Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

LGBT rights opposition category

I do not think it right to place the Roman Catholic Church in a category called "opposition to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual rights, especially since the word "rights" in the title of the category may be understood as expressing a point of view. Placing the article in such a category seems therefore less excusable than placing it in a category such as "opposition to polygamy", "opposition to divorce", etc. Even such categories might be inappropriate, but at least they would be expressed in unquestionably objective terms. I leave it to someone else - if someone else agrees with me - to revert Xavier the Great's 20:58, 30 April 2006 placing of the article in this category. Lima 07:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --WikiCats 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Contrafool 09:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In certain usages "rights" in that context, might express a POV, but it doesn't necessarily. You speak if "silverware rights" (a legal decree granting silverware legal rights) without implicitly supporting the notion. Either you think LGBT people should have rights (equal, unequal, more, whatever), or you don't, but you can still call them "rights" (and most people do no matter what their stance). It seems pretty uncontroversial that the official catholic position is opposed to homosexuals having certain "rights" (there is the view that "homosexuality" isn't a identity but rather a behavior, but I don't think you want to get into that--you'd be venturing into the realm of post-modernism, and if we did that, wikipedia would become a circus of NPOV disputes--more so than it already is) --Brentt 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case I don't think "rights" is the correct word. In the cases being examined here, rights is a legal term. Under canon law, those who are gay/lesbian have the same rights as others. There is no difference with respect to any right the Churh understands any member of the faithful to possess. That being said, all rights are subject to law, and therefore can never be exercised in absolute freedom. Again, this would apply to all. Most people generally focus on the right of marriage. Marriage is a right of all members of the faithful. However, the DEFINITION of marriage includes a permanent union between a man and a woman. Therefore, it is impossible by definition for two men (or two women) to marry. This is not a denial of a right, but rather the recognition of a Italic textsine qua nonItalic text within marriage itself.DaveTroy 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the question of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church opposes LGBT rights comes down to whether the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church supports or opposes changes in civil law granting rights to homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons. In this sense, the Roman Catholic Church most definitely opposes LGBT rights, and belongs in that category. I do believe the "LGBT rights" term is mildly POV, but as a new user I won't attempt to rock the boat on that one. Svend la Rose 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition and History Section proposal

According to an earlier consensus on this page, there should be a quite brief reference to topics with criticisms and those criticisms should go on the articles referred to. The reason for this is that there is a long history of this page being a playground for Catholic bashing. I would like to propose that the Inquisition be referenced briefly in the history section, noting it's controversial nature with main article reference. This also brings up the fact that the History section is rather long and does not have sufficient sub sections. I would propose that it be organized into subsections each with a main article reference and that the Inquisition be one of those sections.

There are lots of issues to duke it out over, but the various controversies need not be played out on this page. Vaquero100 12:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do - this sounds good. I don't know if I can fit the sex scandal things in the history section or not, I'll see. 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology Section

The Anglican position on the term "Catholic Church" is recorded ad nauseam on several pages of WP, including Catholicism, Catholic, and Catholic Church (disambiguation). However, there is no place on WP that explains the origins of the term "Roman" Catholic Church or how the term is actually used in the documents of the Catholic Church, which use is minimal and marginal at best. These are facts which should be reported, it is not POV to report facts, even if others are uncomfortable with those facts. Anglicans have completely dominated the Catholic topics for at least 6-8 months. It is time to at least allow the Catholic position to be reported. JzG, if you want to do a responsible job as an editor and an administrator, you should deal with the issues one by one, actually edit rather than simply revert, and perhaps just maybe use the talk page. I know it is a novel concept, but hey if this poor stupid "papist" can play be the rules, I think you can. Vaquero100 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please avoid getting hung-up on this? FWIW it's not solely an 'Anglican position' anyway: there are Lutherans, Old Catholics, etc. not to mention the Eastern Orthodox churches, who do not neccesarily completely reject the Western church's claim of catholicity. I'm certainly not uncomfortable referring to the Church as "The Catholic Church" or "The Church", and indeed it is referred to as such, properly, frequently throughout the article. But the purposes of maximum accuracy insist that we also use the common specific designator (c.f. "Eastern Orthodox"). The paragraph as it stands is extremely well-balanced and authoritative; certainly not untruthful. Slac speak up! 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100 has a valid point about terminology. While the use of particular terminology can imply particular beliefs, most English speakers do not insist that using unqualified "Catholic Church" to refer to this Church is either confusing or controversial. Because of a desire to fairly represent a minority POV that is primarily Anglican, a false balance has resulted where undue weight is given to that distinctly minority POV. The NPOV policy specifically states that:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all ..."

It is entirely appropriate to represent the origins of the names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic." One possible place to detail the history of the "Roman Catholic" name is in the Anti-Catholicism article. A reference to that content could be included in the terminology section of this article. -SynKobiety 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, with reliable sources. You cannot cite posts on wikipedia talk pages without that being original research. Also keep in mind, it is HIGHLY recommended that whenever you add new content to an article, you add a citation. If everyone keeps these things in mind, I feel that reverts happen a lot less, and wikipedia is held up to a high standard of quality. I personally do not feel that allegedy Anglical bias on wikipedia towards Catholic topics is notable enough to be mentioned in the main article space.--Andrew c 13:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lacrimonious, please explain FWIW. It is not familiar to me.

To answer, in part, what you have written above, the article title is currently defines WP "use." This WP use is not the use of the Catholic Church for itself. This needs to be recorded accurately. There are several inaccuracies/inadequacies in the present form:

The Catholic Church as such does not issue joint documents with other Churches.
There is no account of the origin of the term Roman.
There is no adequate explanation of the contexts in which Roman is used by the Church or by others.

If you will look into the history of this issue, you will see that it began in England among Anglicans, was particularly enforced by the Royal family, has its origin in slurs such as "Romish" and "papist" (slurs still in use, in fact). This did not become an issue among other denominations until after the liturgical reforms of the 1960's when others, like Lutherans, began to recite the creed every Sunday in its original form (Luther had changed "Catholic" to "Christian" in the creed). Many German Lutherans still do not use "Catholic" in the creed. "Primarily Anglican" is in fact correct, though there are others.

Please just stop talking off the top of your head and do the research. I have studied this issue thoroughly for several months. For more information, please see: User:Vaquero100/Catholic Church naming arguments.

Also note: These are several points being asserted in my version. If you would like to discuss them, then lets do that--but the discussion should be point by point and not just wholesale reverts. Use your God-given intellect and not just your knee-jerk reaction because you personally don't like it.

The points asserted:

Catholic Church is the official name of the Church. If the name of the Church has changed at some point, the onus is on those who believe this to demonstrate exactly when, where and how this official change was made. There is no such evidence.
All authoritative documents of the Catholic Church use Catholic Church, except where emphasis is being made to the specific authority of Rome (this last use was in the document Humani Generis in 1950, a document which articulates the specific role of the Petrine office in relation to the role of theologians.
The only other occurances of the term "Roman" are in diplomatice communications with other Churches as a matter of courtesy. The assertion that the Catholic Church issues joint documents with other Churches is incorrect. While the theologicans and other members of ARCIC are named by the Curia, they operate independently once appointed. They publish their reports in their own name. The Catholic Church's assessment of the committee reports are the only authoritative documents of the Church. These documents do NOT refer to the Church as the Roman Catholic Church.
Roman Catholic Church does not include the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. A source is now cited here. Also, if you look HERE, you will see that this is the use of the term in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The present version of the text has citations. Before making wholesale reverts again, please address these issues here. Vaquero100 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW is "for what it's worth".

No official change has been made to the name of the Church, and the article states that as such.
It is indisputably true that the Church refers to itself as "The Catholic Church" in its own documents, and again, so says the article. You yourself indicate that the Roman descriptor is used by the Church - not as an official name - but as a clarifying adjective to allow more attention to be paid to the history and character of the Church, which of course, centres around the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
If you wish the "matter of courtesy" phrasing to be in the section, I have no problem. A citation for this would of course be good (since of course the current version does not have one).
I know the Catechism uses "The Catholic Church", because I have read it and own a copy. Nonetheless, the term Roman Catholic Church is in very common use, and it is not invalid per se (I should also note that the Catechism uses "The Church" far more frequently than "The Catholic Church"). It is simply a useful descriptor commonly applied to, as the article states in its opening paragraph, "The Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter". The perspective that the term is either (i) illegitimate, or (ii) in reference solely to the Western Rite, is not a universally held one, even if the Church itself has so taught, which I don't believe it has.

As an aside, "papist" and "Romish" were not originally slurs, but became so because of the attitude of the speakers who were using them. It's not necessary to go into the history of the word "Roman" (I'm pretty sure it dates from the days of the Pentarchy anyway), since we all know it's not the Church's official name.

In conclusion, it's an easy matter to find sources that state the Church officially calls itself "The Catholic Church". Nobody is arguing differently. What can't be convincingly argued is that Wikipedia as a whole should somehow be prohibited from using the term "Roman Catholic Church", since I'm not sure exactly what cites or arguments you would need to enforce that position (the argument that it reflects the biases of C17 Anglicans I don't believe will be found convincing). Slac speak up! 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

proposed change to last paragraph of the opening

Having a quote in the intro, as stated above, is awkward and not exactly inline with style guides. I have also voiced concern over the last sentence (and there is the "His Holiness" issue). I have come up with a proposed change to that paragraph, and would enjoy hearing opinions, and suggested changes.

The Church describes each Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, and uses the honorific title of His Holiness for this position. In Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Church states that it is the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" mentioned in the Nicene Creed, and teaches that this church was founded by Jesus for the salvation of all people.

--Andrew c 14:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. I would leave in that St. Peter's sucessor is the Bishop of Rome / head of the Church / Vicar of Christ or something similar to explain his role.Lostcaesar 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Can you think of a way to fit that in (feel free to edit the proposal text). Keep in mind that the previous sentence states a bit of that information "The Church is led by the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, currently, Pope Benedict XVI."--Andrew c 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I wasn’t sure if you were going to keep that sentence also or not. I would propose “The Church describes each Pope as the successor of Saint Peter and therefore Vicar of Christ, and uses…” – the link ought to explain this useage well enough, I think.Lostcaesar 08:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have several conversations going simultaneously on the same subject. (To clarify, I did come to the talk page before re-adding His Holiness. And, Andrew c, you removed it before there was opportunity for discussion). Please note Andrew c, that the Catholic Church does not capitalize the marks of the Church in its modern conciliar documents or in the creed. Please do not sneak in the capitalization. This has already been discussed before. The proper name of Lumen Gentium in English is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church in the Modern World. The explanation of His Holiness belongs in the pope article, not here. As your google search on Jerry Falwell demonstrated, WP does seem willing to use proper titles for clergy without regard for their literal meaning. Also, as a linked phrase His Holiness if virtually self explanatory. Also, if we are going to look back over 2 years of edits, then we should seriously move this article where it was 2 years ago, to Catholic Church. Vaquero100 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for starting another topic (the first one seemed to turn into the "His Holiness" issue, and this is a new proposal, so I gave it a new heading). I came to talk to mention the "His Holiness" issue. After reading through guidelines, I decided this wasn't a content issue, but a policy issue and was bold in removing "His Holiness". The reason I questioned the revert is because you went to talk, and I responded, yet you reverted before addressing my response (plus there was no edit summary). As for.. Please note Andrew c, that the Catholic Church does not capitalize the marks of the Church in its modern conciliar documents or in the creed. Ok, Vaquero100, please note that Wikipedia is NOT the Catholic Church. Wikipedia's article DOES capitalize "the marks": One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That said, I'd be interested in reading the past discussion, if you have a link. As for the title of Lumen Gentium, the link didn't have the "in the Modern World" part. I apologize that the Vatican's website is in err about the title. And I also apologize that your suggested title only gets 4 google hits. As for "His Holiness", I also agree that the title, and explination of His Holiness belongs in the pope article. I was trying to compromise by including the phrase in a NPOV manner. But we can simply remove it, that works as well. As for Falwell, there were only 3 articles that included the honorific title, and none of them are topical to Falwell, and none of them are featured articles. This does not prove that this usage is acceptable. Please refer to the style guide. As for going back 2 years, if we are to believe the page history, Catholic Church stayed a redirect to Catholicism for 2 years.--Andrew c 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, "in the Modern World" is part of the title of Gaudium et Spes, not Lumen Gentium. Vaquero100 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was reverted for putting this section in. I thought we agreed above that quotes weren't the best thing for the introduction section. And I thought that the first sentence WAS about the pope: "which is governed by the successor of Peter" — i.e. the Pope. I'll try something else out.--Andrew c 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

new first sentence

Here are two different definitions of the Church from other articles on wikipedia (slightly modified). Should we use either one of these, or combine them, or write something from scratch?

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination comprised of 23 autonomous churches in communion with the bishop of Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church is a single Christian body comprising 23 particular Churches of the Western and Eastern Rite.

Any more ideas?--Andrew c 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

The Roman Catholic Church, also called the Catholic Church, is a Church made up of followers of Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Catholic faith has its origin in Judaism, with Jesus Christ representing a breaking point from the perspective of the Jewish leadership at the time, as the majority of them did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. The Church professes that Christ instituted the Church in and with the Twelve Apostles and charged them to teach all nations as he had taught them.

The Catholic Church comprises the largest Christian Church in the world.["Major Branches of Religions". adherents.com. Retrieved 2006-07-19.] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of year 2004 was 1,098,366,000, a year in which the United Nations put the total world population at 6,388,500,000.[Statistical Yearbook of the Church 2004 (ISBN 88-209-7817-2)] As such it is the world's largest single organised body of religion. The Church is led by the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI.

Particular Churches is ok then - oh, one more think, we can't call the Church a denomination.Lostcaesar 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ect... 2nd Piston Honda 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole "particular church" thing very confusing, likewise the auto churches - for what its worth, it might be a little too sticky for an intro; Lostcaesar 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just going by what 2 other articles define the Church as. I think it's important to mention the confusing, sticky stuff in the intro, however, it may not be first sentence material. I don't like 2nd Piston Honda's suggestion at all. It is more about history, than the contemporary church. You could exchange the word "Christian" or "Orthodox" for Catholic, and the paragraph would mean the exact same thing, therefore it does not diffrentient the Church from other denominations. Furthermore, the last sentence is almost identical to the last sentence of the last paragraph of the intro. Hmm... any more ideas? Should we look at how other reference works define the Church to get some ideas?--Andrew c 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just gave you a very clear definition of the Catholic Church, but i know that's not what's needed here. I think it's fine how it is. 2nd Piston Honda 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there are a lot of editors here who are opposed to change, with perhaps the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality. I have been faced with opposition and reverts when attempting to question and change what I perceive to be issues in this article. That said, I feel that the introduction sentence is very important. This isn't something that can be brushed aside, because the format of encyclopedia articles is outlines according to a set of guidelines. Everyone, please read Wikipedia:Lead section and then see if you can justifiably tell me this article is up to standards (espcially Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview).--Andrew c 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, personaly I am glad that it is being worked on. One thing, though, we cannot call the Church a "denomination" Lostcaesar 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, the Church refers to herself as "she", not "it", for what its worthLostcaesar 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, i'm not opposed to change, i'm opposed to changing it to either of the options you have above. Can you explain what exactly you have a problem with in the intro as it is? I read above and all you say is that you should have a little paragraph explaining what the Pope is in the middle of the opening section of Roman Catholic Church (which is ridiculous to me). But please be more precise with your complaints and i can be more precise in responding to them. 2nd Piston Honda 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

regarding Andrew c's edit

See the edit [[1]]. Explain what point you were trying to make with this edit. 2nd Piston Honda 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the origin of the "one, holy..." phrase helps avoid jargon (and the understanding of layreaders who may not be familiar with the phrase). I also personally felt it was necessary to state the origin of the quote/information outside of a footnote. This, however, may not be necessary. I also did not like the "It teaches that it", because the use of pronouns gets confusing and sloppy. Finally, I like the flow of my 2nd sentence better than the current sentence. As stated, the changes and discussion is addressed in the proposal 3 headings up. Other issues is the Pope issue. According to the guidelines, wikipedia should not refer to people by honorific prefixes, unless in an objective discussion ABOUT those prefixes. My removal of "His Holiness", while covered by the guidelines, was met with opposition, so I put the phrase "His Holiness" back into the article, in a NPOV manner. However, 2 editors have pointed out that that is too much about the Pope in an article about a different topic. It was just an attempt to compromise, but I won't be upset with the removal of the further description of the pope (however, as noted in the discussion above, lostcaesar has proposed a wording that further describes the pope, so maybe we could include that discussion on the Pope in the opening). The last issue, still not addressed, is the use of quoted text in to opening. While I personally think getting the Church in the Church's own words is important, it may not exactly be appropriate according to Wikipedia:Lead section. If we could summarize and paraphrase instead, the lead may be stronger. I was attempting to do that with my initial edit and proposal which was reverted. Anyway, that's that.--Andrew c 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New Try

Alright, here is my try. This uses no pronouns, so we dont have to worry about the "it" vs "she" issue, likewise this doesn't use the word "denomination", which desont make sense (what is "The Church" a denomination of?). Here we go:

The Roman Catholic Church, also called the Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church in the world,["Major Branches of Religions". adherents.com. Retrieved 2006-07-19.] composed of twenty three particular churches in communion with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, including those of the Western and Eastern Rite. The Church describes each Pope as the successor of Saint Peter, using the honorific title of His Holiness. Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, states that the Church is the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of in the Nicene Creed, founded by Jesus for the salvation of all humanity.

The Church's worldwide membership at the end of year 2004 was 1,098,366,000,[Statistical Yearbook of the Church 2004] a year in which the United Nations put the total world population at 6,388,500,000. As such it is the world's largest single organised body of religion.

Comments? Lostcaesar 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between mentioning the Pope (as in the current version) and explaining the Pope, and i don't think the intro should have any of the latter. Also, why is it important to talk about the "23 particular churches"? That's not a definition of the Church that i've EVER heard. 2nd Piston Honda 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you want the pope sentence out? It is ok other than that? The "particular churches" thing is a specific theological nuanced way to express the inclusion of various "rite" in the Church, and also, frankly, a bone to the Orthodox so that their sensibilities might be appeased. Whatever the case it goes with the "communion" part (its incorporated in that kind of theological language).Lostcaesar 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying again

How about this for the whole intro?

The Roman Catholic Church, commonly called the Catholic Church, is the Christian church in full communion with Pope. It claims its origins in the original undivided Christian community founded by Jesus, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles at the time of Pentecost and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession.

The Church is not only the largest Christian Church, but also the largest organized body of any world religion.^[1] According to the Statistical Yearbook of the Church, the Church's worldwide recorded membership at the end of 2004 was 1,098,366,000, or approximately 1 in 6 of the world's population.^[2] According to canon law, members are those who have been baptized in, or have been received into, the Catholic Church on making a profession of faith, provided they have not formally renounced membership.

The Church is made up of one Western and 22 Eastern Rite particular Churches. Worldwide, the Church is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually on a territorial basis. The standard territorial unit is called, in the Latin Rite, a diocese, and in the Eastern Rites, an eparchy, and is headed by a bishop or an eparch. At the end of 2004, the total number of all these jurisdictional areas or sees was 2755.^[3]

The Holy See of Rome is seen as central, and its bishop, the Pope, is considered to be the (sole) successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the Apostles, sometimes called the "prince" (from Latin princeps, meaning "foremost", "leader") of the Apostles. The current Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is Pope Benedict XVI.

^ "Major Branches of Religions". adherents.com. Retrieved 2006-07-19.
^ Statistical Yearbook of the Church 2004 (ISBN 88-209-7817-2)
^ (Annuario Pontificio 2005).

Issues:

denomination, church body, or something else
Full communion vs. Communion (Christian)
Where should Rome redirect to: Holy See, Rome, Vatican City, etc?
The mention of bishops, heirarchy has been removed, but do we need to mention that (maybe without the quote?)
I still feel it needs to be a little longer, perhaps reflecting/summarizing a few of the sections to come.
The 2nd sentence and the last paragraph seem redundent.

What else? Any comments, changes, criticism? --Andrew c 20:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice; certainly an improvement on the current one. My thoughts:

* While "in communion with Rome" is a common phrase I don't think it's actually that clear - it sounds like it means the Church is "in communion" with the City of Rome itself (whereas in fact the headquarters of the Church aren't even technically in Rome). At the moment I'm not sure anything would be lost by just removing the words and leaving it as "the Christian denomination led by the Pope"; though that would still leave the issue of "led by" which has popped up a few times.

* "founded by Jesus for salvation" doesn't seem to make much sense to the reader unfamiliar with the subject. I think it either needs to be cropped down - "founded by Jesus" - or explained - "founded by Jesus and tasked with the salvation of all people" or similar.

* I don't think that it's necessary to include the population of the world in the Lead Section - perhaps "or approximately 1 in 6 of the world's population" would be more relevant, then include the precise figure that's based on in references? I'm just mindful of wanting to keep unnecessary words in the lead section to a bare minimum, and at the moment discussion of membership numbers takes up close to half the current lead section.

* The third paragraph is awfully theologically dense - WP:LS says "In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.". Can we do nothing about the term "subsists in"? If we can't definitely understand and define in common English what is meant by the term, it should probably be left out. TSP 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a few tweaks for the first paragraph:

The Roman Catholic Church, commonly called the Catholic Church, is the church comprised of those Christians who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. It claims to be the original undivided Christian community founded by Jesus for the salvation of humanity, with its traditions first established by the Twelve Apostles at the time of Pentecost and maintained through unbroken Apostolic Succession. The Church is made up of one Western and 22 Eastern Rite particular Churches.

-SynKobiety 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like SynKobiety's modifications. And I agree with TSP that it is better to say "or approximately 1 in 6 of the world's population" than the exact number (which, by the way, should be very easy to “estimate” by multiplying the catholic membership.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the above proposal, taking in consideration SynKobiety's and TSP's suggestions. I feel that Pope is a lot more common than Bishop of Rome, so I feel the jargon should be avoided in the first sentence (full communion is pretty jargony as is). I also agree that the last paragraph was redundent with the 2nd sentence, and theologically dense, so I have removed it. I still feel the intro is too short, but the current proposal isn't any shorter than what's already in the actual article. Anyway, thoughts? --Andrew c 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is some info from the intro back in January of this year. Do you think any of this is useful to bring back into the intro?

According to canon law, members are those who have been baptized in, or have been received into, the Catholic Church on making a profession of faith, provided they have not formally renounced membership.

Worldwide, the Church is divided into jurisdictional areas, usually on a territorial basis. The standard territorial unit is called, in the Latin Rite, a diocese, and in the Eastern Rites, an eparchy, and is headed by a bishop or an eparch. For other forms, see below under "The episcopate". At the end of 2004, the total number of all these jurisdictional areas or sees was 2755 (Annuario Pontificio 2005).

The see of Rome is seen as central, and its bishop, the Pope, is considered to be the (sole) successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the Apostles, sometimes called the "prince" (from Latin princeps, meaning "foremost", "leader") of the Apostles.

A description of the Roman Catholic Church must necessarily deal with its teaching and its internal organization. What follows is therefore based principally on its Catechism of the Catholic Church, on its two codes of law, namely the Code of Canon Law (for the Latin Rite) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, and on its yearbook, the Annuario Pontificio.

--Andrew c 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I incorporated some of the above in my 4 paragraph revised proposal above. Any more comments before it goes live? I don't want to push this forward if it isn't ready, but I also feel that being in the main article space gives more editors a chance to not only see it, but actively work on it. Anyway, I think its a step up from what we have, but there is always room for improvement.==Andrew c 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

In the first paragraph, is it necessary to say "It claims . . ."? This is one of the words to avoid and I believe that it would be non-controversial to say "It has..."

In the third paragraph, the first two sentences seem somewhat contradictory. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say in the second sentence: "Worldwide, each particular Church is divided ..."?

-SynKobiety 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't quite the sense in which it is listed in words to avoid - "claims its origins in" isn't quite the same as "claims that its origins are in". Still, perhaps it could be phrased more neutrally - I believe the former phrasing of this was "traces its origins to", which is perhaps better. I don't think we'd be justified in stating as a fact that the RCC has its origins in the original Christian community founded by Jesus - some would even say that Jesus' existence can't be stated as a fact.

On other points, I'm not quite convinced by the new fourth paragraph; it seems like a bit of a jumble of random facts. Wouldn't it be more logical to name the current pope when he's first mentioned, in the first paragraph? In fact, probably all this information would be better in the first paragraph, tying in the link to the Twelve Apostles with the direct link from St Peter to the Pope.

"...is considered to be the (sole) successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the Apostles, sometimes called the "prince" (from Latin princeps, meaning "foremost", "leader") of the Apostles" feels like it needs some qualification - who is it who considers the Pope the successor of St Peter? Who is it who considers St Peter to have been the chief of the Apostles? Who is it who calls St Peter the Prince of the Apostles? The "Prince of the Apostles" point seems a bit esoteric and is probably best left out - I'm not sure it adds anything. The others need to be phrased so that it's clear that these are the beliefs of the church, rather than necessarily things agreed on by everyone outside the church. I think this is probably clear for the "considered to be the successor of" point, but less so for the "chief of the apostles" point (which I don't think would be universally agreed on by all Christians). TSP 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. I have imported a version into the main article. Everyones suggestions were helpful, but now everyone can have a hands on approach to editing the intro, instead of making comments and having me try to adjust the proposal accordingly. I think this is a good step in the right direct. Thanks again.--Andrew c 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh. I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier. I guess I never really read the proposed text and was focusing on issues that other people brought up. This isn't one of my concerns so the alarm bells didn't go off until just now.

The current text reads "commonly called the Catholic Church". This phrasing can raise POV debates. I'll try and find you a reference. One of the more impassioned editors has written up his stance as a subpage but I can't find it at the moment.

I would propose that the text read -- self-identified in internal and public documents as "the Catholic Church". I think that's a more NPOV wording. I know you weren't trying to push a POV but I think the current phrasing will impinge on the sensitivities of some editors.

--Richard 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. However, I do not believe the current wording is problematic. My original proposal kept the "also called" wording that had been in the article for months (if not more). The editor you were refering to brought up the issue and suggested "more commonly called" or "properly called". Another editor involved in the RCC vs. CC debate proposed "commonly called", so I feel that the current wording isn't problematic because I believe it has the support of 2 very pro-CC/anti-RCC editors. However, if I am mistaken, we can totally address that or any other issue that may come up (however, I feel the self-identitied in internal documents bit is abit wordy for the first sentence. However, this information could be included further down in the article if it isn't already ~goes and checks~). Thanks for your imput!--Andrew c 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Catholic Church a "denomination"?

I still think we need to dump denomination, since the Church does not call itself a denomination (also this invites edit conflicts), and I also wouldn't mind avoiding the pronoun issue. Otherwise I give my support, and of course gratitude for the intricate work. Lostcaesar 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Christian Church", with Church linked to Ecclesia (Church) (which I think is the best match to that meaning - Church is about a building) works just about as well.

I'm not sure that pronouns can comfortably be avoided - certainly not for the whole article; and "it" has been used for a very long time without causing obvious dispute. TSP 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re User:Lostcaesar's comment about the Catholic Church not being a denomination, why not consult the denomination article? Here's what it says...

The largest division in many classification schemes is between the families of Eastern and Western Christianity. After these two larger families come distinct branches of Christianity. Most classification schemes list six (in order of size: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Assyrians).

Would it be reasonable to call the Catholic Church the largest branch of Western Christianity? That neatly sidesteps the question of calling it a denomination while still getting the idea across. I can imagine other ways to play around with the wording (e.g. the largest branch of the Western family of Christian churches).

--Richard 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the largest branch/denomination/church of Christianity overall, isn't it?

This wording may attract the ire of those who think it suggests an adherance to branch theory. TSP 23:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh! If it's not a branch or a denomination, then we must call it a church. We must then call it "the largest of the Christian churches" and leave it at that.

--Richard 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Denomination is illogical with the word Catholic; anything “universal”, by definition, cannot be a de-nomin-ation. Lostcaesar 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem here is the disconnect between the Catholic Church's definition of itself as "catholic and universal" vs. the perception of those Christians outside the Catholic Church and, arguably, the reality of whether or not the Catholic Church is, in fact, "catholic and universal" as it claims to be.

Consider the following text from the religious denomination article...

A religious denomination, (also simply denomination) is a large, long-established subgroup within a religion that has existed for many years. However, in Islam such subgroups are referred to as "sects", not denominations.

The term is frequently used to describe the different Christian churches (Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the many varieties of Protestantism); it is also used to describe the four organised branches of Judaism ( Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist), and (less often, though it would not be inappropriate) to describe the two main branches of Islam (Sunni and Shia).

NB: The above text considers the Catholic Church to be a denomination.

Also consider this text from the Christian denomination article...

Christianity is comprised of four major divisions of Churches: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestant. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian churches. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. are colloquially called denominations.

NB: The above text is a bit unclear. Is the Catholic Church a "major division" or a "denomination"?

Me personally, I am OK with "denomination", "branch" or "church". I'm not wedded to any particular term. What I do feel is important is that the text in this article be consonant with the usage in the two articles referenced above.

If you want to say that other Christians consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination but the Catholic Church does not consider itself to be a "denomination" because it considers itself to be the one true Church, then state both POVs. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Catholic Church is not the sole source of truth, even about itself. Please seek to maintain a NPOV.

--Richard 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. The only thing I'd add is that having a debate over 'denomination' in the opening is probably too wordy. We could clearly discuss that in a NPOV manner elsewhere in the article, but maybe we should choose a less controversial word in the opening. --Andrew c 00:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the situation. Some non-Catholic theological perspectives see a general “universal” church, with each little group to be merely a “denomination”, a sub-named Christian community with its own rites and rituals, though equally Christian. Often, the Catholic Church is excluded from even being considered Christian in this sense by those who hold this theology. Hence, to call the Catholic Church a “denomination”, is to impute a particular theological PoV. The Catholic theological PoV is obviously much different, and in the most cordial way to put it in analogy would be that some groups might be “denominations” of the Roman Catholic Church. In the other articles, its seems, they merely describe the common use of the word in English speaking countries – and I think that is different, no least of which because it doesn’t imply that the use represents any kind of theological precision about reality. Besides, the other articles might need some refinement here anyway. I don’t mean to be picky, but I concur with Andrew that the intro ought to side-step the issue, and perhaps the article could take up the discussion later. My main interest is to avoid a PoV issue in the intro that might cause later dispute, and to achieve something respectful to the Catholic Church’s self-understanding. That goal sounds neutral enought to me. Lostcaesar 10:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus / Christ

I am curious as to the use of these terms within the article. Is there an established policy here? I do know that using Christ as synonymous with Jesus is quite common in many of the (secularly produced) history books I have read (and here I emphasize that I don’t mean superficially Christian or apologetically literature). Here is an example, a quote from a well respected and recent history book on the Reformation, written by someone who describes himself as “not now personally subscribing to any form of religious dogma” (intro xxv)

“Since the missionary effort of Tridentine Catholicism stretched out into the Americas, Asia and Africa, there is good reason to see it as the largest such enterprise since the Church’s expansion in the first five centuries after the life of Christ.” Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (Penguin Books, 2003) p400

This sort of thing is quite common and I could provide many texts with similar entries. I think it a worthy question to ask since the article not only uses the word Jesus frequently, but is about a Church that obviously sees the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as one and the same. Lostcaesar 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats Christ as a title. Compare Jesus to Christ. However, I have a feeling that some editors here would be completely offended if I even suggested that "Christ" was POV. If we simply HAVE to use the X-word, maybe a good rule of thumb to adopt would be to use "Jesus" if refering to the pre-easter Gospel figure or the historical figure, and use "Chirst" if refering to the risen, post-easter spiritual figure or the Christian deity. (I know, I know, traditional Christians see no difference between the two, but a liberal Christian such as Marcus Borg, and non-Christians probably do see a difference.)--Andrew c 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can think of any good reason to use "Christ" at all (except, of course, in quotes). Jesus is the name of his Wikipedia article; surely using two different names/titles for the same person is going to be more confusing for readers than using one title consistently? That isn't to say that I object to the term 'Christ'; I just can't see a reason to use a more confusing title when a less confusing one is available, and I think it's better practice to stick to one title than to alternate between several. Using a variety of titles may read better, but in an encyclopedia clarity is more important than literary style. TSP 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the name of at least several hundred thousand Mexicans. Yes admittedly they all have last names and so any article about a notable Mexican named Jesus would include their last name. Paul is/was the name of perhaps a few million people. Most of them have last names and yada-yada. However, the article about each of the six people identified as Pope Paul includes their title "Pope". So, if "Christ" is a title, it is reasonable to include that title in the article title in the same way that "Pope" is included in the title of the articles on the Popes. However, the current consensus seems to be to have the article title be "Jesus". At the moment, I don't care enough about this to try to change that consensus.

That leaves the question of whether article text should use "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". As the Jesus (disambiguation) page shows, there are plenty of ways to read the name "Jesus" including some Biblical ones. Thus, as a general principle, this would argue in favor of using the title "Christ" to make it crystal clear who we are talking about. (Yeah, yeah, I know there's little doubt in this specific context who we are talking about).

I vote for "Jesus Christ".

--Richard 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Salvation

There is a tremendous disparity between the Salvation section of the Roman Catholic Church article and the Roman Catholic section of the Salvation article that needs to be addressed.--Antelucan 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lima has restored the article from edits made by Danras, alleviating the problem for now. Still, the article could benefit from more attention.--Antelucan 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic succession -- new section?

The coverage of Apostolic Succession on this and other pages seems to be clearly POV in favor of the Roman Catholic Church and against the Anglican Communion and Porvoo Communion, defining apostolic succession in terms of acceptance by authorities in the Vatican. What do people think about a new section in this article discussing the importance of Apostolic Succession in the RCC specifically, and a revamp of the corresponding article generally? Svend la Rose 03:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we'd need more detail on the specific alleged misrepresentation here - as far as I can see, the articles simply state that the Catholic and Orthodox consider themselves apostolic, but deny that title to other groups. I mean, it's not as though we're going to create a section in the Eastern Orthodox article discussing whether in fact the RCC is orthodox. Slac speak up! 06:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic succession seems like a reasonably general topic; all the churches that believe in it have essentially the same understanding of it; there are merely disputes over who has upheld it and who has not. I don't think anything is to be gained by explaining it separately here and elsewhere, given that the differences in understanding between the different groups who believe in the apostolic succession are much smaller than the similarities; it seems like something best covered by a single article.

The article does indeed need substantial work, however; at the moment it's mostly unsourced, rambling and somewhat biased, and reads in parts more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. "(Protestants) generally hold that...", "Those who hold to the importance of episcopal apostolic succession would counter the above by..."; it's not enough to speculate on what arguments people might make, sources need to be provided that these arguments actually have been made, and by whom.

It is also the case that the coverage of some churches is unbalanced, particularly the Anglican churches, for whom no explanation is given of their claim to apostolic succession, but two paragraphs on the Roman Catholic Church's repudiation of it. The article is a reasonable start, though, and could probably become a good article TSP 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the RCC, if it gives the RCC perspective on Apostolic Succession then that is fine. The page on the Anglican communion can give a different, Anglican view. If that is a problem then someone can make a mainpage for the subject in general and link to it. Lostcaesar 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have been unclear - I'm referring to the current main article, Apostolic Succession, which is currently very much from an RCC point of view; but I don't agree that that means it should be transferred to here; rather, it should be left there, but made more balanced. I don't think there needs to be a separate Apostolic Succession (Roman Catholic) or anything, because the understanding of the term between the various churches is much more similar than it is different. Certainly if the material was part of this article it would be right that it emphasised the Roman Catholic views; but I think it's better left where it is. TSP 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Svend la Rose 04:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church & AIDS

At present, this is what this article says about the Catholic Church's approach to the global AIDS epidemic:

"Some criticize the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (or teen pregnancy or STD) as counterproductive. On the other hand, the Church's insistence on abstinence as practiced in Uganda shows that so far it has been one of the most successful strategies against AIDS."

Abstinence as "one of the most successful strategies against AIDS"? This claim is made on the basis of the findings of a study, the results of which can be found here, but, having read the cited article, this seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. First, obviously if people are having sex less frequently, the incidence of people contracting sexually-transmitted infections like AIDS will be reduced; however, that says nothing about the efficacy of the strategy of emphasising abstinence, that is, the strategy that has been adopted by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, Uganda is one -- tiny -- country in Africa, and everywhere else on the continent the strategy of merely promoting abstinence has failed dismally. No Sex = No AIDS is a technically valid claim, but it hasn't proven itself to be an effective strategy. My understanding of the study is that the spread of AIDS has slowed in Uganda for a number of reasons, including the availability of condoms, etc., but also because members of the younger generation now know of more people who have AIDS and thus would, understandably, be more cautious about their own sexual behaviour out of fear of contracting HIV themselves. Promoting abstinence is not slowing the spread of AIDS in Uganda; rather, it is being slowed because of education about the disease itself.

Given that any substantive changes to this article are likely to be controversial no matter what they are, I haven't yet made any myself. But I strongly think this needs to be corrected, as it looks like the facts have been warped to suit some ideological agenda. Please, some feedback on what to do about this sentence. --Todeswalzer 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there aren't any objections to changing this line, therefore I've replaced the above mentioned paragraph with the following:

"Some criticize the Church's teaching on fidelity, sexual abstinence and its opposition to promoting the use of condoms as a strategy to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS (or teen pregnancy or STD) as counterproductive. However, the Church maintains that the promotion of abstinence is the only effective way to deal with the AIDS crisis."

Further discussion on the Church and the AIDS crisis, would, of course, be much appreciated, as I think this section could probably be expanded further. --Todeswalzer 05:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Uganda seems misleading because I believe (after reading for 1 minute on the AIDS article), Uganda used the ABC approach, were the C stood for condoms and the A stood for abstinence (B was for Be Faithful). Catholics seem to push the AB approach, lacking the C, eh?--Andrew c 17:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] "Major Branches of Religions". adherents.com. Retrieved 2006-07-19.

[2] Statistical Yearbook of the Church 2004 (ISBN 88-209-7817-2)

[3] (Annuario Pontificio 2005).

[1]

[2]

[3]