Talk:Catholic Church

There's still a few sections that are redundant with Catholicism, because I couldn't decide how to split them. Also, see also, bibliography, and notes are straight out of Catholicism. But I think it's a first step. Snowspinner 14:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why can't I get the page history from before April 19th?Barbara Shack 12:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is an improvement on the previous uninteresting article. Still I'm a bit suspicious. Few took any notice of its uninteresting nature unitl I editted it in the section of the history I can't access. Now suddenly a lot of good material has been added but its a bit dry. It needs to be made more interesting.

More important take care. Some time in the future we may find all this informative material shunted away and something put in its place which is pleasant and shallow, -say a nice description of the Roman Catholic mass- designed to convert people to Roman Catholicism.

I am not sure that dry is a bad thing in an encyclopedia. Nor am I sure how a description of Mass is going to convert people, except possibly with the fact that it at least rarely takes over an hour. In any case, the old history is, I believe, all on Criticism of the Catholic Church, which is presently a redirect to Catholicism. But is actually the old RCC article in disguise. Don't ask why. I forget already. Snowspinner 14:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't really like the Catholic church, and consider myself an atheist, but this article is increasingly reading as a pro-birth-control, anti-religious diatribe. --Delirium 12:25, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

Come and join a new WikiProject: Saints. --Kpalion 10:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second Vatican Council etc.

I deleted a couple of things:

Many of these of other churches describe themseleves as "Catholic" or "catholic", a few of them to the exclusion of the Roman Catholic Church.

This sentence, above, is not about the Catholic Church, but is about what other churches call themselves and what other churches think of the Catholic Church; therefore it is not relevant, at least not in the "Structure..." section, and probably not at all. (Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC))

however, since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church recognized that the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Church, the Protestant Churches, and all other Christian denominations are all legitimate parts of the "Church of Christ", despite not being in communion with them.

This is at odds with reality. There is no change in the sense of what is "legitimate"; that term is itself very vague. I replaced this section with a clear quote from an actual document touching upon the subject of communion among churches. Trc | [msg] 09:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

The Church is criticized by some for not announcing what are seen by detractors to be mistakes. Some claim that it has not taken sufficient responsibility for its alleged (but strongly denied) "complacency" in the Holocaust, "persecution" of Galileo Galilei, or for the - hotly debated - nature of the Inquisition.

The Church response is that these incidents have frequently been misconstrued or exaggerated, often for polemical reasons. Catholic apologists often note that in 2,000 years of Church history there may well have been some wrongs committed by Church members, but that these evils have too-often been overemphasized, at the expense of the good that has been done in terms of preserving learning, establishing education and health care, charity, scientific and technical advancement and providing a moral basis for Western law and society'.

I deleted this section and am going to replace it with something more neutral. Pope John Paul II publicly asked forgiveness for the trial to Galileo in 1992, and in 2000 and 2003 did the same for the Inquisition and for the persecutions against Jews and Muslims. 62.98.83.26 22:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is also accused of being hostile to democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and of supporting absolute monarchy; and later, of supporting Fascism, Falangism, and similar authoritarian political movements, and of being too friendly with Nazism. Critics such as Rolf Hochhuth say that this stance caused the Church to fail to denounce the Holocaust.

May I suggest that, since most of this material is already dealt with in greater detail in the separate article Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships, that we link to that article? Right now, it is just a laundry list of accusations, and even though there is historical documentation to make those accusations substantive, that's not obvious from anything in this article.

It's also, uh, a little problematic that the one sentence that contains all the accusations is phrased in the present tense ("is also accused") when the misdeeds under discussion go back to the 1700s. I mean, is the Roman Catholic Church accused of supporting absolute monarchy today? That's the implication of the material in its current form. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "true" church

It is the true church founded by Christ.

I'm sorry, but this is just not an encyclopedic statement. The information that such continuity has been claimed for the church by some observers is relevant to the article, but it's already covered in the very first sentence of the article. As for whether it is the true church, well, there's only one party who can make a judgement that sweeping, and He has not created a Wikipedia account yet. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone should invite Him. I'm sure He could clear up a lot of problem articles. - Omegatron 05:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Music

All of the independent countries and most of the dependent territories in the world now have "music of" articles (see list of cultural and regional genres of music) except for the Vatican City. I am wondering if there is anything that can be said about the music of the Vatican City? Are there choirs or other musical groups, religious or secular, of note? Should it redirect to Roman Catholic music, which doesn't exist, or Christian music, which does? Or maybe music of Italy? Anyone know? Tuf-Kat 06:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would go with Music of The Holy See. With the exception of the treaty with Italy (and I think certain treaties such as the postal treaty), the Catholic Church's bilateral diplomatic relations and such are conducted as The Holy See. I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to call Vatican City a dependancy of the Holy See or if the Pope rules both entities (like the old Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy) Under "Holy See", the article could grab the relevant topics together and/or refer people for more info on Vatican Radio, Vatican press (which publishes church music), the Sistine Chapel Choir, etc.--Samuel J. Howard 10:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic

Changing this article's bold title from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church is not NPOV. As much as I believe the churches in communion with each other and the Pope are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the rest of Christianity disputes this. Pmadrid 07:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not in arguement of anything, but I would just like to say that in my humble opinion, I believe that any time anybody of any faith or denomination hears "catholic" without clarification or context, they think of the Roman Catholic church. Nelson Ricardo 10:43, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to argue either, but you raise a good point. Let me clarify, though, what I was thinking, and I'll leave it at that. Besides the fact that this page is already titled "Roman Catholic Church," I was wary of their being in a neutral encyclopedia a statement without qualifiers that Roman Catholic Church = Catholic Church. While I agree that most people (at least most Americans) when they hear "catholic" they think "Roman Catholic," the problem is that "catholic" is a loaded term for several churches which claim to have apostolic ties.

Let's take as an example the page Eastern Orthodox Church. Changing its title to "Catholic Church" we would agree would be wrong. However, that is what the Eastern Orthodox believe and call their church, especially in places where Eastern Orthodoxy dominates. Changing its name to "Orthodox Church" wouldn't work either, even though most Americans associate "orthodox" with "Eastern Orthodox." Other churches claim orthodoxy, and there even is an Oriental Orthodox Communion seperate from Eastern Orthoxody. "Eastern Orthodox Church," then, is the best title for neutrality's sake, as it leaves out specific doctrinal issues while accurately identifying the church. "Roman Catholic Church" serves the same function.Pmadrid 06:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that is really the case. The Roman Catholic Church is only one of the (24?) churches that make up the "catholic church in union with Rome". It's like titling the article on Eastern Orthodoxy "Greek Orthodox".--Samuel J. Howard 07:26, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's another good point that I was going to get to eventually. Does the Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + 23 other sui juris churches, or does Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church? I'm inclined to advocate the latter, and that is what this article used to advocate as well. Does anybody have any argument for the former? I would like to hear it. Pmadrid 12:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree with Samuel- the term "Roman Catholic Church" referes to the Western Latin Church and not to the churches that have different rites but are nonetheless in communion with Rome. As far as I can see, I'm afraid that there is no way to satisfactorily resolve this issue, excpet to say that I personally have no problem with calling the Orthodox Church simply the Orthodox Church, distinguishing bewteen Orthodox as a proper adjective and orthodox a common adjective meaning "in line with true or ancient teachings." I think that it is being oversensitive to require extra adjectives in the titles of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church when these titles are used in common discourse to neutrally refer to these organizations.

Also, there seems to be a page for the "Apostolic Christian Church." Is it accpetable for this smaller and, I suppose, less controversial church to have the audactiy to refer to itself by using one of the marks of the church without any qualifiers (accept for "Christian," which may even make its name more offensive to some)? Or should we "correct" its name by adding adjectives that do nothing more than save the feelings of others and make the name more complicated and perhaps less accurate?--Conwiktion 21:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see that the intro. section is on the move again. Some of the tortuousness of this seems clearly motivated by unhappiness with the article title, and the desire to 'explain it away'. Perhaps it's time to reconsider a move: after all, the LDS nearly managed to get their "The" included, maybe you could lose "Roman"? :) Does anyone have a definitive source on what the 'official' title of the church is stated to be? After all, WP policy is to use that unless there's some over-arching reason not to. Alai 23:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other Churches have needed to adopt a name or title when they came into being. The (Roman) Catholic Church has never had the same need to adopt a name or title. It uses many adjectives to describe itself, among them “one”, “holy’”, “catholic”, “apostolic” and, yes, to indicate the centrality for it of the see of Rome, “Roman” (employed by many popes from Gelasius I to the present day). But it needs to take a name only in its relations with others. In these relations, it uses whatever acceptable name the others give it. Thus, in the Common Declaration signed with the head of the Assyrian Church, it calls itself “the Catholic Church”, but in its relations with Anglicans, the form “Roman Catholic” appears, as in the name of the ARCIC theological commission. In all such relations, the authorities of the (Roman) Catholic Church act in the name of the whole Church, not of its Western part alone.

“Roman Catholic Church” and “Catholic Church” are thus names or titles that it has explicitly and officially accepted (rather than adopted). What it has never accepted is to apply the term “Roman Catholic” to only part of the Church. For what some Wiki contributors mean by “Roman Catholic Church” it uses the term “Latin Church”, as, for instance, in canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law.

Lima 01:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that latter, which is partly why I'm inclined to say that simply "Catholic Church" would be somewat preferable, as it avoids one issue. (And raises another, but oh well...) And the situation of the Orthodox Church is essentially similar, as has been noted. But that's not the issue. For all intents and purposes, "Catholic Church" is the name/title it uses in self-reference. Not simply in communication with other churches, as one can see from a cursory examination of the Vatican's own web site, for example. (About 7000 hits for the term there, including "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which I doubt is especially intended for Episcopalian and the Presbyterian consumption.) Not simply as a descriptive adjective, otherwise why capitalise it so consistently? Certainly, it doesn't repudiate the term RCC, and as you say, uses it itself in some contexts (though far less often); and insofar as the terms have strict definitions, they denote the same thing. But if you asked the church this question, that's the answer you'd get, I'm pretty sure, which is what this in effect comes down to. Alai 04:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that the intro. section is on the move again.

I realize there is some history here, but the article began with a long and complicated discussion of something that is not of primary interest to someone looking for an article on the Catholic Church. I reordered it to try to bring the order more into line with what would be of general interest. --Erauch 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you guys read Catholic?

It's pretty clear you havn't. ALOT of people {Ancient Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the Episcopal church, all the various orthadoxes...) call themselves Catholic. Please, remember NPOV. Sam [Spade] 23:20, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but keep in mind that this is not solely a matter of being NPOV- this is also a matter of accuracy. The Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with the Vatican are not properly referred to by the term "Roman Catholic Church"- only those who practice the Latin or Western Rite are. Take a look at this FAQ on Eastern Catholicism to see how the term is properly used: [1] (http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastfaq.html). The only truly accurate way to refer to the church headed by the Vatican is the Catholic Church, and if referring to this church with this title is NPOV, then there is no way that this article can be NPOV and use these terms as accurately as possible.

I was aware that "Catholic" also means universal and is a Mark of the Church- I have to admit that I was not aware that other sects of Christianity use the word "Catholic" in their names. It is for this reason alone that perhaps there is no really satisfactory way to resolve this issue, and perhaps it is truly best to incorrectly use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the entire church that is in communion with the Vatican. I guess in the end it just doesn't matter, so I probably won't press the point any further.

I still have to ask: "Apostolic" is another Mark of the Church. Is the title of this church NPOV: Apostolic Christian Church? ( One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church )--Conwiktion 02:45, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the title of the Church is (N)POV, but whether the article title is (N)POV. As I understand the policy, it's to use the "official" title of an organisation, etc, not to "objectively describe" the entity in question. Witness the bunfight at Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about Their Definite Article. And that's not even remotely factually accurate: there's not one LDS church, there are dozens. But the "official name" argument is, broadly speaking, carrying the day. Any possible ambiguity or confusion can be dealt with in the article body by appropriate links and discussion. (Currently we have an article that meekly complains about its own title, which is faintly bathetic.) Alai 03:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Idea: Catholic News

I have a little idea of creating a page on Catholic News. The content of it could be a small news( that could be change on daily basis ) or big news/important news( that could be change on weekly/monthly basis ). I believe much of wikipedian have been through/taken theology class, or maybe even a priest, so I think maybe they could write and edit the articles on this page. I'm just a student, but I'll be willing to help where needed. Thank you!!! Just an idea...Roscoe x 18:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Such a page wouldn't really be appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not a news site. On the other hand news articles about the Church can certainly be summarized on Current events, and I suppose m:Wikinews, when it gets started, would welcome such articles too. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

O well, than maybe the page still could be used to write a reliable sources of Catholic news.Roscoe x 18:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the section on Rites and Traditions strikes me as misleading. There are not multiple Rites with the Roman Catholic Church; there is only the Latin Rite. Other Rites are practiced by other churches within the Catholic Communion. It appears that Wikipedia is making the common mistake of applying the term "Roman Catholic Church" to the entire Catholic Communion. I will edit appropriately. Isomorphic 16:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or perhaps I am wrong. Either way, this is a very confusing subject because so few people know that there is any distinction between the Latin Church and the body of Churches under the Pope (whatever this body should properly be called.) Isomorphic 17:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Surely the Roman Catholic Church itself knows best how it is constituted. It has long considered that it is composed of different "rites" or autonomous Churches. The list in the Wikipedia article is identical with that in the annual Vatican publication Annuario Pontificio (page 1059 in the 2004 edition). The following pages of the same publication then list the in many cases quite numerous dioceses or eparchies that belong to each particular Eastern Church or rite. That is one sense in which the word "rite" has been and is used.

Isomorphic prefers to understand the word "rite" only as something that is "practised". But his use of the phrase "the Latin Rite" in this sense is self-contradictory. The Latin Church (or Latin Rite or Western Church or ...) practised and practises different rites, none of which can be called the Latin rite. The Dominicans who practised the Dominican rite were still Latin Catholics. They did not practise the Roman rite, but they were still Roman Catholics. The same holds for the Archbishop of Milan, who practises the Ambrosian rite, not the Roman.

Lima 18:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CARM

I removed the link to CARM because Matt Slick, and his articles, are anti-Catholic, instead of simply being against Catholicism. This assessment comes from debating him on his own board and from his articles. Notably, in his article on Mary, he cites the book "Roman Catholicism" by Loraine Boettner, which may be charitably compared to a book length version of a Jack Chick tract. I'm not opposed to links that are critical of Catholicism (though I would suggest that any such link be accompanied by a link to a Catholic apologetics site), but am opposed to links to sites that are anti-Catholic. --Kadett 00:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anon posted a book by Paul L. Williams in the additional reading section. I've removed it because I literally cannot find anything about that book online. Doesn't show up on Amazon at all and ISBN lookups say that the ISBN number is invalid. I don't doubt that the book was published, but I don't think that it should be referenced when there's no information available about it. --Kadett 05:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

criticism

I don't understand the reason to include the section "criticism" in the article about Roman Catholic Church: every human group, faith, party...is exposed to critics by other groups that do not share the same values; the truth is that campaigns against Catholic Church have always hidden purposes...

The reason to include that information is that it is true and hardly missable information: plenty of criticism has been levelled at the Roman Catholic Church, and it's not Wikipedia's place to decide "that criticism is incorrect and therefore no reference to it should be made." Wikipedia is not stating that the criticism is correct or incorrect, just that it is. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to explain why information on criticism of the Roman Catholic Church should be excluded from the article on the Roman Catholic Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only notable criticisms should be included. And, when it includes them, Wikipedia puts them in the context of being notable. If they are only notable as calumnys they must be put as calumnys, otherwise they are not notable.--Samuel J. Howard 21:50, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, we don't include unnotable criticisms, and if there is evidence that a criticism is misguided, we include that evidence as well. But we don't simply say "Anyone who criticizes the Roman Catholic Church must have ulterior motives so let's remove any reference to criticism altogether." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My goal is not to exclude critics on Catholic Church, but to point out that in no other articles about religions, groups...i could find a section labelled "criticism": isn't it strange? And what would happen if i write something against, say, homosexuality, hebraism or buddhism (not that i am against them, just examples)? Maybe i am too suspicious but i think it would not last for long...

The organization of each article may differ, because each article develops differently. Not every article may be divided up into sections, one of which is labelled "criticism". But if you couldn't find another article on any other religion or group that makes reference to criticisms that group has received, then you weren't looking. Period.

As for "what would happen if i write something against [other group?]" -- your question has an answer but I think you're showing that you don't understand yet the answers you've already been given. It depends heavily on what your "something" is. Is it a notable criticism, where putting that information in the article reflects the truth that, yes, that criticism has been made in the real world in a significant way? Then it's probably going to stay in (although it may get moved if you put it in the wrong place, just as many criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church have been moved to this article from Catholicism -- generally, an actual organization of people who make decisions are going to attract more criticism than a religion, which can make no decisions on its own.) But if you're going to invent a criticism just to put it in to test whether it will be taken out -- it probably will be taken out, not because your test proved a bias, but because your contribution was not a good-faith effort to improve the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

using the "flat-earth" theory, geocentrism and the famous trial of Galileo Galilei. I thought that was a three-part list, not an equation of the first two (though I'm not sure of the church's historical position on the first, so I shan't revert it back immediately). Alai 06:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though a medieval bishop got into trouble for positing people with no relation to Christon the supposedly unreachable other side of Earth, I would be highly surprised if Church authorities ever insisted on a flat-Earth theory. Until the Renaissance, the working paradigm for astronomers was the one codified by Ptolemy in the second century A.D.: a series of concentric spheres, with Earth as the central one. And, contrary to what the ignorant keep repeating, the objections raised against Columbus's plan to reach India (Asia) by sailing west instead of east, were based not on a supposed danger of falling off the edge of a flat Earth, but on the view that Asia was much further west than indicated in the calculations Columbus presented for Earth's circumference. The expert committees were in fact right. He was wrong, but he died still convinced he had proved them wrong. Lima 23:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Funny - I came to this article looking for information about which version of the english bible the Catholic church uses, and the word bible does not even appear in this article...

The American Catholic Church uses the New American Bible in the lectionary, while Canada uses the RSV-CE if I remember correctly. I don't know about other English speaking nations. No one is beholden to these versions however (they are merely the ones used in the Mass and other liturgical events), I prefer the Jerusalem Bible myself. --Kadett 23:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Australian Priest I knew for a bit told me that they use the Jerusalem Bible down under. I personally prefer the New American Bible with the Revised New Testament. Catholic translations of the bible that I know of include the Doulay-Rheims Bible(1582), a revision of that bible by Challoner (1749 and 1752), a further revision by the Bishop's Committe for the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (CCD), the Jerusalem Bible (1966, revised 1985), the New Confraternity Bible (1968), the New American Bible (1970, NT revised 1986), the Common Bible (1973), and the New Revised Standard Version (1990, approved as Catholic 1991). However, since the original comment seemed not directed at ascertaining which translation Catholics use, I'll note that the word "Scripture" is commonly used in more formal writings and is found in the article.--Thesquire 06:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-Apostolic Churches

what about the RCC'S relationship with non-apostolic Christian churches. No mention is mead of the Chartists or the primitive churches, et al. --Numerousfalx 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the Church

I'd like the raise the issue of the reference "the Church". I suggest that this is not beyond NPOV question, as it's not really a useful abbreviation of the church's "official name" -- if it even has one, see above -- and thus doesn't really have the status of a proper noun. ('Catholic Church' is, to my mind, and so's find.) When used as an unqualified reference, I'd like to propose that it not be capitalised. Alai 01:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is not beyond NPOV question, but I submit that there is not really much to be concerned about. When discussing any church (note lowercase) whose official or commonly used name (even if some dispute exists whether that should be its name) includes the capitalized noun "Church" it is common practice to use "Church" thereafter in the discussion as a referent, save of course when two such entities are being discussed together. Check out Church of Scientology; not even those editors who seem most disgusted at the idea that the CoS could be considered as a legitimate "church" have ever found any problem with it being referred to as "the Church".

So I have to say that your suggestion fails to follow current practice, to a degree where I would view it as a POV problem if we did de-capitalize all such references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the first Church article I've raised this question in, so you're to that extent at least correct about common practice. That does not mean that common practice is correct practice, though. If it's not NPOV, it should be changed, and yes, it should be changed consistently everywhere, if that's what you mean by a "POV problem" with such a change. The LDS project has just voted to wean itself off this style of usage, for example. I'm not sure the CoS example is especially helpful here; some that question its status as a church might be less happy with "the church" (a descriptive term) than with "the Church" (ambiguously either an abbreviated title, or an emphatic version of the description). Of course, we could always declare this to be a manual of style issue... Alai 06:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It does seem like something that would or should be covered in the manual of style, yes. The POV problem I was actually thinking of was that this is common practice in all print so far as I'm aware of, not just on Wikipedia, so if we chose to run counter to that style, it could be construed as some sort of statement. But you're also correct that there is a secondary problem with referring to a group with a generic noun rather than an abbreviation of their name; I think the CoS example actually is especially helpful here, since it points up that referring to a (purportedly) religious organization as a church endorses the POV that they are a church, whereas referring to them by an abbreviation of their proper name merely endorses that they use that name and it has become a referent for them. In the case of the RCC of course there is still controversy over that but one that revolves around the "The", the "Roman", and the "Catholic", not the "Church". -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The CoS example is certainly interesting, but my point was essentially as you just said: the 'POV implications' could be argued to run the other way. But either way, it complicates matters, yes. I'll have to further investigate as regards general practice. (I may ask the Guardian, arch-non-capitalisers that they are -- though more to the point, they have a very helpful Style Guide, and staff thereon.) Alai 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mysterion?"

I've deleted, for now, the recent anonymous addition to the Sacraments section: <Originally, the Church used the term "mysterion" to signify these seven sacraments, but in a time of numerous cults this ancient term suggested an elite, a secretiveness, even a Gnosticism which was not the intention. Borrowing from the Roman army, the Church found a ritual and term which would convey that sacraments (mysterion) were for ALL. Obviously, they borrowed "sacramentum" which was known to all Roman soldiers as the "oath sworn to Caesar." The Church simply altered her seven rituals (mysterion) to be the rituals where one affirmed loyalty to Christ.> - No argument that the Greek term mysterion (mystery) is roughly equivalent to the Latin term sacramentum, but please provide more details and maybe some supporting evidence of the above; references, etc.? -- Harris7 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs Catholic

I think it's at best marginal whether this article should be "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". I certainly don't think we should purge the article of either, since both are valid references, the only question is which the the more common usage (and/or "official"). Alai 03:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Criticism" section getting a bit out of hand

It's valid to mention controversies, but the article is turning into a bit of a soapbox for the disaffected. This is the latest addition:

File:Homosexuality Spanish Inquisition.jpg

Holy Roman Catholic Church officials presiding over the torture of a man suspected to be homosexual before his subsequent execution during the Spanish Inquisition. Circa 1800 AD. According to Herrera Puga the authorities:
"placed no limits on the means; in this way they used the rack, the lash, fire, etc. In some cases... they applied padlocked irons to the flesh which even led to the amputation of a hand..."

I disagree. It provides a relevant illustration of some of the horrible things that have been done under the Church. This image is part of Roman Catholic history. Even the Church itself has apologized for these crimes and seeks reconciliation with the groups it once persecuted. Please elaborate on how it constitutes a ?soapbox?? Apollomelos 23:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since it has more to do with the Spanish Inquisition than with the general subject of the Roman Catholic Church? I mean, when you go to France do you expect vivid descriptions and illustrations of executions by the guillotine? Even in the "Criticisms of France" section? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - the question is one of scope. The addition perhaps deserves a sentence in this article, but most of it should be in Spanish Inquisition. --12.76.48.94 05:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the date of 1800 seems much too late and inconsistent with the style of the engraving. --12.76.48.94 05:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I can see your points. And thanks for questioning the date. It was incorrect. The real year is 1700 AD. Apollomelos 11:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed the caption undert this picture on the Spanish Inquisition page. I have explained why on that article's talk page. In summary, this picture is on other web sites as simply "The Spanish Inquisition." Where is your proof that this was a man suspected of being homosexual? Also, the Spanish Inquisition after 1509 had no jurisdiction over homosexual activity - that was primarily a state matter. Only in Aragon, and only after 1524, did the inquisition preside over these cases. Also, the inquisition, when it did preside over these cases, (in Aragon), was infinitely more lenient than the state, which was severe and merciless. And finally, this is a more fanciful depiction, rather than a true representation of the 3 types of torture used by the inquisition, which rarely used torture, and when it did, it was far more merciful than the civil courts were. Rather than promote the "Myth" or "Black Legend" of the Inquisition, I think we should try to understand what really went on, and exactly what the "Church apologized for." The Church did not apologize for the wildly exaggerated claims, but for what really happened.Polycarp7 18:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I have responded. I am sorry to say the writings of the age clearly depict the Inquisition murdering "sodomites" to state otherwise is an equation of Holocaust denial. Apollomelos 04:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you source that please, with a scholarly work? You're making a rather large allegation after all. --Kadett 04:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"largest and the oldest"

My reversion was done with care. What does the claim that the RCC is "both the largest and the oldest continuously operating institution in existence" mean? The claim that it's the oldest -- that has a meaning. If no other continuously operating institution in existence is older, then it's the oldest. It can only be the largest, however, if no other institution of any kind is larger -- if it is the largest institution in the whole of the world, including larger than all governments. Otherwise, what's the basis for comparison? Which institutions are being discounted in the comparison and on what basis? If it's only being compared to continuously operating institutions that are as old as it is, we're back to pointlessness because there aren't any. If it's not, then again, which institutions is it being compared to? Without the standard for comparison the comparison is meaningless, hence its removal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, it's bigger than any government. it's the largest continuous institution ever, of any kind.

clearly entire countries do not count as institutions, or it wouldn't be the oldest continuous institution ever.

So the basis of the comparison is "whatever it needs to be to make the RCC the largest and the oldest"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholics and The United Church

Can someone please state the big differences between the two religions; United - (Methodist) & Roman Catholic.

Is it necessary for one to convert to the other for marriage ?

changes by 137.142.183.62

I reverted these edits by 137.142.183.62, for the following reasons:

A new section called "The Roman Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic". This has some potentially useful material, explaining why the RCC describes itself by those adjectives. However, it's written only from the POV of a believer. If someone wants to restore it and NPOV it to clarify "this is what Roman Catholics believe, not something Wikipedia is claiming" I'd be okay with it.

Revising the Criticisms section to remove information and accidentally create redundancy. The criticism that the Church has faced for opposing the use of condoms even in AIDS-stricken countries is a real criticism, and not the same thing as the criticism it takes for opposing birth control in general -- which was already mentioned earlier in the same sentence.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New material

Greetings all. I added some new items to the article that might raise eyebrows. I wanted to record the cahnges here. 1)Opened up a new section on religious orders. The history and organization of these orders, I feel, is an important part of the church 2) Added a crucifix picture as an "eye catcher" at the start of the article. Hopefully that wont be reverted within the first five minutes! Most of the better articles have opening photos and I felt the cruxifx can rightly so be called one of the main symbols of the church. Now that Ive made these changes, I invite the experts to clean them up and expand them. Thanks! -Husnock 02:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are there really 1 billion Catholics?

The Vatican claims 1 billion Catholics in it's official yearbook but I believe that hundreds of millions of them might not be Catholics at all and are simply claimed by the Church because they were baptized. I'm a baptised atheist, as are most of my friends and much of my family.

Has anyone got good figures on what percentage of those claimed as Catholics actually believe in Catholicism? I'm trying to find a mismatch between the Church's figures and census figures, even for one single country. Does anyone have a breakdown of that 1 billion across every country?

• An astounding number of people don't go to the effort to renounce the religion of their parents (even within their own thoughts), and when asked will readily claim adherance to something they don't really believe. I'm sure the Vatican is counting census data from countries where millions have been baptised Catholic, claim they are Catholic, but have never set foot inside a Catholic Church, or only passingly believe in the catechism. (Recent claims in the media that 65% of American Catholics believe in contraception, homosexual rights, and ordination of women back up this contention.) Unfortunately, to the rest of the world, they're as Catholic as I am until they themselves say otherwise. Sorry, I don't have anything but anecdotal evidence for this belief atm. Opusaug 23:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every year each diocese actually does a head count of people physically sitting in their pews, which generates this 1 billion number. In terms of baptised Catholics, the number would be larger. --Gerald Farinas 01:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge Notices Should be Removed

I was very surprised to see merge notices added to this article, in particular without any discussion or input on the talk page. The church and catholic articles are separate articles and should remain so. Merging three very large articles will cause length and content problems. Unlike the person who placed the merge notices, I will allow others to comment before removing them. -Husnock 02:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this article should not be merged with with Catholic or Catholicism. To do so will cause confusion. There needs to be an article about the church headed by the Pope. Catholicism is not that article. This one is. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose such a move. The Roman Catholic Church references an organizational entity, a polity with a governing body. Catholicism references a broad view of relative subjects pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. The two shouldn't be combined because they are two separate ideas. --Gerald Farinas 04:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am glad cooler heads previaled here. The user who placed those merge tags did so without discussing why or gathering opinions. Given the scope of these articles, a discussion was clearly warranting before embarking on such a major project as merging three lengthy religion articles. Ive removed the merge notices from the other two articles to match the actions which were taken here. -Husnock 04:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They've already been removed, but if it's questioned whether consensus supports that removal, let me speak up and say there's no sense in the proposal to merge. They are different subjects and each is already so complex it pushes the article to nearly uncomfortable size. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cafeteria Catholics

While the information about the terms "cafeteria Catholics" and "grocery store Catholics" surely belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that that place is a) in the "Criticisms" section or b) in Roman Catholic Church at all. It is, after all, not a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church -- it's a criticism of those who are perceived as not enough a part of the Roman Catholic Church. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Cafeteria Catholics", by my understanding, are people from RC backgrounds, and baptized into the RCC, who are unable to give full assent to all of the RCC's doctrines; usually on marriage or sexual issues. The assumption behind the phrase seems to be that the RCC has the right to proclaim regulations of these matters, and has chosen correctly in doing so. The implied accusation seems to be that these Catholics who refuse assent to them do so for selfish and unworthy reasons. It probably does belong in the "criticisms" section, but the relationship between these folks' religious practice and criticism of the RCC should perhaps be clarified. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholic gay marraige ceremony from centuries ago?

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think I remember reading in the newspapers in the mid-90s around Hartford, CT, USA about a priest a few years ago that had dug up some old ceremony that used to be used to essentially marry two men, begun using it to marry gay men, and been promptly excommunicated for it. I wonder if that ceremony, andor its practice at some earlier point in time, could be tracked down with enough certainty to be mentionable in this article. Seems like if it were, it would be relevant and worthy of note somehow in the article. -Ozzyslovechild 15:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• see John Boswell regarding the adelphopoiia liturgy. - Zotz 08:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Since, by definition, no such ceremony would have ever been valid, it wouldn't have been "Catholic". So no, it wouldn't be relevant at all, even if someone tried to promote it years ago. Opusaug 21:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD and cleanup help needed

Hi, I'm posting this request here because there doesn't seem to be a WikiProject for the Catholic Church. Apologies for the slightly eccentric nature of the request.

Someone has listed Ernesto Corripio Ahumada for deletion. Although too old to be eligible for the College of Cardinals, he's a former Primate of Mexico and certainly encyclopedic, though the article when nominated was a single defamatory sentence and I'm not really surprised it got itself listed while it was in that form. He's an old Vatican insider, and probably significant to the early reign of the last Pope.

I've written a basic stub, but I could still use some help because there are still a number of votes to delete this, and as it stands the article may well get deleted (recreation can be done but is problematic and is best avoided). Please visit the article (link above). Help with improving this article would be welcome. Votes to keep, if you please, would also be welcome, especially from regular editors.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ernesto Corripio Ahumada

Thanks.

(also posted on the Pope Benedict XVI article talk page and nowhere else). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist v. Traditional

I changed the text from "Traditional Catholic" back to "Traditionalist Catholic" as this term is reflected both in the Wikipedia article Traditionalist Catholic and in other reputible work as the most accurate term for this group. While I agree that "Traditional Catholic" may more accurately describe some individuals identified in the group "Traditionalist Catholic," it seems the most accurate, and NPOV, term is "Traditionalist," not "Traditional." If others have evidence either way, please post it here. Essjay 13:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)