Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Demographics

The following was just deleted from the article as non-notable: "In 2000, 65% of members lived in the Southern Hemisphere.(ref)Scotchie, Father David (15–28 January 2010). "Unity in Diversity". Orlando, Florida: Florida Catholic. pp. A19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)(endref)"

While the material didn't have the greatest source (also mentioned in the deletion as an aside since the editor didn't want it there anyway), it still IMO is notable that most Catholics live in the otherwise least populated, and smallest land mass of the two hemispheres. The church considers it very significant and talks about it often, since projections are for continuing expansion of the population there and not in the 1st world countries (for example). Student7 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Student7, I didn't think your edit really added anything: we've already got the percentages for each continent, it's pretty easy to see where most Catholics live from that. And your source clearly failed WP:RS, that's hardly 'an aside' given it's a key Wikipedia policy.Haldraper (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, I think you are incorrect in declaring the Flordia Catholic invalid. Student7 is using it to make a non-controversial statement about demographics. The Florida Catholic is the official newspaper of the Florida dioceses, it is published by Bishop Thomas Wenski. Why would this official source not be considered reliable for church demographics especially when the info is mirrored by the source used by all newpapers - Froehle? NancyHeise talk 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Because it has an interest; it is the interest of every religious body to exaggerate its membership. Disraeli's quote above was spoken when the interest was particularly strong - denominational schools were subsidized by the British Government in proportion to the numbers of congregants - but clout, if not mere vainglory, are sufficient motives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson and Haldraper, I think you are getting too wrapped up in the minutiae of the specific statistic and the reliability of the source and thereby missing the big picture which is, as Student7 writes, quite significant.
I think it is worthwhile to mention that "65% of members live in the Southern Hemisphere". However, I also think we need to connect the dots for the reader so that he gets what the point of this statistic is. Student7 wrote "most Catholics live in the otherwise least populated, and smallest land mass of the two hemispheres. The church considers it very significant and talks about it often, since projections are for continuing expansion of the population there and not in the 1st world countries". Even in the United States, the primary driver of growth in the Catholic population is not from the white Anglo population but from Hispanics and other immigrants. This demographic trend also counterbalances shortages of priests in First World nations by providing more seminarians from the Third World peoples. What we need to do is provide a comprehensive picture of the demographic trends I just described and provide citations to reliable sources.
--Richard S (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, contrary to Student7's claim about it being an aside in my edit summary, finding a source that meets WP:RS is my main concern. I also think what Richard has written about immigration into the US driving the growth of the Catholic Church there is more notable than what Student7 added.Haldraper (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

modern persecutions of the Church

  • I think the article fails the FAC criteria because it does not mention modern persecution of the Church. Please see the links below and consider how we can incorporate this important information. Thanks.
  • Recently, Catholic churches and orphanages were burned and Catholics murdered by Hindus in India [1].
  • There has been a decades long conflict between violent Muslim extremists and Catholics in the Phillipines [2] Catholic priests are targeted for violence by Muslim militants there [3]
  • Iraqi Muslims have been blowing up churches (Chaldean Catholics are part of the Catholic Church) and murdering Catholics [4]
  • Vietnam government is in a clash with the Church [5]
  • China as a long history of persecution of Catholics and priests up to the present day [6]
  • Africa persecutions are usually at the hands of Muslims this is just one story about one part of Africa but there are countless sources for this [7]
  • Middle East - Here's one POV that should be included [8]
  • We might even want to consider mentioning recent legislation in UK that many Catholics consider anti-Catholic such as the requirements that caused the Church to close its adoption services. Xandar might have more info on this kind of persecution - some might call it legal persecution.
  • I am not sure but I think there is some kind of persecution of the Church in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and in Bolivia, maybe someone else here can research those areas. I know that there are some Muslim countries that do not permit Catholics to practice their faith - Saudi Arabia is one. These are pertinent issues that should be mentioned in a concise way if we want our article to be comprehensive. NancyHeise talk 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

NancyHeise talk 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, you've raised this before and as before I just don't see how we could include all this information in a NPOV way. Take one example that I'm familiar with living in Britain. You describe the withdrawl of the Catholic Church from adoption services here as the result of "anti-Catholic...persecution - some might call it legal persecution". It was the result of equality legislation requiring adoption agencies to consider potential parents on merit regardless of their sexuality. Gay and lesbian couples clearly do not share your interpretation of the change, seeing the previous situation as anti-gay legal discrimination. To be NPOV would require us to include a counterview on each of your nine examples which not only would take us back to a tennis match-style text but significantly increase the length of an article arleady tagged as overlong.Haldraper (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There are other issues here too. The case of Iraq for example is, as far as one can tell - including from the source Nancy cites - not anti-Catholic but anti-Christian. In other cases the incidents may be reported in the west as religious, but actually be nationalist or ethnic in nature. Analysing these cases can be very difficult, and i would want better sources for the analysis than news reports. In any case, if it is anti-Christian, it does not belong in this article. I expect that may be the case for some of the other cited examples: the violence or persecution is not against Catholics, but against Christians or evangelicals (or, as i think might be the case in India, against any rival faiths). There might be a place for discussion of this in an article on contemporary Christianity, but not on the Catholic Church. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The persecutioon (for whatever reason) of catholics is a very notable subject and should be included. Now it may be in some cases that (like Nigeria) muslims just attack any Christian Church, and as often or not it is a Catholic one. In Iraq the majority of Christians are Catholic, eastern or western. So the persecution, which is very real, falls most heavily on them. I believe figures show at least half the catholic population has had to flee since the invasion. Stating "this is anti-christian persecution rather than anti-Catholic persecution", is a bit like saying you shouldn't mention the persecution of Russian jews in that article, because they weren't persecuted as Russian jews, but just as jews. Catholics do suffer persecution for different reasons in many countries. I would however separate physical persecution, as in Iraq, Somalia, India etc, from, "harrassment"of the church as in the UK adoption, or some similar situations. Xandar 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The sources do not support Hamiltonstone's argument. Catholic churches, clergy and members were killed and/or persecuted on a significant scale and should be reflected in the article. If other Christians suffered or if Christians in particular were targeted, that can also go into the Christianity article. However that does not erase the fact of this Church's particular sufferings which are notable enough to be mentioned. NancyHeise talk 02:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, responding to your point - I think we may want to consider mentioning the clashes between the Church's beliefs and the homosexual agenda that has led to the legal tangles described above. I think we could do this in an NPOV way and keep it to one sentence. NancyHeise talk 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Nancy, speculation on other people's "agendas" is the stuff of blogging, not of encyclopedias. There is no consensus on the matter; if there were consensus on each other's purposes, there would probably be no issue. Peddle your point of view somewhere else, and let the gay activists, with which we are also plagued, do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • On the issue at hand, I see no evidence that the terrorists of Iraq bomb the Roman "Chaldeans" more than the Nestorian "Assyrians", or the handfuls of Iraqi Protestants. Indeed, they are probably attacked less than the rival sects of Islam. So also in the other cases. Go revel in self-pity somewhere else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Nancy that persecution of Christians should be relegated exclusively to the domain of another article. There are at least three categories of persecution of Catholics:

  1. Persecution of Catholics qua Christians (i.e. they are not specifically targeted for their Catholicism but for their Christianity). In this case, it doesn't matter if the "majority of Christians in Iraq are Catholic". The point is that they are being targeted as Christians not as Catholics. Similar arguments might be made re persecution of Catholics in Somalia, India and Vietnam
  2. Persecution of Catholics qua Catholics (e.g. persecution of Catholics by Protestants or Orthodox where the Catholics are being targeted specifically for their Catholicism)
  3. Persecution of Catholics for reasons which are not primarily religious in nature (e.g. sectarian strife in Northern Ireland where ethnic and socio-economic class differences come into play). In other words, that conflict is not primarily religious in nature but pulls in a lot of other issues unrelated to religion.

IMO, we should mention persecution in categories 1 & 2 but we should make sure to differentiate the two categories so that the reader knows which ones are persecution of Catholics qua Christians and which ones are persecution of Catholics qua Catholics.

--Richard S (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding persecution of Catholics as Christians versus persecution specifically as Catholics. I think the distinction is largely on the basis of who is doing the persecuting. In other words other Christians persecute on the basis of denomination. religions outside Christianity are less bothered what denomination of Christian is being hit, since by and large they don't distinguish between Christians. However it is still persecution of Catholics because of their beliefs/practices. For example of Zoroastrians took over Iran and started persecuting Muslims, would it be worth arguing wheteher it was persecution of Muslims or persecution of Shias (the vast majority of Muslims in Iran)? Xandar 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but when did the "Zoroastrians took over Iran" - the boot was on the other foot! And the Iranian Shia majority is a much more recent thing. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Some time in the first half of the first millennium BC, depending largely on your identification of Vishtapa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Length and content

I saw that a length tag went up on this page. Two questions: "Is there a lot of text?" Yes. "Is this a big institution?" Yes. So from a practical viewpoint, it must be made clear which text could possibly be sent into exile without diminishing the value of the article. I do not see any section that can be deleted, but a haircut for the history section may be suitable. But that section is towards the end anyway, and does not get in the reader's way. I think for the tag to remain there a "practical suggestion" is necessary, else the tag should be removed. Each section in the article informs the user of some aspect of the Church, so no section can be deleted. The Church has a long history, so expecting the presentation of its history to be short enough to be written on a paper napkin is unrealistic. Yet, I personally find the history section somewhat long. My suggestion would be to agree to just trim that section by 15% to 25% and stop there. The reader who wants more history can read the history article. A related fact is that the history article gets about 20% of the number of visits of this article, so obviously many people are interested in history anyway. Another reason the article seems longer than it is, is that the notes and footnotes sections are huge. In fact that is a clear case of "footnote wagging the article". It seems that whatever text could not find its way into the article was relegated to "second class text" and went into the footnotes. That can, and should be seriously trimmed. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "length" tag is largely mischievous. Quite a few articles on big topics, and some on considerably smaller ones are of similar length, so while a marginal trimming is possible. I don't think much can be lost from the main text. Xandar 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not see how a trim can happen to any section except history. Any trim from other sections will lose information that is fully relevant. However, I think some of the details in the history section just make it hard to read, to the point that I have not even read that section in full. So if you want feedback on that section, I find it hard to read through and if anything a lighter version would teach more, since people may actually read it. As for mischievous motives within Wikipedia, I am absolutely certain that no such activities have ever taken place within the pages of this revered encyclopedia (wink). But when criticism is launched against an article, it often focuses on the "weakest points" (at times selected subconsciously) and in this case, it may have just reminded everyone of the fact that some of the longer paragraphs are just hard to read through. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a big institution; so are many.
  • How many of them hsve articles of 200K? That's what subarticles are for.
  • But we can reduce this monster of flab by reducing the moments of special pleading from every section.
  • Those who defend articles they have not read really should consider take up other interests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You have not made any specific suggestions. Unless you can spell out how the article can be subdivided without the loss of information, the tag is not applicable. And 200k includes footnotes and refs, so that is not the whole article. As fo my not reading the history section, that was my criticism not a defense of the article. For the article to be subdivided, some sections need to be exiled. Which do you suggest? I see none. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This page is full of suggestions, some of them mine.
  • The problem exists, whether or not we agree how to solve it. (And no article is 200K in part because (like no article I have seen) this one is decorated with irrelevant citations which do not support the claims of the text. Taking them out is one of the most obvious fixes.)
  • No section need be exiled; all should be trimmed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, now you have explicitly and clearly agreed that no sections from this article need to exiled. Yet the tag you placed requires that we "consider splitting content into sub-articles". Therefore:
  • A: Since you have explicitly stated that no sections can be exiled, this article can not be separated into sub-articles.
  • B: Based on admission A, the tag placed is not applicable and must be removed.
  • C: The remedy you suggested is similar to my suggestion for a trim/haircut for some sections. I want a trim of the history section, you want an overall trim from all sections. But in any case, the remedy is not that of splitting the article.
The only way I see for the trim is a case by case suggestion for candidate sentences to be removed. It is impossible to remove every 12th sentence to achieve an overall reduction and each trim needs to be addressed in its own right. As I stated above, I also think that there are far too many footnotes, and there is a case of the "footnote wagging the article" here. However, they can not all be deleted at once. Therefore, please suggest which specific sentences you want to trim, and the editors at large here will address that. In the meantime, the tag that asks for the splitting of the article must be removed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:Summary style; shortening an article by use of subarticles does not mean losing sections; it means shortening sections.
The rest of this is mere dilatoriness. Be bold; if something is unnecessary, get rid of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I read that, buy see no reason for the tag to be there and distract from the article. You have provided no specific suggestions. Hence I am justified in removing the tag. If that pleases you not, please contact an admin. History2007 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason for the tag is to encourage editors, including those who pass by, to shorten this outrageously long article. (Distraction from this pile of unsourced blogging can only relieve the tired reader; but one or two small tags at the top are not adequate to the job.) Yes, removing it does displease me; but there is no need for an admin unless you revert-war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
But given the situation on this page, it is clear that as Xander hinted, frustrations experienced from other edits are getting expressed as length flags. The flag is totally inappropriate. It must be removed. History2007 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Frustrations at the biased text of this article are expressed by {{POV}}; that's what it's for. Frustrations at revert-warring for inaccurate text will be - if necessary - expressed by an {{accuracy}}. But this article would be too long if it were neutral, accurate and honest.
Does anyone respectable agree with History2007's campaign - or is this another version of we'll keep this article trashy but pretend it's worthwhile as long as it stays untagged? If so, History2007 should be banned: he himself admits that this article is too long, and is therefore acting against the interests of Wikipedia to make a point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that this article is trashy at all. In fact, I think the article, except the history section, is really well written item - partly because it has been the subject of so much debate. I did not write any of this article, so I have no pride of authorship. But I do think that the constant debates here, coupled with the in depth knowledge of several unnamed editors does provide a very good representation of the Catholic Church. I do not agree with the mode of use of Roman within the article, as discussed at length before, but as far as the structure of sections and content goes, I think it is a credit to Wikipedia. I do see the history section as hard to read, as stated above, but I see no reason for throwing the article out with the bath water. As for anyone respectable agreeing with me, the measure of respect is, of course, within the keyboard of the beholder. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You think this is well-written and knowledgable? Then yiou mark yourself as the sort of person who would think so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone is unhappy about the level of the "knowledge" in an article, that should be expressed in its own right, not through a length tag. I do see this article as well written, but then what do I know, I have only created 200 article in Wikipedia..... I must be uninformed. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
To repeat myself, the level of knowledge - and common honesty - is expressed by the {{POV}} tag; the length tag is - and was - about length. The defensiveness, and the assumption of hidden motives, mark the bad faith POV-mongeer; unless I receive an apology or retraction, I will treat Hiatory2007 and his edits as his actions warrant. When this revert-warrior goes elsewhere, we can get on with trimming this article, if possible; and tagging it, if not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Both tags are unnecessary. The POV tag refers only to claims about certain sections of the article, not the whole thing, and even those vague claims do not seem to be being actively and specifically discussed atm, by those who raised them. The length tag is also purposeless. We cannot remove large sections of the article, or turn it into an extreme summary article without sevcerely damaging its usefulness. PMAs primary motivation here seems to be to make endless negative and random comments about the article and its writers and to plaster the article with tags. Xandar 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Amen and thank you. But Pmanderson seems really upset on this page. Calm is needed to avoid a Myocardial infarction for any editors here. Which reminds me Xander... There is no link to Last Rites in this article: was that avoided because the section on Sacraments was "too long"? May be that should be expanded in case some editor here needs it administered electronically, last minute as the debate heats up (wink).... I will add alink for it now just in case... History2007 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I am merely tired of dealing with false claims about my motives. I am restoring the tag - and anyone who removes it had better be prepared with a coherent and good-faith argument that 200K is not {{long}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's usually more helpful to tag specific sections for potential POV issues than to tag an entire article of any significant length. That focuses the discussion on the specific issues where there may be a problem, which is ultimately necessary to get concrete improvement.EastTN (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Every section can be tagged; that is what general tags are for. The only way to get concrete improvement is to ban the True Believers from (at least) this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's quite unusual for every section in an article of this length to be non-neutral - that has been subject to as much work and debate as this one has. Turning to this article in particular, it has a number of "technical" sections that describe the structure and practices of the church (e.g., Catholic_Church#Liturgy_of_the_Hours, Catholic_Church#Consecrated_life, Catholic_Church#Devotional_life_and_prayer, Catholic_Church#Diverse_traditions_of_worship). We may not agree with Catholic doctrine or practice in those areas, but the text seems to do a pretty good job of neutrally reporting what the church teaches and does. That being the case, it creates needless drama to tag the entire article as biased. Doing that just provokes a reaction without identifying the specific sections or assertions that need attention. EastTN (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This sentence and various other things you have said about History2007 and others on this page show exactly what your POV is in editing this page. Anyone that disagrees with your tags is immediately labeled some label by you. Between comments you make about the article itself ("this pile of unsource blogging", "article trashy but pretend it's worthwile as long as it stays untagged") to comments about people ("mark the bad faith POV mongeer, unless I receive an apology or retraction, I will treat Hiatory 2007 and his edits as his actions warrant", "When this revert-warrior goes elsewhere, we can get on with trimming this article, if possible, and tagging it not." Show how much you need time off from this article. Repeatedly tagging an article does not help the article in any way. How about stop worrying about the tagging and worry about the editing? If you read through a majority of what is said by you on this page it is mostly you complaining about other editors or the page itself without being construcive. How about either taking some time off from the article period or at least taking time off from personal attacks or attacks on the article without specific suggestions as how to improve it. It has been said several times throughout the archives that the size of this article can be warrented both by the size of the organization and the fact that organization spans 2000 years. Very few other organizations have the history, world changing scope, etc. that the Catholic church has. Marauder40 (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Pmanderson, you also just entered the 3 revert zone. The rules regarding that are probably not too long, so please read them and refrain from further reverts. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for demonstrating your bad faith in public; I am nowhere near 3RR. Hopefully, this is the last time I should need to respond to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I will pray for that... I will pray for that... History2007 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Pray rather for the courage to treat fellow editors decently. There is no "tag forever" campaign; there is a "tag until fixed" campaign. Get this article down to the size of comparable articles (Christianity is only 112K), and I will join in opposing one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marauder40 that the time spent on inserting and reverting the tags is totally unproductive and, in fact, counter-productive. I think it's time to issue an RFC on the question. Depending on how the RFC comes out, the next step would be to propose an article ban on any editor who inserts or removes tags in defiance of the consensus of the RFC. (And, yes, I know that it's possible no consensus will emerge but we can burn that bridge when we get to it.) --Richard S (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

An Rfc takes a lot of time. I was going to do something, but will do later, namely get the size of each section. Once that is done it will become clear. Can you wait a day or two. It has already been admitted that:
  • No section can be deleted.
So once we show the size of each section, the sole crusader who wants the tag will have to stop. For now, anyone who wants to remove the tag can do so anyway. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A red herring. Has anybody ever proposed deleting sections? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow your logic but you are welcome to size each section and make your case for whatever point you are trying to make. BTW, I actually agree with Pmanderson that this article is too long (especially in the History section but in a few other places as well). I also agree that there are some areas where there is a pro-Church POV bias (especially in the History and Cultural Influence sections). I just disagree with him as to the importance of placing tags that apply to the entire article. I think this whole fight over tags is an immense waste of time and energy and would propose a 3 month article ban of Pmanderson if a consensus supported it. (and this primarily on the basis of the tag war) Other sanctions might be appropriate for other misconduct (such as incivility).
However, all of my complaints are about his conduct on the Talk Page. He makes some valid points about the article content (though these are too often expressed stridently and hyperbolically).
--Richard S (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
One thing everyone will probably agree on is that this is a far more emotional topic than Woodworking, so often emotions run over logic, as has been the case of this "tag forever" campaign. Showing the size of sections will add some perspective. Anyway, let me do it and we will go from there. I think it will become clear that the 200k comes from notes and refs not the text. History2007 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
And the notes are misleadingly elided quotations from sources that do not support the text. They are among the first things that should be cut back severely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(<---) I have started attempting some tightening of wording, for the purposes of making the length shorter as well as the wording more declarative (reading better as well as hopefully attracting fewer POV objections). I hope it will not disrupt your section sizing, because each one will be a somewhat small edit.

I reiterate my plea that editors here comment on the content, not the contributors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Baccyak4H wholeheartedly.
I think History2007 misinterpreted what Pmanderson said. I think Pmanderson meant to say "It is not absolutely necessary that entire sections be deleted. The real problem (from Pmanderson's perspective) is that there is too much detail in many sections and that the article could be shortened significantly if we go through the text line-by-line and remove the excess.
I endorse such an effort although my experience tells me that we are not likely to achieve more than a 5-10% reduction in size this way.
--Richard S (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What can go

  • Elements of this traditional narrative agree with the surviving historical evidence which includes the writings of Saint Paul, several early Church Fathers (among them Pope Clement I)[45] and some archaeological evidence.
    This is weaselwording - and misleading. It refers almost entirely to one "element of the tradition", which is that Peter died in Rome - which is held by almost everybody (almost is a Scotch theologian who wrote an article on the position that he died peacefully in Galilee); the archaeological evidence is his tomb (which is some centuries later, and so, strictly, evidence of the age of that element of the tradition). That Clement was bishop (let alone "pope") is not one of these elements, and is unsupported by evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What's in the Pauline epistles that discusses the subject? I can't remember any references to Peter, except for the bit in Galatians (many years before his death) about eating with Gentiles. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
After consulting a Bible search tool, the only other references I can find are in I Corinthians, where (1) some Corinthians are talking about being partisans for Peter, and (2) Paul appeals to things Peter has done to say that he has the right to do them to. There's nothing in the Pauline epistles about Peter's death. Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Forget the Bible. That's why it's called "church tradition". Some Protestants won't accept anything that's not in the Bible. Others kind of pick and choose out of church tradition. Bottom line is we're talking about the portion of the narrative that is based on writings of the Church Fathers. BTW, if memory serves me correctly, there's also nothing in the Bible about where and how Paul died either. We kind of assume he died in Rome but I don't think the Bible says that explicitly. --Richard S (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It does not say so explicitly about either of them; the Pauline epistles cannot. (The Books of Moses record Moses' death and burial; but this has for centuries been a major argument that they are so called because they are about Moses.) What the epistles attest is (from Romans) that Paul's assertions had weight among the Christians in Rome, and (confirming Acts) that Paul was later in Rome. The "tradition" makes much wider claims, which even Catholic historians are unwilling to assert as history. "Based on the writings of the Fathers" for much of this is like basing a pyramid on its point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The archaeological evidence includes the discovery of Peter's tomb abd other archaeological references to Peter in Rome. Arguing about the traditional witness is pointless, since it clearly exists and is basically unchallenged by alternative accounts. Xandar 16:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Does Xandar read the threads to which he responds? What part of the archaeological evidence is [Peter's] tomb did he fail to understand? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Section sizes

Now that I understand what History2007's approach is, I figured I'd get the ball rolling by conducting a very top-level analysis of the article.

The following results are based on copying the article to MS Word and using its word count tool. Please note that the total character count in MS Word is about 20% lower than the byte count given by the WikiMedia software. My guess is that the discrepancy might be due to Wiki markup and other non-printing characters (e.g. image filenames).

Total article including Notes, Footnotes, References and other bottom material 25,057 words; 165,109 characters

Article text only excluding Notes, Footnotes, References and other bottom material 14,106 words; 92,403 characters

Notes only 1067 words; 6699 characters

Footnotes only 8,189 words; 54,153 characters

--Richard S (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend User:Dr pda/prosesize.js for automating this tedious task. Results from that script:
  • File size: 717 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 181 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 292 kB
  • Wiki text: 199 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 80 kB (12995 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 54 kB
—Quibik (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some initial thoughts based on the above analysis...

The footnotes constitute 33% of the total characters in the article (54,000 out of 165,000 characters). With 441 footnotes and an estimated 50 characters per footnote reference on average, we would expect about 22,000 characters. I would guess that the remaining 32,000 characters come from extensive quoting in the footnotes. Removing the vast majority of quotes from the footnotes would probably yield somewhere between 20,000 - 30,000 characters from the page. However, WP:SIZE tells us that footnotes and other bottom material are not to be counted in considerations of article length. Thus, removing quotes from the footnotes makes page loading and page editing easier but it does not improve the readability of the article because most readers are likely to ignore the footnotes.

Accounting for the discrepancy between MS Word and WikiMedia character counts, MSWord's 92,403 character count for the article text should be adjusted to about 115,000. (Nah, ignore this point, WP:SIZE focuses on "readable prose")

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. Our current article text is 14,000 words.

This suggests that a reduction of 33-50% of the article text is in order. That would get us into the 7,000-10,000 word range.

My experience is that Wikipedia articles on substantial topics such as this one regularly break the WP:SIZE guideline. A more reasonable goal might be for us to try to get into the 10,000-12,000 word range (this represents a 15-30% reduction in article text).

As mentioned above, I think it would be hard to achieve more than a 5-10% reduction in the article text unless entire sections are deleted but I think it's worth a try. What we need is a disciplined effort to avoid mentioning everything under the sun just because it seems "important to somebody" or because it serves to defend somebody's "sacred cow". For example, the extended defense of Pius XII and the Church's conduct during WWII is not appropriate. Some mention of the controversy is appropriate but the detailed exposition is not. Many of these kinds of debates can and should be discussed in a subsidiary article.

It may be useful to continue this word/character count analysis on a section-by-section basis. I don't have time to do that this morning. I'll try to get back to it later.

--Richard S (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I did an analysis of the individual sections. Note that the units of measurement differ. For larger sections, these are expressed in kilobytes rather than bytes (a kilobyte is roughly 1000 bytes). Note also that the percent of article calculation was derived off of the word count.Karanacs (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Section Prose size (text only) Word count % of article
Origin and mission 3023 B 496 3.9
Beliefs 12k 2078 16.4
Prayer and worship 10k 1728 13.7
Church org... 11k 1841 14.6
Catholic inst... 1443 B 234 1.8
Cultural influence 3337 B 488 3.9
History (total) 37k 5787 45.7

History section breakdown

Section Prose size (text only) Word count % of history section
Early Christianity 1495 B 228 3.9
Persecution 1508 B 233 4.0
State religion 2068 B 335 5.8
Early Middle Ages 2295 B 517 8.9
High Middle Ages 5081 B 785 13.6
Reformation... 4111 B 631 10.9
Age of Discovery 4118 B 639 11.0
Enlightenment 3873 B 602 10.4
Industrial Age 4157 B 634 11.0
2nd Vatican 5939 B 916 15.8
Present 1619 B 248 4.3

My thoughts on the numbers alone: Given that this organization is approximately 2000 years old and has had such an impact on the western world, I would expect the history section to be about 1/3 of the total article length. We've overshot that quite a bit (especially considering that half of the "origin" section is also history, as is the cultural influences section). It also surprised me that 20% of the history section (about 10% of the entire article) is devoted to the history of the last 50 years. Note that the last 50 years accounts for only 2.5% of the Church's existance. These numbers very strongly suggest that the article has fallen victim to recentism. What other analyses can we do from this? Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am impressed, thanks for doing this. I was going to look at the numbers, but you guys did it pretty well. Basic analogy is this: Corporation A wants to reduce its budget and to do so, they need to know where to cut. In the real world most CEOs used to have only a vague idea of where the budgets were really spent. So these days they use a Decision support system or an OLAP server, etc. to zoom into the numbers. That was what I was planning to do and exactly what you guys started. Next step: drawing conclusions therefrom. Thanks again. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Karanacs that, at nearly 46% of the article, the History section is way too long. I would think 25-30% would be adequate especially since there is History of the Catholic Church and many, many other subsidiary articles. If we could cut the History section by 25% to 33%, that would get us there.

However, I'm not 100% convinced about the argument about recentism. I would argue that the last 100 years or so (basically since Vatican I) are very important in understanding the Church today and that this last 100 years should probably constitute 20-25% of the article. The key areas to focus on are

  1. Early Christianity
  2. Persecution by the Roman Empire
  3. Spread throughout the ancient world
  4. Adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire
  5. Medieval Christianity
  6. Crusades
  7. Reformation
  8. Inquisition
  9. Age of Discovery
  10. Modern era

Just off the top of my head, those are the major topics that come to mind as "must be discussed". As I've said before, hit the main points and leave the details and controversies for subsidiary articles.

--Richard S (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree that we should spend so much time on recent events. Yes, Vatican II and its impact should be discussed, but I think that, at most, it should get the same amount of space as the Reformation/Counter-Reformation. In the grand scheme of things, the Reformation/Counter-Reformation had a much, much larger impact on the Church (and the world) than Vatican II. The article already discusses current beliefs and practices in their own sections. The history focus needs to be presented a balanced overview of how the Church has changed through time and what effect that had. When looking at the broader picture last 50 years are really not that revolutionary for the Church, it's just what many are most familiar with. Currently, I think the history section does a pitiful job at getting the core themes across and is mired in detail. I really think it will take a rewrite (and possibly more research) to put that section in the appropriate context. Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, in this type of analysis there is need for one more column in the table, before decisions are made. The table now has "objective data" which corresponds to size. The next column is a subjective assessment of the importance of each section as a number between 0 and 100. Of course, there is no universal algorithm for the assignment of said subjective numbers, but they need to be assigned by some form of consensus, or else by executive decision. The numbers do not need to add up to 100. For instance, I would have said that "Beliefs" has an importance of 100 while "Church organization" may have an importance of 70 and "History" an importance of 60. So let us assume that Section X has importance i(X) and size s(X). Then to get the relative contribution we divide the size of the section by its importance namely: 100 * s(X)/i(X). For instance:
  • Beliefs = 16.4 * 100 / 100 = 16.4
  • Church org = 14.6 * 100 / 70 = 20.85
  • History = 45.7 * 100 / 60 = 76.16
  • Etc.
So the History section compared to Beliefs is much more heavyweight that may seem at first. These numbers can then be normalized as percentages for easier understanding. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that will be very useful or accurate. The data is subjective - it is unlikely in the extreme that any 2 of us will place the same number on any section. Even if we could, there is the further issue of the content within each section. For example, I think the origin and mission section, as an independent section, should go away. I would put the actual information in a different section. As another example, I think half the history section needs to be thrown out for being too detailed. Does that make the history less important? No, it just means it might not be presented well (in my opinion) at the moment. Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I stated how it is done in the Fortune 500. This page may or may not be different... Now, I wonder if the Vatican uses an OLAP system to analyze donations... History2007 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Corporate resources consist chiefly of money; words are not usually fungible - and when they are, they are scarcely worth keeping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding another column showing the percentage of total to the breakdown table will help. For instance, High Middle Ages = 45.7 * 13.6% = 6.2 percent of the entire article. But the column should not be the last column, and just before the last. Looking at pre and post Reformation totals will also help, e.g. there is more on both pre and post Reformation history than on Beliefs. History2007 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 80k of readable prose the advised limit? And if so, we are already within it. As Richard says, I can't see us usefully trimming more than 10-15% of the article across the board without severely damaging content. I disagree that much beyond 10-15% can be trimmed from History. Xandar 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It would severely damage Xandar's advocacy and Nancy's apologetics; but these are advantages to the encyclopedia. There are other outlets for what they want to write. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, I'm not sure where you got 80k as the advised limit for readable prose. WP:SIZE (be careful, WP:size is something else!) recommends that pages have no more than 30K - 50K of readable prose, which is about 6,000 - 10,000 words. (Richard quoted this above.) At 80K, this article is therefore about twice as big as it should be in terms of readable prose size. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am on Xandar's side on this, and I think guidelines are one thing, but common sense needs to enter the picture too. The scope of an article on Cricklewood is quite different from an article on the Catholic Church in terms of content and context. The Catholic Church can not be described in a long telegram. Guidelines are there, but common sense can always try to provide the "best information" to the reader. Now at the risk of getting the Cortisol level of certain "unnamed users" who like to place tags here and there it would not be far off to say that the motivation for some tag might have been what several people pointed out above, namely suppression of information about the Church. Cutting back too much on the article would be playing into their hand. I can not agree with that. History2007 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a very large difference between "losing" information and presenting an article of reasonable size. WP:SUMMARY exists for a very good reason - users with poor Internet connections have trouble loading large files (I have a good internet connection and often have trouble editing this article), and user attention spans tend to be short. Because the scope of this topic is so broad - the Church has been an integral part of all kinds of stuff for 2000 YEARS, this particular article needs to display only a broad overview. The details can - and should - go in the child articles. It is very likely that we haven't come up yet with the right balance of child articles - maybe we need to create more, maybe we need to consolidate some. I'm not sure what the right answer is yet, but I am positive that this article is much, much too long and we need to do something. Karanacs (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we need to do X, maybe we need to do Y. But those solutions are untested and not clear who will do them, with what quality. I think an article in hand is worth 2 in the bush. And "we have to do something" is not always a good decision, sometimes sitting tight is the best decision [9]. Overall, all other options are likely to risk the DISRUPTION a really well written article. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we can get too eaten up with the overall size of the article. 80kb of readable prose compares with the readable size of articles on other large topics such as Russia, the United States, World War II, or even History of the Han Dynasty. Very poor internet connections are getting less of an issue in an age when one JPEG picture can very often go above 200kb, and bitmaps hit 1-2MB. The over-all size can be reduced when we dispose of a lot of the large quotes in the footnotes when we do a general trim. We had a very good article at 140kb total size, and I think we can get back to that without too much drastic cutting. On summarry style we also need to remember that this article forms part of Wikipedia on disk, schools Wikipedia, and other media, all of which have fewer opportunities for linking to sub-articles, so the main information must be here. The other problem with sub-articles is as History raises, the extremely variable quality of many subarticles. The main history article is a case in point - which few of us had time to work on, with the problems on this article. Xandar 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, over time the article may grow back to where it is now anyway as users feel items that were trimmed need to be included. So all the heated discussion on trimming a lot may be forgotten in 6 months when a new editor reaches for the keyboard. A Vermeer was added yesterday all of a sudden and it does not say very much. I will go trim that now. But when I look at sections such as Beliefs or Organization, in most cases, each sentence found therein seems to have been added for a specific purpose, not just at random. And as anyone can see this talk page seems as long as the Long Island Expressway, indicating that discussions took place over most issues. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Recentism

I generally agree with Karanacs re the recentism in the history section, and that it would be best if it were somewhat shorter overall. I thought Richard S's idea about key areas to focus on wasn't bad, but is headed toward whatever one wants to call the opposite of recentism. Given that there is Early Christianity and History of the Catholic Church, I would suggest his items 1 to 4 are just the one item, and that their length managed accordingly. As a person with limited knowledge in this area, i am inclined to agree with Karanacs also that reformation / counter-ref is more significant than Vatical II and post-V2 history, but that is a view formed just as an outsider without much information on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a typical example of recentism in the history section is the following line "The Church also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which provides the Pope with information on scientific matters and whose international membership includes British physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes." This is included under "Present" yet the Pontifical Academy was founded in 1936. The sentence should probably be moved to the industrical age section and changed to something similar "Starting in 1936 the Church started sponsering the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which provides the Pope with information on scientific matters." There are many more examples of this. Marauder40 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
With respect, I think the problem with that sentence isn't primarily one of recentism but rather an over-indulgence in apologetics (a general tendency that has been pointed out by Pmanderson among others). The motivation behind this sentence would seem to be a desire to suggest that the Church is not "anti-science". I'm fine with making that point but this is not "history" per se, this should be discussed elsewhere. The sentence that Marauder40 proposes is an improvement but I would like to see it placed somewhere else in the article such as "Cultural influence". The real question here is whether the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is important to mention at all other than to serve the apologist agenda of defending against the "anti-science" charge. As I've said before, one problem this article has is a desire to stuff in text to defend against a whole litany of criticisms. This leads to the bloated article that we have now. We should create an article titled Catholic Church and science and have only a brief summary here that links to that article. --Richard S (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard I think you are starting to give in to the motive assignment that others on here are doing. Don't worry about why a line is here just whether something belongs or not. The line and other lines in the Present column can just as easily be there because someone found out what they thought was an interesting fact or something in the news and decided to put it in the article (i.e. the newly inserted line in the Present section on the Anglican outreach.) Over time it got modified to its current format. The History of why lines are the way the are should only be important in references to a previous FAR (or some other formal consensus discusion) if the line was specifically made that way due to a FAR. But I agree with you on that line probably shouldn't be there period. Marauder40 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, that required a healthy dollop of good faith. Sorry, but my ration of good faith is not quite that ample. I may not be as strident or uncivil as some other editors but I do have my opinions and I won't hesitate to call them as I see them. The main problem with the History section as I see it is the desire to include stuff to serve various agendas which, IMO, should be relegated to subsidiary articles. One of the most obvious examples is the whole discussion of Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge and the Holocaust. That whole discussion should be reduced to a paragraph consisting of a few sentences. (NB: I personally believe that the Pius XII and the Church did a lot to help Jews in the Holocaust. My edits to other articles on this topic provide ample evidence of that. I just don't think we need to get into the topic that deeply in this particular article.) --Richard S (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether it's easy or not, assuming good faith is important. What looks to you or me as pure neutrality will all too often honestly appear, to people who disagree with us, as "agendas" and "apologetics". And we may be misjudging their motives as well - that's normal human psychology on both sides. We'll make much more progress if we focus on content rather than motive. There's been more than enough drama related to this article as it is, without our contributing any more. EastTN (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Being an impatient sort, I have created Catholic Church and science. The next step is to for someone to write a good summary of the topic and insert it into the appropriate place in this article. --Richard S (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As we think about the new article, we should keep in mind the articles on related topics that already exist, such as Catholic Church and evolution, Relationship between religion and science, List of Christian thinkers in science, Faith and rationality and Science and the Bible. At the end of the day, we would like to have a coherent body of articles that make sense in context with each other. EastTN (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost in numbers

I think I must plead guilty to the introduction of too much analysis here regarding article size. I think it must be said that all the focus on the numbers should NOT distract from the purpose of the article, which is the "education of readers". Hence I think to balance all the number crunching here, another front needs to open, namely "what should the article teach the reader". My personal opinion is that the article is a VERY good introduction, except the long history section. A new reader with a non Catholic background should first be informed of a few things:

  • Where did this Church come from?
  • What do Catholic believe?
  • How is it structured?
  • What was its history?

And the article is already structured as such. So apart from the massive history section, the rest is really needed to inform the reader. And I think it is pretty well written. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should not turn into an exercise in statistics on text length. That analysis just gives us an idea of which topics we have the longest passages. If there are obvious anomalies we should fix them but we need not be slavishly bound by an analysis of the percentages. --Richard S (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality of writing

The purpose of our articles is not deciding how to "inform the reader"; that l is what leads to the production of propaganda, as it has here.
Does History2007 mean to praise such prose as This is held to be in fulfilment of, or is he supporting its general polemic dishonesty? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to never respond to me again.... sigh.... I was hoping for that.... I am going to pray for that again..... History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is an obligation to respond to such programs when they are made an entire section. Otherwise some partisan would declare this opposition to basic policies to be consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's not get caught up in sparring over semantics here. Of course we're trying to inform readers - otherwise we wouldn't be writing an encyclopedia. By doing it through Wikipedia, we've all agreed to do it in as neutral a way as possible. The challenge is that we all have our own biases, and we need to work through the inevitable disagreements. Let's also try and back off a bit on the personal accusations. Statements like This is held to be in fulfillment of . . . may need to be qualified (e.g., This has traditionally been held by many Catholics to be in fulfillment of . . .), and we need to identify them. But accusing each other of bad faith and tarring the entire article as fundamentally biased doesn't help. We need to identify specific sentences and paragraphs and talk about them. Otherwise all we're doing is annoying each other. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that I choose This is held to be in fulfillment of as an example of the prose; it is not (particularly) POV - it is merely abominable writing, with its quasi-scientific passive and its unnecessary abstract noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's be more compassionate regarding writing style. The problem is finding different ways of saying "Catholics believe..." and "the Church teaches...". If, in an effort to avoid repeating those phrases umpteen times, an editor has chosen a locution that seems stilted, then let's fix it but let's at least understand from whence these locutions come. (or,more colloquially, "where these locutions come from"). --Richard S (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we are trimming the history section...

I've been reading some of this section. I hadn't realised just how bad it is. Duplicate sentences, unreferenced claims, stuff all over the place. Truly dire. Anyway, i'm working away at some of it, and i came across this:
"Some historians argue that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the Catholic Church with acts committed by secular rulers.[313][314][315] Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.[310][316"
As a lay person my immediate reaction is that this makes a ridiculous comparison between secular court outcomes, trying criminal matters, and the inquisition, which was a doctrinal investigation. The notion that a body is lenient because it puts fewer people to death for non-Catholic religious beliefs than for, say, murder or theft, is too bizarre for words. I propose that all the above quote be deleted. This would allow the bare facts to stand without such wierd commentary. Not to mention the added virtue of shortening the bloated history section. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. Notes on the cited sources. There are three separate sources involved in these footnotes:

  • One - John Vidmar (notes 310 and 315) - might best not be regarded as an independent source in this context - he is a Catholic university scholar, a dominican, and the particular source is published by a church organisation. As i have commented in other contexts, this would be OK for some facts, but not for an evaluation of how good or bad the chruch was during the reformation. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A second - Edward Norman - is also a conservative Catholic scholar. Not an inherent issue - we should faithfully represent the range of views in general - but i think he is somewhat fringe on this issue. Consider this remark from a review of his book on the church: "Norman has boundless sympathy for his subject. This is not the place to look for an account of the decadence of the Borgia popes, still less the controversy over Pius XII's conduct during the Second World War. He even manages to shift the blame for the Inquisition by depicting it as a legacy of the 12th century Islamic heresy courts and insisting that it was far more enlightened than the secular courts of its time." We should not be oblivious to source POVs. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The third source- Morris - makes a much more cautious remark that does not warrant the interpretation currently laid out in the WP article.

Once again, i recommend deletion, not tinkering, and certainly not expansion to cover "the range of views". The place for that is papal inquisition or Spanish Inquisition. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is Historical revision of the Inquisition, but there were squeals of outrage when I suggested a link there, so like other readers, you remain unaware of the article. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You will find this section has been under discussion for some weeks - see above. I was supposed to be producing a new draft, which I did start but now seem to have lost, but this page is currently just too depressing to follow, & I lack the sources to reference the section, which has other issues - not making clear enough the different types of inquisition, for example. I think you misunderstand what the passage is saying: sometimes the inquisition imposed its own sentences, and sometimes it found them guilty and handed them over to the "secular arm" for sentencing. Heresy was at various times and places a criminal offence, and other charges were often involved; this is not very clear, I agree. The passage as it stands is not good, as has been pointed out before. Vidmar, and Norman, have been much discussed before; in this case I think they accurately reflects the fashion among modern historians to counterbalance older accounts of inquisitions. If there are duplicated sentences it is because the whole section has been buggered about so much; at one point it was at least all coherent, and considerably over-referenced imo. The inquisition is one of things the popular mind in the Anglosphere most associates with the medieval history of the Church, so I think it does deserve rather more space than a straight historical account might give it. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've already been admonished once for describing parts of this article as indulging in apologetics but I have to say that this is another example of what I've been talking about. I haven't read all of Historical revision of the Inquisition but I do at least agree with this sentence: "Because the inquisitorial process was not based on tolerant principles and doctrines such as freedom of thought and freedom of religion that became prominent in Western thinking during the eighteenth century, modern society has an inherent difficulty in understanding the inquisitorial institutions." This is why we need to discuss the Inquisitions with some nuanced detail. Not the specifics of each Inquisition but an expanded explanation of the historiography of the Inquisition. (i.e. an inclusion of the revised perspective discussed in Historical revision of the Inquisition)

However, I will point out that Historical revision of the Inquisition also says " Investigations usually involved a legal process, the goal of which was to obtain a confession and reconciliation with the Church from those who were accused of heresy or of participating in activities contrary to Church Canon law. The objectives of the inquisitions were to secure the repentance of the accused and to maintain the authority of the Church. Inquisitions were conducted with the collaboration of secular authorities. If an investigation resulted in a person being convicted of heresy and unwillingness to repent punishment was administered by the secular authorities."

Now let us look at the current article text which says "Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading some scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period." What does this mean? Are we saying that 99% of those tried admitted their heresy and recanted thereby escaping the death penalty? I fear that we are trying to provide an apology for the Inquisition as not being bloodthirsty like the Terror during the French Revolution and glossing over the use of interrogation, torture and the threat of the death penalty to coerce religious conformity. Sometimes a great lie can be told by telling a partial truth. This seems to be one of those situations.

I would prefer not to try and excuse the Inquisition in this particular way; it seems intellectually dishonest to me. I would prefer a more straightforward explanation of the social context of the Inquisition (along the lines of the sentence quoted above from Historical revision of the Inquisition which starts "Because the inquisitorial process was not based...") I think we just need to understand that religious conformity was considered far more important to peace and civil tranquility than it is today. If this is so hard to understand, consider that McCarthyism was a form of political inquisition and that was only half a century ago. The Communists had their own style of political inquistion as well. We are not so much more civilized than our forebears as we would like to think.

--Richard S (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How far is too far?

It seems that various sections are getting trimmed quite rapidly now. The trims seem ok in many cases, but I feel the trend is about to result in a starvation diet - not a great thing. I think it is still the history section that needs trimming, not elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the history section needs trimming to almost non-existence because there is already an article solely on the history of the Catholic Church. Just take a look at other comparable articles. If a section of it is big enough for it's own article, then the section gets cut to little more than one sentence, referring people to the other article. That's what it should be here too. This article is about what the Catholic Church is anyway, not how it came to be what it is.Farsight001 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As usual, the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes. There needs to be an "overview of history" but clearly it is too heavy now, as the stats above show. E.g. Council of Constance, formation of San Francisco & LA (really? like LA is a major Catholic hub these days?) are probably not relevant. But I think the trimming elsewhere should probably stop until the history section is reviewed and trimmed, then an overall assessment can take place. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to trim the fat, the bulk of what I trimmed was either repeated elsewhere in the article or non-essential to the point of this article and covered elsewhere on wiki. The page actually loads quicker now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but much fat remains in history. History2007 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll take another look at it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Are we not all on board with this? What good is it to edit out fluff and non-essentials better covered elsewhere if it keeps getting put back in? Reminds me of this neighbor I had named Seamus, he was a packrat, type you'd see on Hoarders. Basement and garage packed so full of crap, his wife hired a dumpster and paid 4 guys to clean it out when he went fishing for a weekend. He came home from fishing, didn't make a scene, but calmly took every last piece of junk from that 18 yard dumpster and placed it back in his basement. I am not removing essentials, but trying to edit this ungodly mess, summary-style. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck it. Good luck, I'm outta here!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between a TRIM (ie keeping the range of coverage in the article, while reducing the verbiage and excess detail), and Butchery - ie removal of major referenced sections of the article covering extremely important events and issues. Some people seem to be confusing this. A trim requires care, effort and compromise. Removing major areas of content, developed over years and months without full agreement is just not on. Xandar 00:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Butchery is a term used by people with problems of ownership.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. If an article has been assembled by a large number of people over years, often in response to suggestions, complaints, compromise and debate, someone coming in and just chopping whole sections because they think they are irrelevant, is not going to be happily received. Do the same on USA or Russia and you are likely to get a poor response. Xandar 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Open questions and concerns

I have outlined some open questions and concerns below. I'd like to hear what other editors think.

"Giving people his word"

In the section on Jesus, sin and penance, the article says "It is taught that Jesus' mission on earth included giving people his word and his example to follow, as recorded in the four Gospels."

Well, being a Catholic, I understand what this means and so too would any Christian who has spent any time in church or Bible study. However, to a non-Christian, "giving people his word" might be something less than comprehensible. First of all, my inclination would be to capitalize "his Word" as the colloquial meaning of "giving someone your word" is to make a promise. Is that what is meant by this sentence? I don't think so. I'm unclear as to what we mean to say here because "Word" has so much meaning overloaded onto it that I'm not sure if the original author meant "his word" or "his Word". For example, There is this huge discussion about Jesus being "the Word" (ho logos) and the Bible being the "Word of God".

I'd like to hear what other people think about this. The sentence needs to be fixed but I'm not sure how to do it.

P.S. Subsections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 in the "Beliefs" section use a very florid style that takes on the tone of something that is either catechizing or proselytizing (i.e. it's what one might expect to find in catechetical material or in a proselytizing tract). It's not quite an encyclopedic tone. Any ideas on how to fix this?

--Richard S (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The English for logoi is "sayings", possibly "preaching". Check to see if this is a copyvio from a catechism.
As for Word, we can leave that to Christianity, unless we wish to assert that Catholicism reads the Gospel of Saint John differently than other Christians.
One of the endemic problems of this article is failure to remember that this is part of an encyclopedia, and what is important is to make sure that Wikipedia as a whole has everything notable and verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sacrament of confirmation

In this section, the article says "Through the sacrament of Confirmation, Catholics believe they receive the Holy Spirit."

Once again, as a Catholic, I understand what this means to say. However, for a non-Christian, this could be read differently. What does this say about what happens between baptism and confirmation? Has the baptized but unconfirmed Christian received the Holy Spirit? I would say "Yes, he has but at confirmation the Holy Spirit endows the confirmand with a fuller understanding of one's faith and one's relationship to God and the Church".

Anyone else have an opinion on this sentence?

--Richard S (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

At least reverse it. Through modifies receive, not believe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Liturgy of the Hours

Is this section really vital to this article? I would advocate removing the entire section. The Liturgy of the Hours is mentioned and linked to in the next section Devotional life and prayer --Richard S (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, being bold, I just deleted the section. If you feel strongly that it should be kept, revert me and then let's discuss it here. --Richard S (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was a good call. Happy with it gone from this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Consecrated life

I think the discussion of "Tertiaries and oblates" is excessive detail for an article of this scope and should be dropped. I would reduce the section to just the lead sentence and thus the last two sections of the "Consecrated life" section would now read:

Tertiaries and "Oblates (regular)" are laypersons who live according to the third rule of orders such as those of the Secular Franciscan Order or Lay Carmelites, either within a religious community or outside.[1] The Church recognizes several other forms of consecrated life, including secular institutes, societies of apostolic life and consecrated widows and widowers.[2] It also makes provision for the approval of new forms.[3]

Comments?

--Richard S (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and made the proposed edit. More trimming could be achieved by dropping even these two sentences. --Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

I hesitate to ask this because the answer will probably make the article longer but here goes anyway...

The article text reads "The consequent estrangement led to the creation of the papal states and the papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800. This ultimately created a new problem as successive Western emperors sought to impose an increasingly tight control over the popes."

There are dots that are not connected here. How exactly does the estrangement "lead to the creation of the Papal States"? Also why does the papal coronation of Charlemagne lead to the problem of successive Western emperors seeking to impose control over the popes?

I think I know the answer to the second one. Once the pope claims the right to crown the secular ruler, then secular rulers seek to control the pope to make sure he crowns the "right" secular ruler. However, this is not obvious to someone who is not already familiar with the history of that period. We need to spell it out for the average reader.

--Richard S (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It led to the pope acting as an independent sovereign, with the assistance of the Kings of the Franks; Pippin conferred (much of) the Papal States on the Roman See. Need more dots? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, but the dots are so weakly linked that I think this bears more discussion. Here's the relevant passage from the article...
From the 8th century, Iconoclasm, the destruction of religious images, became a major source of conflict in the eastern church.[261][262] Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V strongly supported Iconoclasm, while the papacy and the western church remained resolute in favour of the veneration of icons. In 787, the Second Council of Nicaea ruled in favor of the iconodules but the dispute continued into the early 9th century.[262] The consequent estrangement led to the creation of the papal states and the papal coronation of the Frankish King Charlemagne as Emperor of the Romans in 800. This ultimately created a new problem as successive Western emperors sought to impose an increasingly tight control over the popes.[263][264]
Now, I'm not an expert in this or any other period of Church history but the problem I see is that the above text suggests that the Papal States were created and Charlemagne was crowned as a consequence of the estrangement between the East and West over the theological dispute over iconoclasm. This is sort of true but in a very indirect way.
What I found interesting is that the creation of the Papal States are actually not mentioned much in History of Christianity or History of the Catholic Church. It isn't until we look at History of the Papacy that we see a discussion of how the Papal States were created by the Donation of Pepin. This is is almost Rashomon-like in the way the same period is described in different ways by different articles with an important event (the creation of the Papal States) being omitted in two of the four major treatments of the period.
Moreover, this article makes it sound as if a theological dispute over iconoclasm led to the creation of the papal states and the coronation of Charlemagne. I'm sorry but this really sounds strange to me. As far as I can tell from reading History of the Papacy and the Donation of Pepin, what was really going on was geopolitical in nature rather than theological.
I don't doubt that theological differences contributed to the estrangement of East and West but, as far as I can tell from reading the Donation of Pepin, the real issue is the fact that the Lombards conquered the Exarchate of Ravenna, the main seat of Byzantine government in Italy, whose Patriarch held territorial power as the representative of the Eastern Roman emperor, independent of the Pope. So, to counteract the Lombards and to avoid paying tribute to Aistulf, Pope Stephen II goes to Gaul and talks to the Franks.
Pepin the Short agrees to help and also agrees to give the Roman Pontiff a sizable chunk of territory which forms the beginnings of the Papal States. None of that narrative is presented in this article.
I know we're trying to shorten the article so I am not proposing that we go into this in great detail but I think we need a more accurate summary than the one currently presented in the article.
--Richard S (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Present

The last paragraph of the article reads as follows:

In politics, the Church actively encourages support for candidates who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity" which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, welcoming and support for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion.[4]

First of all, this is sourced to the USCCB and therefore we have no proof that this is the position of the whole Church. Also the source is effectively a primary document. A secondary source would be preferable.

However, those points are just a question of sourcing. My real concern is that whether this should really be the last paragraph of the article and whether it is that important to mention as part of the description of the Church in the present. To warrant keeping this paragraph, I think we would have to show that there is a deliberate increase in involvement of the Church in politics across multiple countries (e.g. in the U.S., Canada and Europe at least). Even then, it seems like an abrupt way to end the article.

--Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It also is a drastic simplification of the Church's long and conflicted interaction with democratic politics, which now (although not in the past) includes an active opposition to priests running for elective opposition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I got rid of the sentence. It might be worth presenting this info but I think we need a fuller exposition of the relationship of the Church to governments. --Richard S (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: You've been doing a great job trimming the fat on this, Richard! I'd love to help out but there's an individual or two whos edits make my blood pressure surge. Keep up the good work!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
My comment is that you are doing a great job, but now the section may be to short. Need some things that the church is doing at present but doesn't smack of recentism. Not sure what those things are yet. Probably need to define "Present" as either 2000 - current or maybe say 1980s - Present (1980 was arbitrary picked as a year that gave Vatican II time to stabilize since there is an entire section on Vatican II.)Marauder40 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What next?

Thanks for the kudos but my problem is... I'm pretty much done and all I've managed to trim is 10,000 bytes from a total of 203,000. Anybody have ideas on what we should do next? --Richard S (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole paragraph on missions in California which is way too detailed for this article (especially considering the poor job the article does in general on missions in the Americas). I've been trying to get this taken out or modified for years now. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A quick list of other things we could cut
  • Eucharist is too detailed and likely can be trimmed
I'll take a look at this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • devotional life and prayer seems not to need an entire section - I suspect that most of this can be moved to a sub article
trimmed it back and put it in appropriate section
  • There is much too much info on the English Reformation
  • The whole paragraph on the dissolution of the Jesuits is uncited and may be too detailed for this article
I say lose it, see below "Age of Discovery"--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The French Revolution info is probably too detailed
I say lose it--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Does Benedict need to be mentioned in the history section or can he just be mentioned in the discussion of Popes? If we need to keep him in the history section, then I think the only thing we need to say n the history section is that he was elected in 2005. The present section in general can be axed and the one line on Benedict moved into the "Second Vatican Council and beyond section"
I second this! Present can be axed!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The section on Vatican II is too long. I think there is too much detail on liberation theology, and too much on the sexual revolution and other Church rulings on sex and its consequences.
I would say lose paragraphs 3 and 5 altogether.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Mike, the South American missions and reductions are important and need to be included. The same goes for some modern history, and the Liberation Theology issue. I certainly oppose drastic elimination of entire referenced sections of the article. There is a BIG difference between trimming of excess verbiage and detail, and the butchery of whole sections, some of which are there in the first place as a result of complaints and objections to their exclusion. Let's take it SLOW, and reduce wordage through tighter but balanced coverage of the issues, without eliminating significant referenced content. Xandar 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to publish Xandar's rants; please remove the entire section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Age of Discovery

This seemed to run on and repeat itself unnecesarrily.

Just before the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Ottoman Empire in 1453,[5] in an effort to combat the spread of Islam, Pope Nicholas V granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452). Several decades later European explorers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal[6] and the ensuing patronato system allowed state authorities, not the Vatican, to control all clerical appointments in the new colonies.[7] Although the Spanish monarchs tried to curb abuses committed against the Amerindians by explorers and conquerors,[8] Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar, openly rebuked the Spanish rulers of Hispaniola in 1511 for their cruelty and tyranny in dealing with the American natives.[9][10] King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. The issue resulted in a crisis of conscience in 16th-century Spain[10][11] and, through the writings of Catholic clergy such as Bartolomé de Las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria, led to debate on the nature of human rights[10] and to the birth of modern international law.[12][13] Enforcement of these laws was lax, and some historians blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians; others point to the Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples.[14] Nevertheless, Amerindian populations suffered serious decline due to new diseases, inadvertently introduced through contact with Europeans, which created a labor vacuum in the New World.[8]
In 1521 the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan made the first Catholic converts in the Philippines.[15] Elsewhere, Portuguese missionaries under the Spanish Jesuit Francis Xavier evangelized in India, China, and Japan.[16] Church growth in Japan came to a halt in 1597 under the Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu who, in an effort to isolate the country from foreign influences, launched a severe persecution of Christians or Kirishitan's.[17] An underground minority Christian population survived throughout this period of persecution and enforced isolation which was eventually lifted in the 19th century.[17][18] The Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in China in 1721.[19]

Strongly disagree. Removal of material on Latin American missions would severely disable the articles usefulness and comprehensiveness. This is an article on the WORLD church. Xandar 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This section should not rate more than 2 paragraphs, if it even belongs here. Strip it down, summarize it and see what happens, is it not covered in Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is that this article needs to be balanced and comprehensive, which means covering significant events and issues in proportion to their weight as covered by the sources. I'm not opposed to concise coverage, but there needs to be enough to make sense. As I said before, this article is not just available on web wikipedia but is distributed in other forms where link articles may not be available. Xandar 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be inclined to keep most of the above-quoted text except for the discussion of Christianity in Japan and China. (i.e. keep the sentence about Francis Xavier but drop the sentences following that one). As an Asian with ties to both countries, I am personally interested in both but, given our desire to trim the article, I think the details should be presented in subsidiary articles that we link to. --Richard S (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar restored text in the "Age of Discovery" section with this edit. I am inclined to keep the discussion of the Amerindian missions but I would remove the material about the Jesuit reductions and the suppression of the Jesuits. --Richard S (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Frequency of "Catholic" & "Church"

I wanted to comment that I personally find the considerable frequency of the words "Catholic" and "Church" very tedious. I have removed some completely unecessary repetitions in the past but believe the article would read much better if the use of these two words could be significantly reduced. If any editors feel the same way and up to the task at present I would encourage them to do so. Afterwriting (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Running the stats again

I think it may be a good idea to rerun the size stats now that various trims have taken place. That will provide a better idea of the relative sizes, etc. for trims to stop or continue, etc. It should use the same scripts as before for consistency. I am not sure what the scripts were, so I will have to leave it to KaranaCS and/or Richard who ran them before. Thanks.History2007 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be a beancounter in real-life. My edits (some of which were reverted) amounted to no more than 4% of the total. There is not likely to be any significant shift in the numbers and what shifts there are will tell you little because this should not be an exercise in numbers at that level of detail. If we can get the article down to 150kb, then rerunning the numbers might be of some value. Until then, it would be far better to focus on content. --Richard S (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There were two errors there in Richard. First I am not a beancounter, secondly who said I exist in real-life? I may be an advanced chatbot programmed by my clever designer just to edit these pages in order to win the Turing test. Well, he fooled you so far, until you noticed that computer like numbers. However, given that the "Present" section has disappeared altogether and other sections have hardly been trimmed, the numbers may still say something, e.g. that the High Middle Ages section is still too large. History2007 (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Eucharist section

Eucharist

The Church holds that Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper
See also: Eucharist (Catholic Church), Catholic liturgy, and Sacraments of the Catholic Church

The Eucharist is celebrated at each Mass and is the center of Catholic worship.[20][21] The Words of Institution for this sacrament are drawn from the Gospels and a Pauline letter.[22] Catholics believe that at each Mass, the bread and wine become supernaturally transubstantiated into the true Body and Blood of Christ. The Church teaches that Jesus established a New Covenant with humanity through the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist,[23] there are strict rules about its celebration and reception. The ingredients of the bread and wine used in the Mass are specified and Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion.[24] Those who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin are forbidden from this sacrament unless they have received absolution through the sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance).[24] Catholics are not permitted to receive communion in Protestant churches because of their different beliefs and practices regarding Holy Orders and the Eucharist.[25]

That seems much clearer to me and will probably be more accessible to non-Catholics. I like the proposal. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an entire separate piece on Eucharist which can and should include the greater detail.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I restored the sentence on the continuity of the Eucharist, which I believe to be important. Xandar 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, then maybe it doesn't belong in the Eucharist article if it's covered here? Mever mind, that article is written worse than this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You restored this: "In its main elements and prayers, the Catholic Mass celebrated today, according to professor Alan Schreck, is "almost identical" to the form described in the Didache and First Apology of Justin Martyr in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries.[132][133] ." That may be the only "fact" I have issue with in this whole piece. It is not almost identical, that is one man's take on it and it applies undue weight to his point of view. Even if I concede and say, it's "factual enough for wiki" it belongs more in the Mass section than in the Eucharist section. I still doubt that Justin Martyr saw clipped haired former female gym teachers in pants suits distributing the precious blood to folks in cargo shorts while the presbytyr sits in the chair and watches this all go on.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the restored text about the Mass today being "almost identical" could be deleted and presented in a subsidiary article on the Eucharist or the Mass. It's an important point but not necessarily for this article.

In addition, I would delete these two sentences : "The ingredients of the bread and wine used in the Mass are specified and Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion. Those who are conscious of being in a state of mortal sin are forbidden from this sacrament unless they have received absolution through the sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance)." This is excessive detail and does not need to be presented in this article. It belongs in the Eucharist (Catholic Church). --Richard S (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard and Mike here. The sentence that Xandar restored may make sense to many Catholics, but I suspect there is not enough context for many non-Catholics and some Catholics to understand what it means. This is the type of detail that doesn't need to be in this article, although it can be included in the article on the Eucharist or Mass if the editors of those articles agree. And, per Richard's point, this article is not a how-to - we don't need all of the details on what happens, just a general overview for those unfamiliar with the sacrament. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberation Theology

Xandar restored the section on Liberation Theology with this edit.

I agree with Xandar that it is important to mention Liberation Theology but perhaps a more concise description could be drafted.

Here's the original text:

In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a movement often identified with Gustavo Gutiérrez who was pivotal in expounding the melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching. A cornerstone of the Liberation Theology were ecclesial base communities, groups uniting clergy and laity in social and political action. Although the movement garnered some support among Latin American bishops, it was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. At the 1979 Conference of Latin American Bishops in Puebla, Mexico, Pope John Paul II and conservative bishops attending the conference attempted to rein in the more radical elements of liberation theology; however, the conference did make a formal commitment to a "preferential option for the poor".[394] Archbishop Óscar Romero, a supporter of the movement, became the region's most famous contemporary martyr in 1980, when he was murdered by forces allied with the government of El Salvador while saying Mass.[395] In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today, although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in much of the region.[396]

I would reduce this to:

In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching which united clergy and laity in social and political action. Although the movement garnered some support among Latin American bishops, it was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today.[396]

In particular, the mention of the "challenge of Pentecostalism" is a bit of a non sequitur here.

--Richard S (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the condensation, however I have tweaked it as follows, since the 1979 declaration has been considered significant by commentators.
In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology, a melding of Marxism and Catholic social teaching which united clergy and laity in social and political action. Although Latin American bishops voted in 1979 to make a formal commitment to a "preferential option for the poor", the movement itself was never officially endorsed by any of the Latin American Bishops’ Conferences. In Managua, Nicaragua, Pope John Paul II criticized elements of Liberation Theology and the Nicaraguan Catholic clergy's involvement in the Sandinista National Liberation Front. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement.[396] Pope John Paul II maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[397] Liberation Theology is still alive in Latin America today.[396] Xandar 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Xandar's version is OK, but I would remove the sentence "Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) have denounced the movement" (but retaining the inline cites) as excessive detail - the preceding sentence, with the two cites, is sufficient to indicate that there has been some Papal criticism. Does anyone object to me implementing this? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No objection from me. Xandar 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Trimming this article

I re-read this article line-by-line and managed to reduce it from 203,000 bytes to 195,000 bytes (assuming no one reverts my deletions). I have to confess that many of the complaints that I voiced earlier turned out to have been addressed already. For example, the previously lengthy discussion of the Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge/Holocaust has been reduced to 4 sentences. It's hard to see how that could be reduced much more.

I do see a little more trimming that could be done in the last section titled "Present". The mention of the "new ecclesiastical structures" to accomodate converts from the Anglican Church could be dropped. In addition, the very last paragraph which starts with "In politics, ..." could also be dropped.

Other than that, I really don't see much more that could be deleted except for a few sentences here and there.

--Richard S (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think in the digital age worrying about a sentence here or there is just "worrying" with no real result, e.g. see the article yesterday [10] on how in the age of clay tablets every word could be worried about but these days, here now, gone in a few seconds.... An IP will come out of nowhere and change in 3 months anyway.... History2007 (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that trimming 10 sentences out of the whole article has very little effect on the total size of the article. My edits only reduced the article size by 4%. However, as I re-read the article last night, I could only find parts of one or two sections to delete entirely. Everything else was a sentence here, a sentence there.
Maybe I'm too much of an inclusionist and we need someone with a more radical deletion "knife" to excise more text.
What I'd like to hear from other editors is "Where do we cut?" Should we go after the lengthy quotes in the footnotes? This will cut total load time for viewing and editing but will not have any effect on the "readable prose" of the main article text.
I don't think it's worth going after the "Notes" section. If we removed all the Notes, we would only cut the article size by 8000bytes maximum and none of that would have been counted as "readable prose" anyway.
At this point, I think we need to move away from generalities and get down to "brass tacks" with nominations of specific sections and subsections to delete or trim.
--Richard S (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Present

Xandar restored the "Present" subsection in the "History" section with this edit.

Below is my sentence-by-sentence analysis...

"The Pope remains an international leader who regularly receives heads of state from around the world."
I dunno. This seems trite to me. This isn't "history", it's about the Pope. Put it in that article.
"As the head of the Holy See, he occasionally addresses the United Nations where the Holy See is the only non-member observer state with all the rights of full membership except voting."
Same point as above. Put it in the article on the Pope and/or the article on the Holy See.
"The 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI saw a continuation of the policies of his predecessors. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love and re-emphasized marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission."
I would be OK with keeping this.
"Following outcry from Muslims over Pope Benedict's Regensburg address, in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor's remarks critical of Islam, a May 2008 summit between the pope and a delegation of Muslims came to an agreement that religion is essentially non-violent, and that violence can be justified neither by reason nor by faith."
This is debatable. It's definitely an example of recentism but we could keep it.
"In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church."
Definitely recentism. We don't know if this will ultimately amount to anything important.
" The Church also sponsors the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which provides the Pope with information on scientific matters[214] and whose international membership includes British physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates such as U.S. physicist Charles Hard Townes."
As previously argued, this isn't "history". Why is this important other than as a rebuttal to charges that the Church is anti-science? If that is the motivation, then let's do a better job and discuss it in "Cultural influence" or somewhere else other than in the "History" section.
"In politics, the Church actively encourages support for candidates who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity" which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, welcoming and support for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion."
Seems to me this needs some balance. After all, it's not as if this "active encouragement of support" is uncontroversial. Also, as I said previously, this is U.S. centric. Unless we can document that this is an international phenomenon, then this belongs in Catholic Church and politics in the United States.

--Richard S (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Holy See at the UN, there is already a separate article, Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system. -- Bonifacius 07:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the pre-present section from VaticanII onwards is pretty long too. There are ALL kinds of details here, e.g I just trimmed the names of 2 physicists who report to the Pope! Hello? We are fighting over space here and does it really matter which physicist gets a blessing? I think the Regensburg address is also a storm in a tea cup that is best forgotten. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
On that note, someone reverted and put back the physicist names, I see no need fo rthem. I also added 9 characters as a link to Mariology and that was objected to - petty bickering really. I think a link to the general concept of Mariology is appropriate when Mary is discussed for those who arrive on this page need to just get familiar with the term. History2007 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your point about the structures created by the Vatican for defecting Anglicans. I said it at the time it was added, as I remember in a tide of enthusiasm from Xandar and Yorkshirian that some 'stray sheep' may be 'coming home'. I think it would be better to wait until some actually do. Regensburg could definely go now as well. Haldraper (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, your memory seems to be short-circuiting. I would love to be directed to the post where I sais that stray sheep were coming home.
Richard, going through your points
  1. The sentence regarding the pope as an international leader is important as a summation of a historic review that brings us up to the present. Without it, we are left in limbo as to the current situation.
  2. Addressing the UN could go, or be merged with the sentence above.
  3. I agree with keeping the Deus Caritas est sentences
  4. I'm unsure about Regensberg. It is not perhaps a big an event as it seemed at the time, however Catholic/Muslim conflict/relations remains an important ongoing issue around the world, and mentioning it in some manner seems advisable.
  5. New structures for Anglicans. Again, it is a significant development in church terms.
  6. Pontifical Academy. I would agree to moving this to Cultural Influences.
  7. Political support for pro-life, family life etc. candidates is pretty worldwide in application, and quite a significant matter, since these issues (abortion, euthanasia, minority rights etc) engender a lot of anti-Church opposition and conflict. Xandar 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
re point #1 ("the Pope as international leader"), I would be OK with the text if we present his current status as "international leader" in the context of the past 130 years (since Vatican I and the loss of the Papal States). My original reaction was, "Yawn, so what... that hasn't changed in the last 40 years since I became a Catholic". However, if we consider the turmoil of the first half of the 20th century (loss of Papal States, WWII, secularization of the West, etc.), it is certainly remarkable that the Pope is still relevant today. John XIII, Paul VI and John Paul II are responsible for keeping the Catholic Church relevant (in different ways). Of course, we would have to find a reliable source that says this. Can anyone help?
Re point #3 "Deus Caritas est", I could keep it or lose it. I think it would be better to have a longer paragraph about Benedict XVI in general (what seem to be his objectives, what's he done, what are his plans) and not focus on "Deus Caritas est". Partly, because when I read our article on it, I find it boring. Is it notable for anything other than being Benedict's first encyclical? If we don't mention every encyclical ever issued, then why do we mention this one? Just because it's Benedict's first one and we don't have anything else interesting to say?
Re points #4 & #5 Instead of focusing on Regensberg and the new structures for Anglicans, why not write a paragraph or section on interfaith relations. We have an effort to reach out to the Muslims (after the Church pissed them off), efforts to reach out to the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and a move to accomodate defecting Anglicans. Really, all this is an extension of the ecumenism of Vatican II. Which is not to say that the Catholic Church has exactly the same approach to interfaith relations now that it had in the 1960s. Presumably that has evolved. What we need to do is to explain how it has evolved. If we could find a reliable source that synthesises these various interfaith relationships into a single analysis, that would be great.
Re point #7. you wrote "these issues (abortion, euthanasia, minority rights etc) engender a lot of anti-Church opposition and conflict." Yes... but we don't say that. We also don't say that much of the anti-Church opposition and conflict is precisely because of the involvement in politics. There are many (including some Catholics) who would assert that separation of Church and state suggests the Church should not meddle in imposing its moral standards on others via the legal system (of which politicians are a part) and via excommunication and withholding of the Eucharist. IMO, if we are going to mention this "political support" bit, then we should reword it to present what the whole phenomenon is and how it is received instead of throwing out this one innocuous little sentence which, while true, runs the risk of "telling a big lie by telling only a partial truth".
--Richard S (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar,

"Haldraper, your memory seems to be short-circuiting. I would love to be directed to the post where I sais that stray sheep were coming home."

Maybe my memory let me down there, I'm pretty sure Yorkshirian said this but if you didn't I apologise.

"The sentence regarding the pope as an international leader is important as a summation of a historic review that brings us up to the present. Without it, we are left in limbo as to the current situation."

Really? I thought he'd abolished it :-) Haldraper (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think the Vatican II / present section is too long. I have made one suggestion in a separate section of the talk page, above, re a superfluous sentence in the passage on liberation theology. A couple of other points:
  • "The sexual revolution of the 1960s precipitated Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (On Human Life) which rejected the use of contraception, including sterilization, asserting that these work against the intimate relationship and moral order of husband and wife by directly opposing God's will." I think the whole last phrase can be removed, with a full stop after "sterilization". People who want more detail can always click through to Humanae Vitae.
  • Can other editors explain why we would accept Bokenkotter as a reliable source on controversial matters of church teaching and policy? He is a pastor within the church and presumably representing an official view. i would want different, independent, source(s) for the following elements, currently cited solely to Bokenkotter:
  • "Abortion was condemned by the Church as early as the first century, again in the fourteenth century..." (the contemporary point probably fine)
  • Wierdly, as the only cite for a whole section on liberation theology. i would have thought there was significant scholarship in relation to this, from outside the church itself.
  • Bokenkotter is also relied upon in other sections, but i am confining my specific comments to the Vatical II etc section for now.
  • "In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church" What is this doing here? It seems like an awkward bit of recentist add-on. It does not represent a significant doctrinal shift, and so should not be in this overview article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
hamiltonstone, I and others have made this point numerous times. Fr. Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest, Eamon Duffy is a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission, Fr. McGonigle and John Vidmar are ordained members of a Catholic religious order, the Dominicans. The standard response is that they are reliable sources because they hold academic posts and have had books published (even if those posts are at Catholic universities which then publish their books). You will also be accused of wanting to exclude Catholic sources from this page. The simple answer is that WP:INDEPENDENT requires us to apply a different measure to those who are ordained or hold official posts in the Church (especially where the text relies solely on them) than, for example, Edward Norman and Anthony Rhodes, both well-respected historians and high-profile converts from Anglicanism to Catholicism, who are used as sources throughout. Haldraper (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I would see this as a deal-breaking issue at FA, which i belive is the goal of many editors here. i have written before that church sources are OK for reporting information about aspects of the church, such as describing doctrine or organisational structure. Even in these limited situations, however, they are only OK if other sources do not dispute that informaiton. Once there are other reliable sources disputing the data, the other sources are to be preferred over church sources.
So the question then is, as you note: what is a 'church source'? There are two ways in which a source would not be independent of the church:
  • If it is published by the church
  • If it is written by a holder of church office.
I would suggest these categories cover anything published by a Caholic University press, unless evidence can be presented that the press is free, both in principle and in practice, to publish material critical of the church and in contradiction of church teaching. The categories also cover any thing written by a pastor, priest etc within the church. There could be exceptions to this, but that would be my general view. I do not think there is a problem with citing material published in refereed sources by lay academics who work at Catholic universities. Applying the above principles, I think there are significant areas of the current article for which there is no third-party reliable source being quoted at all, let alone multiple sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Other Countries on Sex Abuse Cases by Catholic Priests

Editor Farsight001 reverted my edits adding links to wiki links to articles on sex abuse cases in Canada and other jurisdictions. This editor has previously reverted edits on Catholic sex abuse cases by replacing words confirming the problem is world wide with words suggesting it is limited to a few jurisdictions. See for example this edit by Farsight001:
# 08:44, 31 December 2009 (hist | diff) Catholic sex abuse cases ‎ (Undid revision 335070820 by Sturunner (talk)rv pov edits re-added with no explanation given. take to talk first)
203.129.49.145 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) :And? If you're just posting to complain about my edits, then you posted in the wrong place. We actually have a consensus that those things should not be mentioned in that place. This issue has been brought up in the past, which is why I (and others) removed it. It deserves mention in this article. Just not where it was put. Plus it's already mentioned last I checked. There is no need to slap it everywhere like you'd slap fragile stickers on a Fabergé egg you're mailing.Farsight001 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Stricken as requested by Farsight001 below. --Richard S (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I misspoke and mis-edited. I saw a similar sized paragraph with two links added, like there was to the paragraph I was ranting about above. I would strike the above if I knew how. Though that brings up another question - why are there so many articles on Catholic sex abuse? It seems that they should exist as one article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The primary (and most valid reason) for so many articles on Catholic sex abuse is that the main article was too long and so we needed subsidiary articles at the country and diocese level to get the details out of the main article. However, there is a problem that there are editors who feel that it is important to put in many details that I think are not relevant. In particular, there is one particular victim who feels it necessary to insert the monetary amount of his settlement as well as some other minor details of the case which he feels are important. I have pushed the principle that, for the most part, names of specific abusers, specific victims, and specific settlements need not be included in Wikipedia articles. I have had limited success in advocating this principle. --Richard S (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
we all wish you limited success. Your 'principle' only works to the advantage of the abusers. If the matter has been ruled upon in open court and a conviction entered on the public record its not for you to then create some'principle' by which the information is suppressed. That only makes it harder for institutions like this to reform the structural problems that lead to so much sexual abuse of children by priests in the first place.203.129.49.145 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Reformation Section

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Main articles: Protestant Reformation, English Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and Catholicism and the wars of religion

The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church from within. Catholics reformers opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.

In 1517, Martin Luther included his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter to several bishops.[26][27] His theses protested key points of Catholic doctrine as well as the sale of indulgences.[26][27] Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, and others further criticized Catholic teachings. These challenges developed into a large and all encompassing European movement called the Protestant Reformation.[28][29]

Whitby Abbey, England, one of hundreds of monasteries destroyed during the Reformation

The English Reformation under Henry VIII began more as a political than as a theological dispute. When the annulment of his marriage was denied by the pope, Henry had Parliament pass the Acts of Supremacy, 1534, which made him, and not the pope, head of the English Church.[30][31] Henry initiated and supported the confiscation and dissolution of monasteries, convents and shrines throughout England, Wales and Ireland.[30][32][33] Elizabeth I, {second Act of Supremacy, 1558} outlawed Catholic priests[34] and prevented Catholics from educating their children and taking part in political life.[35][36]

The Catholic Church responded to doctrinal challenges and abuses highlighted by the Reformation at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which became the driving force of the Counter-Reformation. Doctrinally, it reaffirmed central Catholic teachings such as transubstantiation, and the requirement for love and hope as well as faith to attain salvation.[37] It made structural reforms, most importantly by improving the education of the clergy and laity and consolidating the central jurisdiction of the Roman Curia.[37][38][39] New religious orders were a fundamental part of this trend. Orders such as the Capuchins, Ursulines, Theatines, Discalced Carmelites, the Barnabites, and especially the Jesuits strengthened rural parishes, improved popular piety, helped to curb corruption within the church, and set examples that would be a strong impetus for Catholic renewal. Organizing their order along a military model, the Jesuits strongly represented the autocratic zeal of the period. Characterized by careful selection, rigorous training, and iron discipline, the Jesuits ensured that the worldliness of the Renaissance Church had no part in their new order.

To popularize Counter-Reformation teachings, the Church encouraged the Baroque style in art, music and architecture.[40]

Toward the latter part of the 17th century, Pope Innocent XI reformed abuses that were occurring in the Church's hierarchy, including simony, nepotism and the lavish papal expenditures that had caused him to inherit a large papal debt.[41] He promoted missionary activity, tried to unite Europe against the Turkish invasion, prevented influential Catholic rulers (including the Emperor) from marrying Protestants but strongly condemned religious persecution.[41]

Not bad as a condensation. However the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too. Xandar 00:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's excessive detail that belongs in a separate article. Most of the stuff in these sections does. I do not disagree with much of what is being said (the tone may have an apologetic ring to it at times, but it's at the very least 90% accurate), but all of that extraneous stuff makes this piece excessively long and about as boring as a dog's ass. I think the separate individual articles need to be improved, with much of what has been put in here. This piece is simply too long and despite what I am sure are the best intentions of the editors involved, it does not do any service to the Church by being so unweildy. It needs to be summarized, there is too much unnecesarry detail. The byproduct of this is an article which does not inform because it cannot engage the reader. If you really want to improve this article, the key is to improve the seperate pieces and use the lede from those, here. Or just ignore suggestions from people who want to improve it...go and edit war, go through RFC's, take the personal attacks from snarky creeps, and scratch your head when this is still a B-Grade article 4 years from now.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well hopefully we can get it concise and comprehensive. The foundation of the Jesuits is a HIGHLY significant event though. Xandar 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar wrote "the work of the Jesuits and Teresa of Avila need to be in here too". The work of the Jesuit missionaries is mentioned in the "Age of Discovery" section. I am going to copy a couple of paragraphs from Counter-Reformation. It may be too long but let's discuss it and see what is really important to say.

Without taking away from the importance of Teresa of Avila as a saint and "Doctor of the Church", I don't see why it is important to mention her in the "History" section. --Richard S (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Richard. What makes Teresa of Avila so important that she much be mentioned in the article? Why is the foundation of the Jesuits so important? We must justify inclusion of facts in the article - not just trimming. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree Teresa can be cut, and the text above gives the Jesuits, who should certainly be in, enough at this level of condensation. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. With regard to the spirituality of the Church, Teresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux and John of the Cross are notable. History can be more than just political developements you know. I don't think our article includes enough of this kind of history and could do with some more mentions elsewhere. Although I think too much is being said in the first paragraph regarding Jewish law. This could be trimmmed a bit. NancyHeise talk 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Final Conclave

When I was in college (and now I'm dating myself), I read a book by Malachi Martin entitled "The Final Conclave". In this book, Martin describes the tension between the liberal/progressives and the conservative/traditionalists in the Church. Written in 1978, Martin's thesis was that the selection of the next Pope would be driven by this battle for the soul of the Church.

Well, here we are 32 years later, and we can look back and see how things have played out. Neither side has completely won although my personal take is that the conservatives have been more in the driver's seat than not. Liberation theology has definitely been smacked down.

The shift towards the conservative end of the spectrum is the work of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

What's my point? We don't really talk about this battle for the soul of the Church except that we do mention liberation theology and the traditionalists but the way the end of the history section is written, those issues could be considered by the reader as no more important than Regensberg and "structures for defecting Anglicans".

I think the Catholicism of the 1990s and the 21st century has a different face from the Catholicism of the 1960s in a bunch of different ways. Use of the vernacular in the mass, fewer white Europeans as a percentage of the whole, not so militantly leftist or even progressive, a focus on sexuality and its attendant moral issues, issues regarding adequate supply of clergy.

Now, the above is OR but I think we can find reliable sources who analyze the past quarter century or so of Church history and come up with a very similar list.

This is what I think the end of the article should be about instead of degenerating into a bunch of disconnected bits of recent news that lacks any unifying theme.

NB: In what I wrote above, I am not necessarily in favor of the conservatives or the liberals despite some indications of what my personal position might be. For the purposes of this article, I'm more interested in describing what happened than in advocating that one side should or should not have won.

--Richard S (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to feel the conservatives versus liberals thing is heavily overstated by commentators. Media groups and others tend to have a small cabal of "liberal catholics" who they can go to for rent-a-quotes to try to present a picture of a divided church. However I think the vast majority of clergy and active laity around the world are mainstream, and approve of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict. So the "battle for the soul of the Church" thing is over dramatic. We've seen this in protestant denominations, where liberals have dominated, the group seems to diminish and implode due to a lack of enthused believers in the pews. Whereas the more conservative groups flourish.
Vatican II was the big triumph of the Liberals - of whom both Popes Benedict and John Paul were numbered. But I believe this was always a top-down phenomenon, with liberal academics leading the movement, and a more reluctant laity following (or leaving). SO I don't think Liberals v Conservatives is a good theme to guide the final section. The Church versus secular power seems more a theme in the west, whilst elsewhere the Church's relations with other faiths would seem to be the central theme. Xandar 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Xandar. Richard, your proposal is very ORish. Since when has the Church not had groups of dissenters? These have existed since the beginning and have spawned all of the various offshoots of Catholicism since. The Church has never ordained women, it has never approved of abortion or birth control and has always had celibate priests - even before it became mandatory for the Western (but not Eastern) rite. These are the issues that are a thorn in the side to "liberal" (mainly US) Catholics but unless there has been some sort of impact on the Church because of their efforts I don't think its worth mentioning. We already mention the events that did have an impact by dissenters (the Reformation, Vatican II, etc.). I think that is all that's needed.NancyHeise talk 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentences

I take Richard's point about the consensus to include 'RCC' at the start of the lead - I personally think it could be left to the note to explain - but leaving that aside (and the church/demonination question) there is still too much information thrown in that could easily wait until the demographics section: is the number of Catholics (practicing and lapsed) as a percentage of Christians/the world's population really such an important fact that it has to be presented so prominently?

I therefore propose the following:

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian denomination with more than a billion members.[note 2] It is a communion of the Western, (or Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008."

Haldraper (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am on Richard' side here. A new reader can not be sent to Notes to know what the Roman Catholic Church is. There is so much extra in the article it does not make sense to economize on 5 words upfront. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of historical accuracy, we should be aware that History2007's comment is true but does not capture the real issue at hand here. There was a huge dispute as to whether this article should be title Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church. I won't go into the details but the compromise reached after a year of mediation and possibly a million bytes of Talk Page discussion was to title the article Catholic Church and mention both names in the lead sentence. Anything which breaches this compromise is likely to open up the old dispute and we will go around and around for months. As it is, I expect that someone will come along sooner or later to push one side of the dispute or another. Until then, however, I think it is better to let things lay dormant in the interest of peace. --Richard S (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for heaven's sake leave it. There are far too many undiscussed changes being made, which as we have seen from past experience, only causes trouble down the road. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually Richard, if you read the Long Island Expressway document[11] I wanted the article called Roman Catholic Church. But the inclusion of the RC term upfront is true in any case. My concern now is the same as Johnbod's in that the edit turmoil we are witnessing within this page now may spin out of control and result in a 2009 world crisis type situation. So I think everyone should try to calm their edits and do things by agreement. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read my proposed opening sentences you will see that both CC and RCC are retained - it is the comparisons between the number of Catholics (both practicing and lapsed) and the total number of Christians/world population that have been cut as unnecessarily prominent for the lead.Haldraper (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for deleting a few numbers (whose correctness no one disputes) and which give a perspective. Why delete those instead of all the other excess baggage elsewhere in the article? Who does it hurt to have these facts there? I find these facts informative. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about decluttering the lead here, I'm not disputing the facts just whether they need to be so prominent. The Catholic Church is the biggest Christian church with over a billion members. That's useful info that a general reader might come here looking for. But Catholics as a percentage of Christians/the world population? That kind of detail belongs in the demographics section.
There is another issue: unlike the lead, the demographics section makes clear that the 1.1 billion figure includes both practicing and lapsed members. I think if you want these figures to stay in the lead we need to make it clear there too. Haldraper (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that I did not know the ratios until I read it in this article. And I actually found it interesting. So I do not see it as "clutter" at all, but useful information. Clutter comes further in the article. The info about the formation of SF&LA is now thankfully gone, but there is clutter further in history. As for lapsed vs nonlapsed, that can of course be clarified, and I wonder how one counts these people anyway. Is there something like a Geiger counter that the priest holds to the head of a Catholic to determine how lapsed he/she is? Are there references for a catholic Geiger counter type device? But more seriously how do these numbers come up? History2007 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see no problem with teh act that there is no "faith meter" for Catholics, but is there one for Christians? If not, it should say number of lapsed Catholics or Christians is not known, for there could be more lapsed non-Catholics than Catholics, who knows? So please modify as such. Thanks. Then I wonder if given that there are physics Noble prize winners who report to the pope, if a few of them could be commissioned to make a faith meter (wink).... but that is another story.... History2007 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007, things are clearer here than you think. If like me you're been baptised a Catholic, then you're a Catholic. Those who follow the obligations of the faith set out in canon law (attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, confess mortal sins at least once a year) are practicing Catholics, those who don't are lapsed. Most other Christian churches do not have a similar codified way of measuring who is a practicing member so don't have the concept of 'lapsed members'.Haldraper (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I did not know it, I bet there are others who do not. But instead of clarifying there, I saw that there is actually a half-written article on lapsed Catholic, so it really needs a link. And the lapsed article seems lapsed itself, and needs a clean up. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • By that test, Martin Luther is a Catholic; and as for the test of practice, you may want to look up "Easter lily" on Urbandictionary (I heard it from an Anglican). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I am amazed, we actually agree on something PM. My prayers must be working.... But let me point out that these are rough numbers for all religions, e.g. Wikipedia says that Shinto currently has about 119 million known adherents in Japan. with an obscure reference to some LOC unnamed source. I really have no idea how one measures these things for either Shinto or Pentacostals, etc. By their nature, these are soft numbers, and Catholic numbers may be less soft than others due to a central office etc. (but that is a guess on my part, no sources). History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
My two cents: it's both appropriate and nornal to list the (approximate) number of adherents in the lead section; see the articles on Anglicanism and on the Orthodox Church. I have no strong opinion as to whether it belongs in the first sentence or later on in the lead section. Perhaps we should leave it as is for now. Majoreditor (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with leaving it as is, but not just for now, for a long while. There are just too many edits to the lead, with no noticeable improvements. These are soft numbers, of course, but most new readers would want to know it. Personally, I did not know that Catholics are 1/6 of the world population (until I read it here) because I had not divided the two numbers, so it is useful information. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree too. The article info on church membership reflects what every source on the Catholic Church also says. Its in every encyclopedia on the subject. It would be very weird for us to exclude it for obvious POV reasons. NancyHeise talk 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pope John Paul I-Did He Exist?

The extent to which this article has degenerated into propaganda for this sect is reflected by the fact that Pope John Paul I is not even mentioned, despite the immense significance of his death in 1978 in terms of highlighting problems with the catholic Church. I added this referenced sentence: In 1978 Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office and unsubstantiated rumours continue of his plans to embrace such ideological change and dismiss senior Vatican officials over allegations of corruption.ref: George Gregoire. Murder in the Vatican: The Revolutionary Life of John Paul and The CIA, Opus Dei and the 1978 Murders. AuthorHouse. 4th edition (2008) ISBN-10: 1434387224 ISBN-13: 978-1434387226. If no mention is made of the death of John Paul I in 1978 and the implications of the controversy about his death for the Catholic Church it only indicates the extent to which this article (with all its self-serving internal references) has drifted from the required neutrality150.203.35.200 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The section you edited was part of the history of the Catholic Church. 33 days vs 2,000 years...do the math.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
On that analysis beginning of the universe-microseconds so therefore also irrelevant. His death was highly significant for critics of the Catholic Church. The fact his existence is not even acknowledged in the article indicates the extent to which this article is not neutral by accepted wikipedia standards. Why is there no Criticism of the Catholic Church section for example? Is it because the Catholic Church is protected by God from falling into error. What a convenient way to avoid normal wikipedia standards.150.203.35.200 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
Lighten up, Francis. :) It's all about the weight of the information. In the big picture, his unfortunate death was a minor blip. You think it is highly significant, but other critics do not seem to agree with you. God does not protect this article, He tried to but a few of the regular contributors ran Him off.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mike that it was too long an edit, although personally, I think the JP-I death was unclear at best - the only thing they did not say about his death was that it was a scuba diving accident in the Holy Sea or a ski slope accident down Mount of Olives. So that type of thing needs a brief reference to a "controversies" article. If you have other problems, you should bring them up one by one, as you did this one. But I think you are overheating a little bit. History2007 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
this issue is illustrative of the lack of required objectivity in the article- as evidenced by the fact that most of the references come from the Church itself and there is no section from external perspective or criticism. It doesn't meet Good Article criteria in this respect. You asked Who knows what God thinks about this article? Whether this institution has deviated so far from the ideals of its founder that its no longer recogisable as related to Him is an issue better debated elsewhere.But those who have criticised the Catholic Church should have their views expressed here if the article is to meet required standards150.203.35.200 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not critisize this article because I want to live more than 33 days. But I think you are overreaching. History2007 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid wacky fringe conspiracy theories don't belong in the article. Xandar 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, JP1's death should not have been "unclear". The Vatican is the Church's own worst enemy most of the time. They lied about JP2 celebrating Mass the morning he died and with JP1 they tried to change a few "facts"...like he was discovered dead in bed by a housekeeper (nun), but that would make for bad press so they changed it to his personal secretary. He was reading a secular book, but they changed it to The Imitation of Christ or the Lives of the Saints. So it makes it look like there was a coverup. I'm not saying it wasn't or that the nutters might be half correct, but again...it's a minor blip on the big picture. How this exceedingly long and poorly written piece maintains its GA status is beyond me, but inserting half-cocked conspiracy theories is not the way to improve it. Hack about 50% of the unnecesarry fat out of the history section and you might be onto something. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they should hire Alastair Campbell to avoid that type of unprofessional PR activity in the future. Let us send them an email recommending him.... But yes, it was a blip overall, although an unusual blip. History2007 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've started a "Criticism of the Catholic Church" section. Would you please desist from ad hominem attacks and allow an objective viewpoint to be expressed in this article. If you delete the "Criticism of the Catholic Church" section an application will be made for Good Article status to be reassessed.150.203.35.200 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous editor. You seem to have turned up on this page with an attitude, and be here simply to add hostile POVs to the article. This is not what we are here for. As far as "Criticism" sections are concerned. these are not now encouraged by Wikipedia. the individual issues are dealt with as they arise. As far as abuse is concerned, the current wording was recently agreed by editors. One-sided diatribes such as those you want to add are not permitted. Xandar 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually Xandar his addition is subject to Wikipedia:BRD anyway, so can not just get in unannounced. Your removal was fine. History2007 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The person concerned seems to have started editing today, and his edits consist of diatribes added to this article and the JP I article. The wikilawyering he adds above seems to indicate that this individual has knowledge of WP and therefore is likely to be a sockpuppet. Xandar 02:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet downunder? Who would have thought? But his anger seems freshly minted, although he seems to remember page histories.... but I do not recognize his tone, maybe you do. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
JPI death theories fall under WP:fringe and are not notable enough to be included in this article. NancyHeise talk 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agenda

Open issues

I disagree that many of these are considered open issues. No one is arguing most of them. I would keep "relations with Nazi Germany" open and "cultural influence" as well. I think that these issues are vastly understated in the article in a way that glosses over or significantly omits the good done by the Church in these areas. I have compiled a list of sources to improve the Cultural Influence section here [12] someone keeps eliminating it from this tray. Please do not edit my post - Thanks, NancyHeise (refraining from using signature so this section does not get archived by the bot)

Use --~~~ (three tildes instead of four) and your signature will not be timestamped and therefore the bot will continue to ignore this section when archiving.
Nancy, no one is arguing these issues because they have either disengaged from this article Talk Page or they are wrapped up in the silly and useless fight over the Tags. I am taking the initiative to reorganize things in a way that will hopefully allow those who are interested in various subtopics to discuss them without being distracted by the other foodfights that erupt on this page.
Nancy, you will find a link to your sources in this subpage: Talk:Catholic Church/Cultural influence.
--Richard S (talk)
Inre: Relationship to Nazi Germany, I've been looking for content that might suggest that the agreement was forced, in duress, or somehow influenced by the fact that the church, (no army), was trying to strike an accord with the NSDAP, (big army). It might be somewhere in the archived sections, I've looked through about a dozen pages through relevant links, but it's kind of a big mess of debate. The idea, most basically, is just that the church "had" to agree to something like the Reichskonkordat whether they agreed with it or not. Any sources, essays anybody that isn't just conjecturing randomly? 137.99.77.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

Settled issues


Reassessment of Good Article Status for Catholic Church

Just because I have a different point of view from your doesn't mean you should insult me. I hereby formally request any sympathetic logged-in editor to apply for this article's Good Article status to be reassessed. I believe it it is too verbose, has insufficient objective sources, is not neutral (has minimal criticism of the Catholic Church). There is a vast debate taking place about whether the Catholic Church and what many academic commentators consider its polarising views on non-ordination of women, mandatory priestly celibacy, covert support of pederasty, double standards on homosexuality, deleterious impact on population control and protection from sexually-transmitted disease, are helping or hindering planetary survival. This important debate in teh published literature is not accurately reflected in the article as it stands.150.203.35.200 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, he said "planetary survival", so it might be Al Gore using a sock puppet and starting a new angle if your sock puppet theory is correct. But I think "planetary survival" is way off topic in these discussions. History2007 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how non-ordination of women, priestly celibacy, or most of these other subjects, (all dealt with in the article) threaten planetary survival. But these rants and failure to engage in discussion are just far-out POV. How about calming down, Mr Anonymous, and realising that the article is not here to be a rabid denunciation of Catholicism, but to provide a cool and balanced description. It's clear you're not new to Wikipedia - so what is your real WP name and account? Xandar 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
history, I looked at this talk page on your recommendation and just reading the above debate it seems to me the anonymous editor is making a fair point in saying the john paul 1 death was significant enough to merit inclusion - the fact his successor was a real reactionary whereas as I understand it jp1 was different is also significant - his sudden death had ramifications. Also the ganging up tone of you and xandar is quite arrogant sounding and hostile, it lacks humility, a Christian principle, and if he is a stranger, remember jesus said 'anyone can act friendly to friends, the point is love your enemies.' Not exact quote, but something like that.Sayerslle (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no. I meant this very very long talk page is an example of what a talk page should not be, not an example of what should be. The page is really long. History2007 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the edit/revert/discussion regarding John Paul I and I have to say that it's a close call. John Paul I is the only Pope not mentioned in this article since Pius XI (whose reign started in 1922!). Yes, JPI's reign as Pope was only 33 days but the choice of "the next Pope" after Paul VI was a crucial one (cf. my earlier discussion of Malachi Martin's book "The Last Conclave"). It seems to me that there is value in focusing on the politics of the two papal elections though with less emphasis on the conspiracy theory stuff about JPI's death. --Richard S (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think as Mike said above, it could be called a blip of some type over a 2,000 year span, so it deserves a brief mention at best, not a dissertation or section. But if you do not mention the death circumstances, what else is there? The politics can not be discussed briefly enough, so just gets a link. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Richard, I think that belongs in the Pope article not here. NancyHeise talk 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What are the FACTS on this issue? The Pope died after one month. End of story. All the rest are the usual fringe conspiracy nuts manufacturing dross. Was JP 1 even exceptionally liberal? No. He banned the sedan chair, then brought it back when the public didn't like the move. JPII banned it, and it stayed banned. As for anything else. Are we going to put in the USA article how JFK was killed by the CIA so that he wouldn't stop the Vietnam war? Elvis, of course, works night shift at my local supermarket. He confirmed that the REAL Paul McCartney died in 1965... Xandar 00:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
There are no universally agreed upon facts on it. Many people, myself included, feel that the "story did not fit" but all that supports that feeling are intuitive hunches, and many conflicting theories which do not amount to solid evidence. Hence based on WP:Fringe the intuitive unhappiness and the conflicting theories can not be supported in a main article here. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism

The point of view implicit in the title of this article (that Roman Catholic is somehow the invention of Protestants alone) is now being added by an anon.

In case someone believes there is a question of fact here, permit me to quote the Mexican Constition of 1824:

The religion of the Mexican nation shall perpetually remain the Roman Catholic and Apostolic. The nation protects it by wise and just laws and prohibits the exercise of any other.

Was this (which prohibits the exercise of all forms of Protestantism) drawn up by Protestants? (The printed Spanish text says la Católica, Apostólica, Romana; a set phrase, with a standard abbreviation, in all the Western Romance languages.) Can we have an end to this fraud, at least? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again this was gone into in great detail in the year we spent discussing the naming issues. As PMA will note if he reads the old Mexican Constitution he cites closely. The exact wording is: "La religion del la nacion mexicana es y perpetuamente la Catolica, Apostolica, Romana". 1) it is talking about the religion of Mexico. 2) Catholic, Apostolic and Roman are separated by commas. In other words they are not a name but a description. This, as we discussed at enormous length at the time of the debate, is part of the traditional description of the marks of the true church. The church is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman in its qualities. That is not the same as the name "Roman Catholic Church" which means something quite different, and was invented in the sixteenth century in England. Xandar 01:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that there has to be a "discussion" of the term Roman Catholic here on the talk page. There is a fully referenced article written by yours truly with the help of another editor about the history and origin of the term Roman Catholic. Maybe that should be referenced somewhere instead of a new discussion.... History2007 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
A fascinating article; it disagrees with the OED twice in the first sentence, on a matter of English philology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so it is philology that disturbs you... I thought the causes of your disturbances were much more deeply seated. Does the use of extra dots also bother your psyche? ....History2007 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I am annoyed by academic and intellectual dishonesty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to share more of your deeper troubles with us? It will be fascinating..... History2007 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it would be enough if you would exhibit the intellectual and academic honesty characteristic of Roman Catholic scholars like Acton and Knowles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I have never been to Acton superintendant. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have now supplied links for anyone else ignorant of the historiography of Roman Catholicism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well done superintendant, well done!. Talking of historiography, do you have a histogram of the number of insulting words you use per sentence as you get more and more upset? How about an Influence diagram of that with the use of advanced words? That would be interesting. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Permanent tattoo, (excuse me tag) on the page?

This page seems to attract tags right at the top at the drop of a hat. The current reason is that someone "could not find a section tag" for a few references. That is no reason for using guilt by association to tag the entire page. Smaller "fact" tags can be added where needed. There is no reason to throw the page out with the bath water and tag it all when a few references are in question, say less than 2% of total. This page is MORE referenced than most Wikipedia articles around. History2007 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

History2007, please refer to the discussion above in the Present section on non-third party sources initiated by Hamilstonstone. It certainly isn't a case of me 'discussing with myself' as you say or 'a few'/'less than 2%' of references.
"This page is MORE referenced than most Wikipedia articles around."
Agreed, it's a pity most of them - especially in the History section - don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT.Haldraper (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, there are hundreds of references here. If a "blanket tag" is added, seeking help, how is anyone going to sort out which ones you question, specially since the length of this talk page makes War and Peace look like a brief note on a paper Napkin and it is practically impossible to trace through it. So the references in questions need to get individual tags. There is no other way. One can not accuse the entire article with a blanket indictment. History2007 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The way to get rid of such a tag is to fix the references - and the text - substituting independent, reliable, sources and citing them for what they actually say. It would appear that majority of these "citations" do not satisfy those criteria; 2% is a flat lie.
I realize that it is easier to whinge than to actually improve an article - but that is really no excuse for this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no. I think we got you upset again PM. But actually, I do not have a problem with the references in this article. I think whoever has a problem must mark the references they see as problems one by one and explain the objections on the talk page, instead of issuing a blanket accusation. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Marking them note by note on the article page would create a bigger mess than the tag at the top of the page, though i understand your point. I have outlined the issue in principle in an earlier talk section - as Haldraper briefly notes, the issue generally is one of independence. Very briefly, here's a hasty sketch of sources that may not meet that standard. The detail depends however on context (eg. a church source can be OK for citing the church's own claims about its own doctrine).

  • Barry (office holder; ?church press)
  • Benedict XVI, and other papal statements - context is of course important
  • Coppa (church press; possible POV issues in terms of close alignment with church organisation)
  • Froehle & Gautier (church press; Froehle - possible office holder?)
  • Kreeft (church press; may also be POV issues with author, that would require checking against other reliable sources)
  • Kung (office holder)
  • Langan (office holder, though not ordained)
  • Madrid (church press? POV/reliability issues)
  • Marthaler (church press, office holder)
  • McGonigle (church press)
  • Mongoven (church press)
  • Murray, Chris - just not sure this is a reliable source anyway - nothing to do with the independence issue, just a query as i'm working through the list.
  • Nichols (?church press - not sure about this source)
  • Norman - (grey area, but certainly a POV that would require checking against other reliable sources)
  • Orlandis (office holder, church press)
  • Schatz (?office holder; ?church press)
  • Schreck (?office holder, church press)
  • Sobrino (office holder)
  • Vidmar (office holder, church press)
  • Walsh & Thavis (Thavis an office holder of sorts; title suggests church publication; not clear on details)

This is the first time I have made a systematic, albeit cursory, run through the entire reference list. My observation would be that it appears to lean toward conservative sources, some of which i would also question as to quality / reliability (regardless of POV), including some of the works from Regnery Publishing (eg. Woods Jr). That may be considered to have an effect on the neutrality of the WP article: this is perhaps best dealt with as a separate, later discussion. For now, the above list is my starting point for identifying potential problems with the independence of sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this dozens of times. Because a historian is English doesn't mean he can't be used as a reference for the England article. because a historian is Anglican doesn't mean he can't be used to reference the Anglicanism article. Because a historian is American doesn't mean he can't be used on the USA article. The important thing is: is this a proper historian whose book is of academic or reliable status. Trying to accuse any historian who happens also to be a Catholic of bias is idiotic. Xandar 02:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors, but that is not the point i was making, so your comment does not apply to the issue i am raising. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The question is what issue you are raising. Your list interpolated above is next to useless since it doesn't tell us what statement is being referenced to each author that is being challenged, what precisely is meant by the term "office holder" in each case, and what is meant by Church press, or your guesses about whether it is a "Church" press. Your definitions seem very loose and unreliable. As far as I can see a first party source is one written, published and sanctioned by the Vatican, a Bishops Conference, or a religious order acting in an official capacity. Xandar 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, i pointed out at the outset that this was a quick sketch designed to begin to focus the issue, and i added the qualifier "The detail depends however on context (eg. a church source can be OK for citing the church's own claims about its own doctrine". So thanks for pointing out what i already pointed out. I am indicating that in general the above sources may be challenged from the point of view of their independence from the subject matter. In some cases, it is because the person appears to hold a church office of some sort - by which i generally mean being a priest / O.P. or similar, or an employee of the church. By church press i mean a press that is owned or controlled by a Catholic church organisation (or a Christian press, in some contexts). If I udnerstood correctly your "first party source" comment, i would suggest that it is not relevant to the core issue of independence / reliability etc. Are my definitions a bit loose? Yes, and i said so. Are they unreliable? I may have made some mistakes - it was a difficult exercise, and done in haste to keep the discussion moving - but the core issue remains: we have a large number of sources, quoted extensively, that are not independent of the organisation that they attempt to describe. Editors should aim to replace them with higher quality sources - of which, as can also be inferred from my above list, there are also many in this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Xandar, "We've been through this dozens of times" and you still don't get it. "Trying to accuse any historian who happens also to be a Catholic of bias is idiotic". Clearly. That is exactly the point I made to hamiltonstone in the discussion in the 'Present' section above, citing the use of Edward Norman and Anthony Rhodes as examples. That is NOT what we are talking about. Please don't throw it in as red herring again in order to avoid the real issue which is those sources such as Bokenkotter, McGonigle and Vidmar who are ordained members of the Church and therefore fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kung has been in quite a bit of trouble with the Church hierarchy for his opinions before. Although he is ordained, I suspect his works can be considered more independent than others, as he's proven a willingness to speak his mind regardless of the personal consequences. That said, I wouldn't use his books for any of the beliefs sections, but for history I think they will be fine. I would much prefer if the history section relies solely on university press-published books. That would eliminate many of the sources currently used, as many were published by Church-related organizations. However, on WP university presses are considered the most reliable, and I suspect there are hundreds if not thousands of potential books that could be used. Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs makes a very valid point: there are enough reliable third party sources on the history of the Catholic Church that there really is no excuse for the section on it in the article relying so heavily on those like Bokenkotter, McGonigle and Vidmar who clearly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Haldraper (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Bokenkotter's book is the most respected source on Church history of any book ever printed on the subject. It is the most widely used source by universities as a textbook for three decades although it is not a textbook but a secondary source. I have previously listed many universities who use it as a source do I have to do it again? Also, in an effort to cover differing scholarly opinions in certain sections of the article, we use various sources, including but not limited to Catholic press ones. None of our sources are discredited by scholarly journals. Some people have wanted us to use discredited sources but I think it is better to stick with those that do not have bad reviews and are used by a wide range of Catholic and non-Catholic universities as textbooks. This is an indication of their mainstream acceptance which is what Wikipedia asks of us. NancyHeise talk 22:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I really think it is quite preposterous for people to start claiming that no source written by an ordained person, or apparently anyone connected with the Catholic Church, can be used in the article! The idea of Haldraper that certain notable sources "fail WP:INDEPENDENT" for this reason is nonsense. First WP:INDEPENDENT is an ESSAY, not policy. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Second, even the essay doesn't make the claims Haldraper bases on it, being primarily about establishing NOTABILITY - which does require third-party sourcing. Thirdly, labelling every ordained Catholic, or publishing house connected with Catholics as self-published and unreliable is ridiculous. It's like arguing that any research produced by a believer in evolution is biased. The key issue contained in WP:V is reliability and academic authority. And that's what our references generally have.
That is why hamiltonstone's little blacklist is entirely unhelpful. What we are concerned with is whether information is challangeable or not, not whether who produced it is on someone's personal blacklist. So. If anyone is challenging references, let them bring forth their arguments (referenced of course), about why the information sourced to X in each particular sentence is wrong, and the validity of any alternate view. The reason we have the sources we do is that at the initial FAC, the history section was criticised for relying upon non-specialist books, covering the history of Christianity in general rather than Catholicism. So editors found books about the history of Catholicism. So. You are free to challenge referenced material, but the challenge needs to be specific and referenced, not a blanket charge that "Prof X is a Catholic, he can't be trusted." Xandar 01:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you seem determined to misrepresent other peoples' positions here. "Prof X is a Catholic, he can't be trusted" Who has said anything remotely like that? I specifically talked about Norman and Rhodes as academics who also happen to be Catholics whose use as sources is entirely unproblematic. I repeat: your throwing this is in as a red herring isn't helpful in addressing the real issues, it only serves to obscure and confuse them.

You're right that WP:V rather than WP:INDEPENDENT is policy. But I still think it informs how we assess whether sources meet that policy. You also write "it is quite preposterous for people to start claiming that no source written by an ordained person, or apparently anyone connected with the Catholic Church, can be used in the article!". Yes it would be if anyone actually had. No one as far as I can see - and certainly not me - is proposing that Bokenkotter, Duffy, McGonigle and Vidmar be excluded because they are non-third party sources - WP:INDEPENDENT doesn't stipulate that, merely that they shouldn't be relied upon exclusively as the History section does currently, to the exclusion of the many reliable third party sources that do exist. Haldraper (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on reliable sources goes into detail about using sources respected as "mainstream". These sources meet this criteria. With regard to Bokenkotter and Duffy, our article would look really ridiculous if we did not use these, they are the most mainstream books out there. No other source is used as often as Bokenkotter as a university textbook and the BBC used Duffy's book to make a documentary about the Church. Vidmar's citations mirror Bokenkotter's and provide an extra layer of certification for our article. NancyHeise talk 20:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention also that Duffy and Bokenkotter are cited by almost every encyclopedia including Encyclopedia Brittanica in their Catholic Church articles. We are using them because they are so widely respected and cited by other scholars as well, see googlescholar. NancyHeise talk 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. As I have said, if there are individual things cited to these, or any authors, that people want to challenge, bring them forward, and we'll sort them out. But lets not start trying to say certain authors can't be used. Xandar 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For the third time Xandar, who has said any such thing? Haldraper (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolutions

The article is again locked until disputes are resolved. As such, it would be helpful for us to list what SPECIFIC disputes remain to be resolved. We're looking here for specific resolvable disputes that relate to particular statements or sections within the article. "Article is POV" or similar-style statements will not be helpful in this context. Please stick to particulars. Xandar 02:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I think the lock was good, in order to calm things down. It will come off in a few days anyway. No big deal there really. History2007 (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag wars AGAIN

PMAnderson has started re-inserting old banner tags at the top of the article which editors had largely come to the conclusion were unconstructive and misleading. His activities on this article seem to have devolved into nothing but vandalism and disruption. He has done NOTHING constructive to resolve or debate or justify the "issues" he claims to be upholding. All he has done is make negative and abusive personal comments about editors and their motivation on the talk page, and edit-war disruptively with no genuine attempt whatsoever to argue a referenced position or come to consensus. All he seems to be seeking to do is raise the temperature, sabotage constructive discussion, and stir up trouble on the page. I have removed the disruptive tags. PMA needs to adopt a constructive non-disruptive attitude or go elsewhere. Xandar 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have come to think that this cycle will not stop until some type of admin action takes place. It is clear that edit history repeats itself on this page. I am not sure what the best remedy may be but whoever has a suggestion, please discuss it here. Based on a simple reading of Wiki rules it seems that anyone can add a tag any time anywhere. But that needs to be balanced with talk page discussions. After ALL the statistics about section sizes etc. and trims from the sections etc. the size tag was applied to the whole article again, instead of the history section. So what is the point of talk page discussion here if the stats obtained on the discussion are largely ignored? So some type of admin action will be needed, as Richard suggested. So what is the way to start a petition for that without a multi-month request for comment? History2007 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I support administrative action; and recommend it be directed against those who think that suppressing the symptoms of dispute will make the disease, the unreadable length and intolerable tendentiousness of this article, go away. If two or three editors were banned from this article for six months, the subject matter experts (I am not one, save in certain areas) would be able to clean up this article and maybe even earn it an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're not a subject matter expert, then how is it you know so well what does and does not need fixing here?Farsight001 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
PMAnderson/Septentrionalis has not offered any useful edits on the article but has been THE source of contention and edit warring. I have stayed out of this after I was accused by Karanacs of being disruptive just to see what would happen if I stepped away. Nothing has changed because even though the article has become very anti-Catholic POV cutting out valuable referenced context, PMAnderson/Septentrionalis still feels a need to make it even more POV. I do not see the value in any of this editors contributions except to create a battleground mentality.NancyHeise talk 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Come off it, Nancy. You are not in any position to accuse any other editors of creating a "battleground mentality" - give us a break and stop this constant and tedious nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise shows. It contains evidence of the same behavior long before I arrived; this page contains the remarks of Molon Labe - driven away while I was away from this article; and the same thing may be expected to continue after I depart, until Nancy, Xandar, and History2007 also leave. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, can you give us one example of "anti-Catholic POV" from anywhere on the page? Haldraper (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I think that elimination of the content that showed Reader all of the POV's regarding controversies such as the Pius XII and sexual abuse scandal has made the article anti-Catholic POV. I also think that the discussion below is evidence of an inability for some editors to even consider the fact that the Church is vociferously repressed in the media with regard to its view of condoms and the AIDs epidemic in Africa. I merely provided several sources which discuss the issue and outlined the important points. This is a notable controversy that our article presently covers in an insufficient way that excludes new scientific research supporting the Church's point that condoms will not cure Africa's AIDS epidemic, behavoir change will. NancyHeise talk 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for not answering Nancy :-) I asked you for one example of "anti-Catholic POV" from anywhere on the page, i.e. one sentence that you think is unduly biased against, misrepresents the views of or unfairly criticises the Church. Haldraper (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry my answer was not satisfactory enough. Here's my second attempt.

1) The sexual abuse sentence just tells Reader that since the end of the century, sexual abuse has been a problem in such and such countries. It omits some important information like

  • The majority of abuse happened in the US during the 60s and 70s by priests who were vicimizing post pubescent teenage boys.
  • The number of priests accused is about 1% of worldwide priests
  • There are almost no new cases in the past five years
  • The Church in the US implemented rules and the Worldwide Church implemented rules to prevent future abuse such as strenghtening the prohibition against ordination of men with strong homosexual tendencies.
If this information is omitted, it makes it appear as if the Church has done nothing to deal with the problem and that its a continuing problem. That is POV anti-Catholic.

2)World War II paragraph is so basic it omits all mention of the different scholarly opinions by summarizing it all in a blob that just says its the subject of continuing debate. This is a major controversy, FAC criteria asks us to sufficiently address all major controversies and I dont think what we have is comprehensive enough. Omission of the fact that the most respected Israeli Historian, Pinchas Lapide, concluded that the Church under Pius XII saved "hundreds of thousands" of Jews from the Nazis is anti-Catholic POV. NancyHeise talk 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Nancy but I think you'll have to do better than that: not 'omissions' but actual words!
As you know, all the pro-Catholic POV things you cite about Catholic sex abuse cases/WWII were trimmed together with anti-Catholic POV as a way of achieving NPOV in those sections as the result of long discussions involving multiple editors. Haldraper (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Shorter Nancy: If it doesn't state my POV, it's anti-Catholic. We've been here before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
No. One can be unbalanced by eliminating certain facts as well as by adding material. Xandar 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
True in principle, irrelevant to the issue at hand. If these were generally agreed to be factual and equally generally agreed to be among the most relevant facts (so as to be appropriate to a short summary in an article on a different subject), that would be an argument that they must be included; but they are not. They are the apology (again) for the Church - and belong (among all other points of view) in the article on the scandal, not here.
But this is still evasion of the question Haldraper asked: what anti-Catholic language is there? Where are the immured nuns, the diabolic inspiration, the plot for world domination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, Nancy and Xandar have a binary-valued way of looking at POV. What is not pro-Catholic POV is anti-Catholic POV. If the pro-Catholic defense to criticisms of the Church is not presented, then that is inherently anti-Catholic. In this manner of thinking, NPOV is the "balancing" of pro-Catholic POVs against anti-Catholic POVs, being careful not to give undue weight to the anti-Catholic POVs. (Since it is not conceivably possible that undue weight might wind up being given to the pro-Catholic POVs.) It is (apology in advance to those who think this is overly harsh) this kind of tendency towards apologetics that makes this article long and tedious to read. --Richard S (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, if the article's section on history were written summary style with bigger and better articles giving proper treatment to each period in history the entire POV thing would be moot. Get that crap out of this article that way multiple fractured perspectives don't need to dwell on unneccesary details here. They can be hashed out and given due measure in other articles. As it is now, the article is unwieldy and only gets more so as it is mired in these constant POV edit wars. Eliminate the bulk of the history section by giving it its proper place in another article and it doesn't reek of apologetic tracts; the tenets of the Faith can be better covered to all sides here and historians can wring their hands in the appropriate historical articles. I say this as a practicing Catholic and am ashamed to say that this piece looks like a bag of ass and probably will continue to do so as long as this fat is allowed to stay in it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As the stats showed, only the history section is long, nothing else really. History2007 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Statistics are a blunt tool at best for such things - no substitute for editorial judgment; a section here is long when it says more than necessary.
But let's trim the history section then and take another look at other sections afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This subject matter warrants a larger article. If you look at this subject in any encyclopedia, it covers a substantial number of pages. There are Featured Articles on Wikipedia which are much longer than this article. I think it would be strange to have a short article on this topic in light of this information. NancyHeise talk 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact is that for many reasons, including alternate versions on other media, we need a comprehensive article, which isn't just as eries of links to other unwritten or enormously straggly articles such as History of the Catholic Church. We therefore must achieve a balance between comprehensiveness, due weight and length. So while sections can be trimmed, (ie reworded for conciseness), reductions will be in the nature of 25% or so, since the basic information must remain. Xandar 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Shorter Xandar: the special pleading and propaganda must remain. No, they should not; and that is why Xandar should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyone who disagrees with PMA "must be banned" it seems. Perhaps this is a new policy PMA has just written. Xandar 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I have supported the bans of single-purpose disruptive POV-pushers for points of view which I share - whether this is one is none of your business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected article text

{{editprotected}} In the section "Second Vatican Council and beyond", there is this sentence "The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms." The quoted sentence has two citations, neither of which support the assertion made in the sentence. Specifically, the assertion in the sentence is that "the Church maintains that X is true". Both sources support the assertion that X is true but not the assertion that "the Church maintains that X is true".

Neither source mentions the Catholic Church nor has there been any indication offered that the Church relies on these sources or similar studies in defense of its theological position.

My request is that both citations (401 and 402) be either removed or commented out and that a {{cn}} tag be inserted in their place.

--Richard S (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK... any objections to the above request? If so, please state the rationale for your objection below. --Richard S (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I endorse the change. We shouldn't be doing synthesis in the article - which means the article shouldn't use sources that never mention the Church and its policies to justify Church positions. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Object. Simply because certain editors have not fully studied the issue is not a reason to selectively remove important balancing text. there is no consensus for such a change. Xandar 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore this disruptive liar. No part of this request is based on editors not "fully studying" the issue; it is based on the sources not supporting the text. At a minimum, insert a {{failed verification}} tag after the sentence; the sources have been consulted and they do not verify the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If Xandar does not retract this defense of unsourced material defended by an erroneous footnote, is there support for dispute resolution? Alternatively, is there hope for progress with this editor present? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see PMA has gone off on one of his rants again. Please desist from personal abuse and incivility. Any attempt to remove an important half of a balanced discussion of the subject is non-consensus. Quibbles with the sourcing of the current text notwithstanding, any change must be based upon acceptable consensus wording. See discussion below. Xandar 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything Xandar says here. I think PMA is a disruptive unhelpful editor to this page who engages in edit warring and personal attacks. NancyHeise talk 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Condoms issue

I just came by today to offer this interesting bit of news regarding this controversy from the Harvard University's Crimson newspaper see [13]. We may want to use this to improve our article's coverage of this issue. NancyHeise talk 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source on this issue, Washington Post but its an opinion piece. However it offers some facts we may want to follow up on like the fact that the Church has done more to help AIDS victims in Africa than any other organization [14]. NancyHeise talk 14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interview with a BBC reporter and Harvard's professor Green on the issue. [15]. NancyHeise talk 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think our article could be improved with these souces by summarizing what they are saying and that is: 1)The Church has been roundly denigrated in the media for its stand on condoms 2)several peer reviewed scientific studies agree with Pope Benedicts explanation 3)A promiment Harvard scientist came out in defense of the Pope NancyHeise talk 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, this guy's argument seems to have no relevance to the Church or this page given that:
he doesn't share its opposition to the use of condoms (he just thinks they're not that effective at stopping the spread of AIDS)
even there, his views are based on scientific/rational 'risk analysis' rather than the Church's theological objections to all forms of artificial contraception.
your three point summary seems to me a classic example of a faulty syllogism and WP:SYN:
1. the nasty anti-Catholic press is always criticisng the Church for opposing the use of condoms on moral grounds.
2. now a Harvard scientist has said the same thing (even he hasn't if you read to the end of the article).
3. quick, let's get some pro-Church apologia on it into the article. Haldraper (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
FAC criteria require us to cover all notable controversies. Our article presently covers this notable controversy but for some reason leaves out the fact that several peer reviewed scientific studies support the position for which the Church is being publicly, routinely and roundly denigrated in the media. If we want an NPOV article it would help if we include the opinion of this Harvard scientist in charge of AIDS research there who specifically mentions the pope's correctness in addressing this subject. One of the points made by the source says that the Church has done more to battle AIDS in Africa that any other organization. I think these are important issues our article fails to address and is part of the reason why I still think its got an anti Catholic POV slant. NancyHeise talk 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems only last week that Xandar was complaining that the article included controversies which did not involve every national Church and every century; and now I look, it was. This has both defects. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier at Wikinews? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Nancy, if, as you suggest, the Church's opposition to condoms was based solely on the scientific grounds that they are ineffective against AIDS, rather than part of its general theological objection to artificial contraception, and if the scientist quoted in the article also now opposed their use, what you say would have some weight. As neither of those things is true, it has none. Haldraper (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper, the controversy centers on the fact that some people argue that the Church is an obstacle to solving the AIDS crisis because it condemns the use of condoms. This researcher has said that scientific studies show increased use and availability of condoms increases the prevalence of unsafe sex and that the only thing scientifically shown to work in Africa is behavioural change where couples follow the Church rules of marital fidelity. NancyHeise talk 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it depends what you're intending to write: I get the impression we're going to get some POV about how mainstream scientific opinion now supports the Church's ban on condom use glossing over the fact that this is based on theological not scientific grounds.
I actually think the current version confroms to NPOV and adding to it would constitute undue weight:
"The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms." Haldraper (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is what you define as "some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms". As I said to Nancy above, if the Church had opposed condom use on the scientific grounds that they're ineffective against preventing AIDS, been criticised for it and now been vindicated by a peer-reviewed scientist who had also come out against their use your arguments would carry great weight.

Unfortunately:

1. the Church's opposition to condoms has never been based on science but is part of its general theological view that any use of artificial contraception is a mortal sin.

2. the scientist himself if you read the article doesn't oppose condom use.

I think you're trying to shoehorn this guy's scientific work to provide rational covering for your religious moral rules. Haldraper (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm absolutely certain that every scientist working in this field, will tell you that sexual monogamy (one and only one sexual partner for both) will drastically reduce the chance to get infected by AIDS. Thats in a nutshell what the catholic church is saying (I hope, because I'm not catholic...). Pure science, better a rational argument. You think I'm wrong? OK, show me the scientific evidence supporting your point. Based on this point of view of the church, why should you use condoms? Well, and for family planning see Natural family planning, which are as safe as artificial ones, if done properly.
2. The scientist Mr Green basically says the same (but without the moral point of view), but adds that when you're engaging in high risk sex (no sexual monogamy) condoms should be a backup. Better they should always, consistently and correct(!) be used to reduce(!) the possibility of catching AIDS and other STDs (ABC strategy). Here comes the problem. First condoms are not 100% safe for a number of reasons (scientifically proven!), and more importantly are not used always and consistently by too many people for every sexual high risk there involved in. If you have in Africa HIV-infected man who believe having sex (better raping) with a virgin will cure HIV can you blame the church for that. But also the sexual networks (long term partners, Polygamy) in Africa is a huge problem, because condoms are normally not used by the majority of people in long term relationships. Do you? BTW, the church is not teaching polygamy. In some western countries up to 50% of the newly infected with HIV is because of high risk sex between man. Are they saying, we're not using condoms, because of the catholic church and what the pope says? So is the church teaching sex between man? Than you could blame her. Do you? If you are not following the teachings of the Catholic church outlined in point 1 and e.g. visit a prostitute or engaging in sex with other men and have sex without a condom and catch HIV, you cannot blame the church for that. In this case it is your individual responsibility (to use a condom), not the collective responsibility of the church to teach it. What you're doing is Cherry picking, which is just not fair. BTW, I'm not catholic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Cyrus, unlike you I am a Catholic (albeit a lapsed one) and I can tell you that have radically misunderstood the basis of the Church's opposition to condom use. It is not the scientific/rational case you present (and which is not distinctively Catholic anyway, all Christians believe in monogamy) but rather flows from its theological view of all use of artificial contraception as a mortal sin for reasons that are already summed up well on the page thus:
Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae...rejected the use of contraception...asserting that these work against the intimate relationship and moral order of husband and wife by directly opposing God's will
"The scientist Mr Green basically says the same", well he supports the use of condoms as well so a slight difference with the Catholic Church's position there surely!
For a non-Catholic, you seem very defensive of the Church. Cherry picking is actually what some people want to do with this source in order to push their own POV. Haldraper (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
But the current wording states ""The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions." This says nothing about WHY the Church opposes condoms, the implied criticism is that the Church's position harms AIDS sufferers. Therefore scientific evidence that rebuts the criticism is relevant whatever the reasoning behind the Church's opposition. In fact, as Cyrus Grisham says, the Church's advocacy of monogamy is actually the best and safest preventative against AIDS spread. Where condom use encourages continued risky sexual practices, it does act as a negative factor. But the important point is that research runs counter to the accusations made against the CC. Xandar 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone tell me this discussion is a joke. Add a sentence about the church's position re birth control if you wish, but looking under rocks for scientific evidence that can be twisted to support that particular moral position is too bizarre for words. Guess what: if you don't have sex, you can't get a sexually transmitted disease! Wow! Now, go and read the hundreds of articles, policies, research etc on the management of STDs in general, and HIV (BTW not AIDS, if we are going to be accurate), and then realise that some of the above contributions to this discussion are ludicrous. WP:FRINGE anyone? I am increasingly understanding why editors, supposed to remain civil and assume good faith, end up, in the face of some of the nonsense here, like PMA - ranting. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely Hamiltonstone: "monogamy/chastity will protect you from AIDS". Give that man a Nobel prize! (And by the way Nancy, Edward C. Green is not as you claim a professor at Harvard, merely a research scientist). Like I said, it's not even as if monogamy/chastity are distinctive Catholic beliefs, unlike its opposition to artificial contraception whose theological basis is already outlined on the page.

Whether you agree with him or not, Green uses a different method to the Church ('risk analysis' versus theology) and reaches a different conclusion (monogamy/chastity and condoms versus monogamy/chastity and a ban on all artificial contraception). To claim they are "saying the same thing" takes mental gymnastics I am not capable of, maybe that's why I'm a lapsed Catholic :-) Haldraper (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This would have to be one the silliest suggestions ever proposed regarding this article and, unfortunately, only confirms the concerns that some editors have about the article's lack of scholastic and NPOV integrity. The fact that such a silly proposal was even made in the first place is mind boggling. If if wasn't so silly it might actually be funny. Afterwriting (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar wrote above "But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)" I agree with this approach and would like to include this in the article. It is POV to simply state "the Church claims" when the leading Harvard AIDS professor supports the claim through peer reviewed scientific research. NancyHeise talk 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Such hostility to including scientific evidence! I wonder why? Xandar 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
How many reasons do you want? Because it isn't a question of scientific evidence in this context (it is an account of church teaching / moral principles). Because his view is being misquoted: "Green insisted that he is not against condom use. “I am against saying that we are doing all that we can because we have exported so many cartons of condoms,” he said." Because even if it wasn't being misquoted, it would be fringe. Because it would not be the application of scientific method. Because it ignores the bulk of sources in order to pick one that fits with one particular POV. Because while some behavioural modification programs have achieved success, i doubt there are any experts in the field who think that opposing condom use (as one amongst several strategies) does anything other than make the epidemic worse. And so on. Above all, it is about church moral teaching and debate about its consequences - as soon as the Pope says that epidemiological research will affect the church's position on the subject, then the science might become relevant in this WP article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that this article is the appropriate place to highlight theological and scientific details on condoms. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is silly and specious to try to link Green's work to the Catholic stance on condoms. It is just another example of the desire of some editors to indulge in apologetics rather than write an encyclopedic article. Moreover, even if Green's work were more directly germane to the topic, if we are trying to reduce the length of the article, expanding it by getting into the details of individual controversies is not the way to achieve that goal. Sigh... --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, why do you keep claiming Edward C. Green is a "leading Harvard AIDS professor"? He is not a professor, he is a merely a research scientist! Haldraper (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might be, because of this definition of professor: "In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual.". Just keep in mind that Mr Green is a Senior Research Scientist. So he might be a Prof. The Harvard Crimson, the daily student newspaper of Harvard University, calls him a Prof. (see here: HSPH Prof. Arouses Condom Controversy: Faithful partnerships provide answer to AIDS crisis in Africa, Prof. and Pope say). So I guess Nancy Heise could call Mr. Green a Prof. Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Cyrus, but all of this discussion of Green is way off the point. Haldraper, please drop the issue of Green's professional credentials. They are irrelevant. The point here is that detailed discussion of controversies are not appropriate in this article. Even if we were to choose to indulge in such, Green is a scientist and the Church's position is based on theology/ethics, not on science and public health. Finally, the effort to vindicate the Church is an exercise in apologetics which we should eschew. So, please stop already. Everybody... --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right Richard: whatever his title, Green's scientific opinions have no relevance to the moral and theological positions taken by the Church and therefore as you say do not belong on this page. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Richard. I just wanted to add that science and theology/ethics are distinct areas! Science cannot tell you how to live. This is the area of theology/ethics. Maybe there is for some people a small conflict between these areas, but I cannot see one in this case. Let's get back to the topic. I guess Nancy is critical of this part in the article:
„The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms.“
If this is not the controversial part, Nancy, where is it?
Maybe we should slash the controversial parts and then link directly to Catholic Church and AIDS and Condoms#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church or Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Use_of_condoms. What do you think? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact is that some people want to include negative attacks on the Church and not include the refutation. The scientific evidence was being proposed, not with regard to whether Prof X believes in condoms, but whether there is tangible independent evidence that responds to the reported "criticism" of the Church on this issue. That is why it is germane. Xandar 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, as per my {{editprotected}} request in the section immediately above, the problem here is that the article text is indulging in OR and synthesis by constructing an argument for the Church which the sources do not indicate that the Church makes.

I am not very knowledgeable in this area but I have not seen any pronouncement from the Church that defends its stance on pragmatic issues such as efficacy. Making such an argument would be analogous to the Church arguing that abstinence is superior to birth control in reducing teen pregnancy. Such an argument is in the domain of social policy and some evangelicals do make such an argument. However, it is not at all clear to me that such an argument is withing official Church teaching. The Church is not nearly as concerned about the efficacy of social policy as it is with morality. To be concerned about the efficacy of social policy would be to open the door to moral relativism.

From the perspective of the Church, premarital sex is immoral whether or not it results in pregnancy. Similarly, from the Catholic perspective, the use of condoms is immoral whether or not it results in reduction of pregnancy or STDs.

Thus, the sources in the current article text have the same problem as the one that Nancy proposed. The sources in question do not mention the Catholic Church or its position regarding condoms. Nor do we have any evidence that the Catholic Church relies on such scientific studies to support its position.

Thus, while some people (e.g. evangelicals and Catholics) might wish to construct such an argument, it is not at all clear that the Catholic Church constructs such an argument. This leads me to conclude that, in the absence of citations to reliable sources who explicitly make the argument in question, the current article text is the result of synthesis.

--Richard S (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Richard sums up the point very well here: if you want an expert opinion on Catholic theology, don't ask a scientist! Haldraper (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Richard is this qoute : "That's a shame, for a report like Faith Communities Engage the HIV/AIDS Crisis offered an opportunity to rethink the failing group consensus and to point toward the central fact that has emerged from all the recent studies of the HIV epidemic: What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention." in the article AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right from Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark in First Things. I'd say its a contoversial subject... BTW, there are also certain problems with condoms according to this study: Does it fit okay? Problems with condom use as a function of self-reported poor fit with the result that some are I qoute: "Finally, they were more likely to report removing condoms before penile–vaginal sex ended (AOR 2.0). (those reporting ill-fitting condoms )" Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus, first of all, this article is the wrong place to have any extended treatment of the topic. Such a treatment belongs in Catholic Church and AIDS. We simply don't have room in this article to get into detailed discussions of any controversy.

But, even if we did want to do more than mention the existence of the controversy, it would be critical to draw a distinction between the statement "The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms" and the statement "What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention."

The first statement, which is in the current article text, makes an assertion about what the Church "maintains". As I've stated above, this is a pragmatic argument which suggests that its position on condoms is somehow based on efficacy of different approaches to the AIDS epidemic. Can someone point me to a source where the Church maintains what this statement says? Once again, this is not an area where I am an expert but I am highly skeptical that the Church would promote an approach which combines "behavioral changes" with the promotion of condoms as such an approach would involve an implicit condoning of the use of condoms. I do not believe that the Catholic Church is endorsing this combined approach. Maybe my understanding of Catholic teaching is incorrect. If so, someone please educate me.

The second statement, which is at the end of AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right makes a different assertion. It says "What the churches advocate from a theological perspective turns out to be what works best". This is NOT the churches endorsing the public health approach from a theological perspective. This is one (or more) public health experts endorsing the approach of the churches from a pragmatic perspective.

It is crucial that we understand the difference between these two assertions.

At the risk of oversimplification: churches don't care about what works best, they care about what is morally right. Conversely, public health experts don't care about what is morally right, they care about what works best. (Of course, those are gross oversimplifications but we should start with those as the basic premises and then admit that, in truth, churches do care somewhat about efficacy and public health experts do care somewhat about morality. However, in each case, those are second-order issues which take a backseat to the primary concern.)

--Richard S (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard. You seem to misunderstand the point being made. The passage does not start with the Church's position, but with criticism of the Church's position on AIDS. The criticism is not about WHY the Church opposes condoms, but is that the Church's position harms AIDS control. Therefore, in balance to that criticism, evidence supporting the Church view that its position (for whatever reason adopted), does NOT spread AIDS is relevant and aposite. Xandar 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, it's still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because you (and Nancy) have decided that it is "relevant". You are constructing the syllogism, not the reliable source. --Richard S (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, you seem to have missed my point...
Do you agree with this statement from the article?
""The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms."
Can you provide a source that documents someone in the Church making the above assertion?
You might consider, for example, this article about Benedict's pronouncements on the topic.
Pope: Condoms not the answer
The Church's position is that monogamy and abstinence are the solution to AIDS, not condoms. Critics say that this hinders the fight against AIDS. Can you source someone in the Church refuting that criticism? If not, then the sentence should be changed so that "the Church" is not the subject of the sentence.
--Richard S (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this article also provides good material for sourcing what the Church's position regarding AIDS and condoms.
Pope's condom comments latest chapter in sensitive church discussion
--Richard S (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I may have been wrong about Catholic teaching regarding condoms...
[http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=27944603-3048-741E-6720211751000482

Aids, condoms, and the suppression of theological truth]

--Richard S (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Now that is interesting, notable and relevant to this page. We should include it, I suggest, in place of the WP:OR/WP:SYN stuff about Kenya and Uganda. Haldraper (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I propose a new wording based on Richard's source that would provide a balanced view of Catholic theological attitudes to condom use/AIDS rather than the current WP:OR/WP:SYN pseudo-scientific explanation of the Church's stance:
"The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. Despite Pope Benedict XVI maintaining the ban, some Catholic theologians have argued that condoms may be morally permissible as a means of preventing disease rather than conception." Haldraper (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, first who are the critics? Mainly the "western media" and western scientists? Which ban is Benedict XVI maintaining? I cannot remember an offical paper from the pope where condoms are forbidden if there are preventing dieasease. And I qoute from the condom article:The Roman Catholic Church opposes all sexual acts outside of marriage, as well as any sexual act in which the chance of successful conception has been reduced by direct and intentional acts (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) or foreign objects (e.g., condoms).The use of condoms to prevent STD transmission is not specifically addressed(!) by Catholic doctrine, and is currently a topic of debate among theologians and high-ranking Catholic authorities. A few, such as Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, believe the Catholic Church should actively (!) support condoms used to prevent disease, especially serious diseases such as AIDS.However, the majority view—including all statements from the Vatican—is that condom-promotion programs encourage promiscuity, thereby actually increasing STD transmission. This view was most recently reiterated in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI. What are the critics saying about the the thing that the RCC provides up to 25 percent of AIDS care in Africa? In: The Caritas Internationalis Annual Report 2008 states on page 22:The Catholic Church, through agencies such as Caritas, provides up to 25 percent of AIDS care in Africa. It provides care, treatment and also the psychological support for those who have AIDS, which is still a disease veiled in stigma.. Move the stuff to Catholic church and AIDS. Thats were the discussion should be. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Haldraper's suggested wording above is, I am afraid, a travesty, since the Church's position on the issue is not even stated - only that of unrepresentative grouplets! As Cyrus Gresham says, the so-called "ban on condoms" is part of wider catholic policy on sexuality, fidelity and contraception, and exists separately only in media reporting. I do feel that some people are setting up straw men here to argue against. There are many reasons for Catholic teaching on sexuality and artificial contraception. However the whole issue is a red herring produced by the present wording, saying that "the Church argues that..." As I have said the key criticism is not of the Church's reasoning for its teachings, it is that the Church's teachings increase AIDS transmission. If the criticism is to be made, then to be NPOV the counter-argument has to be presented that Catholic policy does not increase the risk of AIDS spread. For this, we can, as I have suggested quote some of the scientific studies. Doing this no more OR than quoting the unnamed "critics". Xandar 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Xandar's assertions here. My point in bringing this up for discussion is that Featured Article Criteria require us to cover notable controversies. The condom issue is a notable controversy. We had two sentences that tried to cover it but did not cover it very well because it omitted the important fact that several peer reviewed scientific studies support the Church's position regarding AIDS and condoms in Africa. The actual controversy is that some people accuse the Church of being part of the problem in the spread of AIDS while others believe it is teaching the only real solution. NancyHeise talk 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential new history sources to consider

I'd like to begin a more in-depth assessment of Catholic Church history, focusing on broader patterns rather than some of the details that are currently in the article. None of what I read may end up in this article, but at least I will have a better understanding of the pieces and how they fit together. I did a lot of searching on Google books today to identify potential works that I might want to order. My criteria were that the book must have been published in the last 15 years by a university press, and it should present a broader overview of history rather than be narrowly focused on an event. In some cases, these books appear to have several chapters that would be applicable toward the Catholic Church, while the rest of the book may not. I don't have access to JSTOR or many other academic - or Catholic - journals. Would someone be willing to look for reviews of these books and see what other academics think of these? I'd also be curious to know others' opinions of these works and their authors, so that I can prioritize the order in which I might read them. Basically, if you think you might complain about these sources later, I'd appreciate knowing that up front so I can first read those that might be more acceptable to the editors here.

  • Cushing, Kathleen G. (2005), Reform and the papacy in the eleventh century: spirituality and social change, Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-5834-1
  • Helmholz, R.H. (1996), The spirit of classical canon law, University of Georgia Press, ISBN 0-8203-1821-3
  • Hinson, E. Glenn (1995), The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300, Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-436-0
  • Bireley, Robert (1999), The refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: a reassessment of the counter Reformation, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 0813209501
  • Hsia, R. Po-chia (1998), The world of Catholic renewal, 1540–1770, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521445965
  • Pocock, J.G.A. (2005), Barbarism and religion: The first decline and fall, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521672333
  • Power, Daniel (2006), The central Middle Ages: Europe 950-1320, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253129
  • Fletcher, Richard A. (1999), The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity, University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-21859-0
  • Cameron, Averil; Ward-Perkins, Bryan; Whitby, Michael (2000), Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-32591-9
  • Phillips, J.R.S. (1998), The medieval expansion of Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198207409 (good chapter on Catholic missions to Asia)
  • Butler, Jon; Wacker, Grant; Balmer, Randall Herbert (2007), Religion in American Life: A Short History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195333292
  • Partner, Peter (1998), God of battles: holy wars of Christianity and Islam, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691002355
  • Sundkler, Bengt; Steed, Christopher (2000), A history of the church in Africa, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052158342X
  • Hastings, Adrian (1996), The Church in Africa, 1450-1950, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198263996
  • Gill, Anthony James (1998), Rendering unto Caesar: the Catholic Church and the state in Latin America, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226293831
  • O'Collins, Gerald; Farrugia, Mario (2003), Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019925995X

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only one of these I have seen is the Fletcher, which is a very good book where I can judge it; Averil Cameron is one of the leading living Byzantinists. Pocock is on Gibbon, himself, so he may be slightly off-topic here - but the quality of the book may be indicated by the fact that 3 of the 4 volumes of the 2005 printing are out of my local library - and both volumes of the 1999 printing are stolen missing.
I would commend Peter Brown, The rise of Western Christendom : triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000 even if it is from 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I certainly will not oppose adding more sources. Ealdgyth said that an article like this one should have about 100 sources. We currently have about 80 books and I'm not sure how many internet sites. Hastings The Church in Africa is already part of the present bibliography. Not sure about any of the others. NancyHeise talk 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting list - though some of the titles look a little specialist. Xandar 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Karanacs, those generally look like very promising leads. You will be aware of my recent previous posts on sources, and my views about some of them. With such excellent scholarship to choose from, i would suggest that these should not only add to the current list, where possible they should supplant those that might be disputed (I am aware there is no consensus around which sources are not independent, and i understand that makes this a less-than-straighforward task!) As to your query about views on the list, I would reject Robert Bireley's book, as he is an S.J., working at a Catholic institution and publishing through a Catholic press. I would want multiple sources anyway in this case, so i would save yourself the reading. Hsia, in contrast, appears to have impeccable credentials: see the CV here. I would have concerns about the last work, as Gerald O'Collins is also an S.J. and authors books that expound the faith in a mainstream context. I imagine they might be reasonable accounts of Catholic theology, but I'm sorry, this simply is not an independent author when it comes to the story of the church. I know others may not agree: if so, one of my responses would be - why insist on including sources such as this that are contested, when there appears to be a significant volume of independent scholarship? You're doing a great job, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful here to discuss independence on its own terms. Hamiltonstone may be right in practice, but he is wrong in theory; the present article is wrong both in practice and in theory.

What this article ought to do, per NPOV, is to present facts which are agreed on by almost everybody (saying "everybody" would give a liberum veto to Ian Paisley, Ellen G. White, and Patrick Walsh, S.J.) - Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, Orthodox, Muslim, Martian... Where there is controversy, this summary article should (at most) say so; again, the parties will usually agree on that, if on nothing else.

The best way to do this is to source claims to both Protestant and Catholic sources, with an admixture of others. This would demonstrate consensus. In practice, Hamiltonstone's solution, of omitting Roman Catholic clergy would produce much the same text; if everybody else asserts a given historic fact, Catholic clergy usually assert it too - especially historians, like Knowles.

The worst way to do this is to cite nobody; but this article is now using the next worst: Citing only Catholic scholars, and among them, scholars of particular ideologies. Why should our reader believe that even other Catholic scholars concur with statements sourced to Vidmar alone, much less Protestant or Buddhist scholars? (Often they will; Vidmar does not appear to anywhere near as partisan as our editors - but how can the reader know?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is PMA: I was only addressing the question of independence of sources. Identifying the consensus view in the expert literature; and reporting ranges of views, are two things that should go without saying in addition to dealing with the question of the independence of sources. Aside from that, i disagree that the "best way to do this is to source claims to both Protestant and Catholic sources, with an admixture of others". The article is not, or should not, be a battle between two particular branches of the Christian church. The main sources should be neither and, particularly for the history section, locating such sources is not a huge problem, as i think Karanacs and others are showing. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
But a source need not be unaffiliated to be sound. I cited David Knowles above because there is a famous tribute to his work: in reading his histories there is no way to tell that he was a Benedictine monk. That level of impartiality is not defunct, and a literate editor like Karanacs should be able to cite even a partisan source only for those points where other sources are likely to agree with him. Is Bireley is a great historian or merely a hack? I do not know; either is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Simply for reasons of interest (and familiarity with English) relatively few Buddhists or Moslems have written scholarly histories of Christianity in English. Similarly, few Jews have done so, simply for lack of numbers (although I agree that B. Netanyahu's work on the Inquisition should be consulted). I would oppose relying solely on the dogmatic atheists for the same reasons I oppose relying solely on the dogmatic Catholics. That doesn't leave many non-Christians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this says anything about you personally :-), but you speak of everyone as though they have a religious affiliation, and you appear to imply most non-Christians are "dogmatic atheists". That doesn't square with my sense of the scholarly literature or the few CVs i've checked. There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views. They're the ones upon whom we should rely most heavily - professional historians with no clear religious affiliation, publishing in the secular peer-reviewed press. As far as i can tell, there's plenty of them. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views No, these are regular historians, and therefore they are not expressing their religious views, lack thereof, or mixture - insofar as they are good neutral-voiced historians. But in fact most of them do hold some views on ultimate things, even if it be blandly secular agnosticism - and in practice few blandly secular agnostics become church historians.
Yet, some Church historians have become secular agnostics.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
And not without reason. Granted. (I could go on to argue, with Bertrand Russell, that there is a difference between Protestant agnotics and Catholic agnostics, but enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I will agree that we should rely most heavily, as historians do, on those who are professional rather than polemical - but we can't tell which ones those are by the letters after their names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The article should cite the best sources possible, regardless of religious affiliation. Sources which slavishly tow the party line of the Catholic Church will hardly qualify as best. However, Hamiltonstone's proposal to omit Catholic clergy is ridiculous. Anyone familiar with the Jesuits know that they're certainly willing to challenge Church dogma and assert critical thought. Application of a priori litmus tests are repulsive. Once again ... judge each source based on its own merit. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Adrian Hastings will give plenty of scope for those arguments we all love so much about perceived bias, with interesting twists. Many of these seem over-specialized. We have in total perhaps less than 200 words on Africa, and to use a dedicated book of several hundred pages to source these will almost inevitably involve OR by precis. Phillips seems mainly about travel, trade and politics, Partner & Pocock well off-topic. Others like Hsia seem useful, but I hope that other satellite articles are also improved from any books used - inevitably much more can be added to these than here. Much of Hinson is online - he appears to be a Southern Baptist Vidmar, as it were - see his Preface. But perhaps useful. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My point is not to resource already sourced information, but, ideally, to eventually rewrite the section to be more focused on broader themes. The first step is to start reading to see where we might need even more reading. Thanks for your analysis. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes? And what are these "broader themes"? The selection of such themes could well be highly problematic. At the moment the theme is chronology with due weight, which I think is appropriate and accessible and follows most sources. As far as sources go, it would be unbalanced in the extreme to try to eliminate all catholic sources, as some seem to want. We would then be left with a range from neutral to hostile. The strange thing is that very few of the facts verified by current sources have actually been challenged, leading one to suspect that the "change the sources" argument is largely a red herring. Xandar 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of possible broader themes; we should include only those which are broadly agreed in reliable sources. I expect the worldliness of the Church before Hildebrand (and also during the Avignon period) would be two of these. The present recurring theme of "the Church was misunderstood, boo-hoo" is not; it is merely the fixation of a few partisan editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, how were the current topics in the History section chosen? On what basis would you argue that this "chronological narrative" is not problematic? The "broader themes" that I see would include: spread of Christianity via evangelism, the medieval period, the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Age of Discovery and the spread of Christianity by missionaries in "discovered" (i.e. conquered) lands, Enlightenment and the separation of Church and State, the modern era (from about 1870 onwards). Even within these "broader themes", there is room for discussion as to which events should be included and which should not. Are you asserting that most sources discuss Church history from a purely chronological perspective and do not organize the material according to themes such as I have outlined? --Richard S (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you equate "non-Catholic sources" with "neutral to hostile", which is fallacious. Anyway, i don't want to see hostile sources used, any more than i want to see used sources that are not independent of the article subject. We're looking for the neutral ones. I'm happy to see what comes of Karanacs efforts - i thought the selection of sources looked pretty good. If they turn out to be largely off-topic (johnbod), then obviously they won't get used. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to suggest a different perspective...

There are facts on one side and opinions and interpretations on the other side. Sometimes the line between the two sides can get blurry. Different interpretations can color what people perceive to be the "facts" of the situation. For example, is it a fact that the Eastern Orthodox split off from the Catholic Church or is it the other way around? Of course, the neutral interpretation is that the two parts split apart and neither really split off as a splinter from the other.

Where facts are involved, we should seek to make a neutral presentation of those facts. However, there are times when we must describe a POV because that POV is so notable that it would be unencyclopedic to omit it. For example, if we feel that it is important to mention the criticism of the Church's action/inaction during the Holocaust, it is obvious that we should cite those who make the criticism even if that criticism is POV. We have to make sure that we assert "some people criticize the Church for failing to ..." rather than asserting "the Church failed to ..." as "fact". If we choose to present the defense against the criticsm, then we should cite the sources that make that defense even though the defense is also POV.

If we are concerned about the sources being POV rather than neutral, the real issue is that there are concerns about the article text being POV rather than neutral. We should re-examine the article text and determine whether it adequately treats the topic in a neutral fashion, presenting facts as such and opinions or interpretations as such.

--Richard S (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. My only caveat is that we should, more often, simply say that there is a controversy, and direct the reader to other articles and the sources. This approach makes it more important that there be sources on both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually Richard, your statement that "Different interpretations can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation" in this case should read "Different emotions can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation". Anyone who even begins to deny the impact of emotions on judgment needs to study the psychology of decision making (briefly but inadequately sketched here) - a large field there. This is an emotional topic (understatement of the week I guess) so there will be three main groups of emotions:
  • Highly pro Church
  • Highly anti Church
  • Those in between, with a few such as KeranaCS (in my opinion) surprisingly unbiased.
Given Wikipedia rules on consensus, whereby 12 teenagers can override Steven Weinberg on physics articles, it will just be a question of numbers, so might as well start counting, instead of debating a lot. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
With regard to the sources, Richard is right to say that what is important is the reliability of the facts rather than who verifies them. Xandar 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you Xandar. I also want to point out the Wikipedia encourages use of tertiary sources as a guide for organizing an article and deciding on what to include. The article content was designed in this fashion. It discusses what other encyclopedias discuss. It does not venture off into tangents that discuss the "worldliness of the Church" because other encyclopedias do not cover this - probably because it is unencyclopedic : ) NancyHeise talk 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with History2007's remark above. I am staying out of the history discussions until I see what Karanacs has to offer. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Themes as organizing principles for the History section

On this "themes" idea, Richard's selection of possible themes shows up the big problems of such an option.

spread of Christianity via evangelism, the medieval period, the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Age of Discovery and the spread of Christianity by missionaries in "discovered" (i.e. conquered) lands, Enlightenment and the separation of Church and State, the modern era (from about 1870 onwards).
That would roughly follow a chronological pattern, but with the disadvantage of forcing it into a strait-jacket of arbitrarily-chosen "themes". The suggested list produces a group of largely negative-slanted themes and gives many of the named issues Undue Weight. The whole process of selecting themes is fraught with POV issues. Why, for example, are the Crusades, The Inquisition and the Great Schism more important as themes than Monasticism, Technology and the Universities, or the Investiture Controversy? Xandar 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no easy way to come up with a mutually-agreed upon set of central themes. There could very well be some heated debate on this question. And yet, without coming up with such a set of themes, there is no obvious decision criteria to determine whether or not something should be mentioned in the History section. Just saying that the organization is "chronological" is glib and glosses over the fact that there is a selection process going on but that the selection process is "ad-hoc" and employs no clear decision criteria. (other than that editor X thinks that it is important). This is what has led to the "kitchen sink" approach of throwing into the article every little pet topic that a FAC reviewer feels "has" to be mentioned. Remember that a camel is "a horse designed by committee". --Richard S (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar suggests that the list of themes that I proposed are "a group of largely negative-slanted themes" that give many of the named issues "undue weight". I would ask him to suggest some exemplar histories of the Catholic Church so that we can consider what organizing principles are used by those. I don't see that my list is "negative-slanted" although I'm willing to discuss individual items on the list that may be considered "negative-slanted".

Xandar asks why we don't consider themes such as "Monasticism, Technology and the Universities, or the Investiture Controversy".

First of all, the Investiture Controversy is not, IMHO, an overarching theme. It is just one topic in a larger theme: "Separation of Church and State". (Read the first line of the Investiture Controversy article.)

"Technology and the Universities" should NOT be a central theme. It's too narrow. The influence of the Church on science, philosophy and education is certainly a theme worth presenting.

It's debatable whether "Monasticism" should be a central theme. It's certainly a worthwhile topic. However, while most histories of the Church will mention monks and monasticism, it's not clear to me that this is the sort of topic that is typically given central focus in histories of the Church. Someone who has broader experience than I can enlighten us on this issue. I will say that it's worth mentioning the role of the Irish monks in "saving Western civilization" and in evangelizing much of Northern Europe.

This leads me to an insight that I had this morning but didn't have time to write here. There is more than one way to write a "history" of the Church. The current "History" section is largely a political history that does mention some theological and spiritual issues along the way but it's mostly a history of who did what to whom and when. Xandar mentioned St. Theresa of Avila and others including myself argued that she is not that important to the history of the Church. Well, I still believe that but, at the time, my sense was that mentioning St. Theresa of Avila would be more appropriate in a history of Catholic mysticism or Catholic spirituality. (Likewise, the charismatic movement gets short shrift in this article but would deserve more attention in an article focused on Catholic spirituality.)

Similarly, we give Aquinas and the Scholastics short shrift but they get more attention in the article History of Catholic dogmatic theology.

We need to come to some agreement as to what the scope of the "History" section should be. My thought is that the "themes" will help us focus on what the important points are that we want to make. If a topic doesn't further the presentation of one of the mutually agreed-upon themes, then we probably shouldn't present the topic.

--Richard S (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of forcing things into "themes", & it doesn't seem a very encyclopedic way of proceeding to me. Some broader long-term themes could well be given a bit more emphasis, but that's enough. Nor would I agree with most mentioned at the top here. Monasticism and "church & state" are themes - the Crusades and Reformation are not. How is "the Medieval period" a theme? Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
See topic sentence. This is the same thing on a larger scale; it avoids having the article become an indiscriminate collection of information - which is useless to the reader, and so against policy. This could become POV; but not if we keep to those themes which are almost universally agreed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a more NPOV way to approach this would be to name the sections in a broad fashion "Early Christian era", "Middle Ages", "Reformation", "Modern Era" NancyHeise talk 03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

End of the article just collapses into blithering about unimportant stuff

Like many other Wikipedia articles, this article ends by drifting off into blithering about relatively unimportant stuff. :Since the end of the twentieth century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada and other countries.[408]

The 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI saw a continuation of the policies of his predecessors. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love and re-emphasized marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission.[58]
The Church worldwide actively encourages support for political figures who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity," which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, providing help for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion and euthanasia.[409]
In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church.[410][411]

I say "relatively unimportant stuff" because, in the context of 2000 years of church history, these are not very salient issues.

Worse yet, so little is said about each point that the average reader is unlikely to understand what is being said "between the lines".

For example, we don't say anything about the Church's reaction to the sex abuse scandal. At the very least, we should say that the sex abuse scandal forced the Church to institute better procedures to prevent, identify and deal with sex abuses.

What's the point about "actively encouraging support for political figures"? Why does that bear mentioning? Is it because the Church didn't do that until recently or because nobody thought it objectionable until recently?

Why was it necessary to create "new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church"? Haven't there always been Anglican converts to the Catholic Church? What's new in the 21st century. (Of course, the answer is that some Anglicans are upset about the ordination of homosexuals but we don't say anything about that so how is the reader going to divine this important piece of the puzzle?)

Finally, even a middle school student knows that a piece of writing is supposed to end with a conclusion. This article has no conclusion. It just ends with the discussion "creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church."

I think Sister Mary Ignatius would be none too happy with this poor excuse for a writing assignment.

--Richard S (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To comment only on the last point; most newspaper articles have no conclusion, because the important matters and issues that might form such a conclusion are in the lead; this is called the inverted pyramid. This is partly because a newspaper article may be trimmed without notice, so any peroration is as likely as not to end up on the cutting-room floor; but it is mostly a matter of emphasis: important things come on the first page of the article above the break.
Most encyclopedia articles, and almost all Wikipedia articles, have the same structure. There are exceptions, but rare ones.
This may, in fact, be a consideration for FA; I have seen FAC mention it. But usually they don't. Let us get the facts consensus, and the rhetoric neutral, before we consider the finial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the article is organized poorly. Generally, a history section is one of the first, not last, sections in an article on an organization. In this article, the history is listed at the very beginning and the very end. I recommend either combining history with Origin and Mission at the beginning or moving all the history stuff (including what is in the Origin part) to be under Prayer and Worship. Let the article end with Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics, which provides a good summary of the organization. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The length of the history section is the reason for this, & I think it's the correct way; most history sections are pretty short. Merging it with Origins & mission won't work either. Anything that comes after the history section is unlikely to be reached by most readers. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the length wasn't the "reason" for this. When I brought this up several years ago several editors told me that the most important thing in the article was beliefs, and that history wasn't important and so belonged at the bottom of the article - in contradiction to the normal structure of an organization. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
On Richard's point about context: the background to the split in the Church of England and defections of clergy to the Catholic Church has not been over homosexuality but the ordination of women and now the possibilty of women bishops. This led Anglo-Catholic bishops to approach the Vatican about joining the Church while retaining their own dioceses/liturgy (the negotiations were held in Vienna iirc) and the structures mentioned at the end of the article. I added this background information with supporting news sources but Nancy reverted it on the grounds that any Anglican diocese was eligible to join the Catholic Church under the new structures, not just Anglo-Catholic ones: technically true but unlikely given the liberal wing supports women priests and bishops and the conservative evangelicals regard the Pope as a heretical tyrant. Haldraper (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Richard's opening comment in this section: The article used to have a summary pargraph entitled "Present" [16] that told Reader about the Church today - the importance of the Pope in the world arena and "present day" stuff. Someone eliminated it completely which did not improve the article at all. I am certainly all for including a conclusion and I think what we had before was the best possible scenario. Haldraper, the new structure for receiving Anglicans applies to any Anglican. In addition to the Traditional Anglican group that voted to join, an Australian group has also just voted to join as well - see [17] . The article addresses the homosexual issues you are discussing above as well. NancyHeise talk 03:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Secular vs. spiritual power

Shouldnt there be a sentence in the lead about how worldly the Church has been for much of its history, its very butter wouldn't melt in its mouth isnt it , the lead? Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really. It's factual. "Worldly" is an opinion or value judgement. What is "worldly"? What is wrong with being worldly? How do you judge what is "too" worldly? It's not something we can do. Xandar 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In this, at long last, agreement to remove all value judgments? We could shrink the article to 100K, doing that alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Worldly" does imply a value judgment (i.e. "wordly=bad" vs. "spiritual=good"). However, we might consider presenting this value judgment not as if it were fact but qua "value judgment". The question is whether it is a notable POV. Many years ago, I read a history of Christianity whose primary thesis was that the institution of Christianity as the state religion of Rome was a critical turning point because it ensured the survival and growth of the religion AND, at the same time, entwined the interests of the church with that of the state. This transformed the religion in ways that made it more "worldly". The Donation of Pepin increased this worldliness by giving the Church lands which further increased its wealth. The thesis of the book was that wealth and political influence are corrupting secular interests which diminish the emphasis on the spiritual aspects of the religion. The book postulates that Vatican I was a response to the loss of the Papal States and the need of the Vatican to focus more on its spiritual power. The author claimed that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is an example of this shift towards spiritual power rather than secular power. Unfortunately, I forget the name of the author and the book was titled "History of Christianity" of which there are many such books.

My question to other editors is whether this thesis is one that has substantial support (I think it does) and whether we should be presenting that thesis in this article. If so, how would we do it?

--Richard S (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is one of the key themes that is missing from the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you will find any history that does not say that "the institution of Christianity as the state religion of Rome was a critical turning point because it ensured the survival and growth of the religion AND, at the same time, entwined the interests of the church with that of the state". After that it is more complicated - the comparison with the Orthodox churches, who were at the mercy of rulers who frequently deposed Patriarchs & interfered with doctrine (see the see-saw of Byzantine Iconoclasm) will lead many to think that the Western Church had the better deal, though by the High Middle Ages it too was falling under very heavy influence from states. The 19th century stuff seems tosh to me, at least as stated. The days when Popes were agressive rulers ended with the Renaissance. The Papal States were notoriously neglected for their final period, & their rule usually almost completely delegated. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ida Gorres , in a letter in the 1950s .." only a few years ago I thought Emperor Otto I just marvellous and was full of admiration for his genius in raising the bishops to Reichsfürsten - politically it was a brilliant decision - Yet how often was their charismatic office as pastors overshadowed by their temporal mission and worldly achievements. " Sayerslle (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of this stuff is little more than individual speculation. I would certainly not see it as a controlling "theme". If we did add something about those crticizing the church as "worldly", and highlight their viewpoint, then we would have to add the countervailing arguments and evidence as well - that most of the Church was both spiritual and provided spiritual and moral sustenance to the faithful and society in general. It would also be necessary to work out what weight could be given to any individual opinion of certain events. I'm not saying that all this is impossible, but it would require a lot more than just including pot-shots at the church or the views of individuals on the "true" reason behind Vatican I or the effect on theology of the Donation of Pepin. Xandar 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been reading a new book I got about a month ago entitled Under the Influence, How Christianity Transformed Civilization by Alvin J. Schmidt. It is a secondary source that is oft used as a university textbook. The book lists these accomplishments attributed to the spread of Christianty
  • Sanctification of Human Life (discusses prevalence of the practice of infanticide especially female infanticide before Christianity)
  • Elevation of sexual morality (Notes the depraved sexual practices of the people of the Roman Empire "shamelessly illustrated on household items such as oil lamps, bowls, cups, and vases" "The widespread, licentious sex practices threatened the institution of marriage, so Caesar Augustus in 18BC enacted lex julia de adulteriis, a law that tried to curb the people's addiction to widespread illicit sex. This law had little effect, however, perhaps because it only punished the married woman in an adulterous act." On the subject of Pedophilia he writes "The acceptance of pedophilia amon the Roman populace is not just evident in the literature of its poets and philosophers, it is also illustrated on archaelogical artifacts. Clarke's book (cited above) shows many plates of Roman relief portraits of man-boy couples engaged in sex. These pictures depict behavior that today, even in an increasingly secular and anti-Christian society, is regarded as morally abhorrent and thus legally classified as child molestation.")
  • Women receive Freedom and Dignity ( "What would be the status of women in the Western world today had Jesus Christ never entered the human arena? One way to answer this question is to look at the status of women in most present-day Islamic countries. Here women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. ...countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran, which says, 'Men stand superior to women. ...But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you then do not seek a way against them' (Sura 4:34) This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man's relationship with his wife.")
  • Charity and Compassion; Their Christian Roots
  • Hospitals and Health Care: Their Christian Roots
  • Christianity's Imprint on Education
  • Labor and Economic Freedom Dignified
  • Science; Its Christian Roots
  • Liberty and Justice For All
  • Slavery Abolished: A Christian Achievement
  • Christianity's Stamp on Art and Architecture
  • The Sound of Music: Its Christian Resonance
  • Hallmarks of Literature: Their Christian Imprint
  • Additional Influence: Holidays, Words, Symbols, and Expressions
Thus I think if anyone wishes to insert a discussion about church "worldliness". We need to have a full discussion of what the Church as accomplished with regard to human social progress as well. We have to be WP:NPOV and I don't think you can discuss one aspect without the other. NancyHeise talk 03:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, several editors have endorsed the assertion that, for most of its history, the Church has been very much wrapped up in the acquisition and use of temporal power. This is really not a controversial assertion. Whatever the motivation of the original proposal may have been, the point is that, for better or worse, temporal power has been an integral part of the Church's ethos until the last hundred years or so.

Without denying any of what you have written about the good things that the Church has done, the pursuit and use of temporal power was a "fact of life" for the Church for centuries. In some sense, its attempt to influence electoral results is an example of its indirect attempt to exert influence in the politics of nations.

What I call your inclination towards apologetics is exemplified by this attitude of "Oh no, you can't say that unless I get to balance out that horrid, negative critical stuff with good, warm and fuzzy stuff that is laudatory". What I've asserted about the Church is true. What you've asserted about the Church is true. They're both true and they should both be put into the article. This is not a zero-sum game where editors only get to put in "negative" stuff if you get to balance it out with "positive" stuff. That's not how Wikipedia works. That's not what NPOV means.

Besides, although the original proposal may have been intended as negative criticism, it doesn't have to be portrayed that way. It's just the way it happened. It doesn't have to be seen as negative any more than Israel being a "Jewish state" is inherently a negative thing. There are positive and negative aspects to that relationship between religion and state as well. At the end of the day, it is not our job to criticize or praise the Church. Nor is it our job to attack or defend it. It is our job to describe in an NPOV way how the Church is described by reliable sources.

--Richard S (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidates for elimination

In all the debate, I see not enough mention of specifics. Everyone seems in agreement that the history section is overweight, but the discussion is very general. I think "candidates for execution" need to be found in that section. I found many items in the history section that (in my view) would not say anything to a new reader. And believe me this is the FIRST time I could bring myself to read this mass of text masquerading as a history section. If people agree/disagree on specific items, and suggest other candidates, then weight reduction on that section can begin. Else it will be generalities for ever.

I think some people will want to keep some of these candidates, some will suggest others for deletion, but a start needs to be made on "who has to go". Just as in any corporate downsizing, these may seem like hard decisions, but cuts need to be made in the end.

Suggestions for deletion

  • At the end of the 13th century, Pope Boniface VIII was involved in a heated conflict with Philip IV of France. After a falsified papal bull was circulated by Philip in a "smear campaign" against the pope, Boniface promulgated Unam Sanctam. This clarified the spiritual responsibilities of the pope as supreme over the temporal responsibilities of monarchs.
    • The question is "How important was Unam Sanctam?" If not deleted, I would drop the lead-in and just start with "Boniface VIII promulgated..." --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Never heard of this, but deleting (alternately trimming to one sentence) seems fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Fine with me, I added it in response to a newbies request. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Efforts to mend the rift were attempted at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and Council of Florence in 1439. While in each case the Eastern Emperor and Eastern Patriarch both agreed to the reunion,neither council changed the attitudes of the Eastern Churches at large, and the schism remained.
    • I would amend this to "In the ensuing centuries, efforts were made to mend the rift but ultimately the two churches remained in schism." --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we need to retain the names of the Councils for wikilinking purposes. Otherwise Richard's shortening is ok. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Both shortening suggestions (with or without wikilinks) are fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I support Xandars suggestion to keep names of the Councils for wikilinking purposes. I also think it will eliminate POV accusations. Not sure how to reword and keep these so I don't support reword. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The first of a series of disruptive new perspectives came from John Wycliffe at Oxford University, and Jan Hus at the University of Prague. The Council of Constance (1414–1417), condemned Hus and ordered his execution, but could not prevent the Hussite Wars in Bohemia.
    • Agree that this is too long but it's important to establish that the Reformation did not start with Martin Luther. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Richard's point but do not know the significance of the Hussite Wars so pass on the rest. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Protestants like to see Hus in the article. It is important to them. I am not opposed to a reword but we need to keep Hus otherwise war will break out again on this page : ) NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • San Francisco was founded in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781.
    • Agree. This is unnecessary. (Even if I do hail from California). --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree. I'm not from CA Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • OK to cut but it would be helpful to Reader if we had some sort of text and link to direct them to Catholic stuff in the US. Remember, this article is the hub for all other Wikiproject Catholicism articles. We should try to include mention of the most important Catholicism articles in our text to make it user friendly.NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I think too much stuff is being kept for the sole purpose of linking to it. However, in this case, I think the article to link to is Spanish missions in California. --Richard S (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Yet in spite of these advances, the Amerindian population continued to suffer decline from exposure to European diseases"
    • The Amerindian population continued to suffer decline only from exposure to European diseases? This seems a bit glib to me. Perhaps the forced concentration of Amerindian populations in and around missions helped spread the diseases. There's a whole debate here about Europeans and Amerindians that is being glossed over here. I'm not arguing that we should delve into the details but let's not be glib either. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Most historians would agree that European diseases were the main cause of Indian population fall in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Theories about whether missions were important are generally speculative and irrelevant here. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • No objection to deleting as seems tangental. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The reason it seems tangential is that it presents one side of the debate without the other side. --Richard S (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we should stick to the facts and eliminate speculation - the fact is that Amerindian populations were eliminated by disease. There were quite a lot of Indians and a small percentage existed in South American missions which are credited with bringing farming and other civilized notions to the Indians. If we are going to propose one side of the debate, we need to propose the other or provide a link to another page where it is discussed. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I love it when one side wants to "stick to the facts and eliminate speculation" if that "speculation" is detrimental to their POV but gloms onto speculation if it is supportive of their POV. Are we then characterizing this as "speculation" rather than "fact"? Also read this. The sentence in question has been deleted. I suggest we leave it out as reintroducing it without further explication suggests a defense without having presented the criticism. --Richard S (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In 1933, two American Catholics, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, founded a new Catholic peace group, the Catholic Worker that would embody their ideals of pacifism, commitment to the poor and to fundamental change in American society.
    • Yeh, this can probably be deleted from this article. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably too US-specific. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • At least trim description starting "that would embody..." Full deleting is fine too. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think we should mention the emergence of Catholic Social Teaching but we don't have to go into detailed discussion about this one group. Dorothy Day opposed US involvement in World War II which, most people, including our Catholic popes have agreed was a Just war. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree with Nancy that mentioning Catholic Social Teaching is far more important than mentioning the Catholic Worker movement. --Richard S (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reduce to one or two short sentences

  • Pope Gregory the Great reformed church practice and administration around 600 and launched renewed missionary efforts[249] which were complemented by other missionary movements such as the Hiberno-Scottish mission.[250][251] Missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic people.[250] In the same period the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism,[246] and in Britain the full reunion of the Celtic churches with Rome was effectively marked by the Synod of Whitby in 664.[251] Later missionary efforts by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century reached greater Moravia and introduced, along with Christianity, the Cyrillic alphabet used in the southern and eastern Slavic languages.[252] While Christianity continued to expand in Europe, Islam presented a significant military threat to Western Christendom.[253] By 715, Muslim armies had conquered Syria, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Alexandria, Iraq and Persia, Carthage and much of the Iberian Peninsula.[254]
    • Drop the list of missionaries but keep the taking of Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples. I have mixed feeling about mentioning the Celtic churches but I agree that we should drop the Synod of Whitby. Similarly, we should metion Saints Cyril and Methodius but drop "greater Morzvia" and the "Cyrillic alphabet". The key point here is that they evangelized the Slavs. Keep the "Islam presented a significant military threat" but drop the laundry list of countries conquered by the Muslim armies --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty much agree, but Celtic C must be kept - "reunion" is wrong word anyway. This passage, like others, really needs to judged with its links in place. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem with removing the names is that it deletes important links that can be used by readers to access more detailed information - something we should be encouraging. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I think Synod of Whitby should be kept. I don't see how the information is improved by the proposed cut. It is important to tell Reader about where Islam had spread and how it posed a threat, this is part of the story, an important part. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In Germany, the reformation led to a nine-year war between the Protestant Schmalkaldic League and the Catholic Emperor Charles V. In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed.[306] In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre marked the turning point in this war.[307] Survivors regrouped under Henry of Navarre who became Catholic and began the first experiment in religious toleration with his 1598 Edict of Nantes.[307] This Edict, which granted civil and religious toleration to Protestants, was hesitantly accepted by Pope Clement VIII.[306][308]
    • Condense all this into one sentence describing the European wars of religion.
      • Good luck with that; but does not work well now. Omitting St Bart's Massacre will be regarded as monstrous Papist bias by many. Who wrote this stuff? It isn't the old text. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • It can be condensed, but I very much doubt into one sentence. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Richard's proposed cut and I doubt it will be controversial. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Church growth in Japan came to a halt in 1597 under the Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu who, in an effort to isolate the country from foreign influences, launched a severe persecution of Christians or Kirishitan's.[339] An underground minority Christian population survived throughout this period of persecution and enforced isolation which was eventually lifted in the 19th century.[339][340] The Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in China in 1721.
    • Eh, I'd be inclined to keep this section although the bit about the "Chinese Rites controversy" seems like excessive detail as does the naming of Tokugawa Iemitsu. It's not important at this level to know who banned Christianity from Japan. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty much agree; again, you need the links to judge this. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I can go along with this. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • NO! Oh my gosh you guys - the Chinese Rites controversy is an extremely important - huge part of the history of the Church in China as well as Jesuit history. How can we have an article discussing Church history and not include this? Its like failing to mention the Reformation. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • When Pope Pius VI sided against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy and imprisoned Pius who died after six weeks of captivity. Napoleon later re-established the Catholic Church in France through the Concordat of 1801.[344] The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy due in part to his "heroic stand against the tyrant".[345][346] The papal states were returned, and the Church was "liberated" from its servile ties to European kings thus freeing the Church to return to its "true spiritual mission."
    • Too much detail and, frankly, I wonder if this is the mainstream perspective on the Church's position in 19th century Europe. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • In fact it pretty much is, but phrased in a POV manner - many political entanglements with states were removed by the Revolutionary period, though the Jus exclusivae and Crown-cardinals lingered on for a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Again this could be carefully cut by about half. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Important to mention all these facts, not sure how to make it more concise. BTW, it is the mainstream view Richard. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In China, despite Jesuit efforts to find compromise, the Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in 1721.[341] These events added fuel to growing criticism of the Jesuits, who were seen to symbolize the independent power of the Church, and in 1773 European rulers united to force Pope Clement XIV to dissolve the order.[350] The Jesuits were eventually restored in the 1814 papal bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum.[351]
    • First of all, we've already mentioned the "Chinese Rites controversy" earlier. Mention it only once if at all. Also, I don't really think that the Chinese Rites controversy was the driving force behind the suppression of the Jesuits and yet that's what the text seems to imply. In the greater scheme of things, I'm not sure the suppression and restoration of the Society of Jesus is that important to mention in this article. I certainly don't think we need to name the bull which restored it. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It just needs one sentence not all of this. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Trim a bit, but the suppression & restoration of Jesuits need to be in, with the links piped. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Agree with Johnbod. Xandar
          • Agree with Xandar and Johnbod. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The Cluniac reform of monasteries that had begun in 910 sparked widespread monastic growth and renewal.[265] Monasteries introduced new technologies and crops, fostered the creation and preservation of literature and promoted economic growth. Monasteries, convents and cathedrals still operated virtually all schools and libraries.[266][267] Despite a church ban on the practice of usury the larger abbeys functioned as sources for economic credit.[268] The 11th and 12th century saw internal efforts to reform the church. The college of cardinals in 1059 was created to free papal elections from interference by Emperor and nobility. Lay investiture of bishops, a source of rulers' dominance over the Church, was attacked by reformers and under Pope Gregory VII, erupted into the Investiture Controversy between Pope and Emperor. The matter was eventually settled with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 where it was agreed that bishops would be selected in accordance with Church law.
    • I'm inclined to keep this although I think there are too many "trees" identified and not enough description of the "forest". I think the real issue is to assert that the Catholic Church was responsible for much of the culture and civilization of the medieval period. Much of the text in the above paragraph is providing evidentiary support for that assertion. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • This is on the "keep but trim list". It is just too long as is now, if it is reduced people may actually read it. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd keep all these points. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
          • The sentences I've highlighted in italic could be shortened radically. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree with Richard that its too many tree and not enough forest. I am ok with a reword to help correct this as long as we keep the most notable links. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And these are just for starters. Please suggest others or comment. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to quote passages like this, it is important to quote with the links. Half the point of summary style text is the links it provides to fuller articles. Some of these passages are rich in useful links, & others not. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. NancyHeise talk 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, would you like to provide a list of paragraphs to be fired? When downsizing starts no one wants to fire people, but unfortunately if nothing goes, there will be no downsizing. So a list must be made. I started one, but I was "learning" Church history as I selected the paragraphs, someone with more histo-knowledge needs to continue this trend,, then the section will get reduced, else there will be general discussion until 3 more popes get elected. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Now that 3 people, Richard, John and Xandar have commented, my suggestion would be to delete or shorten anything that 2 out of the 3 agree on. If there is a 4th or 5th comment we can adjust the votes accordingly. I should not do the trimming because I know less about the history than most people, so whoever wants to do it, please do so whenever the lock expires, then we can make another list of candidates until no one agrees on further deletion. The strategy can work. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I trimmed the obvious items such as LA&SF etc. whose deletion seemed in general agreement, but I do not want to shrink paragraphs since I do not know the history well enough and will probably introduce inaccuracies. So I suggest that someone else should do that now to reduce size. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference tertiaries was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference vatican.va-Canons573 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Canon 605". 1983 Code of Canon Law. Vatican. Retrieved 9 March 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  4. ^ "Faithful Citizenship, A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility". United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2003. Retrieved 28 November 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Thomas, pp. 65–66.
  6. ^ Koschorke, p. 13, p. 283.
  7. ^ Dussel, Enrique, p. 39, p. 59.
  8. ^ a b Noble, pp. 450–451.
  9. ^ Woods, p. 135.
  10. ^ a b c Koschorke, p. 287.
  11. ^ Johansen, p. 109, p. 110, quote: "In the Americas, the Catholic priest Bartolome de las Casas avidly encouraged enquiries into the Spanish conquest's many cruelties. Las Casas chronicled Spanish brutality against the Native peoples in excruciating detail."
  12. ^ Woods, p. 137.
  13. ^ Chadwick, Owen, p. 327.
  14. ^ Dussel, p. 45, pp. 52–53, quote: "The missionary Church opposed this state of affairs from the beginning, and nearly everything positive that was done for the benefit of the indigenous peoples resulted from the call and clamor of the missionaries. The fact remained, however, that widespread injustice was extremely difficult to uproot ... Even more important than Bartolome de Las Casas was the Bishop of Nicaragua, Antonio de Valdeviso, who ultimately suffered martyrdom for his defense of the Indian."
  15. ^ Koschorke, p. 21.
  16. ^ Koschorke, p. 3, p. 17.
  17. ^ a b Koschorke, pp. 31–32.
  18. ^ McManners, p. 318.
  19. ^ McManners, p. 328.
  20. ^ Kreeft, p. 320.
  21. ^ Paragraph numbers 1324–1331 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved 11 June 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ See Luke 22:19, Matthew 26:27–28, Mark 14:22–24, 1Corinthians 11:24–25
  23. ^ Kreeft, p. 326.
  24. ^ a b Kreeft, p. 331.
  25. ^ Paragraph numbers 1400 (1994). "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Retrieved 5 June 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ a b Vidmar, p. 184.
  27. ^ a b Bokenkotter, p. 215.
  28. ^ Bokenkotter, pp. 223–224.
  29. ^ Vidmar, pp. 196–200.
  30. ^ a b Bokenkotter, pp. 235–237.
  31. ^ Moyes, James (1913). "Anglicanism" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
  32. ^ Schama, pp. 309–311.
  33. ^ Vidmar, p. 220.
  34. ^ Noble, p. 519.
  35. ^ Vidmar, pp. 225–256.
  36. ^ Solt, p. 149
  37. ^ a b Bokenkotter, pp. 242–244.
  38. ^ Norman, p. 81.
  39. ^ Vidmar, p. 237.
  40. ^ Murray, p. 45.
  41. ^ a b Duffy, pp. 188–191.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_42&oldid=1136303433"