Talk:Call to Action

Lincoln, Nebraska excommunications
Vatican confirms excommunication for US dissident group.... http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48072 only valid in Lincoln Nebraska diocese apparently... for now 69.212.211.63 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The group's standing in the Church is a very important point, one that merits inclusion, and so I have added it to the history. Incidentally, the excommunication has implications for any of this group's members. Cardinal Re's report didn't say "Being a member of this group in Lincoln, Nebraska is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic Faith" KriZe 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I clarified the jurisdictional issues involved. The Congregation for Bishops was primarily issuing a statement that Bruskewitz was acting properly as a bishop.  Bishops have a lot of power, and the Vatican might be quite satisfied to let Bruskewitz determine who is a heretic and who is not a heretic in his diocese without making a statement for the universal church.


 * However, as KriZe points out, there is the very interesting other paragraph in Re's letter which says that CtA is incompatible with the Catholic faith. As of today, this doesn't actually affect Catholics outside of the Dioces of Lincoln, because it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the Congregation for Bishops, which is in charge of determining matters of doctrine.  But Re's statement said this was "the judgment of the Holy See."  Does that mean that the CDF or the pope has expressed an opinion on this matter?  If so, we may hear more about this in the near future! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the latest update of this article goes too far, treading away from NPOV and into PR damage-control "spin" territory. The rewrite of the facts pertaining to the excommunication and the impact of the Vatican reaction on the whole hit the mark. But at the same time the article now looks as though it is going out of its way to downplay the importance of the excommunication, which in fact is a very serious point. It can be slimmed down to "the excommunication does not have any jurisdictional impact outside of Lincoln."


 * In addition, listing Gaillot, Gumbleton and Küng under the heading "reactions from the hierarchy" is misleading, and while not strictly a breach of NPOV, consider that a reader is presented with nameless, faceless "leaders" on one side and Bishops A & B and Author C on the other. I'm not here to start an edit war, but one should take note that these guys are all reform advocates, and not people in an any position to make any change. KriZe 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you to some extent on the "spin-control" aspect, but note that there are names on the other side: Bishop Bruskewitz and Cardinal Re. The "excommunication does not have any jurisdictional impact outside of Lincoln" rewrite seems balanced to me. Note, however, that an excommunicated CtA member who moves out of the Lincoln diocese remains excommunicated. -- Cat Whisperer 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't intend to compare nameless, faceless folks to actual bishops. This is one reason it's good to have multiple eyes look at a page:  when I see the names "Gumbleton" and "Küng" I am quite aware of the fact that these folks represent the "left wing" of the Catholic Church.


 * But to fully describe the canonical meaning of Re's statement, we would have to analyze the relative authority of the local ordinary versus the head of a Vatican congregation. But this issue is itself contentious, and would probably be off-topic in this article.  [As an example of how this issue is currently contentious:  A few weeks ago the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a statement that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist ("lay Eucharistic ministers") could not purify the vessels used for communion.  Cardinal Mahony told the priests in his diocese that he and his auxiliary bishops would soon "discuss the new recommendations" .    Is Mahony disobeying a Vatican rule?  Or did the congregation overstep its bounds?  Or is everything 'kosher' because Mahony correctly understands that rulings from Vatican congregations are never binding on local ordinaries unless they are approved in forma specifica by the Pope?]  This is an issue that would need to be solved before we could really know how to write a neutral Wikipedia article on these excommunications.  Is this something that Wikipedia articles should settle?  I think it isn't.  That would, at the very minimum, involve analyzing the powers of a local ordinary in canon law, which would violate WP:NOR.


 * I have made some minor edits to the text, but if they don't look right to you, definitely you should see if you can alter them. I tend to be an inclusionist, so I would rather have more information than less.... &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Matters
The article says C2A wants to change the Church's teachings on a variety of sexual matters. Does this group consider it a sin for a single Catholic to masturbate to adult movies? What is C2A's view on porn and masturbation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

All Calls To Action Are Religious?
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=call+to+action http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Acall+to+action This article seems to imply that "call to action" is purely and always something of a religious matter. I don't have a lot to contribute but I was surprised by this. As you can see, google doesn't really seem to care for the organization you guys are discussing. Nice high ranking but only one result. I think that an article by this name might warrant a mention from the marketing world et al. It's just a thought though. This isn't criticism, I don't even have any content to contribute and this entity does seem noteworthy indeed. I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with the article, I'm just wondering aloud if there is more to "call to action" than what we have represented here to date :-). Maybe not.125.236.211.165 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this is not what Call To Action really means
Call To Action in its broader and more general sense is better defined here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/call-to-action

This page should be added as a secondary meaning in a disambiguation page.

217.125.149.60 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Various NPOV violations
The recent edits by Tomcapa1 were rife with loaded language and unverifiable assertions that seriously called into question both the article's impartiality and its accuracy. I have removed much of the impartial language and speculation, but the article still could use some cleaning... Particularly bad is the second paragraph of the "Ideological aspects" section, the first two sentences of which are not grammatically correct, and in which the use of punctuation is far too sparing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyewall0830 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Quite happy to concede any formatting and punctuation issues. But please indicate 'loaded language and assertions'. On the contrary, this was from the start a shockingly hostile article about a large and influential group that represents a great deal of Catholic opinion and was badly treated. The article focused entirely on excommunication and heresy-- and the rewrite I restored, not by me incidentally-- was giving both sides. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that prior to Rynhof's edits, the article may have been too one-sided. You'll note that I left much of his discussion intact, but edited out blatantly biased language such as "extremely conservative," "ultra-conservative," and "Others...have courageously stood with the organization against onslaughts of hierarchical attacks" along with the unsubstantiaed and Amerocentric assertion "...represent a shifting landscape in the Catholic Church to which Call To Action is at the forefront" and inherently unverifiable speculation such as "...for fear of institutional retribution or discipline by the conservative faction." I understand your desire for a more balanced view, but restoring Rynhof's edits went too far. As for the section that I marked "unclear," I actually considered removing it entirely, as it seems largely unrelated to CTA as an organization. However, I thought I had done enough editing for a day, and I was surprised to see that it has remained in the article for a number of years without being removed...I'd be interested to hear your take on that. Eyewall0830 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed some obvious WP:OR from the most recent edit, and again object to the adjective "presently" to describe "established teachings" of the Catholic Church. While Church teachings develop and grow over time, they are not reversed or repudiated, and so if something was against Church teachings in 1600, it is against Church teachings in 2015. Elizium23 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * """Comment""" Eyewall0830 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was relieved to find that I agree with you to a large extent. As noted before I was not the author of most of the changes that you complain about.  I am not a member of Call to Action, and really don't support most of their tactics.  I was appalled however when I read the original article, which was a hatchet job.  I will delete the 'presently' forthwith as I concede that Eliziim is right.  I have also tweaked further-- I hope in the interests of neutrality.  It would be nice if you would allow me to end the article on a more positive note rather than taking up about a third of it with conditional excommunications in one diocese 9 years ago.  If so we can all save ourselves from compulsive re-editings every day Tomcapa1 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The last bit you tried to end on a "happy note" was blatant WP:OR and violated WP:NPOV. Don't replace it. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * """comment""" (talk) I am not an experienced editor like you but I am doing my best. It would be better if you could try to be more helpful rather than attempting to load me with a wide range of violations that I have never even heard of before.  I would have thought 'citation needed' might have been enough, and there is no need for the sarcasm of 'happy ending'.  It is obviously absurd to have an article on this well known organization that is stuck so firmly back 9 years ago and focusses so entirely on excommunication.  If this totally negative tone is allowed to predominate then deletion would be the option, as it was a hatchet job from the start. But it doesn't have to be, and I believe any objective editor would see that the latest version presents a more neutral picture.  When someone -- not me, though I was accused of it, did a full re-edit another editor simply undid it, without taking any of the suggestions into account at all, and this seems to me very symptomatic both of the original article (which as I say literally shocked me with its bias-- here is a heretical organization excommunicated by a Bishop supported by the Vatican) and of the attitude of some present editors.  I hope we can try to move forwards Tomcapa1 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:OR has been removed again, and you have been warned. You now tried to cloak it by the citation of two news stories, neither of which even mention Call to Action or the excommunications in question. This is WP:SYNTH at its finest. Do not restore the offending information without a REAL source or you will be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also say that your blatant and self-professed conflict of interest due to your membership in the UK's ACTA makes it a very, very poor choice indeed for you to be directly editing this article in any capacity. Elizium23 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" You have missed the entire point, and it is revealing that you seem to think that the whole article is about excommunication. It is not. The newspaper references I gave had nothing to do with the excommunication because they are about the way the Church now moves on under Francis. It was that that was challenged last time, and now I have provided very clear citation evidence for what is evidently true-- what happened 9 years ago is not the end of the story, much as you, and the original author would like it to be. How interesting that you are replicating the same issues in threatening to ban me. Perhaps excommunication threats will follow. My membership of the UK organization (as you would have been able to find out had that article not been deleted for very dubious reasons) has no affiliation with Call to Action whatsoever. The UK name came from the Tablet's header to the letter that led to the foundation of A Call to Action. We in the UK group do not do direct action. We do not campaign on single issues and we are a joint group of laity and priests and religious. Admittedly, the names do cause confusion but our membership lists were established long before there any realization of the problem. But there is no conflict of interest whatever. Curiously I have found it impossible to do a re-edit on here now. No doubt this is due to some technical inadequacy on my part, but in the unlikely eventuality that it is anything to do with you as a neutral Wikipedia editor do please undo it forthwith in the interests of free speech and in recognition of your getting completely the wrong end of the sticak about what these citations are referring to,Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit implies that the excommunications are somehow outdated since they were incurred nine years ago, and since Pope Francis called an extraordinary synod regarding the family last year. You've taken two articles on the Synod - which themselves are highly speculative - and draw from them your own conclusion regarding the current and future direction of the church. This is WP:SYNTH. If you wish to end on a more "positive" note, perhaps an official statement from CTA that was released in response to the bishop's letter would be more relevant to the issue at hand... Eyewall0830 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" they are not just about the Synod, and it is the articles not me that draw the conclusions as even their very headings indicate. The excommunications were conditional. Tomcapa1 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC) """Comment""" (talk) A shame that you think that what happened 9 years ago is the end of story for Call to Action. I am not a spokesperson for that organization and it is not my job to find their defence. Elizium will delete it like everything else on the grounds of self-promotion or one of the innumerable violation codes she can rake up. Meanwhile the point is that the Church has moved on in the last 9 years and Call to Action has done plenty of things since then too I imagine Tomcapa1 (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "...Call to Action has done plenty of things since then too I imagine." Then find some things they've done in the past nine years and put them there. We're not telling you that you can't add anything else, were simply telling you that what you've added to this point is not appropriate. Eyewall0830 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll put it simply, my friend: if you think Pope Francis has opened the door to changing Church teaching then you are dreaming, you are in a wonderland, you have deluded yourself beyond measure. Your so-called "evidence" that the climate in Pope Francis' pontificate is favorable to Call to Action is worthless. It is totally pointless until and unless you dig up a source that says so. Your sources can rant all they want about how different Francis is and how the times they are a-changing' and how the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, but if they don't mention CTA then don't put them in the article. Because you're committing WP:SYNTH. Look it up. Read it. I'm beginning to detect some WP:IDHT behavior from you and that's the kind that really irks me. So yes, if you continue on this course I will make sure you are blocked. And I'm sorry to leave my message on such a negative, non-neutral note, but that's how I roll. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll put it simply, my friend: if you think Pope Francis has opened the door to changing Church teaching then you are dreaming, you are in a wonderland, you have deluded yourself beyond measure. Your so-called "evidence" that the climate in Pope Francis' pontificate is favorable to Call to Action is worthless. It is totally pointless until and unless you dig up a source that says so. Your sources can rant all they want about how different Francis is and how the times they are a-changing' and how the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, but if they don't mention CTA then don't put them in the article. Because you're committing WP:SYNTH. Look it up. Read it. I'm beginning to detect some WP:IDHT behavior from you and that's the kind that really irks me. So yes, if you continue on this course I will make sure you are blocked. And I'm sorry to leave my message on such a negative, non-neutral note, but that's how I roll. Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"""Comment""" Elizium23 Thank you. Interesting to see that you concede above your lack of neutrality. Thee is another very marked evasion of or misunderstanding of the point. The point I was making was not about the Pope changing the teaching of the Church but about his different attitude to discussion or dissent. THat was the substantive point of my last much needed sentence, and that was the point made by the citations. [User:Tomcapa1|Tomcapa1]] (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) """Comment""" Elizium23 PS what was the personal attack deleted thing? It appears to be on your file not mine-- can you clarify? Tomcapa1 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC) """ Comment""" Eyewall0830 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Please explain how my last phrase was 'inappropriate', rather a vague charge Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I and two others have already explained it to you. WP:LISTEN. There is really nothing else we can say... Eyewall0830 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

History
I know that Call to Action takes its name from the Papal letter of Paul VI [], but the History reads as if Paul VI asked CtA to form. The letter has nothing about any of CtA's issues. The History should mention the letter, but not imply that it said something it did not.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The CtA conference convened by Cardinal John Francis Dearden was similarly convened around issues of poverty, anti-Marxism, and Catholic social justice (issues of the letter), all of which were adopted in some way in the final recommendations. The genesis of CtA has to do with issues outside the scope of the letter or conference that were rejected, and the History should reflect that.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversies sections too long, some mis-categorized
In general, WP discourages the format the article currently has. Certainly, CtA is at odds with the Catholic Church, but the contrariness that basically IS CtA's purpose should be incorporated into the sections on its goals or issues, instead of in a separate "Controversy" section. Isolated temporally limited actions, like the excommunications, or the racial segregation within CtA, which it is now addressing, should be the type of thing that might merit a "Controversy" section, not the conflict with the Catholic Church and its teaching; those are its stable issues.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Vague or promotional/political statements of issues with the Catholic Church
The issues that CtA advocates for are pretty clear-cut and easy to define, value judgement or "spin" words that are vague and would not inform a casual reader exactly what the issues are, are to be avoided. Descriptions like "equality" or "a variety of sexual matters" or "change to the way the church is governed", make the article more political but less comprehensible, particularly when Ordination of Women, Gay Marriage, birth control, abortion, election of Priests and Bishops, are specific, accurate, and informative terms more suited to an Encyclopedia.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello?
"Call to Action, it would seem represents that "new", tradition.": Andrew Greeley, "Catholic Social Activism: Real or Rad/Chic?" The National Catholic Reporter February 7, 1975. ...So just how did Greeley come to comment in 1975 on an organization that purports to have grown out of a 1976 conference (but apparently wasn't "launched" until 1978)? Clairvoyance?

"A conference of over 400 people was held in October 1978, and Chicago Call To Action was launched as a local organization." (CTA website) cf. "At the 1995 Call to Action conference, for example, the former Bishop of Evreux now titular bishop of Partenia, Jacques Gaillot, the auxiliary Bishop of Detroit Thomas Gumbleton, ...were among the featured speakers."????

Have moved this footnote here for clarification: "Under canon law (including canons 1323 and 1324 §3), automatic penalties (including interdict and excommunication) require certain conditions to be fulfilled, and thus members of Call to Action in the Diocese of Lincoln would not necessarily be excommunicated by this edict." The relevant canons can be found here:. From this I gather if at the time one joined CTA he/she were either a minor, drunk, intimidated, did so unknowingly, or signed up in the heat of passion latae sententiae doesn't apply. (Without specifying the aforementioned conditions which would relieve one of any disability, this note seems not only somewhat irrelevant but a tad disingenuous.) I would be very interested to hear of a situation where someone not legally competent to join an organization did so. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Call to Action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070212043616/http://www.azstarnet.com:80/metro/166825 to http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/166825

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)