Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church

message: The opening paragraph of this page is a horrendously worded inflammatory opinion piece that bears no resemblance to the actual content:
* The Catholic Church has been subject to criticism throughout its history for its beliefs and practices. 
Subject to criticism by who? This sentence needs to cite sources.
* Criticisms of the Catholic Church's religious beliefs and practices have often led to breaks with other Christian groups, such as the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Reformation. 
Where the formation of these other groups based upon criticism of the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices or were they political disputes that used religion as a post or pre-text? This sentence needs to cite sources.
* The Catholic Church has also been criticized for its active efforts to influence political decisions, such as the Church's promotion of the Crusades and its involvement with various 20th-century nationalist regimes. More recent criticism focuses on alleged scandals within the Church, particularly alleged financial corruption and the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals.
Criticized by who for what political decisions? The Church's promotion of the Crusades sentence conflicts with what this post actually states about the crusades, which was that the most of the crusades were actions taken by sovereign states, not by the Church itself. This section needs to cite sources.
Suggested New Opening Paragraph:
Over the span of its existence, there have been a number of sustained criticisms against the Catholic Church. These criticisms have concerned its magisterial teachings and its activities outside of the sphere of dogmatic theology.
Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Reworded: 

message: First of all there was an omission in the lede; the Church cannot ordain women to the sacerdotal priesthood, and it is this ordination that has been the focus of Ordinatio sacerdotalis etc. So the statement must be qualified in this way. Secondly, the church cannot oppose something she cannot do. The church considers it impossible to ordain women to the priesthood. Could a Newtonian physicist measure a sphere using the Pythagorean theorem? The church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood and so canonically, it terms these as "attempts" to ordain a woman, because they cannot ontologically succeed. It would be incorrect point-of-view to say the church opposes it without qualification. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of my edit summary is that, on Wikipedia, as far as I know, we cannot say that the Church "lacks authority" to ordain women in the encyclopedia s own voice, especially not without attribution, because then we would be unduly favouring a particular side in the debate, that of the Church authorities which promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, while excluding secondary sources which criticize the Church s opposition and rationale from a third party perspective, which is by no means uncontroversial. That would violate the NPOV policy as well, because it would place undue weight on the institution s own claims, while omitting sourced criticism. The most neutral solution would be to say that the Church opposes the ordination of women, and then describe their rationale for doing so, while summarizing secondary sources that critique said reasoning. All notable viewpoints on an issue must be documented in proportion of their relevance and support in reliable sources, including criticisms of a particular entity, regardless of who they are, and that is what I was trying to do, to describe the Catholic Church s stance in a manner that does not engage in euphemisms or whitewashing. That would be well in line with a neutral point of view. 91.127.69.193 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not neutral, that's taking a clear POV from the outside. Are you trying to say that outsiders could be the judge of the extent of the church's authority? If outsiders say that the church opposes ordination of women to the priesthood, then we can write that outsiders claim that. No problem. Critics say that the church opposes it. I have no problem with writing this way. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Outsiders" (A very loaded term to describe secondary sources with on Wikipedia, to say the least) as you called them can very much be reliable judges of the Church s actions, especially from the perspective of historians and independent theologians, and if a significant amount of observers challenge the rationale behind the Church refusing to ordain women, then we cannot say it in Wiki-voice and censor opposing voices. Period. Only unquestionable and verifiable facts not under serious dispute, such as the Earth s sky being blue, can be described in such way, and secondary, AKA "outsider" sources as you described them, are important for describing and analyzing a issue from a perspective the primary source simply did not consider, or was tainted by bias and lack of data, and are often given precedence over primary sources, per Wikipedia policy. We can resolve this dispute by having another person chime in if necessary, but the point is that NPOV does not allow us to state contentious claims as facts in the website s own voice, including those made by a primary source, such as the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis document itself, and what Wikipedia ultimately writes is determined by the consensus and preponderance of reliable sources on the subject matter, as the sources recently added show, even if it is not favourable towards the entity in question. Neutrally describing the Church s stance as opposition (Opposition is not necessarily a negative label, as plenty of movements and organizations throughout history have been opposed to a particular concept or policy without being malevolent in nature) and then stating their reasons why, along with sourcing criticism related to that issue with secondary sources, is the best way to remain compliant with NPOV. Summarizing every viewpoint and side related to the debate, including criticism, while not explicitly taking the side of any of the figures. 91.127.69.193 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

text:  Which topic are you referring too? –Zfish118⋉talk 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See subject heading above.  Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The header refers to a single sentence in the lead. If you are referring to the body text, two paragraphs on the subject of women's adoration is perfectly reasonable, and I do not understand the aggressive assertion that it must be reduced. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  When there is an entire article on "Ordination of women to the priesthood" which is clearly linked at the top of the relevant section, I do not understand why you should find a recommendation that the section be trimmed in anyway "aggressive". Manannan67 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordination of women to the priesthood