Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 22 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2008 Peer review Reviewed February 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept October 4, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2007.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Catholic Institutions section

I think this could be expanded. I do not agree to the cuts recently made to this section but Im not going to argue. There are recent news articles claiming that the Church operates a quarter of all the world's hospitals and this is notable enough to be mentioned in this section. We should also consider mentioning that a substantial number of all the schools in third world countries as well as the US are run by the Church. I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers of these institutions without giving them context as to what they mean. NancyHeise 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our propaganda hound is back. Really, Nancy, we are not here to praise the church - or to damn her - especially by quoting misleading or dishonest statistics like this. The number affiliated with the church may be that - although I suspect that this is counting apples and oranges (what is a hospital? do Bellevue and a missionary station in the brush each count as one?) - but operated by the church is going too far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The image (at right) Nancy keeps removing as unsourced, is in fact sourced on its image page; as I know because Nancy was told so. It is now sourced here, and in the article. I trust this nonsense will now cease; if not, I intend to note it as further evidence of Nancy's endemic bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see our personal-attack hound is back. Please try to stick to facts and be constructive. Xandar 01:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratios vs numbers

I think the statement that "I don't think it is enough to tell people the numbers ... without giving them context as to what they mean" is true not just here, but in general. Most people will find it hard to understand numbers without knowing the comparative ratios. It is one thing to say company X owns Y supermarkets, but MUCH more informative if one also says that company X owns 24% of all supermarkets in the US. So these ratios should be stated in most cases. Some type of map will be informative.

I do not understand the situation with the map. Personally I find maps very informative in general, be they about churches, supermarkets or product usage maps. There is a source on the map page on Wikimedia, but the stated source has no map, just numbers. How do we know that the numbers correspond to the map? But a map would be very nice if a reliable one can be found. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this map in our article before. I put it there. It was roundly tossed by many editors who kept saying it was unsourced. I am not in favor of keeping unsourced information in the article, it will not pass through FA so why keep putting this in there? NancyHeise 15:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I went to the map page and removed the claim that it has a source. So as is, it is unsourced. I left a message for the person who loaded the map to see what the source was. Have not had a response yet. The data "looks right" but that does not constitute a source. I think if no source is found the map has to go, but I do wish a new map could be found. This current unsourced map was informative to me, and I would hope that a sourced one can be found. As for FA passage, I pay no attention to ratings, what matters is how informative the article is with reliable sources. History2007 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing citations of the actual source used is academic fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Academic fraud? Come on you can do better than that..... You need to get more creative with your insults here. Use some more complicated terminology to release your frustrations, it will help you deep down........ (do the dots bother you?).... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... NEWSFLASH: The claimed source had no map.... History2007 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map consists of the countries of the world tinted by percentage of Catholics. It makes, therefore, two claims: the boundaries of the countries, which are - on that scale - uncontroversial, and the percentage of Catholics, which the source supports. Which of them does History2007 insist is unsourced? (We could not simply take a map from the source if it had one; that would be copyright violation on the creative act of drawing.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How do we know the numbers on the website correspond to the shadings/colorings on the map? Manual verification? History2007 (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The map violates Misplaced Pages policies regarding statistics. You can say what the source says about stats but you can't interpret them yourself. Making your own map violates that rule and that's why it was deleted long ago when I tried to use it. NancyHeise 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I could ask no better illustration of the fraud which has caused this article to be protected.

• The map shows France, for example, as orange.
• Its label shows that orange means "60-79% Catholic".
• The source cited says that France is 75.54% Catholic.
• Where is the "interpretation"? The policies that forbid it admit simple arithmetic, even above the level of 60 < 75.54.

I will be back in a week to see if Nancy and History2007 have been barred, as they deserve to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation: You are relying on a manual verification of the data by checking the numbers for France. Did you check Lithuania? How about Belgium? How about Madagascar? Did you check them all or just the home of Mona Lisa? How do we know you did not make an arithmetic error anywhere? Do Misplaced Pages editors need to gather in groups to count numbers on maps? I do not think so..... And are you leaving us for a week? Sigh...... History2007 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Horrors! I'm checking the data by looking at the map (and seeing it appears reasonable), selecting a country, and looking at the source (the same would be required to check the data if we presented it as as a table).

Are these scare italics about manual intended to insist on some sort of OCR, which is less reliable than the human eye, especially for things like this, where the format differs radically?

How do we know I didn't make an arithmetic error anywhere? Because I didn't do any arithmetic. I observed immediately that 75.54 (which the source states) is more than 60, as I observed immediately that the image of France is orange.

History2007 is free to check Lithuania, Belgium, and Madagascar for himself; since the source is in numerical order, it won't take him much longer to do the whole map; the only real difficulty will be checking that the Guyanese states not in the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the map as concerned, it tends to mislead by having a bottom limit of 20% catholic population, which makes it appear that there are no significant numbers of Catholics in major parts of the world where in fact millions of catholics live. If the map is to be retained it probably needs a 10% field. Xandar 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No more than it tends to mislead by suggesting 20% for Saudi Arabia. But this is the same thing again: if it doesn't push my POV, it's anti-Catholic. Please stop before an admin sees you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it turned out that said map was full of errors anyway. So moot point. History2007 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it turned out that there were two cases where the color does not reflect the source (Lithuania, for example, is 80.01% Catholic, but is shown in the 60-79 range - I'm whelmed), and one where the source is almost certainly wrong itself. The former may well be due to the source being updated since the map was drawn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no and not so, as usual. In the "proposed correction" a few African spots that were yellow are now green. Which is correct I am not sure, but there are inconsistencies beyond Lithuania which I had picked by pure chance as an example. Translation: I was right to question the accuracy of the map. Period. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, PMAnderson, there were many more errors (or at least, discrepancies between the source and the map). I put my corrected version of the map here so that you can see the differences. Ucucha 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

← I very much like the concept of having a map. However, there's still errors in the data. For example, Syria is less than 10% Catholic, while Lebanon is approximately one-quater Catholic. There's other data in the source which looks suspicious as well; for example, the population of the United Sates is approximately 307 million, not 285 million. (The two links I've supplied are to the CIA World Fact Book, which is a fairly reliable source for country demographics.) Does anyone have thoughts on how to fix this mess? Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes (though note that the source actually gives no data for Lebanon; cf. my version of the map). The source is also questionable because it is apparently from the Church itself, and thus not independent of the subject. The best way to proceed would be to create a map on the basis of an independent reliable source that lists sensible percentages for all countries, but such a source may not exist. Ucucha 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha has a point, and my position against church sources has been outlined elsewhere. In this case, my suggestion is to use the revised version by Ucucha (or similar), with a caption along the following lines: "Catholic church figures for church adherents as a proportion of the population". As long as the reader knows the source is the church, i would accept this unless there is a reliable source with contrary figures. If there is, then we might have to abandon the exercise, or use multiple sources for the map, and a footnote discussing them.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We can not use this map because it is the creation of a Misplaced Pages editor who is interpreting stats in violation of WP:stat. It will not pass through the FA process, it sandwiches the text in the section. I am not in favor of including this in the article again when it has already been tossed for these same reasons before. NancyHeise 02:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic schools data can be improved

This book published by the respectable and non-Catholic Church affiliated Routledge publishing company contains valuable information we can use to expand the information on Catholic schools. Please see pages 149-151 . Notable points I think should be included in the article are:

• Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education
• Over 50 million children attend Catholic schools around the world
• In some countries, these schools represent the main school system, "particularly in some African countries"
• There are a lot of points we could cover, please see the source and offer your suggestions. Thanks. NancyHeise 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can look at that later, but I do not know how to get a map out of the book, given the copyright issues. I searched for a map, and the one that has a source is called SPAM in the Wikidatabase. The 50 million children number is interesting and significant and if a ratio can be added will be useful. If that section gets much larger, it will justify its own article (title to be decided) but will b einteresting. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you back Nancy but you seem to have returned with some bad, POV-pushing habits. For e.g., do you really, honestly, hand on heart think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? I just had a quick look at your source which mentions exam results for Catholic schools in Britain. If you're going to put that in as a plus for the Church, I'm going to have to dig out the data that suggests that far from it being a result of their "religious ethos" it's actually because of social selection, middle-class parents being more motivated to impress the parish priest, more able to contribute resources etc. We don't want to go down the tennis match road again do we? Haldraper (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, that opposing argument is addressed on the very pages of the Routledge book I provided as a source. It says that this analogy is not supported by evidence. I provided a solid reference with actual respectable facts about the Catholic Schools in an effort to improve our Catholic Institutions section. I am not POV pushing, I am information pushing. What is POV about the source I have cited? Here it is again, pages 149-151 NancyHeise 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK Nancy, I'll play the game! You really think "Catholic schools are respected around the world for quality education" is NPOV? It's hardly surprising is it that the book discounts the opposing argument to the one it's making is it! But don't worry, I know plenty of reliable sources that show just what I'm saying if you really want me to go get them. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is practically undecidable if they are respected or not. I can not see how one can readily prove or disprove that statement. And respect is a very soft (and culturally varied) concept. It will take $100 million in opinion research fees to even approximate the validity of that statement. Now if anyone has the funds ready, I will be glad to start the research next week.... History2007 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, do you need an assistant? I come very cheap, expenses only! Haldraper (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article certainly contains research to suggest that Catholic schools are more effective than many state schools, though I don't know if we can fit that in here. The number of children attending Catholic schools though, and their pervasiveness in some countries is notable, and should be shoehorned in if we can. We could probably use a separate article on Catholic schools. Xandar 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading page 149 (150 is not available to me for a preview), I'm unsure what time period the "50 million" number is coming from. Many of the studies quoted are from the 1960s through 1980s, which seems a bit outdated. I think that if we want to include this type of info we ought to look for more recent studies published in journals, rather than a non-university press book that focuses more on outdated studies. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, the book is published by Routledge which has as good or better reputation for fact checking as University presses. Are you suggesting that a Routledge book is inferior to a University press? NancyHeise 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the book is not citing old data, it cites various studies from 1960's all the way to 2001 on page 149 that all say Catholic school students performed better. This information should be in our Catholic Institutions section, it comes from a seriously NPOV source and is published by Routledge. How can anyone not want this in the article? NancyHeise 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons not to want this in the article - many of which have been listed above this post. One major reason not yet mentioned is that Google book previews often don't give enough information to verify that what you see is placed in the appropriate context (I, for example, can't view page 150). I'd want us to have read the entire chapter at the very least. Second, we have no idea whether this is scholarly consensus, or just the interpretations of the scholar who wrote this chapter in the book. Third, the book is vague on some of the numbers (there were 50 million students...when? is that current? is that a count of all students in the last X years? The book is not clear.) Fourth, some of the studies cited are quite old. Education in the US has changed a lot in the last 50 years, and I suspect that is the same in other countries as well. Fifth, a lot of what I could read was specific to studies done in Britain, and we cannot extrapolate from that. Sixth, "quality education" is a value judgement, and different scholars/individuals may have very different interpretations of what that means. Does it mean students make X score on an assessment test? That Y % of students graduate? Seventh, I didn't actually read anything that claimed that "Catholic schools around the world are respected for quality education". I think that claim issynthesis and an exaggeration. Eighth, there are myriad reasons why Catholic schools represent the only - or main - schools in an area, and if you are the only school, how can one judge whether the education provided is better or worse in that region? There's nothing to compare it to. Karanacs (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Google is not God. If you want to check a book source, and Google doesn't provide a free preview of the page(s) you want to see, I'd suggest finding a library. If they don't have a copy, ask about an interlibrary loan. There's more than one way to check a source. Gentgeen (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with you there - the ILL department at my library knows me well. The problem occurs when editors use partial Google book previews as sources for inserting new information into the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the preview noted above leaves anything to the imagination. The author makes a point and backs it up with scientific research. The book is not written by the Catholic Church, it is a scholarly summary of studies on the issue and I think it is important information to include in the article. NancyHeise 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Tag wars AGAIN

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

I have come to think that this cycle will not stop until some type of admin action takes place. It is clear that edit history repeats itself on this page. I am not sure what the best remedy may be but whoever has a suggestion, please discuss it here. Based on a simple reading of Wiki rules it seems that anyone can add a tag any time anywhere. But that needs to be balanced with talk page discussions. After ALL the statistics about section sizes etc. and trims from the sections etc. the size tag was applied to the whole article again, instead of the history section. So what is the point of talk page discussion here if the stats obtained on the discussion are largely ignored? So some type of admin action will be needed, as Richard suggested. So what is the way to start a petition for that without a multi-month request for comment? History2007 (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I support administrative action; and recommend it be directed against those who think that suppressing the symptoms of dispute will make the disease, the unreadable length and intolerable tendentiousness of this article, go away. If two or three editors were banned from this article for six months, the subject matter experts (I am not one, save in certain areas) would be able to clean up this article and maybe even earn it an FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not a subject matter expert, then how is it you know so well what does and does not need fixing here?Farsight001 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson/Septentrionalis has not offered any useful edits on the article but has been THE source of contention and edit warring. I have stayed out of this after I was accused by Karanacs of being disruptive just to see what would happen if I stepped away. Nothing has changed because even though the article has become very anti-Catholic POV cutting out valuable referenced context, PMAnderson/Septentrionalis still feels a need to make it even more POV. I do not see the value in any of this editors contributions except to create a battleground mentality.NancyHeise 15:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Come off it, Nancy. You are not in any position to accuse any other editors of creating a "battleground mentality" - give us a break and stop this constant and tedious nonsense. Afterwriting (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/NancyHeise shows. It contains evidence of the same behavior long before I arrived; this page contains the remarks of Molon Labe - driven away while I was away from this article; and the same thing may be expected to continue after I depart, until Nancy, Xandar, and History2007 also leave. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks for asking. I think that elimination of the content that showed Reader all of the POV's regarding controversies such as the Pius XII and sexual abuse scandal has made the article anti-Catholic POV. I also think that the discussion below is evidence of an inability for some editors to even consider the fact that the Church is vociferously repressed in the media with regard to its view of condoms and the AIDs epidemic in Africa. I merely provided several sources which discuss the issue and outlined the important points. This is a notable controversy that our article presently covers in an insufficient way that excludes new scientific research supporting the Church's point that condoms will not cure Africa's AIDS epidemic, behavoir change will. NancyHeise 18:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for not answering Nancy :-) I asked you for one example of "anti-Catholic POV" from anywhere on the page, i.e. one sentence that you think is unduly biased against, misrepresents the views of or unfairly criticises the Church. Haldraper (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my answer was not satisfactory enough. Here's my second attempt.

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

• The majority of abuse happened in the US during the 60s and 70s by priests who were vicimizing post pubescent teenage boys.
• The number of priests accused is about 1% of worldwide priests
• There are almost no new cases in the past five years
• The Church in the US implemented rules and the Worldwide Church implemented rules to prevent future abuse such as strenghtening the prohibition against ordination of men with strong homosexual tendencies.

If this information is omitted, it makes it appear as if the Church has done nothing to deal with the problem and that its a continuing problem. That is POV anti-Catholic.

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

Sorry Nancy but I think you'll have to do better than that: not 'omissions' but actual words!

As you know, all the pro-Catholic POV things you cite about Catholic sex abuse cases/WWII were trimmed together with anti-Catholic POV as a way of achieving NPOV in those sections as the result of long discussions involving multiple editors. Haldraper (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Nancy: If it doesn't state my POV, it's anti-Catholic. We've been here before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. One can be unbalanced by eliminating certain facts as well as by adding material. Xandar 01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

True in principle, irrelevant to the issue at hand. If these were generally agreed to be factual and equally generally agreed to be among the most relevant facts (so as to be appropriate to a short summary in an article on a different subject), that would be an argument that they must be included; but they are not. They are the apology (again) for the Church - and belong (among all other points of view) in the article on the scandal, not here.

But this is still evasion of the question Haldraper asked: what anti-Catholic language is there? Where are the immured nuns, the diabolic inspiration, the plot for world domination? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, Nancy and Xandar have a binary-valued way of looking at POV. What is not pro-Catholic POV is anti-Catholic POV. If the pro-Catholic defense to criticisms of the Church is not presented, then that is inherently anti-Catholic. In this manner of thinking, NPOV is the "balancing" of pro-Catholic POVs against anti-Catholic POVs, being careful not to give undue weight to the anti-Catholic POVs. (Since it is not conceivably possible that undue weight might wind up being given to the pro-Catholic POVs.) It is (apology in advance to those who think this is overly harsh) this kind of tendency towards apologetics that makes this article long and tedious to read. --Richard S (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if the article's section on history were written summary style with bigger and better articles giving proper treatment to each period in history the entire POV thing would be moot. Get that crap out of this article that way multiple fractured perspectives don't need to dwell on unneccesary details here. They can be hashed out and given due measure in other articles. As it is now, the article is unwieldy and only gets more so as it is mired in these constant POV edit wars. Eliminate the bulk of the history section by giving it its proper place in another article and it doesn't reek of apologetic tracts; the tenets of the Faith can be better covered to all sides here and historians can wring their hands in the appropriate historical articles. I say this as a practicing Catholic and am ashamed to say that this piece looks like a bag of ass and probably will continue to do so as long as this fat is allowed to stay in it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As the stats showed, only the history section is long, nothing else really. History2007 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics are a blunt tool at best for such things - no substitute for editorial judgment; a section here is long when it says more than necessary.

But let's trim the history section then and take another look at other sections afterwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This subject matter warrants a larger article. If you look at this subject in any encyclopedia, it covers a substantial number of pages. There are Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages which are much longer than this article. I think it would be strange to have a short article on this topic in light of this information. NancyHeise 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that for many reasons, including alternate versions on other media, we need a comprehensive article, which isn't just as eries of links to other unwritten or enormously straggly articles such as History of the Catholic Church. We therefore must achieve a balance between comprehensiveness, due weight and length. So while sections can be trimmed, (ie reworded for conciseness), reductions will be in the nature of 25% or so, since the basic information must remain. Xandar 22:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shorter Xandar: the special pleading and propaganda must remain. No, they should not; and that is why Xandar should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with PMA "must be banned" it seems. Perhaps this is a new policy PMA has just written. Xandar 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I have supported the bans of single-purpose disruptive POV-pushers for points of view which I share - whether this is one is none of your business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for edit to protected article text

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

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

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

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK... any objections to the above request? If so, please state the rationale for your objection below. --Richard S (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I endorse the change. We shouldn't be doing synthesis in the article - which means the article shouldn't use sources that never mention the Church and its policies to justify Church positions. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Object. Simply because certain editors have not fully studied the issue is not a reason to selectively remove important balancing text. there is no consensus for such a change. Xandar 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore this disruptive liar. No part of this request is based on editors not "fully studying" the issue; it is based on the sources not supporting the text. At a minimum, insert a {{failed verification}} tag after the sentence; the sources have been consulted and they do not verify the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I see PMA has gone off on one of his rants again. Please desist from personal abuse and incivility. Any attempt to remove an important half of a balanced discussion of the subject is non-consensus. Quibbles with the sourcing of the current text notwithstanding, any change must be based upon acceptable consensus wording. See discussion below. Xandar 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Xandar says here. I think PMA is a disruptive unhelpful editor to this page who engages in edit warring and personal attacks. NancyHeise 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Condoms issue

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

Here's another source on this issue, Washington Post but its an opinion piece. However it offers some facts we may want to follow up on like the fact that the Church has done more to help AIDS victims in Africa than any other organization . NancyHeise 14:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interview with a BBC reporter and Harvard's professor Green on the issue. . NancyHeise 15:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Nancy, this guy's argument seems to have no relevance to the Church or this page given that:

he doesn't share its opposition to the use of condoms (he just thinks they're not that effective at stopping the spread of AIDS)

even there, his views are based on scientific/rational 'risk analysis' rather than the Church's theological objections to all forms of artificial contraception.

your three point summary seems to me a classic example of a faulty syllogism and WP:SYN:

1. the nasty anti-Catholic press is always criticisng the Church for opposing the use of condoms on moral grounds.

2. now a Harvard scientist has said the same thing (even he hasn't if you read to the end of the article).

3. quick, let's get some pro-Church apologia on it into the article. Haldraper (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC criteria require us to cover all notable controversies. Our article presently covers this notable controversy but for some reason leaves out the fact that several peer reviewed scientific studies support the position for which the Church is being publicly, routinely and roundly denigrated in the media. If we want an NPOV article it would help if we include the opinion of this Harvard scientist in charge of AIDS research there who specifically mentions the pope's correctness in addressing this subject. One of the points made by the source says that the Church has done more to battle AIDS in Africa that any other organization. I think these are important issues our article fails to address and is part of the reason why I still think its got an anti Catholic POV slant. NancyHeise 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems only last week that Xandar was complaining that the article included controversies which did not involve every national Church and every century; and now I look, it was. This has both defects. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier at Wikinews? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, if, as you suggest, the Church's opposition to condoms was based solely on the scientific grounds that they are ineffective against AIDS, rather than part of its general theological objection to artificial contraception, and if the scientist quoted in the article also now opposed their use, what you say would have some weight. As neither of those things is true, it has none. Haldraper (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, the controversy centers on the fact that some people argue that the Church is an obstacle to solving the AIDS crisis because it condemns the use of condoms. This researcher has said that scientific studies show increased use and availability of condoms increases the prevalence of unsafe sex and that the only thing scientifically shown to work in Africa is behavioural change where couples follow the Church rules of marital fidelity. NancyHeise 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends what you're intending to write: I get the impression we're going to get some POV about how mainstream scientific opinion now supports the Church's ban on condom use glossing over the fact that this is based on theological not scientific grounds.

I actually think the current version confroms to NPOV and adding to it would constitute undue weight:

"The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms." Haldraper (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately:

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

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

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

1. I'm absolutely certain that every scientist working in this field, will tell you that sexual monogamy (one and only one sexual partner for both) will drastically reduce the chance to get infected by AIDS. Thats in a nutshell what the catholic church is saying (I hope, because I'm not catholic...). Pure science, better a rational argument. You think I'm wrong? OK, show me the scientific evidence supporting your point. Based on this point of view of the church, why should you use condoms? Well, and for family planning see Natural family planning, which are as safe as artificial ones, if done properly.

2. The scientist Mr Green basically says the same (but without the moral point of view), but adds that when you're engaging in high risk sex (no sexual monogamy) condoms should be a backup. Better they should always, consistently and correct(!) be used to reduce(!) the possibility of catching AIDS and other STDs (ABC strategy). Here comes the problem. First condoms are not 100% safe for a number of reasons (scientifically proven!), and more importantly are not used always and consistently by too many people for every sexual high risk there involved in. If you have in Africa HIV-infected man who believe having sex (better raping) with a virgin will cure HIV can you blame the church for that. But also the sexual networks (long term partners, Polygamy) in Africa is a huge problem, because condoms are normally not used by the majority of people in long term relationships. Do you? BTW, the church is not teaching polygamy. In some western countries up to 50% of the newly infected with HIV is because of high risk sex between man. Are they saying, we're not using condoms, because of the catholic church and what the pope says? So is the church teaching sex between man? Than you could blame her. Do you? If you are not following the teachings of the Catholic church outlined in point 1 and e.g. visit a prostitute or engaging in sex with other men and have sex without a condom and catch HIV, you cannot blame the church for that. In this case it is your individual responsibility (to use a condom), not the collective responsibility of the church to teach it. What you're doing is Cherry picking, which is just not fair. BTW, I'm not catholic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus, unlike you I am a Catholic (albeit a lapsed one) and I can tell you that have radically misunderstood the basis of the Church's opposition to condom use. It is not the scientific/rational case you present (and which is not distinctively Catholic anyway, all Christians believe in monogamy) but rather flows from its theological view of all use of artificial contraception as a mortal sin for reasons that are already summed up well on the page thus:

Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae...rejected the use of contraception...asserting that these work against the intimate relationship and moral order of husband and wife by directly opposing God's will

"The scientist Mr Green basically says the same", well he supports the use of condoms as well so a slight difference with the Catholic Church's position there surely!

For a non-Catholic, you seem very defensive of the Church. Cherry picking is actually what some people want to do with this source in order to push their own POV. Haldraper (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But the current wording states ""The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions." This says nothing about WHY the Church opposes condoms, the implied criticism is that the Church's position harms AIDS sufferers. Therefore scientific evidence that rebuts the criticism is relevant whatever the reasoning behind the Church's opposition. In fact, as Cyrus Grisham says, the Church's advocacy of monogamy is actually the best and safest preventative against AIDS spread. Where condom use encourages continued risky sexual practices, it does act as a negative factor. But the important point is that research runs counter to the accusations made against the CC. Xandar 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone tell me this discussion is a joke. Add a sentence about the church's position re birth control if you wish, but looking under rocks for scientific evidence that can be twisted to support that particular moral position is too bizarre for words. Guess what: if you don't have sex, you can't get a sexually transmitted disease! Wow! Now, go and read the hundreds of articles, policies, research etc on the management of STDs in general, and HIV (BTW not AIDS, if we are going to be accurate), and then realise that some of the above contributions to this discussion are ludicrous. WP:FRINGE anyone? I am increasingly understanding why editors, supposed to remain civil and assume good faith, end up, in the face of some of the nonsense here, like PMA - ranting. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This would have to be one the silliest suggestions ever proposed regarding this article and, unfortunately, only confirms the concerns that some editors have about the article's lack of scholastic and NPOV integrity. The fact that such a silly proposal was even made in the first place is mind boggling. If if wasn't so silly it might actually be funny. Afterwriting (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar wrote above "But if scientific studies tend to back some of what the Church is saying with regard to condoms, shouldn't that be included, rather than it just being "the Church claims..."? Xandar 02:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)" I agree with this approach and would like to include this in the article. It is POV to simply state "the Church claims" when the leading Harvard AIDS professor supports the claim through peer reviewed scientific research. NancyHeise 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Such hostility to including scientific evidence! I wonder why? Xandar 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How many reasons do you want? Because it isn't a question of scientific evidence in this context (it is an account of church teaching / moral principles). Because his view is being misquoted: "Green insisted that he is not against condom use. “I am against saying that we are doing all that we can because we have exported so many cartons of condoms,” he said." Because even if it wasn't being misquoted, it would be fringe. Because it would not be the application of scientific method. Because it ignores the bulk of sources in order to pick one that fits with one particular POV. Because while some behavioural modification programs have achieved success, i doubt there are any experts in the field who think that opposing condom use (as one amongst several strategies) does anything other than make the epidemic worse. And so on. Above all, it is about church moral teaching and debate about its consequences - as soon as the Pope says that epidemiological research will affect the church's position on the subject, then the science might become relevant in this WP article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that this article is the appropriate place to highlight theological and scientific details on condoms. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is silly and specious to try to link Green's work to the Catholic stance on condoms. It is just another example of the desire of some editors to indulge in apologetics rather than write an encyclopedic article. Moreover, even if Green's work were more directly germane to the topic, if we are trying to reduce the length of the article, expanding it by getting into the details of individual controversies is not the way to achieve that goal. Sigh... --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Well, it might be, because of this definition of professor: "In some English-speaking countries, it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair, especially as head of the department, or a personal chair awarded specifically to that individual.". Just keep in mind that Mr Green is a Senior Research Scientist. So he might be a Prof. The Harvard Crimson, the daily student newspaper of Harvard University, calls him a Prof. (see here: HSPH Prof. Arouses Condom Controversy: Faithful partnerships provide answer to AIDS crisis in Africa, Prof. and Pope say). So I guess Nancy Heise could call Mr. Green a Prof. Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Cyrus, but all of this discussion of Green is way off the point. Haldraper, please drop the issue of Green's professional credentials. They are irrelevant. The point here is that detailed discussion of controversies are not appropriate in this article. Even if we were to choose to indulge in such, Green is a scientist and the Church's position is based on theology/ethics, not on science and public health. Finally, the effort to vindicate the Church is an exercise in apologetics which we should eschew. So, please stop already. Everybody... --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Richard: whatever his title, Green's scientific opinions have no relevance to the moral and theological positions taken by the Church and therefore as you say do not belong on this page. Haldraper (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Richard. I just wanted to add that science and theology/ethics are distinct areas! Science cannot tell you how to live. This is the area of theology/ethics. Maybe there is for some people a small conflict between these areas, but I cannot see one in this case. Let's get back to the topic. I guess Nancy is critical of this part in the article:

„The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms.“

If this is not the controversial part, Nancy, where is it?

Maybe we should slash the controversial parts and then link directly to Catholic Church and AIDS and Condoms#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church or Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Use_of_condoms. What do you think? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that some people want to include negative attacks on the Church and not include the refutation. The scientific evidence was being proposed, not with regard to whether Prof X believes in condoms, but whether there is tangible independent evidence that responds to the reported "criticism" of the Church on this issue. That is why it is germane. Xandar 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Richard sums up the point very well here: if you want an expert opinion on Catholic theology, don't ask a scientist! Haldraper (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Richard is this qoute : "That's a shame, for a report like Faith Communities Engage the HIV/AIDS Crisis offered an opportunity to rethink the failing group consensus and to point toward the central fact that has emerged from all the recent studies of the HIV epidemic: What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention." in the article AIDS and the Churches: Getting the Story Right from Edward C. Green and Allison Herling Ruark in First Things. I'd say its a contoversial subject... BTW, there are also certain problems with condoms according to this study: Does it fit okay? Problems with condom use as a function of self-reported poor fit with the result that some are I qoute: "Finally, they were more likely to report removing condoms before penile–vaginal sex ended (AOR 2.0). (those reporting ill-fitting condoms )" Best regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard. You seem to misunderstand the point being made. The passage does not start with the Church's position, but with criticism of the Church's position on AIDS. The criticism is not about WHY the Church opposes condoms, but is that the Church's position harms AIDS control. Therefore, in balance to that criticism, evidence supporting the Church view that its position (for whatever reason adopted), does NOT spread AIDS is relevant and aposite. Xandar 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, it's still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because you (and Nancy) have decided that it is "relevant". You are constructing the syllogism, not the reliable source. --Richard S (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, you seem to have missed my point...

Do you agree with this statement from the article?

""The Church maintains that in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where behavioral changes are encouraged alongside condom use, greater progress in controlling the disease has been made than in those countries solely promoting condoms."

Can you provide a source that documents someone in the Church making the above assertion?

You might consider, for example, this article about Benedict's pronouncements on the topic.

Pope: Condoms not the answer

The Church's position is that monogamy and abstinence are the solution to AIDS, not condoms. Critics say that this hinders the fight against AIDS. Can you source someone in the Church refuting that criticism? If not, then the sentence should be changed so that "the Church" is not the subject of the sentence.

--Richard S (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article also provides good material for sourcing what the Church's position regarding AIDS and condoms.

Pope's condom comments latest chapter in sensitive church discussion

--Richard S (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I may have been wrong about Catholic teaching regarding condoms...

[http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=27944603-3048-741E-6720211751000482

Aids, condoms, and the suppression of theological truth]

--Richard S (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that is interesting, notable and relevant to this page. We should include it, I suggest, in place of the WP:OR/WP:SYN stuff about Kenya and Uganda. Haldraper (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose a new wording based on Richard's source that would provide a balanced view of Catholic theological attitudes to condom use/AIDS rather than the current WP:OR/WP:SYN pseudo-scientific explanation of the Church's stance:

"The Church's rejection of the use of condoms has provoked criticism, especially with respect to countries where the incidence of AIDS and HIV has reached epidemic proportions. Despite Pope Benedict XVI maintaining the ban, some Catholic theologians have argued that condoms may be morally permissible as a means of preventing disease rather than conception." Haldraper (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, first who are the critics? Mainly the "western media" and western scientists? Which ban is Benedict XVI maintaining? I cannot remember an offical paper from the pope where condoms are forbidden if there are preventing dieasease. And I qoute from the condom article:The Roman Catholic Church opposes all sexual acts outside of marriage, as well as any sexual act in which the chance of successful conception has been reduced by direct and intentional acts (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) or foreign objects (e.g., condoms).The use of condoms to prevent STD transmission is not specifically addressed(!) by Catholic doctrine, and is currently a topic of debate among theologians and high-ranking Catholic authorities. A few, such as Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, believe the Catholic Church should actively (!) support condoms used to prevent disease, especially serious diseases such as AIDS.However, the majority view—including all statements from the Vatican—is that condom-promotion programs encourage promiscuity, thereby actually increasing STD transmission. This view was most recently reiterated in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI. What are the critics saying about the the thing that the RCC provides up to 25 percent of AIDS care in Africa? In: The Caritas Internationalis Annual Report 2008 states on page 22:The Catholic Church, through agencies such as Caritas, provides up to 25 percent of AIDS care in Africa. It provides care, treatment and also the psychological support for those who have AIDS, which is still a disease veiled in stigma.. Move the stuff to Catholic church and AIDS. Thats were the discussion should be. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper's suggested wording above is, I am afraid, a travesty, since the Church's position on the issue is not even stated - only that of unrepresentative grouplets! As Cyrus Gresham says, the so-called "ban on condoms" is part of wider catholic policy on sexuality, fidelity and contraception, and exists separately only in media reporting. I do feel that some people are setting up straw men here to argue against. There are many reasons for Catholic teaching on sexuality and artificial contraception. However the whole issue is a red herring produced by the present wording, saying that "the Church argues that..." As I have said the key criticism is not of the Church's reasoning for its teachings, it is that the Church's teachings increase AIDS transmission. If the criticism is to be made, then to be NPOV the counter-argument has to be presented that Catholic policy does not increase the risk of AIDS spread. For this, we can, as I have suggested quote some of the scientific studies. Doing this no more OR than quoting the unnamed "critics". Xandar 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar's assertions here. My point in bringing this up for discussion is that Featured Article Criteria require us to cover notable controversies. The condom issue is a notable controversy. We had two sentences that tried to cover it but did not cover it very well because it omitted the important fact that several peer reviewed scientific studies support the Church's position regarding AIDS and condoms in Africa. The actual controversy is that some people accuse the Church of being part of the problem in the spread of AIDS while others believe it is teaching the only real solution. NancyHeise 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Condoms issue (part 2)

Nancy and/or Xandar, please answer these questions (with citations to reliable sources, please): 1) What is the Church's position with respect to the use of condoms? 2) Who argues that the Church's position wrt the use of condoms increases the spread of AIDS? 3) How has the Church responded to criticism of its stance wrt the use of condoms and the spread of AIDS? 4) Who says that the results of the scientific studies support the position of the Church? 5) Who says that the results of the scientific studies refute the criticisms of the Church? --Richard S (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If the Church had always taught that the ban on contraception, specifically in the form of condoms, was under the ban because of sexually transmitted diseases then this argument would have some merit but since that is not the case, i.e the argument is based on more direct reasoning from a Roman Catholic moral perspective, it reads as another amateur apologetic's effort. In my opinion there is enough editors of good will on wikipedia (even though the most competent like Hermakurha has been driven away by the fanatics) to transform this article. The main obstacle to this is Xandar and Nany Heisse who seem to believe, perhaps (mis)interpreting John 7:1-10, that there is such as thing as "holy" lying and dissimulation. IMO they both rely on the ignorance of people who are not knowledgeable in Roman Catholicism and/or never take the time to read through and check the references to see the inherent dishonesty of both. This article, as with all others they have tarnished with there bigoted additions, would be much improved if administrators on Misplaced Pages would take time out to research in depth their unbalanced and extremely pov contributions and simply ban them. They both represent the worst facets of Roman Catholicism in their tenuous relationship to honesty - and this comes from a person who is essentially inclusive of opinions he doesn't agree with. I have also no doubt they attribute this to "persecution" but this invariably comes not from the poor or marginalised of the world but those who live in very rich countries, from middle class backgrounds, and who do not remotely know what persecution is. Anybody who has had any dealings with such zealots know that change never comes from internal volition but from the outside and its patently obvious that this holds true with Nancy and Xandar. Taam (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to distance myself from the strong personal attacks emanating from Taam and Pmanderson. While I agree with much of the substance of what is being charged (i.e. the inappropriate efforts at apologetics), strong words like "lying" and "dissimulation" represent such an abject failure to assume good faith that I cannot in good conscience allow such attacks to stand without raising an objection. As frustrating as Misplaced Pages may be, it would be a much worse experience without a minimum level of civility. --Richard S (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard, I certainly don't always agree with you or other editors opinions but the human condition involves uncertainty and recognition of diverse opinions that one may be radically opposed to. In this context I do assume your own good faith but I would be a liar if I accepted that Nancy or Xander shared the same essential love for honesty - there is no evidence I can see that they value such precepts if it gets in the way of glorifying something which has survived quite well without their dissimulation. Sorry if I have offended you personally but I feel it is now long past the stage of putting on a wiki face to observe some legal code of false etiquette. Taam (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Taam. You have simply leapt in here with a load of personal abuse and fanatical anti-catholicism. You have made no attempt to engage constructively with this discussion. Just exactly what is your purpose in being here on this page? You accuse long-term editors of dishonesty, but in presenting no proof to back up your accusations you show that any dishonesty here lies in yourself. Misplaced Pages does not exist as a platform for your anti-Catholic views. We are all free to insist that issues are covered in a fair and balanced manner, based on a fair selection of reliable references. If you don't like that. Tough. Xandar 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't have asked for a better reply to demonstrate the points I made with regard to you and Nancy. You live in a world in which people either support your own sectarian view or they are anti-catholic. It's a monochromatic world with no shades of gray and certainly no color. In this hostile world you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy and persecutor. If you look through my attempts to contribute to the article, backed up with reliable sources, (including ones used by yourself and Nancy), you will see I didn't get anywhere. Your standard tactic is to shout "anti-catholic" to anyone who doesn't share your malleable conception of honesty. I stand by my comments that you and Nancy not only are a negative influence in this article but also a positive deterrent to those honestly searching for truth and attracted to Catholicism. Taam (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Taam. Your initial post above not only accused editors, without evidence, of lying and dishonesty, but added that this was part of the system of the Catholic Church. I think that approach clearly reveals out your position and your extreme POV bias on these issues. The simple fact is that people wishing to slant the article in a negative or positive direction are not going to get their way without providing sound argument and references to prove their point. Some people seem to think that because editors do not roll over and accept every proposed change that serves an anti-catholic, or pro-catholic POV, or repeats some urban legend that "everybody knows is true", this is bias. No. It is proper rigour in ensuring this article does not become a collection of innuendo and Dan Brown-level information. Some people want to just jump in here "straighten the article out" to reflect their prejudices, and then fly into a huff when their preconceptions are challenged. That's not the way we work. Xandar 23:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't you see that you are only reinforcing my opinion on different standards of honesty? I never said anything about the "system of the Catholic Church" in the above post - you do this repeatedly. I could indeed discuss such matters outside of Misplaced Pages and give you my straightforward opinions but you have no way of knowing these at present or whether you consider them positive or negative. I repeat my invitation to go through the contributions I attempted to make using your own reliable sources, e.g Catholic Encyclopedia, Chadwick etc and see that I got nowhere. You constantly assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be anti-catholic and this to me is mere bluster to put off the casual reader who will not take the time to see through your tactics. Indeed this is one of the grounds on which I think you should be banned. With regard to "holy lying" - yes it is my experience that some zealots think it is legitimate to bend, suppress, or distort truth for the "cause" but I also am familiar with Christians, and Catholics in particular, who would think it very wrong to do so. Goodnight Taam (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be banned it is you. You have again repeated your still unsubstantiated allegations and slanders regarding lying, "holy" or otherwise by editors. It is time now for you to come up with examples of this alleged lying by the editors you accuse, or apologise. Even in the above you deny making accusations against the Catholic Church. To quote you directly. "They both represent the worst facets of Roman Catholicism in their tenuous relationship to honesty". This is clearly a part of a prejudiced attack on the Catholic Church and Catholics as being dishonest and liars. I think this reveals your appalling attitude to fellow editors and to Catholics in general, as does your failure to attempt any positive contribution before beginning your ranting here. Xandar 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard. You asked for answers to several questions. Again these matters are often complex. I'll try and give some refs as requested, but this is in no way comprehensive.

1. The Church's position with respect to the use of condoms is bound up in the rules on contraception, available here. This would suggest a strong negative on condoms - but not specifically. And there have been no authoritative pronouncements on condoms as AIDS prevention tools. You have already posted the Pope's most recent comments on condom use and aids, which are fairly detailed. Also here and here. An additional opinion here.
2. As far as I can see it is largely journalists and some AIDS organisations that support condom distribution that criticise the Church position. more rabid view more nuanced.
3. Church response to criticism of its stance? The papal article above, and see below.
4. Who says that the results of the scientific studies support the position of the Church? there is this, and this. There's this This general review In view of criticisms of the Harvard source I add Washington Post I also add this book from researcher Helen Epstein, reviewed here.
5. Who says that the results of the scientific studies refute the criticisms of the Church? The main studies used, as far as I can see, tend to be those that measure something else, such as the 80%-90% alleged success rate for condoms in preventing transmission quoted here. This begs the question of how safe protection is that holds a 20% failure rate. So there is a cross-purpose between the quoted stats. Some sources emphasise the success rates in the population, others emphasise lab tests on condoms. Xandar 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.

My feeling is that current Misplaced Pages rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive. But I would suggest a banner on the top of the talk page advising new editors of what awaits them on this talk page. How about Dante: "Abandon hope all ye enter here" .

At least this joke may calm some nerves for a short while before the debate heats up again. My guess is that the debate will not go very far anyway and will be forgotten in 9 months, so you guys should probably try to stay calm..... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Xandar for providing a thorough review of this issue. I am amazed that objectors here think this is a non-issue when it is a major criticism of the Church, one that has significant press coverage and multiple sources for us to choose from. All I am trying to do is include the fact that scientific studies and seriously respected AIDS researchers have publicly supported the pope on this issue after the pope and the Church have been severely criticized for its position on condoms. NancyHeise 03:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, if the tables were reversed and Green were advocating a position which was contrary to the Church and the Pope, you would be insisting that it is "not on" to claim that a single scientific study emanating from a single project contradicted the claims of the Church and the Pope. And yet, now that Green is supporting the Pope (but not really as the BBC interview points out), you and Nancy want to claim that "scientific studies" and "seriously respected AIDS researchers" have publicly supported the Pope on this issue.

I suggest that you reread the articles and note the following: most of the reporting is from editorials (Harvard Crimson) and "news articles" that are re-reporting of the same story (i.e. no matter how many "sources" you pile up, the ultimate source is the same story about Edward Green). In other discussions, you have used the "same story reported through multiple channels" argument to dismiss claims of multiple sources. Why does that argument not apply here?

This Harvard Crimson piece is an opinion piece by "Christopher B. Lacaria ’09, a Crimson editorial writer" who was an undergraduate senior majoring in history at the time he wrote the piece.

This Harvard Crimson article is a news article. However, has anybody bothered to notice that The Harvard Crimson is an undergraduate newspaper?

This Washington Post opinion piece is by "Thomas J. Reese, S.J., is Senior Fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University." Reese opines about Ed Green's work.

Have you noted that the BBC interviewer pointedly challenges Green on the concept that he "supports the Pope" and that Green admits that he does not agree with the Pope fully? William Crawley (BBC): How can you believe that condom promotion should be a back up strategy and also believe that "condom distribution is making matters worse in Africa"?

I still maintain that this is too much detail for this article. However, if we must discuss it, let us describe this accurately rather than in a way which overstates the claim of support for the Pope's stance.

I will try to eschew derogatory language but I would really invite you to review the quality of the source here and consider rewording the article text to match what the true situation is.

The article text should read something like:

One maverick "politically incorrect" scientist argues that the results of a single scientific study "supports" the assertions of the Pope except that what the scientist advocates "fidelity and monogamy with condoms as a backup strategy" are not what the Church advocates. That notwithstanding, a number of media channels including the undergraduate newspaper at a leading U.S. university and conservative publications such as The National Review have picked up the story in order to argue that "scientific studies support the Church's position with respect to the use of condoms to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

After all, if the National Review and The Harvard Crimson get it wrong, why should Misplaced Pages bother to get it right?

--Richard S (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing... I guess I ought not presume to teach the Church how to formulate and argue its doctrine. This piece (of ....) from the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics argues that the Church does indeed concern itself with efficacy as well as morality in its stance on use of condoms. Hugh Henry asserts that "the message of the Church about condoms is not just about alleged leakage, but also about their inefficacy because of breakage, slippage, lack of quality control (especially under conditions faced in poor countries) and, above all, their impermissibility on moral grounds." The article also quotes Cardinal Trujillo as asserting that condoms have "have holes which can leak HIV". Why is there not a stampede to include these quotes in the article text as well? --Richard S (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article by Cardinal Trujillo (his position seems to be other in the church) regarding this topic: FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX: A Reflection by His Eminence. There are storys out there about sub-standard condomes: 'Sub-standard' condoms found (News24) and KENYAN GOVT WITHDRAWS SUB-STANDARD CONDOMS FOUND TO HAVE HOLES. If this is true, it's would just be unbelieveable. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link to Cardinal Trujillo's defense of his remarks during the BBC interview. I am now thinking that the problem is that the current article text does not capture this controversy accurately and thus winds up suggesting that this is a problem where the Church "needs" scientific support. Rather than quibble as to whether Green's support of the Pope is relevant or not, we might wish to work first on presenting the Church's position first rather than the criticism first. After all, if the criticism is wrong, we start out on the wrong foot by presenting the "wrong" position and responding to it. Put another way, we have let the critics frame the topic and thus the topic suffers from working inside that framework.

The Church's position as explained by both the Pope and Cardinal Trujillo is that all responsible sex must occur within the framework of a faithful, monogamous relationship and that condoms have a non-zero risk of transmitting AIDS.

There is some debate as to viruses being smaller than sperm cells but, as far as I can tell, the bottom line is that condoms do prevent the transmission of AIDS most of the time. I think the "substandard" condoms issue is a red herring. After all, the existence of "substandard" condoms suggests that condoms which meet the standards are probably efficacious.

Relying on condoms to prevent transmission of AIDS can result in a false sense of security because of the problem of "leakage and breakage".

However, from the Catholic Church's perspective, the problem with condoms is not their efficacy (or lack thereof) in preventing transmission when used correctly but rather their effect on public behavior and public policy. The Church is concerned that promotion of condom use will lead to irresponsible, risky sexual behavior (promiscuity and prostitution). Both individuals and governments could come to rely on condoms as the primary line of defense rather than emphasizing the need for "partner fidelity".

Now, the pragmatic argument for this comes from an argument that, even where condoms are promoted, they are used only 5% of the time. Thus, even doubling the usage of condoms would only result in a 5% reduction in the transmission of AIDS. The question comes down to whether it is more feasible to increase the usage of condoms or to increase the rate of "partner fidelity". This is not really a "science" question, it is a social science and public policy question and "scientific studies" as to which approach is better have to be suspect if only because it's not an "either/or" type question.

Now, in this context, we can look at Ed Green whose work is only a single study. What Ed Green's work does is suggest that "partner fidelity" does matter very much (Duh, we knew that. It doesn't take a "scientific study" to prove it.). He advocates a multi-pronged approach (partner fidelity AND promotion of condom use). Thus, his work doesn't "vindicate" the Church's approach although it does lend it some legitimacy.

In summary, I oppose the article text as written because it has this "Church was criticized for X. But, wait, scientific studies vindicated the Church's position!" approach. As explained above, the current text doesn't explain what the Church's position is nor does it accurately portray the strength or relevance of the so-called "scientific study". This isn't a question of "science". It's a question of public policy based upon public response to policy initiatives. In plain English, are people more likely to be faithful to their partners or more likely to use condoms? Why are we surprised that the pragmatic answer is: "Why not promote both behaviors concurrently?"

I'm going to start working on fixing the article text. Any help in this regard would be much appreciated.

--Richard S (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we're getting somewhere. Just a side note to condoms. I remember a story (from todays point of view an anticatholic one) about holes in condoms and someone from the catholic church, where I thougt that the catholic person was not truthfull about the holes in condomes. But it turns out he had a point regarding low quality condoms. So this is not just a red hering, but there is certainly absolutly no need to include it here. BTW, thanks for your intellectual honesty and I'd like to help (but english is not my first language...). --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea that prof Green is a "lone maverick" is not borne out by the facts where even pro-condom campaigners can come up with no evidence for successful reduction of AIDS in Africa where condom use has been the central methodology. And there is evidence that sexual restraint practices DO have positive outcomes in countries where put into practice. I've added links to Helen Epstein's book above. Whether Green or Epstein (or any other researcher) personally agree with every element of Church Policy is a red herring. What is being quoted is their research and that of others which rebuts the principal criticism levelled at the Church. Therefore, as has previously been said, we cannot have a criticism of the Church on so contentious a topic without also airing the defense. Xandar 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You edit stating:

However research has emerged to support the Church's position.409410

is a complete stretch, especially when reading the sources you are providing. Did you ever read the adjustments I made and the links I provided? You are relying on a debunked theory and 2003 data, which I had put in updated sources with more current information.Aids surges in Philippines AIDS cases seen on the rise in Philippines There is no 'research' indicating otherwise, most certainly not any research that 'supports' any indication that condom use does not prevent the spread HIV/AIDS. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. Of course if people do not use condoms, they will not work. But it's a proven fact that using a condom greatly reduces the risk of spreading the disease. You will either have to revert back to the change I made to that section, or make a better edit than the one you currently have, which is not acceptable and does not represent the current facts. It's greatly misleading, to say the least. DD2K (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

According to your own sources DD2K:Most of those who contracted HIV were males in their 20s who had same sex relationships and mostly from highly urbanised areas around Manila. Condom use among the most at-risk, including homosexual men, female sex workers and their male clients, remained below 90 per cent, he said. and Nevertheless, the status of HIV infection in the Philippines has been classified as low prevalence, meaning that less than 0.1 percent of the population and less than 5.0 percent of people in high-risk groups were infected. This was despite the low usage of condoms in the Catholic-majority country, where the powerful church frowns on artificial methods of contraception.. So the methods the church is advocating are also working for the general population in this country. Of course high-risk groups are not following the teaching of the church, so why should they in regard to condoms? Even your new sources are supporting Xandar point. At least when you're intellectually honest. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. It does NOT support the edit by Xandar. You, and he, are using WP:OR and calling it 'research'. Which is definitely not within the scope of Misplaced Pages rules. There is no source provided by Xandar to justify the addition he made here:

However research has emerged to support the Church's position

Not in the opinion piece in the Washington Post he cited about the possible reasons why the spread of HIV/AIDS has continued to increase in some areas of Africa despite the availability of condoms in those areas, now the 7 year old link concerning the relatively low infection rate in the Philippines. The links I provided(1, 2) suggest that the Philippines are one of but a small number of nations that have infection rates that are increasing in a drastic manner, despite still having a relatively low overall infection rate. It does not matter who the people are that are part of the current infection surge in the Philippines, what matters is that there are current warnings of a surge in infections spreading infections into an epidemic and that is cited by reliable sources. You can't take a 7 year old report and insert it into an opinion piece to make the kind of claim that Xandar did. I am a Catholic, but a moderate in terms of what I will or will not defend the church in. I can see some problems with this article in terms of a sort of 'witch hunt' towards the church, in some areas. But in this area, there can be no real fact-based, scientific defense. The overwhelming consensus from reliable sources, the scientific community, health care professionals and those who deal with this specific issue is that the use of condoms helps stop the spread of HIV/AIDS infections. The best one can do in terms of giving the church some defense on their stance is to also include the fact that fidelity and abstinence are also effective tools. Even though it's not within the powers of the government to control human interaction, it is within the power of governments to make condoms available. Along with education, those are the tools that have been proven to stop, and reverse, the infection rate. We can only make these things into consideration if we are going to pass the 'laugh test' and be intellectually honest. DD2K (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Secular vs. spiritual power

Shouldnt there be a sentence in the lead about how worldly the Church has been for much of its history, its very butter wouldn't melt in its mouth isnt it , the lead? Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's factual. "Worldly" is an opinion or value judgement. What is "worldly"? What is wrong with being worldly? How do you judge what is "too" worldly? It's not something we can do. Xandar 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In this, at long last, agreement to remove all value judgments? We could shrink the article to 100K, doing that alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

--Richard S (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of the key themes that is missing from the history section. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you will find any history that does not say that "the institution of Christianity as the state religion of Rome was a critical turning point because it ensured the survival and growth of the religion AND, at the same time, entwined the interests of the church with that of the state". After that it is more complicated - the comparison with the Orthodox churches, who were at the mercy of rulers who frequently deposed Patriarchs & interfered with doctrine (see the see-saw of Byzantine Iconoclasm) will lead many to think that the Western Church had the better deal, though by the High Middle Ages it too was falling under very heavy influence from states. The 19th century stuff seems tosh to me, at least as stated. The days when Popes were agressive rulers ended with the Renaissance. The Papal States were notoriously neglected for their final period, & their rule usually almost completely delegated. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ida Gorres , in a letter in the 1950s .." only a few years ago I thought Emperor Otto I just marvellous and was full of admiration for his genius in raising the bishops to Reichsfürsten - politically it was a brilliant decision - Yet how often was their charismatic office as pastors overshadowed by their temporal mission and worldly achievements. " Sayerslle (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of this stuff is little more than individual speculation. I would certainly not see it as a controlling "theme". If we did add something about those crticizing the church as "worldly", and highlight their viewpoint, then we would have to add the countervailing arguments and evidence as well - that most of the Church was both spiritual and provided spiritual and moral sustenance to the faithful and society in general. It would also be necessary to work out what weight could be given to any individual opinion of certain events. I'm not saying that all this is impossible, but it would require a lot more than just including pot-shots at the church or the views of individuals on the "true" reason behind Vatican I or the effect on theology of the Donation of Pepin. Xandar 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reading a new book I got about a month ago entitled Under the Influence, How Christianity Transformed Civilization by Alvin J. Schmidt. It is a secondary source that is oft used as a university textbook. The book lists these accomplishments attributed to the spread of Christianty

• Sanctification of Human Life (discusses prevalence of the practice of infanticide especially female infanticide before Christianity)
• Elevation of sexual morality (Notes the depraved sexual practices of the people of the Roman Empire "shamelessly illustrated on household items such as oil lamps, bowls, cups, and vases" "The widespread, licentious sex practices threatened the institution of marriage, so Caesar Augustus in 18BC enacted lex julia de adulteriis, a law that tried to curb the people's addiction to widespread illicit sex. This law had little effect, however, perhaps because it only punished the married woman in an adulterous act." On the subject of Pedophilia he writes "The acceptance of pedophilia amon the Roman populace is not just evident in the literature of its poets and philosophers, it is also illustrated on archaelogical artifacts. Clarke's book (cited above) shows many plates of Roman relief portraits of man-boy couples engaged in sex. These pictures depict behavior that today, even in an increasingly secular and anti-Christian society, is regarded as morally abhorrent and thus legally classified as child molestation.")
• Women receive Freedom and Dignity ( "What would be the status of women in the Western world today had Jesus Christ never entered the human arena? One way to answer this question is to look at the status of women in most present-day Islamic countries. Here women are still denied many rights that are available to men, and when they appear in public, they must be veiled. ...countries where the Islamic religion is adhered to strongly, a man has the right to beat and sexually desert his wife, all with the full support of the Koran, which says, 'Men stand superior to women. ...But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you then do not seek a way against them' (Sura 4:34) This command is the polar opposite of what the New Testament says regarding a man's relationship with his wife.")
• Charity and Compassion; Their Christian Roots
• Hospitals and Health Care: Their Christian Roots
• Christianity's Imprint on Education
• Labor and Economic Freedom Dignified
• Science; Its Christian Roots
• Liberty and Justice For All
• Slavery Abolished: A Christian Achievement
• Christianity's Stamp on Art and Architecture
• The Sound of Music: Its Christian Resonance
• Hallmarks of Literature: Their Christian Imprint
• Additional Influence: Holidays, Words, Symbols, and Expressions

Thus I think if anyone wishes to insert a discussion about church "worldliness". We need to have a full discussion of what the Church as accomplished with regard to human social progress as well. We have to be WP:NPOV and I don't think you can discuss one aspect without the other. NancyHeise 03:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential new history sources to consider

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

• Cushing, Kathleen G. (2005), Reform and the papacy in the eleventh century: spirituality and social change, Manchester University Press, ISBN 0-7190-583-3 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Helmholz, R.H. (1996), The spirit of classical canon law, University of Georgia Press, ISBN 0-8203-1821-3
• Hinson, E. Glenn (1995), The church triumphant: a history of Christianity up to 1300, Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-436-0
• Bireley, Robert (1999), The refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: a reassessment of the counter Reformation, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 0813209501
• Hsia, R. Po-chia (1998), The world of Catholic renewal, 1540–1770, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521445965
• Pocock, J.G.A. (2005), Barbarism and religion: The first decline and fall, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521672333
• Power, Daniel (2006), The central Middle Ages: Europe 950-1320, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199253129
• Fletcher, Richard A. (1999), The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity, University of California Press, ISBN 050218590 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Cameron, Averil; Ward-Perkins, Bryan; Whitby, Michael (2000), Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052135919 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• Phillips, J.R.S. (1998), The medieval expansion of Europe, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198207409 (good chapter on Catholic missions to Asia)
• Butler, Jon; Wacker, Grant; Balmer, Randall Herbert (2007), Religion in American Life: A Short History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195333292
• Partner, Peter (1998), God of battles: holy wars of Christianity and Islam, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691002355
• Sundkler, Bengt; Steed, Christopher (2000), A history of the church in Africa, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052158342X
• Hastings, Adrian (1996), The Church in Africa, 1450-1950, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198263996
• Gill, Anthony James (1998), Rendering unto Caesar: the Catholic Church and the state in Latin America, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226293831
• O'Collins, Gerald; Farrugia, Mario (2003), Catholicism: the story of Catholic Christianity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 019925995X

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

The only one of these I have seen is the Fletcher, which is a very good book where I can judge it; Averil Cameron is one of the leading living Byzantinists. Pocock is on Gibbon, himself, so he may be slightly off-topic here - but the quality of the book may be indicated by the fact that 3 of the 4 volumes of the 2005 printing are out of my local library - and both volumes of the 1999 printing are stolen missing.

I would commend Peter Brown, The rise of Western Christendom : triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000 even if it is from 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will not oppose adding more sources. Ealdgyth said that an article like this one should have about 100 sources. We currently have about 80 books and I'm not sure how many internet sites. Hastings The Church in Africa is already part of the present bibliography. Not sure about any of the others. NancyHeise 21:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting list - though some of the titles look a little specialist. Xandar 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, those generally look like very promising leads. You will be aware of my recent previous posts on sources, and my views about some of them. With such excellent scholarship to choose from, i would suggest that these should not only add to the current list, where possible they should supplant those that might be disputed (I am aware there is no consensus around which sources are not independent, and i understand that makes this a less-than-straighforward task!) As to your query about views on the list, I would reject Robert Bireley's book, as he is an S.J., working at a Catholic institution and publishing through a Catholic press. I would want multiple sources anyway in this case, so i would save yourself the reading. Hsia, in contrast, appears to have impeccable credentials: see the CV here. I would have concerns about the last work, as Gerald O'Collins is also an S.J. and authors books that expound the faith in a mainstream context. I imagine they might be reasonable accounts of Catholic theology, but I'm sorry, this simply is not an independent author when it comes to the story of the church. I know others may not agree: if so, one of my responses would be - why insist on including sources such as this that are contested, when there appears to be a significant volume of independent scholarship? You're doing a great job, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure what your point is PMA: I was only addressing the question of independence of sources. Identifying the consensus view in the expert literature; and reporting ranges of views, are two things that should go without saying in addition to dealing with the question of the independence of sources. Aside from that, i disagree that the "best way to do this is to source claims to both Protestant and Catholic sources, with an admixture of others". The article is not, or should not, be a battle between two particular branches of the Christian church. The main sources should be neither and, particularly for the history section, locating such sources is not a huge problem, as i think Karanacs and others are showing. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But a source need not be unaffiliated to be sound. I cited David Knowles above because there is a famous tribute to his work: in reading his histories there is no way to tell that he was a Benedictine monk. That level of impartiality is not defunct, and a literate editor like Karanacs should be able to cite even a partisan source only for those points where other sources are likely to agree with him. Is Bireley is a great historian or merely a hack? I do not know; either is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply for reasons of interest (and familiarity with English) relatively few Buddhists or Moslems have written scholarly histories of Christianity in English. Similarly, few Jews have done so, simply for lack of numbers (although I agree that B. Netanyahu's work on the Inquisition should be consulted). I would oppose relying solely on the dogmatic atheists for the same reasons I oppose relying solely on the dogmatic Catholics. That doesn't leave many non-Christians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this says anything about you personally :-), but you speak of everyone as though they have a religious affiliation, and you appear to imply most non-Christians are "dogmatic atheists". That doesn't square with my sense of the scholarly literature or the few CVs i've checked. There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views. They're the ones upon whom we should rely most heavily - professional historians with no clear religious affiliation, publishing in the secular peer-reviewed press. As far as i can tell, there's plenty of them. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are regular historians out there, writing on the history of the church, and who have no particular religious views No, these are regular historians, and therefore they are not expressing their religious views, lack thereof, or mixture - insofar as they are good neutral-voiced historians. But in fact most of them do hold some views on ultimate things, even if it be blandly secular agnosticism - and in practice few blandly secular agnostics become church historians.

Yet, some Church historians have become secular agnostics.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And not without reason. Granted. (I could go on to argue, with Bertrand Russell, that there is a difference between Protestant agnotics and Catholic agnostics, but enough.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that we should rely most heavily, as historians do, on those who are professional rather than polemical - but we can't tell which ones those are by the letters after their names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should cite the best sources possible, reguardless of religious affiliation. Sources which slavishly tow the party line of the Catholic Church will hardly qualify as best. However, Hamiltonstone's proposal to omit Catholic clergy is ridiculous. Anyone familiar with the Jesuits know that they're certainly willing to challenge Church dogma and assert critical thought. Application of a priori litmus tests are repulsive. Once again ... judge each source based on its own merit. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Hastings will give plenty of scope for those arguments we all love so much about perceived bias, with interesting twists. Many of these seem over-specialized. We have in total perhaps less than 200 words on Africa, and to use a dedicated book of several hundred pages to source these will almost inevitably involve OR by precis. Phillips seems mainly about travel, trade and politics, Partner & Pocock well off-topic. Others like Hsia seem useful, but I hope that other satellite articles are also improved from any books used - inevitably much more can be added to these than here. Much of Hinson is online - he appears to be a Southern Baptist Vidmar, as it were - see his Preface. But perhaps useful. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is not to resource already sourced information, but, ideally, to eventually rewrite the section to be more focused on broader themes. The first step is to start reading to see where we might need even more reading. Thanks for your analysis. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes? And what are these "broader themes"? The selection of such themes could well be highly problematic. At the moment the theme is chronology with due weight, which I think is appropriate and accessible and follows most sources. As far as sources go, it would be unbalanced in the extreme to try to eliminate all catholic sources, as some seem to want. We would then be left with a range from neutral to hostile. The strange thing is that very few of the facts verified by current sources have actually been challenged, leading one to suspect that the "change the sources" argument is largely a red herring. Xandar 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of possible broader themes; we should include only those which are broadly agreed in reliable sources. I expect the worldliness of the Church before Hildebrand (and also during the Avignon period) would be two of these. The present recurring theme of "the Church was misunderstood, boo-hoo" is not; it is merely the fixation of a few partisan editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Please allow me to suggest a different perspective...

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

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

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

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

Precisely. My only caveat is that we should, more often, simply say that there is a controversy, and direct the reader to other articles and the sources. This approach makes it more important that there be sources on both sides. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Richard, your statement that "Different interpretations can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation" in this case should read "Different emotions can color what people perceive to be the facts of the situation". Anyone who even begins to deny the impact of emotions on judgment needs to study the psychology of decision making (briefly but inadequately sketched here) - a large field there. This is an emotional topic (understatement of the week I guess) so there will be three main groups of emotions:

• Highly pro Church
• Highly anti Church
• Those in between, with a few such as KeranaCS (in my opinion) surprisingly unbiased.

Given Misplaced Pages rules on consensus, whereby 12 teenagers can override Steven Weinberg on physics articles, it will just be a question of numbers, so might as well start counting, instead of debating a lot. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the sources, Richard is right to say that what is important is the reliability of the facts rather than who verifies them. Xandar 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. I also want to point out the Misplaced Pages encourages use of tertiary sources as a guide for organizing an article and deciding on what to include. The article content was designed in this fashion. It discusses what other encyclopedias discuss. It does not venture off into tangents that discuss the "worldliness of the Church" because other encyclopedias do not cover this - probably because it is unencyclopedic : ) NancyHeise 03:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with History2007's remark above. I am staying out of the history discussions until I see what Karanacs has to offer. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Themes as organizing principles for the History section

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

spread of Christianity via evangelism, the medieval period, the Crusades, the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Reformation, the Age of Discovery and the spread of Christianity by missionaries in "discovered" (i.e. conquered) lands, Enlightenment and the separation of Church and State, the modern era (from about 1870 onwards).

That would roughly follow a chronological pattern, but with the disadvantage of forcing it into a strait-jacket of arbitrarily-chosen "themes". The suggested list produces a group of largely negative-slanted themes and gives many of the named issues Undue Weight. The whole process of selecting themes is fraught with POV issues. Why, for example, are the Crusades, The Inquisition and the Great Schism more important as themes than Monasticism, Technology and the Universities, or the Investiture Controversy? Xandar 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see the benefit of forcing things into "themes", & it doesn't seem a very encyclopedic way of proceeding to me. Some broader long-term themes could well be given a bit more emphasis, but that's enough. Nor would I agree with most mentioned at the top here. Monasticism and "church & state" are themes - the Crusades and Reformation are not. How is "the Medieval period" a theme? Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See topic sentence. This is the same thing on a larger scale; it avoids having the article become an indiscriminate collection of information - which is useless to the reader, and so against policy. This could become POV; but not if we keep to those themes which are almost universally agreed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a more NPOV way to approach this would be to name the sections in a broad fashion "Early Christian era", "Middle Ages", "Reformation", "Modern Era" NancyHeise 03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

End of the article just collapses into blithering about unimportant stuff

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

The 2005 election of Pope Benedict XVI saw a continuation of the policies of his predecessors. His first encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) discussed the various forms of love and re-emphasized marriage and the centrality of charity to the Church's mission.

The Church worldwide actively encourages support for political figures who would "protect human life, promote family life, pursue social justice, and practice solidarity," which translate into support for traditional Christian views of marriage, providing help for the poor and immigrants, and supporting those who oppose abortion and euthanasia.

In October 2009, the Vatican announced the creation of new ecclesiastical structures to receive Anglican converts to the Catholic Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To comment only on the last point; most newspaper articles have no conclusion, because the important matters and issues that might form such a conclusion are in the lead; this is called the inverted pyramid. This is partly because a newspaper article may be trimmed without notice, so any peroration is as likely as not to end up on the cutting-room floor; but it is mostly a matter of emphasis: important things come on the first page of the article above the break.

Most encyclopedia articles, and almost all Misplaced Pages articles, have the same structure. There are exceptions, but rare ones.

This may, in fact, be a consideration for FA; I have seen FAC mention it. But usually they don't. Let us get the facts consensus, and the rhetoric neutral, before we consider the finial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The length of the history section is the reason for this, & I think it's the correct way; most history sections are pretty short. Merging it with Origins & mission won't work either. Anything that comes after the history section is unlikely to be reached by most readers. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the length wasn't the "reason" for this. When I brought this up several years ago several editors told me that the most important thing in the article was beliefs, and that history wasn't important and so belonged at the bottom of the article - in contradiction to the normal structure of an organization. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

On Richard's point about context: the background to the split in the Church of England and defections of clergy to the Catholic Church has not been over homosexuality but the ordination of women and now the possibilty of women bishops. This led Anglo-Catholic bishops to approach the Vatican about joining the Church while retaining their own dioceses/liturgy (the negotiations were held in Vienna iirc) and the structures mentioned at the end of the article. I added this background information with supporting news sources but Nancy reverted it on the grounds that any Anglican diocese was eligible to join the Catholic Church under the new structures, not just Anglo-Catholic ones: technically true but unlikely given the liberal wing supports women priests and bishops and the conservative evangelicals regard the Pope as a heretical tyrant. Haldraper (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Richard's opening comment in this section: The article used to have a summary pargraph entitled "Present" that told Reader about the Church today - the importance of the Pope in the world arena and "present day" stuff. Someone eliminated it completely which did not improve the article at all. I am certainly all for including a conclusion and I think what we had before was the best possible scenario. Haldraper, the new structure for receiving Anglicans applies to any Anglican. In addition to the Traditional Anglican group that voted to join, an Australian group has also just voted to join as well - see . The article addresses the homosexual issues you are discussing above as well. NancyHeise 03:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidates for elimination

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

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

Suggestions for deletion

• At the end of the 13th century, Pope Boniface VIII was involved in a heated conflict with Philip IV of France. After a falsified papal bull was circulated by Philip in a "smear campaign" against the pope, Boniface promulgated Unam Sanctam. This clarified the spiritual responsibilities of the pope as supreme over the temporal responsibilities of monarchs.
  • The question is "How important was Unam Sanctam?" If not deleted, I would drop the lead-in and just start with "Boniface VIII promulgated..." --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Never heard of this, but deleting (alternately trimming to one sentence) seems fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fine with me, I added it in response to a newbies request. NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Efforts to mend the rift were attempted at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and Council of Florence in 1439. While in each case the Eastern Emperor and Eastern Patriarch both agreed to the reunion,neither council changed the attitudes of the Eastern Churches at large, and the schism remained.
  • I would amend this to "In the ensuing centuries, efforts were made to mend the rift but ultimately the two churches remained in schism." --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we need to retain the names of the Councils for wikilinking purposes. Otherwise Richard's shortening is ok. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Both shortening suggestions (with or without wikilinks) are fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I support Xandars suggestion to keep names of the Councils for wikilinking purposes. I also think it will eliminate POV accusations. Not sure how to reword and keep these so I don't support reword. NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The first of a series of disruptive new perspectives came from John Wycliffe at Oxford University, and Jan Hus at the University of Prague. The Council of Constance (1414–1417), condemned Hus and ordered his execution, but could not prevent the Hussite Wars in Bohemia.
  • Agree that this is too long but it's important to establish that the Reformation did not start with Martin Luther. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Richard's point but do not know the significance of the Hussite Wars so pass on the rest. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Protestants like to see Hus in the article. It is important to them. I am not opposed to a reword but we need to keep Hus otherwise war will break out again on this page : ) NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• San Francisco was founded in 1776 and Los Angeles in 1781.
  • Agree. This is unnecessary. (Even if I do hail from California). --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. I'm not from CA Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK to cut but it would be helpful to Reader if we had some sort of text and link to direct them to Catholic stuff in the US. Remember, this article is the hub for all other Wikiproject Catholicism articles. We should try to include mention of the most important Catholicism articles in our text to make it user friendly.NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Yet in spite of these advances, the Amerindian population continued to suffer decline from exposure to European diseases"
  • The Amerindian population continued to suffer decline only from exposure to European diseases? This seems a bit glib to me. Perhaps the forced concentration of Amerindian populations in and around missions helped spread the diseases. There's a whole debate here about Europeans and Amerindians that is being glossed over here. I'm not arguing that we should delve into the details but let's not be glib either. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Most historians would agree that European diseases were the main cause of Indian population fall in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Theories about whether missions were important are generally speculative and irrelevant here. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No objection to deleting as seems tangental. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The reason it seems tangential is that it presents one side of the debate without the other side. --Richard S (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should stick to the facts and eliminate speculation - the fact is that Amerindian populations were eliminated by disease. There were quite a lot of Indians and a small percentage existed in South American missions which are credited with bringing farming and other civilized notions to the Indians. If we are going to propose one side of the debate, we need to propose the other or provide a link to another page where it is discussed. NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I love it when one side wants to "stick to the facts and eliminate speculation" if that "speculation" is detrimental to their POV but gloms onto speculation if it is supportive of their POV. Are we then characterizing this as "speculation" rather than "fact"? Also read this. The sentence in question has been deleted. I suggest we leave it out as reintroducing it without further explication suggests a defense without having presented the criticism. --Richard S (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• In 1933, two American Catholics, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, founded a new Catholic peace group, the Catholic Worker that would embody their ideals of pacifism, commitment to the poor and to fundamental change in American society.
  • Yeh, this can probably be deleted from this article. --Richard S (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably too US-specific. Xandar 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • At least trim description starting "that would embody..." Full deleting is fine too. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should mention the emergence of Catholic Social Teaching but we don't have to go into detailed discussion about this one group. Dorothy Day opposed US involvement in World War II which, most people, including our Catholic popes have agreed was a Just war. NancyHeise 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reduce to one or two short sentences

• Pope Gregory the Great reformed church practice and administration around 600 and launched renewed missionary efforts which were complemented by other missionary movements such as the Hiberno-Scottish mission. Missionaries such as Augustine of Canterbury, Saint Boniface, Willibrord and Ansgar took Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic people. In the same period the Visigoths and Lombards moved from Arianism toward Catholicism, and in Britain the full reunion of the Celtic churches with Rome was effectively marked by the Synod of Whitby in 664. Later missionary efforts by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century reached greater Moravia and introduced, along with Christianity, the Cyrillic alphabet used in the southern and eastern Slavic languages. While Christianity continued to expand in Europe, Islam presented a significant military threat to Western Christendom. By 715, Muslim armies had conquered Syria, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Alexandria, Iraq and Persia, Carthage and much of the Iberian Peninsula.
  • Drop the list of missionaries but keep the taking of Christianity to the Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples. I have mixed feeling about mentioning the Celtic churches but I agree that we should drop the Synod of Whitby. Similarly, we should metion Saints Cyril and Methodius but drop "greater Morzvia" and the "Cyrillic alphabet". The key point here is that they evangelized the Slavs. Keep the "Islam presented a significant military threat" but drop the laundry list of countries conquered by the Muslim armies --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pretty much agree, but Celtic C must be kept - "reunion" is wrong word anyway. This passage, like others, really needs to judged with its links in place. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem with removing the names is that it deletes important links that can be used by readers to access more detailed information - something we should be encouraging. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I think Synod of Whitby should be kept. I don't see how the information is improved by the proposed cut. It is important to tell Reader about where Islam had spread and how it posed a threat, this is part of the story, an important part. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• In Germany, the reformation led to a nine-year war between the Protestant Schmalkaldic League and the Catholic Emperor Charles V. In 1618 a far graver conflict, the Thirty Years' War, followed. In France, a series of conflicts termed the French Wars of Religion were fought from 1562 to 1598 between the Huguenots and the forces of the French Catholic League. The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre marked the turning point in this war. Survivors regrouped under Henry of Navarre who became Catholic and began the first experiment in religious toleration with his 1598 Edict of Nantes. This Edict, which granted civil and religious toleration to Protestants, was hesitantly accepted by Pope Clement VIII.
  • Condense all this into one sentence describing the European wars of religion.
    • Good luck with that; but does not work well now. Omitting St Bart's Massacre will be regarded as monstrous Papist bias by many. Who wrote this stuff? It isn't the old text. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • It can be condensed, but I very much doubt into one sentence. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Richard's proposed cut and I doubt it will be controversial. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Church growth in Japan came to a halt in 1597 under the Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu who, in an effort to isolate the country from foreign influences, launched a severe persecution of Christians or Kirishitan's. An underground minority Christian population survived throughout this period of persecution and enforced isolation which was eventually lifted in the 19th century. The Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in China in 1721.
  • Eh, I'd be inclined to keep this section although the bit about the "Chinese Rites controversy" seems like excessive detail as does the naming of Tokugawa Iemitsu. It's not important at this level to know who banned Christianity from Japan. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pretty much agree; again, you need the links to judge this. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I can go along with this. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • NO! Oh my gosh you guys - the Chinese Rites controversy is an extremely important - huge part of the history of the Church in China as well as Jesuit history. How can we have an article discussing Church history and not include this? Its like failing to mention the Reformation. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• When Pope Pius VI sided against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy and imprisoned Pius who died after six weeks of captivity. Napoleon later re-established the Catholic Church in France through the Concordat of 1801. The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy due in part to his "heroic stand against the tyrant". The papal states were returned, and the Church was "liberated" from its servile ties to European kings thus freeing the Church to return to its "true spiritual mission."
  • Too much detail and, frankly, I wonder if this is the mainstream perspective on the Church's position in 19th century Europe. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • In fact it pretty much is, but phrased in a POV manner - many political entanglements with states were removed by the Revolutionary period, though the Jus exclusivae and Crown-cardinals lingered on for a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Again this could be carefully cut by about half. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Important to mention all these facts, not sure how to make it more concise. BTW, it is the mainstream view Richard. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• In China, despite Jesuit efforts to find compromise, the Chinese Rites controversy led the Kangxi Emperor to outlaw Christian missions in 1721. These events added fuel to growing criticism of the Jesuits, who were seen to symbolize the independent power of the Church, and in 1773 European rulers united to force Pope Clement XIV to dissolve the order. The Jesuits were eventually restored in the 1814 papal bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum.
  • First of all, we've already mentioned the "Chinese Rites controversy" earlier. Mention it only once if at all. Also, I don't really think that the Chinese Rites controversy was the driving force behind the suppression of the Jesuits and yet that's what the text seems to imply. In the greater scheme of things, I'm not sure the suppression and restoration of the Society of Jesus is that important to mention in this article. I certainly don't think we need to name the bull which restored it. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It just needs one sentence not all of this. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Trim a bit, but the suppression & restoration of Jesuits need to be in, with the links piped. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Agree with Johnbod. Xandar
        • Agree with Xandar and Johnbod. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Cluniac reform of monasteries that had begun in 910 sparked widespread monastic growth and renewal. Monasteries introduced new technologies and crops, fostered the creation and preservation of literature and promoted economic growth. Monasteries, convents and cathedrals still operated virtually all schools and libraries. Despite a church ban on the practice of usury the larger abbeys functioned as sources for economic credit. The 11th and 12th century saw internal efforts to reform the church. The college of cardinals in 1059 was created to free papal elections from interference by Emperor and nobility. Lay investiture of bishops, a source of rulers' dominance over the Church, was attacked by reformers and under Pope Gregory VII, erupted into the Investiture Controversy between Pope and Emperor. The matter was eventually settled with the Concordat of Worms in 1122 where it was agreed that bishops would be selected in accordance with Church law.
  • I'm inclined to keep this although I think there are too many "trees" identified and not enough description of the "forest". I think the real issue is to assert that the Catholic Church was responsible for much of the culture and civilization of the medieval period. Much of the text in the above paragraph is providing evidentiary support for that assertion. --Richard S (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This is on the "keep but trim list". It is just too long as is now, if it is reduced people may actually read it. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd keep all these points. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
        • The sentences I've highlighted in italic could be shortened radically. Xandar 00:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Richard that its too many tree and not enough forest. I am ok with a reword to help correct this as long as we keep the most notable links. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

If you are going to quote passages like this, it is important to quote with the links. Half the point of summary style text is the links it provides to fuller articles. Some of these passages are rich in useful links, & others not. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. NancyHeise 04:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, would you like to provide a list of paragraphs to be fired? When downsizing starts no one wants to fire people, but unfortunately if nothing goes, there will be no downsizing. So a list must be made. I started one, but I was "learning" Church history as I selected the paragraphs, someone with more histo-knowledge needs to continue this trend,, then the section will get reduced, else there will be general discussion until 3 more popes get elected. History2007 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that 3 people, Richard, John and Xandar have commented, my suggestion would be to delete or shorten anything that 2 out of the 3 agree on. If there is a 4th or 5th comment we can adjust the votes accordingly. I should not do the trimming because I know less about the history than most people, so whoever wants to do it, please do so whenever the lock expires, then we can make another list of candidates until no one agrees on further deletion. The strategy can work. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the obvious items such as LA&SF etc. whose deletion seemed in general agreement, but I do not want to shrink paragraphs since I do not know the history well enough and will probably introduce inaccuracies. So I suggest that someone else should do that now to reduce size. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable Controversies

The article was recently trimmed in some areas in an effort to make it shorter. Although there are several FA's that are longer than this proposed article and there are other areas of this article that could be reworded more concisely, the trimmed areas included the most controversial elements such as World War II and the sexual abuse crisis. These trims eliminated key information related to the controversies that provided Reader with context - an FA criteria. I am not in favor of these trims and would like to see these areas discussed again. NancyHeise 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, you are radically misrepresenting the purpose of the trimming. It was not as you claim to make the page shorter (we only cut a few sentences from what is still a very long page) but to achieve a NPOV in the sections concerned. It seems to me you want to restore a pro-Catholic POV to them, something that will lead to more edit-warring, blocking and page protection, not I would suggest the best way of achieving your stated aim of FA status. Haldraper (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion below. I welcome improvements, I am not stuck on one wording. I do not support omission of basic facts that exist in every other encyclopedia on the subject and in all scholarly works and university textbooks. We have a story to tell Reader and right now the trimmed text fails to do this. FA criteria requires coverage of notable controversies and providing Reader with context. I would like the article to meet these criteria instead of skipping them. NancyHeise 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Here's the World War II paragraph before the trim:

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms. Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority. Pius XII, elected pope in March,1939, sought to prevent war by intervening with the leaders of European countries. After the war began in September 1939, he "sought to limit the extension of the conflict, to assist its victims, and to reach a just peace". Pius XII's October 1939 encyclical Summi Pontificatus condemned the invasion of Poland. He condemned the 1940 Nazi invasions. When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded by increasing deportations, rounding up 92 Catholic converts including Edith Stein, who were then deported and murdered. According to some scholars, "the brutality of the retaliation made an enormous impression on Pius XII" who felt that further denunciations would only lead the Nazis to extend their persecution to more people. When allied governments pressed the Pope to strengthen his condemnations, he feared that such action would be counterproductive and only provoke further persecutions. In Poland alone, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests and even more were imprisoned. After the war, Pius XII's efforts to protect their people were recognised by prominent Jews including Albert Einstein and Rabbi Isaac Herzog. However, the Church has also been accused by some of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities. Prominent members of the Jewish community have contradicted these criticisms. The Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide interviewed war survivors and concluded that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands". Some historians dispute this estimate while others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust. Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall.

Here's the section afterward

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms. Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority. After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions. During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps. In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis. However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities. Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.

I think that new World War II section eliminates a lot of important information that should have been kept rather than tossed. I think it slants very anti-Catholic POV and I can not support this article for FA with such a poor representation of such a notable controversy. NancyHeise 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us Nancy, where does this section have anything like a "very anti-Catholic POV" as you claim? I honestly think it's in your head and that it would never strike a general reader as such. Let's go it through it sentence by sentence:

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.

Statement of fact: NPOV

Violations of this led to Pope Pius XI issuing the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which publicly condemned Nazi persecution of the Church, neopaganism and the culture of racial superiority.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis.

To the Church's credit: pro-Catholic POV.

However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.

Statement of fact: NPOV

Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.

Statement of fact: NPOV

I know you want more pro-Catholic POV, that does not make the current section anti-Catholic. Haldraper (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the statements you list as NPOV are actually negative comments. And many of the statements listed as "pro-catholic" are statements of fact. So the list above is a trifle skewed. Xandar 01:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, we want to tell Reader the story. It is not a pro-Catholic pov to tell them the story as it is relayed by the scholars. However, it is anti-Catholic pov to omit the most significant facts that tell Reader what the Church actually did during the war. The recent trim tells them nothing. It doesn't even tell them enough about the controversy but barly mentions that there is one. This does not meet FA criteria and in fact leaves Reader with an insufficient article text.NancyHeise 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Xandar, let's go through the sentences that I tagged as NPOV that you say are 'negative' - I assume you mean have an anti-Catholic POV - and see if we can identify it.

On 20 July 1933, the Vatican signed an agreement with Germany, the Reichskonkordat, which guaranteed the Church certain rights and freedoms.

I would argue this is a historical fact: surely you don't dispute that? It doesn't place any judgement on that fact, either condemning or excusing the Church's action because we cut out all that background (arrests of priests in Bavaria, negotiations under the Weimar republic, Catholic schools and the Zentrumspartei voting for the Enabling Act) to get a sentence that is neither pro or anti-Catholic but NPOV.

• The concordat is a fact, but, as you will know, the very selection and mentioning facts can be POV. Even more so, if it is done without proper context. So, if the article says the Church signed a concordat with Nazi Germany, why is this being mentioned? The article doesn't mention other concordats such as that with Argentina. Mention of this one alone can therefore imply to the average reader that the Church had some special relationship with Nazi Germany. That's why I would list it as a negative statement rather than neutral. Xandar 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the Church has also been accused of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.

This is here to balance the previous sentence about Pius' efforts to protect the Jews in WWII. Again it is a fact that these criticisms have been made by a numerous academics and journalists. What do you propose, that we don't mention them at all?

• Not at all. What I was saying that this was not a neutral, as you had listed it, but a negative statement. Xandar 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Debate over the validity of these criticisms continues to this day.

This if anything is pro-Catholic as it casts doubt on the preceding statement but on its own is I think a fairly NPOV way of tying up the issue.

Nancy, I dispute your assertion that the section tells the reader nothing about "what the Church actually did during the war". It tells them:

After the Second World War began in September 1939, the Church condemned the invasion of Poland and subsequent 1940 Nazi invasions.

During the war, several thousand Catholic clergy were imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.

In the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII directed the Church hierarchy to help protect Jews from the Nazis.

I know "you want to tell Reader the story" of the glorious Catholic Church "as it is relayed by scholars." Misplaced Pages I'm afraid is not the place for that. Haldraper (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just scanning the lead up to WWII , the treatment of the Spanish Civil War and the lamentable pro-fascist stance of many Catholics, (all it says is some clergy were killed - well so was Lorca, so were many republicans, Simone Weil one of the most admirable beautiful souls who ever lived was on the anarchist not the catholic/fascist side..switching countries, in fact that whole anti-dreyfus, anti-leftist, La Croix Action Française anti-semitic tinged style, a lot of clergy supported this way of thinking, the ideological thought-world for the triumph of the far-right was far from always being attacked by Catholicism Sayerslle (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

" Soon the alliance between sword and altar was re-created..because the Nationalists lacked intellectuals of any stature the clergy filled that role for Franco..The Bishops of Pamplona and Zaragoza and the Archbishop of Santiago already used the terms 'crusade' and 'Gods war' to characterise the rebel cause..The Bishop of Salamnca graciously offered Franco his palace in which to establish the Nationalist HQ..Francisco Francos victories were celebrated with Te Deums..etc etc.." Francisco Salvado Palgrave Macmillan The Spanish Civil War.. Sayerslle (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sayerslle, like many, you are not considering these matters in adequate context. Anti-leftism in France has a lot to do with the French revolution persecutions and the later anti-clericalism of the 1900 left. So "Blaming" the Church for being largely anti-left is a little like blaming someone who is being mugged of being anti-mugger. There is the old adage that it takes two to make a fight.

This bubbles over into Spain where the vicious anti-clericalism of Anarchists and Communists on the left led to the killings of (not just "some clergy" but) nearly 7,000 priests, monks and nuns! The even larger-scale activities of similar groups in Russia principally against the Orthodox Church, shows that this was not an isolated phenomenon, but part of the ideology of these groups. If one of the policies of your faction is slaughtering priests and burning down churches, then don't be surprised if some in the Church support your enemies. Xandar 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

adequate context is exactly what is missing from the red terror bit of the spanish civil war in the history section. if the clergy were on the side of the Nazis dropping bombs on Guernica that's bad isnt it? When you say 'theres an old adage ' etc what do you expect etc?, again thats sheer worldly thinking, it shows Jesus wasted his breath when he said turn the other cheek, love your enemy etc..The clergy in Spain had no business siding with fascism and Nazism full stop. If theyd have followed what Jesus said then the anarchists would have had no reason to hate them. Sayerslle (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. Haldraper, the World War II paragraph omits the fact that all scholarly books tell us that the Church and Pope Pius XII in particular were hailed as heros of World War II for their efforts to work against the Nazi's and communists and help Jews escape. The "debate" only emerged after a fictional play called "The Deputy" which is widely believed to have been the work of communist propaganda. We can link to the "debate" after we tell reader the facts of how the Church and Pius were recognized for their efforts during the war. I think that the work of Pinchas Lapide should be mentioned in the article because his work is hailed as the definitive work by a Jewish scholar on the subject. We had wording and refs that included this important fact and I think it is very POV to exclude this. NancyHeise 01:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I call BS on the assertion that "all scholarly books tell us that the Church and Pope Pius XII in particular were hailed as heros of World War II for their efforts to work against the Nazi's and communists and help Jews escape." Perhaps the ones you read have said so, but, as I and others have stated repeatedly, the selection of books used in the history section is not ideal. There are scholars who think Pius was not a hero of World War II. There is controversy about this, and we can't pretend there isn't just because we don't agree with some of the conclusions. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexual abuse crisis

Likewise, the paragraph covering the sexual abuse crisis used provide Reader with some context. Here's the old paragraph

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 vast 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. 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. Some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. Pope John Paul II declared that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young". Some commentators have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that similar problems affect other institutions with much greater frequency, a point also made in a September 2009 speech by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi. 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".

Here's the new paragraph

Since the end of the twentieth century, sex abuse by Catholic clergy has been the subject of media coverage, legal action, and public debate in Australia, Ireland, the United States, Canada and other countries.

The new paragraph gives Reader zero information about a notable criticism. It never tells Reader what reforms the Church took to prevent future abuse, how many priests were accused and how this abuse compares to other similar institutions - all omissions that make it slant anti-Catholic POV. I support a trim to these areas but I do not support the present trim that eliminates so many important facts. I think it violates FAC criteria and makes the article violate WP:NPOV. NancyHeise 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this article was going to go on a diet. Now it was just handed a large box of doughnuts. The idea about downsizing is that something has to go, and usually when downsizing takes place there is a "hiring freeze". People will always argue that we need more staff here, there, etc. but the hiring freeze is essential when downsizing takes place. I have no personal views about these two topics, but do feel that regardless of the cravings for doughnuts of any type they should be resisted right now. History2007 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Nancy all the extra material you want to add is pro-Catholic apolegetics, deflecting, minimising and denying the extent of the problem. Again, I dispute your assertion that omissions of your pro--Catholic POV gives the current section an "anti-Catholic POV", it is simply a NPOV statement of fact. I would also be more inclined to take seriously your claim to be adhering to FA/NPOV in this area if you were also proposing to expand it to include such notable aspects of the issue as the Irish Ferns/Ryan reports, bishops meetings, Pope's letter etc. Haldraper (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Haldraper I think whether the doughnuts were made by a Catholic or Protestant is beside the point, given that they should not be consumed at all at this point in the article diet, given that there is "clear consensus" that this article is overweight. So that discussion will just lengthen the debate, and the fact that additional material is not a good idea in the middle of an overall trim should be the main reason for NOT doing any of this expansion at all. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed History, I just wanted to set the record straight as to why they were trimmed in the first place and respond to Nancy's continuing and rather ludicrous claims of "anti-Catholic POV" on this page. Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually at this point, since the lock has come off, given that 4 people have given ideas on the histo-section trim above, you could be the 5th vote and just trim whatever 2 of the 4 agreed on. That will start the trim based on a 5 way agreement anyway. I will hereby be the 6th vote for whatever gets trimmed because to repeat the obvious: there is consensus that this article is overweight. The BEST way will be to start by just deleting all those sentences that everyone agreed were not needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Three of five is not consensus to remove referenced material. The article may be overweight and benefit from trimming, but important matter should not be removed without agreement. We need to proceed on as full a consensus as possible, rather than launch into pointless disputes. Xandar 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record - I like doughnuts. I also think it is unreasonable to trim the most notable contoversies almost completely out of the history section when FA criteria ask us to cover these as well as to provide Reader with context. The current trim does not meet these standards. If you were to take a look at any other encyclopedia's article on the Catholic Church you would see that this subject warrants a longer article. We are allowed to use tertiary sources like these to help us create a basic outline for our articles as well as to discover where scholarly consensus resides on certain issues. I have participated in almost every effort to trim this article. We trim it and go to FA where a multitude of editors then ask us to include more, not less information. This has happened four times over several years now. NancyHeise 03:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, your arguments suffer from WP:Recentism. Neither the sex abuse scandal nor WWII are anywhere close to "the most notable controversies" of the history of the Catholic Church. What about the Great Schism? The Reformation/Counter-Reformation? The dual popes? We need to gain some perspective here - the history needs to cover 2000 years, not just the last 60. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

I have filed an arbitration request for this article at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church. If you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

I am also unsure if I included all the appropriate parties. Please add any if you think that I overlooked someone. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics