Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 10

message: I know it is a terrible name to use but it could definatly be worth while to create sort of a family tree of the Catholic Church.  A lot of the information that would be included is already in the info box but this would be a way of linking everything together to show just how the Catholic Church is organized.  Then there could be an explanation about exactly which sacraments the other churches that don't fall under the Catholic ubrella recognize.  If no one objects I will set myself to the task.--Billiot 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Authority

message: There have been some unintentional errors made on this page.
Without intending to do so, someone has referred to 'Scandals'. This would be corrected by use of a less subject term, such as 'Allegations'.  
A mistake has also been made in the placement of the section titled 'Sexual Abuse Scandals'. Clearly that topic does not have more scholarly clout than the sections on Beliefs, Nature of God, Scripture, The Church, Salvation, and several others. To correct this, the 'Scandals' section should be moved much farther down the page.
 
There is another mistake contained in the wording of the section titled 'Sexual Abuse Scandals'. Here is the current wording: “In 2002 a major scandal erupted in the United States when a wealth of allegations, with supporting evidence, were made…”. Obviously no one would argue that 'wealth' is the appropriate term. In order to correct this unintentional oversight, 'wealth' should be replaced by a much less value-laden term, such as 'several'.
Misanthrope67 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done on Assuming Good Faith, but please also bear in mind Civility.  The fact that you disagree on a particular editing decision doesn't make it a mistake.  It's best to approach an article with the assumption that the editing choices were not only made in good faith, but were also made by intelligent people with reasons for their choices; suggesting changes is usually best done as a debate on the most encyclopedic approach, rather than pointing out the 'errors' people have made in employing an editing style different to yours.  TSP 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please take note that any allegations of this sort in the Church is a "scandal". There is no acceptable number other than zero. When it comes to the sexual abuse of children, even one is a very large number indeed. Wassupwestcoast 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree that "scandals" while important, and probably deserving their own page, do not constitute an article "about" church.  Because of that, I would tend to relegate it to a section toward the end of the page, with a refs for further informationDaveTroy 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I take a different view. Many "new" cases turn out to have been incidents that occurred decades ago because (a) often, the victims are unable to talk about their experiences until they reach adulthood, and (b) the church had an active policy of hushing the abuses up for as long as possible.  If any lay parishioner confessed to a priest that he had been engaging in sexual abuse, the priest would recommend, nay demand, that they immediately admit their acts to the police and suffer whatever punishments the legal system provided.  But when it came to priests and brothers being the perpetrators, the church just gave them an internal slap on the wrist and hushed up the crimes, often with monetary payments to the victims, payable only upon condition that they keep quiet.  Yes, if they took the bribe, they were assisting the church to seem cleaner than they were, but that doesn't alter the fact of the abuse.  Teachers are bad enough when they abuse kids in their charge, but they aren't the guardians of the kids' spiritual lives.  Priests are.  As for the numbers, you may be right.  But some stories demand a greater degree of telling, because of the greater degree of public revulsion involved.  If we can't trust priests, we may as well go and cut our throats.  JackofOz 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the obvious solution is to sue the Church for hundreds of millions of US$ and take that money, which would go to the poor and whatnot, and give most of it to major law firms, and then give some to the victims and act as if piling money upon them solves all problems.  That seems more the real scandal to me.  Lostcaesar 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming Good Faith with Regard to section on Sexual Abuse Scandals 

message: *In the Great Commission, Christ gave the apostles specific instructions to baptise all people - to bring them into the assembly of Christians - the ekklesia, the Church.  He gave instructions on how this body was to be ordered and ordained Peter as its head. "The Church is both the means and the goal of God's plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fufilled by his redeeming cross and his resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. . .The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the mystical body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine.  This is her mystery, which only faith can accept.  The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men". (CCC, 778-780).
*The Church is, therefore, Christ's body on earth. (789, 795)
*Thus Church is one.  It's diverse (814), filled with different people and different functions, but it is not a scattering of different groups: it is one group. "The unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion: - profession of one faith received from the Apostles; -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments; -Apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family." (815)
*For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.  It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God (816).
To summarise - 
(1)Christians are those who follow the commands of Christ.  To be part of the community, the Church of Christ, is one of Christ's commands.
(2) The Church of Christ was specifically established by him with Peter as its head.  Everybody who wishes to fully obey Christ's commands must be baptised into this body on Earth, whose visible head is the pope, and which is unified, continuous from the time of the apostles, and guided by the Holy Spirit.
(3)Those who are not baptised into this body do not fully adhere to Christ's commands.  Even though they may legitimately be called "Christians", (819, 838), the grace and salvation that flow from their groupings is really only a reflection of that which flows from Christ's Catholic Church.
Denominationalism as a view is a definition that is in opposition to the above.  It believes that unity of worship, sacrament and belief are not necessary components for Christian life and in fact a Christian may be known by many different names (de nomina) while still being Christian completely.  In fact, Christ did not imbue the Catholic Church with any specific authority: Christians are free to chose whether or not to adhere to it.  
The idea that "one thing is pretty much as good as another" when it comes to religion is monstrously false in the Catholic view: a serious error that goes directly against the explicit command of Jesus and creates schism, heresy and apostasy within Christianity on Earth, leading people away from God.  To rank the Catholic Church as "one of many possible alternatives" is to deny the legitimacy of the Catholic Church altogether. Slac speak up! 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacrimosus, the Roman Catholic Church is "one of many possible alternatives", whether the Roman Catholic Church likes it or not.  We are not here to describe people and organizations according to their POV, but according to NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Slac's four bullet points accurately define the four marks of Catholicism, of which the Roman Catholic Church is - I think all can agree - not the sole representative. A NPOV in categorization needs to pertain, not a Roman Catholic POV. The ins and outs of the RCC's self-concept is best discussed in the article, and should not govern how others conceive it. As an Anglican, I am willing to concede that in the popular mind, the Anglican Communion is not the sole, legitimate expression of Anglicanism, although the theology of my Communion is that splinter groups are schismatic, and not being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot legitimately call themselves Anglican.  The situation is entirely synonymous, and I grudgingly accept that the Reformed Episcopal Church can be listed under Category:Anglicanism, because of the popular understanding of the category in which that body fits. Fishhead64 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, and I grudgingly accept "Old Catholic Church".  Should they be put in "Category: false churches"?  That the OCC is a "false church" is a PoV.  That Catholicism is a "denomination" - or that "denominationalism" even is true at all - is a PoV disrespectful to the Church.  Look at it this way: Jehova's Witness does not identify as a "church", but a "movement".  Should we categorize them as "Chrisitan churches" anyway?  Lostcaesar 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: With due respect, I think it's a false dichotomy: Catholicism is a branch within Christianity consisting of numerous denominations.  Standard dictionary definitions of "denomination" state that it is a "large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organised under a single administrative and legal hierarchy."  There are several Lutheran denominations - and Calvinism itself includes offshoot movements, such as Presbyterianism.  In that sense, they are movements within the branch of Protestantism. The RCC is objectively capable of being two things at once. Fishhead64 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps that I'm doing a poor job of getting across the key point of Catholic ecclesiology.  From this point of view, it's not an option for one who professes to be catholic to say "oh, I adhere to the Archbishop of Cantebury" - by definition that renders them non-catholic.  This is where the conflict of definitions is coming in, as per Lostcaesar below.  The Anglican point of view is that catholicism is, for want of a better word, the Christian "mainstream", and Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism are both "currents" within that stream.  You're entitled to hold this point of view, but it is a point of view - witness the fact that the Catholic understanding is different. People outside of communion with the bishop of Rome might call themselves catholic, but from his viewpoint they're not - that's why calling them "catholic" is a point of view and not objective.  And, coming back to my original point, viewing different forms of Christianity as different outlets offering versions of the same product might be convenient from certain points of view, but the Catholic outlook is that of a hierarchy, or, if you like, a series of concentric circles with orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome as the centre.  The more peripheral you are, the less entitled you are to view yourself as Christian or catholic.  My point is not that WP should adopt this viewpoint, but just to stress that just as this is a point of view, so the alternative, denominationalist outlook is a categorisation system that's based on a particular non-neutral perspective. Slac speak up! 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Catholicism is a branch within Christianity consisting of numerous denominations. - That's your point of view, and its not neutral.  You're free to it, and I give you no trouble.  But you ought not impose that on Catholics, no? Lostcaesar 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Catholics are you talking about?  See, that's the problem. Fishhead64 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, respectfully, its not - with the Church we can examine official documents and notice that such language is never used and the ecclesial system is indeed rejected.  The Church has a specific way of officially speaking, so its not an issue. Lostcaesar 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Church's view of itself (i.e. not as a denomination)

message: While I have an opinion on the this dispute, I'd prefer to try to interject another perspective.  Given that the term "denomination" is evidently both ambiguous and controversial, is there another term which captures the ordinary meaning of the word, without running afoul of the ecclesiastical distinctions?  Something like "Branches of Christianity" ? Presumably it would replace :Category:Christian denominations). If not, I think the current denomination-or-not issue can probably be resolved with enough attention, but the resolution won't make everyone happy. --lquilter 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't work, I suggest.  For example, is the Reformed Mennonite Church, consisting of some 300 members a branch of Christianity?  It is a branch of a branch of a branch - let's say a twig. I like the idea of perhaps a levelled box called :Category:Christian branches and denominations - but I'm open to a better name - the five levels being "Roman Catholic," "Reformed Catholic," "Protestant," "Reconstructionist," and "Other."  That seems to be a compromise, in that it approaches some accuracy, while leaving just about everybody dissatisfied. Fishhead64 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  <grin> if everyone is unhappy it must be a good compromise, right?  Surely we could use "denominations" within the Protestant branch, without forcing that term on the Catholic branch; but by including both Bs & Ds in the top, we could avoid triggering wars between the grammar purists & the ecclesiastical purists. I like Fishhead64's proposed "Christian branches and denominations"; are there other ideas? --lquilter 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the suggestion of Category:Christian communions over at the Christianity talk page.  Let me make a case for it here as well. (1)The churches in question have, in various ways (especially through the modern ecumenical movement) identified themselves as "communions."  (2) This avoids "denomination" for those who do not use it as a self-descriptor. (3) This avoids the category of Protestant, for those that fall between Protestant and Catholic.  (4) This avoids the question of "Catholic means Rome" for those that consider themselve Catholic but not Roman.  -- Pastordavid 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't support this, because communion has a specific, technical definition that doesn't always allow for an easy fit - in other words, it's not a synonymous term, IMO. Communion, in this context, means "fellowship," and there are varying degrees of fellowship, including churches being in full or partial communion with one another. In any event, the proposal I suggest of five groupings satisfies your four points. Fishhead64 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something simple, like "Christian groups"? Lostcaesar 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm: ways out of this dilemma?

message: Admins, just a heads up, please remove the Image:Example.jpg from the external links section to protect under the appropriate version please.  Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Article Kept an Incorrectly Placed Example Image... 

message: I don't want to jump the gun, but unless I'm mistaken, there seems to be a fair degree of consensus to retitle the category :Category:Christian denominations to :Category:Christian branches and denominations, but moving category pages seems to require a technical expertise beyond my ken.  Does someone have one of those bot thingies that will make such a move easier? Fishhead64 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can just manually shift the articles by editing them individually. Slac speak up! 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, there are 56 subcategories and 125 articles! I'm a WP fanatic, but quite that hardcore. Fishhead64 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The discussion is taking place here and at Talk:Christianity partly because the initial discussion was not about changing the name of the category but about whether or not this article should be in the category :Category:Christian denominations.  I came up with the idea of resolving a seemingly intractable issue by changing the name of the category.  If we come to some agreement, then the next step would be to make a formal proposal over at the category's talk page.  I just wanted to hash it out here first before making a proposal over there. --Richard 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't about an article, it's about how people categorize things.  As I mentioned above, Charles Manson doesn't categorize himself as a murderer, but Wikipedia does, and he has been ajudicated as such by entities external to himself. The difference between an article and a category is key here, and what is important is how would Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church categorize itself with respect to other Christian fill in the blanks? It doesn't exist in a vacuum, obviously, but stands in relation to similar structures and must somehow be categorized with them, or not be categorized at all - which is, I'm sure you'd agree, simply ludicrous. Fishhead64 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's almost impossible to have discussions with you because of your constant imputations of bad faith and antagonism on my part. The comparison was one of categorisation, and was the first one that came into my head - I've used it before and nobody complained. Do you seriously think that I believe that RCC is like a mass murderer? As it happens, I would agree that your suggestion works just as well as mine - my essential point was that the RCC does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be categorized with other Christian groups. I'm pleased to see you agree. Fishhead64 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the RCC does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be categorized with other Christian groups" - then lets do that: [Category: Christian groups] Lostcaesar 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "Christian groups" is that it could potentially include organisations like the YMCA or Youth With A Mission. I think we need to be more specific, unfortunately. Do you have any specific problems with either "Christian branches and denominations" or "Christian churches and denominations"? Fishhead64 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Christian ecclesial groups" would omit Christian groups that were not churchlike. Just a suggestion. Lostcaesar 17:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive my ignorance.  The only group I can think of that fits this definition is the "Jehovah's Witnesses" and even then I think they ARE church-like; they just don't use the name "church".  Can you expand on what you meant? --Richard 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume LostCaesar means groups like the YMCA.  'Ecclesial groups' would indeed solve this, but is very far from being the commonly-understood English that Wikipedia is supposed to be written in. TSP 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree :Category:Christian churches and denominations is a good compromise.  I'm going to float it over at Talk:Christianity and see if they agree. --Richard 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a straw poll on the different alternatives over at Talk:Christianity.  Please indicate your position over there.  --Richard 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and added my support. I hope everyone realized that we are being politically correct here. I know that the term PC has negative connotations, but there is nothing wrong with adopting more inclusive language to avoid offending others. This is a textbook example of PC at work.-Andrew c 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole conversation/debate reminds me of a Wizard of Id comic I read once. The King walks up to a priest and says, "So, Padre, how many different Churches are there in the Kingdom?" to which the priest replies, "Just the one, Sire." So the King then asks, "Then why are there so many...churches?" to which, the reply, "Well, the cults have to go somewhere." --SigPig |SEND - OVER 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the category to "Christian branches and denominations"

message: Ok look...the reason the Roman Catholic article is protected was because I kept trying to edit it. I'm new to wikipedia, and I wanted to put something on this article. Everytime I loaded the page, my edit was gone, and I couldn't figure out why, so I would do it again. It was not my intention to "vandalize" or start an "edit war" it's just that I did not understand that my edits were reverted each time. I did not realize the editor was sending me multiple messages calling that "vandalism" but as soon as I did, I stopped. Sorry for causing so much trouble, but whoever's choice it is, PLEASE unprotect this page. I'm owning up to the mistake, now I know that I cannot delete content without causing problems (previously did not know that was not allowed), and I'm not gonna do it again. It was just a matter of me realizing what was happening when none of my edits would show up. PLEASE unprotect this page...it's not fair to protect it from these other users just because of my mistake. Please unprotect, I feel bad... Kosmkrmr 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosmkrmr, you are far from neutral indeed. Not only is your contribution biased, it is also factually incorrect. You state that the Pope is at all times infallible, while a Pope (or rather his remarks) is only considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra (meaning "From the See (of Saint Peter), the Pope doesn't have to be physically on the See, ex cathedra is rather comparable to a judge speaking "from the bench" instead of speaking as a private person). The last time a Pope's remarks were infallible was in 1950, to clarify the Assumption of Mary. Infallible remarks are only reserved for matters of faith (in other words rituals and costums) which throughout the years have become unclear. Controversial issues like contraception, euthanasia, abortion and gay marriage are simply not subjected to an ex cathedra remark. Since the creation of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, founded by the current Pope, such remarks are becoming increasingly obsolete as the Congregation is clarifying ever more matters of faith and worship without the Pope having to resort to ex cathedra remarks. Finally, all I have left to say is that Papal infallibility has only been in existence since 1870, a relatively short period if you look at the history of Catholicism.--84.26.116.26 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lighten up, guys.  Refer to WP:BITE.  POV-pushing is bad but it's not vandalism.  People new to Wikipedia take a while to learn how things work here.  NPOV can be a really hard thing to understand especially when you don't have the perspective to understand that what you believe to be the truth is not the only truth but just a POV.  Speak gently and educate the editor rather than biting him.  --Richard 19:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking of odd...I don't even know where to begin with that last comment.  I do note, Flashstar, that you have been dinged for vandalism, particularly on the illegal immigrant article .  But putting that aside, if you feel that there needs to be something in Wikipedia about the Catholic Church's activities related to "illegal immigrants", feel free.  However, I have my doubts, given your comments here and in other locations, that we should expect a very neutral article.  I sense that you view the Church's assistance towards undocumented aliens as a negative thing, as well as some secret operation.  Well, you have a right to your opinion.  But the Church's ministry and assistance to migrants, documented or otherwise, is something that is quite open, and not some hidden agenda.  In fact, in my humble (and Catholic) opinion, it is something that the Church, and all Christians, have a mandate to do.  Providing shelter, food, consolation, etc., to those in need is right up the Church's alley.  Besides, WWJD?  But let's keep it to what is appropriate for this discussion page...be bold, my xenophobic Wikipedian!  Don't treat the discussion page as a soap box.  Write your own little piece on it and see how it fares with the community.  Cheers.  --Anietor 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Page Vandalism

message: 1. The Catholic Church Never calls itself the Roman Catholic Church. 
2. The term "Roman" Catholic is a religious slur from Protestants akin to calling a Jewish person a "Kike"
3. It traces it's origins directly to Jesus Christ with the Apostle Paul being the first Pope.
4. All other Christian churches and denominations are offshoots of the Catholic Church.
You are attempting to rewrite history.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.51.146.210 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: " … the Apostle Paul being the first Pope." Interesting theory. Who is it that's rewriting history here? Vilĉjo 12:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the term is a slur "akin to calling a Jewish person a kike," I wonder what's with all these churches with signage identifying themselves as Roman Catholic?  Self-loathing, p'raps? Fishhead64 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it refers to the Western or Latin rite Catholcis."  Does this user know better than the Holy See?  Lima 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking for myself as an Anglican, I have absolutely no objection to a discussion of the etymology of the name "Roman Catholic," provided it doesn't consitute original research.  And certainly if one is sensitive about denigrating remarks, one shouldn't be implying that Anglicans want to shut down or censor discussion of this subject. To my knowledge, that has never happened. Fishhead64 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a Dutch Roman Catholic and as far as I know the Roman Catholic Church doesn't call itself Roman Catholic. Like a couple of dozen other Christian denominations it uses the word Catholic in the sense of "universal". Off course the Roman Catholic Church is called Roman to distinguish it from the other Catholic churches. In this context it means "the Catholic Church from Rome" -84.26.116.26 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my own experience, the term Roman Catholic is used primarily today to differentiate the majority of the Catholic Church (which uses the Roman rite) from the Maronite Church and the other Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. It is in no way an even remotely "official" designation. 
Why is there then no mention in this article of the origin of "Roman Catholic" as a slur?  This is well known.  129.74.201.70 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Be bold!  So long as it isn't original research, that is. Fishhead64 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have an idea. Why don't you insert the intended text here, and it can be moved over by an admin or when the article is unlocked. Fishhead64 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because those beliefs and actions are not an official part of the Catholic Church, but are actions of individual members or specific segments of the church, generally acting without official approval. They are basically irrelevant to the Catholic church as a whole, and on that basis are not included in the main article. Even the Virgin (note the spelling) Mary, the most important of the Saints to Catholics, is at best of secondary importance to Jesus, and is more appropriately dealt with in other articles, not the main article. John Carter 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: my answers were found in religion of argentina, the argentines actually mixed catholicism with andean pagan beliefs. I just didnt know how diverse the catholic relgion was throughout the world. 70.58.41.89 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Disputes

message: If anyone could provide some Catholic input over at Christianity and alcohol (or Talk:Christianity and alcohol), I'd appreciate it! --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were. The Treasury Department (which enforced prohibition) issued special permits for sacramental use -- that was necessary for many: Catholics, Orthodox, and Jewish people (who use wine for certain blessings) for instance.HarvardOxon 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alcohol

message: In this section it mentions that a lot of activities like sex before marriage and abortion are looked upon as a sin by the church. Could it also mention that a lot of catholics (I would say most) don't follow these practices? 153.18.17.22 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't say that most Catholics go around having abortions.  As far as sex before marriage goes, well, it's certainly common generally, particularly in Western society, but I think statistically Catholics are lower than average.  Anyway, all of this is just shooting the breeze without a reputable source and accurate figures. Slac speak up! 20:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is about the Church's teachings, not about who does/not follow them.  Because the Church's teachings on sexuality are quite clear (whether or not people agree with them), it would make more sense to have a section on dissent, possibly including those who publically dissent.DaveTroy 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a nonCatholic, but a realtively long time editor, I think it is best to focus strictly on the Roman Catholic church's teachings. Obedience to teachings is a personal matter and all fall short of perfect obedience in all things. Those who dissent from the teachings in a public or vociferous manner are not the topic and should be ignored. Their actions and their story are best covered in their respective articles if sufficiently important. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the relevant section should be called "Teachings" not "Beliefs" to more accurately characterize it. Especially since the Church defines itself as its membership, "beliefs" would logically seem to apply to the individual beliefs and not just the organizational doctrines. --lquilter 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lquilter.  I think "teachings" would be more logical.  The underlying belief in the sanctity of human life and ethical behavior owuld be the "belief," while the concrete effects or results of them would be "teaching."DaveTroy 11:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also a lot easier to be encyclopedic about.  A belief is internal and we can only take someone's word for what it is; a teaching is external and observable.  TSP 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As a western European, I think it really is quite important to state how the church's teachings are followed these (and not only these) days (at least in European societies). Not having sex before marriage is seen less often than in the Americas (I do not know anyone following the church in this case), and western Catholics are usually very tolerant concerning abortions and homosexuality - and I never met anyone not approving contraception, even having had Catholic religion as part of my high school exams (that is, their German equivalent). There certainly is a large difference between the Catholic church's teachings and the way people see and do things. --84.75.56.190 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: Would those who can revise the map in the Worldwide Distribution section please examine the case of Lebanon, which should surely be shown in a colour different from that of neighbouring countries: the CIA Factbook puts Christians in Lebanon at 39% and strongly suggests, by the order in which it mentions the various Christian groups, that the Catholics (Maronites, Melkites, Syrians, Armenians, Latins and Chaldeans) are much more numerous than the other Christians (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant).  Lima 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide Distribution map 

message: Could someone please correct #9, "The Catholic Chruch in popular culture". I'd do it myself,but editing seems difficult.Bill Tegner 08:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: The figure of 1,098,366,000 seems remarkably precise. I wonder how it's arrived at? Does it, for example, included baptised RCs who have never practiced? Or who have converted to other churches? When the late Pope died the figure of "a billion Catholics" was bandied about. Within two weeks of his death I heard a presenter on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation refer to the world's "1.4 billion practicing Catholics". Fascinating. I wonder who fed them that? And how do you define "practicing"?Bill Tegner 09:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it includes both those baptised into the Church who have never practiced, and those baptised into the Church who have joined other churches but never formally defected.  We used to have a footnote explaining this - I wonder what happened to it.  TSP 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might it be registered parish members? -Fsotrain09 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of Roman Catholics 

message: Pope Paul VI referred to the Anglican Church as "our beloved sister church". Is this description still accepted by the Vatican? Until recently it appeared on the website of the RC Ampleforth College, referring to its Anglican pupils. It has now disappeared from that website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Tegner (talk • contribs) 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't exptrapolate too much from the website of Ampleforth College.  In fact, relations and mutual respect between the two faiths has improved in significant ways over the past 40 years.  The International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) is about to release a document summarizing the progress made, with many recent news articles reporting that there are plans for a "reunification" of the two churches (this claim was immediately downplayed by the Commission).  As the Commission leaders commented, "unity was desired by both churches, but was a long-term vision."  --Anietor 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Anglicans