office of Bishop of Rome. Now, while the idea of Peter claiming to be Pope and then passing it on to someone else during his lifetime is hardly indefensible, my understanding is that it isn't exactly proven, either. The early Church was small and persecuted, so records are spotty. Clearly, this belief existed three-hundred years or so later, and perhaps with good reason? It's hard to say. My inclination would be to keep with the safer, surely true statement of "Catholics believe" rather than make a fairly strong historical claim which will require some serious original referencing from non-biased sources (which simply may not exist, even if the claim is true! I doubt many Romans took note of what exactly Peter was up to). SnowFire 02:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Snowfire, my eyes glazed when I saw Dalai Lama in your overblown paragraph. Check any almanac. Check any encyclopedia for a list of popes. Succession was a major issue in the early church. There is ample testimony. Succession is not controversial even among other Christians. "Pope" is more controversial. Was Peter a Pope? There is plenty of good evidence he was in the New Testament; however, there is disagreement. That Popes are successors to Peter's office really is beyong dispute however.

Also, regarding the bishops, after qualifying Latin Rite, it is not clear whether "all" refers to all Catholic or all Latin Rite bishops.

Another thing, "popehood" is not a word. Be careful. Intentionally grammatically incorrect versions of Pope and Rome are classic forms of anti-Catholic speach, such as Popery, Popish, Romish, Romanish, etc. Vaquero100 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero, as to that last comment, I would recommend a quick trip over to WP:FAITH. I'm not interested in having to prove that I'm not anti-Catholic every time I disagree with something. I'll just say that you should note the quotes over Popehood; it was simply faster than saying "the quality of being the true Pope." As to your first comment on overblown-ness, oddly enough, I get annoyed when people make revisions and don't explain them. You would prefer nothing instead?

Secondly. You cannot simply assert that "the Popes are successors to Peter's office really is beyong dispute." The fact that the Roman Catholic Church says they are is beyond dispute. Whether Peter & co. actually did later is unclear, though. Most documents are Church documents from AD 400 and later- and those clearly cannot be taken at face value from a historical, NPOV perspective. (It's perfectly fine to say that God would have ensured that his message would not die out, and they are in fact true. But historians don't have that luxury.)

Let's go to the sources. The Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Pope Anacletus might be of interest for how little there is. "But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little?" It even mentions that it's unsure about which Pope came first, Anacletus or Clement, since different historians ordered them differently. About all we can be sure of is that Anacletus was a priest who ordained other priests and may have died a martyr. Let's remember: this is from the Catholic Encylcopedia. If you look at the article on Pope Linus, you see that they also have a "Protestant scholars think" reference.

Let me stress this again: there is no shame in having succession of Popes (as well as the existence of a Pope at all) be a matter of faith (like Jesus rising from the grave, another not exactly verifiable thing!). And like I've said, it may well be true! But the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V). Therefore, the verifiable claim should be used, that Catholics believe this to be true. SnowFire 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Snowfire. I did not acuse you of being anti-Catholic. I said "Be careful." That was gentle. You will need a thicker skin to work on this page, I'm afraid. It is one of the most controversial pages on WP, and there are always passers-by who cherish too much their single edits. This is a good conversation. Let's not get bogged down. And let's avoid terms like "popehood."

As I said before, I agree calling Peter "first Pope" assumes he understood himself as pope. Such an assertion needs qualification. However, that later popes succeeded Peter as head of the Church of Rome really is not in dispute. We don't even need all the facts about those in between to say this. As long as there is a consistent understanding of the succession of Peter from the earliest times, then we know that the intervening office holders were successors. This accounts for the reporting as fact, not opinion, that popes are successors of Peter in many reputable sources. Succession means there is a line, not that everyone functioned the same or anything else. If the next person to take the office called himself "president" instead of pope and changed the church into a democracy, he would still be the successor of Peter. If there were only one book with the successors names and it were lost, as long as we know that the institution itself perdured through all the generations, we could still call the present office holder a "Successor of Peter."

Please don't assume any "shame" on my part regarding this or any other discussion. I have no shame for matters of "mere faith." I am interested in accuracy and despise sloppy editing. There is a difference between history and faith. That the Papacy is a divine office is faith. That there is a succession of heads of the Church of Rome and that the present head of the Church of Rome is called a pope is historical fact. Vaquero100 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, was on vacation for the Fourth.

Anyway. You say that this is "not really in dispute" and that "popes are successors of Peter in many reputable sources." Fine. Do you know what these sources are? Again, the issue is not what the church of circa AD 400 thought (as that is not in dispute), but rather what the popes of 0-300 thought themselves. Did they believe themselves to be "Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter" in any extent, or were they simply church leaders retroactively named Popes by later generations? That is the question. To my knowledge, there are very few reliable, NPOV sources on the issue; most of the writing on Peter himself is traditional and apocryphal, and the later Popes are even more shrouded. To claim "historical fact" will require properly historical evidence. If you have a source, then great; we can put a footnote in, and the article will be all the stronger with more references. SnowFire 18:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Principal Reference for Teachings"

I took out this sentence:

The principal reference for its teachings is the original, canonized Christian Bible, whose Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and whose New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

It seemed like an odd place to have it (it was in the intro?) especially since the Catholic Church doesn't teach sola scriptura... and the external link to a specific translation(?) seemed extra odd. --Cheyinka 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to teach sola scriptura for the basic idea to be correct. The Bible is the "principal reference" for all Christian churches. Nor was the link really a problem, since it led to a set of free interlinear Bibles in Hebrew and Greek.

The only real problem with it is that the OT of the "original canonized Christian Bible" was not in Hebrew, but was the Septuagint, a 3rd Century BC Greek translation that was the most often quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. The Vulgate, where the OT was a fresh translation into Latin from Hebrew, came later. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks like linkspam to me. Slac speak up! 05:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This text is also inaccurate: Roman Catholics accept texts as part of the Old Testament, such as the Book of Judith, that do not exist in authentic Hebrew versions. Nor is all of the undisputed Old Testament in Hebrew; there are several passages in Aramaic, most notably in the Book of Daniel. Smerdis of Tlön 05:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

All: in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, please edit by adding-to or modifying...not outright deleting. All too often, pure deletions lead to edit wars and, more importantly, miss valuable contributions. Please also reference assertions. Thank you. --66.69.219.9 13:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please perform due diligence before using labels such as "linkspam." The link provided is *non-commercial* (free) and a valuable, interlinear (word-by-word) translation of the Bible. --66.69.219.9 13:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that when you click on the link you are expecting a reliable source confirming that this is the primary source - not a link to the translation itself. I don't know enough about Catholicism to say if you are right or wrong but what you have added should be in the external links if anywhere. Sophia 13:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP deleting the entire sentence, and EDIT if you have something to contribute. If the link belongs elsewhere -- in your humble opinion -- then move it there. --66.69.219.9 13:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

People are sometimes offended by the use of the word "linkspam" or "spam". Please note that in Wikipedia terminology, it doesn't necessarily mean that the link is a commercial one. Adding links to your own website, or to your "favourite" website (particularly when such addition is done across articles) is also considered spamming.

The sentence is, indeed, odd in the intorduction. There are problems in that Catholics accept some books that were written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, and the original Christian Bible was the Septuagint, which included Old Testament books translated into Greek.

Finally, regardless of the merit of a particular link, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and in large articles on controversial subjects, which already have a list of (often heavily-vetted) links, it's sometimes difficult to get a new link accepted. Please discuss on the talk page, rather than reverting. While nobody is obliged to create an account, you might find that having an account, and having a history of edits to non-controversial articles might help your case. Just a suggestion. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary reference...thus the link. The problem is that many "translations" incorporate all sorts of spin that you might perhaps even define as spam. Such is not the case for an interlinear, concordant translation which focuses on what specifically and truly was being stated, not an interpretation thereof. If you can find a better link for a free, interlinear translation of the Bible, please do us all a favor and provide a link toward it. Should Wikipedia be so kind as to incorporate an interlinear translation of the Bible, I'd be more than happy to reference that source...but, today, it simply doesn't exist.

I choose to limit my time spent on Wikipedia these days, and so feel particularly unobliged to create an account merely to pacify those who imagine themselves to be above others by doing so...but thanks for the kind words. --66.69.219.9 13:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is about the RCC - not a collection of it's teachings. These of course will be included in the relevant sections but the prime motivation of any encyclopedia article is to inform the reader of what the RCC has to say about it's teachings, structure, rituals etc. This is achieved by referencing reliable sources that explicitly state any point being made. So the issue here is whether there is a souce that states this is the translation from which cannon is derived. To be honest the only source that could be used in this particular subject for something so fundamental would be something from the Pope himself or the Vatican. Do you have a link that states this? Sophia 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The RCC is founded in the Bible...not the other way around. I otherwise respect the notion of Papal primacy (though Galileo clearly thought otherwise), and believe that your question is a very valid one. I'll sincerely look into it. But, in the meantime, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater: an interlinear, concordant translation of the Bible is quite valuable to all. --66.69.219.9 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also see Jerusalem Bible, wherein "Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek because it ". . . having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any of even the very best translations, ancient or modern." (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 16). --66.69.219.9 15:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

666..., as you suggested I EDITED rather than reverted your contribution. It was awkward where it was and needed further contextualization. As the seed of a new section, I expect it will eventually become the seed of a new article--one that is badly needed on the relationship between SS and ST. While you would prefer not to register, if you are interested contributing in the future, 666, it would help the rest of us work with you on future editing. Thanks, Vaquero100 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Father. And thank you for the appropriate editing. It is truly a badly needed section. I would appreciate it if you referred to my entire IP address, though, rather than selectively referring to the first three numerals, as, clearly, this could otherwise be taken as an unrespectful reference to those numbers in the Bible. Peace. --66.69.219.9 22:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "citation needed" note to the words "The Church recommends for theological study the canonical texts translated from the original languages." Not that I doubt the author's words...quite the opposite: I would like to see what specifically the Church is recommending in this regard, as the only authoritative reference that I have been able to find so far refers to Pope Pius XII's call (noted above) for Catholics to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek scriptural texts because of their "authority" and "greater weight." --66.69.219.9 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

66.69.219.9: The RCC is founded in the Bible...not the other way around. - I believe I disagree with this, at least with regard to the NT. Even if one does not accept the teaching that the present Catholic Church structure represents the same church as the primitive Christian Church, it clearly has its roots there. Either way it can be said to predate the NT. The Scriptures were a product of the community, not the other way around. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I, in turn, agree with you regarding the New Testament...but not the Old Testament, which is clearly part-and-parcel of the Bible. The RCC was given birth after the Old Testament. --66.69.219.9 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! - is this where the Church is described as the "mother of, and daughter of, scripture"? ClemMcGann 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with that statement...but would humbly consider my words to be both the father and the son of the idea. :-) --66.69.219.9 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Vatican reference for recommended translation of the Bible

For reasons quite obscure at the moment, someone deleted the Vatican's sole reference to their chosen translation of the Bible (which was largely accomplished by a committee of American bishops, per the notes on the referenced page).

I've restored the link, but am curious as to why it was deleted. It seems rather straightforward that the Vatican can vouch for itself in this regard.

BTW, I'm not an advocate of an English translation of the Bible as too much information gets lost in the process of translation (just as Pope Pius XII noted)...but I'm OK with this link as it is the only Bible translation available via -- and located on -- the Vatican's (English) website. --66.69.219.9 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"For limited (less-authentic), English-language theological study, the Vatican recommends committee-consensus translations of the original canonical texts" is not what 66's link says. The link merely provides the NAB text as an English translation of the Bible. The NAB is definitely not the "Vatican"'s preferred English translation. The Holy See has given its agreement to use of NAB in the liturgy only for the United States of America, at the request of the bishops of that country. The presence of NAB on www.vatican.va can probably be attributed to a concession by the copyright holders, not granted for JB, NJB, RSV, NRSV etc. In any case, its presence on that site is a decision of the (American) person in charge of the site, not of a department (a "Dicastery", to use an Italianism) of the Holy See. Lima 06:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a bit of flip-flopping to come to a conclusion that the Vatican's own website is somehow not advocating its own content. Were this Olympic diving, I'd give you a 10 except for the fact that you belly flop at the end of your logic.

Time for me to knock the dust off my shoes and depart with some good words from the Good Shepherd...words that seem a very apropos warning to those here who are being subjugated by people who view themselves as the ultimate authority: "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees." Mark 8:15 --24.153.209.20 14:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect changed, new page created

An old redirect that pointed here has been changed. Editors of this article may be interested in checking out Roman Catholic, a term used by "those unwilling to recognize the claims of the Catholic Church".--Andrew c 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to still point here... Cheyinka 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question. Look at the history, JzG has since reverted the content. --Andrew c 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. Sorry for being dense. :) Cheyinka 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The text in the version provided by Andrew c is valuable. I didn't know until a couple of months ago that Anglicans consider themselves Catholic although I did know that they are closer to the Roman Catholic Church than other Protestants.

I am not arguing to put the text in question in the Roman Catholic slot which currently redirects here. I am arguing that the text in question belongs somewhere in Wikipedia. I'm just not sure where.

--Richard 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It already exists at Catholic Church (disambiguation). or at least that part of it which is neutral does. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The characterisation of Anglican belief in that edit isn't particularly accurate. The 'three-branch' theory does exist in Anglicanism, but isn't particularly common; much more common is the belief that no single denomination represents the Catholic Church. If Anglicans as a whole considered the Catholic Church to comprise Roman, Eastern and Anglican branches, they wouldn't be able to consider union with the Methodists, which the Church of England currently is considering. A reasonably official Anglican take on the issue can be found in the Church of England House of Bishops paper May They All Be One; particularly, on the terminology issue, note 4 on page 20.

The content of that edit is almost entirely taken verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia article here. The Catholic Encylopedia is sometimes useful; but was, of course, written for the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church, not as an NPOV document; and is 90 years old. Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics includes some cautionary notes on using material from this publication. TSP 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Rite Picture

The picture of a Mass in the Armenian Rite has got to be improved to be retained in this article. It is quite unclear, and lacks definite lines as well as technical quality. I have re-inserted the Tridentine Mass picture, which is very representative, even if it only were for the "pre-Vatican II" liturgy.Smith2006 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A better Eastern picture would be preferable, but none has been provided. As for "pre-Vatican II" liturgy there are 2 pictures without the Bohermeen one you reinserted, and I fail to see what this particular picture adds to the article. Gimmetrow 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Membership statements in intro

213.103.157.21 has re-entered text in the intro stating that church membership is lower than the stated figure, and that "attendance and ordainments" are declining. The intro is usually a summary of the rest of the article. These statements are neither mentioned nor sourced anywhere else in the article I know of. I think {{Fact}} templates look poor in the intro, but this does need a citation. Likewise the statement added to the inquisition section. Finally, the statement that the 4th crusade was "directed" at Constantinople and "otherwise peaceful Christians" seems a rather poor summary of Crusades, let alone of Fourth Crusade. Gimmetrow 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing the main article

In the first paragraphs of the main article, it says that the Roman Catholic Church is led by the Pope. I think it might be better to mention that the Pope is only the visible head, and that Christ is the actual leader.

I agree. That is, after all, what is meant when the Pope is called the "Vicar of Christ"

--Richard 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between headship and practical leadership. The RCC is very much led by the Pope, much as a local church is led by its bishop. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nature of God

An anonymous user cut out a reference to the Incarnation (Catholics believe that Jesus Christ became incarnate), but did not give a reason. This left the sentence broken (no verb), so I assume it was a mistake and I have restored the previous version. If this was an intended change, please write about it here. Chonak 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

rephrasing opening

This is the sentence in question:"It teaches that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus for the salvation of all people." I personally feel that this is a tough thing to do. While obviously the POV of the Catholic Church is that they are these things, and there is nothing wrong with saying that, I feel the current wording doesn't sound that encyclopedic. I replaced it with a quote from the same document quoted in the previous sentence (I called it "dogma" because the title is DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM): It teaches that it "is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd." However, this was reverted because a)that's not a quote from dogma (which, actually it is) and b)the original was better (which is a value judgement and possibly just an opinion). I came to talk to see which one is actually "better". I personally support my version because it's an actual quote of Church doctrine. The paraphrase is a little ackward, it isn't cited, and, as stated above, I feel something about it sounds less encyclopedic, and more like an ad for the church (maybe its the "for the salvation of all people" part). Anyway, what does everyone think? Is an exact quote better in this instance? (I also am not that found of "it teaches" who does it teach? and how does it do it... my first suggestion that came to mind would be "It believes" but I have a feeling that won't go over well).--Andrew c 16:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My general experience has been that quotes aren't that useful for lead sections. Obviously quotes or sourced statements should be used elsewhere in the article to make sure all information is accurate and sourced; but a quote will rarely have exactly the right neutral tone or wording to simply be dropped in verbatim as an explanation, particularly in the lead section. We need to make sure that the introduction is a readable summary, readily understandable by non-experts - as per the Lead Section style guide: "In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked." I think your new version, from Lumen Gentium, is too technical, and not readily understandable by people who know nothing about the topic. The same may be true of the current version, but I don't think that the Lumen Gentium quote is an improvement. It is (I believe, I hope we have a source for it in the article somewhere) a fact, and a notable one, that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that it has responsibility for taking salvation to all the people of the world. We need to make sure that we clearly state this, in a way readily accessible to non-experts, and in a neutral way which neither implies that Wikipedia agrees with this teaching, nor that it disagrees with it. TSP 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What it means to say “it teaches” is that the official teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium, says that it is true (and has been revealed to be so by God). I think a dogmatic quote is quite appropriate in the intro. What does the Catholic Church claim to be? X (quote); that seems perfectly find to me (and personally I don’t see what is wrong with a quote from Lumen Gentium, though the previous wording was likewise accurate). Lastly, there is nothing about "the Roman Catholic Church teaches…" that implies some authoritative stamp by Wikipedia. Lostcaesar 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the aims of a dogmatic constitution are very different to the aims of an encyclopedia. A dogmatic quote is unlikely to use appropriate phrasing, or to avoid specialised terminology, as we should do in a lead section. Even as someone with a fair understanding of the issues, I had to read that quote a couple of times to work out what it meant (it has slightly peculiar grammar), and it has about a dozen words in it which have connotations which would not be immediately obvious to a reader without knowledge of the subject. I really don't think it's the best introduction to the concept of the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree, though, that there's no major problem with the current wording. TSP 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be looking at using a quote to describe the Church in the intro. TSP states it well in that quotes, particularly quotes from a document such as Lumen Gentium are likely to be laden with complex theological nuances. The introduction instead should be general and clear. "Church of Christ" "Saviour" "professed" "Resurrection" "commissioned" and "shepherd" from the quote above all have specific theological implications reflecting that the document's primary audience is trained theologians. It's part of this encyclopedia's job not just to quote what people have said, but also to summarise and contextualise what they say in a way that makes it comprehensible and useful in understanding. Far from the existing formula being awkward, I believe it cuts through in an appreciable way to explain how the Catholic Church (which, of course, is not formally identical to the Magisterium) defines its own existence and purpose. "The salvation of all people" would be a sine qua non of that purposeful definition. Slac speak up! 03:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree now that the quote isn't good for the intro (and should we consider removing or changing the quote from the previous sentence?) but my concerns about the current wording have not been alleviated. First of all, do we have a source for the "for the salvation of all people"? And secondly, is there another, more clear way to phrase that? Maybe we can combine the first and second sentences, taking out the quote? And... While we are at it, I seriously think we need to remove "his holiness" from before the pope. I don't see how wikipedia using that title is NPOV in any respect.--Andrew c 06:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lumen Gentium would be an excellent source for "all people", as would the Catechism. I'll see what I can find. To be honest, I think "for the salvation of all people" is quite clear - we can wikilink salvation, but, excluding the meaning of "salvation", which is best covered by its own article, I can't see where other confusion could come from. As far as "His Holiness" goes - I believe this debate has already taken place, not only on this article, but others to do with stylings (Highness, Majesty, Excellency, etc.). Although I am bereft of wikilinks, my take is that the use of it here is officially okay under policy. Slac speak up! 06:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am against the removal of “His Holiness” from the article. It is clearly a title used by the Pope, much like “Vicar of Christ”. Please explain how this is PoV? Any more so than any other title. It is not an opinion that the Pope calls himself, and is referred to as “His Holiness”, any more than any other title given to a respected official. Sounds like over-sensitiveness to me. I have already said my part on the article name and intro. Lostcaesar 10:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"His Holiness" is the proper form of direct address, similar to "Her Majesty" or "the Honorable." American English tends to refrain from such uses since the Revolution as it is aristocratic or feudal in origin, the assumptions of which have been rejected as undemocratic. However, in European and Catholic ecclesiastical use, it is still proper. This continued use is evident in the American media. In this case, a reference to His Holiness is a matter of reporting his proper form of address and is not a theological statement. It should stand. Vaquero100 10:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An additional note: While there is no exact parallel to "His Holiness" in Protestantism, there is at least a corollary: Reverend. Even in American use, this title and address still hold. It is not uncommon to have public reference to the Reverend Jerry Falwell, for instance, without regard to whether he is actually "revered" by the speaker (especially if the news source is the once universally revered NYT or CNN!). Vaquero100 12:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The question, does wikipedia call Jerry Falwell "The Reverend Jerry Falwell"? Should we start calling him that? It is fine in the main article about a person to mention their titles and formal and honorific names. However, it is POV for wikipedia to call someone by these names outside of that context. How does adding the title to the pope contribute to this article? How can anyone claim it isn't POV. The only way it could ever seem appropriate was to say "The formal title given to all Popes by the Catholic Church is His Holiness". That's objective, and NPOV. I don't see how what we had is anything but POV. How often do we use "her Majesty" and "the Honorable"? I'm not saying the words "His Holiness" should not appear in this article. However, it must be properly contextualized, if used. This topic has been debated a lot in the past across wikipedia, and the current MoS style reflects these discussions. --Andrew c 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see how it is PoV to call someone by his title - we call the Pope "Pope", even though it is an affectionate term for a father (like papa). I personaly don't think the Jerry Falwell arguments and crew are all that great, so I concur with you on this. But I do hold that a title is a title, and to mention that someone has a title is fine, likewise to use a title rather than a noun is good style. Its like saying Elizabeth ruled a long time, the queen was powerful,... her majesty decided - rather than Elizabeth ruled a long time, Elizabeth was powerful... Elizabeth decided - see what I mean. Lostcaesar 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I would never suggest to not use his title "pope", and usages such as "the Pope" are equally as acceptable. However, honorifiy, POV titles such as "His Holiness" are, honorific and POV. There is no excuse for wikipedia to use such titles, UNLESS describing how they are used, and who uses them. I believe my proposed changes to the intro below address this. I am very disappointed that Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) reverted without coming to talk. Everyone keep in mind that the phrase "His Holiness" was added, without edit summary, by an anon just 4 months ago, and was not in the previous versions going back 2 years (where page moves put a break in the page history).--Andrew c 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think your proposal is good.Lostcaesar 08:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition (2)

I do not think that Honda's change was an improvement on the previous version of the Inquisition section. Bringing Protestants into the argument adds very little to the neutrality of the point of view. In fact, I feel that it intensifies the bias, because it presumes that contemporary Catholics excuse the Inquisition and that contemporary Protestants condemn it en masse. Why make such a generalization when the previous language was fairly neutral, especially considering how controversial this topic is. I suggest that we revert back to an earlier version without any mention of other Christian denominations. Erlaforest 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the previous version? You call "Despite the claims of many ("even non-Catholic") apologists, the Inquisition was a gross abuse of the powers held by the Church at the time" nuetral? And the rest wasn't much better. 2nd Piston Honda 00:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we we need to re-do the wording compleatly. --WikiCats 00:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need to actually explain what the Inquisition was instead of going straight to the opinions part. Same goes with the Crusades. 2nd Piston Honda 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition (2)

Honda~ If you look at the history of the article, you will see that I did not write about the 'gross abuse.' I did allow it, however, out of respect of the previous user's contribution. You are correct about the strong opinions in the Protestant community about the Inquisition. I disagree with its inclusion in this article, though. It does not need to be featured here; elsewhere, perhaps. I also disagreed with your deletion of all that others had written on the subject; that was unnecessary. I will stop editing this section of this article once someone else comes in to rewrite it, someone who does not have any intention of including the Protestants' opinions of a Catholic controversy. Erlaforest 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view we already have several main articles on Inquisitions which could serve as templates for this brief summary. I’ll have a look in a bit and see what can be done about this. Lostcaesar 09:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited inquisition section, borrowing from the other sites on the matter. Also, corrected some things (the inquisition was not just "medieval", for example, or that there was no "separation between Church and State in the middle ages", which is false – for example, secular and clerical courts existed side by side). If I could have my way, I would cut out the entire part about Edward Peters and what follows, simply because I think that is best handled in the main article and it invites controversy to a page that, frankly, doesn’t have room for it. But I left it for now – opinions? Lostcaesar 11:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

more intro issues

The intro has been significantly condensed from a few months back. Some for the better, and some for the worse. One thing I really don't like is the first sentence. According to the styleguide, the first sentence is supposed to be a concise description, a la a dictionary definition. I believe we would all agree that the single most defining thing about the Catholic Church is not it's size (however, that is important information that could be good 2nd sentence material). I urge editors to look at how other denominations are defined and reconsider previous versions of this article, or perhaps writing a new intro. Secondly, the information included in the sentence on this article at Catholic Church (disambiguation) isn't even mentioned here (seach the document for the number 23). Maybe we could use the sentence there as the opening? Just a suggestion. What do others think? --Andrew c 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What do I think? I am dismayed at the recent editing conflict, and I have hopes that something reasonable can be worked out. The intro as it stands isn't all that great. We should be clear and informative, and the intro doesn't really get it done. That aside, its not that bad - maybe I'll try something and see what people think. Lostcaesar 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

^ [7]

[1] [7]

[1]