Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 → Archive 45

Nasrani

Are Nasrani Catholic? There is a suggestion to add them to the main template on Catholicism. Do they deserve a top level place along with Crucifixion in that template? It is getting discussed on the template. Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Our articles say (probably correctly) that the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is Catholic and the other Nasrani are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
So I guess it does not need to be in the top level template. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ultramontanism

  • The definition of ultramontane is "A strong adherent or supporter of the Papal authority; an ultramontanist."
  • Why Nancy supposes this to be an insult is beyond me; it has been used by both sides in the internal discussion within the Roman Church for going on two centuries now.
  • Or is this more obfuscation and delay? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommend avoiding the term ultramontane as it distracts from the issues at hand. Majoreditor (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with majoreditor. The term 'ultramontane' has pejorative connotations in English. Perhaps not so for PMAnderson, but this opinion has been shared with him many times already. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Or is it the issue at hand?
Two factionalists (if you prefer) are claiming that the views of their faction are those of the Church as a whole, and of "many historians". They are unable, consistently, to provide sources which actually support either contention; and when caught out on any of this, they cry out in self-pity. Do you deny that this is one problem here? I'm sure you and Richard and Harmakheru could work out a reasonable phrasing if not inhibited by members of the Faction That Must Not Be Named.
And why not name it? there's nothing wrong with being ultramontane - it's a perfectly legitimate, and reasonably successful, cause. Why should we treat it like Voldemort - not that that worked out well? Richard has quoted a proverb about ducks; there's a much older one about spades - or should I say "agricultural implements"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[Retrieving my "duck" comment from the Talk Archive...]

If "Ultramontane" was as uncivil as PManderson ever got, I think we could live with it. Besides, there's a saying about a duck which might be applicable here. --Richard S (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Richard S, your comment is name calling, I do not have the slightest idea if anyone on this page is ultramontane, neither do you or anyone else unless someone here has identified themselves as such. We have really had enough of the name calling and it does not help our editing efforts so can we please stop it now? It is really childish. NancyHeise talk 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"Name calling", eh? Hmmm.... as PManderson asserted, ultramontanism is not necessarily an insult any more than "conservative", "liberal" or "socialist" is. Of course, all three of those have been used as insults in political rhetoric and "ultramontane" is also used as an insult in ecclesiastical debates. Of course, those who employ it as an insult are usually those on the other side. For my part, ultramontanism does carry a bit of a pejorative connotation but it's really kind of like the Cheneyite neocons arguing that the power of the U.S. Executive Branch should be stronger than it has been in the recent past (e.g. via the use of signing statements and asserting the powers of the Commander in Chief to declare detainees to be illegal combatants). You may agree or disagree but it is, within limits, a defensible philosophy of U.S. government.
It is important to be clear that "ultramontanism" doesn't mean pro-Catholic chauvinism although there's been plenty of that around here as well. "Ultramontanism" asserts the power of the Pope over local or regional episcopal authority. The interactions which made me think that there were two or more such ducks swimming in the pond included recent discussions of the Reichskonkordat and Mit Brennender Sorge which seemed to be pushing apologetics for Pius XI and Pius XII. A similar tendency appeared during discussions regarding papal actions and pronouncements wrt slavery. I'm sure I could find other topics where ultramontanism was one side of the debate if I thought a bit more but that should be enough to illustrate my point.
That said, I guess if someone takes a characterization as an insult and it's not critical to the discussion, the civil thing to do is to desist from employing that characterization.
--Richard S (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. WP:assume good faith means we assume good faith. People on this page want to make a good article that is properly balanced and referenced. Calling someone names like "pro-Catholic chauvinism", "ultramontanism" does not help to promote a civil and respectful conversation. I may have felt that some on this page were here because they wanted to promote a particular POV but saying so does not do anything to help, it just divides us and encourages a "battleground mentality". Wikipedia policy requires civility from everyone on this page - not just those who have identified themselves as Catholics. NancyHeise talk 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ultramontanism is not an assertion of bad faith; no literate person would suppose it to be, unless they were looking for an occasion to quarrel.
I assert Nancy's bad faith, not because of the party she belongs to, but because of what she has done for it. We are required to assume good faith, but not in the teeth of the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a reason for the rule about assuming good faith, it is to allow us to discuss the ISSUES, not the PERSONALITIES - something which quickly descends into entrenched positions and name-calling. People have complained bitterly on this page and elsewhere when accused of being anti-catholic, or when it has been suggested they have come here with a Catholicophobic agenda. However many of these these same people feel free to accuse others of being "ultramontane", and pro-catholic pov pushers. We are getting a lot of pot and kettle-ism here - and it needs to stop. I often get the feeling that some people come here with the intention of writing not an encyclopedia article but some sort of "expose" of catholic "evils". This isn't the place for that, (try HarlotofBabylon.com or similar). We are writing a properly weighted description of the Church. So writing the full story of Pius XII or slavery is not POV, it is good reporting. We are not here to recycle legends and misapprehension, but to provide clear real information. Xandar 21:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What exposé of Catholic evils? Has anybody proposed to add the Black Legend, or the immuration of nuns? What article is Xandar editing? It ain't this one. Indeed, the proposal against which Xandar is arguing would reduce the coverage of one of the most notable problems of the Roman Church in this decade to a single sentence of unquestioned facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "ultramontane" in the context of the English language, was unfortunetly used historically by Whigs in a chauvanistic manner to push liberal and masonic views against Catholicism (particularly around the time of Newman and Manning, as a way to pressure faithfull Catholics towards modernist doctrinal error). While the term in its literal meaning is not at all derogatory, it should perhaps be avoided in such discussions on a collaborative project, as it is not conductive of creating a collegial community environment. I agree basically with what Nancy said, it could hardly be used in such as context while assuming good faith. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a century and a half ago; and it was also used by Newman and Manning (the latter, I believe, to describe himself). If someone can supply another neutral, unmarked, term to describe the religio-political cause involved (which is not identical with anti-"modernism"), I shall be happy to adopt it; but no one has done so, and consultation with friends more theologically involved than myself has not suggested one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is it important to name the position held by certain editors? Their comments on the Talk Page and their edits to the article speak for themselves. If they wish not to be called ultramontane, what purpose does it serve to insist on using the label? Do you think we didn't understand what their bias was until you informed us of it? --Richard S (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Richard, you are absolutely no help here. I had hoped you were going to work with me to create a civil environment on this page. I still have hopes that you will do that but this edit is not helpful. Is it possible for people on this page to WP:assume good faith? NancyHeise talk 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Richard, some people won't know where these people are coming from - it took me a while to recognize them. In any case, this began with an effort to depersonalize the discussion by discussing the factionalists as a group, identified by a neutral word. You leave me none, save perhaps factionalist itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not just stop the namecalling? The more it is done by an editor the more it makes the rest of us think that person is a teenager or someone who has not developed proper communication skills like those one would use in a professional workplace. NancyHeise talk 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, the extent of your name-calling is on record; your complaint was and is contrary to the nature of the English language, and is a clear attempt to change the topic from the nature of the article to a meta-discussion. Nevertheless, if you can supply another neutral term for the faction within Catholicism called Untramontanism, both by those who belong to it and those who do not, I am perfectly willing to adopt it for the sake of harmony; indeed, I have already made this offer and you have supplied none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, if someone is a flaming liberal but objects to being called one, civility requires that we not offend them by calling them that in public. Offending someone needlessly is just manners. However, civility does NOT constrain what we think about their political opinions. It may look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck but we need not insist on calling it a duck in public even if it is one. --Richard S (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Influence paragraph from last FAC

The baptism of Clovis I, King of the Franks was of immense importance in spreading Christianity throughout Western and Central Europe.[1]

The influence of the Catholic Church on world culture and society has been vast, first and foremost in the development of European civilization from Greco-Roman times to the modern era.[2] The church campaigned against and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[note 1] infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire. In addition, the Church played a significant role in moderating some of the excesses of the colonial era.[4][5][6][7][8] Over the course of its history, the Church has influenced the status of women, condemning infanticide, divorce, incest, polygamy and counting the marital infidelity of men as equally sinful to that of women.[4][5][9] The official Church teaching[10] considers women and men to be equal, different, and complementary.


  • The section PMAmderson/Septentriolanis removed from the Cultural Influence section [1] without a new consensus of the article is referenced to several scholarly works widely used as university textbooks. Listed below.
  • Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church university textbook for decades here's one [2], another [3], another [4] another [5] another [6] p. 56 "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed. Divorce was consistently condemned by the Church, in keeping with its absolute prohibition by Jesus."
  • Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
  • Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
  • Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experimenthas numerous authors who are profiled here [7] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [8] p. 446, "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer." "
  • Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here [9] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [10] p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."
  • Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once." NancyHeise talk 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's enormous display of Google results does not alter the status of this paragraph; it's a collection of claims that the Church is Good (by modern standards), interspersed with a few claims that the Church is Bad (by modern standards). Both those stands are substantially meaningless rhetoric; they have no part in our article - and Nancy's quotations are often illiterate and irrelevant.

Of these, the last is perhaps the worst. Those statements are mostly true - of Athens, one small part of the ancient world, which ceased to be more than a municipal jurisdiction in 88 BC - some years before Christ was born. Roman institutions, which were much more widely spread, were much more favorable to women (as were most of the Greeks); Athens was unusually Asiatic in her ways.

Even if they were accurate, they would have no place here: we are not here to say either the Church is Good or the Church is Bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, did you see my proposed new paragraph above? I think it is more neutral (no good church/bad church accusations - just statements of what happened) and provides more information about what the Church actually did. I'd appreciate your comments on that as a replacement for the paragraph that has been objected to. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I answered you in that section. I think this calls for a content RFC. NancyHeise talk 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the current version of the first paragraph of the cultural influence section which reads:

The influence of the Catholic Church on world culture and society has been vast, first and foremost in the development of European civilization from Greco-Roman times to the modern era.[33] The church campaigned against and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[note 7] infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire. In addition, the Church played a significant role in moderating some of the excesses of the colonial era.[222][223][224][225][226] Over the course of its history, the Church has influenced the status of women, condemning infanticide, divorce, incest, polygamy and counting the marital infidelity of men as equally sinful to that of women.[222][223][227] The official Church teaching[228] considers women and men to be equal, different, and complementary.

And Karanacs suggested version which reads:

Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest.[13] By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom".[14] For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society;[14] church laws were the single "universal law ... common to jurisdictions and peoples throughout Europe", giving the Church "preeminent authority".[15] With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage.[16] As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.[17]

Problems with Karanacs version include:

  • We've lost the important statement of the Church's over-all influence on European society, which is both highly important, well verified and not really controversial.
  • Church views on slavery and human sacrifice have been lost.
  • The influence of the Church on women's place in society is gone.
  • These are replaced by a long sequence of statements about church "authority" and legal power, which actually say very little, are slightly misleading, and tend to reinforce a cliche about the "powerful medieval church", which is itself much of a caricature. The Church's authority, even in the high middle ages, was mainly moral. It is our duty to be informative and I think information on the subjects in the original paragraph needs to be there. Xandar 03:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Xandar. But you forgot another important point.
  • Although I think there is room to add mention of the Church's place in creation of the European legal system and school system, Karanac's version makes the whole paragraph Euro-centric. The university textbooks we used do not do that but talk about different cultures albeit not all of them. Throughout history, the Church's cultural values have clashed and influenced every culture it has come into contact. Even in our present day this happens. In India, the caste system [11]; in Africa, polygamy,[12] child sacrifice. In the America's the Indians here practiced human sacrifice, slavery and accepted promiscuity;[13] I'm not sure how much influence the Church had on Asian culture though, it is a minority religion there. If the Cultural Influence paragraph needs anything it needs to add a sentence, not eliminate. NancyHeise talk 08:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly room to add more information about other cultures and to add more information about other impact (such as slavery) if we choose. The proposal is meant to be a start at solving some of the problems. It is not a myth that the Catholic Church held great political power during the Middle Ages, and this is something I've been trying to see reflected in the article for a long time (and Nancy mentioned that we may need to add something on the Church's political role - maybe in September or October?). My proposed version very deliberately does not mention who was impacted due to opposition from me and a number of editors that this is POV and essentially a historian's opinion (and Xandar, we all know your view on considering the opinions of historians versus the actual facts). I would very much welcome an alternative proposal, building off of mine. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic scholars

Xandar has reverted an edit I made to the Industrial Age section in which I expanded 'Some scholars' to 'Some Catholic scholars'. Maybe if I explain why he'll agree it's pretty uncontroversial.

It's in the sentence discussing academic assessments of 'Mit brennender Sorge'. The sources used - Bokenkotter, Duffy, Norman, Phayer and Rhodes - are all Catholic ones. I wanted to make clear two things: that these scholars are writing within the framework of the Church - as I believe we need to when relying on non-third party sources per WP:INDEPENDENT - and also that there is a debate within that framework which Phayer's dissenting voice demonstrates.Haldraper (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If a source meets WP:RS we use it. If it meets the highest qualifications of WP:reliable source examples, as these sources do, we don't care if they are Catholic or not. Our best sources for the opposing view happen to come from scholars who are Catholic. NancyHeise talk 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I find it very hard to believe that there are no non-Catholic historians who have discussed 'Mit brennender Sorge' and whose work meets WP:RS as you suggest. However, that's not my point: it's that without the word 'Catholic' the sentence doesn't show that there is a debate within the Church over the extent to which the encyclical criticised Nazism.Haldraper (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no debate "in" the Church. As the article text now states, some scholars think it was the first great document to criticize Nazism, others afford it a lesser place. Both POV's are presented although Phayer's POV and works are widely criticized in academic journals which state that he relies too much on Nazi documents and not enough on Vatican documents or other sources in his research and conclusions. He is a controversial scholar whose works are not widely accepted but the other scholars supporting the position opposite Phayer are. Bokenkotter's book is the most oft used book, for the past three centuries, as a university textbook on the history of the Church. It is used by a variety of universities, public and private in teaching Catholic Church history. It has no bad reviews and scores of good ones. It satisfies the highest qualifications of WP:reliable source examples and its use as a university textbook is indicative of its WP:NPOV. NancyHeise talk 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no debate "in" the Church. Is this a definition of the Church as "those who agree with me"? If not, I don't believe it - it would be doubtful on any issue except possibly those expressly settled by pontifical pronouncement, and this isn't one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any position taken by the Church on this issue of scholarly debate over the impact of Mit brennender sorge. That's why I said it is not a debate "in" the Church. I am not sure it is even a debate outside the church - no one is debating! : ) (except us but we don't count) NancyHeise talk 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Read argumentum ex silentio; that is a fallacy. In this case, Nancy cannot even assert actual silence, but her own ignorance - a straight line too obvious to take up. If she could cite an assertion of Catholic unanimity, there would be something to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not all things to all people : ) If you would like to fill in the gaps here go right ahead, please provide us with some Catholic position "in" the Church regarding the impact of Mit brennender sorge. NancyHeise talk 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Shorter: Nancy made a claim, and has nothing to back it up with. Business as usual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sept, you are constanty making very ugly comments about me without basis. If I cared too much about them I might open an RFC against you but I prefer to just point you to Wikipedia policy WP:assume good faith and WP:civil. NancyHeise talk 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding "Catholic" before "scholars" seems to be an attempt to apply a value judgement to the views concerned, and imply that only "Catholic" scholars hold the views expressed. That is something which is really adding editorial comment to the facts. Xandar 03:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head here Xandar. I think the reason all the sources quoted are Catholics is because as you say 'only "Catholic" scholars hold the views expressed' (that 'Mit brennender Sorge' attacked racism, Nazi ideology and Hitler). Nancy has raised some doubts as to whether the sources are all Catholics in an edit summary so here's some backround info:
Bokenkotter is a Catholic priest.
Eamon Duffy describes himself as a 'cradle Catholic' and is a member of the Pontifical Historical Commission.
Edward Norman is a convert to Catholicism from the Church of England
Rhodes also converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism, on the basis that "The universal aptness of the Roman Church for all conditions of men and nations well befits her claim to divine origin."
As an Italian, I assumed Carlo Falconi who Bokenkotter quotes was a Catholic, an initial judgement strengthened by this pen picture of him, "the author of works on papal history and an enthusiastic account of Pope John XXIII and Vatican Council II", here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0nA_GXl68kYC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22+carlo+falconi+%22&source=bl&ots=1SF0WYSf8Y&sig=k9Uos6qM48nnMOafsWqARqrX_aE&hl=en&ei=I7kgS5r8Lo_G4Qb_y-zmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB0Q6AEwBjgo#v=onepage&q=%22%20carlo%20falconi%20%22&f=false
I note that no-one has addressed my point about identifying non-third party sources as per WP:INDEPENDENT. The easiest thing for you to do of course would be to find - if you can - some non-Catholic scholars who hold the same view.Haldraper (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we have to do that if the sources we used are used as university textbooks as Bokenkotter has been for three decades. If a source is so widely accepted by so many universities it is considered mainstream regardless of the religious affiliation of the author. Duffy's work was used by the very non-Catholic BBC to produce a documentary on the papacy. No one has accused either of these authors of being apologists and the book reviews in scholarly journals prove this. I haven't looked into whether or not the others are considered apologists. Rhodes' work is widely quoted and I am sure that Carlo Falconi is not a Catholic apologist. These works just supplement what Bokenkotter and Duffy already state. The paragraph is already over sourced so we could eliminate some of these. I suggest keeping Bokenkotter and Duffy and Rhodes at the very least. NancyHeise talk 10:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, this is the part of WP:INDEPENDENT I'm talking about:
"Caution must be used in accepting sources as independent. While the peer-review process ensures greater independence, it does not guarantee independence of a source. This is especially true of controversial topics where there may a great deal of debate and dissent, even in reliable sources.
When there is a potential conflict of interest, identifying the connection between the source and topic is important, such as by saying "A study by X found that Y." Rather than excluding such non-independent sources from a page, it is often best to include them, with mention of how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic.
Maybe my interpretation of the policy is different to yours but I take it to mean that we should make clear Bokenkotter, Duffy etc's official positions in the Church when they are commenting on controversial aspects of its history.Haldraper (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We have been here, at length, before, though the implication that the views of all Italian scholars should be discounted as tools of the Papacy is a new one, that shows complete ignorance of the Italian academic athmosphere. Norman has not I think published anything since he stopped being an Anglican priest - its hard to know what box to tick there. As past discussions have shown, the attitude of the Papal tool Duffy to the "traditional narrative" of the very early church is a good deal brisker than that of the paid-up heretic Chadwick. This is a silly and unprofitable way of assessing sources. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, please read what I have written. I have not proposed that we discount/exclude anyone, merely that we identify that they are a non-third party source as required by WP:INDEPENDENT (see above).Haldraper (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected 6 hours

Come on, folks, this is getting old... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support permanent protection. That will warn readers that it is of limited value and will prevent our -er- indefectibilists (as Harmakheru suggests to me) from making it worse. Do add a protected tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not a solution. Calling good-faith edits "vandalism" because you don't agree with them is also not a good thing. I've made a proposal above (at the end of the divorce section) and would appreciate discussion. Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced content without consensus on the talk page is vandalism. There is no new consensus and I think that this discussion calls for a content RFC since many of the editors who worked on this paragraph are not here on this particular day. Such a major change should allow for proper discussion first. NancyHeise talk 23:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
To editors coming new to the page, we need a content RFC to discuss the issues being addressed in this section [14] and in this one [15]. We have several university textbook sources used to construct the paragraph that Karanacs and Septentrionalis want to replace with lesser sources and text that I do not consider NPOV. I would like to know what other editors think about this situation. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It is much too soon to have a content RfC. Before we do that we'd need two solid proposals to give. It would be best to first discuss the proposal I made and see if we can reach a consensus on the page. Considering that your sources have been called into question above, and the existing wording has been labelled POV by several editors, we can't assume that the existing paragraph has any consensus. It's time for discussion. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • We have two sections (now three) of discussion; an RfC will do nothing else, unless we have another outbreak of canvassing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

coverage of sex abuse cases

(cont from section Page locked for one week)

I also think that this section is much too long and apologetic, and I don't believe that all of the statements are necessarily accurate reflections of the sources (it's been a while since I read the newspaper articles cited, however). I recommend a much more streamlined presentation of this, with the detail in the appropriate children articles. Below is a proposal, although I am not completely happy with the prose. Thoughts? Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Beginning in 2001, dioceses in the United States and Europe began to face public accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.[11] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[11][12][13][14][15] On the grounds that the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the Church prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[16][17][18]

That's a pretty good summary Karanacs. I would change 'Europe' to 'Ireland' and have piped links to the pages on child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church there and in the US. I've always had a problem with the way the final sentence implicitly accepts the homophobic reasoning behind the Church's ban on the ordination of gay men ('gay men'='paedophiles'). I'm sure editors with a pro-Catholic POV will also want to reinsert the apolegetics for the actions of their Church.Haldraper (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think that the last sentence is a bit iffy, but providing clarification/rebuttal of it would mean the article should also include rebuttal of some of the other information. That is best served in the more specific articles. I would not be opposed to removing that last sentence completely, but as it is the single worldwide response by the Church I can see an argument for including it. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
We could step back and replace because with On the grounds that. This makes the causal link the Church's assertion, not ours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fine solution. It states the facts and lets the reader draw what conclusions they will. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement on the current text.Haldraper (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made that change in the proposed text. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that this sensitive issue can be decided solely by a certain set of editors with no input from others who have diligently labored on the page. I am not in favor of deleting most of this paragraph as Karanacs is suggesting. I would rather put this up for consideration at peer review and invite our generous list of past contributors to offer suggestions for improvement. Karanac's adjustments omit substantially all of the most important information about the sex abuse cases - that the Church has made changes that include fingerprinting of all people who work with children including volunteers, school parents, etc. The controversy surrounding the abuse scandals has also been deleted which will certainly be noticed at FAC. NancyHeise talk 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, I deliberately proposed this on the talk page rather than be bold in the article so that we could reach a consensus on any changes. Why should we wait for a peer review? There is no point in going to peer review if there are already significant issues identified with the article, and this section has been mentioned multiple times over the last year or so as being problematic. Peer review is not the same as an WP:RFC; it is not generally a place where individual questions are debated, but where broader issues can be identified. This particular section has already been identified as an issue, so let's try to fix it. My proposed changes attempt to address the following problems with the paragraph that is currently in the article:
  • a US-centric focus. It is inappropriate in the article on the Catholic Church to spend so much space on changes that affect only dioceses in the United States.
  • Recentism and undue weight - given that the Church has 2000 years of history behind it, an entire paragraph on these events seems grossly out of proportion
  • Summary style - There is already an article on Catholic sex abuses that should contain the details. This article should have only a small summary of that.
  • WP:POV - the existing text is very obviously slanted to the point-of-view of the Church, providing excusing for the cover-ups (the sentence about psychiatrists) and attempting to deflect the attention to other organizations which have faced similar scandals, and then adding a lot of weight to changes in the US church. To fix the POV problem, the article either needs to contain more text to rebut some of the current claims, or the section can be trimmed to be as neutral as possible and focus only on facts. This is what the proposed text is trying to do - it says that there were allegations of abuse, the Church was criticized for attempting to cover this up, and the worldwide Church has taken steps to combat the problem.
I am not wedded to the proposed text above. Please provide alternatives that do not contain the same problems I listed in this post and we can discuss those as well. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The present sex abuse paragraph states In 2001, major lawsuits emerged primarily in the United States and Europe, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.[448] In the U.S., the country with the majority of sex-abuse cases,[449] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.[450][451] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[448][451][452][453] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[452][454] Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[455] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions,[456][457][458] a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi.[459] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers;[460][461] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[173][454][462]

  • Karanacs has suggested this para is POV in favor of the Church by including an explanation of why the abuse happened.
  • I disagree that this explanation should be removed because that omits the POV of the Church, a relevant POV and fact that we are supposed to include per WP:NPOV.
  • Per the references, the vast majority of all worldwide sexual abuse cases happened in the US. The para mentions steps taken by the US Church to prevent future abuse for this reason. The para also mentions steps taken by the worldwide Church as well.
  • If this subject were not so well covered by the media and such a notable criticism of the Church, I might agree with trimming it but that is not the case. This is a very notable criticism, vastly covered by modern scholarship and news media.
  • If we have omitted a point of view in the para, then let's add it but let's not cut facts just because they might favor the Catholic Church. That is not why I put them in there, I just wanted to reflect what scholarship and media were saying about the crisis.
  • I also want to add that this para has gone through several peer reviews and FACs. Someone added the part of the sentence that I struck above and I think the para could lose that and still be OK. NancyHeise talk 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Prior peer peview and archived FAC discussions have no (zero, zilch) bearing on whether there is consensus for any particular wording unless that wording was specifically discussed there. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. If you do not understand or agree with this very basic concept concerning consensus, please begin another section on this page, or at WT:FAC or WT:PR so that we can further discuss the matter. As to your other points
  • My proposal is to eliminate any POV and mention only basic facts. It is a fact that there was a scandal. It is a fact that there was criticism. It is a fact that the Church made a specific change in response to the criticism. There is no reason to include any particular point-of-view in this article (although it is highly appropriate to include those in the daughter article).
  • There are other references which mention lots of abuse cases in Ireland (that is what was being edit-warred over and caused the page to be protected). There is no reason to single out any particular country in this article on the overall Church (it is highly appropriate to include that information on the daughter article or in an article on the Church in the US).
  • Again, this is recentism and undue weight. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of books discussing the Church in the Middle Ages. Compared to that level of scholarship, the recent media storm is a small blip. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason why I bring up past peer reviews and FACs is because we discover what Readers want by examining these. The present wording was already seriously dissected and considered more than once and present wording minus that added later and struck by me above survived a lot of reviewers already. I think that is an important fact to consider even though you are so perterbed whenever I mention it. You do favor a certain POV, you are a very pov editor to this article and your past suggestions indicate a certain favoritism toward a more critical article that does not include Catholic pov in several areas. I have tried to defend the article's inclusion of Catholic pov simply because it is important and relevant to the article and is something more than a lot of editors want. Somehow, people get upset when we try to include the Catholic pov and try all sorts of maneuvers to try to wedge it from the article such as opening user Rfc's against editors who simply are trying to follow Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. NancyHeise talk 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at the previous FAC nominations for this article. I found that the following reviewers specifically identified problems with the paragraph on sex abuse.
This shows that the sex abuse paragraph has been disputed for a long time, across multiple FACs. It is still disputed. Let's work together to fix the issue rather than insist that there isn't one. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the statements that the paragraph needs to be a short as possible to get rid of undue weight concerns but it does need to be there due to the fact that if it isn't there it will be reinserted numerous times. Once a paragraph comes to consensus there should be a hidden note placed to not modify the section unless new concensus is reached. Because you know that every time some new thing comes out or some new editor approaches the article with a different POV someone will want to modify it. I do not agree with the last line of Karanacs proposal, right now it sounds like the only thing the Church did was that. That is not true. Numerous things were done and that was only one step. The Church even maintains that it the statement wasn't a change in policy but just explicitly stating something that was known in the past. Marauder40 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
How could we better fix the Church's response sentence without delving too deeply into country-specific issues? I'm open to any suggestions. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, your suggestion that we approach 'others who have diligently labored on the page' for their approval before making changes and 'invite our generous list of past contributors to offer suggestions for improvement' seems a textbook example of WP:OWN to me. I would also be interested in your comments on "because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" which myself, Karanacs, Throwaway and PMAnderson all oppose in its current form.Haldraper (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, your list of editors from previous FAC's who had a problem with the paragraph does not give us the paragraph that they were in disagreement with nor what other editors thought of their views. The reason why we have the one we have now is the result of consensus efforts of many editors, not my own personal efforts. If the para had no discussion I might agree with you but it presently reflects the efforts of many editors who came to agreement and whose work went through the peer review and FAC review process. If you look at all the FAC's including the very latest, there were a large number of supporters in addition to those opposers you cited.
Haldraper, what point of WP:OWN have I violated by requesting past editors to come offer opinions on the current issue? What proposal do you have for the last sentence regarding the "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" sentence - I think it summarizes the references well but am open to rewording as long as the facts remain. NancyHeise talk 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, that is an excellent point about including links to the versions that were discussed at FAC (note that these links are in the article milestones box at the top of the page). The text of this paragraph has not changed significantly since at least MArch 18, 2008 (the end of the first FAC that I referenced). Nov 2008 version [16]

Jun 15 2008 [17] June 1 2008 [18] March 18 2008 [19]. In my analysis of the FACs I found only one other editor besides you and Xandar who specifically mentioned this section being okay; no other reviewers mentioned the section at all. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please don't accuse her of ownership; yes, she's been involved at this article heavily but she's not excluding anyone or trying to exorcise special rights, just stick to the issues not the editors. With regard to the sentence, I don't see what's wrong with it. It's discussing the reaction of the catholic church, it doesn't matter if that's is offensive to people or even completely wrong; it's documented with three sources. As for undue weight, I don't really see that either; The reader will honestly wonder what was done in response it's not POV just because its from primary sources. The sentence was even included in Karnac's version at the top, why is he now opposing the sentence? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with you Kraftlos but there are two separate issues here. Nancy's ownership of the article and the specific wording of the paragraph. I disagree with Kraftlos that Nancy has not attempted to exert ownership of the article together with Xandar. If we can agree to stop using assertions of "consensus based on past peer reviews and failed FACs" as arguments against changing text, we can then move to discussing the merits of individual paragraphs and sentences. --Richard S (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If she was asserting that the reviews endorsed the current wording, then no, nothing is "blessed by consensus" permenantly. I still don't get that impression from what she said though. This sentence just underwent a major overhaul in July, it seems kind of nitpicky at this point. But I don't mind well-planned changes with a broad consensus, however, I'd like to see some more of the usual faces (such as yourself) weigh in on this before we go ahead and make changes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the actual text, it is a good deal shorter, & we need to trim, so I'm ok with it. Europe not Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, as you'll see above, I, along with Karanacs and Throwaway, support PMAnderson's proposal to change it to "On the grounds that.." to make it clear that this is the Church's own reasoning and not Wikipedia's.Haldraper (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I can accept "On the grounds that..." although I think "Arguing that ..." might be better.
However, I agree with Johnbod. Nancy's proposed text is too long and spends too much text on Ireland in general and Dublin in particular. (Sorry, Nancy, I know this must be frustrating for you). At most, we should mention that the vast majority of the cases occurred in the U.S. with Ireland, Canada and Australia being the countries with the next highest incident rates (I'm not sure about the order and we should make sure to consider that there is a difference between raw numbers of incidents vs. incidents per Catholic population). The various reports (Ferns inquiry and the 2009 report) might be mentioned in the footnotes but should not be discussed in the main article text. Any more detail than that is excessive for this article although the articles on Ireland and Dublin will naturally delve into much greater detail. I don't oppose Wikipedia mentioning these reports in one of the detailed articles; the problem is one of editorial scope, we need to keep length of this article down.
--Richard S (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the new proposed text. It does seem to put too much weight on a recent event and more detail is covered in another article that is focused on the topic. However, I would add back the information on the number of priests that were accused of such abuse. To quantify the problem exonerates the vast majority of religious who honored their vows or at least are not guilty of this heinous crime.
I don't much care for the "Arguing that..." It Church does not argue a position so much as takes a position. Arguing infers that the Church is debating the issue with another entity, which is projecting an action upon the Church that is not evidenced by action. -StormRider 00:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of the need for quite so radical a cut as Karanacs proposes. If we do need to trim the existing paragraph , then (as Nancy, StormRider and Marauder say,) we need to retain key points such as what the Church has done in response, and context.
On "ownership" accusations, I think these are misguided. Most big articles have long-term editors who retain knowledge of the history of the article and how the wording of controversial sections was achieved. They also have editors who don't want to see miss-sourced or unbalanced and unreliable changes made. Some people get frustrated when they come to an article with a personal opinion on what they think it "should" say, and it doesn't gain acceptance without sound backing, but that's wikipedia, and what keeps the content well-tested, rather than myth and urban-legend. Xandar 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Trimming, while using more of the current wording.

This cuts the existing text while losing less of the context:

Beginning in 2001, dioceses in the United States and Ireland began to face public accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.[11] One study found that four percent of U.S. priests faced some sort of sexual accusation.[450][451] The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[11][12][13][14][19] Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that such behavior could be cured through counseling.[452][454] Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions,[456][457][458] The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including background checks for all Church employees;[460][461] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[16][17][20]

Xandar 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Although this is somewhat shorter, this version contains the exact same issues I listed above for the existing full text: It's much too detailed for this article, violating WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE and smacking of WP:RECENTism. It's too US-centric considering this was an issue in many other countries and that this article is supposed to be for the worldwide Church not the US dioceses. It shows a definite POV, by deflecting attention to other institutions and by excusing the actions of the bishops. These are all points that have been brought up in various review processes wand have been repeated over and over on this talk page over the last 18+ months. Karanacs (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs, I agree that there are issues in the text proposed by Xandar although I do appreciate the removal of what I have characterized as "excessive detail". Here are the outstanding issues that I see (some of which you have already pointed out)
1) the scandal started before 2001. It only gained media attention in 2001. This should be made clear.
2) the scandal is more widespread than "the U.S. and Ireland". We should say something like "dioceses around the world with the bulk of cases located in the U.S., Ireland, Canada and Australia". I do also think that there is a time sequence to the way the scandal unfolded. Specifically, the raising of awareness based on media coverage of the cases in the U.S. may have inspired more victims to come forward in other countries. We should indicate in some way that the scandal unfolded in geographic extent over a period of time.
3) I do not care for the discussion of "behavior could be cured through counseling" because I think it is excessive detail and thus undue weight. I'm not objecting to including such information in articles such as Catholic sex abuse cases but it doesn't belong in a summary-level treatment such as we have here
4) Similarly, the focus on "abuse occurs in other institutions" is excessive detail and should be discussed in articles such as Catholic sex abuse cases.
--Richard S (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Richard) Sentence-by-sentence breakdown of the issues I see.
  • One study found that four percent of U.S. priests faced some sort of sexual accusation. - this is too much information for this article and it is too US-centric. The sentence also doesn't provide enough context for this number - when was the study conducted? Did it concern only priests who were active at the time of the study? Did it include accusations from the past or only those in a specific time period? What types of accusations were counted - criminal complaints? civil lawsuits? what about any complaints made to bishops but not authorities? Who conducted the study - a group representing victims? one representing the Church? a neutral party? This sentence is also misplaced - it makes it seem as if the next sentence is only applicable to the US and that isn't tru.
  • Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that such behavior could be cured through counseling. This is POV. It is offering an excuse to justify the actions of the bishops. If this were to be kept, the opposing viewpoint would also be necessary - that some bishops did not agree that counseling was appropriate and that science did not agree that counseling was appropriate.
  • Somec ommentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions - this sentence is also POV. It's deflecting attention away from the Church and onto other institutions. It implies that the media coverage is the real issue instead of the actual victimization/cover-ups. It's also overly detailed for this article. In a broad article such as this we shouldn't be discussing media coverage but only the actual issue.
  • The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including background checks for all Church employees; - this is too US centric and too detailed. I wouldn't mind a clause about "some local dioceses enacted further measures" but I don't think that this summary should include that level of detail.
Karanacs (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as demands for more detail on surveys etc are concerned, these are a result of my attempts to cut former prose to key facts. Full details are in the references.
As far as other objections go, this is where problems arise. Karanacs seems to consider any contextual material which sets Church actions in context to be "POV". This is of course, not so. BOTH points of view have to appear to present a full picture. Bishops sent priests for psychological treatment, not on mad whim, but because this was an accepted approach at the time. Saying that changes were made is also factually necessary. As far as Richard is concerned, the view that abuse elsewhere is by no means as widely publicised, is a very important element in perceptions of the matter. On location, "dioceses around the world" would be highly inaccurate phrasing. Australia US and Ireland seem the main locations. ...and surely by definition, a scandal only begins when it is publicised. Though rather than cavilling about when it began versus when it gained media attention, agreeing a start date would be better. Xandar 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that the "context" we are placing issues in is the Catholic point-of-view. This leads to a highly POV article. I've given a detailed explanation of my issues with the text, and Richard has given one as well. I would like to see a detailed explanation of why the article needs each of these sentences, and how those sentences don't violate the principles I raised. Why is the information in each sentence crucial and not undue weight or POV? Karanacs (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Criticisms are supposed to be set in the history section of the article. I would consider the sex abuse scandal a criticism that is required by the FAC guidelines to be covered in the article. Karanacs, your proposed text does not cover the issue but eliminates substantial facts which are also supposed to give Reader context. The sentences you eliminated provided context such as how many priests were accused and whether or not the issue of sex abuse is a Catholic Church only issue in the US. According to the US Dept of Education which discussed the Catholic Church's issues, the problem is "ten times worse" in the US public school system. I am in favor of placing that context in the article and it used to be there until JB Murray edited it out in favor of the "some commentators" sentence. I agreed to that sentence in an effort to finding common ground and moving forward even though I felt it was hiding an important fact. I am not in favor of hiding more and consider that effort as resulting in a para that has eliminated the Catholic pov altogether producing a para that seriously violates WP:NPOV. I can live with rewording but the basic facts need to remain and there are some rewordings that could be improved such as the "some commentators" sentence which should rather be including the context of the US public schools instead of the commentators statement about media. That really isn't the central issue according to the ref. NancyHeise talk 03:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, Karanacs, the para has to tell Reader what the Church did to address the situation. How can you suggest we eliminate the sentence on background checks and fingerprinting? That was not implemented by just some diocese's that was implemented by all of the US Bishops - every single diocese in the US in the Charter for Protection of Young People. It is a very serious effort implemented that requires volunteers and employees to go through training every two years to be able to spot abuse in addition to fingerprinting and background checks. Eliminating it would hide a major fact and violate NPOV. NancyHeise talk 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nancy that the child protection measures were a nationwide program of the USCCB and not just the reforms of "some local dioceses". However, I wonder if Karanacs' concern might be addressed by changing the article text to indicate that these measures were taken by bishops' conferences around the world (or at least in the U.S., Canada and Australia). This would remove the U.S.-centric nature of the text. --Richard S (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I like that compromise - that bishops' conferences around the world took steps to protect children. As the article currently doesn't specify anything beyond the US, I wasn't sure how far to push the wording. I would still insist that we don't go into too many details in this article - that belongs in the appropriate subarticles. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Karanacs' points: each sentence 'putting into context' the Church's actions may be factually correct but it is all written from within the framework of the Church - what bishops contended, what the bishops' study found, what Catholic commentators think of media coverage of the issue - giving the whole section an Catholic POV because every criticism is immediately answered, deflected or minimised.Haldraper (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't deserve mentioning at all, no matter what form, as this is a case of undue weight, of recentism and of America- (and Ireland-)centrism. The article is about the Catholic Church, her beliefs, her customs and her history. The latter spans two millenia. Giving such a recent event in a few countries such coverage is clearly not proportionate. I don't see coverage of such scandals in articles about other groups. Str1977 (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Pretty much the same goes for the entire "present" section which actually doesn't deal much with "the Church" but with the Pope - the text event starts with these words. But the Pope is not the Church. The section also is America-centric again, noting the Pope's visit to the U.S. (but not to other countries). Basically the only thing worth mentioning would be Benedict's continuation of JP's policies and the reconcliation of traditional Anglicans, though the latter must be put in a larger context. Str1977 (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The sex abuse scandal is worthy of inclusion as noteworthy. It appears, for example, in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online yearbook for 2005. If EBO thinks it's noteworthy, then what evidence do we have that it isn't? The earlier text and Xandar's text at the top of this section are biased toward the Catholic POV. Inclusion of the facts of the issue is just information, not a criticism, so it doesn't warrant defensive contrary information. If we cited someone as saying that mishandling of sex abuse demonstrates that the Catholic Church cares more about its reputation than about the sexual safety of young people, then that would be a criticism. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is notable, that is why we have well over 100 individual articles on it in Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. That is a different question from how much space, if any, it should have here. Personally, as I've said above, I think it sould be mentioned, but more briefly that in the current text. However giving the Church's reaction is not in itself POV - a strange suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we are trying to argue too many things at once. Let's try a line-by-line analysis of Xandar's proposed text (sorry to call you at particularly, Xandar, but this is just to differentiate between that and the text I had proposed). I've split this into sections below. Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute that is is noteworthy - it is not noteworthy however for this article, the main article on the Catholic Church. It is an even limited to a short period of time and to certain places. It is not more noteworthy than any sex scandal in earlier centuries but it is covered here is a case of recentism.
No, I don't think that the yearbook (!) of some encyclopedia does dictate us what to do. In an article 2005 events in the Catholic Church it would certainly be appropriate.
It would also be notable as a criticsm but as there is no criticism section, it isn't.
Yes, it is a matter of space but even one line is undue weight given the extent of the article. And of course, we cannot mentioned in a drive-by shooting way, hence a one-liner is not a feasible alternative.
Line by line? I vote remove to any line.
Str1977 (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 1 analysis

Line 1 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

Beginning in 2001, dioceses in the United States and Ireland began to face public accusations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.[11]

Discussion

I do not think this should only single out the US and Ireland. There have also been lawsuits in Canada and Australia and I believe other countries in Europe (any others?). I am also not particularly happy with the wording and will think on how to change it. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Europe, though the Anglosphere clearly leads the world in this regard. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the language implies there have not been abuse elsewhere, but the recent problems hit their zenith in these two areas. Maybe that should be clarified in the sentence so that limitation is not easily interpreted. -StormRider 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I should comment that the section needs to be a bit U.S.-centric because something like 80% of the priests involved were located in the U.S. (See this section in Catholic sex abuse cases). However, the section needs to indicate that the extent of the problem was global; in particular, priests in Ireland, Canada, Australia and Europe were also involved. It would be great if someone could dig up statistics on the global distribution of cases. --Richard S (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Richard. Also, we already have a ref in the article that gives us the number of sex abuse cases per country, that is how we knew most of them were in the US. NancyHeise talk 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "... dioceses (mostly in {United States/Ireland/Australia/...?}) began ..."? The bracketed passage could be taylored with editorial discretion, say "the United States, Ireland, and Australia", or some other consensus permutation. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


From Paul R. Dokecki The clergy sexual abuse crisis: reform and renewal in the Catholic community 2004, Georgetown University Press [20]

  • p 55 "Interest in clergy sexual abuse in the US Catholic Church has waxed and waned since the mid-1980s ..."
  • p 56 mentions this list of other countries with Catholic sex abuse scandals: Ireland, Mexico, Austria, France, Chile, Australia, and Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Scotland, South Africa, Switzerland, and the UK
  • p 57 "Throughout the world in 2002, the U.S. Catholic Church has generated the lion's share of media coverage of what have typically been 'old' clergy sexual abuse cases, ones that occurred before 1990; however, the claim that what we have is a passe', mostly American, phenomenon is open to serious challenge." He then goes on to challenge this position.

From Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and priests: anatomy of a contemporary crisis. Published 2001 by Oxford University Press. [21]. Book received a good review [22]

  • p 64 notes that the NAtional Catholic Reporter broke first "national story" of child abuse by priests in the US on june 7, 1985

Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As any sort of major scandal, Ireland, the US, Australia and, perhaps, Canada are basically "it" up to now. Yes. People who search hard enough will find individual cases of abuse by clerics, Catholic and non-Cathotlic, in other countries. With 500,000 active clerics worldwide, and at least as numerous monks and nuns, it would be amazing if this were not so, but attempts by an army of activists to "spread" the crisis have so far proved fruitless. The anti-Catholics at BBC News have failed to dig up a UK sex-abuse crisis, despite ten years of trying, and even sending a camera team to Brazil came up with zilch. Xandar 23:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This proposed text does not say "scandal" but reads as if the abuses were confined to the US and Ireland. That is inaccurate. Furthermore, the sources are saying that the public accusations began in the 1980s, not 2001. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 2 analysis

Line 2 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

One study found that four percent of U.S. priests faced some sort of sexual accusation.[450][451]

Discussion

I think that this sentence is completely unnecessary. The study is not attributed properly and does not provide enough context for this number - when was the study conducted? Did it concern only priests who were active at the time of the study? Did it include accusations from the past or only those in a specific time period? What types of accusations were counted - criminal complaints? civil lawsuits? what about any complaints made to bishops but not authorities? Who conducted the study - a group representing victims? one representing the Church? a neutral party? In general, this information is much too detailed for thi and too US-centric. Why single out the US when there have been acccusations in other countries as well? Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cut Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I would keep this for the sake of demonstrating how wide spread the accusations were. Your questions are all red herrings; it is why statements have references and any interested party can check the references. I have not done so yet, but if the references do not accurately support the statement, then we have a different kettle of fish. -16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The source is the 2004 John Jay Report which was commissioned by the USCCB and served as the basis for the USCCB's response to the problem. This is the most authoritative source for discussing the scope and nature of the problem in the U.S. The results were compiled from data provided by the U.S. dioceses and the response rate was extraordinarily high. (This is not to say that there aren't methodological issues with the study; just that the report was not based on the standard small statistical sample.)
That said, we must be clear that the John Jay Report, while comprehensive and reliable, focused only on the problem in the U.S. We should look for data regarding the percentage of priests outside the U.S. who faced sexual accusations. I would speculate that the percentage would be equally high in Ireland but perhaps less so in Canada and Australia. We cannot simply throw out the 4% figure for the U.S. without providing the reader some sense of whether this 4% figure can be extrapolated to the worldwide population of priests.
--Richard S (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I vote to keep it too - it addresses country with the vast majority of sex abuse cases and we don't need to extrapolate it because then we wander into OR territory unless someone has a ref. NancyHeise talk 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep: for same reasons Nancy lists. Marauder40 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) While the statement can be adequately sourced, it seems to me the perfect example of something which could be dropped for space considerations. So while it is written straightforwardly enough (I can plausibly foresee complaints of it both minimizing and exaggerating the issue), as my editorial judgment I would prefer it simply deleted. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Source to provide "context". [23] Chapter 13 (pp 179-193), "The US Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Scandal: A Media/Religion Case Study" by Frances Forde Plude from Belief in media: cultural perspectives on media and Christianity, edited by Peter Horsfield, Mary E. Hess, and Adan M. Medrano. published 2004 by Ashgate Publishing Limited

  • p 184 speaking of the John Jay report (which is the source for the sentence in question) "There is reasonable skepticism about how open the church will be about its records unless pressured by criminal prosecution" ... "There may be even more victims from the decade of the nineties, but many victims have not yet reached an age of maturity where they can find the courage to speak up.

Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another scholar taking issue with the number - Chapter 2: Abusive Priests: Who They Were and Were Not*. by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea and Virginia Goldner from Predatory priests, silenced victims: the sexual abuse crisis and the Catholic Church edited by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea and Virginia Goldner . published 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

  • pp 26 - 27 focus on issues with the John Jay Report - sloppy bookkeeping, bishops intimidated families into not filing an official report, not all victims have reported and says according to John Jay study, over 25% of allegations lodged more than 30 years after the abuse began, so more recent numbers likely off
  • p 27 "in summary, then, we can conclude that in the course of 54 years, at least 4.75% of Roman Catholic priests in the United States sexually abused a minor."
  • p 31 "We know that many victims never disclose their abuse, or at least never report it to the Church, and we can be skeptical that all accusations indeed were recorded and submitted to John Jay."

Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that one of the sources used in the article for this sentence [24] does not back up this claim. I suspect this is left over from a previous sentence that was removed or shortened. The other reference is to the report - I'd rather see this referenced to a book analyzing the report, and I've provided several potential references above. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; but why include this here at all, without context - is this many? is this few? Relegate to the linked article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 3 analysis

Line 3 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.[11][12][13][14][21]

Discussion

To make this more neutral, I would agree to take out the "criticized" part and reword to something that focuses solely on underlying facts. Perhaps Investigations revealed that in some cases bishops had failed to report abuse allegations to police and had reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling. This would leave out the media part and focus solely on the actions of the bishops. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok as is - hardly controversial statements. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I prefer Karanacs proposal; it seems cleaner to me. --StormRider 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the Church was "widely criticized" is central to the discussion of this topic. This scandal is a significant component of the non-Catholic population's view of the Church. Thus, I can't support removing "widely criticized" from the article text although I could imagine moving it into the next sentence. Thus, we could consider something like this:
"Investigations revealed that in some cases bishops had failed to report abuse allegations to police and had reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling. The Catholic hierarchy was widely criticized for what was alleged [alternately: "perceived"] to be a cover-up. However, some bishops defended their actions on the grounds that psychiatric counseling had been considered an effective and compassionate means of addressing the problem."
The above text is just a "first cut" at a compromise. I'm open to tinkering with the specific wording.
--Richard S (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it still fails to tell Reader that the prevailing psychology at the time was the people could be cured of such behaviour through counseling. That is what the ref actually states, it says nothing about being a "compassionate means of addressing the problem". NancyHeise talk 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I struck this comment because I did not see the next section that addresses my concern. NancyHeise talk 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Prefer Richard's version, but with minor wordsmithing suggestions: (i) change "that in some cases" to "cases where" (cleaner, shorter, the connotation of "some" is still present). (ii) "perceived" is better than "alleged", due to fewer nonneutral connotations of the word. (iii) change "effective and compassionate" to "appropriate" (shorter and less value-laden). That last sentence would ideally be even shorter but I'll give it another think. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Richards proposal, as amended, seems to offer a good way forward. Xandar 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the first sentence is all that is necessary; I could live with the addition of the second sentence, but I disagree with the inclusion of the third sentence. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The third sentence is actually the necessary one. Xandar 23:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please state your reasons why this apologetic (However, some bishops defended their actions on the grounds that psychiatric counseling had been considered an effective and compassionate means of addressing the problem.) is compatible with WP:NPOV, much less necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 4 analysis

Line 4 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that such behavior could be cured through counseling.[452][454]

Discussion

I think this sentence needs to be removed as being POV. Its sole purpose in this article appears to be to defend the bishops - and that is not a neutral activity. The wording makes it clear that this was likely not the prevailing pscyhology - only "some bishops and psychiatrists", so basically this is an opinion. We also aren't sure what "the times" are. This is certainly not the current pscyhology, and some bishops were still sending priests to counseling just before the scandal hit. Furthermore, the sources currently used are not adequate to assert what the prevailing psychology actually was (we'd need actual scientific journals per the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)). If we were to keep this opinion, to be true NPOV we'd need to include the opposing viewpoints - that many bishops and psychiatrists didn't believe this to be the case. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This wasn't just confined to priests. The entire country, if not world, thought it was treatable and confessed violators could lead normal lives just as a reformed thief might. BTW, shock treatment for some forms of deviancy are still being used, it's just that psychiatrists didn't like doing that - it considered those techniques violent. Which is fine, but not everyone yet agrees. In other words, there are still people who think it is treatable. In the old days, molesters were rarely jailed and never sued. If jailed, it was for a short time. This is simply history. Student7 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Cut, mainly for length. Don't really think the current text is not neutral. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete; it is overly simplistic and inaccurate. It certainly was not the sole reason for their actions. --StormRider 16:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's important to provide a balance that suggests that not all bishops protected abusive priests for self-serving motives. The fact that the bishops are now considered wrong to have done so may well be a result of changing standards. We shouldn't pass judgment on the bishops' actions (either in condemnation or exculpation). We should simply report what they said. Keep it brief, though. Details belong in the detailed articles. --Richard S (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it's true that this was the mainstream psychiatric view at the time, repeating the bishops' contention that it was is only here in order to attempt to justify their inaction in not calling the police and is therefore POV.Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: for reasons stated by Richard S. Marauder40 (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this has an issue of being much too vague. What time period are we talking about? Was this the majority opinion of bishops or psychologists (and if we are asserting anything about psychologists this needs to be sourced to scientific literature)? Where are the opposing viewpoints (that not all bishops thought this, and that this was not necessarily a sound pyschological concept)? Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: It provides context for the abuse. Context is something Awadewit argued for extensively at FAC and many reviewers including myself supported it as a FAC requirement. The article is POV if it does not provide context for this abuse including comparing it to other US institutions like the public school system where this abuse is ten times worse. If we don't include this info, it makes the article POV anti-Catholic by making it appear as if the Church is the only institution dealing with these abusers when in fact, it is a serious cultural problem faced by any institution in the US that deals with minors. Because most of the abuse happened in the US, this comparison is relevant and provides necessary balance. NancyHeise talk 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The type of context reviewers (including myself) have repeatedly asked for are not excuses. It means that the article shouldn't jsut mention Lumen Gentium, it should explain that this is the Church constitution. It means that the article shouldn't just say "There's a Rule named after St. Benedict", it should explain what a Rule is and why this was important. It means that we can't just plop information into the article - if this sentence were to be retained, we'd need to include the necessary context of what time period? who thought this? Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have commented about a similar piece of content in the above subsection, but I'll add some general thoughts. When I think of how this article will read 100 or more years from now, it is obvious that such contextualizing as this is moving the article forward, and is not merely a piece of editorial apologetics. That said, the concerns that it is apologetic or non-NPOV have merit, mainly due to way the designed-by-committee reading style of the resulting prose which draws too much attention to that particular piece of content. I strongly feel the best answer is in inclusion of this content, but the exact wording/organization should be refined so that it is pointed out in the most innocuous way possible. For example, I prefer the wording in the proposal in the above section, but even there think it could be made more concise and declarative, with better unity with the flow of the text. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Here I think Karanacs view of what is and isn't POV, is very flawed. If someone makes accusation A, and the accused makes (partial) defense to the accusation B, then reporting both is the essence of NPOV. What is POV is to try to include just the accusation and not context or response. Karanacs says "defending the bishops" is not a neutral activity. Here she is mistaken. Coverage does not exist to provide a blinkered view or a pillory for bishops or anyone else. If a defense has been made, it should be reported. Which is NPOV? "Sam shot Fred twice with a shotgun." or "Sam shot Fred twice with a shotgun. He claimed it was to prevent Fred killing Jill with a chainsaw"? Xandar 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Xandar, I believe your second scenario is what NPOV is all about and I am in favor of including the necessary info to make this para NPOV which includes the bishop's response. NancyHeise talk 04:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Special pleading. The previous sentence (as Richard amends it) states the consensus view of the facts - it makes no accusation; we are not a court, to need pleas in mitigation. Whether counseling works on pedophiles is off topic here; that intricate question is best treated elsewhere. Even if there were consensus (in the sources) that it did, the scandal - condonation of criminal conduct - would be much the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Which version of Xandar's example is truly neutral depends on the context. Sam could claim anything. Did Fred actually have a chainsaw (and did it work)? Was Jill someplace that Fred could get to her? Was Fred actually trying to kill Jill? If the answer to any of these 3 questions was no, then I absolutely disagree that Sam's claim should be presented in a summary article - it is prejudicing opinion in favor of Sam. Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
You agree then, that the comment is NPOV so long as it is true. Xandar 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I said. I said that much depends on the context, and it is possible that context would need to be added. Depending on which article the statement was in, none of it might be necessary at all. Karanacs (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been having trouble finding sources for the psychiatric treatment of abusive priests. This bit by Thomas Plante is the only one that I've found online so far. I found it to be a well-written article that touches on a number of issues related to the sexual abuse scandal. --Richard S (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 5 analysis

Line 5 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions,[456][457][458]

Discussion

This is an extremely POV statement. This article should not be discussing the media coverage (and I've suggested adjustments to one of the previous sentences above), but the actual problem and the response made by the Church. It does not matter that abuse occurs elsewhere; this article should be concerned only with what occurred in this institution. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Like some King Charles' head in Mr Dick's ramblings in David Copperfield, Nancy has again sought to minimise the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church by comparing it favourably to the situation in US public schools. There are two problems with this:
1. it is US-centric: how can we compare what happened in Catholic institutions in Australia, Ireland etc by reference to American schools?
2. more importantly, it is not a valid comparison: some of the incidents in US schools are minor (one off inappropriate touching) or even consensual, for example women in their early twenties having relationships with young men in their late teens, and sometimes subsequently marrying them, that were it not for the teacher-student relationship would be entirely legal. Is comparing that to the Irish priest who raped young boys week in week out for over twenty years really comparing like with like?
We have toned down the sentence that sought to establish this parallel bit by bit although the misleading refs remain. I think now is the time to cut them altogether. If we are to have a sentence on Catholic criticism of media coverage of its child abuse, I propose the quote from Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi which has the advantage both of being from an official Church source and not referring to a single country.Haldraper (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with your item 2 is that a large majority of the US cases were similar to the US school cases you mention just from a homosexual perspective. Most of the cases were older teen, younger priest cases. Are all the cases throughout the world the same? No but just like in the US school cases, some are older person, much younger kid. Some are two people around the same age. The big thing is that it is illegal in all the cases. The parallel fits but whether it should be mentioned due to US centric reasons or not is another matter. Marauder40 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Cut for length. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There are perhaps 1,000 cases a year in American schools (from published newspapers BTW). They are mostly heterosexual offenses. Most are never prosecuted fully - that is, a plea bargain is accepted, the accuser finks out, usually because parents have found out and the teen feels she is betraying her lover - so no witness, no crime. The school union is extremely active (perhaps 15% of ALL accusations, either against priests or against teachers are false). The accused has real good counsel. If the principal is suspicious, he usually gets reassigned with the district, or he leaves and goes to another district or another state - pretty much like the priests did. Remember, there are millions of teachers and tens of millions of students spending 30 hours a week together. 1,000 cases may seem like a lot, but it isn't.
Sex abuse at "home" is estimated to be four times what it is at school and church combined. Student7 (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is dodging the issue and should be deleted. First and foremost the Church has stepped forward and taken responsiblity of the abuse within its walls by its priests. This article is not about sexual abuse in the boarder society, but about sexual abuse within the Church. --StormRider 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If what you say were the case Marauder, where would be the scandal? In Britain (and the US I presume) it is illegal for a 21 year old teacher to have a sexual relationship with a 18 year old student. If that student-teacher relationship doesn't exist, as it doesn't between young priests and older teen parishioners, no law has been broken. I actually doubt that is what happened. Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in attempting to distinguish Catholic priests' actions from child abuse has argued that "Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17" which covers both older and younger teens and leaves open the issue of consent. If you are saying that most US cases were consensual relationships between young priests and older teens, can we reference that rather than those who are seeking to draw an inappropriate parallel - on factual and US-centric grounds -with American public schools?
StormRider, it is clearly not true that "the Church has stepped forward and taken responsiblity of the abuse within its walls by its priests", it has been dragged into public view after decades of being suppressed by the bishops by a combination of campaigning journalism, legal action and not least the heroic efforts of its victims.Haldraper (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Laws in the US are more restrictive then what you claim the laws are like in Britain. The laws in the US not only prohibit teacher/student relationships but any relationships where the adult is in a position of authority over the minor. Thus teacher/student, priest/parishoner, scout leader/scout, counselor/conselee relationships, etc. are all illegal and usually the age of consent laws don't apply here. Usually the law in most states says that if the older person is above 18 and in a position of authority and the younger person is under 18 then it is illegal. Many states now have like a 2 year difference in age provision but not all. I don't have the sources on me right now at work, but from the sources I remember most of the victims in the US cases tended to be older teen males. Marauder40 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that we are having such a long discussion about this suggests that there is no way that we can summarize the debate over comparability to abuse in other institutions in just one sentence. And because of that, I think it is better to say nothing at all in this article.

I suspect that the reason that media coverage has been greater for the Catholic Church is based on a number of reasons:

  1. "Everybody loves to hate the Catholic Church" (a bit hyperbolic but the point is that beating on the Catholic Church sells papers)
  2. The Catholic Church is a single, identifiable institution whereas school systems are small, independent organizations; a pattern of cover-ups over many years by a single superintendent of schools would also have gained media attention
  3. The Catholic Church is perceived to be monarchical and hierarchical whereas the truth is that there was no formal church policy on dealing with the problem before this decade. Thus, bishops were left to formulate their own policy on a diocese-by-diocese basis. Non-Catholics (and even Catholics) often don't appreciate this decentralized nature of Church government and assume that a pattern of cover-ups across multiple dioceses is the result of a deliberate policy at the national or worldwide Church level. Perhaps there was a lack of awareness of the issue but there's no evidence that it was deliberate.

All that having been said, I would favor removing the sentence as being excessive detail for an article of this scope. I would support including the topic in the detailed articles.

--Richard S (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both your summary of the media coverage issue and with your removal of the sentence IF, and a big if, the rest of the paragraph remains balanced. Marauder40 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Richard, I like your last point a lot - that this was a diocese-by-diocese issue with no deliberate policy. Could we craft an appropriately-sourced sentence stating this and use it instead of trying to describe what bishops thought about psychiatric treatment? Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The media coverage is not the focus of the reference to that sentence. The focus is the fact that sexual abuse of children by US public school teachers is "ten times worse" than in the Catholic Church. I think we need to reword the sentence to reflect the cited references and toss the media coverage bit. We need to do this in order to provide context for the abuse. If we don't include this info, it makes the article POV anti-Catholic by making it appear as if the Church is the only institution dealing with these abusers when in fact, it is a serious cultural problem faced by any institution in the US that deals with minors. Because most of the abuse happened in the US, this comparison is relevant and provides necessary balance. NancyHeise talk 19:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please point to the phrasing in this paragraph that implies that the Church is the only institution that has abused children? The abuse was not limited only to the United States, which means this is not a "cultural problem" in the United States. I could probably find a source that says that priests have abused 10x more children than members of some other organization. Should we then include that as appropriate context? Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Context means you give reader - context. If the US has problems with adults in positions of authority having sex with teenagers and you just tell Reader about one instituion with the problem but in fact other institutions have a greater problem (ten times worse), that introduces POV. NancyHeise talk 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If we want to give appropriate context, then perhaps we should include this book?
Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and priests: anatomy of a contemporary crisis. Published 2001 by Oxford University Press. [25]. Book received a good review [26]
  • Beginning on page 58, the book attempts to explain why the media focused on this issue
  • Page 64 notes that the National Catholic Reporter broke first "national story" of child abuse by priests in the US on june 7, 1985
  • Page 65 notes that the NCR article focused on the Catholic crisis, and this shaped the future dialogue
If we are determined to discuss the media coverage, then it must be balanced - not just say that there was too much coverage, but to explain why there was this type of coverage. This is appropriate context for the sentence in question. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That book is on my must-get-and-read list. One of his followups also covers the "metastory" of the coverage of the issue. Again, a hundred years from now the discussion we are having will appear quite naive, due to (among other things) just such things as the sentence (and Jenkins, Richard, et al) point out. Now, while the proposed sentence does and should inform the editorial decisions made on this article, I think that its direct inclusion is quite problematic, due to concerns raised here. A far better solution would be to keep a careful watch on the tone of the rest of the issue's coverage (including keeping it very short and summary) so that a reasonable and informed editor will not likely be tempted to read the content and say whoa, this has to be balanced with say a contrast to such other examples. I basically agree with Marauder's assessment above, although am confident the topic can be covered in a balanced way (whether it will is, of course, another matter). But in the interim, let's drop that awkward sentence. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Paul R. Dokecki The clergy sexual abuse crisis: reform and renewal in the Catholic community 2004, Georgetown University Press [27]

  • p 57 "Throughout the world in 2002, the U.S. Catholic Church has generated the lion's share of media coverage of what have typically been 'old' clergy sexual abuse cases, ones that occurred before 1990; however, the claim that what we have is a passe', mostly American, phenomenon is open to serious challenge."
  • p 58 "While priests are professionals we can view through the lens of professional ethics, in the mind of Catholics their sacred and sacramental office goes well beyond that of a secular professional, as do their moral/ethical obligations to those to whom they minister"

p 59 "Although sexual abuse by teachers, scout masters, coaches, or professional persons may violate children, such abuse pales by comparison to their abuse by priests, because the life of children in the Catholic Church entails their total immersion in the church's powerful and tightly woven webs of belief and social relationships" There are further comparisons of abuse by priests vs that by teachers which make that by priests look worse. As proper context, if we must compare the Church to other institutions, we must also mention the scholarly opinion that abuse by priests is worse than abuse by teachers. Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree in mentioning that abuse by a priest is "worse" then abuse by someone in a different profession. That statement is entirely subjective and opinion. In my personal opinion it is true, but it is a matter of opinion pure and simple. Keep it to the facts. Marauder40 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should mention it either, but if Nancy insists that we compare the scope of this scandal to that of other institutions we really must provide the opposing viewpoint. Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that you are comparing apples and oranges here. The fact that x% of priests and y% of teachers and z% of parents have molested children are verifyable numbers and facts. Saying that a priest molesting a kid is "worse" then a teacher/scout leader/counselor is totally subjective and opinion. In this case you really aren't providing the "opposing viewpoint". It sound more like a tit-for-tat type of arguement. Marauder40 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More sourcing for context - Bernard Spilka, Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorusch The psychology of religion: an empirical approach [28] published 2003 by The Guilford Press

  • p 432 One study (detailed in the page) looked at people (US) who had been abused. Of those who reported child sexual abuse involving religious authorities, 54% of the victims and perpetrators were Catholic, although only 25% of the US population is Catholic. Study also said boys and girls were equally likely to be victims

Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely dodgy figure since, with all the publicity, the big money rewards available, claims going back 40 years or more, and the teams of money-hungry lawyers actively seeking out claimants in the US, the fact that Catholic reports of abuse are higher at the moment is not at all hard to explain. Xandar 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the three sources supposedly supporting this statement, and they do not support it. All three sources are freely available in full online for those who want to make sure I didn't miss anything.

  • [29] Does not mention the Catholic Church at all
  • Washington Post story [30]; page 2 states that "Clergy abuse is part of the national consciousness after a string of highly publicized cases. But until now, there's been little sense of the extent of educator abuse. " They are not arguing that there has been too much coverage of the Catholic Church, but that there has not been enough coverage of abuse by teachers.
  • Nexsmax source [31] also does not state that there has been too much coverage of the Catholic Church but that there hasn't been more coverage of other scandals.
    • states that the education sex abuse crisis "has the potential to be much greater and far-reaching"; for education this included sexual comments to rape
    • quoted a 2002 AP article that said clergy abuses overshadowed teacher-student sex abuse cases and said that the dynamics were often different because ones with educators 'seem to involve consenting relationships'
    • states that there was more coverage of the Catholic priest abuse scandal than of the education report
    • states that "Catholic leaders especially are wondering why more coverage of the [education] issue ... hasn't been forthcoming

To me, this does not seem like enough to support the sentence. There is a difference from saying that the Church has most of the coverage and saying that the Church has had "excessive" coverage. Thoughts from others? Karanacs (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The exact wording of the sentence is not so important as having wording that states at least one of the two propositions touched upon here: 1) that much media coverage is perceived as being biased, in that 2) it ignores that widespread sexual abuse is not just a Catholic problem. There are numerous references for this including jenkins and stuff like this or this or this. in addition to what we have. Xandar 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well said Xandar, I agree with you, these are very important points that make the section complete and provide appropriate context that helps it meet WP:NPOV. NancyHeise talk 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy agrees with Xandar. Stop the presses; we should issue a special edition. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On the merits, Karanacs was right to begin with. Just the facts, please; if we include the apologetics, we must also include the denunciations - and that would be undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We should absolutely not be using newspapers/magazines, considering that so many scholarly books have been written. However, looking at the new articles Xandar provided, 2 of the 3 do not say that coverage is biased. The other source quotes a Baptist activist - that is not a good enough source for an allegation of biased media. And, again, this article is not claiming anywhere that sexual abuse is only a Catholic problem so why are we trying to defend that? Will it then be necessary to insert a sentence about sexual abuse occurring in Catholic dioceses to every article that discusses sexual abuse by a non-priest? That way we aren't implying that only teachers, etc abuse children. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of spotlight (biased) coverage remains an important one, considering the variety of sources that mention it. Xandar 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Line 6 analysis

Line 6 of Xandar's proposed text reads:

The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including background checks for all Church employees;[460][461] and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[16][17][22]

Discussion

I do not think we should focus on US-specific reforms. We could instead follow a suggestion Richard made above and say something like "Several bishops conferences have instituted reforms to prevent future above" and stop there. I'm also uncomfortable that the sentence above is implying that men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are pedophiles. If we keep this clause, I think it needs to be reworded to more specifically state that it is the Catholic position. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be a bit more "worldwide" - for example the English Church has introduced similar measures to the US, as have no doubt most advanced countries. I don't agree the implication is there - the sentence is just a statement of fact. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In that the abuse within the US and Ireland was the media focus, but the Church responded worldwide, it seems better not to limit its efforts to just two areas. Karanacs proposal seems better to me and I can agree with his/her pedophile comment also. --StormRider 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod that we should remove the U.S.-centric focus. I would find it difficult to believe that these reforms have not been instituted worldwide or at least in every country where significant numbers of cases have been reported. What we need to do is find sources to support the global extent of the reforms. Finding such sources should be easy for the UK, Canada, Australia and Ireland.

I agree with Karanacs that we need to be clear that it is the Catholic Church which is linking homosexuality with pedophilia (or, to be precise ephebophilia). However, any detailed discussion of whether or not such a linkage is justified belongs in a detailed article.

--Richard S (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again I don't have the references with me but we may want to change it to reflect what happened on a worldwide scale and just use what happened in the US as an example of what was done. Basically the Pope (or Popes depending on how you want to reflect then Cardinal Ratzinger's role at the time and now) not only generated the document concerning those entering the priesthood but tasked all the bishops to come up with methods for dealing with these situations in their respective dioceses/conferences. Why people outside of the US may have a tough time understanding why the church didn't explicitly spell out the policies from the Vatican is because the way you deal with situations like this is different in a place like the US/Britan then in a place that may have different laws and/or policies like say Iraq. Marauder40 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I would support a change to say something like Vatican authorities instructed all bishops to devise measures to prevent future abuses. Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In principle, I agree with Karanacs. However, "instructed" is not quite the right word with respect to the U.S. The USCCB proposed very harsh "zero tolerance" measures and the Vatican objected, emphasizing the need to protect the rights of the accused priests. The USCCB subsequently modified its proposed measures to accomodate the Vatican's concerns. I would guess that the resulting procedures and processes became a model for dioceses around the world with modifications to accomodate local differences in social and legal environments (per Marauder40). We need to better understand how the worldwide church learned from the U.S. experience and then come up with a sentence that captures that process in one sentence. --Richard S (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xandar's proposed text because the US procedures significantly addressed most of the abuse problem which occured mainly in the US. We can add to the sentence to include what other countries did but we can't eliminate what the US did. NancyHeise talk 19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be ideal to make this scope worldwide, but a good wording escapes me at this time. Perhaps Karanacs version is a good starting point. The ordination guidance can be tightened considerably, say "... the worldwide Church tightened their [[Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders|ordination requirements]]." (still cannot believe that article hasn't been renamed). I would drop the descriptive line about the vast majority of victims, that should be covered in the article on the document (not suprisingly, it isn't mentioned there yet, while paedophilia is [sic]. Sigh.). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that homosexuals are not automatically pedophiles, a major problem here is the pov labeling by the law (!) that sex with teenaged boys is "pedophilia." Nearly all these cases happened without violence (minor cannot give "consent"). They cooperated. According to psychologists, nearly all children molested before puberty have psychological problems. There weren't many of those. About half molested in their teens will not only not have problems but actually appreciate the experience, looking back on it - they appreciated the attention. These do not have problems. Having said that, the other half will experience problems that should be treated. My point being, that pedophilia is not an accurate description for all minors and attempts to convey that a child of 5 is the same as a teen of, say, 15. While this may be legally true, it is otherwise false.
The other side of the coin is, that nearly all cases of molestation were with young males, not young females. Just as teacher molesting is mostly heteosexual

and therefore apparently uninteresting at the national or international level, most Catholic abuse was homosexual and therefore titillating to the media. Apparently without the homosexual occurences, maybe the media wouldn't have been as interested? I don't know. It seems to me that the homosexual bent of these priests is very relevant to these cases.

We did go through a period in the 1990s where the homeless were saints. Remember the lovable characters in Doonesbury? That changed.
Now we are going throught the same thing with homosexuals. They are all saints, therefore Catholic priests were pedophiles and not homosexuals. Not quite accurate. Student7 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this statement is wrong on many, many levels. Here are just a few of the sources to rebut this:
  • Chapter 2: Abusive Priests: Who They Were and Were Not*. by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea and Virginia Goldner from Predatory priests, silenced victims: the sexual abuse crisis and the Catholic Church edited by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea and Virginia Goldner . published 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
    • begin page 21 - debunking myth that homosexuals are abusers; cites numerous studies that showed the men who were fixated on children after having been attracted to adults all described themselves as heterosexual and were usually homophobic; also noted that in these cases, boys were more available than girls.
  • Bernard Spilka, Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorusch The psychology of religion: an empirical approach

[32] published 2003 by The Guilford Press

    • p 432 - One study (details in the page) looked at people (US) who had been abused. Study said boys and girls were equally likely to be victims
There are a multitude of studies detailing the harm that can be caused when a minor has a sexual interaction with a person in authority, and most especially with the clergy. That said, this is not something that ought to be included in this summary article. The article should very briefly and generically address what actions the Church took and should make very clear that it is the Church's position - not necessarily anyone else's - that this was an issue with homosexual priests. Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to it stating that this was the Church's position, but it also needs to state (connectively or otherwise) that the vast majority of the abuse cases concerned teenage males. Xandar 01:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, but to go even further, this misses the whole fact that the church doesn't so much have a position as simply noting the empirical fact that the abuse cases were predominantly teenage males. It makes no general contention that (per source above) "homosexuals are abusers", but rather the converse, that "abusers are homosexual". This is a case of the prosecuter's fallacy that for some reason has has not been corrected in public perception.
About Student's contention that the homosexuality of most of the cases was a titillating point to stoke the stories, I have to disagree heartily, at least in the USA. The US coverage has nearly always paid very short shrift to that fact, except as a segue to someone's opinion that perhaps the Church should change its teachings on such to prevent further cases. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We could avoid all this by adopting the single NPOV sentence I have proposed as a replacement for the whole of the current section, below at 'Trimming: a more radical proposal'.Haldraper (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've done a basic Google books search on "Catholic sex abuse" and received over 2000 hits. Given this, I think it is inappropriate for this section to rely on newspapers at all (I counted at least 6 citations to newspapers). The article should be gaining all of its information from scholarly sources when they are available, not newspapers. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The article in the Associated Press is a WP:RS source. The article details the abuse of US Public school teachers upon students and compares it to the Catholic Church. This is a valid comparison and we do not have to have a book. The AP article is dated 2008, this is 2009. Perhaps some scholar rushed to write a book about it and we will use it if we find one but I know Wikipedia allows newspaper articles for recent issues. Some parts of the sex abuse scandal fall under the recent issue area. I just saw a Zenit article detailing a report that showed that there are no new accusations, that the bulk of accused abuse fell under the 70's and 80's and then virtually nothing new. The report discussed the culture in the US in the the 70's and 80's that researchers were considering as a possible factor. NancyHeise talk 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
That is also discussed in several of the books I posted above as sources. The books go on to explain that in many cases abuse is not reported until after the victims have reached adulthood, and often aren't reported until more than 25 years have passed. The scholars conclude that abuses did not slow down in the 1990s and 200s, they just haven't been reported yet. As you are quite fond of quoting the reliable sources policy at us, you should be well aware that it states that peer-reviewed journals and university press books are considered the most reliable, then books published by respected publishing houses, then newspapers at the bottom. As there are 2000+ books available (including some published this year), I doubt there is much scholarly information that is not available in these - and I suspect the scholars do a much better job of placing the information in the appropriate context than a newspaper or magazine reporter. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Subtle points: I read your sources to be concluding that abuses may not have slowed down in the 1990s and 2000s. And newspapers are fine in the short term, your point is true as time passes and scholarship fills in behind, that where possible better sources should replace lesser ones. But if we are talking newspapers at all for an article of this scope, perhaps we are just being too newsy and suggestions such as those below should be entertained. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
For recent issues, reliable newspapers and reports are good sources. It would be better to have worthy scholarly tomes, but that must not make us give the tomes that exist Undue Weight. The guy claiming many current abused may be waiting 20 years is a case in point - a rather wacky position, which doesn't seem to take into account the reasons WHY people didn't come forward 30 years ago, but do come forward now. Xandar 23:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I am all for using the best sources possible. If no book, then newspaper such as Associated Press will do. NancyHeise talk 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not just one scholar that has taken this position. This has been demonstrated via all sorts of studies (and applies to all types of sexual abuse, not just that by priests) and I saw it in multiple books in my cursory look through Google Books. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Trimming: a more radical proposal

I've been thinking about Karanacs' point above on the history section that 'less is more' and whether this paragraph breaches WP:UNDUE, especially when Catholic sex abuse cases has its own page and the abuse scandals in Australia, Ireland and the United States have their own sub-pages. I think the main problem is that the bulk of the sentences are devoted to rebutting the ones that precede them, e.g. "The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling." is immediately answered by "Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling." For someone reading the page without a formed opinion on the issue, the sentences contradict each other, cancel out each other's meanings and could be cut.

My proposal, based on that reasoning, is that we have a sentence that reads as follows:

Since 2001, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of legal action, media coverage and public debate in Australia, Ireland and the United States.Haldraper (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this. It does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SUMMARY and it is NPOV as it does not make a judgement on whether any abuse actually occurred or whether any actions taken were right or wrong. Karanacs (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I second this per UNDUE. I would suggest the minor switch to "... of media coverage, legal action, and public debate...", but would not object to the proposed wording. This endorsement supersedes my sentencewise suggestions in the above section. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Another second. Baccyak's switch would be chronological order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I support this. It should not take up more than a sentence. Honestly, I would rather excise it altogether. People who want to discuss this specific issue should go to their respective pages. We have 2000 years of church teachings to summerise on this page. The primary goal here should be an accurate, concise and comprehensive description of the Catholic Church. We don't need single-issue hobby horses plagued with recentism. Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that.Haldraper (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of one problem. Several of the sources I read through yesterday prominently mentioned that in the US the "scandal" really began in the 1980s, when there were high-profile media and legal actions against a few priests and dioceses. I don't know whether to reword the sentence as "Since the 1980s, ..." or "Towards the end of the 20th centurym ..." Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The abuse itself obviously began many decades ago and there were criminal convictions of individual priests before 2001 but the things we're referring to - the Boston Globe articles and subsequent lawsuits against the diocese in Massachussets, the BBC documentary about Irish abuse and the Ferns/Ryan reports and the similar process in Australia - are all after that date.Haldraper (talk) 12:55 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Both of K's suggestions, or other similar, could work. 2001 conceivably might as well as that is the beginning of when the vast majority of sourcing and attention existed, but strictly speaking it is not accurate. I'll defer the exact wording to others. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It might also be accurate enough to say "Since at least 2001," Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As per my last comment and Baccyak4H's, I don't see a problem with "Since 2001". Strictly speaking, it doesn't say there wasn't similar media coverage, lawsuits against the Church or public debate before then although I'm not aware of any.Haldraper (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this sort of minimalism is a sustainable solution. 1) We are opening up an issue but supplying ZERO actual information or explanation. 2.) I fear we would be subsequently bombarded, probably on a near-weekly basis, with editors protesting that the issue is being covered-up and not properly dealt with. Can we then claim "consensus" to shut them up? Xandar 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is much worse when we try to include details. Because detail X is in, someone wants to add detail Y to rebut it...and then someone else wants to add detail Z to rebut that. This sticks to the bare facts and gives the appropriate weight to this issue in the context of a 2000-year-old history. Karanacs (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not support such a drastic trim of such a notable controversy, I think it fails to satisfy FAC requirements and will just invite more accusations of POV. NancyHeise talk 01:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
What POV will it be accused of supporting? It is entirely factual. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by Karanacs and PMAnderson. There is nothing POV in my proposed sentence and contrary to what Nancy and Xandar say the piped links provide access to plenty of information for those who want it on sex abuse by Catholic clergy and the scandals in Australia, Ireland and the US, while avoiding the 'tennis match' style of the current version.Haldraper (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may answer for Nancy (she should feel free to correct me), such a summary will be accused of being apologetic. I saw it at earlier FACs where a significant number of editors thought there was not enough coverage of this issue. "This is a big deal! There is not enough coverage. Censorship!" (One may note such sentiments are not wholly absent from this talk page either.) I read it as recentism as well as the whipping-boy status the Church has in certain circles of western media. I sympathize with Nancy and others that such a concise formulation would be a target at FA and an obstacle to achieving FA status. However, I would rather help produce a serious and reputable reference work than enable systematic bias of that type. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the reasons that people clamor for more details on this section is because there are so many details on other sections. If we can strip out most of the excess detail in all the sections, then this single sentence will be absolutely appropriate. In the grand scheme of the history of this organization, the scandals are a small part and their coverage here needs to reflect that. Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the 'not enough coverage'/'censorship' points if the sentence I am proposing didn't include the piped links to Catholic sex abuse cases, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland and Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. We are hardly suppressing information by allowing people to access reams of it with one click. And anyway, as my previous comments and edits clearly show, that is not my intention, it is to get a NPOV section.

If we look at the current version, there is actually very little factual coverage of the abuse scandal, most of it is taken up with POV-pushing of one sort or another. Of the seven sentences, only the first two are factually based:

In 2001, major lawsuits emerged primarily in the United States and Europe, claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors.

In the U.S., the country with the majority of sex-abuse cases, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the U.S. from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation.''

and even they have some POV wording: "claiming that some priests had sexually abused minors" and "faced some sort of sexual accusation" imply that these are unproven allegations.

As I have said before this sentence criticising the Church:

The Church was widely criticized when it emerged that some bishops had known about abuse allegations, failed to report them to police and reassigned accused priests after first sending them to psychiatric counseling.

is immediately rebutted, cancelled out and rendered redundant by:

Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.

The pro-Catholic POV of the section is then strengthened by the last three sentences which argue that:

Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young.

that criticism of the Church is misplaced/the result of anti-Catholic media bias:

Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive given that abuse occurs in other institutions, a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi.

and that the problem isn't really with paedophile priests but gay men:

The U.S. Church instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers; and, because the vast majority of victims were teenage boys, the worldwide Church also prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".

If Nancy and Xandar want a longer, NPOV section, that's fine but tweaking the current section is not the way we're going to achieve that.Haldraper (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with some of your characterizations of the individual sentences, I certainly agree that they are a poor way to go regardless. I hope your suggestion gets more consideration (you're preaching to the converted), and agree with K above that concise summaries rather than lots of detail is the way to go. One advantage of starting from scratch as you did is that it avoids trimming, which raises the question of what to trim ("if you trim that you need to trim this...", etc.) But of course, this demands good writing, and that is not always easy. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to any particular wording. I just want whatever we have to be encyclopedic and balanced, including important elements of context. The ultra-minimalist suggestion is not itself offensive, I'm just worried whether people will continue to back it if it gets criticized. Xandar 20:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alot of that 'context' is only necessary though to balance out other material which is not directly related to the sex abuse scandal, as in the two opposing sentences on the appropriateness of counselling as an alternative to informing the police I discussed above.

My feeling is we should put in the sentence and see how it goes. I think it's 'encyclopedic and balanced' so don't foresee any criticism on the grounds of POV, unlike the multiple POV issues we've got with the current version. If other editors add to it, we'll just have to judge that as we would any other new contribution.Haldraper (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual abuse scandal now has only a sentence after Haldraper made this change. Does anyone think that we need to include the omitted information in a note just in case we get accused of POV? The notes do not count in the readable prose calculation. NancyHeise talk 16:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the sentence as it stands is quite NPOV and there are already excessive (IMO) notes for this page. I sympathize with your experience with such short summary statements causing cries of censorship and coverup at FA, but thinking a hundered years from now, the content will most likely look pretty much like it does now. I acknowledge this strategy may hinder achieving FA, as it doesn't appeal to certain potential systematic biases of the community, but in my mind the article is better for it. As an afterthought, I think such a sentence makes maintainence so much easier, as the temptation to update the content with the latest news du jour will be tempered by the very high-level summary style: such an update would be transparently too detailed. The caveat, as X pointed out above, is that it needs diligent eyes to prevent deterioration. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(update) Nancy, thanks for taking the initiative and reverting per my feedback. In hindsight, my feedback could have been read as a little chippy, so I apologize, although stand by the crux of my argument. On this note, I have been sorely disappointed with the level of discourse on this page (by some editors of all editorial perspectives) for some time and have only recently gotten the wherewithall to get involved again. I am taking Nancy's painless revert as a good sign, but strongly encourage everyone regardless to redouble their concentration on edits, not editors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The previous paragraph was disputed for all kinds of reasons, and page size was not one of those. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural influence proposal 2

Starting a new section to consolidate discussion. Taking into account some of the comments from Xandar and Nancy above, I have a new proposal to replace the first paragraph of the Cultural influence section. (We can work on the subsequent paragraphs later). Note that I am not wedded to the sources used here, and I suspect that some of the existing sources could be used to cite many of these statements, but I don't have those books. Also note that I deliberately left out any mention of slavery. I think we should concentrate on this part first and then figure out how to handle mention of slavery, as I think that will be a long discussion also. Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has had widespread influence on world culture and society.[2] Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest.[23][4][5][9] By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom".[24] For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society.[24] With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage.[25] The Church being one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.[26] Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage.[27] In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed[23] and established a minimum age for marriage.[28] The elevation of marriage to a sacrament also made the union a binding contract, with dissolutions overseen by Church authorities.[29][30]

Sources used for proposal
  1. ^ Hart Milman, p. 353.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Orlandis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Stark, Rodney (2003-07-01). "The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery". Christianity Today. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  4. ^ a b c Bokenkotter, p. 56.
  5. ^ a b c Noble, p. 230.
  6. ^ Noble, p. 445.
  7. ^ Stearns, p. 65.
  8. ^ Hastings, p. 309.
  9. ^ a b Stark, p. 104.
  10. ^ Kreeft, p. 61.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Bruni, p. 336.
  12. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference JohnJay was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b c Steinfels, pp. 40–46.
  14. ^ a b c Frawley-ODea, p. 4.
  15. ^ Shubert, Atika (2009-11-26). "Irish Catholic Church covered up child abuse, report says". CNN. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
  16. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference vatdocord was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b c Filteau, Jerry (2004). "Report says clergy sexual abuse brought 'smoke of Satan' into church". Catholic News Service. Retrieved 10 March 2008.
  18. ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409 "Pope bans homosexuals from ordination as priests"]. WorldNetDaily. 19 September 2005. Retrieved 9 June 2009. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  19. ^ Shubert, Atika (2009-11-26). "Irish Catholic Church covered up child abuse, report says". CNN. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
  20. ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409 "Pope bans homosexuals from ordination as priests"]. WorldNetDaily. 19 September 2005. Retrieved 9 June 2009. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  21. ^ Shubert, Atika (2009-11-26). "Irish Catholic Church covered up child abuse, report says". CNN. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
  22. ^ [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46409 "Pope bans homosexuals from ordination as priests"]. WorldNetDaily. 19 September 2005. Retrieved 9 June 2009. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  23. ^ a b Witte (1997), p. 20.
  24. ^ a b Witte (1997), p. 23.
  25. ^ Witte (1997), p. 31.
  26. ^ Power, p 1.
  27. ^ Power (1995), pp. 1–2.
  28. ^ Shahar (2003), p. 33.
  29. ^ Witte (1997), p. 29.
  30. ^ Witte (1997), p. 36.
Sources used
  • From existing article, Orlandis and Stark (Note that the references that remain blank should point to the preface in the Orlandis book)
  • Power, Eileen (1995), Postand, Michael Moissey (ed.), Medieval women, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521595568
  • Shahar, Shulamith (2003), The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages, New York: Routledge
  • Witte, John (1997), From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition, Louisvill, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 9780664255435
The paragraph is woefully POV and peacocky as it is, and needs rewriting, certainly. Can you imagine it in Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance? (I see, with disappointment, that we have it under Nancy's hand, above, that "we don't care" if any and all sources used "happen to come from scholars who are Catholic", as long as they are good sources [33]—to me, that's like saying we don't care how POV it is, we have no interest in any balance. I see your point, Nancy—do you see mine?) Anyway... I prefer Karanacs' nice and crisp first version, because in this second version, the topos of marriage takes up (in my font) 5 of the 15 lines. One third of the paragraph. 33%. Is that reasonable emphasis, on that one particular aspect of influence, when the subject is the whole of "cultural influence"? I don't think so. P.S., there's a dangling modifier in there, in both versions: "As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were..."—shall I fix it? Bishonen | talk 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC).


Yes, please make any grammatical fixes necessary. I included the marriage stuff in the second version only because Xandar asked for specifics. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems a large gap in the marriage stuff, both chronological and thematic; both would be plugged by including Jerome on virginity as preferable to marriage. Even if that is not done, Peter Brown's The Body and Society should inform this nicely.
Advocate against still could be improved. Reprobate? Deprecate? Oppose is too weak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • @Karanacs: Undangled. Well, that's how this article got so bloated, isn't it? From people incessantly asking for specifics. This section on "cultural influence" has three references to "See also" articles; surely Xandar can find what s/he seeks in one of them? Bishonen | talk 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
  • @PMAnderson: Decry? Bishonen | talk 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
    • Decry is still weak; they were attempting to ban, as far as their power extended. But it's better than advocate against, so I'll put it in, as a stopgap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point, Bishonen. Without the specifics, we could have the following compromise (which still incorporates some of Xandar's objections above) and the proposed word above: Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has had widespread influence on world culture and society.[1] Early Church Fathers decried polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest.[2][3][4][5] By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom".[6] For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society.[6] With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage.[7] The Church being one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time and heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage.[8]

  • (ec) The passage needs improvement, but I don't like this draft at all. Witt is not a historian of any sort. It was not just the Church Fathers who "advocated against" the list, and to date the start of the Church's influence in social matters to the 11th century is wildly misleading. "The Church being one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages" is also very lame. Jerome's view was surely never very widely followed in practice, & examples of the opposite - clerical insistence in "relationship counselling" that marital relations stay frequent are much easier to document. That whole subject is too complicated to include here. Another attempt is needed. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    I have inserted and dedangled. I have upgraded to one of the most important institutions of the Middle Ages, which may still be understatement. Calling the legislation of Edward I or Louis IX "secular" (while perfectly correct) is begging to be misunderstood. "Temporal" is only a little better, but is at least a warning to the reader that the normal twenty-first century usage is not meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that we need something on late antiquity; which is why I commend Brown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Pmanderson. Please STOP removing referenced text until agreement has been found to do so. You seem to keep on wanting to unilaterally edit-war your changes onto the page. This is not the way forward. What is hard to understand about agreeing any controversial changes to the referenced text before inserting them? Xandar 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Xandar, please stop reverting to this miscellaneous collection of ill-understood and misrepresented opinions. We are not here to play out the argument between the Church Is Good and the Church Is Bad; we are not an Op-ed page, nor a collection of apologetics.
Anyone who wants to do that can find plenty of sites on the web where such contributions are welcome - some of them even call themselves encyclopedias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
PMA You KNOW the rules. You DO NOT keep removing or changing referenced information without discussion. You got the page locked with your revert warring on this same paragraph two days ago, and now you are starting again. This DOES NOT HELP. Please stop trying to torpedo discussion and agreement by inserting and reverting your favoured text without agreement. Xandar 00:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have carefully, and intentionally, used the words of others, except for stylistic emendations - most of them proposed and agreed on by yet others. (I have now added a few words on the fall of Rome, since I agree with Johnbod that the leap from the first century to the eleventh is a defect in Karanacs' proposal.) If I had written it, it would have been quite different.
Xandar, however, has performed two exact reversions. This is not the wiki way; least of all to a vague, inaccurate, and tendentious paragraph which more editors dislike than support. If Xandar wishes to say any of the things he argues for, he should add them (as his reversions do not) - although he will find himself edited, as I expect to be. Mutual and collaborative editing is the wiki way.
In short, there is no agreement on the old text; the way forward is to produce new text. Karanacs has done so; I invite Xandar to do the same. Any of the three versions he has reverted would be a good place to start from; he is welcome to propose a fourth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs "minimal" version is not at all up to the mark, containing all the somewhat cliched material on church "power", and very little else. The longer version has some slightly better additions, but still has too little of the specifics quoted in the standing version and too much dodgy stuff about the imagined legal power of the church over people's lives. While Church courts made judgements on some social matters, this is greatly exaggerated here. The quotes from Witte, who seems to be Karanacs main source, seem largely chosen from a negative perspective, and massaged too much to emphasize the "power and authority" view that her narrative presents. Witte says Churchmen spoke against coerced and arranged marriage, and restricting divorce to husbands alone. He empasizes clergy "throwing off their royal and civil rulers" and this revolution helping to ""trigger an enormous transformation of western society" and the "first modern age of the west". As well as laws Witte also emphasizes that "sermons, catechisms and confessional handbooks.. allowed these teachings to reach deeply into the lives of the laity." Karanacs version gives little flavour of all this. Xandar 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a different subsubject; we are no longer living in the Age of Hildebrand, but such material (without the tendentious "first modern age", which is far from consensus in the historians) does indeed belong to the history of the Roman Church. But the proper way to include this is to add to the text, somewhere, not to revert war. (Since none of this is in the text to which Xandar reverted, either, the sincerity of the complaint seems open to question.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xandar's points. NancyHeise talk 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments

"The Catholic Church has had widespread influence on world culture and society."

Yick... "widespread influence" is a mouthful of nothing; it communicates nothing. I'm Ok with the idea but let's look for better wording. Since this just a question of wordsmithing, I'll defer resolution of this problem for later.

"Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest."

Ummm.... Are we implying that all of these were widely accepted in "world culture and society" before the advent of Christianity? No other religion advocated against these? I think we need to be more explicit and assert that there were certain practices which were accepted in the Greco-Roman world and rejected by Christianity. Similarly, there were certain practices (not necessarily an identical list) that were practiced by "pagans" and rejected by Christianity. Those assertions are more accurate and informative than providing a laundry list of things that early Church Fathers "advocated against".


"By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom". For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society."

The problem here is that this suggests that the Church "held great influence" starting with the "late 11th century" but says nothing about the influence "held" prior to that. We jump from the "early Church Fathers" straight to the "late 11th century", skipping over half a millenium of Church history in between. Did the Church have any influence at all in that intervening period? Also, one usually "exerts influence" rather than "holding" it. Sorry to be so picky about words.

" With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage.

"retained jurisdiction"? "to retain something" is to continue to hold something that one had previously. It really means that one didn't lose the something that one retained. (e.g. to "retain custody of one's children after a divorce") How does that apply in this sentence? I think it doesn't. We need to step back earlier in history and discuss when and how the Church got the jurisdiction in the first place before talking about "retaining jurisdiciton".

The Church being one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time. Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage. In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed[2] and established a minimum age for marriage. The elevation of marriage to a sacrament also made the union a binding contract, with dissolutions overseen by Church authorities.

Waaay too much detail for a summary paragraph, Xandar's request for details notwithstanding. What's the point here? Why focus on the Church's influence on the legal concept of marriage? Why not mention usury also? The Church also had influence on the succession of secular heads of state. Why no mention of that? Those are rhetorical questions. I don't mean to suggest that we should discuss usury and the influence on royal succession. What I mean is that there is a disproportionate amount of time being spend on marriage and not enough on other social institutions and legal concepts.

--Richard S (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And erroneous: Roman law did have a minimum age for marriage, even if we would consider it scandalously low (and the sources we have on the subject advise against early consummation; if you take your bride away from her dolls, take the opportunity to educate her.)
On the other hand, Queen Isabella, in Catholic England, was married at six, although the marriage would not have been consummated for some five years; on roughly the same arguments, although earlier in life than Tertia. Let us not make distinctions which do not exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Richard, I agree with all of your comments. PMAnderson, this issue is being discussed but you have already changed article text to reflect a version you personally prefer but which has not been agreed. Can you please refrain from doing that until we come to agreement? NancyHeise talk 16:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
More dilatoriness by one of the owners of the article. This is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit, not just those Nancy does not veto.
I have changed no assertion of fact; I have toned down misleading rhetoric, which implied the Council as a whole (not just the section which followed Athanasius) viewed Arianism as a threat. This is not the case - in that generation - and we should not say so; there were innumerable and influential e Semi-Arians, most of them eirenics concerned with preventing schism (rather like Richard on this talk page). If Nancy had a collection of reliable secondary sources on the Nicene Council which affirmed what she would imply, it would still belong in a subarticle - I have not contradicted the claim, just removed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about your removal of sourced content from the Cultural Influence section without a new consensus being reached. NancyHeise talk 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Your original synthesis of an indiscriminate collection of opinions was contrary to policy on several grounds (follow the links); it is contrary to policy because Wikipedia, as a whole, is attempting to produce an encyclopedia, for which your apologetics are not appropriate. You have been told so several times, and not by me. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This [34] is the Cultural Influences section at the close of the last peer review [35]. It was created by more editors than just myself, it was peer reviewed. None of the sources used are "apologetics". It went unchanged in the article until just a couple of weeks ago. I am all in favor of improving it and I think our suggestions above and new sources will work toward that goal. I don't think that attacking prior editor's peer reviewed consensused work will help in achieving a new consensus as such attacks serve to alienate other editors. Can you please stop the personal attacks and violations of WP:assume good faith? NancyHeise talk 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

suggestions from Nancy

  • I think Karanacs version is not a good representation of the Church's cultural influence. It is a good start but it is incomplete and as Richard noted, is unbalanced. We can use her suggestion and build from there.
  • I think the previous version was much more concise and used better, more NPOV sources - university textbooks. We should strive to be concise and I think we need to stick to university textbooks in order to create a good cultural influence paragraph if we want to avoid accusations of POV which come from both sides of the fence on matter what we say.
  • I would like to ask everyone to do some more research and come back with some more university textbook sources to consider. Let's put quotes on the page from the various sources and take a look at what the many different scholars are saying and then create a decent paragraph or two on cultural influence.
  • I would also like to ask everyone to read Encyclopedia Brittanica's introduction to its Roman Catholic Church article. Some here might think that it is very POV and "ultramontane" because it goes on and on about the many good cultural impacts brought about by the Church. But I don't think that encyclopedia is being POV, it is simply stating facts and we need to stop calling editors here POV for doing the same.
  • The Church's cultural influence began in the Roman empire and extends through the world up to the present day. The suggested article text by Karanacs only notes that Church Fathers fought against certain cultural practices but in fact, in every age, the Church has fought against such practices. The present suggestion omits human sacrifice and slavery and these are important cultural influences the Church had a hand in changing and needs mention. NancyHeise talk 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To help with this effort, I ordered three more oft used university textbooks used for Western Civilization university courses.
  • A Brief History of the Western World - Textbook Only Thomas H. Greer;
  • Western Civilizations, Single Volume Edition, Fourteenth Edition Judith G. Coffin;
  • Western Civilization: A Brief History Jackson J. Spielvogel;
  • I'll take a look at what they say about the influence of the Catholic Church regarding culture and post it here. Hopefully that will help us out in creating some article text. NancyHeise talk 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the rirst bullet-point here a response to Richard's comments immediately above? If so, Richard, has it anything to do with what you said?

It seems to me that Richard is criticizing Karanacs' text for being too close to the text Xandar has been reverting to; and he may well be right. Saint Paul certainly can be quoted to the effect that the pagan world was a sea of lust, of "polygamy,...,incest"' and several of the Church Fathers did so quote and agree with him. We should, however, avoid the implication that they were right; we are not here to assert the plenary inspiration of the Epistles.

As for the test of this: I am pleased to see that Nancy is trying university textbooks; they are certainly several steps upward from what she has been using; but they are not - and are not intended to be - the height of scholarship. Please don't let's have "but it's a university textbook" replace "but it has the imprimatur" as an excuse for misread fragments out of context.

As for the article in the online Britannica, it does indeed have deplorable flourishes at the beginning and end; I suppose a Notre Dame professor feels obliged to do so, when he doesn't have a co-author to blame restraint on. But, by and large, it is much more neutral in tone than ours (as one example, it is called Roman Catholicism); and the occasional weasel-words like incontestable - which describes, as usual, assertions which can indeed be contested - are a small percentage of its 121 pages.

Nancy, please learn to read closely, and carefully; learn to read a text for what it says, not more than it says, nor which "side" it's on. Those are acquired skills, as Harmakheru said elsewhere; they take time to acquire, and it is not clear it can be done in weeks. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sept, FYI, the books we have always been using for this Cultural Influence section are university textbooks. I am just ordering some more : ). The article text you have been removing without consensus is referenced to those university textbooks. NancyHeise talk 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Nancy, it's a random collection of information, sloppily put together, by someone who misunderstood her sources as badly as she misunderstood our policies. (In at least one case, the source has all the accuracy to be expected of a social scientist writing on ancient history; but that's why one should be especially careful not to rely on textbooks out of their field.) I suppose one could page through the history here to confirm who that was - but the manifestations of pride here do place it "not beyond conjecture". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The simple fact is that the information on the Church's cultural contribution is widespread and verifiable. We simply have to cover a good and balanced overview of the facts and scholarly assessments. Ignoring the issue for POV reasons, as some seem to want, is not something that is defensible. Xandar 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that when I use the term "university textbook" I do not necessarily mean a book created for use as a university textbook. There are secondary sources which were not created for use as univeristy textbooks but nevertheless are listed on the syllabi of many Church history classes in many universities. Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church is just one example of these. NancyHeise talk 04:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I've also ordered a secondary source also oft used as a university text entitled Under the Influence by Alvin Schmidt to help us with the Cultural Influences section. NancyHeise talk 04:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of university textbooks as sources

We may wish to review NancyHeise's assertions regarding Wikipedia's policies on the use of universtiy textbooks as [WP:RS|reliable sources]].

Nancy wrote "I am consistently providing university textbooks as sources. WP:reliable source examples suggests these are the most neutral sources we can possibly use."

However, I would like to point out that WP:RS has this to say about primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of Wikipedia be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose.
Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

The fuller explication of Wikipedia policy regarding primary, secondary and tertiary sources can be found here.

Specifically...

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.


Nancy also subsequently wrote "For the history or cultural influence section we like to use secondary sources that are also used as university textbooks because their requirement in the classroom is indicative of their mainstream acceptance."

However, WP:Reliable source examples says:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.
Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. ...

Moreover...

WP:Reliable source examples#History says...

College textbooks are updated every few years, are evaluated by many specialists, and usually try to keep abreast of the scholarship, but they are often without footnotes and usually do not spell out the historiographical debates. Textbooks at the K-12 level do not try to be authoritative and should be avoided by Wikipedia editors. ...
Textbooks in various academic disciplines often include a historical introduction to the discipline. The authors of these introductions are seldom as familiar with the historical literature as they are with their discipline itself. They write these introductions to provide some background to the discipline as it is currently practiced and to inculcate students into the values of the discipline. Such historical introductions should not be treated as historical research and should be used with caution.

The above suggests that we should use college textbooks with caution.

WP:PSTS says...

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Taking this last point as sound advice, we might wish to initate a discussion to reconsider each "university textbook" used as a source for this article and determine whether that textbook is truly a "secondary source used as a university textbook" as NancyHeise asserts or if it is closer to a "introductory college textbook" that "summarizes multiple secondary sources" and which should therefore be used with caution for the reasons indicated above.

I would also like to point out that WP:RS is a guideline whereas WP:Reliable source examples is an essay.

WP:Policies and guidelines says...

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Wikipedia. All policy pages are in Category:Wikipedia policies; see also List of policies.
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. Guideline pages can be found under Category:Wikipedia guidelines. See also List of guidelines.
Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval.

Thus, in evaluating the points that I have provided above, we should give more weight to WP:RS than to WP:Reliable source examples.

--Richard S (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would only add, as a practicing Catholic, that I know of at least a few books which are used as college-level textbooks, and sometimes even published as such, which I would myself consider unreliable. Particularly with an institution as big as the Catholic Church, which, presumably, is big enough to have publishers put out textbooks for exclusively Catholic schools, and possibly reflect Catholic opinions, this could be a real concern. For some groups, like, say, the British Orthodox Church (10,000 people), this would be rather less of consideration. But for a group with 1 billion adherents, there it could be a concern. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Some "textbooks" which are used in upper level undergraduate classes may be useful for research purposes, but a general world history textbook that aims to cover the whold of world history in two semesters would be of less use than most other sources, quite honestly. Of the former type of textbook, I'm thinking similar to the Cambridge Medieval Textbooks series, which are written by specialists in the particular field they cover and cover subjects such as The Papacy 1073-1198 or Religion and Devotion in Europe c.1250-c1515 or Monastic and Religious Orders in England 1000-1300 or The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. I'll also note that Medieval Women by Power has been used for years as an upper level textbook. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything posted here by Richard, John Carter and Ealdgyth.
  • I would like to add that there are secondary sources which are not written as college textbooks but are used by colleges as required texts (among other sources) for their classes. Especially if they are used by a wide range of colleges, these provide us with some sort of comfort level as to their mainstream acceptance.
  • Textbooks, which are tertiary sources, can be used to help us know what items to cover in the history section and what weight to give them (the general outline).
  • The more specific texts can be used to fill in the outline provided by the tertiary sources. It is difficult to create a general outline using too specific texts.

NancyHeise talk 04:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we are in substantial agreement. I endorse in particular what Ealdgyth wrote. Although I am not familiar with the specific books he mentions, I know that some books used in upper-level college classes are quite scholarly and replete with footnotes to primary and secondary sources. It is the lower-level introductory survey textbooks that we have to beware of. I do not know which category the textbooks used as references in this article are in (e.g. Bokenkotter). Perhaps NancyHeise can describe them for us. I would urge Nancy not to use the phrase "college textbooks" to refer to texts used in upper-class courses unless they have been written specifically for use as college texts. I think this phrase sets off red flags and draws criticism, perhaps unnecessarily. My feeling is that a book that a college professor would keep on his shelf and refer to is a legitimate source. A book that is used in the first course for a freshman or sophomore is not a very good source.

I do agree that, if a topic is not mentioned by an introductory college textbook, then it probably doesn't belong in this article. It might belong in a subsidiary article such as History of the Catholic Church or History of the Papacy. It might warrant an article unto itself. However, the fact that this article is already too long forces us to be very selective about which topics to discuss in this article and how much space to devote to each topic.

--Richard S (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

That's policy, as quoted from WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. (What follows is a list of opinions; the opinions, for and against the Roman Church, in the paragraph under contest are pretty much like them.)

Now, in this article, we have enough assertions of fact which everybody can agree on (fringes excepted); we have two thousand years to cover. As the article stands, we mention - we do not even describe - Arianism, the Investiture Controversy, the Photian Schism. That's as it should be; this is why I am perfectly content to have another mere mention - or silence - about presbyter-bishops.

But if we do describe a controversy, we should not do so by piling up opinions on one side, or even on both sides, and sourcing them.

Comments? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree. The existence of a controversy is a fact. An encyclopedic article should document all significant controversies (such as Arianism) in an NPOV way, describing each side of the controversy but without taking sides. We can say that Arianism was suppressed but we should not intimate whether this was a good thing or a bad thing. Similarly, we can indicate that the Catholic and Orthodox churches split in a schism but without labeling one side as the true church and the other as the schismatic one. We must be clear on stating fact as fact and opinion as opinion. We can express that Catholic view that the Eastern Orthodox fell out of communion with the Pope AND the Orthodox view that the Bishop of Rome fell out of communion with the other bishops.
--Richard S (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
But need we document Arianism in this article? We do, after all, have an article Arianism, and this article links to it. But this is a fine point; do we disagree on fundamentals? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we agree on fundamentals. It's just that you worded it as if the existence of controversy was not a "fact". I think you are "barking up the wrong tree". It is not the description of controversies that is the problem; it is the tendency of partisans on each side to want to rebut the other side's points and thereby win the argument that leads to the "piling up" of opinions. --Richard S (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's just that you worded it as if the existence of controversy was not a "fact". I certainly did not intend to say so; I think the wording in response to the threat of Arianism; in order to encapsulate the basic tenets of the Christian belief, generally good, and it acknowledges the existence of controversy - indeed, it exaggerates it somewhat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In general I agree there is too much "piling up" of opinions, but I think on some key issues, such as the "origin" issue, it is essential to give the Church's position, where there is a definite one, and then mention other views. On other things, like presbyter-bishops, a link & a mention, or silence, are enough. On some things, like the Inquisition, there are popular preconceptions that may need extra clarification. These are difficult editorial choices, & it is unfortunate that this page is not yet a very good tool for hammering them out, though I hope it is improving. On the schism, personally I would favour a wording that slides by the "who jumped" question. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The "piling-up" of opinions is a result of people wanting to win the argument rather than just describe it. We should just state that the controversy exists and provide a very concise summary of each side's position without trying to resolve the argument in favor of or against any one side. The detailed arguments can be presented in the detailed argument on that topic. However, even the detailed article should not attempt to resolve the argument in favor of or against any one side. That refusal to take sides is what NPOV is all about. --Richard S (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod and Richard. On the Inquistition issue, we need to present the points made about Protestant propaganda because this is a real fact that caused much suffering for Catholics since the Reformation. It is a point brought out in many sources that have all noted the need to temper it for historical accuracy purposes. Even Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity makes this point. NancyHeise talk 16:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Shorter Nancy: we should write the apologetic claim that the Protestants made all the nasty stories about the Inquisition up. That's a point of view; it is contrary to the record, and pabulum for Catholic infants. Apologetic is not neutrality; editors who cannot tell the difference should edit something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
We should reflect in the article text what scholars say about "Protestant propaganda" (their words) and the inquisitions. Obviously if it was notable enough to be discussed by scholars including Bokenkotter's oft used university textbook and Oxford illustrated history of Christianity, then it is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Are you suggesting that we say nothing at all about Protestant propaganda? I can't see how that would make the paragraph NPOV and I think that would be a failure to include an important event regarding the inquisitions. NancyHeise talk 17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Most events and institutions have precisely these sorts of controversies.
  • On the Inquisition, as with most events, there are conflicting points of view. Not only are there Protestant martyrologists enlargening the record of the Inquisition, and Protestant theologians asserting diabolism, there are Catholic apologists minimizing its record, and Catholic theologians justifying the Inquisition as a defenxe of the People of God and the peace of Spain against a millenial conspiracy instituted by Caiaphas personally under diabolic inspiration.
  • All that belongs, if anywhere, in an article on the historiography of the Inquisition, sourced to impeccably neutral secondary sources on the historiography, if any can be found. Such an article should describe the historiography, with the faults of both sides; it should not take part in the argument, and it should be deleted rather than cover one set of flaws and not the other.
  • Despite the twin torrents of invective, some facts and generalizations are consensus among historians. Those are, generally speaking, what belong in Wikipedia; certainly they are what belong in this article, which must be a strict summary, if only for reasons of space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that we can put forth the facts on this page and work, with a variety of other editors, to discover what exactly is NPOV. Hiding a notable controversy is not part of FAC criteria, showing both sides is part of core Wikipedia policy. We don't have to elaborate but we can mention its existence. NancyHeise talk 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think most of the editors here can. They will do so faster and better without the intransigeant interference of those who wish only to be sure that their POV is included. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"Their pov". How could anyone do that? Wikipedia policy requires us to present notable controversies which includes opposing pov's. If the pov's were not mainstream, they would not be in the university textbooks that Wikipedia recommends for us to use in creating article text. You are assuming that editors here are pushing "their pov" when in fact, they are placing information about a subject matter that is from mainstream university textbooks. When someone tosses those mainstream university textbooks to use lesser sources I might consider that pushing a pov. You have removed our article text, without a new consensus, including our references to university textbooks. I have asked you nicely to stop but you keep doing it anyway. NancyHeise talk 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nancy claims that Wikipedia policy requires us to present notable controversies which includes opposing pov's.
  • What policy actually says is, to continue the quotation above, When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. We are not required to discuss the opinion at all.
  • Nancy is consistently unwilling or unable to read English prose and report what it actually says; she's done that with Richard's comments, and now she does it with policy.

This, and her single-purpose emotional involvement (64% of her mainspace edits are to this page alone), are why she should be ignored; if she cannot be ignored, she should be banned from this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PMAnderson, I consider your post to be a violation of WP:civil. Obviously I have contributed significantly to other articles as my user page evidences. The Catholic Church controversies are not a mystery to anyone. The issues we are discussing are well known to have opposing opinions from scholars. Your assertion that I am somehow inventing this is not reflected in the scholarly sources. If the issue was never mentioned in university textbooks and I asserted that it was an issue, then I might see your point. However, the reason we know it is an issue is because the university textbooks cover the subject. Wikipedia NPOV policy and FAC criteria require us to reveal these. You keep saying that I am pushing a certain POV but I am consistently providing university textbooks as sources. WP:reliable source examples suggests these are the most neutral sources we can possibly use. NancyHeise talk 21:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I see I've been playing Chicken Little. "University textbook" is the new buzzword for our prooftexter, replacing "imprimatur". Nancy, I've taught from university textbooks; I know what they're worth: This can be a great deal, when they are well-written, well-researched, and discussing the author's academic field; even so, they are not as reliable sources as the research works from which they are drawn - even the best textbooks, by the best authors, are simplified for the use of students. Michael Rostovtzeff is remembered for his Social and Economic Histories, not for his textbooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nihil obstat and Imprimatur were required for books we used to create the Beliefs section because that designation from the Church meant that, at the very least, we could be sure that the books were not in violation of Church doctrine.
  • There are many books we could have used that did not have that designation such as Richard McBrien's Catholicism but the Church has expressly condemned that book as inaccurate and it was condemned by other scholars as well.
  • For the history or cultural influence section we like to use secondary sources that are also used as university textbooks because their requirement in the classroom is indicative of their mainstream acceptance.
  • We have consistently tried to avoid POV in the article but it seems that no matter what we say, we are accused of POV from either the left or the right. I think some people just don't want us to mention the controversies at all but we can't do that because WP:NPOV says "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides." NancyHeise talk 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Describe a dispute, not take part in it, as the Good Church/Bad Church paragraph did. We are an encyclopedia, not an amateur dramatics society. But what disputes are within the topic of this page? to say "all" would be to include all the theological disputes involving the Papacy for nearly two thousand years - we don't have room to name them, much less discuss them. That's what subarticles are for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Tertiary sources help us know which disputes are the more notable ones and these are the ones we try to cover in the article. The exception may be the sexual abuse scandal because I have not seen that in a tertiary source at all but maybe it is too recent. NancyHeise talk 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Benedict XVI also faced the challenges of a decline in vocations and church attendance and the lasting effects of the scandal of the late 1990s and early 2000s concerning sexual abuse by priests. From the Britannica article Nancy proposes as a model. Any other tertiary source in this century should say at least as much. (Nancy, do read your sources.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

General disputes

This edit summary claims that the difference between "Church" and "denomination" is controversial; and reverts an edit which was expressly for style (not to have Church three times in a single sentence.

This is contrary to English usage, for which the ecclesiastical sense of denomination means exactly a "body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name." (What part of this does anyone deny is true of Roman Catholicism?)

But, more to the point, if this is controversial, then every sentence in which Church appears is under dispute, for it is being used in a private sense, not shared with the reader.

In addition, every section of this article is filled with apologetic, not only for the Church, but for a particular view within the Church. Those who attempt to make this article temper the "suffering for Catholics since the Reformation" are not intending to act as Wikipedia does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that Xandar does not discuss this, but claims, in edit summary, that the use of general dispute tags is improper.
I am curious enough to ask the questions: {{POV}} is transcluded thousands of times, if not millions; {{accuracy}} is transcluded as often; are all those improper too? If not, what makes this article different? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Influence sources to ponder

I am not done gathering sources, I have some on order but I want to post the ones I do have so people can start thinking about what this section should talk about. I think, from looking at the sources, that the Catholic Church has had a major impact in these areas:

  • science
  • universities, libraries, schools
  • law, including international law
  • economics
  • morality
  • art and architecture

I think that a comprehensive cultural influences section should include mention of the Church's impact on these subjects. NancyHeise talk 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

  • From David Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science University of Chicago Press 1992 p. 213 "It must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The sterotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university."
  • From Brian Tierney's The Idea of Natural Rights: Origins and Persistence Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 2 (April 2004): p.6 (He is speaking about church councils, papal statements "and the like" in referring to "jurists") "The important point for us is that, in explaining the various possible senses of ius naturale (natural law), the jurists found a new meaning that was not really present in their ancient texts. Reading the old texts with minds formed in their new, more personalist, rights-based culture, they added a new definition. Sometimes they defined natural right in a subjective sense as a power, force, ability, or faculty inhering in human persons ... Once the old concept of natural right was defined in this subjective way the argument could easily lead to the rightful rules of conduct prescribed by natural law or to the licit claims and powers inhering in individuals that we call natural rights. ... (the canonists) were coming to see that an adequate concept of natural justice had to include a concept of individual rights."
  • From Harold Berman's Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition Harvard University Press 1983 p. 166 "(Western legal systems) are a secular residue of religious attitudes and assumptions which historically found expression first in the liturgy and rituals and doctrine of the church and thereafter in the institutions and concepts and values of the law. When these historical roots are not understood, many parts of the law appear to lack any underlying source and validity."
  • Berman p. 195 "Western concepts of law are in their origins, and thereafter in their nature, intimately bound up with distinctively Western theological and liturgical concepts of the atonement and of the sacraments."
  • Berman p. 228 "(speaking about canon law of marriage) Here were the foundations not only of the modern law of marriage but also of certain basic elements of modern contract law, namely, the concept of free will and related concepts of mistake, duress, and fraud."
  • From Alvin Schmidt's How Christian Charity Changed the World - the entire book, a scholarly work with notes and bibiliography, is about the Church's influence - for a summary see the book's table of contents on page 4 [36]
  • Joseph Schumpeter wrote a scholarly work entitled History of Economics which talks about the Church's influence see [37]

More sources to come. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Guenter Risse Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals[38] Oxford University Press 1999 discusses the Church and developement of the hospital system in chapters 2, 3 and 10.
  • Richard Dales wrote The Intellectual Life of Western Europe in the Middle Ages [39] University Press of America, 1980 which offers a useful study on the Church and education in the Middle ages beginning on page 222.
  • Randall Collins Weberian Sociological Theory Cambridge University Press 1986 attributes the foundation of Captialism to the Catholic Church beginning on page 45. He discusses the importance of monasteries on beginning on page 52.[40]
  • JL Heilbron The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories Harvard University Press page 3 quote "The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions."
  • Thomas Woods How the Church Built Western Civilization Regnery Publishing 2001 is a scholarly work with notes and bibiliography. From page 4 "For the last fifty years, virtually all historians of science-including AC Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Stanley Jaki, Thomas Goldstein, and JL Heilbron - have concluded that the Scientific Revolution was indebted to the Church. The Catholic contribution to science went well beyond ideas- including theological ideas- to accomplished practicing scientists, many of whom were priests." This entire book goes into great detail on the various contributions of the Church and its cultural impact. NancyHeise talk 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I would object to the Woods book as well as the Schmidt book because while they habve notes and bibliography, they are not by a university press. There are so many works by university presses, it's not necessary to use non-UP works. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be plenty of good sources without Woods and Schmidt, however I could see how they might possibly prove useful to source and illustrate a particular Catholic/Christian viewpoint. Xandar 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
We have too many illustrations of our factionalists' point of view already.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Human sacrifice?

The Romans outlawed human sacrifice in 97 BC, as the Oxford Classical Dictionary attests - not that it was common before that either. They did indeed enforce this law - against the Druids. Is it Julius Caesar or Gaius Suetonius Paulinus that the present text is counting as a champion of the Church? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we establish an in-tray section for these new revision topics? The page is so complicated they should form a queue, & we just have one or two active at a time. I will attempt to set up such a system. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The need for an In-tray

Can we establish an in-tray section for these new revision topics? The page is so complicated they should form a queue, & we just have one or two active at a time. I will attempt to set up such a system. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer not, although if you do, it will do no real harm. With a bot archiving this page, the current version of it is the in-tray; anything not being discussed will be filed within days. In a week or two, the only effect of such a system will be an In-Tray marker on the top of the page, if it is not archived out of here altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No, we just have too many issues under discussion, and the bot is probably archiving too often. I am not a COMPLETE idiot; the plan is to move the in-tray section to keep it permanently on the page. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This separate section is more ingenious than I expected - how useful will it be when it links to every section on the page, and some that have just been archived? Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments (brief please) on the classifications in the in-tray

  • Please let's try to make this work. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This seems a good method of keeping track. Xandar 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic" vs "Orthodox"

This article's "Note 1" and its own footnote imply that the Orthodox Church does not refer to itself as Catholic ("After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name 'Catholic', while the Eastern Church took the name 'Orthodox'."). This is simply not true. The Orthodox Church refers to itself (exclusively) as the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," and understands patristic references to the "Catholic Church" as referring to itself. This is an error which should be corrected in the article. MishaPan (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"exclusively" meaning what exactly? The Greek WP articles are titled "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church" (in Greek obviously), while the Russian ones are at "True Faith?" (is it?) and "Roman Catholic Church" - I can't see either EO ones use "Catholic" in the opening lines. I hope the Orthodox, like the Catholic church, in fact "understands patristic references to the "Catholic Church" as referring to" the undivided church! The wording can be improved though - see below. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Citations (especially for exclusively, considering the Feast of Orthodoxy and the wide-spread use of terms meaning "believer in the correct faith" for Orthodox co-religionists) would be useful; but, yes, the statement in the footnote is another of the tendentious errors in this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As does the Catholic church for that matter. Does the page on Orthodoxy refer to the Catholics as the "One True, Holy and Apostolic church? No. For the same reason we use Orthodoxy to refer to the Eastern churches under the Patriarch of Constantinople. Would the Greek Catholics be preferable?Benkenobi18 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "After the East-West Schism, to distinguish themselves from each other, the Western Church used the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church, also claiming Catholicity, used the name "Orthodox".[3]" The last bit, "Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches." - should just be cut; it is phrased better in quote in the note to the note anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Orthodox Church accepts that the Catholic Church is an apostolic church too, one falling under the heading of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. The two churches have agreed twice to reuniting according to Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church but the agreement was never implemented in the rank and file priests. The two churches even allow common celebration of the Eucharist and respect the validity of each other's priesthood. However, for the wording in the article, we have a scholarly source supporting our article text. If anyone wants us to change it then I think they need to provide a source. The Orthodox Church claimed as its title "Orthodox", the Catholic Church claimed as its title "Catholic". Both claim to be catholic. Each has claimed a different title according to our scholarly source Richard McBrien's The Church and several tertiary sources including Academic American Encyclopedia. NancyHeise talk 03:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Adjusting the source's "claimed" and "appropriated" to the less POV "used" does not need a new source. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The Orthodox Church claimed as its title "Orthodox", the Catholic Church claimed as its title "Catholic". Which source, and what words, do you claim in support of this statement? Both Churches claim to be both Catholic and Orthodox - as does every other denomination which considers those qualities to be of the first importance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
See the reference on that. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
A airy sentence, in high summary, in a passage not strictly about the naming issue, but about the use of Catholic as a denominational name at all. A source which discussed this properly would have a few paragraphs on the details, and would not contravene Misha's (essentially correct, if oversimplified) picture of present-day Orthodox practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the note even need to mention what name or names are used for the Orthodox Church? I don't think it's necessary.
Both denominations claim to be orthodox, holy and catholic. Much like the Catholic Church, the Orthodox use a variety of different names: Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox church, Orthodox Catholic Church, etc. for the sake of simplicity the note doesn't need to discuss the names used by the Orthodox Church, which could probably be an entire article unto itself. Majoreditor (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church DOES NOT accept that the Catholic Church falls under the heading of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. The orthodox patriarchs addressed themselves in 1895 "to the peoples of the West, who through ignorance of the true and impartial history of ecclesiastical matters, being credulously led away, follow the anti-evangelical and utterly lawless innovations of the papacy, having been separated and continuing far from the one holy, catholic and apostolic orthodox Church of Christ, which is 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'." It is also false to say: "The two churches have agreed twice to reuniting": some representatives signed an agreement, but since the agreement was never implemented, they did not reunite. And it is utterly false to to say: "The two churches even allow common celebration of the Eucharist": neither the Orthodox Church nor the Roman Catholic Church allow concelebration of the holy mysteries. 213.94.239.213 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of that's true, but not entirely.
  1. The 2 reunions were agreed by some Orthodox authorities, & partially implemented for some years before collapsing. (In fact, until the 18th century, there were often people in communion with both "sides" at once, rather than a clean break.)
  2. The Catholic Church allows Catholics to receive Orthodox communion & vice versa in special circumstances.
  3. As of 1755, the Orthodox Church derecognized all Catholic sacraments (under the doctrine of oikonomia), even baptism. Has this decision ever been rescinded?

Peter jackson (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • If we need to say this at all, here, something on the order of Modern anglophones usually distinguish the two Churches, when necessary, as Catholic and Orthodox, respectitively would be both accurate and neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I prefer my version above, which I have not seen addressed. This implies it is a quirk of English, which is certainly not true. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact we have been through all this at extraordinary length in the past year. The simple fact is that this Church self-identifies, and took as its title the Catholic Church, the Eastern Churches took as their principal title and self-identity, the Orthodox Church. Both consider themselves theologically to be both Catholic and Orthodox (and Apostolic and Pentecostal for that matter). But here we are talking about the NAME, not theological concepts. Xandar 00:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Xandar. Johnbod, I don't mind a reword of "claimed" or "appropriated". We can say it another way as long as the sentence reflects the source. NancyHeise talk 03:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, I would certainly be happy to make this a statement about modern scholarship, although that would be more difficult to substantiate than English scholarship (Catholic is (so spelled) an English word, distinct from catholique or catholicus or its other translations); I would accept your text as a stopgap, although the two Churches called each other a lot of things - most of them less civil than Catholic or Orthodox. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson, you made changes to the note on the Church's name that do not reflect the scholarly reference. These are your changes [41] In fact, your edit makes a statement that the scholar does not make at all. Richard McBrien's The Church states "The use of the adjective "Catholic" as a modifier of "Church" became divisive only after the East-West Schism ... and the Protestant Reformation ... In the former case, the West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant.". I think that we need to come up with something that better reflects the actual wording of the source which never says "became conventional" but states "claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church." NancyHeise talk 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a lie, based on Nancy's googling for a careless expression. The use of Catholic and Orthodox for the two churches is purely conventional; to quote the first sentences of the New Catholic Encyclopedia on "Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy":
The term "Orthodox Churches" in its conventional historical sense designates those Churches of the Christian East that: (a) accepted and have maintained the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon, (b) hold on to the historic ecclesial and liturgical traditions of Byzantium, and (c) are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Orthodox Churches comprise three categories: (1) autocephalous churches that are self-governing, but in communion with each other and with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, (2) autonomous churches that have internal autonomy but remain dependent on an autocephalous church; and (3) dependent churches. A fourth category exists, comprising those churches that hold on to (a) and (b), but are separated from communion because of political exigencies (e.g., Russian Church Abroad) or theological controversies (e.g., Old Believers and Old Calendarists), are presently not in communion with Constantinople or Moscow...
And so on. Nancy's insistence on a careless and misleading sentence thrown off in a passage on another subject is dishonest and disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson, I'd like to warn you again about using uncivil language in debates on this page. There have been several times when you have called people liars when this is false and unnecessary. Please debate in a co-operative unabrasive manner. Further such repetitions will be reported. Xandar 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Can Xandar say this with a straight face? Is he typing near a mirror? ;->
I'll join the reprimand, PMAnderson. This is an important issue. We have a couple choices available. 1, something along the lines that the Catholic church believes that it is the One, True and Apostolic church, and accords this status to the body of believers best known today as Orthodoxy. In the eyes of the Catholic church there is no formal division between the two, ie, Orthodox may take communion in a Catholic church. This is not the view of the Orthodox church, so we have a challenge here to accurately represent both the current position of the Catholic church, and the current position of Orthodoxy. Seeing as this page is the Catholic church our primary obligation is to represent the position of the Catholic church, that there is only one Church and that the Orthodox are in communion. Radical, but accurate. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll also join in the reprimand. I've remonstrated with PManderson before regarding the use of the words "lie" and "liar". If someone mistakenly or incorrectly misrepresents a source, there may have been a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the source but Assuming Good Faith requires us to just call it wrong, incorrect or a mistake. Yes, even if the editor in question has displayed a pattern of such mistakes, we should assume that the most recent such mistake is still a mistake and not a deliberate fabrication. What you think in the privacy of your own mind is your concern but on the Talk Pages, please be more civil. --Richard S (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I "would like to warn" Xandar against factitious accusations of this kind. I can find no source which suggests that ultramontane is an insult - it is the standard, unmarked, term for those with high views of the papal supremacy; on the other hand, this sort of diversionary tactic is quite common on Wikipedia and elsewhere: invent a personal attack and you no longer have to address questions of sourcing, accuracy and bias. To fit an old saw with new teeth: If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the facts and the law are against you, accuse the plaintiff's attorney of personal abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., many African-Americans consider "black" and "Negro" to be derogatory. When I grew up, "Negro" was a common term for designating African-Americans (e.g. United Negro College Fund). Then we learned to say "black" instead of "Negro" and now it is "African-American" instead of "black". Why? Because some members of the group decided that "Negro" and "black" were derogatory and it is considered uncivil to use such derogatory terms when they give offense. Similarly, we have transitioned away from using the term "Indian" to designate "Native Americans". Insult, apparently, is in the judgment of the offended. What I mean to say here is that there is not much value in arguing whether or not the offended person should be offended by a particular label. If that person takes offense, then offense was given whether or not the label can somehow be justified as "proper".
If someone wishes not to be called "ultramontane" and establishing such association is not critical to the discussion (since we are supposedly focused on content and not the individual beliefs of the editors), then it behooves us to avoid using such terms so as to avoid giving offense. Unless, of course, the intent was to give offense. Which would be uncivil.
As for pro-Catholic POV-pushing, there's been no lack of charges about "anti-Catholic POV-pushing" so we are definitely in the realm of the pot and the kettle calling each other black.
--Richard S (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be all very well, if there were another term for the POV in question; those who complain of any of the terms for the ethnic group in question are always happy to supply the proper term which everybody should be using. (In that case, there's always somebody else to complain of the new term, whichever it is; I hope the parallel does not extend so far.) Without that, this is mere obfuscation - not to mention raking up of ancient hatreds; while the charming souls who inhabit this page seem to have no shame about picking at thousand-year-old grievances, one might expect someone to remember that Manning and Newman have been dead since before any of us were born. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the word "Catholic" to describe the Church of Rome is unjustiable and POV. That they are catholics or Christians is really up for debate. The term "Romanist" or "Papist" would be more accurate and balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.116.63 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"The term "Romanist" or "Papist" would be more accurate and balanced." That made me laugh. A more NPOV alternative? You're joking right? Haldraper (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see how that can be taken as a joke. Both the terms "Romanist" and "Papist" are NPOV and accurate. The first refers to the fact that they are followers of the Church of Rome, the second refers to the fact that they are followers of the Pope of Rome. It is POV whether they are really catholic or not, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.116.63 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see which scholarly works refer to Catholics as "Romanists" or "Papists". Can you provide us with some? In my research into this subject, I have not come across use of those terms except by Protestants before the 20th century who used the terms often as derogatory terms for Catholics. NancyHeise talk 16:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Never read Luther, Calvin or Paisley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.116.63 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are all pre 20th century writers. We are trying to use modern scholarship. Modern scholarship does not use the terms Romanist or Papist except to tell us it was a derogatory term used by Protestants. Do any modern scholars continue to use this term? Can you point us to such a source? NancyHeise talk 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this Ian Paisley the Paisley you are referring to? I don't think that we can rely on him to provide us with a mainstream view. Do you know of any of his books that are used by multiple universities as textbooks? That would be a sign of acceptability. He looks like a very POV person though from his Wikipedia page which describes his writings as anti-Catholic as does Catholic World News [42]. We try not to use WP:fringe or controversial scholars on this page (Paisley is not a scholar BTW). We have enough battles with POV warriors as it is already. NancyHeise talk 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ian 'I am the Lord's Disciple, Hand me down my Bible' Paisley as a reliable source? Now you are having a laugh! Haldraper (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Haldraper, I agree that Ian is not a good source but I don't like your mocking tone. We are trying to respect all visitors to the talk page and not be demeaning to any of them. Can you limit your comments simply to "yes I like that source because...." or "no I don't like it because ...." ? NancyHeise talk 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is a book which uses the term "Romanism": http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=309314. Perhaps "Roman Catholic" would be a better choice as "Catholic" alone is POV and bias towards the Church of Rome and against the Church of Christ. 217.42.116.63 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Scholars in multiple sources regularly use the term "Catholic" to describe Roman Catholics and "Protestant" to describe all other denominations. We assessed this by going through a multitude of tertiary sources in the library. It is conventional modern use of the term and does not make a theological judgement. NancyHeise talk 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And yes, that book does use the term Romanist and it is a modern book. Thank you for supplying us with a source. However, I don't think there is any consensus on this page for using the term "Romanist" as opposed to "Catholic". Please read WP:consensus. NancyHeise talk 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • While I suppose Henry Grattan Guinness (1835-1910) counts as a twentieth-century author - barely (he illustrated his daughter's book on Peru the year before his death), Romanism and the Reformation was published in 1887. The Church of Scotland appears to have continued to use it in polemical works up through the Second World War, as with Romanism and the gospel, by C. Anderson Scott (1937; no relation, as far as I know), but this is hardly current usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nancy, must be my Irish peasant ancestry coming out :-) 'Hand me down my bible' is a folk song by 'The Dubliners' about Paisley that you may enjoy if you search Google videos for it, although it's not very 'civil' about him! Haldraper (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, in South Florida we have the most wonderful collection of very good Irish priests. My favorite priest is a second generation Irishman whose parents immigrated here. To people here, the Irish divisions between Protestants and Catholics are a curiosity as we do not have such animosity here. I think it is a result of the oppressive English Protestant domination of Ireland that sparked it but it is not Christian, it is really evil. NancyHeise talk 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, although I come from an Irish Catholic background, I have the utmost respect for the Irish Protestant tradition which provided Irish republicanism with many of its leaders. Paisley however is an anti-Catholic bigot who used 'anti-Papist' rabble-rousing to build his political career.Haldraper (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

About PMA's source, are there any comments other than discussing possible incivility? "Orthodox Church" is a conventional in that it has never been officially adopted and is only used to distinguish right belief and practice from wrong belief and practice. It certainly isn't an official title nor does it have the same status that "Catholic" has for the RCC. I think that sentence that the two situations are comparable is misleading.--Ptolion (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's latest revert

This reversion has the edit summary Restore Note 1 to version of last consensus, that achieved at recent mediation. PM Anderson keeps changing text to a version that no one agreed to and does not match references. This is doubtful on the following grounds:

  • Proceedurally, a mediation to which I was not part cannot bind me; that mediation - given the number of participants who disputed it afterward - cannot bind anybody.
  • Past consensus is not binding; that's policy.
  • The text to which Nancy reverted is not consensus. Our discussion of it began when an Orthodox editor complained, with substantial correctness, that the Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch do not, in general, identify themselves as "Orthodox". (He said "never", but the situation, as often, is more complex than that.) I concur, as do others.
  • Nancy is relying, again, on an oversimplified sentence in a passage on something else. It is (taken strictly) wrong; it was close enough for the author's purpose, but not for ours, out of context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the New Catholic Encyclopedia makes the point Nancy is consistently missing: The term "Orthodox Churches" in its conventional historical sense designates those Churches of the Christian East that: (a) accepted and have maintained the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon, (b) hold on to the historic ecclesial and liturgical traditions of Byzantium, and (c) are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. This is a conventional term, accepted, but not "taken" by those Churches.
  • Nancy has also removed a {{cn}} tag on the claim (which is both doubtful and extremely difficult to substantiate, if it were true) that the Vatican "usually" calls itself "Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". It does, of course, call itself both; the0 usually appears to be another product of Nancy's original research - wnich, like most OR around here, lacked the safeguards of real research.
  • I shall supply new text, and a new source; I invite Nancy to do the same. That's the way to progress; not a sterile revert war based on empty claims of consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


PMAnderson, you changed the text to say something that was not in the source. Where is the consensus on this page to support any change to that note? No one has agreed to your changes and you have been reverted several times by more editors than just me. The sentence you changed was written by JBMurray at the mediation and 19 editors (all of them at mediation) agreed to it. NancyHeise talk 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have been reverted by your echo, Xandar. As for your 19 editors, prove it, if you can; I will accept no claim on Nancy's word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the mediation summary [43] by the mediator user:Sunray. NancyHeise talk 22:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Gimmetrow's description, in the archives here, proves that a falsehood; there was no "general agreement". Another proof that Sunray should never have mediated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the agreed action plan summary that supplies the agreed note [44]. Gimmetrow, Soidi and Cody7777777 raised concerns both during the mediation and afterward. Their concerns were discussed and addressed during the meditation. They agreed to the final outcome and then raised the same concerns after the agreement had been reached. See Sunrays responses to Gimmetrow [45]NancyHeise talk 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Fine; I suggest Mediation Cabal for any further proceedings. I do not choose to put myself in a position where I am being quoted in support of something with which I disagree - as is happening to Gimmetrow here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson, I was party to the mediation although I like to think that I was a moderate in the discussion i.e. not particularly aligned with either side. My take on this is that the text in question was very carefully composed to address the issues and concerns raised by both sides. As such, I would counsel all editors to tread very carefully when proposing changes to the text. This is not to assert that the text is "cast in concrete" and cannot be changed. Rather, I would suggest that we look at the previous discussions over any text that editors wish to modify and make sure that the new text does not trample over the carefully crafted compromises that were reached during the mediation.

I am a strong believer that consensus can change. However, any proposal to change text as carefully (and unfortunately contentiously) crafted as the text in question should respect the substantial consensus that it represents.

I suggest that you consult the mediation summary and this page and then make your case (with links to relevant sources!). Then let's discuss the issue. We may need a content RFC to resolve the question. In the meantime, the number of editors who have objected to the text in question appears to be three (yourself, Gimmetrow and the Orthodox editor). This is substantially less than the number who participated in the mediation so I would ask you to defer to the majority pending further discussion.

--Richard S (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A {{dubious}} tag would be enough for me; I cannot speak for others. But I would prefer a reason why this form of words is important; the nubbin is always that the one are called Catholic and the others Orthodox; why go beyond that? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Pmanderson is continuing his disruptive practice of reverting to new text he prefers on both the naming and cultural issues before any agreement has been reached for any change. I am seeing his interventions on this page as increasingly disruptive, and hindering prospects of gaining agreement and improving the article. In fact I feel that he is acting more like a controversialist, more interested in personal point scoring against individuals than reaching productive agreement. He has been informed about the text of the mediation agreement. He knows that there is detailed ongoing discussion about the cultural influence and other sections under debate. He knows that you do not re-revert unagreed changes while discussion is proceeding. Yet he is constantly doing all this, and blaming everyone but himself for his actions. If he wants to participate in discussions on this page he needs to start acting in a collegiate, and less disruptive manner. Xandar 02:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree. Also, despite being asked in the past, I have yet to see him (as far as I can remember) suggesting a new draft of anything. It is evidently more fun just to snipe at everyone else's ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have generally supported the drafts of others, when they have been improvements on the existing texts - while suggesting tweaks. That way consensus lies. When, on occasion, I have proposed or inserted language of my own, I have been invariably denounced for making changes with no support - by the editors you here agree with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
On a page like this, only the most uncontroversial edits should be made on the page itself without discussion - apart from disappearing from watchlists the moment the next edit is made, the page now takes so long to load that keeping track of such changes is unreasonably difficult, even for regulars with time to burn, as so many of us apparently have. The last few weeks have demonstrated, against your regular assertion, that it is possible to make progress towards widely-agreed wordings here on the talk page, and this is the way forward (see below). Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I note I have been mentioned, and as indeed I was originally responsible for the language with which Septrionalis seems to disagree (though I was trying to summarize what seemed to me consensus at the time, rather than claiming any particular expertise of my own)... Let me just say that I have looked only very briefly at the current dispute, but as far as I can see it Septrionalis is commenting not on the way in which the Catholic Church is described here, but how the Orthodox Church is described. This latter issue was not the focus of the mediation, so it's quite possible that something slipped under the radar. Especially in this case, I see no problem in revisiting something that was approved in mediation if the issue in question was never (fully) discussed there. On the other hand, I don't particularly want to endorse the way in which Septrionalis is going about his attempt to change that wording. I agree with Johnbod that full discussion on the talk page first is eminently advisable. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then is there objection to wording which says simpliciter that the one Church is called Catholic and the other Orthodox, and if so, on what grounds? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this settled by Ptolion's recent edit? As a matter of pure wordsmithing, has been known as might be better than became known as, but that is not a substantive change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The way forward

Over all. We are only going to make progress in reviewing the article if we agree a number of things.

  1. Discuss sections ONE AT A TIME. We can't successfully discuss several different issues at once, scattered about the page.
  2. The aim is to COME TO AGREEMENT on the wording of each section, and then move on to the next.
  3. Make changes necessary to implement the agreed revision of each section. We will then have a growing list of agreed sections, instead of constantly dotting about the article unproductively reviving disagreements. Xandar 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Xandar, I agree with you but I think the Cultural Influences section make take a lot more time. I have ordered four books that discuss the cultural influence of the Church I know at least one is a secondary source and at least one is a textbook. All are used as required reading for several (maybe more) universities. I won't be able to post the quotes from those texts until at least the end of next week. I am hoping some more editors will go to the library and do some more research on the Church's cultural influence and add their sources and quotes as well. After we gather some more information then we can sit down and improve article text. Improving does not necessarily mean eliminating the old, especially if it is referenced to secondary sources used as univeristy textbooks and university textbooks written as such. Improving means coming to the table with better sources and creating wording based on the quotes provided by them. Attacking the prior consensus without providing new and better sources does not lead to general agreement of editors but creates a "battleground mentality" and I would like to ask everyone to avoid that pothole. NancyHeise talk 04:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Zandar's approach. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I regret to see that. Xandar's approach is a claim of veto - unless our revert-warriors agree to any change, it cannot happen; as such, it is not a way forward, but an impasse. Even trivial changes, like Bishonen's removal of a single weasel-word willn be mired in dishonest citations, misreadings, and Wikilawyerings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is in effect equivalent to permanent protection, except in one respect - the reader is not warned that the article is in dispute. As such, I will add general tags, which will serve that function; if they are reverted, I will ask for permanent protection - I don't care which version is protected; the sections as yet undiscussed are sufficiently tendentious and mistaken. that it really makes no difference to the overall quality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

PMA has added general tags citing POV and factual inaccuracy to the top of the article. I have removed these since they are tendentious and inaccurate. There is no discussion about the factual accuracy or alleged POV of the entire article, so tagging the entire article on the basis of one person's peeves with the editors is not proper process. If PMA beleieves a particular section of the article is POV or factually wrong, he has the option of placing a template on that section so long as he is willing to discuss it sensibly and civilly and provide proper support for his contention. He is not entitled to disruptively plaster unsupported banner tags wherever he likes across the article. Xandar 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no discussion about the factual accuracy or alleged POV of the entire article, That is an equivocation, tantamount to a lie; what article longer than a single sentence has a single section discussing the POV or accuracy of all of it? Most of the sections of this article are both erroneous and blatantly POV; most of them have been complained about here. Restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No. You are misusing tags. If every article that one editor had a beef about any section was plastered with POV and factual error tags at the head, we would have most notable articles permanently tagged.
Tags are for a defined PURPOSE. To draw attention to a particular dispute which is being dealt with on the talk page. Your tags are there because you don't like parts of the article. These tags are improper because a) The tags mislead in that most of the article is not accused by anyone of factual inaccuracy or POV. They therefore mislead the reader. b) Tags should be on the appropriate sections' and should remain only as long as the specific issues the tags are still under active discussion. c) The tagger should be prepared to discuss his specific objections civilly and constructively on the talk page - which you have so far proved unable to do. d) Your tags are not intended to help resolve particular points because they are too general and non-specific. They therefore cannot be "resolved" and are improperly placed, and can be seen as an attempt to force your personal POV and gripes on the article. Xandar 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Confessions of a revert warrior. The misleading being done is the effort to deny the reader the information that this page is thoroughly disputed; which this talk page will demonstrate to any sane observer. I have discussed two pervasive objections at some length at the head of this section; the specifics of every section of this article are also disputable. It will take a long time to clean up this disaster; but if Xandar will revert a fourth time - he is now at three - it will go measurably faster. (Alternatively, the page will be protected; he will get his wish to have this page only editable by discussion on the talk page - and the reader will be warned to trust this article less than the rest of Wikipedia.) A win-win situation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Pmanderson, I agree with Xandar's approach because it has proven to be more efficient than making little edits. I disagree that it give him and other so-called "revert warriors" veto power. What the mediation showed is that Xandar and NancyHeise do, in fact, represent the opinions of a larger though silent group of editors who, if asked to express an opinion, will support their position. I don't argue that they are always right or that they represent a majority. However, there are enough of them that we need to take the time to understand their views and seek a mutual accomodation.
Consensus requires near-unanimity and, if 40% of the editors object to a change in the text, we need to take the time and effort to forge a compromise text that they can accede to. Since unanimity can be difficult or impossible to achieve, I am willing to ride over the objections of one or two editors if their arguments don't seem to make sense or seem to be relatively unimportant issues. That's why I supported Soidi and others in the "Roman Catholic Church" debate but didn't support Haldraper in the "usually called Catholic Church" debate. I am willing to revisit Haldraper's concern if enough other editors (such as yourself) make cogent arguments why this is important.
I do think taking sections one at a time is the way to make progress. This is not to say that a "completed" section will never change. It should hopefully mean that our discussions will be primarily focused on one section at a time so as to have coherent, cogent debates rather than a little bit here and a little bit there without making substantial progress on anything.
--Richard S (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. This is not a claim ov "veto" as PMA argumentatively suggests, but following the WP methodology of DISCUSSION to reach a CONSENSUS. This means that text is reliably backed and notable, and that give and take is involved on the ultimate principle of what is best for the reader and providing clear, reliable and balanced information. I don't think there is an enormous hurry involved here. The existing text has been in place for up to two years. There is plenty of time to discuss properly section by section and come up with good condensus wording where changes need to be made. As such we should probably agree to Nancy's request to hold off on Cultural influences for a week while more research is done. With regard to the History section, it would probably be best to progress chronologically subsection by subsection. We have already touched upon the Early Christianity and Persecution subsections. Can we agree whether everyone is happy with those? Xandar 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree with Xandar's suggested approach. It may be more constructive to focus on one section at a time rather than the free-for-all that's taken place. Majoreditor (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Xandar's disclaimer of veto is the bad faith of a revert warrior, who has edited to produce stalemate and stasis (in the English sense) on the present appalling and much-protested version, while continuing to tolerate novel apologetic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What the mediation showed (and appears to have been obvious long before) is that Xandar is the mayor (and Nancy the sybil?) of an organized faction of POV-pushers, which they can rouse by canvassing. They do not take the effort to come up with novel texts; they revert war for the text which serves their Cause, to relieve the collective self-pity of a group. We have seen such leagues before; the approved method of dealing with them, if they are incorrigible by persuasion, to ban the ringleaders and warn the followers against meatpuppetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Xandar and Nancy are not the mayors or owners of the page. There are many editors that may or may not agree with them at times and at other times the same editors may not agree with them. There are many civil editors monitoring these discussions that may not speak up every time there is a dispute and wait to see how things work out. The problems with editing this page are not just on Xandar and Nancy's "side". I personally believe you are not assuming good faith. Several editors have told you not to place tags on the entire article and yet you continue to do so. You are one editor, continually putting tags on the page is diverting the editing of the page and unnecessarily angering people. The intent of this is to get an article that everyone can agree on. The POV tag is aiming a shotgun at the article when a pen will do. Editors on both sides of the discussion have said that the "article is close to being NPOV." Suggest changes, get concensus, work within the process. Stop the name calling. Assume good faith. Marauder40 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No, what this article requires is a blunderbuss; nor is the assumption of good faith an agreement to ignore evidence to the contrary. (As for Xandar's mayoralty, I am merely quoting one of his supporters.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I don't agree with the way you have defined consensus. Yes, Xandar and Nancy may speak for a "silent majority" (which, as Pmanderson points out, is often contacted to come to a discussion), but consensus is not based on numbers. It's based on strength of argument. So, for example only, if 72 editors said "I believe this so it must be true and has to be in the article" and 3 editors said "the book you are trying to reference this to doesn't exist and no other reliable sources could be found so this can't go in the article", well, the 3 editors operating within policy should prevail (doesn't mean they will, just that they should). Granted, this is an extreme example and many of the discussions we have on this page have many shades of gray. Nevertheless, a simple counting of heads is really contrary to the spirit of consensus and I think has led to some of the problems on this talk page. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I respectfully continue to differ with you but perhaps the problem is a question of clarifying the relationship of "policy" vs. "consensus".
Policy is defined primarily by consensus of editors as to what the policy should be (with a few exceptions of edicts from the Wikimedia Foundation). However, how policy is to be applied to a particular situation in a particular article is also determined by a consensus of the editors involved (almost always a different group from the editors who determined the policy). It is true that policy trumps the consensus of editors involved in a particular article. However, most admins will enforce conduct which violates policy (e.g. 3RR, CIVIL, NPA, etc.) while most will also shy away from acting to apply policy to arbitrate content disputes (e.g. NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V). Even ARBCOM restricts itself primarily to issues of conduct and refuses to arbitrate content disputes except to the extent that such disputes become disruptive.
Thus, while the 3 editors who are "right" about policy should prevail over the overwhelming majority of 72 editors who are "wrong", in actual practice, they will not manage to prevail until a whole horde of other editors weigh in on their side. The first steps of dispute resolution involve engaging outside opinions via WP:3O and WP:RFC on the grounds that, if the 3 editors are right, other editors will show up to support their position.
So... counting of heads does matter. Nothing should be decided by a simple majority (Wikipedia is not a democracy and voting is evil). However, if both sides have presented their cases and the vast majority of editors has weighed in on one side, it might behoove the minority to consider the possibility that they might actually be wrong.
I'm not saying the minority has to shut up and cave in to the majority. I'm just saying that they might benefit from a bit of humility and consider that their position is not necessarily 100% right and that the "way forward" involves listening, collegiality, collaboration and compromise.
--Richard S (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Should one listen to the voices of faction? Of course. Should one yield to them? One should go as far to accommodate them as allegiance to the sources will permit. That will be - all too often - be received as nothing or next to nothing; should one yield further? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Slavery?

One instance of the dubious statements in this article is the claim that the Church helped end slavery. This is very far from consensus; on ancient slavery, no competent classicist will affirm it - and it is denied both by historians of slavery and by historians of religion.

Ancient slavery was not "ended" by anybody; the Corpus Juris of the Christian Emperor Justinian spends more space on it than any other single subject. It was supplanted, by various forms of serfdom, as the economy of the ancient world collapsed (and the slave trade with it).

On modern slavery, it is possible that this would be a quarter-truth. Among those who campaigned against modern slavery were Catholics (and Protestants, and men of no clear denomination); but they were a minority in every denomination. The Church, as a body, took no effective action (again, no denomination did, with the possible exception of the Society of Friends; every denomination was paralyzed by people sitting around quoting Philemon), and what rhetoric there was did not prevent Catholic Brazil from being the last slave economy, and the last to enact emancipation. (But that's not what the sentence, as bejiggered by our POV-pushers, is talking about.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Church has never had a consistent approach on the issue. Examples of the Church supporting slavery include Dum Diversas and justifying slave trade in America by pointing to the Curse of Ham etc. Of course there have been efforts within all denominations to abolish slavery and this should be given due credit.--Ptolion (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review Catholic Church and slavery and provide your feedback on the talk page. Let's make our text here a very concise summary of that article and refer the reader to that article for more details. --Richard S (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Partisan beyond recasting. Should be restarted from scratch; the stress on the denunciation of the slavery of Christians - in 1435, a time when slavery was effectively extinct in Europe - is characteristic. Delete and rewrite. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) I was hasty; dealing with such editors as Xandar and Nancy can be very trying. Nevertheless, seriously flawed; a random agglomeration of primary sources. More follows on its talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Familiarising yourself with the Jesuit Reductions and the opposition to attempts to have the Indians carted off as slaves, if you haven't already, may be a good start. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the Paraguayan experiment in collective subjugation; it is one of the questions much discussed in the literature - as are the examples of Jesuits supporting slavery to bring Indians to the feet of Christ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"Collective subjugation"? Sounds like masonic worldview to me. Needless to say most academics (across the political spectrum, from conservative to socialist) disagree with your position and hold that the Jesuits Reductions in South America did much to help protect Indians from slave trade merchants (the Indians themselves even defended the Reductions militarily). - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Collective servitude, then. But I am not a Freemason, and I do not see any evidence that Lúcia Sá is either; please leave this collective self-pity at home. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
One rather delphic quote from an individual in a letter cannot be seen as a Jesuit advocacy of slavery. The slavery topic is quite complex because of historical and real world impacts. Generally, for most of history, the Church tolerated slavery as an existing and legal institution, but morally disapproved and urged gradualist elimination. Since toleration was based on legal and established property and criminal law, the church has almost always condemned the enslavement of native peoples. Dum diversas was an exception based on the principle of crusade retaliation and the enslavement of muslims as they had enslaved Christians. An additional complication was caused by the fact that under the patroado system, the Church in the Spanish and Portuguese empires was under the control of the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not the Pope. Therefore subsequent papal condemnations of slavery failed to be implemented to any extent, although slave codes in Catholic nations gave slaves legal rights, such as to family life, the purchase of freedom, and to non re-enslavement that were not available in non-Catholic slaveholding lands. Xandar 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I thank Xandar for demonstrating what his scholarly principles are. The quotation is exactly:
one cannot expect or obtain anything in this land with regard to the conversion of the Indians unless many Christians are sent here. By living according to the will of God, these Christians can subject the Indians to slavery and oblige them to shelter under the banner of Christ.
That's about as delphic as a brick; it's a clear two-point program: settle with virtuous Christians, and they will (by the grace of God) be able to enslave the Indians, resulting in their conversion - exactly the program executed by the Spanish in California, for example.
Xandar's treatment of Dum diversas is equally unpersuasive. Had it been only an anti-Muslim declaration, it would not have said "Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers" - nor would it have been applied in Angola.
There is one accuracy mingled in Xandar's rush to defend the Church, where it warrants defence equally with where it does not: the subject is indeed complex; I would equally oppose efforts to simplify it by affirming only the other side of the coin. We should, indeed, affirm neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any historians that provide a balanced perspective (i.e. neither being wholly condemnatory nor exculpatory of the Church's record vis-a-vis slavery). Those are the sources that we should go after. --Richard S (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes; the historians of slavery itself - I would commend M. I. Finley for antiquity, and David Donald ((IIRC) for modern slavery; there is also much work on Daniel O'Connell, who differed from most Irish-Americans in being anti-slavery (do you have access to JSTOR?). These generally tend to show the Church itself as being not much better or much worse than its contemporaries in each case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of General Tags

Pmanderson has rejected the ordered procedure for dealing with disputed text agreed by editors above, and instead decided to place banner tags at the top of the article alleging that the entire article is POV and factually inaccurate. Since he has refused to engage in constructive discussion and instead insists on constantly creating a hostile atmosphere on the page with attacks on the motivation and character of fellow-editors, I believe this to be a misuse of tags in order to again avoid reasoned discussion of the issues and raise the temperature with further edit wars.

  • Tags exist for a defined PURPOSE. To draw attention to a particular dispute which is being currently dealt with on the talk page.
  • PMAs tags are improper because
    • The tags mislead in that most of the article is not accused by anyone of factual inaccuracy or POV. They therefore mislead the reader that the entire article in all its sections is disputed.
    • If tags are added, they should be on the appropriate sections and are intended as temporary indicators, which remain only as long as the specific issues the tags are still under active discussion.
    • The tagger should be prepared to discuss his specific objections civilly and constructively on the talk page - which PMA has so far proved unable to do.
    • PMAs tags are not intended to help resolve particular points because they are too general and non-specific. They therefore cannot be "resolved" and are improperly placed. Since no specific referenced objections are raised to the entire article in every section the tags can be seen as an attempt to force his personal peevishness and POV s on the article. If every article that one individual had was plastered with POV and factual error tags at the head, we would have very few articles not permanently tagged.

These tags should be removed. Xandar 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose a measure which is tantamount to page protection, without admitting protection. I would support genuine and admitted protection, and will request it if this continues. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You can't tag referenced material as inaccurate, just because you don't like it. And if you put tags up they have to be solidly justified with reference to resolvable specifics for every area tagged, which are backed up by good references and a clear willingness to discuss and reach agreement on the talk page. Otherwise the tags go. Xandar 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: A claim with a footnote next to it can never be removed? It doesn't matter if (as with many of these claims)

  • The source being cited is not reliable;
  • the source being cited is contradicted by numerous or more reliable souces.
  • The source is being cited for an expression of opinion;
  • The source is fine; but the claim being made is not in it.

Let those who would assume Xandar's good faith defend his answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Xandar is clearly wrong in his assertion because he is constantly removing all sorts of referenced stuff because HE doesn't like it. (either from this article or the Catholic sexual abuse cases article) He usually asserts "inaccurate", "incomplete", "POV", "biased", etc. as his justification. Apparently, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander as far as he is concerned. That said, I'm not too fond of plastering tags all over the article. Instead, we should discuss the issue here and leave the article alone unless the issue is so egregious that the reader MUST be warned of a screaming problem. I don't think the issue is that urgent and I would urge Pmanderson to tone down the hysteria and hyperbole. --Richard S (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would correct here, in that I try as a general rule, not to remove STANDING well-referenced material, however much I disagree with it. If I disagree strongly with the direction or implication of a piece of referenced text, I tend to add referenced material that presents another view or sets the material in context. I have removed contentious, non-agreed NEW material on occasion, when it has appeared hugely POV, highly inaccurate, or undue weight. Xandar 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The banner tags on the top of the article are certainly too much. Majoreditor (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Xandar's reasoning is that this biases the article development process very highly in favor of the text that exists in the article at this moment. The standard Xandar and Nancy appear to have set for removing text that has been in the article is much, much higher than the standard used to include that text in the first place. The standard used to add new material is also much higher than that used to add the original text. If there was a widespread consensus that the article was free of problems, then I wouldn't really have an issue with this method, but currently that is not the case. One way to make this process more equitable, and to minimize the battleground atmosphere that has existed here, is to evaluate all text using the same criteria, regardless of whether it's been in the article for a year or has been proposed this month. That means we have to be much more open to the possibility of removing text, even if we don't have new text ready to put in its place.
I propose that no one here should revert the removal of text by established editors (not applicable to vandalism). The editor removing text should place it on a new page, (perhaps Talk:Catholic Church/Removed text in a new section by date). If any other editor has an issue with the removal then (s)he can open a section on this page to discuss the paragraph, offering the original text and the new text as proposals that all of us can then discuss to come to a better consensu. Would this, or a similar proposal, be workable? Would everyone be willing to abide by the terms? Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no... IMHO, that will just lead to an unmanageable mess. Why not propose the removal with an accompanying rationale and ask for objections. No objections within a 24-hour period means you can go ahead although someone may revert you later. Don't take it personally; some of us may be absent from Wikipedia for an entire day (yeah, yeah, I know it's hard to believe but some people have their priorities all screwed-up, using lame excuses like "real-world obligations" and something about having a "job").
The relevant guidelines are WP:BRD, WP:0RR and WP:1RR. Nothing wrong with being a little bold, just don't expect that your boldness will be revert-proof. A single editor should not be able to insist on removal of text any more than a single editor should be able to insist on keeping the text. Discussion and consensus are the key to making progress.
--Richard S (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of referenced text without consensus, or without a generally agreed replacement. If we give people carte blanche to rip out any text they take a dislike to, it will create mayhem and endless rows instead of progress towards agreed text. The "bias" towards older text that Karanacs sees is less bias, than because it has been through the mill of verification argument and compromise among editors over a long period. So if one person adds something new, it is checked over for a) Good referencing, and whether it adequately reflects the references quoted, b) Whether it is relevant to this article, c) Whether it unbalances a section by being too long, undue weight, raising new issues, or overly biased in one direction or other. Thus new additions SEEM to be more rigorously checked over than existing text. However the process we are going through will hopefully examine old text and any proposed changes on a roughly equal basis. This will take time, however, which is why I suggested we go through relevant sections methodically and work towards a consensus wording on the talk page. I don't think there is any reason for undue haste. There is nothing in the article that is so horrific that it needs ripping out as a matter of emergency action. I want to agree a text which is accurate and has as much support as possible, but we will have to work at it. Xandar 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Xandar repeats himself, and denies policy. The The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The policy you quote is referring to unreferenced information. What we are discussing is removal of referenced information. Xandar 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that falsehood will not even carry through to the end of the paragraph, which says that the source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. The requirement that the material must not be purely expressions of opinion is indeed found elsewhere: Assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not assert the opinions themselves.
If this is not bad faith, what would be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes get the feeling that you have a very poor grasp of the meaning of many of our WP policies. Xandar 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I merely quote the words I helped write. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Orlandis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Witte (1997), p. 20.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bokenkotter56 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Noble, p. 230.
  5. ^ Stark, p. 104.
  6. ^ a b Witte (1997), p. 23.
  7. ^ Witte (1997), p. 31.
  8. ^ Power (1995), pp. 1–2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_40&oldid=1136303410"