Talk:National Catholic Reporter

message: I just removed the sentence, "It has readers from all sides of the spectrum, including those persons who take issue with its viewpoints, as well as those who agree with its viewpoints.", from this article. I did so because there is no reference to support this statement. I have no doubt that there are conservative Catholics that read the NCR, but guesses should be be part of wikipedia articles.  Ericsean (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readership statistics? 

message: "...whose editorial position is entirely in line with Catholic teaching and which Catholics can subscribe to with a clean conscience"
Excuse me?  Doesn't this suggest that dissident opinions CAN'T be "subscribed to with a clean conscience"?
Don't get me wrong: I am, for lack of a better category, a traditionalist Catholic, and I don't dissent from any authoritative, magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church (though this doesn't keep me from asking questions, or going one step further, realizing that we don't have the answers to every question that could conceivably be asked).  However, I take issue with the way this is phrased.  Some people believe that you can dissent with a clear conscience.  No doubt these very same people can read the National Catholic Reporter, and agree with its content, with a clear conscience.   I would have simply said "...whose editorial position is entirely in line with Catholic teaching" and put the period right there.  But I'm not going to take it upon myself to edit something that is, by its nature, subjective. 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clean conscience?" 

message: Should there be a Criticisms section, or at least a mention. I know many people criticize National Catholic Reporter for being consistently out of line with Church teaching.--Minimidgy (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if any criticisms are mentioned they need to be talked about, not simply listed. Ericsean (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: There is a similar review called U.S. Catholic which essentially covers the same issues as the NCR, except it is probably not as liberal as the latter. ADM (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. Catholic

message: There are some problems with this version:
* NCR describes itself as progressive or liberal but not dissident. Claiming that would require some recent sources.
* the "position of the church" section is apparently referring to some controversy from 1968. The position might have changed since then and the whole section is poorly sourced. The section might be reinstated if more/better sources are found under some other section name but the title should clearly say that it is not necessary the current position of the church.
Richiez (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I gave the npov tag since the primary sources used in this article clearly focused on defending its own position.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:3F:E75C:1B10:0:0:80:13 (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Why did you delete the NCR assertion that climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue" facing the Church today:  
===Specific issues===
NCR has asserted that climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue" facing the Catholic Church today.
I have not been following NCR, but the issue seems to be substantially more pressing today than it was when the article cited was publishing in 2014.  The URL given as a broken link.  I found a more current one and created a reference in Wikidata, then reinstated that sentence without restoring your other deletions.  
??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue"