Talk:Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Cathecism & NPOV?

Quote:

The issue of female ordination within the Catholic Church is a settled matter, as the official position of the Church (as expressed in current canon law and Catholic Catechism) is that "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."

I think this deviates from a neutral POV because the official position of the Church could be changed. Biscuittin 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying that there's a side to the argument that g = 2.35m/s^2 instead of 9.81m/s^2 in Physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.197.71 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the fact is that the official position of the Catholic Church is that only men can become priests. It is also the fact that there is a significant movement in the Catholic Church that challenges this teaching, in spite of declarations from the Vatican. It is not the business of Wikipedia to state official Church doctrines as a fact. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Then how can Wikipedia have any articles on religion at all? Why can we say "The Catholic Church teaches that God exists" if that is only official church doctrine and not a verified fact? Rather, Wikipedia is stating what the official Catholic Church doctrine on the subject is, not whether or not it is right. And as for the "significant movement in the Catholic Church" that supports womanpriests, I believe that even if 99% of Catholics in the world believed that women should be ordained, unless the Pope and the Vatican approve, it does not matter. Church doctrine still stands. If anyone is more educated than me on this matter, please don't hesitate to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabet55 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 February 2008

I think the distinction bring drawn is this: stating that something is the official teaching of the Church is a neutral fact, but definitively stating that this makes it a "settled matter" is not. We could note that a particular source has said that it's settled, if including that would improve to the article. But it's not Wikipedia's place to take sides on whether it actually is definitively settled or not. --174.254.194.249 (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. In addition, it is not correct to assume that just because the Vatican says something, that makes it beyond question as to a matter of Church Doctrine. The contest between Vatican and the People over who "really is" the church is long and unending. For as example: the vast majority of Catholics disagree with the Vatican on the sinfulness of contraception, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of Catholics both using contraception and not confessing it as a sin. With respect to women priests the disagreement is probably lesser, although I don't know of any studies on that; the point is, rather, that there is a disagreement within the Church as to the supernatural effect of ordaining women. Wikipedia is not in a position to determine who is more reliable in matters of supernatural effect, and can only report what is written by reliable sources. What appears to be verifiable is that the Vatican is squarely against women priests, and a minority is in favor. rewinn (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Official Vatican Response

I think it might be worthwhile to add a reference to the Vatican's Decree of 5/30/2008 regarding the excommunication of ordained women / bishops. I'm not sure if it would fit perfectly in this article, unless it can be cited that the Vatican was responding to ordinations done by RCWP. Any thoughts? Triznitch (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening section sentence

What is this supposed to say?

"a group of women who claim to be ordained as priests in 2002 by Rómulo Antonio Braschi, an independent bishop whose orders (those of the bishop)."

β i ι ι γ τ r ο υ § ε r § (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actions of RWCP and News article

This article does not include much on recent actions of the RCWP, which seem to have a bit more coverage since Roy Bourgeois has been threatened with excommunication and removal from his order. In any case, I found an article published recently that may be helpful to expand this article, but I do not know if it qualifies as a reliable source. The article is here - http://www.globalregina.com/Crime+against+faith/4491494/story.html

In the article it discusses the attitude of some of the members of RCWP toward the Church hierarchy, their rejection of the chastity/celibacy vow, and references to prior-ordination of women.Triznitch (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Organization

This article will have some controversy, because some people feel strongly about the subject. We won't agree as to the validity of the underlying subject matter, but can we at least agree on some fundamental organization of the article's content, so readers can easily see what each side believes, and then think for themselves? I suggest there are at least 3 sides: RCWP, the Vatican, and the Media reporting on each side. Each should get its own section, although what the precise title should be (Vatican? Holy See?) I don't know. I just put something up there, and if someone likes other titles better, it's o.k. to change them. rewinn (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)