Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3

message: The section on 'Beliefs' seems to be almost entirely redundant with Christianity.  This duplication actually makes it inaccurate in places - for example "Catholicism is also a Trinitarian religion. As opposed to other monotheistic religions, it believes that while God is one in nature, essence, and being, this one God exists in three divine persons" implies that no monotheistic religion apart from Catholicism believes in a Trinity; what it actually means is "Christianity is also a Trinitarian religion...".
The Roman Catholic Church does hold some beliefs which differ from those of other Christians (intercession of the saints, for example, and purgatory); but these are not actually mentioned all that prominently in the Beliefs section (the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, for example, is not mentioned at all).  I propose that this section be removed, initially leaving just its first section (before 'the nature of God'.  I believe this would give about as much information as the entire section currently gives.  Distinctive beliefs of the Catholic Church can then be added, in more detail than at present.  If people feel that there are aspects of Christianity not currently well-explained in the Christianity article, they can of course improve that article; including putting beliefs held only by Catholics in there, as long as they are clearly marked as such. TSP 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think Papal authority, transubstantiation, and the immaculate conception of Mary are three pretty Roman-specific doctrines that could be fairly highlighted.  Just one guy's opinion.  KHM03 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: True (well, arguably; different groups vary on whether they include Unitarians in the bracket 'Christian').  I don't see why that's a problem, though; simply say that Roman Catholics are Trinitarian, then refer them to a more general article saying what that means.  Actually the Christianity article is currently entirely Trinitarian. TSP 13:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oneness Pentecostals are also not Trinitarian.  Certianly both American and Transylvanian Unitarians were/are historically speaking Christians.--Samuel J. Howard 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True.  But I note that the articles on all those faiths manage to express themselves in terms of Christianity, without feeling the need to explain monotheism, sin, the crucifixion, salvation, prayer, and so on for themselves. TSP 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not?  Does that mean that the whole of Christian belief has to be repeated in the articles on every church which claims any kind of exclusivity?  It is surely possible to note that the Roman Catholic Church holds the general beliefs outlined in the Christianity article, but also some beliefs distinct to that church; one of which is that they alone constitute the one church founded by Jesus Christ? TSP 13:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs section 

message: An anonymous user clearly finds the phrase "The Roman Catholic Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul" controversial, and has repeatedly replaced "traces" with "claims to trace".  My reading of that sentence is not to imply that there is a provable historical link, but that that is the source to which the church attributes its roots - just as you might say "American football traces its origins to the British sport of rugby", without implying that the game is officially supported by William Webb Ellis.  That being the case, "claims to trace" seems to have no meaning, except to introduce a POV sense of dubiousness.  Do other people feel differently?  Would the anonymous user like to explain their concerns?  And can anyone suggest an alternative wording that might please everyone? TSP 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the anon user, but, as a Methodist, I don't have a problem with "traces its origins".  The Mormons trace their origins to the early Church; that doesn't make them any more or less accurate or legitimate, but they are free to trace their origins however they want to do so.  Same with the RCC.  Saying they "trace their origins" isn't a claim of veracity.  KHM03 11:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "traces its origins" states simply that the RCC says that it goes back as far as the Apostles. It makes no implication as to whether or not the Church is correct in saying that.  To use "claims to trace" suggests that the Church knows quite well that it doesn't go back that far, but continues dishonestly to make the claim anyway. The NPOV policy discourages words like "claims", "alleges", etc. AnnH (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "traces its origins" 

message: Would anyone be interested in beginning a Roman Catholic Collaboration of the Week? There exists such a wide array of topics dealing with the Roman Catholic Church that I feel there should be a weekly collaboration dedicated to it. If there is an expressed interest, I would love to assist in starting such a collabortaion. --Caponer 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic Weekly Collaboration 

message: Ok, I'm opening up a can of worms here, because I think this is off-topic for this page, but I was watching Kevin Smith's "Dogma" the other day and there's an exchange between some characters that goes like this:
Rufus: I'm telling you, man, this ceremony is a big mistake. 
Cardinal Glick: The Catholic Church does not make mistakes. 
Rufus: Please. What about the Church's silent consent to the slave trade? 
Bethany: And its platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust? 
Cardinal Glick: All right, mistakes were made. 
So, what of the "silent consent to the slave trade"? Did the church ever publicly condemn slavery in the U.S? Did any priests own slaves, etc.?  
And the issue of the Church's " platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust"? Is this accurate? How involved was the church in 
I'm not saying "Dogma" is a factual move in any way, I'm not even saying that this stuff should be mentioned on the catholic church wikpedia page, but I'm curious if it's accurate to say that the church stayed away from these issues.
:In terms of Catholicism Dogma is non-factual. A good source is: Christianity Today on Slavery and Catholicism. It was a common anti-Catholic myth to assert that Catholics condoned slavery. St. Martin Porres, a half-black Lima resident would agree that slavery was not permitted in Catholicism. This in no way white washes any action that some sothern Catholics had in the way of prejudice, but the record is clear, the Church did not officially permit slave holding.
:As far as the holocaust, silence was not the way the church saved Jews. Officially a condemnations were issues, but openly opposing the facists or Nazi regeme would mean many more would be killed. The Church operates without blowing a horn every time a person was smuggled out. Many Catholic Priests, among the St. Maximillian Kolbe, and St. Edith Stien were put to death in the same manner as many Jews. A good article with sources can be found at: reprint from Weekly Standard. The Rabbi of Rme declared over and over again Pius XII was a righteous man for his saving of many lives, Jewish and others, secretly by the Church, as many Priests did during the war. As before, this is a common anti-Catholic charge. 
:It doesn't belong in the article, IMHO, because they are a response to a made up accusation. The article would bloat if we included all the made up charges against Catholcism. Dominick (TALK) 17:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust and U.S. Slavery

message: What is the feeling in the room about merging Catholic social teaching into our small section on social teaching? On the one hand, the Catholic social teaching article is inaccurate and unsourced, and it could use the attention that it would get here. It also seems to be a more proper home for social teaching to be treated. On the other hand, if we aren't going to treat other aspects of the Church's moral theology, maybe we shouldn't comment on social teaching at all. --Hyphen5 13:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social teaching 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. Please see my extensive rationale in the discussion section. And please don't vote until you've read my reasoning. I don't want to spend all my time repeating points I've already made and I don't want to debate forever. Voting your instinct rather than considering my case is just going to perpetuate useless debate. --Hyphen5 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 3#Roman Catholic Church
* Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23_Roman Catholic Church
This requested move was made on WP:RM where there is an agreed process with a set of guidelines on how to conduct a move survey. There is also a tradition with WP:MR moves, that if a move is made or is not made that no further request to move it back or move it to the same place is made more than once ever six months. I have received Hyphen5 request for mediation. There was no consensus for a move "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholicism" (see Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Aborted Move to Catholicism where -Hyphen5 made the proposal on the 19 March and was in a minority of 1 for and 7 against, (which is a percentage of  of 12.5% for the move)). Having not obtained a consensus for that move, -Hyphen5  "aborted" that request and made a second request on 21 March 2006 to move the page "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" See Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church where currently the opinions expressed are 3 in support and 9 against (which is a percentage of 25% for the move). It is generally accepted that percentage of 60% or more in favour of a move is needed for a move to be made under WP:RM.  As this is a properly run WP:RM process, I see no reason for this to go forward to mediation, because otherwise it opens the door for everyone who feels passionately about a WP:RM issue to go to mediation if the consensus is against them. However I will not express a negative position to the WP:RFM#Roman Catholic Church(Now in Rejected 3) "Parties' agreement to mediate" unless others who are involved in this mediation agree with me and indicate here that they too do not think that a properly conducted WP:RM should go to mediation. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This mirrors my thoughts with fair accuracy. I also resent being dragged into an RFM when I came to this discussion relatively late, and plunged in mainly as a response to Hyphen5's threatened disruption of other article's discussion pages if his specific arguments were not engaged.  (, amplified , and expressed on User Talk pages such as .) TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the proposed move from from Roman Catholic Church to Catholicism was a compromise offer. Go back and read it . You know, I thought that's what we were supposed to do on discussion pages, try to hammer out a consensus. And that's why I've requested mediation. There are always going to be requests from somebody or another to change the title of this article. There will always be a controversy about this article's title. That's because there's a problem with it. I would hope that mediation would help us resolve it once and for all. Lastly, I note that threatening to call for votes is hardly disruptive. --Hyphen5 13:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We are hammering out a consensus. It's not going your way, so you're escalating. And useless motions for page moves in order to make a point are disruptive, since it diverts attention from the proper purpose of the talk page, which is to disucss article content, and also diverts the energy of the editors who are involved, who might otherwise be adding useful content. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip, review WP:POINT when you can...that's what's going on here.  KHM03 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know what mediation is? It's just a forum to discuss the issues calmly and seek a compromise. It's not a bad thing. We even had to get your permission before mediation was able to happen. That's hardly disruptive. Hardly. I requested mediation because I am confident that I have made my case on the basis on Wikipedia policy and precedent, whereas the rest of you are simply ignoring that stuff, and creating a de facto double standard. --Hyphen5 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Philip, you know very well that the Mediation Cabal is totally voluntary and informal. To say that my requesting mediation -- which is, after all, COOPERATIVE -- is somehow disruptive is truly beyond belief. You clearly have an axe to grind here, and you're trying to shut down debate, and I resent that. --Hyphen5 00:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I was the one who originally had the idea of merging Catholic social teaching into this article. I was so appalled at the generalization, unsourced assertions, and generally pedestrian approach to Catholic social teaching in that article. I thought that merging it into Roman Catholic Church would get it more attention, and hopefully more sourcing and critical revision. Well, somebody went ahead and merged it without a vote. Now that it's here, under the Roman Catholic Church#Social teaching heading, can anybody help out? The new "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" will be a key resource. 
Of course, the other consideration is: if we aren't going to treat other areas of moral theology (family, bioethics, life issues, etc.), then why should we even have a section on social and political teachings? --Hyphen5 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lima, this is the first thing we've (sort of) agreed on! Yay! --Hyphen5 13:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Teaching needs attention! 

message: The start of this article really needs to be cleaned up and there needs to be some agreement as to how it should look.
The Contents is now too far down the page. Additional heading(s) could be inserted in the first paragraphs to bring Contents up.
Preliminary note on terminology reads more like a disambiguation page than anything else. It should be put on its own page with an explanatory link at the top of the article. --WikiCats 10:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a very long article. It shouldn't be that big a deal that the contents page is not within the first page frame. I consolidated "Overview" and the introduction because, well, it made no sense, content-wise, to separate them. Is there a policy about how close the contents has to be to the top? With regard to the terminology section, it was even worse before I edited it down. (It had basically replicated the content of Catholicism.) But please don't split it into yet another disambiguation article. We've already got a disambig link at the top, plus Catholicism, plus Catholic, plus One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I think that's enough disambiguation! --Hyphen5 10:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know. I didn't do it, and I don't really think that the firs thing that people should know about Roman Catholic Church is this controversy over what its name is... --Hyphen5 00:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've swapped the terminology data back out to a 'terminology' section, and moved the 'overview' section to being the lead section; which is much more in line with what the style guides say the lead section should contain.  The lead section is now a little bit long and complex (the guides advise 3-4 paragraphs; we have 5 long paragraphs) - then again, the article is rather longer than the Guides advise as well. TSP 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I thought it was a good idea to split the beliefs (Catholicism) from the institution (Roman Catholic Church), but I guess that proposal is long gone...? --Hyphen5 00:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The formatting of the intro.