Talk:Ten Commandments in Catholic theology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disambiguation needed

In the heading, what St Augustine are we refering to? Great article, congratulations. --Againme (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I disambig'd it already. Thanks for the encouragement! :) NancyHeise ^talk 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the POV tag today (sorry!). The article reads way too much from the RCC perspective, and in fact often comes across as very preachy. It's also written in a manner that presumes that what is written in the Bible actually happened (which many people don't believe). We should be striving for a neutral examination of how the RCC views the commandments without any hint of proselytizing. The article needs to be quite accessible for people of all (or no) faith(s). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs, I would appreciate your review of the article if you have time to come by and maybe point out some specifics. NancyHeise ^talk 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have recently peer reviewed this article. I believe that it clearly sets out the Roman Catholic Church's theological stance on the Ten Commandmants; it is what the Church teaches its adherents, so obviously it reflects the RCC perspective. The Church does believe, for example, that what is written in the Bible actually happened. I found some of the information disturbing, but I did not consider the article's tone proselytising. I think a critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments would provide fertile material for a further article, but I believe this one fulfils its purpose. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was in agreement with Brianboulton until the last sentence where he said "I think a critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments would provide fertile material for a further article". While I am a big proponent of having articles like Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, I think it's getting ridiculous to consider having an article like Criticism of The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. Any "critique of the Church's standpoint on the commandments" needs to stay in this article or in Roman Catholic theology. --Richard (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add a section on criticisms at the bottom with a main link to Criticism of the Catholic Church. I appreciate everyone's input and would like to know your comments on the criticism section when I am finished. Thanks NancyHeise ^talk 08:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I kept to Jimbo Wales suggestion to put criticisms throughout the article. The only criticism specifically against the Catholic Church regarding the Ten Commandments centers on the fifth and sixth commandments so please see new content in the introductory section of the fifth commandment and under the birth control section of sixth commandment. We also already have info on diverse views under the homosexuality section and graven images section. Criticism of the Catholic Church has been added to the See Also section as well. I have searched for more criticism and I personally do not know of any more myself. If you have any more suggestions, please let me know. I am removing the tag. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 11:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I've done some reorganization and copyediting of the first few sections (through the section Second Commandment). I'd appreciate some other eyes on that text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently distort anything or lose important meanings. Any other feedback on these changes is also welcome. I'd like to make similar adjustments throughout the rest of the article, but I only have time to do a few pieces at a time. Karanacs (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the page is greatly improved with your changes and I appreciate them very much. I had to fix your reword of Benedicts comments in second commandment because your changes made the article reflect something different than what Benedict was saying, specifically that giving the name happened during the covenant, it happened before the actual exodus from Egypt. I like all of your other changes very much and I hope you will continue to go through the rest of the page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I tried to extend your improvement of the commandment quotes to the rest of the article but I am doing something wrong. I don't know what I am doing wrong and I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. NancyHeise ^talk 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it figured out. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

I think that until relatively recently, the Church prohibited cremation of remains. I assume that this was under the 5th commandment. One or two sentences on this, to place the section in a proper historical context, might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I added this, please see. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

opinions sought

I reverted Karanac's rewrite of the third, fourth and fifth commandments because I did not think it was an improvement to the page. It jumbled the issues into a mass of ideas devoid of the structure offered by the scholars whose books we are using to present the RC view of the Commandments. While I always appreciate Karanacs very good reviews and comments, I hope she is not upset that I reverted her, my intention was not to upset. There does not seem to be any dispute over content and sources, just personal differences in structure in the way that information is presented. NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, just in case I am wrong, I would like to know what others prefer. Please see Karanac's version of the third, fourth and fifth commandments here [1] as opposed to the more structured version that I prefer here [2]. Which one do others find preferable? Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts.

3rd Commandment: Karanacs adds a brief explanation of the commandment at the start, which is good in theory. However is karanacs interpretation correct? My reading is that it is more than a day of rest. The statement at the start of Nancy's second para does not seem to be referenced, and its quite a controversial point in some circles. Karanacs version fudges it a little with a "beleieved to be".

4th Commandment:

I think Nancy's version is clearer with the bullet points and sections. Although the prominence given to Rabbi Neusner seems too great. it leads to the impression that all the following teaching is based on Neusner's work. Karanacs' "According to Benedict.." is a bit too informal however.

5th Commandment:

I don't think the unbroken mass of text in karanacs version is an improvement, It looks very daunting to wade through. Nancy's version brings out the individual topics far better. However some mention of Augustine and the development of Just War theory would be a good addition here. Xandar 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• In an ideal world some version with the best points of both would be worked out. I like Karanacs 5th, & some of that should maybe be kept as a section lead before the sub-sections, which are clearer, and include things Karanacs removed. There seems too much Neusner, & personally I would like more on the Catholic tradition, with older authorities being quoted, rather than just Benedict - eg Xandar's point on Just War, but generally also. Also both versions could do with more linking. Karanacs layout is more forbidding, but that is easily fixed. I've not seen this article before, and generally, if we are to have "The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology" I think more indication and differentiation should be given to specifically Catholic views - eg the section on the 4th could surely be placed unaltered into The Ten Commandments in Baptist theology or any other Christian denominational variant, whereas this is not true for the 5th - at least in Europe, many Protestant churches are very soft on abortion in particular. Neither version mentions stem-cell research, which should be in, and RC attitudes to contraception are also partly derived from the 5th, no? Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• Third commandment: overall I prefer Nancy's version, with the proviso that the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews" should be slightly changed: "Because of their belief that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the sabbath is observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews". It should be possible to cite so basic a statement to a source.

I changed this per your comments here. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fourth commandment: I would go along with Nancy's version as easier to follow, though I see no great differences here. From a personal viewpoint I think the direct link between this commandment and the social gospel summarised in the "Jesus' expansion" section is questionable, as is the apparent assumption of unconditional parental love. But these aren't the issues here; it is the Roman Catholic standpoint that has to be represented, and either version does this adequately
• Fifth commandment: it is important, given the title of the article, that the full rigour of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on this commandment, particularly on the abortion issue, be fully presented, and I think Nancy's version does this pretty well. I remain perplexed, as I was during the peer review, about the "Scandal" section and its relevance to "Thou shalt not kill"; I can't believe that the Church actually recommends death by drowning as the literal punishment for those who corrupt children. But again, that is a separate issue.

Neither the Church nor Jesus recommend death by drowning as the literal punishment for those who corrupt children. The Catechism actually states Jesus' words in the Gospel when he states that it would "be better" for that person to have a millstone round his neck and tossed in the sea but does not advocate doing exactly that. The point made by the Church in the Catechism is that scandal involves killing the soul of an innocent person and is thus classified under the commandment against killing. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• In summary, while I would have no serious objection to any of Karanac's amendments finding their way into the article, I think Nancy's approach does more justice to the article's title. It is probable, however, that whatever is decided here, the issue will be debated all over again when the article comes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow - I really appreciate the very thorough review you have all given me here. I am going to incorporate your new comments which will make the page even better. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to offer these sound comments. NancyHeise ^talk 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

First commandment: Should not mention Kreeft in the same context as Augustine

Peter Kreeft may be renowned in our time but it is too early (and IMO unlikely) to determine if he is in the same league as Augustine. It would be OK to say that Augustine's comment is echoed by Thomas Aquinas but saying that it is echoed by Kreeft is a bit jarring. Put the mention of Kreeft in a reference, not in the sentence itself.

--Richard (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the sentence a bit to make it more clear that Kreeft is explaining Augustine's statement. NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Second commandment

"The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jewish people threw stones at Jesus after Jesus spoke the name of God; the crowd considered his action blasphemy."

I have a problem with this sentence. The scripture John 8:58 says "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

The problem that caused the Jews to stone Jesus is not that Jesus spoke the name of God although that would certainly have been a problem. The real problem is that the Jews considered Jesus to have blasphemed by asserting that he was God.

Does Kreeft use this passage to support his discussion of the Second Commandment? If so, I have doubts about the soundness of his understanding of the passage.

--Richard (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the sentence to state "Under Jewish law, a person who pronounced the name of God was essentially claiming to be God. The Gospel of John relates an incident where a group of Jews attempted to stone Jesus after he spoke the name; because they did not believe in him they considered this blasphemy which, under Mosaic law, carried a death penalty." This comes from Kreeft pp 210-211 which you can view online here [3]. The book has a Nihil obstat imprimatur declaration. The imprimatur by the way is William Levada, the pope's second in command in areas of doctrine! NancyHeise ^talk 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad. The first sentence about "speaking the name of God being equivalent to laying claim to be God" is the key. If you take the two sentences, the passage is fine as to theology. It could perhaps be written more clearly but the theology is sound. It was too late at night and I wasn't reading and thinking clearly enough. --Richard (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third commandment

Does Pope Benedict really say that the sabbath "constituted the core of Jewish social order"? I am a bit skeptical of this assertion as it is worded in the article. Observation of the sabbath is clearly a central focus of observant Jewish faith but to say that it is "the core of Jewish social order" seems a bit of an overreach. I would like to see a citation that makes this assertion. Observance of the commandments as set forth in the Torah and as interpreted in the Talmud would seem to be "the core of Jewish social order". Clearly observation of the sabbath is one specific and important part of the general observance of the commandments.

Also, there is something a bit anachronistic about the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews."

It's not terribly wrong but it is a bit imprecise due to the summarization. The Scriptures don't say that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. They say that he rose on "the first day of the week" which is "dies solis" in Latin or the "day of the sun". There is also the distinction between Sunday, the Lord's day on the first day of the week and the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.

It would be useful to refer to this section in the Wikipedia article on Sabbath in Christianity. That section quotes from the Catechism.

--Richard (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed "Sunday" to "first day of the week" as per your and Brian's comments on this one. Regarding your comments about Benedicts comments. On page 108 of Jesus of Nazareth he states "The Sabbath is not just a matter of personal piety; it is the core of the social order. This day 'makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day' ". Benedict is quoting Rabbi Neusner in the second sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK... consider this link. See the blog entry titled "The Torah of Messiah". I'm not claiming that this blog is a reliable source. It's just useful because it came up on a Google search and I'm being lazy.

The blog entry includes the following:

The celebration of the Sabbath and the obedience to parents dictated by the Fourth Commandments are, rather, two of the strongest glues binding together the Jewish people into an "eternal Israel" that remains faithful to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through all time and all history. Jewish social order is built upon strong family loyalty and ties, which the Sabbath rest has been absolutely crucial in maintaining:

"So to keep the Sabbath, one remains at home. It is not enough merely not to work. One also has to rest. And resting means, re-forming one day a week the circle of family and household, everyone at home and in place." - Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, p. 80

I don't have a copy of Jesus of Nazareth but, if I understand the blog entry correctly, Benedict is saying that observance of the Sabbath is at the core of social order. (NB: Benedict says "at the core of social order". He does NOT say "at the core of Jewish social order")

Now there is a sentence in the blog entry "Jewish social order is built upon strong family loyalty and ties, which the Sabbath rest has been absolutely crucial in maintaining". Who is saying this? The blogger? Or Neusner? Do you have a copy of "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus"?

This may seem to be splitting hairs but there is a difference between saying that "Keeping the Third Commandment constituted the core of Jewish social order" and saying "Keeping the Third Commandment is a core element of Jewish social order". It's the difference between "THE core" and "a core element" (i.e. one element among others). Just for example "obedience to parents dictated by the Fourth Commandment(s)" is one of the others.

At the end of the day, we are more interested here in what Benedict says about social order and not as much in what Neusner has to say about the Jewish social order. It would probably be easiest to just remove the word "Jewish" from "Jewish social order".

--Richard (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, in response, I have the actual book Jesus of Nazareth, on page 108, in Benedicts words it reads "The Sabbath is not just a matter of personal piety; it is the core of the social order. This day "makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day". I can't just change the meaning of what Benedict is saying by doing my own WP:OR using blogs which are not considered WP:RS. I think it is safer and more accurate to keep the wording the way Benedict describes. His book is considered a scholarly work by an expert on the subject matter. NancyHeise ^talk 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Benedict doesn't say that "the Sabbath is the core of Jewish social order"; he says that it is the "core of social order". It is an interpolation to take "it is what makes eternal Israel what it is" and turn "social order" into "Jewish social order". The problem is that when we say "Jewish social order", we have the difficulty of determining whether this means "social order in the time of Moses", "in the time of Jesus" or "amongst 21st century Jews". If Benedict didn't say "Jewish social order", do we need to say "Jewish social order"? Wouldn't it be better to just quote him directly? I would hope Neusner did that and didn't interpolate "Jewish" into Benedict's quote because it would be wrong. If you want to include the rest of the Benedict quote viz. "makes eternal Israel what it is, the people that, like God in creating the world, rest from creation on the Seventh Day", I have no problem with that. My issue here is about making sure the reader understands that we are representing the Catholic POV via Benedict's assertion and that the reader further understands that we are not attempting to represent the Jewish POV. I will go out on a limb and argue that "eternal Israel" represents something different from the Hebrews in the time of Moses, the Jews in the time of Jesus and the Jews in modern times. --Richard (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, because Benedict is specifically speaking about the Jewish people, when he says "it is the core of the social order", he is speaking about the Jewish people. However, I will try to find either another source or reword it to avoid the issue. Let me have a look. NancyHeise ^talk 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated "Jewish" and replaced it with "the" per your suggestion a little further up. NancyHeise ^talk 00:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth commandment

Murder of family members especially sinful

I have some questions about the sourcing of this sentence "Murder, especially of family members is considered "gravely sinful"."

Now, the statement seems unobjectionable but I'm curious... are we asserting that violating the fifth commandment via commission of murder is more "gravely sinful" than violating any of the other nine commandments? Are violations of the other nine just sinful and violation of the fifth "gravely sinful"? What precisely is being asserted here? And is it supported by the citation to Kreeft, p. 232?

Along the same lines, what is the support for the assertion that murder of family members is especially considered "gravely sinful"? Is killing a sibling or a child more sinful than killing a neighbor or a stranger? Where is the support for that? Is it Kreeft, p. 232?

I understand that popular opinion would agree with the sentence in question. I am not an expert in theology, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but my gut feeling is that there are some theological concerns with making such an assertion. I would really want to know where it is written in Scripture or in the Catechism that the fifth commandment is somehow more special than the other nine. I would also want to know where it is written that killing a family member is considered especially sinful.

Are we sure that this is not pro-life polemic? It seems adequate to me to assert that murder, especially of an innocent such as a child or unborn fetus, is a mortal sin. Anything beyond that suggests hyperbole and polemic.

Also, as long as we are on the topic, isn't the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment on the same grounds of sancitity of human life? Why is this position omitted from this section?

--Richard (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Kreeft is interpreting the Catechism which makes the argument that killing a family member is more sinful than killing a non-family member "because of the natural bonds which they break" (CCC2268), Kreeft p. 231 NancyHeise ^talk 19:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, my bad... I didn't realize the Catechism said that. I reorganized the Fifth Commandment section and created sections on "Murder" and "Capital Punishment" so that things could be laid out in a more organized fashion. The injunction against killing family members applies to all family members, not just unborn children and so it doesn't belong in the "Abortion" section but in the "Murder" section. --Richard (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement, thanks for taking the time to work that out, I appreciate that very much. NancyHeise ^talk 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations against personal health

If you will excuse my bluntness, the following is a horrid sentence that combines three ideas that are only tangentially related.

"Abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs or unhealthy behaviours cause a person to violate the fifth commandment which also requires proper burial of the dead and for societies to work for healthy living conditions for their people."

The section should start by saying something like "Respect for human life is considered to require respect for one's own body, for the bodies of those deceased and for the healthy living conditions of all people." Then it should continue by saying "Respect for one's own body precludes abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs and other unhealthy behaviours. Respect for the bodies of those deceased requires proper burial of the dead. The requirement to provide healthy living conditions for all people imposes a moral obligation on society."

--Richard (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I agree with your comments here and I intend to change the page in favor of your formulation. However, I can not devote anymore time to this today and I'll have to get to this when I can. Thanks for all of your insights. NancyHeise ^talk 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I have reworded this to separate these two ideas. Please let me know what you think and thanks for taking the time to offer these suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Respect for the dead, burials

This topic is discussed in the section on "Violations against personal health". Either merge the two sections or remove it from the section on "Violations against personal health". --Richard (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the personal health section. Thanks for pointing out the redundancy. NancyHeise ^talk 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sixth commandment: pornography more sinful than fornication or adultery?

Does Kreeft really say that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"? That's what is implied by the sentence "Pornography ranks yet higher on the scale in gravity of sinfulness because it is considered a perversion of the sexual act which is intended for distribution to third parties for viewing." I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps I understand Catholic theology less than I thought I did. Even if Kreeft said it, are we sure that this is Catholic teaching? And, please don't throw Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat at me. We've already discussed elsewhere that these don't mean that everything in the book is gospel truth, just that what's in the book is within the bounds of acceptable Catholic teaching.

--Richard (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, The Catechism ranks pornography higher, Kreeft is interpreting the Catechism and we are supposed to use scholarly interpretations of original documents otherwise we are accused of WP:OR. If you can come up with a better source than one with Nihil obstat and imprimatur please let me know. However, I already know that there are no better sources to use and Kreeft is a respected scholarly expert on the subject whose book is oft cited. NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I have looked at the Catechism section on the Sixth Commandment and I can't find any assertion that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery". Paragraph 2396 says "Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices." Paragraph 2400 says "Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage." No ranking is given with respect to the relative gravity of these sins.

Can you provide a direct quote from Kreeft that states that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"?

As for Kreeft's reliability on this point, is the specific statement in question often cited? You cannot take the fact that some assertions made by Kreeft are often cited to support the validity of every statement he has ever made. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. The fact that the Catechism is silent on this point should give us pause.

--Richard (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, Kreeft states on page 246-248 "The Catechism lists six specific sins against chastity, in order of increasing seriousness: (a)lust, (b) masturbation (c)fornication (d)pornography, (e) prostitution, and (f) rape ...... Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties ...'It perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other ...it is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials' (CCC2355)" The fact that a scholarly expert in a Nihil obstat book with an Imprimatur says that the offenses are listed in order of "increasing seriousness" allows me to portray those offenses in that same order of seriousness. I would be creating my own WP:OR if I did not accurately reflect the explanations of this expert whose book is oft cited by other experts. The Catechism may say nothing about how it came to the order presented in the book but the scholarly experts have access to the negotiations and "spirit of the letter" intended by the writers of the Catechism. There are papal letters and pronouncements on these subjects that were gathered together in order to create the Catechism in the first place. We have to trust our scholarly experts to deliver to us, the intention of the Catechism writers and Nihil obstat Imprimatur designations are meant to assure us of that end. NancyHeise ^talk 21:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But isn't the point Richard is making, about the idea of adultery being less serious than pornography? Your quote above doesn't say that. I can't see something directly forbidden by a commandment being less serious than something derived from it. I don't know any cases of people being stoned to death for pornography. Xandar 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Xandar. It's clear that there is a list of sins against chastity whereas adultery is among the sins against the dignity of marriage. So, we are left to ask whether the "sins against the dignity of marriage" are more serious than the "sins against chastity" becuase the former are listed later in the catechism. If this were true (and I am not asserting that it is), then adultery should come at the end of the list of sins provided in this article. Moreover, divorce is mentioned in the Catechism as a "sin against the dignity of marriage" and it is not mentioned in the list at the beginning of this section. Homosexuality, birth control and "free union" are also mentioned by the Catechism but are not on this list. So, this leads me to ask, how did "adultery" and "incest" get pulled into the list of sins provided in this article? Does the list come from Kreeft? I note that Kreeft is not cited in this ranked list and so the reader is led to conclude as I did that the ranking comes from the Catechism which it clearly does not.

It would be minimally acceptable to state something like "According to Kreeft, the sins against chastity are listed in the Catechism in increasing order of gravity."

However, I would take issue with Nancy regarding the use of sourced material. I assert the following principles: "(1) Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic and (2) just because it's encyclopedic doesn't mean it belongs at this specific place in this specific article."

In the case of this particular issue, the question is whether the "ranked order" is a universally accepted teaching of the church or whether it is Kreeft's interpretation of the Catechism. The Catechism itself says nothing about ranking and thus we are left to assume that this is Kreeft's interpretation. Do we know that Kreeft is authoritative in this particular interpretation? Can the reader reasonably assume that every authoritative work that touches on the Sixth Commandment will agree with Kreeft on the idea that this is a strictly ranked order list?

Look at it from a commonsense standpoint. It seems reasonable that pornography is more grave than lust because viewing pornography is equivalent to lust and since pornography is deliberate lust ("with sin aforethought" if you will), this rank ordering is not problematic. However, is "viewing pornography" more sinful than "engaging in fornication"? One would think not but this is an interpretation that one could construct from the current wording of this article. Perhaps Kreeft and even the Catechism meant that "engaging in the production of pornography" is more sinful than "engaging in fornication". That makes sense to me but that's not what the article says and presumably that's not what Kreeft says either so we can't say it. But that doesn't mean that we have to include the potentially misleading direct quote from Kreeft. Why do we feel it necessary to assert the existence of a strictly increasing rank order if the Catechism doesn't assert it?

Ehhh...I just re-read the quote from Kreeft and he makes it clear that he's talking about the production of pornography so what I wrote immediately above is moot. The remaining problem is that the current text in the article doesn't make it clear that we are talking about "production of pornography" vs. "viewing of pornography" although the words "intended for distribution to third parties for viewing" kind of hints at this. --Richard (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The job of an editor is to critically pick and choose what information is worth including and how to present it. I propose that we drop the mention of the rank ordering unless there is more information to understand how the issues described above can be resolved. I further propose that we make the same distinction that the Catechism makes between "sins against chastity" and "sins against the dignity of marriage". If Kreeft doesn't make this distinction, he should and if he doesn't, we should find a source that does. It seems like an important distinction to me.

--Richard (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the producer of the pornography and the viewer of it are cooperating in the same evil. No one would make pornography is there weren't anyone to sell it to. Just as the drug dealers and producers would not be doing their evil deed unless there were someone using the drug. Now that is just my opinion and that is not found in the article. However, Kreeft, a nihil obstat, imprimatur book, a respected scholar at a respected university, the very kind of book and author that WP:reliable source examples tells us to use - does say that the list is in the form of increasing sinfulness and that is what our article portrays. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just found this [4] - the Catholic Bishops use the exact analogy I just cited above - so it is not just my view! :) NancyHeise ^talk 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting although not directly relevant to the discussion. Please understand that I am not trying to argue that pornography is not a grave sin from the Church's point of view. My argument is solely about the claimed ranking of sins in order of gravity. The source you provide immediately above does not seem to provide a rank ordering. --Richard (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It might help to know that Thomas Aquinas was one of the Church fathers who discussed the order of gravity of sins of lust in his Summa Theologica, this book discusses it here [5]. This book [6] also discusses the subject as treated by other Catholic authors including St Augustine. Kreeft is not making stuff up, he is an expert on the subject who knows whether or not an order of gravity exists and we need to be able to trust our nihil obstat, imprimatur sources to be free of doctrinal and moral error. NancyHeise ^talk 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you seem to be missing my point. I think part of the problem is that, when I started this line of discussion, I wasn't quite sure what the point was and it didn't become clear until I looked at what Kreeft and other sources had to say.

Let me go through the sources you provided one by one and hopefully you will understand what I'm getting at.

• Wikipedia article - Lists the following sins, specifying that they are listed in order of increasing gravity: lust, masturbation, fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, rape (NB: citations are to the Catechism and not to Kreeft or any other author)
• Catechism of the Catholic Church - Lists the following sins against chastity but does not specify that they are listed in order of increasing gravity: lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution, rape (NB: the Catechism does not list adultery here but under "sins against the dignity of marriage"; divorce, incest, sexual abuse and free union are also mentioned under "sins against the dignity of marriage"; why then is the sin of adultery mentioned in the Wikipedia article's list but the other sins against the dignity of marriage are not mentioned?)
• Kreeft pp. 246-248 - The list provided by Kreeft is (a)lust, (b) masturbation (c)fornication (d)pornography, (e) prostitution, and (f) rape. (NB: Kreeft's list matches the Catechism's list but not the list in this Wikipedia article. To wit, adultery is not on Kreeft's list. Kreeft adds that the Catechism's list is "in increasing order of gravity")
• Art and Doctrine (Woolf and Donaghue) - Provides the following list in order of gravity: sexual acts against nature, incest, rape, adultery, fornication. (NB: Woolf and Donaghue make it clear that this list and order of gravity reflect a "medieval classification" that "does not necessarily corespond to the views of modern readers". Adultery is on this list as is incest but the order is not the same as the Catechism or Kreeft)
• The Culture of Confession from Augustine to Foucault (Chloë Taylor) - provides an ordered list which includes: fornication, adultery, rape, incest, masturbation (NB: Pornography is not mentioned explicitly in this list. Also note that the order provided in this list is dramatically different from the orders provided in the previous lists)

So what can we take away from this? Kreeft's list matches that of the Catechism but he adds that the list is "in increasing order of gravity". The other two sources really just muddy the waters by providing lists with different elements in different orders.

At the very least, I think we need to take adultery out of the list in this article. The alternative is to present two lists: one list of the "sins against chastity" AND one list of the "sins against the dignity of marriage" and to label each list accordingly.

Also, we need to separate the attribution of the list(s) (which should be cited to the Catechism) from the attribution of the rank order in increasing gravity (which should be cited to Kreeft).

I would prefer to drop the "increasing order of gravity" altogether as it raises some questions about pornography vs. fornication and prostitution vs. pornography but, if you insist on keeping the phrase, then we really should make sure to attribute the ordering to Kreeft since the order is not mentioned in the CAtechism.

I think the Woolf/Donaghue and Taylor citations are not useful because they are discussing medieval views of these sins and thus have less relevance to the Church's current teaching. Their lists and ordering just confuse the issue by introducing more differences.

Hope this helps.

--Richard (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with richard on this point. There is not the justification in the sources to rank adultery in this way - and it could be very misleading to some people. I'd hate someone to read that and think: "Well, I've done pornography, I might as well cut back a bit, and just do a little adultery." It would be better to remove adultery from the list.

In addition many things appear in nihil obstat and imprimitur works nowadays that are not in accordance with Catholic teaching. (Just look at the NAB notes for example.) Xandar 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The list in the article is identical to the list in the Catechism now. I think Richard must have corrected this and he did a nice job of laying out this commandment. I just fleshed out these sections and improved referencing. NancyHeise ^talk 01:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found no mention of an increasing order of gravity mentioned in the Catechism, yet know that the Angelic Doctor would not have agreed with this assertion. To wit, masturbation, an example of the unnatural vice, would be ranked as more grave than all the others listed, which, although sinful, link woman and man in the manner prescribed by God. As a scholar of Catholic teaching he far outranks Kreeft, however respected he may be. Is there a reason for deciding upon Kreeft's analysis as authoritative? 190.95.84.4 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seventh commandment

I'm a bit skeptical of this sentence...

"Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment as well as slavery which it deems the stealing of a person's human rights."

Does Schreck really suggest that the precept that "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment" falls under the seventh commandment? Seems to be an overreach to me. There are other ways to justify abuse of animals and respect for the environment but "Thou shalt not steal" does not seem to be the most straightforward argument.

Once again ...

"The Church teaches that business owners should balance a desire for profits that will ensure the future of the business with a responsibility toward the "good of persons"

Does Kreeft rally suggest that the foundation for social justice is based on the seventh commandment. I can see the argument but I think it is a stretch to try and cram all of Catholic teaching into one of the ten commandments. Do Kreeft and the Catechism really try to do this? Or is this Nancy Heise speaking? Strike the above... that's what the Catechism says.

Here's another horrid sentence...

According to the Church, private property "is a natural need and a natural right" that compels the owner use it for more than private enjoyment - for the common good while first taking care of his family.

The above sentence combines two ideas that result in a non-sequitur. First, private property is a "natural need and a natural right". But how does the natural need and natural right "compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment"? We need to separate the subject "natural need and natural right" from the verb "compel". It is neither "private property" nor the "natural need and natural right" that are compelling the owner to...." but something else. What is it?

Does Kreeft really liken the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman? Seems like a really contrived analogy to me. Is this Kreeft talking or Nancy Heise talking? In either case, I think the analogy to the complementarity of man and woman does not add to the thrust of the argument and is distracting because it could cause some readers (like me) to wonder about the aptness of the analogy.

--Richard (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Richard for these great comments. I will be working on everyone's comments as I can get to them. As far as your disbelief as to Kreeft's and Schreck's comments in the section just above this one - please know that the Catholic Catechism frames catholic social teaching on the Ten Commandments. The items you can not believe are addressed under each commandment are indeed part of the Church's teaching on each Commandment and you can see that for yourself by either viewing Kreeft's book online at Googlebooks or just click on the link to the Catechism that is provided in each section. I have not been making stuff up as you allege and all of my sentences are referenced to the books and page numbers with a link to Catechism in each section to boot. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I reworded the last paragraph of this commandment to make the Church teaching more clear. Please see and let me know if you think this is addresses your concerns. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you addressed the second point about comparing the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman. However, you have not addressed my point about the following sentence:

According to the Church, private property "is a natural need and a natural right" that compels the owner use it for more than private enjoyment - for the common good while first taking care of his family.

When I look at the Catechism, I cannot find this sentence in it. Does it come from Kreeft?

Note that I am not challenging the underlying meaning of the sentence. I am challenging the specific wording which leads to a meaning that makes no sense. The key point here is that we need to pay attention to the linkage between the subject ("private property"), the predicate "a natural need and a natural right" and the verb in the subordinate clause "compels".

Here's the problem... How does private property compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment? Neither "private property" nor "a natural need and a natural right" can compel anyone to do anything.

Private property is inanimate and cannot compel anybody to do anything. Even God does not compel us to use private property for more than private enjoyment. He commands us to do so but he does not compel us to do so. Our free will allows us to disobey the commandment.

The basic problem is that you are trying to make one sentence express two ideas and you have worded the sentence in a way that makes an inappropriate linkage between the two ideas. Once you focus on the inappropriate linkage between the subject "private property" and the verb "compel", I am sure that you can come up with a better formulation. For example, we could say something like "Private property carries with it a moral obligation to use it for private enjoyment, etc. etc."

--Richard (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"private property is a natural need and a natural right" comes from Kreeft, p. 260 where he is explaining Church teaching on this commandment. See [7]. I thought it was a good summary but I am going to reword it because of your comments above. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The revised paragraph is a definite improvement. The non sequitur is gone and that was an important item to deal with.

Now that I have read the passage from Kreeft that you cited, I think it worth pointing out that your paragraph puts the relationships of private property and common good in the reverse order from Kreeft. Kreeft actually starts by saying citing the Catechism "the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race" (i.e. he starts talking about the common good) and "the right to private property does not do away with the original gift of the earth to mankind". Only then does he move on to say "the promotion of the common good requires respect for private property". This echoes the order in the Catechism. It is a more Christian approach and, from an American capitalist's point of view, a somewhat more socialistic approach.

Your treatment in the article is a bit more American and capitalist because it doesn't emphasize the "destined for the whole human race" bit as early or as strongly as Kreeft and the Catechism do. I didn't notice this until now perhaps because, like you, I am American and the way you wrote it sounds natural to an American. But, if you go back to the Catechism and to Kreeft, I think you will see that the emphasis is on the whole human race and the common good first and private property second.

The difference is subtle. You do mention both common good and private property and the complementarity of the two. I just get the feeling that the emphasis of your text is on private property with obligations to use it for the common good whereas Kreeft and the Catechism seem to emphasize that property is to be used for common good while maintaining a respect for private property.

As I said, it's a subtle shift in emphasis. It's not a big deal (at least not to me). And I doubt anybody would comment on this at FAR. However, I just point this out because I noticed it and I figured I'd share the observation with you and let you ponder whether to do anything about it.

I will comment that treatment given by Kreeft and the Catechism make a much stronger theological point: i.e. all creation was destined by God for the good of all manking, private property is just an accomodation "to assure the security of [men's] lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence". The implication is that "in the absence of poverty and violence, private property would be unnecessary". Whew!! Sounds like Marxist utopianism to me. There are, after all, those who say Marxism is a Christian heresy.

--Richard (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An apology to Nancy

I confess that some of my comments above were based on my own personal biases and speculation as to Catholic theology. Some of them I stand by but others were easily proven to be wrong once I consulted the CCC which I should have done last night had I not been too lazy. I should have been more respectful of Nancy's diligent work and refrained from casting aspersions on her thoroughness in capturing what Kreeft and the CCC said. I claim the late hour (1AM) as my flimsy excuse. --Richard (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted! Peace! (and go to bed already!) NancyHeise ^talk 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihil obstat and Imprimatur

Nancy,

You appeal to Nihil obstat and Imprimatur quite frequently but I wonder if you understand what these are saying.

From Nihil obstat...

Nihil obstat is an official approval, certifying that a work dealing with faith or morals does not contradict Catholic teaching. The "Censor Librorum" reviews the work as delegated by a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The nihil obstat is not a certification that the reviewer agrees with positions or approaches in the work.

From Imprimatur...

An Imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

Following [the imprimatur], some works may also include the following statement:

"The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, it indicates the purpose of the imprimatur: theologians and other writers are free to discuss various theories, ideas, approaches, or positions on theological topics - even if the bishop does not agree with the author's positions - provided they do not actually harm Catholic faith or morals. Within Catholic doctrine, therefore, a breadth of possible opinions may be freely discussed.

The point here is that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur only assure you that the content within the publication is not heretical and that you won't get excommunicated for preaching or teaching it. It doesn't mean that it's right and that every Catholic must agree with every word in the publication.

In brief, they don't say "This stuff is true". They say "This stuff is not obviously wrong."

--Richard (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, we have theologians in the Catholic Church who write books and they can't get nihil obstat and imprimatur because their works are not free of moral or doctrinal error. Some of these theologians (examples: Hans Kung, Charles Curran) are Catholic priests but they have been officially banned by the Church from teaching theology. Having a nihil obstat and imprimatur declaration means that the scholar's book is at least something that has an official Church approval as opposed to one that does not. Would you prefer that I use books on Catholic Theology that do not have these designations? How do I know that the writer isn't banned from teaching theology? We don't know that for sure unless we have the official Catholic approval as indicated in nihil and imprimatur. Please give me some reason why you are opposed to use of these books because I don't understand your problem with them. Do you have a better source? NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I don't oppose your use of books with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Of course, such books are to be preferred when explaining the teachings of the Catholic Church. What I am concerned about is your comments often suggest that your understanding is that if a book has Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, it can't be "wrong". As explained above, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur simply admit the teachings in a book into the spectrum of acceptable church teaching i.e. it's not so far out of the mainstream of teaching as to be heretical. It doesn't mean that those teachings are the only acceptable teachings on the topic. Thus, you should not interpret Nihil obstat and Imprimatur to indicate that everything in the book is the one and only teaching of the Church. The Church doesn't actually treat its teaching that way except on a few non-negotiable items. That's what papal bulls and encyclicals do. They end the debate that has taken place "within the spectrum of acceptable teaching". They say, "Enough. I (the Pope) have decided that it's time to narrow the spectrum of acceptable teaching. And here is what it is." Even then, the Pope is not infallible unless he is speaking ex cathedra and that has happened only twice in the history of the doctrine of papal infallibility. --Richard (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were only using one book to portray Catholic teaching then I might be concerned that a scholar's views might be his own. However, I have several sources to consult and have used the most quotable one of each of them in the article. Kreeft seems to make the point better than the others most of the time but I have read all of the sources before deciding which one to cite in each instance in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 04:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And that is a perfectly defensible approach. It's just that you sometimes fall back on an author having Nihil obstat and Imprimatur as proof of the truth of someting he wrote. That is making a different (and not so defensible) argument. 'Nuff said. As long as you understand that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are not a blanket endorsement of everything written in the book, I'm satisfied. --Richard (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing references to the Catechism

The article uses three different ways to reference the Catechism:

1. Several sentences begin with a phrase along the form of "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463,..." This locution has two problems. First of all, "addressed" is a past participle and as such should be used to describe the next noun or noun phrase which follows (usually the subject of the sentence). In many sentences, this grammatical rule is not followed leading to a sentence which is grammatically incorrect. Example: "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463,[69] the Catechism explains...". It is not the Catechism which is addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463, it is the commandment which is addressed. If we are to keep the "addressed in ..." locution, all instances of the locution should be reexamined for this grammatical flaw. However, below I argue that we should get rid of all these locutions in favor of standard Wikipedia <ref> style references.
2. There are many references in the text of the form "(CCC2384)". This is not standard Wikipedia style reference format. If this were the only way that the Catechism were referenced in this article, it would be simply a deviation from standard that keeps the article from FA status. However, when mixed in with "Addressed in paragraphs 2401-2463" and standard Wikipedia style reference formats, the result is an abomination that would keep this article from even GA status.
3. The preferred way to reference the Catechism is to use standard Wikipedia style reference format (the <ref> style of citation)

There is no need to reference Catechism paragraphs directly in the text. Most readers will not take the time to look up the Catechism text and those that wish to can use the footnotes to find the relative paragraphs. It would be acceptable to provide links to the relevant Catechism section in the footnotes to facilitate the reader jumping directly from the footnote to the relevant Catechism section.

--Richard (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will address this issue but have run out of time today. Thanks for pointing this out. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have addressed all of these. Thanks for taking the time to read and review the article. I appreciate it very much. NancyHeise ^talk 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename article and other FAC comments

I would like to know if anyone can think of a better name for this article. User:SandyGeorgia does not like the name and wants us to eliminate "The" at the very least. I suggest "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" Does anyone else have a better name to suggest or comments on the above proposal either for or against?NancyHeise ^talk 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noting that I never objected to the article title; please re-read my comments on the FAC (the problem is inconsistent use of "The" in several section headings, per WP:MSH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also posting a list of SandyGeorgia's comments for improvement, minus the personal stuff from the FAC which was quite a scathing review of my efforts here.

Article needs:

• Copyedit, it has lots of "typographical, punctuation and MoS errors"
• faulty use of WP:ITALICS,
• sentence fragments,
• inconsistent spacing on bullet points,
• incorrect ref punctuation per WP:FN,
• faulty logical punctuation per WP:PUNC,
• incorrect ellipses spacing per WP:MOS#Ellipses, and
• WP:DASH errors throughout.
• There is also inconsistency in the use of "the" per WP:MSH. The article title uses "The" for the Ten Commandments, the individual commandments don't use "The", and yet we find a strange use of "The" in front of a few section headings only.
• Corrections to tone are needed throughout: see Wikipedia:MOS#Grammar.
• There are also WP:LAYOUT issues (See also to be worked into the text or already in the text, and it's not See Also, it's See also).
• Also, please review WP:CREDENTIAL regarding the use of academic titles.

• Now, on to much more serious matters: I spotted at least one serious attribution problem, indicating that the text should be thoroughly reviewed for similar.
• Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse and marries another commits adultery"[65] and that divorce was an accommodation that had slipped into the Jewish law.[66]

Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.

• There are also many instances in the text that appear to be someone's interpretation of the catechism rather than the actual catechism; I'm unclear on attribution on those statements.

• This sentence is indecipherable:
• 3)Civil divorce is not recognized as valid, is not considered a moral offense and is accepted by the Church if it is deemed to be the only way of ensuring legal rights, care of children, or protection of inheritance.[66]

• In terms of comprehensiveness, I have a question:
• However, lying under oath ... are considered sins of blasphemy.[23]

Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?

• There are also uncited conclusions which appear as OR, sample:
• Church teaching on the tenth commandment is directed toward this same attitude toward worldly goods.

The above list comes from SandyGeorgia's oppose which is listed on this article's withdrawn FAC today.NancyHeise ^talk 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The following is also copied from the withdrawn FAC:

• Tech. Review

• Dabs need to be fixed (found with the links checker tool)
• External links are up to speed (found with the links checker tool)
• Ref formatting is not up to speed (found with the WP:REFTOOLS script)

• The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated, and appear more than once in the ref section, a ref name should be used instead

• Kreeft, p. 209
• Schreck, p. 305
• Kreeft, p. 219
• {{cite web | last =Paragraph number 2258-2330 | title =Catechism of the Catholic Church | publisher = Libreria Editrice Vaticana| year = 1994| url = http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm| dateformat=dmy |accessdate=27 December 2008}}
• Kreeft, p. 247-248
• Schreck, p. 315
• Kreeft, p. 252

• The following ref names are used to name more than 1 ref, when they should only name 1 ref

• Kreeft201
• Schreck310
• Kreeft247

NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not much to do, then. Xandar 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell if Xandar is being serious or tongue-in-cheek. Actually most of SandyGeorgia's comments are not "scathing" but just a laundry list of technical issues which, while time-consuming, are not big deals. The most serious issues that I saw are:

• attribution - who actually said what is being asserted: the Catechism, Kreeft, Schreck or Wikipedia?
• synthesis - due to unclear attribution, there is text that looks to be an interpretation of the Catechism; if it is, then it should be clearly identified as such. Otherwise, it looks like synthesis.

The phrases "The Church teaches ..." or "According to Church teaching,..." are potentially problematic. Far better to quote the Catechism or an authority such as Kreeft or Schreck. When we say that "the Church teaches...", we presume to cover all of Church teaching in its various aspects and interpretations. The Catechism is solid. Interpretations by Kreeft or Schreck are probably reliable but they are not the final definitive exposition of Church teaching, degrees, credentials, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur notwithstanding.

--Richard (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, these have all been addressed. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dies Domini

The section on keeping the sabbath holy ends with this one-sentence paragraph "The papal encyclical Dies Domini offers guidance to Catholics on keeping this commandment." It just dangles there, leaving the reader hanging. It should either be removed or the paragraph should be expanded to provide a concise summary of what Dies Domini says. --Richard (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll expand that. Thanks for your improvements and suggestions. I have run out of time today but will attend to this later this week. NancyHeise ^talk 02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotations needed

It seems clear to me from the amount of questions arising that we need to quote the author or Catechism in many of the references to avoid the charge of WP:OR. I think that we should also include links to the actual bible quotes in addition to referencing the scholar quoting them. Three people have expressed disbelief so far after reading the article that the Catechism or scholars actually say what is expressed here and all were surprised to find out that it is indeed what is being said. This may help prevent this reaction by others in the future. I will be working on this over time as it is going to be a time consuming endeavor.NancyHeise ^talk 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed by placing more links to the Catechism so Reader can see what the Cat says. NancyHeise ^talk 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

First Commandment

bronze serpent is redlinked.

--Richard (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed red link. NancyHeise ^talk 00:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Commandment

The section titled "Jesus' expansion" lists eight "duties of citizens and nations" and the text attributes them to being specified by the Catechism. However, the citation is to Kreeft. When I look at the Catechism, I do not find this specific list of eight duties although I am certain that I can find each of them in the text. Thus, it appears that the list is Kreeft's summary of the Fourth Commandment section in the Catechism. There is nothing wrong with this except that our text doesn't quite present it that way. The text should say something like "Kreeft summarizes the duties of citizens and nations specified in the Catechism as: (and then provide the list and leave the citation to Kreeft as is)". Alternatively, "The Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations" which Kreeft summarizes as..."

--Richard (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, nice suggestion. I have implemented your latter wording. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Commandment

Quality of life ethic

Quality of life ethic is a redlink. Either unlink it or create an article.

Also, does Kreeft specifically mention "quality of life ethic" as "a philosophy introduced by a book entitled Life unworthy of life" and as "first embraced by Nazi Germany"? This is not a showstopper but it seems inappropriate to link "quality of life ethic" to Nazi Germany. This is maligning an ideology by association. The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy does not mean that it is bad to have trains run on time. --Richard (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues described above. I have found the pages of the Kreeft citation in Google books. He does indeed say these things but the Catechism doesn't and it is my opinion that Kreeft is a bit over the top in his argument. The association of "quality of life ethic" with Nazi Germany beggars the debate by seeking to taint "quality of life" by association with Nazi Germany. Similarly, to argue that sanctity of life is the "basis of Western civilization" and "presupposed in our laws" is hyperbole. There is a strong element of truth in the assertion but the statement is too bald to present as unqualified truth. To present Kreeft's statements as if they were fact rather than opinion is inappropriate. --Richard (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We came to a meaningful compromise on this issue a little futher down the page here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Capital Punishment

This section consists of nothing but a single quote from the Catechism. As a general comment, we need to avoid over using quotation as a substitute for brilliant, scintillating prose. This section is a particularly extreme example of a quote farm but the whole article should be reviewed with an eye towards identifying and remedying this issue wherever it may occur. --Richard (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I paraphrased the Catechism on this one. NancyHeise ^talk 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

War and self-defense

Christ invited his followers to "turn the other cheek even to the point of martyrdom"

The above quote is not from the Bible and so it must be someone's paraphrasing or interpretation of the Bible. Whose? A citation is needed here. There is a citation to Kreeft at the third sentence in the paragraph. Are the first three sentences all attributable to Kreeft? If so, the text needs to be reworded to make that clear. Alternatively, you could cite the Bible passage directly and then attribute the second and third sentences to Kreeft. --Richard (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, this section makes no mention of Just War theory and it would be important to do so, starting with the first treatment of it by St. Augustine.

The big difficulty here is that all these citations to Kreeft make this article seem like "The Catechism according to Kreeft" with a few sops thrown to Schreck for good measure. Once again, the Catechism does not list the criteria listed in the article. Whose criteria are these? Kreeft's? Then we should say so. I am not disputing Kreeft's list but it would be possible for a different Catholic author to come up with a different list or different exposition of the items in the list and still get Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Thus, we cannot simply say "this is the Catholic Church's teaching". We must indicate that this is Kreeft's exposition of the Church's teaching (leaving open the possibility that a different author would present the Church's teaching differently).

--Richard (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Kreeft is citing the Catechism, see CCC2309,[8] the list is the same as Kreeft. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sixth commandment

"It also recognizes that responsible parenthood sometimes calls for reasonable spacing or limiting of births and thus considers natural family planning as morally acceptable but rejects all methods of artificial contraception."

I have improved this sentence but it feels incomplete. Here's the problem:

• considers natural family planning as morally acceptable but
• rejects all methods of artificial contraception (as ...)

To achieve parallel construction, there should be a counter point to "considers ... as morally acceptable" which runs along the lines of "rejects ... as counter to the purpose of the sexual act".

Also, consider these two sentences:

• Because it divorces the sexual act from the creation of a child, the Church rejects all forms of artificial insemination and fertilization.
• The Catechism states, "A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift ... 'the supreme gift of marriage'...".

Taken together, these two sentences form a non sequitur. There is the sense of something missing, some linking ideas that make it all hang together. Expound on this topic a bit more so as to lead the reader along. The brevity of the current text requires the reader to know too much about the topic.

--Richard (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Eighth commandment

Once again, whose list is this? It's not an exact match to the Catechism. Is it Kreeft's list, Schreck's list or a synthesis of both their lists? Both Kreeft and Schreck are cited for specific items on the list but it's not clear whose list this is.

Note that boasting and mocking are included in the article text but not mentioned by the Catechism. Conversely, irony is mentioned by the Catechism but not in the article text. Now, compared to the inclusion of adultery in the list of sins against chastity that we discussed earlier, this is a lesser concern. However, I raise the issue any way just for completeness. It looks like synthesis but that might be cured by being more clear as to where the list comes from.

--Richard (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Catechism uses the word "irony" (CCC2481)[9] and then defines it to be the exact definition of "mocking" which is the term used by our scholarly interpreter and is, I think, an easier word to comprehend. There is no dispute in these lists. The entire list has two refs at the end, one to the Catechism and the other to Schreck. Kreeft is cited in the middle because he ends his discussion at calumny and does not discuss the other items. Because WP:cite does not require us to have so many refs, I will remove Kreeft's since Schreck and the Catechism are enough and are more complete.NancyHeise ^talk 00:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ninth commandment

Whose list is this? It doesn't parallel the Catechism exactly. The Catechism says:

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God's grace he will prevail

- by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

- by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God's will in everything;313

- by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God's commandments: "Appearance arouses yearning in fools";314

- by prayer

2521 Purity requires modesty...

The article text says:

The Church identifies some gifts of God that help a person maintain purity and these are:

1) Chastity, which enables people to love others with upright and undivided hearts;

2) Purity of intention, which seeks to fulfill God's will in everything, knowing that it alone will lead to the true end of man;

3) Purity of vision, "external and internal", disciplining the thoughts and imagination to reject those that are impure'; and

4) Modesty, of the feelings as well as the body is discreet in choice of words and clothing.

The fourth item is cited to Schreck. Is this Schreck's list? Does he say that these four things help a person maintain purity?

Shreck actually does have five, I missed prayer. The list in Schreck is the same as in the Catechism and I have linked it to the Catechism now too so Reader can easily see this. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How does Kreeft address this topic? Does he provide the same list as the Catechism or the same list as Schreck?

I did not think we needed to have more than one ref but now the section has two, one to the Catechism and one to Schreck. I did not want to use Kreeft for every single item. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this issue is not as big as the adultery mixed in with sins of chastity issue but it is a bit of a concern because the article text rewords the Catechism in a way such that one must think carefully as to whether the meaning of the Catechism has been preserved or changed and, if changed, in what way. It would be a whole lot simpler and more defensible to simply quote the list in the Catechism verbatim and sidestep this problem.

Please see the list again, it is cited to the Catechism and to Schreck with a link to the Catechism so you can see it is the same. NancyHeise ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

--Richard (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, these are all very good comments. I am going to be attending to this page little by little as I have time and will be addressing all of these. Thank you very much for taking the time to give me a detailed and thorough list of concerns. You have been very helpful throughout. NancyHeise ^talk 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some clarifications for Richard's comments above

Richard, Kreeft and Schreck use more than just the Catechism to discuss official Church teaching on the Ten Commandments. There is a very large list of Vatican documents that discuss the teachings in detail and the scholarly sources cite not just the Catechism but also these many other official sources that were all used to create the Catechism in the first place. The Catechism was created by the Church so lay people like me didn't have to spend years in Seminary getting a PhD in Theology to understand what the Church teaches. But the creation of the Catechism did not supersede the official documents used to create it and there is more about the "spirit of the law" in the official documents that these scholars are experts in bringing out in their books. I think it is too narrow to confine the article to just the Catechism when these Nihil obstat Imprimatur books clearly make use of more. NancyHeise ^talk 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have either misstated my point or you have misunderstood it. The problem is that the article is asking us to accept Kreeft and Schreck as final authorities. They're not, Nihil obstat and Imprimatur notwithstanding. I haven't read either book so I am at a disadvantage here. Do these authors simply state what they assert the Church's teaching is or do they indicate which parts of what they write comes from the Catechism and which parts come from somewhere else?

According to you, Kreeft and Schreck are performing syntheses of various documents of the Church including but not limited to the Catechism. This is entirely acceptable to Wikipedia because Kreeft and Schreck are reliable sources. However, it is imperative that you indicate which source is saying what and avoid doing any synthesis of your own. That would be OR.

Moreover, to the extent that it is possible, it would be helpful to provide insight into what the nature of the synthesis that Kreeft and Schreck are doing. If, for example, one of them uses Augustine's Just War theory to explain the Catechism's stance on war and self-defense, then say so. If the reader understands what goes into the synthesis Kreeft and Schreck are making on a particular point, he/she can better evaluate what they assert.

Now, it may be the case that Kreeft and Schreck do not provide references to the primary sources on which they base their synthesis; in which case, we are out of luck. However, to the extent that they do, it would help to have more transparency to understand what their synthetic process is.

It will also avoid giving the reader the impression that Wikipedia is doing the synthesis.

--Richard (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on the need for more transparency given the questions I am seeing about the text. I am also going to include more quotes in the references. I like what you did with the numbering rewrite as well as the biblerefs. I was going to do the biblerefs but you beat me to it. Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

adding sources

I have ordered the United States Catholic Catechism For Adults published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to supplement the sources used in this article. This source is more authoritative than the nihil obstat imprimatur scholarly sources presently used to create the page because it is created by and published by the Church. Here's the description of the book found on the USCCB website [10] NancyHeise ^talk 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, though - this article should not just be regurgitating what the Catholic Church says. The article should rely most heavily on scholarly sources that are interpreting what the Church is saying, and it should cover the range of opinions, giving due weight. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The US Catechism is actually a scholarly source, created by Catholic experts who are commenting on the Catechism. It offers discussion and interesting facts and commentary and is something that will help supplement the scholars who are already on the page. Do you have any suggestions for sources? I think I have used the most reliable ones but I can keep looking. I am not sure of any books written by Pope John Paul II on the Ten commandments. He would be nice to include here too. NancyHeise ^talk 00:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

Also, I would like to expand the annulment section to make clear that even if you have been married with kids for several years, annulments are readily granted for women whose husbands are physically abusive. Need to find a source on that.

Regarding Sandy's comment about including something on confession, another section to consider at the end might be something on Examination of Conscience and Church teaching that encourages people to continue to go to the Sacrament of Confession when struggling to overcome a persistent sin. Something on the sacrament being invalid if the person does not receive it with proper dispostion might also be added. We need to search for a scholarly source that discusses these issues in light of the Ten Commandments. NancyHeise ^talk 02:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of life ethic vs. sanctity of life ethic

Nancy,

Does Bayertz also assert that the "quality of life ethic" originated in Nazi Germany? Please provide a quote.

This is the crux of the question. I don't dispute that "Life unworthy of life" advocates some sort of "quality of life ethic". The problem here is that Kreeft is using association with Nazism as part of his polemic against the "quality of life ethic". Are you ready to provide sources to prove that this is a majority view? I see this association as polemic rather than as fact. I don't think it belongs in the article at all and it is unnecessary to make the point about the Church's teaching.

I think you need to take Kreeft off the pedestal that you have put him on and stop treating everything he says as "gospel". If you do a Google search on "quality of life ethic" and "sanctity of life ethic", you will find plenty of people who argue for sanctity-of-life over quality-of-life. The association with Nazism is unnecessary polemic.

--Richard (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a few sources for you to consider:

• The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code.
• "It Never dies: Assessing the Nazi Analogy in Bioethics". Journal of Medical Humanities.
• "Misusing the Nazi Analogy". Science.

Now, let me make my position clear. It's obvious from even a cursory Google search that there is a strong polemic among the "sanctity of life ethic" supporters against the "quality of life ethic". And yes, some people do use the Nazi analogy as a rhetorical device to attack the "quality of life ethic". That the above two articles have felt it necessary to argue against this rhetorical device shows that this is not used only by the fringe but among the mainstream of those who advocate a "sanctity of life ethic".

I am not disputing the existence of these opposing views or the fact that some people use the Nazi analogy to attack the "quality of life ethic".

What I am trying to establish is that the linkage to Nazi medical practices is highly POV. That the Nazis had a warped view of "valuable life" is undeniable fact. However, it is highly polemical and, IMO, illegitimate to characterize "quality of life ethic" as originating in Nazism as Kreeft did and as others do as if the linkage is damning because of the despicability of Nazism.

It's as if one were to malign the argument for a strong military because Nazism built up a strong military force. Well, they did and it was bad. But that doesn't automatically mean that having a strong military is bad. And yes, some people do make this kind of argument about having a strong military but that doesn't make the argument encyclopedic.

--Richard (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Not meant as a "threat" but as a simple statement of my personal opinion regarding what others FA reviewers will think of this issue... I think an insistence on keeping the "Nazi analogy" will become an obstacle at FAR. My advice is to dump it because it is not central to your thesis. The use of the Nazi analogy in bioethics debates and the objections to such use constitute an encyclopedic topic that should be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. I may even start an article about it but this is really not a good place to delve into it. And yet, we cannot be NPOV without delving into it in at least a little bit of detail. So, I say it's better to dispense with it in this particular article. --Richard (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks for your insights. I kept the Nazi mention for several important reasons, the first of which is that it is how our scholarly source use it to explain to Reader the origin of the ethic that is directly opposed to the Catholic Church ethic. I don't think that is somehow POV, that is just a fact. Also if you search, you will find a dearth of medical journals that discuss these ethics and specifically refer to the Nazis when explaining the quality of life ethic. This is not something Kreeft invented, it is a very significant and visible discussion in the medical community when they are contemplating the subject of ethics. The Nazi's are injected because they were the first to use the quality of life argument and they are the most extreme example of its abuse. Based on these facts, it would be POV for us not to include the Nazi comment. NancyHeise ^talk 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I just saw your edit to the Nazi part, I like what you have done and I think it rounds out the issue nicely. Do you still object to this being mentioned? It is quite an important issue not to include. NancyHeise ^talk 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, your response highlights why I find Kreeft's analogy objectionable. It is an attempt to malign the quality-of-life ethic by suggesting that it has its roots in Nazism. That is precisely what the articles I referenced object to. Have you heard of Godwin's Law by the way? Kreeft's use of the Nazi analogy seems to be an example of it (or at least a corollary).

I do still object to the inclusion of the Nazi analogy but I can tolerate the text as it stands now as long as the counterbalancing text I added remains. I don't actually like the current text but it is, IMO, better than leaving the Nazi analogy there unchallenged. My personal preference would be to delete the Nazi analogy, thus obviating the need for the counterbalancing text. I will wait until FAR to see if anyone else agrees with me.

--Richard (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard, thanks, I think we have a nice compromise. I think it is better to put the issue out there and have all sides covered than to try to hide the POV issues. Per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to present these things exactly as we have now done on this page and I thank you for your help on this. NancyHeise ^talk 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunh! And I thought I was the master of NPOV but I bow before your convincing argument. It probably is better to expose both sides than to hide them. So... we are in agreement with the text as it now stands. --Richard (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the proposed Rename

I dislike "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" simply because it implies that the Catholic Church has a different set of Ten Commandments to other groups. If we're not supposed to have a "The" at the start. Why not

• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic Theology"
• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic teaching"
• "Ten Commandments - Roman Catholic understanding"
• "Ten Commandments - Roman Catholic Theological development" or simply
• "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism"

Xandar 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike "theology" because this article is more about "teaching" than about "theology". Theology being somewhat loftier, philosophical and abstruse. Teaching being more down-to-earth and practical instruction for the laity about how to live our everyday lives. So, how about Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Ten Commandments? --Richard (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic teaching is OK but it is less grammatically correct than Roman Catholicism. Richard I think the title you propose is kind of long, its OK but I think I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism better. Maybe some other editors will weigh in here too. Lets see. NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism too. I first found this article yesterday, and when I wanted to look at it again today, that is the exact phrase I put in the search box. —Angr 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that another website has used this Wikipedia article as their Ten Commandments section. If we change the name does that mess up the links coming to this page from other websites? Sandy Georgia said she is OK with keeping the name as it is right now with the word "The" at the beginning. What do others think about just keeping the present name. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When an article is renamed, the old name is usually retained as a redirect to the new name, so links to the old name, including links from outside Wikipedia, will still work. —Angr 18:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have created Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism and placed a speedy delete tag on top of The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology but I think I may not have done the tag correctly. NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of whether the tag was done correctly as that the whole process was done incorrectly. Not your fault, this sort of stuff is not obvious to the uninitiated. Read my comments below for more details. --Richard (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. NancyHeise ^talk 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

US Catechism for Adults

I received this book this week and have been reading it. It will supplement our other sources nicely in some places. I was wondering if anyone would want to see me insert some examples used by the US bishops to illustrate each commandment. They begin each commandment with a story of some saint who exemplified Church teaching. What do you think? Would this be appropriate for an encyclopedia article? NancyHeise ^talk 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved this page over the cut-and-paste copy performed by Nancy Heise

Nancy,

I don't have time to write a long message so I will refer you to WP:MOVE for the detailed explanation of how to do this right the next time.

In a nutshell, we are required to keep edit histories for copyright reasons so cut-and-paste is frowned upon unless you provide in the edit history where the text came from. You could have more easily used the "Move" tab to move the article yourself if the new title doesn't already exist. If it does, you need an admin to delete the new title first so that the old article can be moved there.

Everything should now be as you wanted it in the first place but done according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Happy editing.

--Richard (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I have never had to move a page with history before so if I did anything wrong it was not intentional. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ughh!

I spotted this nasty sentence on the page in the section, "War and self defense". Since its up for FAC again, I thought I'd better point it out here. It needs splitting somehow.

Although Christ invited his followers to "turn the other cheek even to the point of martyrdom" when our own lives are threatened, the Church defines a legitimate defense of oneself and societies that is allowed and even considered a grave duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others

Xandar 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, please feel free to edit. I am not sure what you dislike about the sentence and I am not sure how to reword it without changing its meaning to something not intended by the reference. NancyHeise ^talk 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a whack at this section. I think the problem is that Nancy was trying to say too much in a single, terse sentence. It's obvious to us who are familiar with the subject what she was trying to say but not necessarily obvious for the less knowlegeable reader. My text takes several sentences to lay out the case that Nancy was trying to pack into two or three sentences. Hopefully, this is now more accessible to the average reader. (NB: I was a little bit lazy with the Catechism references. These may need to be cleaned up.)

--Richard (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's a lot clearer. Xandar 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Catholic numbering,..

Before I changed it, the text used to read "According to Catholic numbering, the first commandment instructs people to..."

The problem here is understanding what "According to Catholic numbering" refers to. I understand that Nancy meant that this is the first commandment using the Catholic system of numbering the commandments. However, technically, that's not what the sentence says.

I think the best way to explain it is that "according to Catholic numbering" modifies the entire sentence or, at least, the primary verb "instructs". That is, if the sentence is read according to proper English grammar, it is the "instruction of the commandment" that is "according to Catholic numbering". Of course, this leads to a sentence that doesn't mean what we want it to mean.

The way to fix it is to move the "according to Catholic numbering" to a different spot in the sentence. We could say "The commandment, which is first according to Catholic numbering, instructs....". However, that sentence, while providing the meaning we want, is stilted and sounds awkward.

My suggestion is to either (1) make two separate sentences or (2) drop the point about Catholic numbering altogether since we've already made the point about numbering and this is just a reminder. I have implemented the second approach. Feel free to use a different approach to fix the problem.

--Richard (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I think your changes are fine. NancyHeise ^talk 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Navigation template

I am removing the navigation template per a FAC comment by user:Ealdgyth because it takes up too much space on the page. If anyone has a problem with this please post your comments here and lets discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

En dash

While I know I sound petty for talking about a minor triviality like this, I think we should make it unambiguous as to which style of dash should be used for independent clauses etc. I've seen WP:ENDASH and see that "spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article." So it's a cosmetic decision.

Tangent: it's a matter of function. To whoever is writing, it is all done in a plain text box anyway, so why should the look matter? 118.90.41.39 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Transmission of life

Nancy,

I have a problem with this sentence: "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I don't have any problem with the underlying meaning of the sentence but technically "transmission of life" cannot "require couples to ..." unless we mean something like "respect for the sanctity of the transmission of life". To me, "transmission of life" sounds like a fairly mechanical, biological process that requires certain physical and biological preconditions but, as a physical and biological process, "transmission of life" cannot require humans to "be open to....".

I see that the U.S. Catechism is referenced. Can you provide a quote for us to consider? Or a reference to the Catholic Catechism? I'm sure we can reword this sentence to say what we want it to mean but I hesitate to attempt a fix until I know what the Catechism says. I would prefer to use wording close to what the Catechism says than to attempt a fix based on hunches.

--Richard (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks I would appreciate your help on this. I changed the wording from "procreative aspect" to "transmission of life" to satisfy a FAC comment. Here's the actual quote from US Catechism for Adults p 408-9:

"The bond between husband and wife is both conjugal and procreative. Conjugal mutual love and fidelity is the unitive aspect of marriage. The procreative aspect of marriage concerns the conception, birth, and education of children. The bond between the unitive and procreative may not be broken. The unitive aspect of marriage involves the full personhood of the spouses, a love that encompasses the minds, hearts, emotions, bodies, souls, and aspirations of husband and wife. They are called to grow continually in unitive love and fidelity so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Their mutual self-giving is strengthened and blessed by Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Matrimony. God seals the consent that the bride and groom give to each other in this Sacrament. 'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. (CCC, no 2362, citing GS, no. 49)' Acceptance of a spouse's faults and failures as well as of one's own is a recognition that the call to holiness in marriage is a lifelong process of conversion and growth. God calls the married couple to be open to children, remembering always that having a child is not a right, but rather a gift from God (cf. CCC, no 2378). In this way, they share the creative power and fatherhood of God. In giving birth to children and educating and forming them, they cooperate with the love of God as Creator. Marital love by nature is fruitful. The marriage act, while deepening spousal love, is meant to overflow into new life. Families are images of the ever-creative power and life of the Holy Trinity and the fruitfulness of the relationship between Christ and his Church. ....."(and so on)

NancyHeise ^talk 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on "Fecundity of marriage". In the process, I wound up dropping this sentence "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I think this idea is actually presented in a slightly different phrasing in the current text. I still have problems with the idea that "transmission of life requires..." but I think the problem is obviated by the current text. Let me know what you think. --Richard (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources to consult

I'm getting a little tired of posts I've seen in all sorts of talk pages now accusing the FAC delegates of only counting supports and opposes (usually accompanied by a note that there was 1 oppose and 1 support for this article, indicating the nominator believes that to be most important). I'll note for the record that three editors posted on the 2nd FAC page for this article that they would like to see more historical context for the article to be comprehensive (two of them were not listed as official opposes, but as comments). On the FAC page, the nominator said this information wasn't available in the sources consulted. Since this is not my area of expertise and I didn't know one way or the other, I actually did a few Google books searches to see if there could be information out there to satisfy those objections. I found a few books that looked promising, and only then did I close the nomination. I spent an hour today trying different search terms on Google books, and I found quite a few references that may be useful. I have not read any of these books (mostly just skimmed a page or two or looked at the table of contents), so I cannot say whether they will be useful. I am also not advocating that these sources necessarily be used in the article, although I did try to make sure that most of them are from university professors and/or other respected authors. That said, the sources may give tips on other books that might be useful. I also encourage you to begin a dialogue with the three editors who complained about non-comprehensiveness. They probably know more about this topic than me and may have some good ideas on potential searches that you can do to find additional sources. However, it is definitely possible that on a full read none of the sources will have any useful information whatsoever and you'll still have no new tips on how to find that information. That is actually not a bad thing - at any potential future FA nominations for this topic you could then categorically state that "I've consulted this list of books and couldn't find anything; I don't believe the information is available." That is really helpful to delegates, and to reviewers. So, ending the long rant, here are the sources I found that might be useful:

• Keenan, James F. Moral Wisdom: lessons and texts from the Catholic tradition. Rowman & Littlefield (2004). ISBN 978074532021 [11] - Note, the author is a Professor of Moral Theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Massachusetts; he has a doctorate in sacred theology.
• Curran, Charles E. Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History. Georgetown University Press (2008). ISBN 9781589011960. [12] - professor of human values at Southern Methodist University; ordained minister who does not always agree with church teachings - this makes him a good foil (present any alternate theories as well). Also note that some of his books have been published by Paulist Press.
• Wills, Garry. Head and heart: American Christianities. Penguin Group (2007). ISBN 9781594201462 [13] - Note, author is Pulitizer Prize-winning historian
• Badham, Roger A. Introduction to Christian theology: contemporary North American perspectives. Westminster John Knox PRess (1998). ISBN 9780664256746 [14]
• Schall, James V. Roman Catholic Political Philosophy. Lexington Books (2006). ISBN 9780739117033. [15] -Note - author is a priest who serves as a profressor at Georgetown University
• Ignatius Theodore Eschmann, Edward A. Synan. The ethics of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (1997). ISBN 978088447203. [16]
• Curran, Charles E. Change in Official Catholic Moral Teaching. Paulist Press (2003). ISBN 9780809141340 [17]
• Hester, Joseph P. The Ten commandments: a handbook of religious, legal, and social issues. McFarland (2003). ISBN 9780786414192. [18]
• Noonan, John Thomas. Contraception; a History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1965). [19]
• Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: the earliest Christian tradition and its interpreters. Continuum International Publishing Group (2005) ISBN 9780567029102 [20]
• Herr, William A. Catholic Thinkers in the Clear: Giants of Catholic Thought from Augustine to Rahner. Thomas More Press (1985) ISBN 9780883471919 [21]
• Bonaventure, Paul J. Spaeth St. Bonaventure's Collations on the Ten Commandments. The Fransciscan Institute, ST. Bonaventure University (1996) ISBN 9781576590058 [22]
• Bailey, Wilma A. "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder"?: the assault on a biblical text. Liturgical Press (2005). ISBN 9780814652145 [23]
• Obach, Robert. The Catholic Church on Marital Intercourse: From St. Paul to Pope John Paul II. Rowman & Littlefield (2008). ISBN 9780739130872 [24]
• Riddle, John M. Eve's Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Harvard University PRess (1999). ISBN 9780674270268 [25] - a few pages on pope's response in the mid-19th century; called revolutionary
• Hsia, R. Po-chia. The world of Catholic renewal, 1540–1770. Cambridge University Press (2005). ISBN 9780521841542 [26] pg 52 has interesting statistics on how many people knew the 10 commandments in the middle ages

There are also a lot of books on Google from the 19th century that discuss the commandments. If there are differences between that discussion and the modern books you have read, that may help you to find search terms to see if any scholars have discussed those changes. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Karanacs, I too took a serious interest in this article since I spent months creating it after researching all of the sources available on the subject. When asked to include more history on the Ten Commandments I searched for more history than what I had already included. I used books that were university textbooks and even these did not include more mention of history than what I already had in the article. The one oppose on the page was asking me to include mentions of things like the Bishops letter to Hitler that inclulded a mention of the commandment not to kill. Since none of the scholarly experts on the subject included this historical mention in their commentaries, I did not think that I should either. Gimmetrow and Ottava Rima did not oppose the article, they said it might include more history without making any mention of what specific historical event I should include that was not already there. My gripe - which remains - is that the FAC was closed after one support and one oppose and you assumed that I was the person in the wrong when in fact, those asking for more history did not realize that there isn't any more to include without turning the page into WP:OR. NancyHeise ^talk 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Further note - the history of the ten commandments in RCC is not a controversial subject with a long history. The Ten Commandments are straightforward easy to understand precepts. The Church teaching on them has not changed other than what has already been included in the article. Those who suggest otherwise do not have sources to support their assertions because they did not suggest any at FAC and I have already searched for them just in case it was possible to include something more that might win their support vote. I can't create info where there isn't any. NancyHeise ^talk 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, this is why I included the very long list of potential sources above. I did do a little research to see if there could be any validity to the comments and the oppose, and I found a lot of sources that looked like they may have that type of information. Please don't dismiss these out of hand without looking at any of them. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I think you are oversimplifying the case here.

You wrote "the history of the ten commandments in RCC is not a controversial subject with a long history. The Ten Commandments are straightforward easy to understand precepts. The Church teaching on them has not changed other than what has already been included in the article."

This is mostly true but the elaboration of the Church's teaching has gone through some evolution. One can argue that the basic teaching has not changed but the teaching has had to be elaborated to address changes in society and technology. For example, the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae addressed changes in contraceptive technology. This was a major historical event, recognized by Benedict XVI as such. The reverberations of that encyclical can still be felt today. The church's teaching on contraception and abortion are apparently ignored by the majority of U.S. Catholics. That suggests that the church's teaching on these issues is controversial at least in the United States.

Whether you want to include the controversy in the U.S. in the scope of this article is a separate question that we could debate. However, to fail to mention Humanae Vitae is a major omission.

I am not currently aware of any other key encyclicals that should be mentioned in this article but I will start looking to see if I can find any.

--Richard (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I have no problem with mention and wikilink of Humanae, I see you have already made this change, well done. NancyHeise ^talk 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article topic

The topic of this article is the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. However, some people want to turn it into a history of developement on Roman Catholic thinking about issues that are not one of the ten commandments. I want to make clear that any historical event that affected official Church teaching on any of the commandments is already included in the article. What we have correctly omitted are:

• 1)disputes between peoples and scholars that did not result in change in official Church teaching
• 2)The personal perusals of Church and other theologians that did not become part of official Church teaching on a commandment.
• 3)Church theological development of issues that did not specifically pertain to the commandments.

Scholarly experts teaching the subject of the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism do not include these as part of the history of the Ten Commandments, in fact there is very little to report since interpretations of adultery, murder, stealing, lying, etc have always been the same since even before the Church came into being. Our article lays out official Catholic Church interpretation of these commandments as well as any significant historical event directly affecting Church interpretation. NancyHeise ^talk 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is by no means my area of expertise. However, I will caution you against defining the scope so narrowly as to only include the official RCC teachings. While those are absolutely critical to the article and should be given by far the greatest weight, per WP:NPOV the article should include any other perspectives. There are people (including large numbers of Catholics in some cases) who disagree with the RCC's interpretation of some of the commandments. Their views should probably at least be mentioned, if not given undue weight. If Church theological development of other issues came out of study of the 10 commandments, that might also be useful information to share. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The books I used to create the article provided those alternate views (Jewish and other non-Catholics) and I have given them space in the article. Views omitted are things like what Atheists believe and the like which I hope you are not suggesting we include because I think that would look kind of ridiculous. NancyHeise ^talk 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A brief history of the Church's teaching on capital punishment

This is from www.americancatholic.org

The Bible is often mentioned in debates about the death penalty. Supporters quote the Exodus passage, eye for eye, while opponents appeal to Ezekiel (33:11): "As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live." In fact, such use of the Bible (finding a "proof text" to affirm one's point of view) is inappropriate.

Scripture scholars teach us to understand the Bible (and its individual books) in historical context: when it was written and why. Thus considered, there is an ambivalence about capital punishment in the Scriptures.

Clearly, the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the death penalty (for a much longer list of offenses than our society would be comfortable with—for example, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, idolatry). Yet, as we see in Ezekiel and many other passages, there is also an attempt to limit violence and to stress mercy. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus' life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus' death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty.

Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: "If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person" (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops' opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.

--Richard (talk)

Perhaps we could make room in the article for a separate section discussing popular approval or disapproval of certain Church teachings based on such information? I have a news article that says that the Church teaching on marriage (the one wife rule) is highly rejected by Africans just like the no birth control rule is highly rejected by Americans. The article states that different Church teachings receive different receptions in different cultures. That might be an interesting aspect to bring out. NancyHeise ^talk 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is quite good although cultural differences are a different dimension from differences over the course of history. I would recommend keeping discussions of historical and cultural differences short as I think the current article is long enough without adding in a lot of new distractions. That's my opinion. The FAR reviewers may have a different opinion. --Richard (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Two paradigms of Catholic moral theology

A Google search on "Ten Commandments Catholic theology" came up with this as one of the first few results:

http://www.blessed-sacrament.org/twoparadigms.htm

I think it sheds an important perspective on the role of the Ten Commandments in Catholic formation. This is not to minimize the Ten Commandments in Catholic education but it's clear that memorizing the catechism has been de-emphasized and there is a temptation to teach "follow your own conscience".

I think it behooves us to determine whether this piece Blankenhorn accurately describes the evolution of Catholic education and whether his prescription is in the mainstream of Catholic thought regarding Catholic education.

--Richard (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, books used in Catechesis receive a special approval from the Bishops conferences. They reflect the highest approval, higher than books with Nihil obstat, Imprimatur. I have used a catechetical book as well as nihil obstat and imprimatur books (and primary sources of the Catechism and Bible) when presenting the official Catholic view both on this page and on Roman Catholic Church. These sources all say that the Ten Commandments is part of the most common Examination of Conscience and the book I have has a separate section on the commandments as well as the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. The essay of the priest you link above might be discussing a lesser emphasis in todays teaching, I don't know because I was not brought up in the Church (I am a convert remember). I teach a religious education class and the Ten Commandments is large part of the official teaching materials I have to use so I personally would disagree with the above priest's analysis. NancyHeise ^talk 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Roman Catholic positions on abortion

[Evolution of Roman Catholic positions on abortion]

--Richard (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, that website is the most inaccurate one I have ever seen on any religion. NancyHeise ^talk 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the Catechism and several university textbooks, the Catholic position on abortion has never changed. Abortion has been condemned since the earliest Christian writings and it has never changed since. Thomas Aquinas once wrote that he thought the soul did not enter the body until a few weeks after conception but his personal opinion in the matter did not change Church teaching. We have to be careful to include only the history of the actual commandments, not individual scholars perusals that did not result in some sort of change. Otherwise we will have to include the zillions of scholars throughout the past 2000 years who have perused the issue over and over again. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, after a bit more research, I am convinced that we must address the Augustine/Aquinas perspectives on ensoulment/quickening. It doesn't matter whether the church's teaching has changed (the official line is that abortion at any stage of pregnancy has always been a "grave evil" although perhaps in the past it might have been considered a more grave sin after quickening).

The point is that the question about "quickening" is raised by a number of pro-choice advocates (e.g. Pelosi and Biden). See this link and so this makes the debate notable and worthy of being addressed.

--Richard (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I see that you inserted a note in the article, I referenced it to the article you link. I think it covers that POV nicely now. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we're done with this topic yet.

[Moved here from my Talk Page

Richard, can you add a reference for your groupnote addition to Murder and Abortion section of Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism? Thanks for taking the time to round out the article with these items. If you could just paste the source on my talk page I would be glad to put it in the article for you. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, in case it isn't obvious, I am not trying to get the article to say that the church has had a different teaching about abortion in the past. I am trying to get the article to say that some people argue that the church has had a different teaching about abortion in the past and that this allegation is significant enough to be worth mentioning at least in a Note and perhaps providing the rebuttals made by some Catholics.

Personally, I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the teaching that "abortion is a grave sin" and the fact that lesser penance and civil punishment were exacted from those who committed abortions before than from those who committed it after quickening. Based on the incorporation of quickening into English common law prior to the Anglican schism, it appears that less penance and less civil penalty was exacted from those who committed abortions prior to quickening but that is perhaps equivalent to exacting less penalty for manslaughter or second-degree murder than first-degree murder. Murder is still a grave sin and the recognition of varying gradations of culpability in different situations doesn't change the fact that it is a grave sin.

I don't think this article is the right place to get into this topic in detail. However, a quick mention of the issue and a pointer to some other article is probably in order.

Nancy, if you have time and inclination, perhaps you can help me research this. I found enough evidence to suggest that this was an issue worth mentioning in the article but did not have time to research it fully and write a good quality note. One good way to get started is to Google the search terms "Augustine Aquinas quickening". Here are some initial sources to get started.

• Aquinas held all abortions to be a grave sin
• Human embryonic stem cells
• Quickening Doctrine
• Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature
• The Speaker Blew It!

NB: The article "The Speaker Blew It!" quotes a rebuttal from Peter Kreeft.

--Richard (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That is probably enough for this article, although I don't think the information is really that controversial in scholarly terms (as opposed to little-known). Isidore of Seville asserted a 42 day "quickening" delay. What is usually not understood is that until the 19th century, childbirth-"abortions" to save the life of the mother were actually extremely common, and accepted by the church. The alternative in very difficult labours was Caesarians, which were regarded as invariably fatal to the mother until then (the first recorded instance of the mother surviving a Caesarian was in 1500, when Jakob Nufer, a pig gelder, operated on his wife). Given a choice between saving the life of the child or mother, the church accepted the mother should be saved. As late as about 1900, some doctors in England & no doubt elsewhere asked the father which he wanted to save, if saving both was seen as impossible. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Abortions to save the life of the mother are still accepted by the Church and this is part of the article. If a policy is unchanged, do we need to discuss a history? NancyHeise ^talk 17:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I said I thought we had enough, although the phrasing might be adjusted. At FAC it would be pointed out that there are (I think) no references dealing with the same church writers giving their position differently, or explaining why it does not mean the church's position has varied somewhat. I thought it was still the church's policy too, though comments some years ago by Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the English RCC on a similar issue with Siamese twin babies puzzlingly suggested not. I'd not heard of this 1889 statement, which seems to refer to the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I think all that is needed is for the abortion note to include a sentence that says some scholars disagree with these interpretations of Aquinas and Augustine's statements being used to justify the legality of abortion in today's society since both of these scholars condemned the practice in their own time. NancyHeise ^talk 17:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added this to the abortion note using ref provided by Richard. NancyHeise ^talk 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard, do you think we need more? Are you OK with the abortion section now? NancyHeise ^talk 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the current text covers the controversy adequately for the scope of this article. A fuller discussion belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Richard (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

possible sources

I don't think the historical background needs to be expanded that much, but given the recent comments on the FAC, the following sources might be helpful:

• Pelikan does in fact discuss the Ten Commandments at one point:[27]

Perhaps as important as the cultic service rendered by the Old Testament to the concrete life of the church was the ethical service provided by the commandments of the Old Testament, especially by the Decalogue. For despite the strictures on the Jewish law that became a stock argument of anti-Jewish polemics, the Decalogue, as summarized and reinterpreted by the ethical teachings of Jesus, was accorded a special place in the church. Irenaeus said that "the words of the Decalogue ... remain in force among us"; and even the Gnostic Ptolemy, a follower of Valentinus, distinguished in his Letter to Flora between the Decalogue and all the rest of the law of Moses, seeing the former as fulfilled in Christ and the latter as either abolished or spiritualized. It is not clear what role the Decalogue played in Christian worship (although there is some indication that it was recited at certain services) or in Christian education (although certain passages in Augustine give the impression that it was used as a basis for instruction in ethics); but it is clear that the Decalogue was highly valued as a summary of the law of God, both natural and revealed.

The first part you already touch on, although I think including some of the specifics would place it in a clearer historical context. The part relating to education might also be worthwhile including, despite its uncertainty.

• I happened on Kuntz's History of the Ten Commandments, which you may be able to glean some tidbits from, although his scope also includes Judaism and Protestantism: [28] Lesgles (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lesgles, these will be helpful. I'll page through Kuntz [29] and try to add anything new he might have to say. Since the article is discussing the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism and is a daughter article to main Ten Commandments article, do you think we need to include much more on Jewish and Protestant views of the Ten? I think it strays off topic. I think we can include it in the Background section but not in the rest of the article. What do others think? NancyHeise ^talk 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find much that is Catholic specific in Kuntz, the book is a commentary about the Ten Commandments as discussed by different thinkers through time. I'll keep trying but it does not appear to be very helpful in adding pertinent facts to this article. Also, I am not sure if there is anything we can add for your first source above, the article already discusses those issues. What do you think should be added from that source? NancyHeise ^talk 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that what you have added (about education, etc.) is fine. I was perhaps a bit too hasty with my Judaism addition, but I do think it would be worthwhile to have half a sentence in there for completeness. Here is a possible source: http://books.google.com/books?id=87hQ2AjcttEC&pg=PA82. Lesgles (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks that was very helpful, I added a sentence to the numbering section to cover Jewish numbering differences with Christian denominations and used your linked ref. Thanks again for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

More history added

I have added more history to the article per the last FAC's comments. I think the problem is that some people think church teaching has changed on certain issues when it has not. Where before, I wrote about only official Church teaching, because of this confusion, I have brought out more of this history in the article, please see:

• last paragraph of Background section
• Fecundity of marriage and sexual pleasure section
• Abortion section
• Capital punishment section

These new additions are referenced to two newly added university press sources and an online source. I welcome your comments. I would like to take this article to FAC again soon. If you feel it is not ready, please be kind and state your reservations now. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Third commandment

I have one more suggestion, this time about the third commandment. I think the idea that this commandment was applied to Sunday throughout requires qualification. For example, here is the second definition of Sabbath in the OED:

Since the Reformation, often applied to ‘the Lord's day’, i.e. the first day of the week (Sunday) observed by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. This use was originally connected with the opinion that the sabbatic law of the Decalogue remains in force under the Christian dispensation, the date of the ‘Sabbath’ having by Divine appointment been changed from Saturday to Sunday; but it occasionally appears in writers who did not hold this view. In Scotland it is still very common. (Phrases as in 1a.) The notion that the Lord's day is a ‘Christian Sabbath’, or, more commonly (as in quot. 1340 under a) a substitute for the Sabbath, occurs in theological writings from the 4th c. onwards, but was not popularly current before the Reformation. In English, Sabbath as a synonym for ‘Sunday’ did not become common till the 17th century.

That, or a set of articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia ("[30]", "[31]", "[32]"), might be useful in revising this section. Lesgles (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these helpful notes. I looked up the Sabbath in Catholic Encyclopedia following your link and it says this: "The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day. (See SUNDAY.)" The third commandment observation has always been Sunday for Catholics even though the history of the term described by Oxford English Dictionary has not always used the term "Sabbath" but "Lords Day". Do you think this is important to put into the article? The OED is discussing use of the word "Sabbath" not the actual observance. I am interested to know your thoughts. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 20:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I changed a sentence to read "Because they believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the Sabbath or "Lord's Day" has been observed by Christians since the first century on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews." to provide wikilink to Lords day and include that it has been this way since first century. Previously the sentence did not include mention of first century. I think this is enough, especially with the wikilink to the lords day page where discussion on when it came to be called a Christian sabbath is more appropriate than on this page. What do you think? NancyHeise ^talk 21:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my train of thought was that if the word Sabbath was not applied to Sunday (and if in some languages (e.g. Spanish) the word was used for Saturday), then at that .

All I think is necessary now is some account (a sentence or two will do the trick, I think) of the opposing viewpoints in the early church regarding the observance of the Sabbath, using the following two paragraphs in the CE as a source ("Sunday"):

The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. The common opinion maintains that, while it is highly becoming to be present at Vespers on Sunday, there is no strict obligation to be present. The method of reckoning the Sunday from sunset to sunset continued in some places down to the seventeenth century, but in general since the Middle Ages the reckoning from midnight to midnight has been followed. When the parochial system was introduced, the laity were taught that they must hear Mass and the preaching of the Word of God on Sundays in their parish church. However, toward the end of the thirteenth century, the friars began to teach that the precept of hearing Mass might be fulfilled by hearing it in their churches, and after long and severe struggles this was expressly allowed by the Holy See. Nowadays, the precept may be fulfilled by hearing Mass in any place except a strictly private oratory, and provided Mass is not celebrated on a portable altar by a privilege which is merely personal.

The obligation of rest from work on Sunday remained somewhat indefinite for several centuries. A Council of Laodicea, held toward the end of the fourth century, was content to prescribe that on the Lord's Day the faithful were to abstain from work as far as possible. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Caesarius, as we have seen, and others showed an inclination to apply the law of the Jewish Sabbath to the observance of the Christian Sunday. The Council held at Orléans in 538 reprobated this tendency as Jewish and non-Christian. From the eight century the law began to be formulated as it exists at the present day, and the local councils forbade servile work, public buying and selling, pleading in the law courts, and the public and solemn taking of oaths. There is a large body of civil legislation on the Sunday rest side by side with the ecclesiastical. It begins with an Edict of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, who forbade judges to sit and townspeople to work on Sunday. He made an exception in favour of agriculture. The breaking of the law of Sunday rest was punished by the Anglo-Saxon legislation in England like other crimes and misdemeanours. After the Reformation, under Puritan influence, many laws were passed in England whose effect is still visible in the stringency of the English Sabbath. Still more is this the case in Scotland. There is no federal legislation in the United States on the observance of the Sunday, but nearly all the states of the Union have statutes tending to repress unnecessary labour and to restrain the liquor traffic. In other respects the legislation of the different states on this matter exhibits considerable variety. On the continent of Europe in recent years there have been several laws passed in direction of enforcing the observance of Sunday rest for the benefit of workmen. Lesgles (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, I changed the sentence in question to read "Although Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the last day of the week (Saturday), Catholics, along with most Christians, celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week (Sunday) which is the Lord's Day." This sentence hints that there are Christians (Sabbatarians like the Seventh Day Adventists) who observe the Sabbath on Saturday. The sentence does not go into the history of the shift from Saturday to Sunday. The first point that might be made is that, according to the CE, it was mostly Jewish Christians who observed the Sabbath on Saturday. Presumably, they also observed the Lord's Day on Sunday. It was the Gentile Christians who dropped observation of the Sabbath on Saturday, combining it with the observance of the Lord's Day on Sunday. I think we could have one sentence that states this point and then a hint that there continued to be some debate as to how much of the law of the Jewish Sabbath should be observed on Sunday. Much of the law around the Jewish Sabbath seems to have been dropped at the same time and in much the same way that the rest of the Jewish law from the Old Testament was dropped. --Richard (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I added Catholic Encyclopedia "Sunday" as a ref for this section and some more info from that source. Please see and let me know if you think it says all that needs saying. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks better; thanks! Lesgles (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just touched this sentence up to refer equally to the three largest-POV articles on Sabbath. JJB 04:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I like having those links there but I'm not crazy about the prose. Can anyone help on the prose, its sort of choppy and does not make the point in a simple and easy to understand kind of way. I don't have any ideas how to improve upon it, maybe Richard can do this, he is pretty good at prose. NancyHeise ^talk 03:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a go and cut out some of the repetitive elements. Lesgles (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You did a terrific job, I think it now meets the "brilliant" WP:FA criteria. Great job! Thank you! NancyHeise ^talk 14:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation should match the text

The lead paragraph says "According to the Catechism, they "have occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith ever since the time of Saint Augustine,[3] are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth, and serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching"

The sentence says "According to the Catechism" but cites the first part to Schreck. This should either cite the Catechism or say "According to Schreck". Also why is the first part cited to Schreck and not citation is given for the other two parts?

Also, I have found some sources who provide a different perspective regarding the first part and so it would be useful to have the exact wording of the cited text from Schreck.

--Richard (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks for your comment. I agree, citation should match text. Schreck is quoting the Catechism in that citation that is why I said "According to the Catechism". To avoid future confusion I just now added a citation to the Catechism to back up Schreck per your comment. I also cited the rest of the sentence which was summarizing cited sentences found in Background section. I am interested to know what sources provide a different perspective regarding the first part because that part is now cited directly to the Catechism, in fact it is a direct quote from the Catechism that is included in Schrecks book as well in his introduction to the article subject. NancyHeise ^talk 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments vs. Seven Deadly Sins

This comment focuses on the sentence in the lead that states "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)"

The central question is: What is meant by "a predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine"?

A very simplistic reading of this statement would suggest that the Ten Commandments have had the predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine. I wager that most readers would read it that way. However, if they do read it that way, the lead might be considered to be presenting an inaccurate and overly simplified characterization of the history of the Ten Commandments as used to teach moral theology.

In Moral Wisdom, James Keenan asserts that the history of moral theology was almost exclusively dominated by the desire to assist priests in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Keenan traces this history from the "penitentials" of medieval times to the "confessional manuals" of high Scholasticism to the "moral manuals" of modern times.

The key "take away" here is that some scholars argue that from the introduction of the Seven Deadly Sins by Pope Gregory I in 590AD until well past the Reformation, Catholic moral teaching was based on the Seven Deadly Sins and not the Ten Commandments. Now, we can argue that the Seven Deadly Sins are related to the Ten Commandments but the connection is a bit tenuous.

NB: We must also distinguish between moral teaching to the common layperson and the writings of Christian scholars. See this lecture for a discussion of how Christian scholars treated the Ten Commandments over the centuries.

There seems to be some difference of opinion here. The above source suggests that the Ten Commandments is used in various lay catechisms. However, in Commandments of Compassion, Keenan and Keenan assert that the "pentitentials" and "confessional manuals" were organized according to the Seven Deadly Sins.

Keenan and Keenan assert that fifteenth-century theologians such as Jean Gerson attempted to "provide a more positive Scripture-based formation to Christians and to overcome the minimalist claims of simply avoiding sin".

Keenan and Keenan write that "During the Reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin and then the Council of Trent also sought out the Ten Commandments as the basis of moral instruction in the context of catechetical instruction. Their appeal to the decalogue became a strong repudiation of the primacy accorded to the seven deadly sins."

Harrington and Keenan elaborate on this theme in Jesus and virtue ethics.

One of Martin Luther's criticisms of the Church was its use of the Seven Deadly Sins as the focus of Catholic moral teaching.

In the The Christian Way of Living, Klaus Bochmuehl writes: "A popular myth in Protestant circles says that the Reformation alone restored the Ten Commandments. But this is not true historically. A recovery began in the thirteenth century."

In conclusion, contrary to the impression given by the statement in the Catechism, the Ten Commandments has not always had the predominant place in teaching faith since Saint Augustine. Now, we can quibble with words and argue about the difference between "a predominant place" vs. "the predominant place". We could also note that the Catechism does not actually say "always held a predominant place" thus allowing for the possibility of interruptions between Augustine and the present-day. However, the gap between 590 and the Council of Trent is over 800 years and so this kind of careful parsing winds up being sophistry.

As much as we wish to honor the assertions of the Catechism as representative of Catholic teaching, the most generous conclusion we can come to is that there are a number of religious historians (not necessarily Catholics) who would portray a different story than the one implied by the statement in the Catechism. NPOV requires us to present this "different story" somewhere in the article. Perhaps in a Note to the statement "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)".

--Richard (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont' have a problem including this information. I think a note on Protestant views is fine. Let me see what I can put together. NancyHeise ^talk 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. I would like to emphasize that I'm not convinced that this is purely an issue of "Catholic" view vs. "Protestant" view. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an instrument of Catholic teaching, not a review of Christian history. It is very plausible that the writers of the Catechism glossed over the period in question. Also, this is not purely a question of Protestants vs. Catholics. Jean Gerson was pre-Reformation and thus fully "Catholic". The assertion being made is that the "Seven Deadly Sins" were more central to Catholic moral teaching than the Ten Commandments in the period from 590 to the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Gerson, Luther and Calvin are portrayed by some writers as championing the Ten Commandments over the Seven Deadly Sins. These same writers argue that the Catholic Church came to the same conclusion at the Council of Trent. I don't know if the writers cited above are Catholic, Protestant or atheist. (I suspect that they are not Catholic.) I haven't seen any source directly refute their assertion although, as I indicated, there are some who seem to provide contradicting information about the contents of lay catechisms (i.e. that such lay catechisms included both the Seven Deadly Sins AND the Ten Commandments). --Richard (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment was written before I had a chance to read what was recently added to the "Background" section. Although the prose could be improved, I am happy with the points that are made there and I consider the substance of my concern to be addressed. I will leave it to others to tighten up the prose. --Richard (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I was just wondering why Categories Roman Catholic Church and Christianity were removed from the bottom of this article by user:Carlaude. Why can't this article be part of all those categories? Is there a policy page I should read on categorization of articles? Can some very nice knowledgable editor provide a link? Thanks in advance. NancyHeise ^talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I'm not very knowledgeable about categories and am just starting to learn some of the more subtle features and policies regarding them so I am perhaps only a step or two further up the learning curve than you. You should look at WP:CATEGORIES; in particular, read the section on subcategorization.

The key principle here is that pages should not generally be mentioned at every level in the categorization hierarchy. To understand this, imagine what happens if it's not done this way, the top-level of the hierarchy would have thousands of pages as every saint would be mentioned in the category Category:Roman Catholic Church. The top-level category would become useless as no one could search through all the pages. In general, pages should be placed in the most specific (lowest) level of the hierarchy.

Using this logic, Carlaude moved the article out of Category:Roman Catholic Church and (presumably) Category:Christianity into Category:Catholic social teaching. I decided that this was not the best approach, so I created a category called Category:Catholic moral theology and placed it here. If you follow the category hierarchy, you will find that Category:Catholic moral theology is part of Category:Catholic theology and doctrine which is part of Category:Roman Catholic Church.

I know it seems like this article should be part of Category:Roman Catholic Church and there is perhaps some argument for doing so. I'll leave it to you to read WP:CATEGORIES and see if you think such a case can be made.

--Richard (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, makes sense now. NancyHeise ^talk 02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)