Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 9

message: I brought this up almost 4 months ago, Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church/Archive6#The_Catholic_Church_.26_AIDS. Uganda uses an ABC approach (abstinence, be faithful, condoms). The Catholic Church is opposed to C. The image is from the WHO, that no where on it's site mentions the RCC in regards to Uganda. Searching the web, I haven't found many sources to support this idea. Seems like OR. Because there is an A in ABC, and the RCC supports A, they must have something to do with it, right? I propose removing the image, unless the sourcing can improve (even the most recent citation addition doesn't mention the church). Seems like a case to give credit by association.--Andrew c 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be OR. On the other hand, the UN and religious officials worked together in Uganda to propose a solution that was appropriate for the culture. Here are reputable Catholic sources discussing Uganda: , , 
. And the UN article does mention cooperation with local religious groups including the RCC: "Our education campaigns not only addressed AIDS and health-related issues," said Dr. Rwomushana, "but also risky cultural practices. HIV control was made an integral part of the country's national education and poverty eradication policies."
One of the biggest challenges, according to Dr. Rwomushana, was how to campaign against AIDS and risky behaviour without upsetting cultural and religious sensibilities. "We adopted a policy of inclusiveness that avoids confrontation with the different social and religious groups," he said. "The fact that the chairman of the Uganda AIDS Commission, Halem Imana, is a retired Catholic bishop is a demonstration of this." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you see, the first link mentioned Uganda once, and is strange because it glosses over the fact that Uganda promotes Condom use in addition to abstience and faithfulness. The second link clearly explains that the government and AIDS workers were sensitive to the local population's religion, doing different things for Muslims and Catholics. Doesn't say anything about the RCC doing these things, only that the government tried to accomidate a multireligious outlook in their sex education, AIDS reduction programs. Finally the quote, says basically the same thing. Just because the Chairman of the Uganda AIDS Commission is a retired Catholic bishop, information about Uganda and AIDS somehow fits in the RCC article? I think that is stretching notability some. Thus, I still support removing the image from this article. The image is not specifically Catholic, and doesn't relate to the surrounding article content.--Andrew c 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the material should be properly sourced and the image should accurately reflect both the caption and the context.  Seems obvious enough.  However, it seems equally obvious that abstinence reduces the spread of aids (just think about it).  Surely there has to be a proper source for such a simple statement, no?  Lostcaesar 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is a little off topic. Yes, theoretically not having sex is one way to not spread AIDS. Of course. But does promoting abstience to the public prevent the spread of AIDS. There is a big difference between simply promoting abstience and populations actually practicing abstience. That said, reading through the "Catholic teachings on human sexuality" section again (which, keep in mind, is a subsection of "Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline"), I feel it is decent. It presents criticism, responses, and official positions of the Church. However, it says nothing about Uganda. Including an image from the WHO that is not specifically of Catholics seems misleading and simply off topic. --Andrew c 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I will say that I myself generally am not a large fan of over ambitious captions, and am also a stickler for sources properly being represented in the text, so I have nothing to say about this specific point not in accord with you.  However I think there could be a way to express the essence of what the caption wants to say, properly.  But it needs to be proper, not sloppy like it is in this case. Lostcaesar 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS/Uganda 

message: Included with the list of "Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline," this article should state the aversion to the office of the pope by several groups in Church history. In the past, numerous individuals have cited certain errors in this doctrine. It rests upon Mattew 16:18-19 ("You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church...and I will give you the keys of the kingdom...") and the supposed unbroken line of popes from Peter to Benedict. Either a link to the "Objections to the Papacy" in the article entitled "Pope" or a summary of the points therin would suffice. 68.195.102.26 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Catholic teachings and discipline: the Papacy 

message: Do we define a religion, media, or person only by what criticism it received? So if I looked up "Dan Rather" would I only see that "he was criticized for using false information about W's draft status in a national broadcast?" And maybe that would comprise a good portion of the article on CBS, as well? 
The church inaccurately condemned Galileo for his support of the Copernican theory. But the statement is simplistic, even simple-minded. The English burnt Joan-of-Arc at the stake for being a witch, which was inaccurate as well as being malicious. But the article on England will not feature this as their number one accomplishment in the Middle Ages! The reporting of the Galileo episode is best chalked up to ancient (and no longer existing) Protestant-Catholic enmity than anything else. There is too much else involved.
There is nothing wrong for reporting that the Church opposes birth control, supports the right to life and, under that umbrella, also opposes abortion, stem-cell research, war and capital punishment. The church is the only organization in the world with a consistent approach to right to life in all categories. Criticism? What does that have to do with it? The Washington Post, along with every other news organization, is criticized every time it publishes an editorial. Should the Post be defined by it's popular editorials or it's unpopular ones? My thought would be that the Post defines itself. Whether the editorial is criticized or not is usually irrelevant.
And criticism is irrelevant to the article here, as well and should be deleted unless there is some other compelling reason, other than the writer's mean-spirited dislike for the church or it's position.Student7 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xcountry99's point is well-made. What I had intended to say, is that the Galileo episode was exaggerated well beyond what it should have been for several hundred years, to the point, where the pope had to apologize for it! It was a dumb incident, but a lot more complicated than it appears on its face. And in the long run, not really that important. Well explained in Wikipedia incidentally. Protestants deliberately exaggerated it, as indeed, was done by Catholics when the opportunity arose, I'm sure.Student7 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition by Criticism?

message: Inserted subtitles under history. It was long enough that it needed them. I believe they are in the right place, though the wording can probably be improved. I also changed the wording under "Crusades" to eliminate word "controversy." The Crusaders ran amok and usually didn't attain their goal. I think this is an objective observation. Had they ejected the Turks from the Holy Land, that, too, would certainly have been "controversial." Sorry, I just don't see what "controversy" or "criticism" has to do with facts. I think some folks take written or television remarks far too seriously. They're simply flyspecks or images on a screen or piece of paper. It's what the crusaders DID or DIDN'T do that was noteworthy. For better or for worse, it was usually the latter!Student7 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what one means by crusades.  The crusades, in the broader sense, did accomplish goals: the Muslims were expelled from Italy, Sicily, and southern Spain, the activity of the Teutonic Knights removed paganism in certain areas, and certain internal crusades eliminated heresy.  The crusades in the Holy Land did capture Jerusalem for almost a hundred years.  So I think I will add some qualifiers.  What is controversial is simply (well, too simply) that some people think the crusades were bad, others that they were either good or at least ok. Lostcaesar 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I've removed references to "controversy" defining Church activities. The activities are stand-alone, right or wrong. The Galileo stand was clearly incorrect. I don't think the stem-cell stand will ever be that clear. You may agree or disagree, but that isn't the point.
Having said that, I wanted to add that the Church's position was consistent with other pro-Life decisions, but this didn't seem to belong in a "science" section, per se. Doctrine maybe. The section is a bit vague to include both science and doctrine. I'm not sure if that is a redeeming future or not. I took out the Newman paragraph which was obviously well-researched. There is no antecedent anymore. 
If people can show that the Galileo condemnation stifled science in the Catholic countries (as once believed), that would certainly belong here. But it should be given in a factual way, not "some people have argued...." For every Newton and Gauss was there a Pascal and Fibonacci? And are these people of equivalent stature? Out of my depth! Student7 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church doctrine and science

message: I removed "criticism" remark, the only intent of which, it would seem, is to put the Church on the defensive. This is contrary to Wikipedia NPOV, which states that a subject should be allowed to present itself.
It was also unreferenced. I also removed "contributed much" which is also POV
What is left,alas, is a whitewash. If the church has failed to provide social justice, please document it. Please leave out the tabloid nouns "controversy" or "criticism." Like Sgt. Friday, all we want is the facts! Student7 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Justice,etc.

message: I think this article is getting too long. Some of the sections are really well defined. Can't see any improvement in those. The article on "sex and gender" problems might be better moved to "modernism (Roman Catholic)" though I hate to just dump it in there.
I think we need to look for sections to move out and link to.Student7 02:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC
:I agree.  This article is getting far too long to be manageable.  I have already suggested moving part of the membership section off the page.  That wont help much, I admit.  However, there does seem to be a need for a page specifically devoted to celebacy in the Catholic Church.  I dont understand why such complex issues are forced into generic articles such as clerical celibacy or the Roman Catholic Church.  I will work on a new article so we can move some of the materical off page.  Any other suggestions for material that can be moved off page? EastmeetsWest 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that the "Combatting Modernism" section needs to be in this article.  Much of it is already covered in the article.  I think this one section is the best candidate to focus on for shortening the article.  Either move it to be its own article or summarize it down so as not to repeat what is already in the Beliefs section. --Richard 10:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was bold and broke up the "Combatting Modernism" section, redistributing the pieces into the rest of the article.  This doesn't shorten the article a lot but it does help the flow by not mentioning topics twice.  I also made some other changes which I hope other editors will agree improve the article.  --Richard 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of Article

message: Are we sure that "ontological" is really the best word for describing the fundamental role of priesthood? I had to look it up and didn't quite understand it. I put in a Wiktionary link which, to tell the truth, didn't seem to help much!Student7 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ontological has to do with being (and can be contrasted with doing. So the primary issue is who the priest is and not what he does. Who he is is changed by ordination, just as who I am was changed by baptism. It's a simple idea, but I don't know if I'm communicating it clearly. Freder1ck 14:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes to the point that the priesthood is not a career, or a job.  It is essential because today's secular society, particularly in the context here (ordination for men only), wants to see the priesthood as the "priestly office", i.e. just a job that anyone (man or woman) should be able to do.  God thinks differently, as does the Church. Lostcaesar 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modernism

message: In accordance with Latin tradition, cardinals, like the Pope, sign by placing the title (Papa, abbreviated Pp., or Cardinalis abbreviated Card.) after their first name, as, for instance, "Benedictus Pp. XVI" or "John Card. Smith". That is the proper form for their signature
However, the most common way of referring to these is as "Pope Benedict XVI" and "Cardinal John Smith", not "Benedict Pope XVI" and "John Cardinal Smith".
The form "Cardinal John Smith" is almost universal in the usage of the Holy See's website as a way of referring to cardinals, though of course it always reproduces signatures of cardinals in their "John Cardinal Smith" form.
Catholic News Service, which produces a stylebook, that is widely quoted - for instance, the Writer's Guide, Institute on Religious Life says it should be followed; and it has been called "the ultimate reference work on all kinds of church terms" - always uses the "Cardinal John Smith" form.
"Cardinal John Smith" is the form predominantly used by other news agencies and newspapers also, both Catholic and secular. 
The Catholic Encyclopedia, which itself generally followed the "Cardinal John Smith" usage, stated that the form given in The Catholic Directory published in London in 1906 ("His Eminence Cardinal ..." - not "His Eminence ... Cardinal ...") "may be safely taken as representing the best custom of the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, and the British colonies in general." 
Dr M prefers the "John Cardinal Smith" form, and has tried to impose his own preference throughout the article with no better explanation than "buy a book on etiquette and look it up"!  I have no intention of retorting: "Buy one yourself and look it up."  I only ask him to try to justify his action in imposing his own preference by altering the form that others have chosen and that, as I have shown above, they may quite legitimately chose.  (Or does Dr M believe that the Vatican, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic News Service, and the media in general are all out of step?)
There is no need to discuss here which is the more authoritative form.  My personal belief is that "Cardinal John Smith" is more authoritative. But I am not trying to impose it on others. And someone like Dr M, who believes "John Cardinal Smith" is more authoritative, has no right to impose that form on those who prefer the "Cardinal John Smith" form, which is at least acceptable, even if it were less authoritative.
Since I do not believe Dr M can in fact justify his action, I am reverting to the last version in which other editors, earlier editors, were still allowed to use the form they preferred.  Lima 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for this position. --Ginkgo100 talk 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am forced to recant! I was raised on the odd word order and deliberately put it in that order when editing. After researching, I am forced to admit that the form Cardinal John Smith is probably correct nowdays. But you will have to admit that Jaime Cardinal Sin is a lot more fun that Cardinal Jaime Sin. Kind of loses it meter!   :)  Student7 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as well. IrishGuy talk 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support — this seems like a no-brainer. -- WGee 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr M's contention that the form "Cardinal John Smith" is anti-etiquette 

message: For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Roman_Catholicism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Roman_Catholicism]]

message: While reading the article about Baptists, click on the link to Western Catholicism in the series box on the right side of the screen.  It will take you to the Roman Catholic page but these Anti-Catholic changes have been made to the contents:
The Roman Catholic Church or Whore of Babylon (see terminology below) is the counterfeit Christian Church in full communion with Satan. It traces its origins and sees itself as the same Church founded by Belzebub, the prince of demons.
The Catholic Church is the largest counterfeit Christian Church and the largest organized body of any world religion.[1] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2004 was 1,098,366,000 or approximately 1 in 6 of the world's population
Clicking the "edit this page" button will bring up the original text of the page and typing in Roman Catholic on the search engine will also bring up an unaltered page.  I am newly registered (though a long time user) of Wikipedia and do not know how to correct this issue.
Thanks a bunch!
Flyboymb 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit box shows the correct current version of the article. The text you see on the article page itself was present for a little under an hour on 25 December before the vandalism was repaired. You're looking at some cached version of it. If the cache is on your own machine, you can fix it by holding down the shift key as you click on the reload button. If the cache is at your ISP, you'll have to wait until they refresh their cache before you see the text that belongs there. They apparently do this on a less than daily basis, which to me is a good argument for dumping your ISP in favor of one that provides you a direct Internet connection, should this prove to be the case. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page vandalism 

message: See Talk:Oriental_Orthodoxy and Talk:Anglicanism and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy, all of them with the identical appeal: "Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy of the hours and renaming proposal.  Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details", an appeal that has won one supporter. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy of the hours and renaming proposal 

message: The more I look the more strange stuff I find. For instance:  748-810 this citation is used to justify the assertion that "the Church" is the most common name the Catholic Church uses for itself.  This does not make sense. First, the section is not a comprehensive treatment of the names of the Catholic Church and doesn't even discuss Catholic Church vs. Roman Catholic Church. It is rather a discussion of the various images the Church uses for itself.  "The Church" is not a name of the Catholic Church. Lots of Christians refer to their church as "the Church."  This is simply an abbreviated reference like saying the University instead of saying the University of Virginia all the time.  It only makes sense in context.  "The Church" is not the name of the Catholic Church.  
So why are we insisting that it is?  EastmeetsWest 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EastmeetsWest correctly stated that this CCC reference was misplaced.  I have corrected its placing.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats of the whole of the (Roman) (Catholic) Church.  When it speaks of "the Church", what does it mean?  Just the Latin Church?  Lima 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more problems

message: ::"To break on one's own initiative the juridical bond with the Church, a formal act is required in writing before one's local Ordinary or parish priest, who is to judge the genuineness of the act of apostasy, heresy or schism; without this formal act of defection, "heresy (whether formal or material), schism and apostasy do not in themselves constitute a formal act of defection, if they are not externally concretized and manifested to the ecclesistical authority in the required manner."[26] Those who do not take this step are presumed to be still linked with the Catholic Church and thus bound by ecclesiastical laws. Someone who renounces membership may later be received again into the Catholic Church, after making a profession of faith, or in occult cases (lack of formal act) going to confession."
I am stymied.  What is this doing here?  The minutia of Catholic canon law could fill all of WP, but it all doesnt belong on the RCC main page.  This paragraph needs to find a home on a canon law or other page with a reference to it on the main page at most.  The average reader is not looking for this kind of material in a section titled membership, I would suggest.  If no one objects, I would be glad to take care of this.  This section I would think should have statistics on numbers of members.EastmeetsWest 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership section

message: Is not necessary or desirable.  It runs the risk of using Catholic theological descriptors to describe Orthodox, or vice-versa.  Just because they both conceive of themselves as the same sacred body, doesn't mean they conceive of this body identically. Slac speak up! 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallelism with [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] in the intro

message: Right now I am having trouble convincing some editors on intelligent design that the article may be giving undue weight to a non-magesterium Catholic position and also omits that theists reject intelligent design that contradicts evolution. It also omits that theists can reject it for reasons other than moral or ethical grounds, such as scientific grounds. My edit is at the bottom of  but is being rejected by only a few on . If you think what I said has some meaning then pls do weigh in. Thanks to all. (CptKirk 00:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic and Catholic coverage on Intelligent Design article is biased but edits are refused 

message: Is there any wiki-entry on the Catholic system of graces? Someone should lay out the differences and interplay between habitual grace; sanctifying grace; virtues; indwelling of the Holy Spirit; actual grace; internal actual grace; exterior graces; and gratuitous grace or charisms. I'm confused by the system but I am also tired of hearing people accuse Catholic Christians of having a system of salvation through works which isn't true. But its hard to explain their actual position without a better understanding of their system.--Wowaconia 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System of grace vs old canard of "salvation through works" 

message: I have embarked on a major expansion of the History of the Papacy article which was just a stub before I started working on it yesterday.  I have attempted to keep the focus of that article on the history of the Papacy and NOT on the history of the Catholic church.  This is, of course, a very difficult distinction to maintain since the histories of the Papacy and the Church are so closely intertwined.  What I've been trying to do is to leave out anything that is more about the Church but not really that relevant to the Papacy.  It seems to me, for example, that the work of most missionaries is an important part of the Church's history but not as important a part of the history of the Papacy.  For this reason, I have left those out.
I seek your help in making these kinds of distinctions.  I have, for the time being, left out the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation.  I am trying to decide how relevant these are to the history of the Papacy.  They are, obviously, very important to the history of the Church.  What should be said about these topics in the History of the Papacy article?  Your thoughts on this question would be much appreciated.
:Since writing this initial request for feedback, I have added information about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Reformation.  What I need now is feedback as to whether I have the right amount of information about each of these topics. --Richard 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written a bit about papal relations with Fascists, the Lateran pacts of 1929 and the Reichskonkordat since writing this original request for feedback.  Your feedback about these sections would be appreciated.
The role of John XXIII in convening Vatican II is also important.  I also plan to write something about the relationship of John Paul II to the Polish Communist government and his role in helping bring an end to Communist domination of Eastern Europe.  His role in reversing the modernist trend in the church is also important to document.  Have I left anything out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of the Papacy]] 

message: I have to say that I was disappointed to find that the History of the Catholic Church article was a timeline instead of a prose article.  As such, I think it should be titled Chronology of the Catholic Church.  I would much prefer that an article titled History of the Catholic Church should be an overview that expands upon the history section in the Roman Catholic Church but provides a level of detail similar to History of the Papacy or History of the United States.  What do you think?
--Richard 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of the Catholic Church]] 

message: I have proposed moving/deleting the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section of the Anti-Catholicism article.  I have provided my rationale on the talk page.  User:Colin4C has objected to this proposal but I disagree with his reasoning.  Please read the discussion on the talk page and register your opinion there.  Thanks.  --Richard 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholic Humor