In case my words were misconstrued, I was not criticizing your POV and indeed I also believe that it is easier to avoid writing in a POV style when others are aware of what your POV is. It is exactly this reason why I noted that your contributions seem to tend towards your POV. As for my own POV, if one can call it that, I don't have an in depth knowledge of the subject and I'm not Roman Catholic. I merely stumbled upon an article which seemed to have two editors with conflicting ideas (Jonathan Tweet and Lima) and as such I hope to format current information rather than introduce new information. I feel I am fairly unbiased, but I believe that the lead should deal more with the definition and explanation of the subject matter than going in depth about its history or disputation. As for going forward, I suggest the following. Once we receive GoldenMeadows' lead draft we'll have three drafts, from which we can choose one to refine and extend (probably incorporating elements from the other drafts as well). Hopefully this will result in a lead which both follows Wikipedia's principles and is accepted by all.