Talk:Catholicity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

In discussing rites, you may wish to add that the Visigothic rite is still celebrated in a very few places, including a chapel in the cathedral at Toledo. - montréalais

Questioning the accuracy here. The partriarch of Rome was not supreme in the early Church, and simply never 7managed to assert his authority over the east. The split in churches came about mainly because the pope did not recognise the supremacy of the emperor in ecclesiastical matters, and so should be more attributed to the west than the east, although for the most part it was just a reflection of the differences that had developed between the two areas. On this note, on Christianity it lists the orthodox church as a sort of catholicism - we should probably adopt either separating or grouping them conistently to avoid confusion.

I hope the text reflects your objection now.

I deleted this text someone added because it is incorrect and poorly written:

While number of members seems impresive at first, it has to be considered that it includes everyone who was christen as a newborn baby. Actual number of members is not bigger (probably less) than half of the claimed number. Catholicism is also certainly not an oldest branch. It's roots are in early medieval times (some Asian churches are much older), and the most important dogmas differentiating Catholicism from other branches of Christianity, like Pope's supremacy over general council of bishops, and Assuption of Mary were passed in XIX and XX centuries.

The author that added this also deleted claims of Catholicism being oldest and largest branch; I think it is the largest and one of the oldest (though I would Eastern Orthodoxy are equally old); but I haven't put that back in because maybe it is incorrect -- Simon J Kissane

Thanks, Simon. You just provided a good example of how Wikipedia ought to work - general consensus prevails over particularist takes on the world.

We're never going to get a paragraph that satisfies the Great Schism question. They are equally old. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are at base the same thing (I know, I know, I'm simplifying the problem). They are broken apart from each other, and the partisans of each side prefer to blame the other and/or declare that the other is completely invalid and that their section is the TRUE Church. The current Pope, JP II, who has a lifetime of contact with the Russian Orthodox and the Eastern Rite Catholics to draw on, refers to the Catholic and the Orthodox as the "two lungs" of the Church, implying that he recognizes equality or co-dependence or his willingness to talk or something. He hasn't been taken up on the offer very seriously. 

 --MichaelTinkler

Urgent: someone has apparently vandalized the text on Extreme Unction in the paragraph that begins "The practice of Catholic Church consists of seven sacraments..." I don't know the correct text here and am unable to restore. (27 September 2001)

Did the Eastern rite churches ever use Latin? This is not clear from the text. ---rmhermen

Isn't this a gross oversimplification? Protestants believe that salvation is by faith alone, while Catholics believe that salvation is by faith and works.

It's a gross simplification of both positions. The two groups are much closer to each other on this issue than they once thought, and such a simplification masks a lot of diversity on the Protestant side on this issue. User:ClaudeMuncey

About celibacy: The NCRegister at http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/060602cel.htm contains this, in part,

But celibacy goes all the way back to Jesus and the early bishops, like Paul, Timothy and Titus. The argument that celibacy was imposed in the Middle Ages to prevent Church property from being handed down to priests' sons is "invalid," said Father Thomas McGovern, author of "Priestly Celibacy Today." (See text of the full interview by clicking here.) From early on in the Church's history, the married men who sought ordination were required to commit to perpetual continence for the rest of their lives, a requirement that was codified in the early 300s, he said.

What doe strhe year 1066 have to do with the celibate priesthood? From article: "can only normally be occupied by unmarried men, since too much power was being amassed by families of churchmen prior to 1066." --rmhermen

I don't believe it has anything to do with it; the West had celibate priests from early on; probably from the 300s as the NCRegister article says. The East had married priests and deacons from early on, as is still reflected in Eastern rite Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm changing the text to reflect this. Wesley

Regarding the reason it's called the Roman Catholic Church in the opening paragraph: saying it's called Roman because it follows the Roman or Latin Rite would imply that the other rites are not Roman Catholic. As an Eastern Orthodox believer, I would lump all of the rites under the heading Roman Catholic because even the eastern rite patriarchs are still under the Bishop of Rome, Pope John Paul II. I think it's an important qualifier that reflects the history and acknowledges the continuing schism. As Michael Tinkler pointed out earlier on this page, Roman Catholics also claim to be orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox also claim to be catholic, when you get down to what those words mean. In any case, perhaps both the rite and the focus on the bishop of Rome should be mentioned in explaining the name, with attribution, etc. Wesley 18:29 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Shouldn't most of this material be on a separate page for Roman Catholicism, which currently redirects here? Most of it seems to be talking about the Roman Church and goes on to assume that the institution whose head is the Pope is synonymous with "Catholic Church." Most Western Christians believe in one way or another in the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed, which speak of a holy catholic and apostolic Church; "catholic" here simply means "universal," and many Christians do not take them as referring to the Pope and his sect. ---Ihcoyc

I understand the point you're making. If the material here were moved to Roman Catholicism, what would be left on this page? Wouldn't anything left belong on the Christianity page instead? It seems that the only net difference would be that the article would move to Roman Catholicism, and the Catholicism article would redirect there instead of vice versa. Is this what you envision? Wesley
I'd put here a brief article that mentions the several creeds, and discuss the various meanings of "Catholic." I'd keep the bit at the beginning here about the various churches that explicitly define themselves as Catholic or have the word in their self-designations. Perhaps the parts about the non-Roman Rite churches who acknowledge the Pope as their head should stay here also. Then, there should be a cross-reference to the new "Roman Catholic," where the bulk of this material seems to belong.
Sorry I haven't looked at this in so long. That actually sounds like a reasonable proposal. Anyone else have an opinion? Wesley 16:08 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. - Cafemusique 00:38 25 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the relevance of this passage near the very end of the article (under "History of the Catholic Church"):

An interesting period in Renaissance Europe was the Catholic crusade against the imagination. In short, the religious proscription against imagery (except of specifically worshipful religious nature) was extended to include images that one merely imagined in the mind's eye.

Giordano Bruno most famously fell afoul of this crusade.

Perhaps as part of a broader section on, say, the Renaissance Church this would be worthwhile, but having it dangling as an isolated chunk tacked on the end of the article is rather jarring.

I won't delete it myself, but would urge the main contributors to consider either removing it or expanding it. ---Varenius

These titles have certain practical and spiritual authority associated with them, but the Roman Catholic Church considers really three levels of order, Pope, Bishop, and Priests. It is part of Catholic doctrine that each Bishop has a basic independance from each other and all authority except the Pope. This seems to be changing since Vatican II.

The Eastern Catholic rites were the rites retained by those who did not leave the Catholic Church during the break in the 11th century.

I removed these section since they are inaccurate: Eastern-rite bishops are appointted by the Patriarch of the rite, not the Pope; the Eastern rites entered into communion with Rome centuries after the great schism. Efghij

I find it concerning that this text does not mention any of the following:

  • celibacy
  • Opus Dei and similar Catholic-run sects and the various financial and political scandals Catholicism has been involved in, including its historical support for the Nazi regime and its participation in the Rwanda genocide

Isn't it a bit striking that the article is so utterly devoid of links to any potentially negatively perceived facts? But then again, the Vatican seems to be of no importance to Catholicism either, since it is not even mentioned in the article. Saints appear to not exist. And how did the See also end up under "External links"?

Please, this article needs a lot of work. I have put it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. --Eloquence 23:50 24 May 2003 (UTC)

I find it concerning that "Eloquence" says she finds it all so "concerning". P.s. - this is not a witchhunt: I too tremble at the thought of lecherous priests charging about and belching fire, as they conduct grand inquisitions into who is thinking what. But then I wake up and remember it was all just romance - pretending things were bad, so that I could have the satisfaction of thinking I might make them better. Good for me - am I not great? Signed: your local Protestant/Atheist/Socialist/European.

(The earthly, institutional church is sometimes called the "visible" Church, to stress its unity with the departed faithful, the invisible Church; Roman Catholics do not consider departed faithful the "invisible" Church, but rather those who are saved via "baptism of desire").

This parenthesis doesn't line up with anything I've understood. The distinction between "visible" and "invisible" church is Protestant terminology, inherited from Wyclif and Hus, referring to the difference between the baptized elect and all of the baptized. In the Roman Catholic Church, the church on earth is called "the church militant", and the departed are called "the church suffering" (souls in purgatory), and "the church triumphant" (souls at rest). Mkmcconn 23:48 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)~ 

=== Social Degredation ===
Although the idea of the Catholic church can be well commended in it's moral fortitude of the family and the love of life for which it upholds, unfortunately, there are things about the catholic church which have embarrased it in the past causing the slow decline of the church. Such things include the different classes of catholocism. Different groups of this religion have found themselves competing against each other, castigating the group that has lesser dedication and rules that are not as strict. This internal conflict has cause the divergence of the ideals of this religion and therefor, the degredation of its once powerful unity.
On another subject, the Catholic church has been known to have sexual offenders as it's heads, offending and molesting children who know not of this manipulation. It has been estimated by the U.S. government that 1 in 10, or 10% of popes have molested a child in this manner. This statistic comes from evidence that has been acquired, it does not include those cases that were never revealed.

The first paragraph needs to be tightened up. It's unclear what is being said. Apparently, some personal familiarity with what it's like to be a Catholic is required to understand what it's referring to, because I do not understand it. The second paragraph does not fit any information I have ever heard. Perhaps it's referring to the percentage of priests, rather than "popes"? There is a page on the pedophile scandals, perhaps this information if it can be supported, should go there? Mkmcconn 04:55 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The first paragraph is POV. The second paragraph is complete fiction, with made up 'facts', made up statistics and is complete cobblers. FearÉIREANN 06:39 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You mean you don't believe there's an official U.S. estimate of the percentage of popes who have molested children? You're so skeptical! <g> -- Someone else 06:53 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
How do you know that this information isn't correct? Why don't you ask the author for their source instead of acting stupid and emotional and making assumptions? MB 15:35 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I am sorry you find me stupid. You'll have to take my word that the only emotion that the notion of the US estimating papal pedophilia percentage arouses in me is amusement. I didn't ask the author for a source because there is self-evidently no such statistic. Even if historical records existed from which a meaningful statistic might be produced (they don't), the US would have no reason to publish it, as it has no jurisdiction over popes, alive or dead, and no interest in generating controversy for controversy's sake. -- Someone else 01:23 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

According to studies the percentage of clergy who are pædophiles is 0.78% not "one in ten" (source: academic conference on pædophilia and the clergy reported in The Irish Times(not credible). That is 0.78% with pædophile tendencies. Many with such tendencies do not act of them. Statistically the claim that 10% of popes abused children is like saying that 10% of wikipedia users are pædophile. It is propagandist nonsense bordering on defamation. Even if 0.78% of popes were paedophilic which no-one believes, the nature of their job is such that they are based fulltime in a territory full of men, with no wives or girlfriends and no children. Their only contact with children is at public events where anything they did would be witnessed. Other than that, they spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week in an extremely restricted environment, where 95% of the people they come in contact with are men over the age of fifty (priests), and the other 5% are elderly nuns who run their household, and zero children.

And the Vatican is such a gossipy environment that everything they do is known. As popes themselves have said, there is no privacy to do anything, even if by some miracle they actually managed to come in contact with a child. Even their bedrooms aren't private, with security in the corridor, household staff popping in or out at any time, as well as aides. Pope Paul VI, who had had a homosexual relationship in his youth (though in 1967 as pope he denied being gay), commented that he would have had more privacy if he moved his bed out to the centre of St. Peter's Square, than he had in his private apartment, while so many people were in and out when Pius XII was dying that a quack doctor managed to get to the pope with a camera and photograph the dying pope; he then tried to sell pictures of the dying pope to the 1950s version of the gutter press. (They however found the pictures distasteful and refused to take them, just as newspapers have refused to run pictures of the dying Princess Diana, which were also taken.)

The first paragraph is highly POV, partly factually incorrect and suggests that the person who wrote it has an extremely limited experience based largely on inaccurate sources.

BTW, just in case you are curious, people very close to me were abused by Roman Catholic priests, so I am not in any sense an apologist for the raping of children by clergy. As a gay man I have also had direct experience of the homophobia of Catholicism so it is not exactly my favourite institution. I have been criticised for writing highly critical newspaper articles about Roman Catholism. But there is such a thing as fair criticism, which Roman Catholicism rightly deserves, and bullshit, which the above paragraphs are. Wikipedia as an encyclopædia has to publish facts, not bigoted propaganda, whether it is bigoted propaganda for or against catholicism. The two paragraphs in question are paranoid ignorant bullshit. FearÉIREANN 18:40 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It may also have been written by a web-savvy child, trying to make sense of things; in which case, milder instruction might be effective. Mkmcconn 01:07 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wrote those 2 paragraphs, I am 21 years old, my IQ is 178. I am impartial and have read all of your remarks. At first I wrote the 2 articles with no proof. Then, per request, I added some factual links for proof. Although I got the 10% statistic from watching dateline, I could not reproduce it in a form that could be confirmed online, so I have removed the percentages, but the rest has stayed. The entire point of this forum is for society to mix factual information with unwanted truth. What I am saying is that this is not an encyclopedia for 5 year olds. This is a forum for people of all ages in every country to learn the truth good == AND == bad. Notice how I respected the article and placed these truthful and degrading comments at the bottom of the article, so not to improperly inflence ones view of the church. If people are to learn of the church, they must also learn of its corruption. I am allowing the ignorant to learn from the truth. If you have any problems with this please understand that I will take your comments with just as much weight as those that would support the tarnishing of the church. Lies and corruption have no place in our new society, so let it go. If you think that by hiding other people's viewpoints you're purifying your religion, then think again. The truth will always show through and god hates the dishonest!Nostrum 02:10 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's unclear whether Nostrum understands how to read his Talk page, so I'm posting here too:
Hi Nostrum, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your highly POV edits to Catholicism - they are rambling, with poor grammar & spelling, and just not Wikipedia caliber. It's clear you are on some anti-Catholic kick; there are other places on the net to vent yourself - not here. Since you insist on revelling in the so-called "sex-abuse scandal", you may consider working on the article Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal. Harris7 02:15 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can say what I want. There is no standard to posting information. This program isn't about company policy, it's about freedom of expression, with the limit that the expressed ideas must have a factual standing. So rethink what you say. And if you are angry, then I forgive you child. Jesus would. Oh, and the reason I place this in the catholic file is because I want people to know of every possibility when it comes to searching on information on that subject. Many may not know of such a scandal and therefor won't search for Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal. Thank you child.Nostrum 02:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. And you need to start signing your posts on talk pages. - Hephaestos 02:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article still completely lacks a critical history of catholicism. It's ridiculous to discuss current scandals when the past crimes of the church are only mentioned as "See alsos". --Eloquence 03:30 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you believe that the history is lacking then you are welcome to fill it in. If you don't know what to say, you might as well state the obvious, after all, the catholic church doesn't care. If you disagree then you already have lost your NPOV. Nostrum

Many thanks to User:Efghij who made a good first try at incorporating the issues of Nostrum, but done in a fair, balanced and NPOV way. It would be quite odd to have an entry on Catholicism and not mention the recent scandals and crises, but it must be done in a manner that respects the Wikipedia spirit and community. - Voiceofreason

Nostrum's most recent edits have been NPOV. They are statement of facts. All you and Efghi did was remove information that had links to back it up (on any other article those links would not be needed!). Also, the account Voiceofreason was only created during this edit war. I suspect it was made by someone who was involved whom whished to appear neutral while actually removing valid content. I hope that you and others whom have been removing content can edit the wording, rather than just removing what you don't like and blaming it on poor wording. MB 03:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The "Catholic Clashes" section is barely coherent. It appers to be about the protestant reformation, which has a brief mention and a link to an extensive article in the preceding paragraph. The "Homosexual Abuse in Catholicism" is less POV than the original and has some good information, but it is the kind of detail that should be in the Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal article, not here. - Efghij 03:54 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well if you think that you know more about Catholic Clashes than Nostrum, please revise (this doesn't not mean remove). As for the Homosexual Abuse in Catholicism, it is hardly anything in the scope of the entire article. If you wish to summarize (this does not mean delete) than please do. MB 03:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just changed the additions I wrote and I also added comments for the opposite side of the argument. I hope this makes it more NPOV, if you have any more ideas please tell me. Thank you. Nostrum 04:02 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've added in a section at the bottom about the issue of sexual abuse by clerics. MB's strange comment to Efghij if you think that you know more about Catholic Clashes than Nostrum there probably no-one on wiki who knows less on Catholicism than Nostum. His mis-representation of facts would make even anti-catholic preachers like Ian Paisley cringe. He doesn't know anything about catholicism, doesn't know context, history, what NPOV means, etc. That sort of rubbish belongs in the National Enquirer not an encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 04:08 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Am heartened by Nostrum's attempt at NPOV and cooperation, which should be commended. But alas some things grammar won't fix. As for me, I have never edited anything in the Catholicism section before. I am, however, attempting to be a good Wikipedian by using an ID, and not an IP. - Voiceofreason

He is trying but it is still miles away from anything remotely acceptable in any encyclopædia. His facts are wrong. His language is impossible to decipher. He insists on putting the text in the wrong part of the article. He is using a heading that equates homosexuality with paedophilia which is an outrageous and disgraceful slur. He knows a slight bit of facts, has mixed in with a strong personal agenda and expresses it in a way that would be acceptable on any page in wikipedia. He wrote an entire article like that it would go straight to the Votes for Deletion page. Some sysops would delete it straight away because it would look like a joke article. That sort of amendment, in that unreadable version of english, would not be accepted for one minute on any serious article on wiki anywhere. FearÉIREANN 05:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I tried to move the section below to here but my system crashed so I lost it and had to shut down the computer and reboot. Thanks for placing it here Oliver. I was about to try to go back through the archives to try to get it again.

The following is text recently removed by Jtdirl[1] that he apparently intended to move here (edit comment: "moved incoherent garbage to talk page"). -- Oliver P. 04:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Catholic Clashes

Recently,(recently??? It has been happening for 2000 years!) it is believed that the different sects of Christianity have been competing against each other. Many people in such competition claim they castigate the group that has lesser dedication and rules, rules that are not as strict as the ladder. (Rules that are not as strict as the ladder? What does that mean in english?) Many believe this internal conflict has caused the divergence of the ideals of Christianity and subsequently, the degradation of its once powerful unity. (Christianity has been divided for 2000 years. What once powerful unity?) This degradation could be supported through the change of the puritan ways, as seen in the history of America. (which means in english?) One could look at the branching and creation of different ideals such as Christianity, New Born Christians, Mormon, and so on. These divergences in the religion have support the belief that Christianity has divided into a group of sects.[2] Although these different groups of Catholicism (Mormans aren't Catholic. By New Born Christians I presume he means BORN AGAIN christians. Call a born again christian a catholic and they'd hit you. That's like calling an Israeli an Arab!) exist, due to the heavy moral nature of these religions, one must entertain the possibility that this separation is a mere personal choice. (Ever heard of theology, doctrine, liturgical beliefs, etc etc?) This could also mean that these religions are really not in conflict, but are simply exploring other interpretations of faith.

Homosexual Abuse in Catholicism

Homosexuality is NOT the same as Paedophilia. This heading is offensive, outrageous and grossly POV)

There is much evidence to show the Catholic church has had sexual offenders as it's heads. Some believe this is so because the catholic church paid $4 million dollars to 4 families during a trial regarding the molestation of 4 children.[3] Many would describe this as evidence toward abuse in the church although the fact that these families ceased their lawsuits could also be interpreted as adding falsehood toward their argument. (Try rewriting this paragraph in english.)

The higher percentages of molestation were reported in places like the Boston Archdiocese (where the New York Times reports 5.3 per cent accused) or Manchester, New Hampshire (where the New York Times says that 7.7 per cent were accused). ( 5.3% of what? Secular priests, religious priests, ordained clerics, those still in the ministry, including or excluding paedophiles kicked out of the priesthood? [4] [5]

Recently people that have a(ccused the church of such molestation have reached settlements with the Church out of court. There have been an estimated 1,400 sexual abuse lawsuits launched against priests since 1985. (where? US? North America? The world?) In 1997 a jury awarded $120 million to victims in a sex abuse case against the Catholic Diocese of Dallas, which finally agreed to a $30 million settlement. The diocese declared bankruptcy and closed many of its agencies and schools. Current settlements in the Boston suits could reach up to $100 million. In some cases insurance companies have played skeptical at meeting the cost of large settlements, claiming the actions were deliberate and not covered by insurance. [6] These accusations made by the insurance companies are merely speculation and claim no legal bearing.

The whole thing is incoherent, quotes facts without explaining what they mean, is littered with incoherent language, show no understanding of even the slightest element of christianity let alone catholicism. Anyone who things Mormons are catholic doesn't know the first thing about either mormons or catholics. As for New Born Christians? Nostrum clearly knows a slight bit about something to do with religion, but doesn't know the most elementary facts, let alone how to express them in an NPOV manner. There paragraphs would make an article a laughing stock if left in. FearÉIREANN 05:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jtdril is absolutely correct.

First, the content that Jtdril wants removed is irrelevant. This is an article on the nature and structure of the Church, the doctrinal basis of the Church structure; the beliefs and faith; the worship; and the practices (missions, education, orders, activities, etc.). The Catholic Church is a highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure, which should be dealt with in a sophisticated manner. Since the first century CE, Catholicism has been one of the major factors in the historical and cultural development of Western Europe, and later in the extension of European culture to other continents since the fifteenth Century. Here we have one of the most important topics that any encyclopedia can deal with and you have a few users striving to have this article degenerate into a sensational account typical of the National Enquirer. Institutional controversies among the priesthoods, orders, educational organizations go back two millennia, and some were factors contributing to the Reformation. It is inappropriate to devote so much attention to what is just the most recent and sensational controversy. In fact, I'd argue that the current sexual abuse controversy doesn't even belong in the article to begin with. It belongs in an article on the history of the Church, but in a historical context, meaning after being shortened substantially.

Second, it's hideously written and full of grammatical errors. These people, seeking to have this low-brow polemic inserted in such a crucial article, are making a mockery of Wikipedia, which is striving to be a good, scholarly source of reference.

I know that I've been warned against this, but I'd be tempted to protect this page from that garbage. -172
Congratulations to Jtdril for subjecting himself to critiquing that gibberish! I would never have had the patience to go through that rubbish and point out just the most grotesque of all the grotesque flaws, which is what Jtdril did. I know few educators who would not have discarded that trash after just having read several sentences. -172

172

I tend to agree. But the real problem is that Catholic Church is a redirect here - thus the two different but related subjects (the faith and the institution) both get mixed in one article. Even if there were an article at Catholic Church then about 80-90 percent of the "Sex abuse" text should be moved to Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal (which is about as long as the section in this article! I hate that type of duplication!). --mav 05:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, then simply rewrite Catholic Church as a kind of disambigious page, containing links to Catholicism, Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal and some other links. I guess that it partially settles the problem. wshun 05:27 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I agree the former version is much better content, the final section is the second version is simply gibberish, both version seem arbitrary in their selection of examples and assume a mostly American cultural perspective. Therefore I wouldn't be satisfied to leave that as is. I believe there should be a separate page, however I think that Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal is rather specific. The Catholic abuse issue is much broader and extends to including unlawful imprisonment, mental and physical abuses as well as sexual. It also include schools, care homes (magdalene, orphanages, asylums, seminaries) Magdalene (unwed) mothers, the mentally ill, even priests and nuns as well as children. It is predominaly power-abuse issue and shouldnt be overly confined to 'one main issue'. MartinSpamer 15I agree the former version is much better content, the final section is the second version is simply gibberish, both version seem arbitrary in their selection of examples and assume a mostly American cultural perspective. Therefore I wouldn't be satisfied to leave that as is. I believe there should be a separate page, however I think that Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal is rather specific. The Catholic abuse issue is much broader and extends to including unlawful imprisonment, mental and physical abuses as well as sexual. It also include schools, care homes (magdalene, orphanages, asylums, seminaries) Magdalene (unwed) mothers, the mentally ill, even priests and nuns as well as children. It is predominaly power-abuse issue and shouldnt be overly confined to 'one main issue'. MartinSpamer 15:02:36[GMT] 23 July 2003.

That's a good idea. (The below paragraph was written before Wshun's - I've been in edit conflicts) Maybe what we should do is put a hold on all the catholic pages for a while while we sit down and plan out an overall coherent structure to avoid what is happening with duplication, etc. Catholicism is one of those 'must do right' areas in any encyclopædia. There are probably about 20 topics that are the biggies, the ones that will attract the biggest readership. Very often how an encyclopædia is judged is whether it gets the biggies right, things like US history, the Reformation, Catholicism, Second World War, communism, etc etc. (I remember finding a monstrous error in a main article on World Book and it almost destroyed my confidence in that encyclopædia overnight.) This is one of those touchstones, which is why we may need to think through the topics and sub-topics, how we approach them, what we put and where we put it. I only but in the sex abuse bit because I thought that Nostrum believed it should be in and I couldn't even start to put some coherence on his version. But I'm all for moving it. FearÉIREANN 05:34 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree completely. Even the legitimate, well-written content on the recent sex abuse scandal should be moved to another article. This article should just cover the nature and structure of the Church. However, I don't know how easily the article can be divided between doctrine and structure, as was suggested, since the doctrinal basis of the Church structure is so important. 172

I made the changes you suggested to the article instead of deleting it, it is info, isn't it. But because the sex scandel took so much away from the feeling of the foundation of the religion, I moved it to the end, replacing the original sex scandel with new info, info that reflects your above comments, thanks guys. I think I've found a good comprimise, what do you think? Nostrum 08:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

After hearing support that this page be protected, I agreed to do it only when the garbage was restored. The page was stable for a couple of hours or more, but then it reappeared. Hence the protection. 172

Anyone watching the debate for this page can clearly see that 172 was not acting in intelligent accord. In fact, I would like everyone to input their version, if possible, of my ",garbage," that would be acceptable in the article. If you feel the need to delete it, and since we've wasted so much time, we might as well come to a comprimise. Such sacrifice, editing instead of deleting, horrible. It has even to to my attention that 172 was coherced by himself to protect the page. Clearly guidlines suggest against this, especially since 172 has a non-prominent history on this debate. We aren't here to quabble, only to help, so let's do just that. If you have a problem with the article, submit an acceptable version. I won't stop placing my text in the file until this is done, so basically, I'm forcing you to either live with my version, or get off your bum and make your own from my version. Either way this is about the freedom of information. This isn't a game, and those who feel it is are wasting their time. This is a boring encyclopedia, so wise up or ship out. Nostrum 09:28 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Many of the details in the paedophiles section are left descriptively vague with references to data on websites, if you feel the need to have a more complete reference before the web content, feel free to add information, not take away.Nostrum 09:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have a question for 172. What does that mean "reverting to last english version" ? I see only english language in that article ? Do you imply by "english version" : "proper version" ? User:Anthere

It was a reference to the numerous grammatical errors that have been pointed out in his text. 172

Here are requests from the mailing list that the page be protected:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-July/005389.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-July/005390.html

BTW, one asked for protection for someone who isn't a Christian. Well, that's me. 172

perhaps, but you should not protect it yourself if you are one reverting someone else job. That would be inappropriate. Anthere

But it would be a worse idea to protect it with irrelevant, non-encyclopedic content posted in the article.
this is totally wrong. Someone included in an edit war should not protect it. I am deeply concerned. User:Anthere
I am with Anthere here (no pun intended) MB (was it MB?) asked for someone who was (preferably) not Christian to mediate. He did not ask for any non-Christian to protect the page. He specifically noted that he himself could not protect the page, since he had taken a position on the matter, and was thus not a neutral party. The phrase "...irrelevant, non-encyclopedic content..." clearly demonstrates there is a definite neutrality deficiency here. Probably the page needs to be protected. But by someone who does not have a history of editing the page to one side or the other. And I can't do it, because I am now taking a side, by stating that the procedure followed here was at best, pathologically shoddy. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
Take a look at the history of the article. You'd see that I haven't been involved and that I'm not motivated by any POV. 172
As soon as you decide specifically which version to keep, you are motivated by something. And not neutral Ant

You seem to make a pleasant, impassioned plea for compromise and cooperation, but then you finish by saying I'm forcing you to either live with my version, or get off your bum and make your own from my version. - Voiceofreason

I have taken a couple of minutes to think it over carefully; And here is my opinion. Most editors here think Nostrum is totally wrong and should be reverted. Two options are possible : either you consider he is so bad and dangerous in what he writes that he should not be allowed to edit this page at all (then, please, add him on the list of vandals, and ask Jimbo to pronounce a ban) or you consider he has a right to contribute, and even if all of you disagree with his edits, you should try to respect him. When I was in an edit war with RK, Jules protected the page. She did so in the proper way, with no taking sides. First found, first protected. She was honest, and wanted to help the article, not one editor or the other.

What 172 just did is entirely different. He took sides, he decided which version was the proper one, he decided who was "wrong" and who was "right". He saved the version that suited him and then protected it.

Well, this is really *not* proper.

Three options

  • the page is unprotected
  • I revert to Nostrum version
  • I put the two versions

Right now, I decided to put the two versions, that will make a bad double article, but that will not be taking sides. If anyone is unhappy with this, please discuss it here before other moves. User:Anthere

Well done! And now, everybody take a chill-pill, go reread the Wikipedia:WikiLove article while doing some deep-breathing exercises... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

With regard to Catholicism, putting two versions on the page makes it 48K long, and it will be truncated if certain people edit it. Similarly the talk page is approaching 30K and will need to be archived or you will disenfranchise those with browsers that can't edit more then 32K. I think the usual thing is to revert to a version before the edit war started. Two copies of the article in one long page that only some people can edit is not a good solution. -- Someone else 12:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Someone else. They may help to find a good options.
The talk page can have part of it archived if it is above 30kb. Are you concerned by the problem ? Do you wish me to do some archiving to lower the size of it ? Is that perhaps why you did not put the comment here ?
As for the article page, I think what you suggest is not necessarily a good solution. If you revert to the situation before the edit war, you take sides, and lose perhaps some points upon which there were agreements of both parties.
Finally, the size of the article under edit war is a no issue since the page cannot be edited by either party before there is agreement on the talk page. Not editable = no problem of size. Pages over 32kb cannot be editable by anyone, but they are readable with all browsers. When there is agreement, the state of the page may be reverted to the previous best for edit one. In short, there may be arguments for not doing what I did, but I don't think the size of the page itself is one of them. Thanks for your input anyway :-)User:anthere

Look - I'm new round here, but... It seems to me that the present situation is very clear indeed. Nostrum's changes to this article (not just the currently disputed one - his entire history of changes) have been so poorly researched and poorly written that 172 simply had no real choice but to revert them. Anthere - you seem to be concerned about 172 "disrespecting" Nostrum - surely on a forum like Wikipedia one MUST make a distinction between editing or removing unacceptable guff from an article, and an affront to the original writer. Else any fool would have to be allowed to add any arbitrary misinformation to any article, and the entire project would be worthless.

No, the current problem is that people continue to remove real information, rather than doing what they should, and editing it. It really is sad, and I thank Anthere and Cimon Avaro for their level headedness in helping deal with this. Unfortunately, I don't anticipate that this will be over anytime soon. MB 12:30 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum :-) And I did not mention my opinion on the content itself. 172 has any right to revert anything he thinks is poor and non acceptable of course. Any one does have this right, better, is supposed to edit other people stuff and may remove or rewrite what is not acceptable to their pov
But, there are some rules at stack (?) here. One of these rules say no sysop should use his position as a lever over other editors when there is a disagreement over the content or the naming of an article. This is the only thing I want to insist upon here. I will not say anything over the disputed content itself. User:Anthere

First things first, as a result of this edit war, the page has some repitition of content. I will work on this sometime today. Second, just found the following data:
More than 1,000 people were likely sexually abused by clergy and other workers in the Boston Archdiocese over a period of six decades
here. I think it should be added. MB 14:49 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No it should be listed on the page about the sex scandals: Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal. This page has a mere 32 kb to discuss, in general, one of the world's biggest organizations with two thousand years of history, running countries, leading armies, founding religious orders, charities, scandals, burning heretics. And of course its modern function, liturgy, theology. You run out of space rather quickly. Rmhermen 16:08 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Upon the request of others, I have now protected the article. As a neutral third party, I think this is appropriate. I'm not even going to READ the dispute, for fear of taking sides on such a highly charged issue. Someone else will unprotect the page when it's time, I trust. --Dante Alighieri 16:03 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are you aware that the page has been protected and unprotected several times today ? I *think* that when I put the edit war heading, the page *was* protected. I am personaly wondering whether the page was protected or not when Rmhermen edited it. Also MB has indicated he would want to edit it above. I thought people - even not part of an edit war - were not supposed to edit a protected page. Was it a misunderstanding of the policy from me ? Is that page editable or not editable in the end ?
As for protecting the page, I agree with you it is appropriated. I also don't think anyone will complain now that the whole disputed content has been removed. User:Anthere
I will not add what I found above to this page, b/c I do not want to add to this edit war (I have only edited spelling and grammer and made revertions when other sys admins deleted content). What we really need here is for a comprimise to be worked out, not a couple of vocal contributors to unilaterally decide the information doesn't belong here! MB 18:43 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

First, I think that we should look back to the original purpose of the article, which was intended to deal mostly with what catholicism is, how it's tied into orthodox beliefs, and then a general introduction to structural and doctrinal differences between the main branches of Christianity that consider themselves BOTH catholic and orthodox. From there follows or should follow, links to articles on such topics as History of the Roman Catholic/ROman church, History of the Orthodox church, the Reformation, etc. It's important to distinguish between doctrine and theology (something people may want to know about discretely) and what the various institutions have done qua institution.

I am also concerned, though that the History articles remain fair. Eloquence raises a good point, in that we don't have a coherent structure for many of the abuses and sometimes atrocities committed under the auspices of the CHurch-- but neither do we really have a rooting section, so I don't feel all that bad. Too, it's important to see these things in historical context -- heresy is less a concern to people now than it was in the Middle Ages. We now condemn the idea of Crusades, and even at the time, there was debate on the subject of just wars. Context is not exculpatory, but it is necessary to understanding why people felt justified in their actions. In the case of recent scandals, I think it would work best (again, in the History section) to use verifiable numbers (criminal and civil cases filed, priests and members of the episcopal administration involved -- things that are matters of public record, that is). But it makes no sense put in spurious statistical extrapolations -- again absent of context.

IIRC, active, predatory pedophiles tend to gravitate towards positions where they can operate most safely -- it makes no sense to include statistics on Catholic priests unless we compare them to other child-care workers or members of other denominations. I am not defending anything having to do with abusing children here, but I know people who claim to have been abused by youth pastors, ministers, etc -- but few denominations have the organization and hierarchy that Rome has, and so there is less chance of the kind of organized cover-up that we've seen here in the states. But again, all this needs to be put in a fair historical article that discusses things both positive and negative.

Oh -- and BTW, I also find Nostrum's stuff unreadable and his posture amusing. Yet again, proof that measurable IQ doesn't count for much if it isn't disciplined with critical thinking and the normal rules of clear (grammatically correct) communication. Notes to Nostrum: You aren't the only "genius" on the site -- there are lots of whopping IQs running around here -- not that it matters, because a genius IQ doesn't mean diddly if you sound like an ignorant imbecile. If anything, you seem to be proving that many bright people are social disasters. Please try to play nicely with the other bright kids. User:JHK

I have removed a small line at the end of the 'marriage' section, obviously appended by a new writer that said

"DONT have sex without getitng [sic] married!!":

I saw this as preaching and removed it. (WE.Hopkins)

Blah Blah i hate this

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholicity/Archive_1&oldid=808284824"