Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 1

message: There's still a few sections that are redundant with Catholicism, because I couldn't decide how to split them. Also, see also, bibliography, and notes are straight out of Catholicism. But I think it's a first step. Snowspinner 14:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that dry is a bad thing in an encyclopedia. Nor am I sure how a description of Mass is going to convert people, except possibly with the fact that it at least rarely takes over an hour. In any case, the old history is, I believe, all on Criticism of the Catholic Church, which is presently a redirect to Catholicism. But is actually the old RCC article in disguise. Don't ask why. I forget already. Snowspinner 14:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  misc 

message: Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints 

message: I deleted a couple of things:
Many of these of other churches describe themseleves as "Catholic" or "catholic", a few of them to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic Church.
:This sentence, above, is not about the Catholic Church, but is about what other churches call themselves and what other churches think of the Catholic Church; therefore it is not relevant, at least not in the "Structure..." section, and probably not at all. (Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is at odds with reality. There is no change in the sense of what is "legitimate"; that term is itself very vague. I replaced this section with a clear quote from an actual document touching upon the subject of communion among churches. Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Second Vatican Council]] etc. 

message: The latest amendment to the Historical Criticism section is an NPOV concerning the trial of Galileo:
:Enlightenment philosophers perceived the Church's doctrines as superstitious and hindering the progress of civilization. Many thinkers and academics criticized it for opposing scientific advancement. The trial of Galileo Galilei being a famous, though still hotly-debated, example. Pope John Paul II publicly apologized for the Church's actions in the trial on October 31, 1992.
The original, and now amended, version cites the trial as an example, but the sense of the paragraph doesn't let us know just what it is an example of (of a doctrine, a superstition, a hindering, an opposition?). Isn't it better to sort out the sense of a piece and tidy up its syntax and grammar before chucking an NPOV grenade? I make no comment on the trial, the circumstances and consequences of which are, of course, "hotly disputed" by some of the many "hot disputants" on Wikipedia (some of whom may be blond, d'ye reckon?).--shtove 21:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I have a little idea of creating a page on Catholic News. The content of it could be a small news( that could be change on daily basis ) or big news/important news( that could be change on weekly/monthly basis ). I believe much of wikipedian have been through/taken theology class, or maybe even a priest, so I think maybe they could write and edit the articles on this page. I'm just a student, but I'll be willing to help where needed.
Thank you!!! Just an idea...Roscoe x 18:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a page wouldn't really be appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a news site. On the other hand news articles about the Church can certainly be summarized on Current events, and I suppose m:Wikinews, when it gets started, would welcome such articles too. —No-One Jones (m) 18:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea: [[Catholic News]] 

message: Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the section on Rites and Traditions strikes me as misleading.  There are not multiple Rites with the Roman Catholic Church;  there is only the Latin Rite.  Other Rites are practiced by other churches within the Catholic Communion.  It appears that Wikipedia is making the common mistake of applying the term "Roman Catholic Church" to the entire Catholic Communion.  I will edit appropriately. Isomorphic 16:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps I am wrong.  Either way, this is a very confusing subject because so few people know that there is any distinction between the Latin Church and the body of Churches under the Pope (whatever this body should properly be called.) Isomorphic 17:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy

message: I removed the link to CARM because Matt Slick, and his articles, are anti-Catholic, instead of simply being against Catholicism. This assessment comes from debating him on his own board and from his articles. Notably, in his article on Mary, he cites the book "Roman Catholicism" by Loraine Boettner, which may be charitably compared to a book length version of a Jack Chick tract. I'm not opposed to links that are critical of Catholicism (though I would suggest that any such link be accompanied by a link to a Catholic apologetics site), but am opposed to links to sites that are anti-Catholic. --Kadett 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CARM 

message: Funny - I came to this article looking for information about which version of the english bible the Catholic church uses, and the word bible does not even appear in this article...
:The American Catholic Church uses the New American Bible in the lectionary, while Canada uses the RSV-CE if I remember correctly. I don't know about other English speaking nations. No one is beholden to these versions however (they are merely the ones used in the Mass and other liturgical events), I prefer the Jerusalem Bible myself. --Kadett 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An Australian Priest I knew for a bit told me that they use the Jerusalem Bible down under.  I personally prefer the New American Bible with the Revised New Testament.  Catholic translations of the bible that I know of include the Doulay-Rheims Bible(1582), a revision of that bible by Challoner (1749 and 1752),  a further revision by the Bishop's Committe for the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD), the Jerusalem Bible (1966, revised 1985), the New Confraternity Bible (1968), the New American Bible (1970, NT revised 1986), the Common Bible (1973), and the New Revised Standard Version (1990, approved as Catholic 1991).  However, since the original comment seemed not directed at ascertaining which translation Catholics use, I'll note that the word "Scripture" is commonly used in more formal writings and is found in the article.--Thesquire 06:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible 

message: what about the RCC'S relationship with non-apostolic Christian churches. No mention is mead of the Chartists or the primitive churches, et al. --Numerousfalx 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Apostolic Churches

message: I've deleted, for now, the recent anonymous addition to the Sacraments section: <Originally, the Church used the term "mysterion" to signify these seven sacraments, but in a time of numerous cults this ancient term suggested an elite, a secretiveness, even a Gnosticism which was not the intention. Borrowing from the Roman army, the Church found a ritual and term which would convey that sacraments (mysterion) were for ALL. Obviously, they borrowed "sacramentum" which was known to all Roman soldiers as the "oath sworn to Caesar." The Church simply altered her seven rituals (mysterion) to be the rituals where one affirmed loyalty to Christ.> - No argument that the Greek term mysterion (mystery) is roughly equivalent to the Latin term sacramentum, but please provide more details and maybe some supporting evidence of the above;  references, etc.?  -- Harris7 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mysterion?"

message: It's valid to mention controversies, but the article is turning into a bit of a soapbox for the disaffected. This is the latest addition:
::I disagree.  It provides a relevant illustration of some of the horrible things that have been done under the Church.  This image is part of Roman Catholic history.  Even the Church itself has apologized for these crimes and seeks reconciliation with the groups it once persecuted.  Please elaborate on how it constitutes a ?soapbox?? Apollomelos 23:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it has more to do with the Spanish Inquisition than with the general subject of the Roman Catholic Church?  I mean, when you go to France do you expect vivid descriptions and illustrations of executions by the guillotine?  Even in the "Criticisms of France" section? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - the question is one of scope. The addition perhaps deserves a sentence in this article, but most of it should be in Spanish Inquisition. --12.76.48.94 05:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the date of 1800 seems much too late and inconsistent with the style of the engraving. --12.76.48.94 05:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I can see your points.  And thanks for questioning the date.  It was incorrect.  The real year is 1700 AD.  Apollomelos 11:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: And I have responded.  I am sorry to say the writings of the age clearly depict the Inquisition murdering "sodomites" to state otherwise is an equation of Holocaust denial. Apollomelos 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you source that please, with a scholarly work? You're making a rather large allegation after all. --Kadett 04:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" section getting a bit out of hand 

message: I reverted these edits by 137.142.183.62, for the following reasons:
A new section called "The Roman Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic".  This has some potentially useful material, explaining why the RCC describes itself by those adjectives.  However, it's written only from the POV of a believer.  If someone wants to restore it and NPOV it to clarify "this is what Roman Catholics believe, not something Wikipedia is claiming" I'd be okay with it.
Revising the Criticisms section to remove information and accidentally create redundancy.  The criticism that the Church has faced for opposing the use of condoms even in AIDS-stricken countries is a real criticism, and not the same thing as the criticism it takes for opposing birth control in general -- which was already mentioned earlier in the same sentence.
-- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes by 137.142.183.62 

message: Greetings all.  I added some new items to the article that might raise eyebrows.  I wanted to record the cahnges here. 1)Opened up a new section on religious orders.  The history and organization of these orders, I feel, is an important part of the church 2) Added a crucifix picture as an "eye catcher" at the start of the article.  Hopefully that wont be reverted within the first five minutes!  Most of the better articles have opening photos and I felt the cruxifx can rightly so be called one of the main symbols of the church.  Now that Ive made these changes, I invite the experts to clean them up and expand them.  Thanks! -Husnock 02:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: The Vatican claims 1 billion Catholics in it's official yearbook but I believe that hundreds of millions of them might not be Catholics at all and are simply claimed by the Church because they were baptized. I'm a baptised atheist, as are most of my friends and much of my family.
Has anyone got good figures on what percentage of those claimed as Catholics actually believe in Catholicism? I'm trying to find  a mismatch between the Church's figures and census figures, even for one single country. Does anyone have a breakdown of that 1 billion across every country?
* An astounding number of people don't go to the effort to renounce the religion of their parents (even within their own thoughts), and when asked will readily claim adherance to something they don't really believe.  I'm sure the Vatican is counting census data from countries where millions have been baptised Catholic, claim they are Catholic, but have never set foot inside a Catholic Church, or only passingly believe in the catechism.  (Recent claims in the media that 65% of American Catholics believe in contraception, homosexual rights, and ordination of women back up this contention.)  Unfortunately, to the rest of the world, they're as Catholic as I am until they themselves say otherwise.  Sorry, I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for this belief atm.  Opusaug 23:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there really 1 billion Catholics? 

message: I was very surprised to see merge notices added to this article, in particular without any discussion or input on the talk page.  The church and catholic articles are separate articles and should remain so.  Merging three very large articles will cause length and content problems.  Unlike the person who placed the merge notices, I will allow others to comment before removing them. -Husnock 02:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article should not be merged with with Catholic or Catholicism.  To do so will cause confusion.  There needs to be an article about the church headed by the Pope.  Catholicism is not that article.  This one is.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I vehemently oppose such a move.  The Roman Catholic Church references an organizational entity, a polity with a governing body.  Catholicism references a broad view of relative subjects pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church.  The two shouldn't be combined because they are two separate ideas.  --Gerald Farinas 04:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad cooler heads previaled here.  The user who placed those merge tags did so without discussing why or gathering opinions.  Given the scope of these articles, a discussion was clearly warranting before embarking on such a major project as merging three lengthy religion articles.  Ive removed the merge notices from the other two articles to match the actions which were taken here. -Husnock 04:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: They've already been removed, but if it's questioned whether consensus supports that removal, let me speak up and say there's no sense in the proposal to merge.  They are different subjects and each is already so complex it pushes the article to nearly uncomfortable size. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Notices Should be Removed 

message: While the information about the terms "cafeteria Catholics" and "grocery store Catholics" surely belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that that place is a) in the "Criticisms" section or b) in Roman Catholic Church at all.  It is, after all, not a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church -- it's a criticism of those who are perceived as not enough a part of the Roman Catholic Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cafeteria Catholics", by my understanding, are people from RC backgrounds, and baptized into the RCC, who are unable to give full assent to all of the RCC's doctrines; usually on marriage or sexual issues.  The assumption behind the phrase seems to be that the RCC has the right to proclaim regulations of these matters, and has chosen correctly in doing so.  The implied accusation seems to be that these Catholics who refuse assent to them do so for selfish and unworthy reasons.  It probably does belong in the "criticisms" section, but the relationship between these folks' religious practice and criticism of the RCC should perhaps be clarified.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cafeteria Catholics 

message: I think I remember reading in the newspapers in the mid-90s around Hartford, CT, USA about a priest that had dug up some old ceremony that used to be used to essentially marry two people of the same sex, begun using it to marry gay men, and been promptly excommunicated for it.  I wonder if that ceremony, andor its practice at some earlier point in time, could be tracked down with enough certainty to be mentionable in this article.  Seems like if it were, it would be relevant and worthy of note somehow in the article. -Ozzyslovechild 15:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do you mean that if such a ceremony had been a dogmatic component of Catholicism at some point in the past but had since been removed from use, then it's existence in the past would not be relevant to a Wikipedia article about Catholicism?  Or were you more heading towards a "it's very much not allowed now so therefore it never happened" kinda thing?   -:)Ozzyslovechild 21:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic gay marraige ceremony from centuries ago? 

message: Hi, I'm posting this request here because there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for the Catholic Church.  Apologies for the slightly eccentric nature of the request.
Someone has listed Ernesto Corripio Ahumada for deletion.  Although too old to be eligible for the College of Cardinals, he's a former Primate of Mexico and certainly encyclopedic, though the article when nominated was a single defamatory sentence and I'm not really surprised it got itself listed while it was in that form.  He's an old Vatican insider, and probably significant to the early reign of the last Pope.
I've written a basic stub, but I could still use some help because there are still a number of votes to delete this, and as it stands the article may well get deleted (recreation can be done but is problematic and is best avoided).  Please visit the article (link above).  Help with improving this article would be welcome.  Votes to keep, if you please, would also be welcome, especially from regular editors.
* Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ernesto Corripio Ahumada
Thanks. 
(also posted on the Pope Benedict XVI article talk page and nowhere else). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD and cleanup help needed

message: Can someone take a look at this paragraph under 'criticisms' for POV? --InShaneee 03:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: a) Disentangled the "Consecrated Life" from the section on the "Hierarchy", previously entitled "Organization", with which it has absolutely nothing to do – contrary to some public misconception that monks and nuns queue every 1st January outside St Peter's to collect their dole from the Holy Father.
b) Deleted "public", since all Consecrated Life is public in the sense that it is recognized in Canon Law.
c) Was the intention with this section to play to the lowest common denominator? Just in case the answer is in the affirmative, I did not dare to lift its tone. I have, however, tried to straighten out some problems and added some clarifications. There remains every scope for improvement.
Portress 02:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecrated Life