Talk:Call to Action

message: The article says C2A wants to change the Church's teachings on a variety of sexual matters. Does this group consider it a sin for a single Catholic to masturbate to adult movies? What is C2A's view on porn and masturbation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Matters 

message: http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=call+to+action
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Acall+to+action
This article seems to imply that "call to action" is purely and always something of a religious matter. I don't have a lot to contribute but I was surprised by this. As you can see, google doesn't really seem to care for the organization you guys are discussing. Nice high ranking but only one result. I think that an article by this name might warrant a mention from the marketing world et al. It's just a thought though. This isn't criticism, I don't even have any content to contribute and this entity does seem noteworthy indeed.
I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with the article, I'm just wondering aloud if there is more to "call to action" than what we have represented here to date :-). Maybe not.125.236.211.165 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Calls To Action Are Religious? 

message: Call To Action in its broader and more general sense is better defined here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/call-to-action
This page should be added as a secondary meaning in a disambiguation page.
217.125.149.60 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainly this is not what Call To Action really means 

message: ====History====
I know that Call to Action takes its name from the Papal letter of Paul VI [], but the History reads as if Paul VI asked CtA to form. The letter has nothing about any of CtA's issues. The History should mention the letter, but not imply that it said something it did not.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPECIFIC WP:NPOV issues 

message: I know that Call to Action takes its name from the Papal letter of Paul VI [], but the History reads as if Paul VI asked CtA to form. The letter has nothing about any of CtA's issues. The History should mention the letter, but not imply that it said something it did not.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: In general, WP discourages the format the article currently has. Certainly, CtA is at odds with the Catholic Church, but the contrariness that basically IS CtA's purpose should be incorporated into the sections on its goals or issues, instead of in a separate "Controversy" section. Isolated temporally limited actions, like the excommunications, or the racial segregation within CtA, which it is now addressing, should be the type of thing that might merit a "Controversy" section, not the conflict with the Catholic Church and its teaching; those are its stable issues.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies sections too long, some mis-categorized

message: The issues that CtA advocates for are pretty clear-cut and easy to define, value judgement or "spin" words that are vague and would not inform a casual reader exactly what the issues are, are to be avoided. Descriptions like "equality" or "a variety of sexual matters" or "change to the way the church is governed", make the article more political but less comprehensible, particularly when Ordination of Women, Gay Marriage, birth control, abortion, election of Priests and Bishops, are specific, accurate, and informative terms more suited to an Encyclopedia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague or promotional/political statements of issues with the Catholic Church

message: "Call to Action, it would seem represents that "new", tradition.": Andrew Greeley, "Catholic Social Activism: Real or Rad/Chic?"  The National Catholic Reporter February 7, 1975. ...So just how did Greeley come to comment in 1975 on an organization that purports to have grown out of a 1976 conference (but apparently wasn't "launched" until 1978)? Clairvoyance? 
"A conference of over 400 people was held in October 1978, and Chicago Call To Action was launched as a local organization." (CTA website) cf. "At the 1995 Call to Action conference, for example, the former Bishop of Evreux now titular bishop of Partenia, Jacques Gaillot, the auxiliary Bishop of Detroit Thomas Gumbleton, ...were among the featured speakers."???? 
Have moved this footnote here for clarification:
"Under canon law (including canons 1323 and 1324 §3), automatic penalties (including interdict and excommunication) require certain conditions to be fulfilled, and thus  members of Call to Action in the Diocese of Lincoln would not necessarily be excommunicated by this edict." The relevant canons can be found here:. From this I gather if at the time one joined CTA he/she were either a minor, drunk, intimidated, did so unknowingly, or signed up in the heat of passion latae sententiae doesn't apply. (Without specifying the aforementioned conditions which would relieve one of any disability, this note seems not only somewhat irrelevant but a tad disingenuous.) I would be very interested to hear of a situation where someone not legally competent to join an organization did so. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Call to Action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070212043616/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/metro/166825 to http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/166825
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified