Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 36

Redding out
To both nancy and Haldraper: In Haldraper's last edit 3,000 words was cut and pasted  but only the first paragraph was changed. Now Nancy has made changes but 3,000 words are again all in red on the screen. Unless something is wrong with WIkipedia (and this is not happening on other pages) then both of you must be cutting and pasting whole volumes of text, rather than just making direct edits. The latter allows other editors to check changes without the need to do detailed cross reading or run text comparisons. Please .....-- Snowded TALK  21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not cutting and pasting volumes of text as you describe.Haldraper (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am neither. I just added Vidmar to the list of scholars, the whole edit should not have included 3000 words. I think there is something wrong with Wikipedia. : )  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well. maybe it will get better overnight, or we will have to light candles -- Snowded TALK  21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is definitely something wrong with Wikipedia here. I just addressed Haldraper's addition of a "vague" tag by adding text and wikilink to the scholar making the statement. This was a change of maybe five words at most yet the whole paragraph is highlighted as changed in the edit history.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the same phenomenon that I've seen elsewhere. Read  and see if that sounds like what you're seeing. --Richard (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it. I fixed it by separating two different themes into two different paragraphs, it seems OK now.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unam sanctam
Just a small comment: As Boniface VIII is mentioned in Catholic_Church, perhaps Unam sanctam could be included along with him? NW ( Talk ) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure - I added a couple of sentences to expand that section to include this bull plus reference. Thanks!  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was also considering inserting a wikilink to the first papal bull of Pius XII's pontificate Summi Pontificatus in 1939 which denounced racism and worship of the state but some people are arguing that the section is already too long. Perhaps, but we can address this at peer review and try to get the input of more than just one or two people.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Christian denominational families
I don't think its NPOV that the Church should be in this category, since it is not a "denomination" and doesn't claim to be. It should just be in the category Christianity. IMO this is similar to the "Christian Church" concept which the Church rejects, that tries to make out that there is some level, indifferentist, egalitarianism between all entites, stretching even to authority, including all entities which call themselves Christian.

Lets put it this way, if there is a party and loads of people join it, then a while later some people decide they've had enough, don't like the party anymore and leave (lets call them "party poopers" for sake of analogy) would that make the other people who decided to stay "party poopers" too? Same sitution with "denominations" (a polite way of saying "sects"). - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The words "can" and "worms" spring to mind here -:) Haldraper (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added this category to the page. The category had every other Christian denomination except Catholic. I don't think that helps Reader. The purpose of categories is to help Reader find what he or she is searching for. We should be more helpful in the process, not obstruct it. I dont think Wikipedia's category system is very good for religion articles. I saw where Carlaude went through (months ago) and edited the categories and I felt that his contributions were unhelpful to the system at large, making it more difficult for Reader not easier. I don't know how to correct categories but I would like to alert those who do that the system is in need of an overhaul.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Church is not a "denomination" though. The Church itself only uses the term denomination in reference to Protestant sects (it doesn't even use it in regards to the Eastern Orthodox Church). If we look at the articles on denominationalism and religious denomination for instance the Church isn't a "sect, division, school of thought", it is the divinely founded organisation, instituted by Christ. The breakaway sects, which rose up in rebellion during the 16th century are all without dispute, created by men, not by Christ. The concept is quite obviously a form of relativism, used to appease or promote an acceptance of religious indifferentism (and with it heresy). Its a net or bear trap, an attempt to sneak up behind and usurp the premacy of the successor of Saint Peter, to try and relegate to "one amongst others" (see "Christian Church"). For this we would have to negate the entire recorded history, doctrine and mission of the Church. I presume that is why the Church rejects the use of the term in regards to it. We shouldn't mislead the reader. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not be necessary to remind editors that encyclopedia articles don't exist to present only the official views of the entity an article may be on. The above polemical comments by Yorkshirian may be the "truth" in his / her mind but they are not the only views on such matters.  It could also be mentioned that some Christians don't consider the Roman Catholic Church to be either Christian or a church.  And please spare us such polemic, it is both tedious and boring. Afterwriting (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yorkshirian is on sound theological ground but the issue of whether this article belongs in Category:Christian denominational families is, as Haldraper, suggests a "can of worms". Better to explain in this article why the Catholic Church rejects the "denominational" rubric than to fight over whether or not this article sits in the Wikipedia category Category:Christian denominational families.  I say leave it there and find a way to explain the issue in the article text. --Richard (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard and Afterwriting that the article should be listed in the category, not excluded because of its beliefs that it is not a sect. Personally I agree that it is not a sect but Wikipedia does not care about my personal beliefs and if we all want to be treated fairly then it shouldn't either. Although I would like for all of us to be a little nicer here - Afterwriting you were a little harsh in your response.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you think that my response to Yorshirian's polemical diabtribe was a "little harsh"? It's interesting that you would choose to only describe my comments this way.  Presumably you think his aren't?  Interesting, very interesting. Afterwriting (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry. I did not mean to offend anyone - just want a little more love on the page, that's all <3  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sociologically speaking, the Church is a denomination in USA, UK &c, but the church in say Bolivia. Peter jackson (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter, to the extent that one can talk about an objective, sociological definition of "denomination", you may be correct. However, the problem here is one of theology.  The Catholic Church rejects Denominationalism as a justification for the existence of denominations.  The best explanation I can find on short notice is here.


 * I would suggest that, for the sake of peace and in deference to the principle of "least surprise", we leave this article in the Category:Christian denominational families. However, I and others would resist any attempt to assert that the Catholic Church is "one of many Christian denominations".  Heck, some people would even oppose the assertion that the Catholic Church is "one of the three major branches of Christianity".  Such assertions can only be made if it is clearly indicated that the Catholic Church rejects both Denominationalism and Branch theory.


 * --Richard (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would propose that individuals are confusing church doctrine with secular facts. The Church believes specific things about herself, but that does not make it a reality for anyone else except its adherents. In the world at large and in a strictly neutral perspective, she is one of many denominations. She has a specific set of beliefs, with a set organization for its governance, etc. This is all a denomination is.
 * On the Church's home article we explain her beliefs and why she believes certain things apply and others don't. We need to remember that this is a secular encyclopedia and we are writing from a strictly neutral position. The category applies and is not meant as a judgment of position or belief. -- Storm  Rider  18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church during World War Two
Might it not be better to create a Catholic Church during World War Two or Catholic Church during the 20th century article and just have a smaller paragraph here? The subject is certainly one to be explored, however, as it stands it leaves the article open to much recentism (either the neutral or polemical anti-Catholic version). When we're dealing with an a instiution which should be considered more on the basis of centuries, rather than decades. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe there are already numerous smaller articles on the subject, perhaps too many already. I do not agree that we need a shorter paragraph. The event was probably the most major event of this era and warrants more space, especially when we have to include criticisms and all POV's to meet Wikipedia policy. I think the section is comprehensive while also being concise.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 09:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with NancyHeise and agree with Yorkshirian with respect to the section on WWII being too long. The problem is not solely with length but with the fact that it is too detailed and too argumentative.  This is not the article to have those arguments.  There are many other places to get into the details of these kinds of arguments.  This article should summarize the sides of the debate without attempting to decisively and conclusively resolve the debate (which is not really Wikipedia's role anyway). --Richard (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The section now hows enough detail to merit its own article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FAC criteria require the article to be comprhensive, NPOV and mention notable controversies. We might be able to trim some of the JPII stuff as it is a bit long but I would rather keep it for now and let it be considered by the peer reviewers. I am keeping stuff like this because it is important to let everyone see it and come to consensus when we are ready for peer review. That is how the article has persistently progressed through all previous peer reviews, FAC's and mediation. I am not opposed to trimming, I have already done it several times in the past only to add more info as FAC reviewers complained that it needed more not less. That was the overwhelming response on all the FACs and which could be considered a long, ongoing consensus for a longer article.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, an obvious example of how the FAC process is seriously broken... the problem is that every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to see more information on a particular topic gets to hold the FA status of the article hostage to his/her demands. Without meaning to cast aspersions on Nancy's yeoman efforts on this article, this article is increasingly approximating a camel (you know, a horse created by committee).  --Richard (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's suggestion consists of two parts: (1) create a new article and (2) shorten the text in this article. I support both parts but, if we defer to Nancy's recommendation, the second part will have to be postponed for now. We should discuss the creation of one or more new articles but I think this topic needs to have a wider discussion so I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. --Richard (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, Wikipedia policy requires us to recognize and refect consensus. I am following the established rules, established by - consensus : )  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Nancy, which "established rules" are you referring to in this instance?


 * Also, I'm not sure if the intent of my last comment was clear. All I was saying is that we cannot shorten the text because you currently disagree.  You want to postpone major edits until peer review and FAC review.  I'm agreeing to defer to your recommendation, ALTHOUGH I disagree with it.  What I am proposing, therefore, is that we turn our attention, for the time being, to the other part of the proposal which is the creation of one or more subsidiary articles to delve into the detail which cannot be comfortably dealt with in this article because of the broad scope of the article.  I don't see why you would find this objectionable so I conjecture that you misread my intent.


 * However, since you invoke "consensus, I will say that I don't think we can assert that a "consensus" exists on the current length of the text or the current warning because I haven't seen any evidence that the consensus has specifically weighed in on each section that is deemed by some editors (including myself) as being "too long and too detailed".


 * Here's the problem as I see it: a bunch of "narrow focus" editors raise concerns that their particular pet topic has not been "adequately addressed" to their satisfaction. They basically do not object to or even care about the rest of the article as long as their issue is addressed.  As a result, we wind up with a "kitchen sink" effect where the article gets longer and longer because nobody cares about the quality of the whole article as a readable piece of prose (except maybe you and you seem to be a little too willing to roll over and put in stuff that FAC reviewers want regardless of whether it makes the article bulky and unwieldy).  It's almost as if you have the attitude "OK, OK, anything as long as it gets the FAC reviewer to remove his/her objection and it doesn't malign the Church or violate rules of verifiability and sourcing".  I don't have a lot of experience with FAC but what little I've seen of it suggests that there is not true consensus-formation at work (the way, for instance, it might be in an RFC or a mediation).


 * Let me ask this: When a FAC reviewer asks for a section to be expanded, is there a !vote to determine if there is a consensus for that section to be expanded? Or is it just your decision whether or not to accede to that request.  What, by the way, are the qualifications for becoming a FAC reviewer?  Are they blessed by some special FAC committee? (These are all rhetorical question.  As I understand it, any Wikipedia editor can review a FAC.  There is, AFAIK, no !vote that reviews each proposed edit and it is not clear to me that a failed FAC represents any kind of consensus.  Neither for that matter does a peer review.)


 * It is for this reason that I say that FAC is broken and the way to fix it is to stand up to the FAC reviewers and say "No, enough! We cannot stuff into the history section every little pet concern that FAC reviewers raise.  We will insist on editorial judgment to discriminate from the truly important history from the agenda-based concerns."


 * Now, I know that this sounds a lot like what you've been saying. However, you and I disagree on what the specifics that editorial judgment would look like.  You seem to want to include all sorts of details (e.g. about Pius XII and Pinchas Lapide) that I would seek to exclude.  All I'm saying is that we can't let the concerns of a single FAC reviewer sway our decisions.  We should let a consensus of the editors of this page determine the final text.


 * --Richard (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, WP:consensus asks us to respect consensus. This article is basically unchanged from the last FAC when over 34 different editors read the page and offered comments at FAC. I made some changes to the page to address specific comments if they were with merit. Others, without merit, that were not addressed by scholars were tossed because of our need to rely on modern scholarship (WP:reliable source examples). If you think FAC is broken, that is not my problem nor is it the page's problem. I am still going to look at suggestions and research them before either including or tossing them depending on their mention in scholarly works that are not discredited in the academic journals.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with FAC. Anyone can review an article up for FAC, and the problem is that negatives are weighed above positives. A certain number of persistently negative editors, and you don't go through. This gives reviewers a lot of weight in getting their concerns addressed, since they can simply maintain their oppose on the article until they are satisfied. This is a problem the process hasn't yet properly addressed IMO, and makes it hard for controversial articles to get through. On the history section. It is probably too long. I would like to cut and rebalance the wording by about 20% while still dealing with the same range of topics. However this had best wait until we have agreed the contents at the Peer Review.   Xan  dar   22:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree to wait for Peer Review to decide what to trim or not. As for FAC - here in the US we are having a debate over reforming our health care system. The deliberations and proposal process is entirely like Wikipedia. Maybe we'll be qualified to go into politics if we get this article through FAC next time : )   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As explained on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, I have created Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. --Richard (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Also section - too long?
Can some of the See Also's listed in that section be removed? Can't Reader find all those things by clicking on the Catholicism portal which is already in that section? The article Criticism of the Catholic Church is also in this section - it is wikilinked three times in the article - once here and twice in the main see also sections of Cultural Influence and History sections. I want to help Reader find what he/she is searching for but I also don't want to muck up the article with overkill. Can we trim out some of these?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones?  Xan  dar   22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all those lists are unnecessary but maybe I'm wrong.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
Haldraper placed a POV tag in the Industrial Age section after objecting to article text that is cited to several scholarly sources. While I have engaged him in discussion on this issue, he has produced zero sources that say something other than what we have in the article. Neutrality can not be disputed if the objector has no sources to support this objections.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And if there is no consensus that the POV tag is necessary, or consensus that it is not warranted, then it should go.  An individual editor's dissatisfaction with the section cannot warrant the POV tag, especially when the objection is not sufficiently articulated and supported.  Otherwise, most articles, and certainly this article, would have a tag at all times.  --anietor (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tags are only acceptable if there is a specific explanation for the reason of the tag on the discussion page. That explanation much include the specific corrections needed to remove the tag so that other editors may respond quickly to answer or improve the article. Without such explanation, the tag is worthless and should be removed. "I don't like it" is not a reason for a tag, but is of value on personal blogs. -- Storm  Rider  21:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Specifics are necessary.  Xan  dar   22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Anietor, Xandar, the 'specifics'/'specific explanation' for the POV tag was detailed in my contribution above, viz:

"the reliabilty of the secondary souces this section relies so heavily on. If you list their authors, Bokenkotter, Duffy, McGonigle, Rhodes and Vidmar, you will see that they include:

a Catholic priest a self-described 'cradle Catholic' and member of the Pontifical Historical Commission two Dominican friars an English writer who described his conversion to Catholicism as being on the grounds that "The universal aptness of the Roman Church for all conditions of men and nations well befits her claim to divine origin" I know what you and Nancy will say, some of their books have been published by large publishing houses, taught on theology courses at universities around the world, favourably reviewed in academic journals etc; we can't exclude them just because they're Catholics. The opposite in fact seems to have happened: all the sources are by people ordained in or holding an official position in the Church. It is not surprising then that when they come to write about 'Mit brenneder Sorge' they interpret and paraphrase it to put the best 'spin' on it they can, helped by the fact that it is open to loose translation from German into English.

The period of the Nazis' rise to power in Germany through to the end of WWII has not exactly been overlooked by mainstream historians. Surely we can find some who can give a more balanced view of the encyclical's contents and impact and are not so closely linked to the organistion being discussed?Haldraper (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

None of you has even attempted to engage with these points to resolve the dispute, as I expected you have ignored the injunction on the tag not to remove it without discussing them here. My main concern is one of WP:BALANCE. Despite the preponderance of Catholic priests and scholars being used as sources, I thought we were close to achieving it not very long ago, Nancy's latest edits have left us a long way from that goal.

Nancy seems to think that being published by a large university press makes you a 'mainstream historian' whether you're a Dominican friar or a parish priest from Cincinnati. These people may be recognised authorities on the History of the Catholic Church but they are nowhere near being the same on the rise of the Nazis and WWII. If you asked me to name a respected historian of the period whose work we could cite as a balanced analysis of these issues, I would suggest Ian Kershaw.Haldraper (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now rewritten this section and removed my own POV tag. It was Nancy's gushing text and yet another ref to Fr Bokenkotter that pushed me over the edge - not for the first time -:)Haldraper (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Haldraper:
 * "Fr. Bokenkotter" is the author of A Concise History of the Catholic Church' - it is one of the most respected scholarly sources on the subject of Church history. (see this scholarly review It is used as a  textbook for many universities for over 30 years with three reprintings. Here are some links to some of the universities presently using his book as a textbook.
 * ,
 * ,
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * ,
 * ,
 * 
 * 
 * Fr. Bokenkotter is also professor Bokenkotter, (taught Church History at Notre Dame, Xavier University and St. Gregory's seminary). He is a scholar whose book is a scholarly source that meets the highest qualifications of WP:reliable source examples. The non-Catholic BBC uses his book as a source  as well as Encyclopedia Brittanica. Google scholar says his book is cited by other authors 77 times. . His book is just one of many scholarly sources used - all of which are in agreement with article text.  Also, there are no Wikipedia policies that exclude a scholar based on their religion, we look at what Academic Journals and scholarly book reviews think of the book, not Wikipedia editors personal objections based on zero sources.
 * "Nancy's gushing text" is much more subdued than that used by the actual scholars. If we subdue it too much, we completely eliminate facts that the scholars are trying to relate.
 * Haldraper eliminated a sentence pertaining to Christian communities pondering the causes of the Anti-Semitism that was cited to Owen Chadwick's book A History of Christianity. I would like to point out that Professor Chadwick is not a Catholic, just like the authors of so many of our other sources. I put the sentence into the article as a result of a recent inquiry by Richard who had asked for such information to be included. I do not have a problem with Haldraper eliminating this sentence if Richard is OK with its elimination.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Haldraper that the text was getting too "hagiographic". The text about Reichskonkordat and MBS preceding this paragraph suffers somewhat from the same problem although not as severely as the text before Haldraper's revision.


 * As a general principle, it is possible to represent the views of historians who use "gushing text" without copying the "gushing". The approach is to paraphrase the opinion rather than to quote it in the article text.  The "gushing" citation can be provided in a reference.  We must make it clear that it is the source that is doing the "gushing", not Wikipedia.


 * That said, I'm sort of OK with Haldraper's revision with the exception of a grumbling feeling that the text is still too long. I still think the details of John Paul II's apology are unnecessary.  It should be adequate to state that he apologized.  We could note in a reference his precise words and his placement of the prayer into the Western Wall although I don't even think that is necessary.  This is an encyclopedia article not a history book.  We don't need to be that engaging to the reader.  Our style should be concise and succinct ("short, sweet and to the point").  All this discussion about Pinchas Lapide and John Paul II makes the treatment of the topic longer than it needs to be.  I would mention the results of Lapide's survey without mentioning his name in the article text.  It would be adequate to mention his name in the reference.


 * --Richard (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I am not in agreement with a shorter section on this part of Church history since it is such a prominent part of the history of the world and NPOV requires us to expose all sides of the controversy. The article text on the Concordat and Mit Brennender Sorge are not the subject of scholarly dispute as Haldraper had previously suggested. These were key events in Church history with prominent focus in scholarly sources. The dispute of Pius' role is also given prominent focus in our text and scholarly sources as well. We can not meet Wikipedia policy and eliminate too much of this section at the same time. I said before that I would be open to some more concise wording but would like to allow peer reviewers to discuss that, not one or two upset editors on this page who have provided zero sources to support their accusations of POV.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, you are confusing Haldraper's charges of NPOV violations with my concern about overly detailed, overly argumentative, flabby prose. Even if we don't attempt to address Haldraper's concerns, the text remains excessively detailed for an article of this scope.  However, since you seem to think it important to wait for peer review, I will bide my time until we see what that process yields. --Richard (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs section
We used to have links to Bible references in this section. For instance, in the Final Judgement section we linked to the passage specifically identified by Catechetical books that the Church bases their beliefs upon. If you go through now, all Bible references are gone. I am not in favor of this since it is helpful for Reader to know what Gospel passage relates to which Church belief. I would like to add these back into the article.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We also have a problem with some of the Catechism references in that section. They are not uniform - some link to the online Catechism at the Vatican website and others just list the paragraph number. I am in favor of having them link so Reader can go see it for themselves.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on a minute! When I tried to do that with a link to 'Mit brennender Sorge' - on the Vatican website no less - Nancy and Xandar wouldn't hear of it. 'Oh, no' they said, 'we can't let the reader see original texts before they've been expertly analysed and filtered by our appointed panel of Catholic scholars (Bokenkotter, Duffy, Rhodes, Vidmar)'.  What's the difference here?Haldraper (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The original document is in German. Rhodes cites exact words from the document that support his interpretation. The fact that his interpretation is repeated by the most respected scholars on the subject is a rubber stamp on this interpretation. The fact that your interpretation is not found in any scholarly source is a rubber stamp on the invalidity of your argument.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me get this right: you trust Rhodes to paraphase it from German but not the Vatican to have its own document accurately translated into English before putting it on its website. That make sense....Haldraper (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No that is not straight, that is spin. I trust scholars to know how to read an original document, I do not trust a Wikipedia editor to read an original document and tell me what it is saying when such interpretation contradicts what all the scholars are saying. There is a good reason for the wise Wikipedia policy of WP:OR. If it weren't for Wikipedia's policies, I would never have bothered wasting my time here.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

MBS condemned racism but not Hitler or Nazism
Have people looked at Michael Phayer's book The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965? It is, again, a book published by a university press and apparently well-reviewed by other scholars; and it is cited in the -article as saying that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)". Presumably this scholarly view should be presented alongside the view of currently-cited scholars that "it criticized Hitler, and condemned Nazi persecution and ideology". TSP (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * TSP, I think there are valid criticisms of Mit brennender Sorge (e.g. it was arguably more focused on injuries inflicted by the Nazis on German Catholics than on the Jews). However, we should ask ourselves whether the argument that MBS "condemned racism but not Hitler and Nazism" criticism is important enough to mention in this article.  Just because something is mentioned in a subsidiary article (in this case, Mit brennender Sorge) doesn't mean it warrants mention in a high-level overview such as this article.  My perspective is that the Vatican tried not to mention Hitler and the Nazi party explicitly in order to avoid direct confrontation.  The violent negative reaction of the Nazis shows that this fig leaf of "ein Führer (a leader)" rather the "der Führer (the leader)" fooled no one.  They well understood who Pius XI was referring to.  Why should we indulge the vacuous claims of critics simply because they made them?  I don't have a problem presenting the valid claims of the critics (or even the halfway reasonable-sounding ones).  However, this particular one doesn't seem worth mentioning in an article of this scope. --Richard (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * However, this clear contrary scholarly opinion does preclude us saying the encyclical "criticized Hitler, and condemned Nazi persecution and ideology" as unquestioned fact. "Has been read by many scholars as criticising Hitler and condemning Nazi persecution and ideology", perhaps?  TSP (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael Phayer's book The Church and the Holocaust has numerous bad reviews by other scholars and in scholarly journals. Here's one online and another  and another . We don't use books with numerous bad reviews and try to stay away from authors with a reputation for exaggeration or unsupported speculation as Phayer is often accused.   Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy continues to display a "lack of understanding" of WP:NPOV. There is a scholarly discourse over Pius XII.  Nancy agrees with one side; she cites three sources (all Catholic) who malign the scholars on the other side.  Now, it may very well be that Nancy's side is right but, contrary to her misunderstanding, Wikipedia is not about presenting only the TRUTH.  It is about providing a neutral, objective description of the landscape, warts and all.  We must present the views of people like Phayer precisely because they are notable.  They may be wrong (in any scholarly discourse, someone usually is wrong) but the reader who does any Googling on this subject will run into Hochhuth, Cornwell and Phayer.  They are prominent features of the landscape and their views must be presented in any NPOV treatment of the subject.  Of course, their views should not be given undue weight and rebuttals sourced to reliable sources are appropriate.


 * That said, I still maintain that this is not worth discussing in this particular article (of course, it is quite reasonable to bring up in the article on Mit brennender Sorge). If you really insist, I could imagine saying "which was generally understood to be critical of Hitler and condemning of Nazi persecution and ideology".  And, if you further insist, I could imagine explaining the issue in a Note.  I'd rather not go down that road but that is the treatment that I think is least distracting to the reader. --Richard (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of authors to choose from Richard, we do not have to choose any authors who are accused of scholarly malpractice by other scholars. There are works on the issue of World War II history of the Church that are respected by all and simply display the facts without speculation on the reasons why the Church did or did not do something. We have reiterated those major facts from these neutral sources in the article sans any speculation. After this paragraph, the article perfectly reveals the Pius XII controversy by displaying both sides of the argument. There are only two sides 1) Pius did not do enough and 2) Pius was a hero who did a lot. These two sides are displayed with wikilink to Pius XII article and other articles where the dispute is further addressed. What do you think we are omitting in the article? Have you noticed that we do not use David Dalin's pro Pius XII book as well?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you continue to miss the point. Phayer is referred to by other scholars, if only to attack his work. That means he is notable. His POV should be represented. The fact that scholars malign his work means that his work was notable enough that they felt it necessary to malign it. That means Wikipedia should also take notice of it. Not necessarily endorse it but mention it. Not necessarily here in this article but perhaps in one of the many subsidiary articles. My point is: the fact that other scholars malign his work doesn't mean we shouldn't mention him. You keep arguing the opposite stance and I'm trying to convince you that this is contrary to NPOV. --Richard (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And of course Phayer's work has not been mentioned by other scholars only to attack it; it has recieved positive comments by scholars from Harvard and Notre Dame. And while Nancy produced three different critical reviews, they were all by the same person (and not in a scholarly journal).  As Richard says, it is not acceptable to present a view as unanimous while sweeping dissenting sources - good sources that fulfil all the requirements of WP:RS - under the table.  07:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, good point. Nancy, it's hardly surprising that Phayer's book gets a poor review from a Jesuit writing in a publication that describes itself as a ' orthodox, traditional Roman Catholic magazine'!  You're going to have to come up with something a lot better than that, preferably a historian not ordained in the Church writing in a mainstream academic journal, to substantiate your claim that his book has had 'numerous bad reviews by other scholars and in scholarly journals'.Haldraper (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "we do not have to choose any authors who are accused of scholarly malpractice by other scholars", Nancy? Let's see if I've understood you right. If group A of scholars accuse group B of malpractice but not vice versa, then Wikipedia should avoid using group B's work. Yes? But if group A of Wikipedia editors accuse group B of malpractice but not vice versa, then Wikipedia might well ban or block group A. Interesting. Peter jackson (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsighted logic
Farsight and Nancy and doubtless others whom I need not name must have greater power of vision than I have. In the quotation, "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome (the local church in Rome, it seems)", they see the statement that "many historians agree with the view that the Catholic Church (in the sense given to this phrase in the article) is the ("the", not "a") continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus". I see no more in it than there would be in similar statements about an apostle looked back on as the first bishop of the Christian community in such-and-such an apostolic see or about Saint Mark looked back on as the first pope of the Christian church in Alexandria, or about Saint Peter himself as the first bishop of the Christian community in Antioch, statements from which I could not conclude that any one of the present churches is the continuation of the original Christian community founded in first-century Palestine. Never mind. This isn't the only point on which their vision far surpasses mine. Soidi (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is slightly different and one I have raised before, as I think has Taam. It is the vagueness of both 'many' and 'historians'.  What does 'many' mean? 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% (in which case it should be 'most')?  And does 'historians' refer to worldwide, European, all types (modern, mediaevalists, Roman)  or just those whose specialism is the history of Christianity?  If it is the latter, I think we should clarify that.  I will place a vague tag in the meantime.Haldraper (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, Soidi...look at your own quote: "...recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome..." Now let me point out the words that indicate that the sentence is just fine: "...RECOGNIZED Peter as THE first pope of THE Christian church in Rome...".  The only "a" there is in the word "as".
 * And Hal - that may be a good point, but is not reason to simply remove the sentence, which is what's been happening. Many is a bit vague.  As for "historians", I would think of it's use as being akin to the use of "scientist" in the evolution article.  It is simply understood that these "scientists" have some expertise in the realm of evolution.  Likewise, I see it as simply understood that these historians have some expertise in the realm of the history of Christianity.Farsight001 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Farsight has the vision to see that a statement about the first bishop of the local church in Rome (or the first bishop of the local church in Antioch, or the first bishop of the local church in Alexandria ...) means that one (and only one) of the present-day worldwide (not just local) churches is the (one and only) continuation not just of that local church but of the church founded in Palestine before ever that local church was founded. I am too myopic to see that "the Christian church in Rome" means "the Roman Catholic Church".
 * It wasn't/isn't my own quote: it is the quotation on which is based the conclusion that Farsight and Nancy see in it, but that I can't. Soidi (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the same pattern that has repeated itself for ages on this article. Editors write vague text which is not sourced to something which "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article" as required by WP:V policy. A second set of editors object. Original editors refuse to change text or supply "unambiguous" sources because the existing sources vaguely support one possible interpretation of the vague text. Second editors note that vague text suggests or implies another interpretation which would be one or more of: biased, original research, or false. Original editors refuse changes, asserting the vague, unsourced or ambiguously sourced text has "consensus". Second editors add [cn] or [bias] or [pov] tags. Original editors remove. Begin cycle of RFCs. Gimmetrow 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The only pattern on this page that repeats itself is editors like Soidi and Gimmetrow who continually harrass legitimate editors even though Soidi and Gimmetrow have no consensus or sources to support their POV wars. This is evidenced by the past year of arguments on the name of the Church. Even though I tried to take Gimmetrow and Soidi's side in the matter just to move past the argument, consensus overruled me pointing to the undeniable plethora of scholarship that cites Catholic Church as the official name of the Church. When I went to mediation to try to resolve the dispute, consensus still overruled Soidi and Gimmetrow. This group of consensus is not a gang of Catholics but an established group of editors professing a range of religious and non-religious beliefs. I am tired of this respected group of editors being labeled POV by Gimmetrow and Soidi. I am tired of being harrassed on this page by editors like Haldraper and Richard who accuse my edits of being POV but then do not produce any sources to contradict the high quality scholarly sources I am using to support article text. I am in favor of improving the article, I am not in favor of hiding legitimate, important facts about the Church that just happen to highlight the positive points. Positive points are not POV if they are found in every scholarly source on the subject. At some point, we do have to have facts on the page, even though some editors seem to prefer that we hide such facts. That would be unencyclopedic.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, your response misrepresents the result of mediation. A LOT. Be careful before you make any more claims about "POV wars". Gimmetrow 20:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The results of mediation are here: ] . What have I misrepresented? That you have argued with us for over a year? See Archives. That you persistently argue this point even though consensus continually overrules you and Soidi? See Archives beginning from October 2008.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of mediation was that the article would not assert anything about "official name" - because there was no "plethora of scholarship" supporting the assertion that had been in the text for months at that point. You're quite right that editors should not need to argue "for over a year", through multiple RfCs and a mediation, just to get partial compliance with Wikipedia content policies on a single point in the first sentence of the article - a point that could have been easily fixed. Gimmetrow 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And has been fixed by changing the article name to the name that consensus says is the "official" name of the Church.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But another, closely related, unsourced claim is still in the text. Gimmetrow 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In any event, are you asserting that that the controversial page move is actually based on an unsourced, biased assertion that you were unable to keep in the article since such an assertion would not be in compliance with WP:Verifiabiilty? Gimmetrow 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy has again confirmed her conviction that she possesses an exceptional power of vision, one capable of seeing in a statement that Peter was the first bishop of the local Christian community in Rome (as he was of the local Christian community in Antioch) a declaration instead that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the one and only continuation of the Church founded somewhere other than Rome. Rather than give a minimum of thought to a question raised about the logical connection between her claim and the source she sees as support for it, she calls the question haraassment by the less gifted.  Soidi (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement in the article says, not what you claim, but the following: "Many scholars believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that the See of Rome in particular was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning.[24][25] Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over all the other local churches which comprised the Catholic Church.[41] Other scholars disagree with these interpretations. Eamon Duffy for instance, affirms the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" there,[42] but doubts that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the Catholic concept of apostolic succession."
 * I don't see any imbalance in this.  Xan  dar   23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Xandar, you are mistaken. Perhaps you need glasses to see what is near rather than what is distant!:-) The passage I am talking about is not the one you quoted from the section "Origin and mission". I am speaking of what comes much earlier: from the third paragraph of the article's lead. There, Nancy and Farsight insist on keeping the phrase "a view shared by many historians of Christianity" in the sentence "Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church sees itself as the continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus in his selection of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians of Christianity". They claim that its insertion is based on the quotation ""Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome".  (By the way, Peter did indeed found "some Christian communities", not just one.)
 * Now, I myself, like you and like Nancy and Farsight, share the Church's belief that it is the continuation of the original Christian community, but unlike the three of you I don't think we should read our convictions into what others say or write. Soidi (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not entirely clear what your problem is here. Many historians do say the Catholic Church is continuous with the original foundation by Peter. If you are saying that there are other Churches that some consider to be direct continuations, then the problem could easily be solved by stating:
 * "Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church sees itself as the principal continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus in his selection of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians of Christianity".  Xan  dar   16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, what you say may be true, but you need to provide a citation that says so. The text was fine and was sourced (with the CCC), until this not truly sourced addition about many historians was added. Soidi (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi, you have presented some issues for argument that are not points of dispute among scholars. We can't cover uncited points of dispute. It seems as if you are continually amazed at what scholars say and then get upset with us for putting these facts on the page. The sentence is sourced but in the lead and in Origin and Mission section. The wording has been through two peer reviews and two FACs with no opposition.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation, please, for your statement that many historians share the view that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus. Not a personal interpretation of some writer or writers. Just quote "what scholars say".  Soidi (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's claim abnout the official name
Her claim about "the name that consensus says is the 'official' name of the Church" does not correspond to my memory of the "consensus" on the matter, which included the decision to omit any statement about there being a single official name. Is my memory false? Has this question been raised to avoid giving thought to the question of the logical connection between the claim she is making here and its alleged source? Soidi (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We have omitted any statement about the official name - so I am unsure what you are arguing about.  Xan  dar   23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the sidetrack, but I keep seeing parallels. Gimmetrow 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we omitted the words "official name" and changed the article name to "Catholic Church" to make Gimmetrow and Soidi happy. But they are still unhappy. Not sure if it is possible to make them happy and I'm not sure we should be required to do so if we have already discussed their issues for over a year and through a successful mediation with over 19 other editors, all of whom looked at the sources and concluded that the article name should reflect that which is used by the Church herself in her "official documents" such as her "constitutions" and the name that so many scholarly and tertiary sources state that she "claimed as its title". Yet even with all this evidence, it amazes me that such a fuss was ever made over the use of the words "official name". What an aggravating waste of time.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not speak for Soidi, but if I am unhappy, it is because biased, improperly sourced or unsourced information remains in the article after going through multiple RFCs and a mediation. Gimmetrow 05:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it couldn't POSSIBLY be because the article is neutral, but you are biased, right?Farsight001 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Name-calling. Soidi (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You have one of, if not THE nastiest and worst and most insulting attitude of anyone I've seen here on wikipedia.  Calling someone bias isn't name calling, but every other word you type does seem to be an intentional insult.  This isn't even a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  This is more like the pot calling the wedding dress black.  How ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you know
That the Knights Templar invented international banking and the check? That is what I learned watching a National Geographic program about the Templars last night. I knew they handled money well, I did not know they were credited with these accomplishments. Interesting.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like some Illuminati conspiracy stuff to me ;) -Andrew c [talk] 00:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

More Research
I have been doing some more research on this subject trying to find some ways that the article is lacking. I have found that this article really is lacking in the cultural impact section as so many other encyclopedias and scholarly sources discuss the way the Church is responsible for the hospital system, the legal system, the justice system, the educational system that emerged in Western Civilization. We need to include these facts on the page and in the lead. An organization responsible for such enormous impact can not be harrassed to hide these facts just because some editors have a personal image of the Church that is not supported by scholarly sources.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. That section is way too short at the moment.  It needs to be ten times longer, at least.Haldraper (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten times might be a bit long, we do have to be concise. I think we might be able to add a paragraph and cover the necessary points. We can include wikilinks to separate pages that cover those particular subjects to adhere to WP:summary style. One purpose of this article is to be a hub of wikilinks to other Catholicism articles. I want to help the article accomplish that goal.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nancy I was joking (English irony I think it's called). I think the section's long enough as it is, it's only supposed to be an overview after all with a link to the main page on the subject.Haldraper (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Brit? Oy vey! (just kidding - I am over 50% English myself) : )  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 20:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more than me - I'm half-Irish -:) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldraper (talk • contribs)

Just because the article is too long doesn't mean that there aren't some sections that are too short. I agree with NancyHeise that the cultural impacts mentioned by her (i.e. the hospital system, the legal system, the justice system, the educational system) have been given short shrift.

Any attempts to correct POV issues regarding slavery and women's issues should not be misconstrued as a desire to slam the Catholic Church or a negative POV agenda against the Church. It's just that slavery and women's issues are complex topics and one cannot simply say "the Church fought to abolish slavery" without mentioning the fact that the Church accepted, condoned and even authorized the spread of slavery of non-Christians to Africa and the Americas.

The article IS too long AND the "Cultural impacts" section IS too short. One place to reduce the text is the overly detailed defense of Pius XII. (This is not to say that Pius XII shouldn't be defended just that the details needn't be presented in the article text. Some of the defense can be linked to and some can be placed in the note.)

--Richard (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I agree with your general reasoning about POV issues but I think my original point stands. The cultural influence of the Church already has its own page, the section here is an overview.  It could be a bit longer but not much.  I think we'd have to cut some of the detail in it now to fit in all the new stuff Nancy wants.Haldraper (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to disagree with both Richard and Haldraper. We need a wider group of editors to consider these issues which will be brought up at peer review. (My volleyball season ends after next Saturday.)  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Volleyball and Wikipedia! Where do you find the time? :-)Haldraper (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I'm so glad you are finding more information for this section! This is one of the issues I brought up in the very first FAC. The Catholic Church had a huge cultural impact (both positive and negative) on the western hemisphere, and this information (both positive and negative) is necessary to place the church in its proper historical context. Beyond the things that you mentioned, I would like to see more emphasis on how the church impacted European politics in the Middle Ages, as I think that is also not handled well in the article. Fleshing out these two topics will help the article seem more balanced. Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of the type of political information I mean -

Civilization of the Middle Ages by Norman Cantor p 74 "One of the most progressive factors in the Middle Ages was the continuing struggle between church and state. Both institutions were authoritarian, both wanted to control the people's mind...Later, rebellious men could play off pope against emperorer, church against state, and thus make room for intellectual freedom" p 209 of this book discusses the habit in feudal Europe of kings/dukes giving fiefs to bishops and abbots; this placed the bishops and abbots in an awkward position - bound by loyalty and their oath to the pope but also considered a vassal to a secular ruler. This then gave some of the secular rulers veto power over selection bishops, etc, because he owned the lands and wouldn't give them to men he didn't approve of. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Karanacs, I agree that this could be improved upon. I have some research to do before I can legitimately take the article to the next FAC. I was hoping to get comments like this and source suggestions that would result in article improvement. Thank you for your suggestion. My understanding about the Church in the Middle Ages comes from Bokenkotter's analysis of a statement made by Francis Bacon who stated that even though the Church had corruption in its ranks, the end result was that the people still got exposed to the Gospel and that this ultimately influenced Western Civilization in a positive way. Diarmaid MacCulloch also notes that one of the results of the religious wars of the Reformation was the birth of religious tolerance, something unique to humankind that began in Western Civilization.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On another note, several sources discuss how there was a power vacuum in Europe after the barbarian invasions that was filled by the Church. The Church, throughout the Middle Ages and the present age, has filled many government roles such as providing education, hospitals, and many other social services that secular governments then took over. Yet the Church was essentially the model for these later governments to follow in caring for their people. The Napolean wars provided the final break for the Church in their slavery to old European monarchies, something that was bad for both Church and State. This is mentioned in the history section but could be moved to cultural influence section too.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Eucharist
I have thought for a long time that the Eucharist section was over-complex and difficult to understand. Seeing the Justin Martyr quotation in the Christianity article, I thought that explained things a lot better and more simply! So I've included it here and slightly re-arranged the section to make it simpler. I also put some very specific and detailed stuff about Protestants receiving Catholic sacraments into a note.  Xan  dar  09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The removal of the Justin Martyr quote does once again leave the section failing to explain what the eucharist actually is. We may all know that, but a lot of the readers won't. I'm a bit worried that the article is not explaining the basics in some respects.  Xan  dar   22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is unhelpful. I agree with Justin Martyr but I don't think his explanation is simple enough. There are so many modern catechetical sources we can use to say the same thing and get the point across in a more concise and simple manner. Can we explore some of these sources and just try to make the section simple and concise? Its like the priest with the long sermon and the one with the short sermon. The long one may be beautiful and eloquent but people ultimately remember the short one better : )  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural influence section concerns
It's been a while since I've read over the article, and since Nancy brought up the idea of expanding the cultural influence section I started there. The first two paragraphs strike me as quite POV and possibly inaccurate in how they discuss slavery and women.

Slavery
beginning with the Roman Empire times, and I don't think that is accurate (the note contradicts this claim as it states that the church officially tolerated slavery after the Roman Empire ended). A reword of this sentence is probably in order so that it will be more clear
 * Nothing in the note suggests that the church actually helped end slavery. It actually suggests the opposite; although the church may have officially stated that slavery was wrong, they were widely ignored.  Is there evidence of how they actually helped to disband this practice?
 * The sentence church campaigned against and helped end practices such as human sacrifice, slavery,[note 7] infanticide, and polygamy in evangelized cultures throughout the world, beginning with the Roman Empire. suggests that the church campaigned against slavery

Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Karanacs, I agree that the sentence needs rewording. Another editor has previously brought up this issue because the sentence also can be read to mean that human sacrifice and polygamy were practiced in the Roman Empire.  Nancy has resisted reading the sentence this way but I agree that the sentence is awkward as written because it tries to say too much in a single sentence (one of Nancy's challenges as a writer is she tries to pack a lot into every sentence and sometimes packs too much in, resulting in these kinds of issues).  I'm not convinced that the phrase "beginning with the Roman Empire" is critical to this sentence but Nancy seems attached to it.


 * It is probably more accurate to say that the Church initially accepted slavery as part of the social fabric of society during the Roman Empire and early antiquity, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters. During the early medieval period, this attitude changed to one which opposed enslavement of Christians but still tolerated enslavement of non-Christians.  Monastic orders which were formed to free slaves were focused on the freeing of European Christians who had been enslaved by Muslims (an important distinction that is glossed over when the existence of these orders are mentioned by Catholic apologists).


 * The history of the Catholic Church and slavery is a bit more complex during the late medieval period and into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. Somewhere between 1400 and 1800, the Catholic Church starts to come down hard against slavery although Catholics in the U.S. still manage to interpret the 1839 papal encyclical (In Supremo Apostolatus) as condemning slave trade but not slavery itself.  See the article on Catholic Church and slavery for more details.  (NB: That article is still a work in progress but it makes an attempt to cover the entire history of the Catholic Church's attitude towards slavery over the last two millenia.)


 * --Richard (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like your second paragraph above. With the addition of sourcing, I think it would be appropriate to put that almost verbatim into the article (leaving off the parenthetical reference, of course).  A following sentence could mention that the Church has been influential in ending practices such as human sacrifice, infanticide, and polygamy in certain cultures. (these practices still exist in other cultures, so we can't see the church ended them completely).  Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, I saw that you inserted that text into the note about slavery. That's a good start, but I think those particular facts might belong more in the article itself (not everyone reads notes, and the article text is misleading).  The details should remain in the note. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I started to put the text into the article text but realized that doing so would require rewriting the entire paragraph. At that point, I figured I'd back off and see what other editors think (since Nancy has an itchy revert trigger finger and I didn't feel like putting a lot of work into something that was likely to get reverted anyway).
 * If you can suggest how the current paragraph can be reworked to provide a fuller description of the Church's record vis-a-vis slavery, we can all discuss whether or not to expand the text in that direction.
 * --Richard (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Excesses of the colonial era

 * What type of "excesses of the colonial era" are meant? I have no idea what that sentence means.  Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking primarily about the ill-treatment of native Americans and Africans by the European colonists; in particular, slavery and the slave trade. --Richard (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the statement needs to be made a bit more specific so that it will make more sense to readers. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Equality of the sexes
 written by a scholar and pub. 1996 by University of Chicago Press; see pg xiii-xiv to begin with "These passages from the New Testament became the arsenal employed by theologians of the early church to transmit negative attitudes toward women to medieval Christian culture" (this is specifically discussing the Catholic church) University Press, Cambridge). p 23 "The concept of the equality of the sexes as regards salvation was never denied by the medieval Church, but yet it never advocated equality in the terrestrial Church" Medieval attitudes, pub by Cambridge University Press  "The texts, traditions, language, pastoral care, and structures of Catholicism all contain explicit, implicit, and structural devaluations of women" (p 54) attitudes toward women that are decidely unequal; from page 83 "These text [from the Bible] have been used over the centuries as a guarantee of divine approval for the transformation of woman's subordinate status froma contingent fact into an immutable norm of the female condition. They have been cited to enhance the position of those who have tried to keep women from the right to education, to legal and economic equality, and to access to the professions."; note that Daly was a lecturer at Boston College when she wrote the book. I don't think that the section needs a large amount of information added to it (that would be more appropriate in an article on the Catholic Church and women) but the current paragraphs need to be reworded. Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I question the quoted "the critics of Christian tradition" in the sentence that Church teachings say female inferiority is divinely ordained. The idea that the Catholic Church views women as inferior is certainly not restricted to just critics of "Christian tradition", but applies to many critics of Catholic tradition (after all, many Protestant denominations, which are quite Christian, treat women very differently).  Even if I give the benefit of the doubt that only those particular critics of Christianity talk about "female inferiority [being] divinely ordained", many, many modern critics believe that the church has subjugated women, and the sentence as written does not reflect that.  I know this is briefly touched on in the section on ordination, but this needs to be mentioned here to provide a balanced viewpoint of the church's actual effect on women. Here are a few links (not suggesting these are the best sources, but they are examples that this opinion exists and is quite widespread)
 * from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (see pages 687/688 ->
 * "Declamation on the nobility and preeminence of the female sex" the introduction I cite
 * Shulamith Shahar, ''The Fourth Estate: a history of women in the Middle Ages" (pub by
 * Medieval women by Eileen Power and Michael Moissey Postan (esp the first chapter,
 * New Catholic women: a contemporary challenge to traditional religous authority by Mary Jo Weaver
 * "Catholic hierarchy ...opposed woman suffrage"
 * The church and the second sex By Mary Daly - the book is about the church's historical
 * Why we're equal: introducing feminist theology By Val Webb
 * Good Catholic girls: how women are leading the fight to change the church by Angela Bonavoglia. "The Church sees natural law as applying to everyone, which is why the targets of its sexual repression are not just Catholic women but all women"

Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Taam's concern (now archived), that the sentence on official Church teaching about women is misleading. Yes, the Church today (or at least since Vatican II) teaches that women areq equal, but that was not always the case (see sources provided above for other views).  We need to make it very clear that  today's interpretation is not necessarily that of yesteryear.  Perhaps splitting the second half of the sentence into its own, like "Since Vatican II, official Church teaching considers...."
 * There has been very little of substance cited above to back up these sentiments. Most of the above are blind links gained by googling "Catholic women inferior". Those that do actually link to something readable, end up with a 16th century book actually concentrating on ancient Greece and Rome, and some vague anachronistic moans from a couple of modern feminists. There's nothing at all there identifying actual changes in womens real circumstances brought about by the church - which is what this section is discussing.  Xan  dar   23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is only talking about positive changes that the church made, and does not accurately discuss the opinions of those who think the church had a negative impact. This is not a fringe viewpoint, and needs to be addressed to make the article properly balanced. Karanacs (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But nobody has so far shown any real, verifiable negative impact on women caused by Catholicism as opposed to what existed previously, or even as opposed to whatever contemporary ideology (say Islam or Hinduism), that might otherwise, in the absence of Catholicism, have dominated society. This section is about the actual influence of Catholicism on wider society, not the opinions of a few modern people annoyed because women can't be priests.  Xan  dar  00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, this is not an article about sociology and we need not prove that the Catholic Church has had a "real, verifiable negative impact on women as opposed to what existed previously". Negative perceptions and opinions are real and can be documented.  If you want to counterbalance the presentation of those negative perceptions with a reliable source that says they are biased and have no factual basis, then go ahead.  However, NPOV requires that we mention the difference of opinion. --Richard (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This section is about the cultural influence of the Church upon society. Therefore any information placed in the section needs to refer to concrete incidences of the Church's influence on society in this respect. It isn't a platform for people to make non-specific moans that they don't like the Catholic Church, or repeat that they have "perceptions" that the Catholic Church is in some way "anti women". If you have verifiable and significant specifics of some important way in which the Catholic Church worsened women's position in society, then that might be a candidate for inclusion in the section. But just quoting individuals who don't like the Church's position on this (or other) issues is not relevant here. The only way I copuld see "perceptions" having a place would be in a sentence like: "Although there have been negative perceptions about the Church's influence on women's place in society, the facts show..." Xan  dar   15:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

three points: This is a significant viewpoint, and thus must be represented in some way. WP does not require "proof" that the church harmed women in some specific ways, just that scholars believe that the church did not only affect women in positive ways. Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * a) Wikipedia articles are not supposed to determine the "facts" of any matter. Instead, we are supposed to represent all significant viewpoints without making a value judgement.  It is a "perception" held by some scholars that the church helped women; other scholars perceive differently.  It is not up to us to determine which of these viewpoints is "true"
 * b) The sentence as written currently makes it sound like only "critics of Christian tradition" are unahppy with the church's stance on women. As noted above, this is not true. Some of the examples I cited are feminist tracts and others are written by historians
 * c) Several of these sources specifically discuss that the Church's attitude towards women significantly contributed to the negative way women were viewed and treated in the Middle Ages (and beyond).


 * Well so far I've seen nothing solid at all. The negative sentence in the paragraph already seems more than enough to cover what has been brought forward.


 * a) Just because some scholars claim to have a "perception" of X, doesn't make that perception notable or relevant. The information supporting the perception that the Church helped women is backed up by solid points and incidences - and there are quite a few more that could have been added. For material to be added the other way, we would need to have something of substance. Some people may believe that President Obama hates white Americans, but unless something substantial and factual is brought forward to back it up, such opinions deserve little space.
 * b) Both feminists and historians have been critics of the Christian tradition. I presume the current wording is used because it reflects that in the sources. What wording would you prefer?
 * c) Here again we have vagueness. In what negative way were women viewed and treated in the Middle Ages that was due to the Catholic Church? I think most serious sources would indicate otherwise - especially in comparison with the previous Greco-Roman culture. But again the nub is that if there isn't firm information on these points then those criticisms are most probably not notable enough for inclusion except on the basis of being unsubstantiated claims at variance with the majority of learned research. There are a lot of "urban legends" about the Church, some of which get repeated as asides in books. That's why we need to consider only solidly evidenced academic research.  Xan  dar  23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I recommend that you actually read some of the sources presented above, especially the ones dealing specifically with the Middle Ages. Again, this is not a fringe viewpoint. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have solid information on this, the onus is on you to present it. The links you posted that could be read, seem to contain no more than vague POV opinionising. The bigger the claim, the better the evidence required to support it.  Xan  dar   00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted a more NPOV treatment of this topic in the article text. While I wouldn't agree 100% with this article, I think it raises some useful points:
 * 1) The message of the Christian gospel calls for women to be treated with "openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness"
 * 2) "Not just a few" members of the Catholic Church have committed wrongs
 * 3) Some doctors of the Church (e.g. Aquinas) have failed "to live up to their calling in their treatment of women"

My proposed text makes an effort to incorporate some of these points. The details of this discussion belong elsewhere (perhaps in an article titled Catholic Church and women). However, this article should acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion about the Catholic Church's influence on women's rights without taking a position as to which side is right.

--Richard (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is definitely better, but I question whether the article should say that it is only feminists who disagree. Is that supported? Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted some of the misleading and unbalanced material added to the section by Richard. In effect the sentences: "Despite this history, there is a perception that Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular, have supported the oppression of women over the course of history. While acknowledging and apologizing for the wrongs committed by members of the Church, Pope John Paul II reiterated that the teaching of the Christian gospel " goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself [who] treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness"." These contain precisely the sort of vague, misleading and unreferenced innuendo I was pointing out above. There is no evidence whatsoever as to what "oppression" the Catholic Church is supposed to have placed on women "over the course of history". And I note that no one seems to have been able to produce specifics of this alleged oppression. In addition the quotation from Pope John Paul is misleading and misrepresented, by no means covering the content or intent of his letter. I've left in the bit about feminists opposing the Churchs stance on abortion, divorce etc. since that is at least factual.  Xan  dar   00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I was using this article Does the Catholic Church Hate Women? as a source for what I was writing. The quote was lifted directly from that article.  Do you disagree with what Christopher Kaczor wrote? --Richard (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, you seem to have taken mostly negative material from the article (an essay again written in response to vague unsubstantiated claims), and then presented it inappropriately. "There is a perception"? Who has this perception, and with what do they back it up? "Catholic Church in particular".. Who says this, and on what basis has the Catholic Church been more "oppressive" than say, Protestant, Orthodox, Syriac or Coptic churches? "..supported the oppression of women over the course of history" - a very big claim which needs a LOT of back-up. If I claimed that white settlers in the US had oppressed Native Americans over the course of history, I could back it up with detail of masssacres, dispossessions, the Trail of Tears, broken treaties, splitting of reservations, policies of replacement, population collapse, etc. etc. I would probably still get arguments. The statements above aren't actually in the article at all but seem to be a spin or interpretation of selected passages.
 * Similarly the misapplication of Pope John Paul IIs many "apologies" to all sorts of people is a standard tactic of anti-catholics. Not that I'm accusing you of being anti-Catholic. It is just a tactic that such people often use, misunderstanding the purpose and careful wording of these statements. The "apologies" were and are intended as exercises in Christian love, meant to say basically, "If you believe we or any of our members have harmed or offended you in any way, we apologise. Let us start anew." However many people have instead taken them as forced confessions of guilt - and as such, that all their "charges" against the Church are "proven" without the need for further evidence. The wording the Pope used was "..if objective blame [for offenses against the dignity of women], especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry." First word is "IF", second, this is not about "oppression" but "offences against dignity", third, he speeks of "not a few," members of the Church, a phrase chosen not to minimise nay-sayers on women in history, but not to state they were the dominating voices, or a majority either. Also the quotation used does not accurately summarise the views of Pope John Paul on this topic as presented in his letter.
 * Such as is gleaned from Christopher Kaczor's article tends to be one-sided. Other quotes in the article include
 * These statements of the equality of man and women—not the statement of male superiority—were new and radical. The specifically Christian attitude toward women—not the pre-existing pagan attitude—was new and radical.
 * and
 * The myth of Catholic misogyny is well addressed in terms of the practical care the Church offers to women (and men) throughout the world. Has any institution educated more women? Fed more women? Clothed more women? Rescued more female infants from death? Offered more assistance or medical care to mothers and their born and unborn children?
 * and this from Chadwick:
 * Christianity seems to have been especially successful among women. It was often through the wives that it penetrated the upper classes of society in the first instance. Christians believed in the equality of men and women before God and found in the New Testament commands that husbands should treat their wives with such consideration and love as Christ manifested for his Church. Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage offered a powerful safeguard to married women (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin, 58–59).
 *  Xan  dar  10:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I agree with you that "there is a perception..." may suggest too much truth to the perception. I was trying to say "Some people believe..." without stating whether or not the perception was true.  Perhaps different wording would help.  After all, you accepted the statement about feminists (while Karanacs feels that the assertion is not limited to just "feminists").  I don't buy the "critics of the Christian tradition" bit.  That suggests the wrong thing; as if only anti-Christians have this position.  Let's work on getting this bit right.
 * I'm fine with capturing more of what Kaczor and Chadwick wrote in the quotes you presented. I think the problem is that the section has been too short.  If we devote a paragraph to the discussion of women, we are more likely to get across the idea accurately.
 * --Richard (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on a proposal and post it today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Universities/research
Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph of the cultural influences section mentions "Catholic universities". Perhaps the information from the history section about catholic schools being the precursor to modern universities could be moved here.  That would be a great introduction to the information presented in the rest of the paragraph.
 * I would reword the first sentence of the third paragraph to something like "Many important scientific advancements have resulted from research undertaken by Catholic priests or at Catholic universities". I don't think that you need the long list of priest-scientists; this is especially distracting at the beginning of a sentence because the reader gets distracted and doesn't know where you are going with that.
 * The sentence beginning "most research took place"...is vague. Is this Jesuit research?  Is this research at Catholic universities (in which care this is redundant)?  It is research by Catholic priests (again, redundant). Does this mean modern (last 50 yearS) research or medieval research or something else? I would either remove this sentence or reword it to make it clearer and move it towards the beginning of the paragraph.
 * How could the Pontifical Acadamy of SCiences have been created "in part because of the lessons learned from the Galilei affair" if it was founded 30 years before Galileo was arrested?
 * Do we need to know here that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "developed over time" (most organizations do) and "reach[ed] its present form by 1936"...when we don't know what the present form is? I'd just remove this half of the sentence; it should be covered in the article on the Academy.


 * I think these are very good suggestions. I want to copy these to peer review. I am finishing my volleyball season this week so I will probably open the peer review next week.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Art
Karanacs (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the opposition to Byzantine iconoclasm an important contribution? We probably need more information here (but just a little bit more).
 * The sentence "Important contributions include..development of the Romanesque, Gothic, and Renassiance styles of art and architecture." Did the church actually develop these styles or did the artists who were paid by the church develop the styles?  This is a very key difference.  Either way, the church played a major role, but we need to not misrepresent what the role was.
 * The two clauses of the sentence on music do not agree. "Catholic monks developed the first forms of modern Western musical notation"... and "an enormous body of religious music has been composed for it".  In this usage, "it" should be musical notation, and I think that is not what is meant.  These should be two sentences, and the "it" reworded.
 * Byzantine iconoclasm - if successful, could have killed Western Art at birth, as well as destroying much of what has survived of pre 8th Century Christian art.
 * Romanesque, Gothic and Baroque are the three forms of architecture and art into which the Church had most direct input. The significant forms were laid down and dictated by Catholic doctrine and practice. Baroque was specifically devised to directly and emotionally express and pass on Catholic teaching in the most effective way.  Xan  dar   23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the information about why the church's opposition to iconoclasm is considered a good thing for art should be briefly included. Many of our readers won't know those facts. Karanacs (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The iconoclast movement led many artists from the Byzantine empire to move west to Charlemagne's empire, producing what we call Carolingian art. Gimmetrow 19:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Catholics in the Soviet Union
The article text reads "In the Soviet Union an even more severe persecution occurred."

There are many problems here. The first is one of balance. If "an even more severe persecution occurred", then why is only one short sentence with no numbers or other details devoted to this, one slightly longer sentence devoted to the persecution of Catholics in Poland and two long paragraphs devoted to persecution of Catholics in Germany and defense of Pius XII with respect to the Holocaust? This suggests an editorial agenda of defending Pius XII (not that I feel he should be condemned) over presenting a "History of the Catholic Church".

Once again, I believe the defense of Pius XII belongs in other articles and not here. The text defending him could be much reduced or at least relegated to a Note.

That said, another issue is one of chronology. The sentence is written almost as an aside... "Oh, by the way, an even more severe persecution occurred in the Soviet Union, but I won't tell you anymore about it because it's not that important. And neither really is the persecution of Polish Catholics.  Certainly not compared to refuting the allegations against Pius XII."

Because of the positioning and the brevity, it's hard to tell what is being discussed here. The impression I got was one of persecution of Catholics inside the Soviet Union contemporaneous with the Nazi era. In fact, per our articles on Holy See – Soviet Union relations and the Terrible Triangle, the persecution started in the early years of the Soviet era under Pope Benedict XV and continuing on under Pope Pius XI. The Soviets targeted "not only the Catholic Church but religion as a whole". In particular, the Orthodox Church was a primary target and suffered much more than the Catholic Church if only because it was so much larger.

Thus, our single lonely sentence omits mention of the larger background of Soviet oppression of Christians in general and gives the wrong impression as to when the persecution occurred (starting from the Bolshevik revolution and continuing beyond the end of WWII). I'm not saying that there was no oppression of Catholics contemporaneous with the Nazi regime; I'm just saying that the period of oppression was much longer and thus the positioning of the sentence and its brevity gives the wrong impression.

I am moving this sentence to be part of a general discussion of the Terrible Triangle. At the same time, I am moving the text discussing the anticlericalism of Peron and Castro to be discussed after the end of World War II rather than before.

--Richard (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In responding to my comment above, Xandar and NancyHeise have focused on my changes (subsequently reverted by Xandar) regarding Pius XII and the Holocaust. (see discussion in section below) That is a separate discussion. The problem that I am raising is one of balance, confused chronological time spans and general choppiness of prose.

Here's how the current article reads:


 * Pius XI later warned that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity. When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded by increasing deportations[383] rounding up 92 converts including Edith Stein who were then deported and murdered.[391] "The brutality of the retaliation made an enormous impression on Pius XII."[391][392] In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests and even more were imprisoned.[393] In the Soviet Union an even more severe persecution occurred

Now, please re-read my comment at the beginning of this section. Somewhere along the line, the sentence "Pius XI later warned that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity" got reduced to meaninglessness. The point we are making is that Pius XI was not antisemitic and neither was the Church... so say that. If you want to reference the speech to 250,000 pilgrims at Lourdes in a footnote, then do that but you got to tell the reader what you want him to know.

Same problem with the Dutch bishops... the point here is that the "enormous impression" made on Pius XII is that denunciation can result in retaliation making the denunciation counter-productive. We need to say that. Don't make the reader connect the dots. Just because we know what we mean by this doesn't mean that the reader knows what we mean.

"In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests and even more were imprisoned."

This sentence drops out of the clear, blue sky and gives the reader no idea of why it is being mentioned. It is almost "apropos of nothing". It is not related to the sentence before or even to the overall paragraph which seems to be about Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender Sorge. Why are we even mentioning the persecution of Polish Catholics now? (I know why we're mentioning it but the reader is likely to be lost if you don't hold his hand a little.)

Same problem with the persecution in the Soviet Union. Why are we mentioning this? These two sentences might constitute the beginning of a separate paragraph but right now they are just random "facts" without any explanation why this is relevant. What's the point we are trying to get across here?

Also, review what I said at the beginning of this section about the timespan of persecution in the Soviet Union. The juxtaposition of the two sentences (one on persecution in Poland and the other on persecution in the Soviet Union) would lead the average reader to conclude that the persecution in the Soviet Union was contemporaneous with the persecution in Poland and that leads to a mistaken impression. The persecution in the Soviet Union started much earlier, lasted much longer, was focused on a minority rather than a majority and was part of a general attack on Christianity rather than focusing on Catholics.

Please... this paragraph is very badly written and needs attention. If you won't let me fix it, won't you please consider these issues and address them?

--Richard (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Pius XII
Xandar is responding my comment above about the changes that I made (and he reverted) to the "Industrial age" section, specifically the text discussing Pius XII and the Holocaust. --Richard (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that this section will need shortening, you actually lengthened it with an additional section stressing criticisms of Pope Pius. The new material made certain presumptions about the circumstances, and Papal actions that are by no means agreed, and tended to present criticism as if it was made at the time, and as if the Pope was the odd one out in his response to what was occurring. I have therefore restored the previous wording.  Xan  dar   00:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think what I wrote was an improvement on what existed before and what you reverted to. However, if you think it was "misleading", I would hope that we can fix those issues in what I wrote and move forward from there.

Let's examine the "presumptions about the circumstances and Papal actions" that you consider to be in dispute and see if we can reach a mutual understanding about them. (I think the problem may be either with my specific wording or your understanding of what I was trying to say. I was actually trying to defend Pius in what I wrote.)

My edit attempted to make more explicit the arguments that the previous text only hinted at. It provided "facts" without connecting the dots for the reader.

Let me lay out what I have learned and then let's discuss how to summarize this for this article.

The British government and the Polish government-in-exile were asking Pius XII to denounce the Nazis. He declined to do so and explained why privately but not publicly. Pius was the odd one out but, as he explained it, he was concerned that denunciations and excommunications would only make things worth worse for Catholics living in territories under Nazi and Fascist control. The whole point about the Dutch bishops and Edith Stein is that the Archbishop of Utrecht had been warned by the Germans not to oppose the deportation of Jews and, when he did, the Gestapo expanded the order to include converted Jews such as Edith Stein. This incident "made an immense impression" on Pius. He started to see denunciations as "empty words" which had real, terrible consequences on the lives of real people. This next point is my personal speculation but I think we have to consider that the British government and the Polish government-in-exile had every incentive to denounce the Nazis for propaganda reasons but Pius XII had pastoral concerns. It was his sheep that were being slaughtered and he had little to gain by making the denunciations (as much as he wanted to) and much for his flock to lose.

NB: We may need to modify what I wrote somewhat because there are two primary lines of defense against the criticisms of silence: (1) Pius XII was not as silent as some charge (2) to the extent that he was "silent", this was more out of concern for the retribution that denunciations would bring than due to any sympathies for the Nazis or the Fascists.

What I wrote focuses on point (2) and does not make the case for point (1). I was trying not to make the text longer than it needed to be but perhaps I was wrong not to mention point (1).

In A Righteous Gentile: Pope Pius XII and the Jews, David Dalin writes:

Pius XII publicly and privately warned of the dangers of Nazism. Throughout World War II, he spoke out on behalf of Europe's Jews. When Pius learned of the Nazi atrocities in Poland, he urged the bishops of Europe to do all they could to save the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. On January 19, 1940, at the Pope's instruction, Vatican radio and L'Osservatore Romano revealed to the world "the dreadful cruelties of uncivilized tyranny" that the Nazis were inflicting on Jewish and Catholic Poles. The following week, the Jewish Advocate of Boston reported the Vatican radio broadcast, praising its "outspoken denunciation of German atrocities in Nazi [occupied] Poland, declaring they affronted the moral conscience of mankind."

In his 1940 Easter homily, Pius XII condemned the Nazi bombardment of defenseless citizens, aged and sick people, and innocent children. On May 11, 1940, he publicly condemned the Nazi invasions of Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg and lamented "a world poisoned by lies and disloyalty and wounded by excesses of violence." In June 1942, Pius spoke out against the mass deportation of Jews from Nazi-occupied France, further instructing his Papal Nuncio in Paris to protest to Marshal Henri Petain, Vichy France's Chief of State, against "the inhuman arrests and deportations of Jews from the French occupied zone to Silesia and parts of Russia."

The London Times of October 1, 1942, explicitly praises him for his condemnation of Nazism and his public support for the Jewish victims of Nazi terror. "A study of the words which Pope Pius XII has addressed since his accession," noted the Times, "leaves no room for doubt. He condemns the worship of force and its concrete manifestations in the suppression of national liberties and in the persecution of the Jewish race."

Pius XII's Christmas addresses of 1941 and 1942, broadcast over Vatican radio to millions throughout the world, also help to refute the fallacious claim that Pope Pius was "silent." Indeed, as The New York Times described Pius' 1941 Christmas address in its editorial the following day, it specifically applauded the Pope, as a "lonely" voice of public protest against Hitler: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas…In calling for a 'real new order' based on 'liberty, justice, and love'…the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism. Recognizing that there is no road open to agreement between belligerents 'whose reciprocal war aims and programs seem to be irreconcilable,' Pius XII left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace." The Pope's Christmas message of 1941, as reported by The New York Times and other newspapers, was understood at the time to be a clear condemnation of Nazi attacks on Europe's Jews.

So, too, was the Pope's Christmas message of the following year. Pope Pius XII's widely-discussed Christmas message of December 24, 1942, in which he expressed his passionate concern "for those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction," was widely understood to be a very public denunciation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Indeed, the Nazis themselves interpreted the Pope's famous speech of Christmas 1942 as a clear condemnation of Nazism, and as a plea on behalf of Europe's Jews: "His [the Pope's] speech is one long attack on everything we stand for…he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews…he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

In his recent history of the modern papacy, Professor Eamon Duffy of Magdalen College, Oxford University, substantiates the fact, ignored by Pius' critics, that the Nazi leadership viewed the Pope's 1942 Christmas message as an attack on Nazi Germany and as a defense of the Jews. "Both Mussolini and Ambassador Ribbentrop were angered by this [the Pope's December 24, 1942] speech," notes Duffy, "and Germany considered that the Pope had abandoned any pretence of neutrality. They felt that Pius had unequivocally condemned Nazi action against the Jews."

In Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, Wikipedia writes:


 * President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent Myron C. Taylor as his special representative to the Vatican in September 1941. His assistant, Harold Tittman, repeatedly pointed out to Pius the dangers to his moral leadership by his failure to speak out against the violations of the natural law carried out by the Nazis. Pius XII responded that he could not name the Nazis without at the same time mentioning the Bolsheviks.


 * After reviewing documents that had been in the control of the Secret Services and of Hitler's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Robert Kempner determined that Pius XII and the Catholic Church had, in fact, sent a great number of protests, both direct and indirect, diplomatic and public, secret and explicit, to which the Nazis never responded. Kempner publicly defended the role and charity endeavors of Pius XII.

From Pope Pius XII Vicar of Christ Servant of God


 * Did Pope Pius XII help the Jews? Indeed he did. Nor can one claim he was "silent." Rather one must speak of his "prudence." In his Christmas radio messages of '41, '42, and '43 following this audience, Pope Pius XII denounced theories that attribute rights to "a particular race." He revealed that "hundreds of thousands of people, through no fault of theirs, sometimes only because of nationality or race, were destined to die."

Here's the rub, Pius XII made oblique references to the Nazis and the Jews. His defenders point to these radio messages and argue that it's clear who he was referring to. The Nazis clearly knew who he was talking about. The Americans, British and Polish government-in-exile all wanted him to come out and explicitly name the Nazis. Pius refused to for reasons stated above. After the war, people criticized Pius for his "silence".

Read Dalin's discussion of the question of using excommunication (on p. 78 of The Myth of Hitler's Pope)

In, David Dalin writes:

Late in 1942, Archbishop Sapieha of Cracow and two other Polish bishops, having experienced the Nazis' savage reprisals, begged Pius not to publish his letters  about conditions in Poland. Even Susan Zuccotti admits that in the case of the Roman Jews the pope "might well have been influenced by a concern for Jews in  hiding and for their Catholic protectors."

In Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, Wikipedia writes:


 * On April 30, 1943, Pius wrote to Bishop Von Preysing of Berlin to say: "We give to the pastors who are working on the local level the duty of determining if and to what degree the danger of reprisals and of various forms of oppression occasioned by episcopal declarations... ad maiora mala vitanda (to avoid worse)... seem to advise caution. Here lies one of the reasons, why We impose self-restraint on Ourselves in our speeches; the experience, that we made in 1942 with papal addresses, which We authorized to be forwarded to the Believers, justifies our opinion, as far as We see.... The Holy See has done whatever was in its power, with charitable, financial and moral assistance. To say nothing of the substantial sums which we spent in American money for the fares of immigrants."


 * In the spring of 1943 Pirro Scavizzi, an Italian priest, told Pius that the murder of the Jews was "now total", even the elderly and infants were being destroyed "without mercy". Pius is reported to have broken down and wept uncontrollably.


 * Pius said to Father Scavizzi “I have often considered excommunication, to castigate in the eyes of the entire world the fearful crime of genocide. But after much praying and many tears, I realize that my condemnation would not only fail to help the Jews, it might even worsen their situation… No doubt a protest would gain me the praise and respect of the civilized world, but it would have submitted the poor Jews to an even worse persecution.”

OK... that's what I was trying to distill down into a couple of sentences. Perhaps it was, as you claim, "misleading". Tell me how to get this across in just a few sentences.

--Richard (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go - only not right now, since I have to go out. One of my main objections to your text was that it carried the presumptions a)That the Pope knew exactly what was happening, when in fact even Allied troops were shocked by what they found in 1945. b) That he didn't protest (covered above), and c) That the allies and everyone else were loudly denouncing Hitler for his treatment of Jews and that only the Pope was "silent". (and that is leaving aside the fact that it is much easier to denounce the Axis from London than from the centre of a major Axis capital. )  Xan  dar   10:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re your points
 * (a) Disagree. The Pope knew more than most what was going on and was actively working to help the Jews.
 * (b) We agree. He did protest but did not protest according to the formulas that the British, Americans and Polish-in-exile wanted him to.  Nazis were angered by his pronouncements anyway.
 * (c) We agree. There wasn't a lot of public denunciation on the part of others.  Some of this was ignorance; part of the ignorance may have been somewhat willful and convenient due to "other priorities" or even, as some charge, latent anti-semitism.  And, yeh, Hitler or Mussolini could have marched into the Vatican and taken Pius XII prisoner at any time.  However, Pius said he was not so much afraid for himself as for the impact on his flock.  Also, with 50,000 Jews hidden in Vatican City, he would have been putting them at risk as well.  Rome saved a higher percentage of its Jews than any other major city in Europe.
 * --Richard (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion in this section is to try to identify the main issues addressing the Church during World War II. Remember that the Pius controversy is notable and to mention both sides of the controversy and remember that the article is about the Church, not Pius. Therefore, our wording stresses what happened to the Church during the war and what the Church did during the war. If I were to add something to that section it would be to mention that the Church does not posess and army and that Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli's actions trying to work against Hitler and Mussolini are well established facts among scholars that are not in dispute. The only dispute is that people have suggested that Pius XII could have done more in their opinion. We have mentioned this and provided the other side to the dispute per WP:NPOV. Some editors arguing over this section seem to want an overview of Pius XII when such an overview really belongs on the article about Piux XII - we just provide note of the dispute and a wikilink in keeping with WP:summary style.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 16:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. I've accepted Richard's challenge and attempted a rewording, and slight reduction, of the wartime section of the article:
 * Atrocities committed against Catholics and Jews following the German invasion of Poland in 1939 led to the first of numerous protests and denunciations of Nazi actions ordered by Pope Pius XII. When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded by increasing deportations[384] and rounding up 92 Catholic converts including Edith Stein, who were then deported and murdered.[393] According to Vidmar, "the brutality of the retaliation made an enormous impression on Pius XII."[393][394] When allied governments pressed the Pope to strengthen his condemnations, he feared that such action would be counterproductive and only provoke further persecutions. In Poland alone the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests, imprisoning a far greater number.[393]


 * After the war, Pius XII's efforts to hide and shelter Jewish people threatened with deportation to the camps were recognised by prominent Jews including Albert Einstein and Rabbi Isaac Herzog.[394] However, the Church has also been accused by some of encouraging centuries of antisemitism and Pius himself of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities.[395][396] Prominent members of the Jewish community have contradicted these criticisms.[397] The Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide interviewed war survivors and concluded that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands". Some historians dispute this estimate[398] while others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust.[399] Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall.[400] This papal apology was especially significant because John Paul II emphasized Church guilt of, and the Second Vatican Council's condemnation of, anti-Semitism.[401] His papal letter We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, urged Catholics to "renew the awareness of the Hebrew roots of their faith."[401][402]
 * Comments?  Xan  dar   18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is better than the previous text. I still think there is too much discussion of Pinchas Lapide; the fact that some dispute his estimate and others consider it the "definitive work..." should be in a Note not in the main text.  Similarly, there is too much detail about JPII's apology; that detail should also be in a Note.  However, we can deal with those issues later.


 * In the portion that you changed, my primary comment would be to suggest that we mention that bishops in Germany and Poland were urging Pius XII not to openly denounce the Nazis. I'll dig up some citations to support that assertion in a little while.


 * --Richard (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more point, Xandar's text is a little misleading because the reader could conclude that the Catholic Church did not begin to condemn Nazi persecution of the Jews until after the September 1939 invasion of Poland. Pius XII's denunciations did not begin until that point because he had only become Pope in March of 1939.  Clearly, Pius XI had been lodging protests through Pacelli from shortly after the signing of the Reichskonkordat up until shortly before his death.  Perhaps it would be better to say something like Pius XII continued to lodge protests although as war broke out, he decided that a certain amount of circumspection was advisable given the precariousness of the Vatican's situation and the negative consequences of Nazi retaliation on both Catholics and Jews living under the Nazi regime.  According to Peter Kent, Pius XI was more inclined to open confrontation whereas Pacelli was a career diplomat who preferred negotiation and diplomacy.  (See NancyHeise's summary of Kent' thesis here)


 * --Richard (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the John Paul II personal opinion piece (or those of the liberals who manipulated him) should be removed entirely from that section. Since it seems to be cherry picked and he was not the contemporary Pope of that era (it is not cronological). There are four Popes between Saint Pius XII and John Paul II, why is the most ultra-ecumenical (somebody who was manipulated to act more as a "showman" than a usual Pope) the only opinion used? He wasn't there at the time and was very irregular in terms of orthodoxy. The only Pope who should be quoted there is Saint Pius XII. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened is what happened. We can't choose to ignore what happened because we don't agree with it.  JPII said what he said and it is relevant.  Does it deserve as much space as we currently devote to it?  I don't think so but not for the same reasons as Yorkshirian presents. My concern is more that it is unnecessary detail as is the bit about Pinchas Lapide.  --Richard (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to keep the text and I do not think it is too much - especially since Readers have been so concerned about this aspect of Church history. I find that in areas of greater Reader interest, it is important to have the best sources and use quotes as well as cover the most controversial aspects in a way that does not slight those controversies. If these are covered in more detail than you would like Richard, please consider that it is done with respect to Reader comments in this section. Our Jewish editors like Taam, wanted more on JPII's apology and I provided that. It was a very notable event in Church history that deserves mention. It also helps satisfy the NPOV requirement regarding the scholarly dispute (also mentioned in the text) about what the Church did or did not do in history regarding the woes suffered by Jews in Europe.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the detail being in a Note. I just don't think it belongs in the main article text.  However, since this is an issue of style rather than substance, I'm willing to defer the discussion for now as there are more substantive issues to resolve. --Richard (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is though, its not cronological and so it fails the general WP:MOS on history sections. For instance, say we were writing about the Islamic conquests of Syria in the 7th century, it would be completely out of line to write "PS - John Paul II later kissed the Koran". Or for instance if we're writing about the Jesuit Reductions in age of Discovery section, "PS - left-wing academia has not quite decided whether this was politically correct or not, but John Paul II probaly apologised anyway". I just don't see why we should use JPII in that section at all, IMO this sort of stuff belongs only on his own article—we must keep that section contemporary to its period, ie - only quote contemporary clergy and Saint Pius XII himself. That is the only way a fairly balanced presentation can be achieved. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that the section has been slightly too long and at risk of being Undue Weight, and needed some condensing in a manner that keeps the principal elements intact. If people are that interested in additional detail and lengthy personal quotes, they can be directed to the other articles on this topic. We are never going to satisfy everyone. The danger with adding something to satisfy X, is that we then have to add Y to balance it or set it in context, and the section gets too long. I can see a point in a brief JPII quote, but not at the length it was prior to my edit. I think a lot of the quotes in the notes are unnecessarily long as well, and this is making the text all show red when it is edited, since the software can't handle the paragraph length.  Xan  dar   22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jargon?
Since an editor added an incorrect Jargon tag,, I changed it to. However, the editor has not indicated where the "jargon" is, so I thought I had better ask you all what you think. Is there any jargon that needs to be clarified/removed? If not the tag should be removed. Jubilee♫ clipman 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor concerned particularly mentioned the Lead. An article like this has to use a good deal of specialised terminology, but a lot of additional jargon seems to have crept into the Lead recently. That is a constant danger with this type of article. I have givenm the lead a bit of a clean-up and removed the jargon tag.  Xan  dar   02:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Liberation theology
I've made some relatively minor edits to the paragraph that discusses liberation theology in the "Second Vatican Council and beyond" section. The primary change I made was to clarify the phrase "the bishops' conference"; I felt it needed to be clarified that this was the 1979 Latin American Bishops Conference. Without that clarification, it could have been understood to be a conference of Mexican bishops or even a conference of all Catholic bishops (yeah, I know that would be a council but the average reader wouldn't know that).

However, in reading that section, I feel that more work is needed here as the text doesn't quite present what happened accurately.

I think we should consider incorporating some of the ideas from this article from St. John's University School of Law in the text.

Here are what I see as some key points that need to be made:


 * The concept of “the preferential option for the poor” has deep biblical, patristic and papal magisterial roots, but was refined through a new theological methodology developed in Belgium in the 1930s and refined in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970’s. The process was reinterpreted by Gustavo Gutierréz in a series of articles and lectures leading up to the second meeting of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at Medellín, Colombia in 1968.
 * The point being that liberation theology didn't spring up in 1979 but much earlier. Nor is it a phenomenon that developed solely in Latin America
 * The rise of the “base communities” in Brazil and throughout Latin America in the post-Vatican II era, combined with the vision of Pope John XXIII that the Church should be a “Church of the poor,” gave impetus to this movement, along with progressive directions assumed by the Church under the advisement of papal advisors Msgr. Pietro Pavan and Father Louis Lebret, who served as staff to Pope Paul VI for his 1967 encyclical, Populorum Progressio. At this point, the papal preference for a theology of “development” began to shift towards a theology of “liberation.”  This thrust gained impetus through the 1971 synodal document, “Justice in the World,” along with Paul VI’s 1971 encyclical, Octagesima Adveniens.
 * Obviously this needs to be cut back but the point is that liberation theology had some support from earlier Popes.
 * With the election of Pope John Paul II in 1978, a crackdown occurred on liberation theology, orchestrated by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. John Paul II objected to the methodological pointers borrowed from Marxism and employed by liberation theologians, and felt that the term “preferential option for the poor” was divisive and wont to promote class conflict.  Individual liberation theologians such as Gustavo Gutierréz and Leonardo Boff were disciplined and admonitions were issued on their work by the C.D.F.
 * Make it clear that there is a shift in the Vatican's stance towards liberation theology.
 * At the third conference of the Latin American Bishops (C.E.L.A.M.) held at Puebla, Mexico, in 1979, John Paul II adopted certain language of liberation theology, but modified the concept of the “preferential option for the poor,” to include a qualifier that it not be seen as exclusive. He preferred to use such terminology as “love of preference for the poor,” as seen in his 1987 social encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis.
 * The current text suggests that the 1979 C.E.L.A.M. conference was endorsing liberation theology. According to the St. John's University article, the conference didn't adopt  “preferential option for the poor” as an endorsement of liberation theology but actually as a co-opting of the phrase by John Paul II to redirect the good aspects of the movement while distancing the Church from the class conflict aspects.

I don't have time to do all this right now but I wanted to share these thoughts with the other editors of this article to get their feedback and enlist their assistance.

--Richard (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is going into too much detail, and I'm not convinced by claims of major changes in stance by the Vatican. Wasn't it simply that Liberation Theology came into wider prominence in John Paul's time, with Priests playing a major part in the Nicaraguan and other revolutions?  Xan  dar   14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What Xandar says here is certainly (also) true. It was particularly with the Nicaraguan revolution that the relationship between the church and politics came to a critical point.  The Sandinista junta included a priest (Ernesto Cardenal), and there were many partisans of the Revolution who had been radicalized in the base communities; on the other hand, the country's Archbishop (Miguel Obando y Bravo) soon became a figure very much hostile to the revolutionary regime.  When John Paul II visited Central America, he made a point of showing whose side he was on, by publicly snubbing Cardenal.  Or in short, the way I'd put it is that the divisions within the Latin American church became much more glaring, and the Vatican moved sharply in response.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the section we are discussing:
 * In the 1960s, growing social awareness and politicization in the Church in Latin America gave birth to liberation theology with Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, becoming a primary theorist. The 1979 Conference of Latin American Bishops at Puebla, Mexico formally committed itself to a "preferential option for the poor".[418] Archbishop Óscar Romero, a supporter of the movement, became the region's most famous contemporary martyr in 1980, when he was murdered by forces allied with the government of El Salvador while saying Mass.[419] Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) denounced the movement.[420] The Brazilian theologian-priest Leonardo Boff was twice ordered to cease publishing and teaching.[418] Pope John Paul II was criticized for his severity in dealing with proponents of the movement, but he maintained that the Church, in its efforts to champion the poor, should not do so by advocating violence or engaging in partisan politics.[421] The movement is still alive in Latin America today, although the Church now faces the challenge of Pentecostal revival in much of the region.[420]
 * What impression do you get from reading the above text regarding what happened at the 1979 CELAM at Puebla, Mexico? Doesn't it read as if the 1979 CELAM endorsed liberation theology?  Then what happens?   The way I read the current text, it almost seems as if JPII and Ratzinger denounced the liberation theology movement against the endorsement of the 1979 CELAM.  This isn't what the source I provided relates.  That source suggests that earlier CELAMs (1979 having been the third) endorsed liberation theology within an umbrella of papal support for the general concept "preferential option for the poor".  How much popes prior to JPII supported liberation theology is perhaps an interesting discussion but not one that we need to get into for this article.


 * In any event, according to the source I provided, liberation theology started to "go off the rails" in the 1970s and Cardinal Ratzinger and JPII saw a need to pull it back. I remember hearing liberation theology castigated among conservative Catholics as early as the mid 1970s so "no, it was not only in the 1980s that it was targeted as unacceptable teaching".  As a result of the general move towards conservatism in the Church following the election of JPII, JPII and Ratzinger intervened at the 1979 CELAM to endorse the "preferential option for the poor" while, at the same time, condemning the more extreme Marxist class-conflict elements of liberation theology.  In essence, they said "Of course, the poor are important but Marxism and class conflict are not the Christian response to their plight."  As a result of this papal intervention, liberation theology was transformed because it was no longer "OK" for Catholic bishops and clergy to espouse those extreme elements.  I would have to do more research into the status of liberation theology today before I can comment intelligently on the sentence "The movement is still alive in Latin America today".  However, I think it is important that we present the chronology of events more accurately than the current text which misrepresents what happened. --Richard (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, User:jbmurray wrote the liberation theology paragraph for this page. He is a professor of Latin American studies at a Canadian university.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Richard dropped a note on my talk page, suggesting I put in my 2c.-worth. I wouldn't say I wrote that paragraph under discussion, though I did help craft it. I'm not entirely sure what Richard's concerns are. As with the rest of the article, this is of course a very condensed summary of a complex movement. The source that he cites is not a good one: it's a brief webpage document, that can't have been any more than a page or two in whatever printed publication. Surely this is the abstract of a scholarly article? Anyhow, it's not an article itself.

My particular speciality isn't either liberation theology or the Catholic church in Latin America, but I know enough to have a pretty good idea in the context of an overview of this type. Looking afresh at the paragraph that Richard cites, it looks OK to me. My concerns if I wanted to nitpick are: But these are nitpicks and complications for which there isn't space here; the interested should be directed to the article on liberation theology (which I haven't looked at, but let's hope it's good). Really, the paragraph cited above is OK, I think. The only concrete changes I might make would be 1) a brief mention of Medellin 1968 and 2) some passing indication towards the fact that it's not as though the entire Latin American church became radicalized. HTH --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) that it doesn't mention the 1968 Medellin conference of bishops, which is almost always cited as a milestone for the changes in the Latin American church; this is, I believe, when Vatican II was implemented, but also when the bishops took a generally leftward turn
 * 2) however, as much as any decision of bishops or theologians, the backbone of liberation theology in Latin America was usually provided by "base communities" often run by catechists rather than priests. You would also have to mention the adaptation of the mass to forms of popular culture, producing for instance the misa campesina.  I.e. it wasn't really a top-down movement.
 * 3) Indeed, our brief paragraph gives the impression that Latin American bishops were generally in favor of liberation theology, while the Vatican cracked down. The latter is certainly true (that the Vatican was almost always opposed to the movement, and handed out fairly serious sanctions to individual priests and theologians), but not the former.  The Church was pretty divided, and on the whole the senior hierarchy were opposed to liberation theology.  (The most famous counter-example, Monseñor Romero, had in fact shown no particular interest in liberation theology prior to his appointment to Archbishop; he was radicalized very late on.)


 * Jbmurray, thank you for taking the time to look at the paragraph on liberation theology. I am sorry to report that the Wikipedia article on [Liberation theology]], while informative, is very badly written because it presents a disjointed narrative.  It's another case of being a "horse designed by committee" AKA "a camel".


 * I have no issues with what you wrote above with the exception that I disagree with your general assessment that the paragraph was "OK" as it stood. I felt that it gave the wrong impression.  I have expanded the article to more clearly establish who did what and when.  I hope you will agree that this edit is an improvement.  What I wrote is still perhaps unclear as to how much the Vatican supported or opposed liberation theology prior to 1979.  Perhaps there was some ambiguity where the Vatican, in support of Vatican II, favored an orientation towards the poor but opposed the specific development of those ideas into pro-Marxist liberation theology.


 * I have deleted the sentence discussing Leonardo Boff on the general principle of trying to keep the paragraph short. I see it as excessive detail.  However, I won't object if the text is restored.


 * --Richard (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Its important to realise that this was not just Latin America. The journal SLANT, linked to BlackFriars in Oxford and the work of McCabe and others did a lot of work in the UK  Guarady in France and the various links to Euro-communism are another example and there was work in both Africa and Asia.  Ratzinger always interpreted marxism in the context of the soviet union as did JPII (unlike his two predecessors although one had too little time).  There were links to the World Council of Churches (and the WSCF)  in which Liberation Theology (or Catholic Marxism) had an impact on Protestant thinking and ecumenical work.  The reaction of Ratzinger et. al. had major political implications for Latin America, and also resulted in a conservative swing in the Church as a whole so it deserves some serious treatment.  It really needs an expert who has studied this, in particular Medellin which was key.  I remember it well as a youthful participant and have a lot of the original material, but I don't know of any work that has studied the period.  -- Snowded  TALK  09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all very good comments, I will incorporate these into the peer review along with Karanacs suggestions.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose using Marie Carré as a source regarding apostate/communist subverts in and against the Church is out of the question? :( - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a good conspiracy theory I suppose, but remember she was (if it was true which I doubt) talking about soviet infiltration, here we are talking about a movement that arose from the work of priests, theologians and others in the context of working with the poor. -- Snowded  TALK  23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
I am hesitating to go into peer review as long as we continue to be harassed by Soidi. I want to improve the article but I don't want to debate issues that are not issues debated by scholars. Right now we are being challenged about article text that says many historians agree with the Church's view of its own origins - even though we have four WP:RS sources and longstanding consensus for this article text. Soidi is a troll, he is not a legitimate editor who wants to improve the page, he wants to harass editors who do. Yes I am violating WP:assume good faith - I think I have a right to violate it after failing to see Soidi's good faith after a year of his unreferenced nonconsensus'd harrassment.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, I'm not sure what the deal with Soidi/Lima/Platia is. He seems to only edit Catholic articles, but usually in an... ahem, specific manner. I don't know what to make of it. I've literally never seen him edit a non-Catholic article? I'm also unsure of why he needs more than one account, to make the exact same kind of edits. Its all very confusing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would discourage going towards peer review or FAC until the current open issues are addressed. Some of these are listed at Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues.  It's not just Soidi who is raising issues.  There are a number of editors (Karanacs, Peter jackson, myself among others) who have concerns.  The article is in fantastic shape. The outstanding issues are few compared to the size of this article.  I know that Soidi and Gimmetrow have been thorns in your side.  Please try to get past the visceral emotional reaction that you have from your experience with them and focus on the substantive content and stylistic issues rather than the personalities and interactions. --Richard (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural influence section
I've done a lot of reading in the last few days in an effort to improve the cultural influence section. I've made an attempt to bring the research I've done together in the text below. I propose that this, or a form of it, will replace the current first paragraph of the section. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

proposed text
Although some Christian ideals were adopted by the Roman Empire, there is little evidence to link most of these laws to Church influence. After the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion, however, the link between Christian teachings and Roman family laws became more clear. Early Church Fathers advocated against polygamy, abortion, infanticide, child abuse, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest.

By the late 11th century, beginning with the efforts of Pope Gregory VII, the Church successfully established itself as "an autonomous legal and political ... [entity] within Western Christendom". For the next several hundred years, the Church held great influence over Western society; church laws were the single "universal law ... common to jurisdictions and peoples throughout Europe", giving the Church "preeminent authority". With its own court system, the Church retained jurisdiction over many aspects of ordinary life, including education, inheritance, oral promises, oaths, moral crimes, and marriage. As one of the more powerful institutions of the Middle Ages, Church attitudes were reflected in many secular laws of the time.

Church teaching heavily influenced the legal concept of marriage. During the Gregorian Reform, the Church developed and codified a view of marriage as a sacrament. In a departure from societal norms, Church law required the consent of both parties before a marriage could be performed and established a minimum age for marriage. The elevation of marriage to a sacrament also made the union a binding contract, with dissolutions overseen by Church authorities. Although the Church abandoned tradition to allow women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage, in practice, when an accusation of infidelity was made, men were granted dissolutions more frequently than women.

The teachings of the Church were also used to "establish[...] the status of women under the law". According to historian Shulamith Shahar, "[s]ome historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women in medieval society in general" by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority and by accepting practices such as wife-beating. Despite these laws, some women, particularly abbesses, gained powers that were never available to women in previous Roman or Germanic societies.

Although these teachings emboldened secular authorities to give women fewer rights than men, they also helped form the concept of chivalry. Chivalry was influenced by a new Church attitude towards Mary, the mother of Jesus. This "ambivalence about women's very nature" was shared by most major religions in the Western world.

The Church initially accepted slavery as part of the social fabric of society during the Roman Empire and early antiquity, campaigning primarily for humane treatment of slaves but also admonishing slaves to behave appropriately towards their masters. During the early medieval period, this attitude changed to one which opposed enslavement of Christians but still tolerated enslavement of non-Christians. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been converted to serfdom within Europe, although slavery existed in European colonies in other parts of the world. Several popes issued papal bulls condeming mistreatment of enslaved Native Americans; these were largely ignored. In his 1839 bull In Supremo Apostolatus, Pope Gregory XVI condemned all forms of slavery; nevertheless some American bishops continued to support slavery for several decades.

Comments
This is likely too long to incorporate completely into the article, and is probably not the best prose. How can we improve this for inclusion in the article? Note: I would also like to include the entire note that is currently in the article on slaverly as a note in this version, even though I took part of it for this text. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting formulation - but there are a lot of significant problems with this text. Firstly the focus of the section itself is on the changes, the cultural impact that Christianity made to pre-existing societies and its development. The tenor of a lot of the passage goes off on lengthy tangents from this, including a lot of stuff about the church's own institutions and their development. There are also factual points to be examined, along with missing elements. For example the sentence "Although the Church abandoned tradition to allow women the same rights as men to dissolve a marriage,[9][18] in practice, when an accusation of infidelity was made, men were granted dissolutions more frequently than women." is inaccurate on several counts - even when one compares it with its source in Shahar's book. First the passage is talking about legal separation rather than dissolution, then the "abandoning tradition" part is ambiguous and unclear, not making clear the Church's general presumption of equality of treatment, and finally the one stated element of more negative treatment of women is quoted when the passage contains many more examples of equal treatment between the sexes and some where women received better treatment than men. The direct quote used from Shahar, in both text and note, is a one-sided negative one - and one which itself quotes an alleged and unproven opinion supposedly held by "some historians" that the Church "fostered an inferior status for women". A more relevant quote from Shahar might be that Women of the middle ages "wielded powers of government such as they never had in Roman or Germanic society, nor in modern western Europe before the 20th century." (p12). That is more factual and presents a totally different picture. The slavery section too is inaccurate in many respects, slavery was condemned by the Church many centuries before 1839, enslaving non-Christians was specifically condemned, and the whole idea of slavery being something that was "not right or proper" came from the Church. So, while there is a framework here that could be useful, there are some very significant changes needed.   Xan  dar   00:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By and large it's OK, but it may be too detailed. Direct quotes from Shahar, either the one you've proposed or the one mentioend by Xander, are probably too much. Additionally, this section should provide a high-level perspective; for example, the current first paragraph starts with the sentence The influence of the Catholic Church on world culture and society has been vast, first and foremost in the development of European civilization from Greco-Roman times to the modern era. Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that its too detailed. I think we can use some of this material to expand the Cultural Influence section but I am not in favor of replacing current text with this proposal. Merging of some parts of the new suggestion is more likely.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both the current and the proposed text have merit. Merging the two may be a good approach. I have no problem with replacing portions of the existing paragraph with portions of the proposed text. Majoreditor (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Catholic Church
I have raised the question of whether or not the topic of Names of the Catholic Church warrants an article unto itself. Please provide your perspective here. --Richard (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit war over note
I'm not going to revert this edit again; rather, I'm just pleading for some reasoned action by the parties edit warring over the section. I realize that in mediation, you seem to have agreed that the church prefers to call itself the "Catholic Church". I take no position on the issue, but at least one editor is disputing a statement being added into the article to that effect without a secondary source. This is required per WP:V, no matter your opinion on the issue. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to find a secondary source simply stating that the church prefers to call itself as such.

Anyway, as a non-involved admin, I'm going to be watching the page for edit warring, and I will not hesitate to block editors who revert each other without reason or discussion. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I already explained this. 1.) Secondary sources are PREFERRED, not required. 2.) Extremely obvious statements require NO citation in the first place.  Thus, that you say a secondary source is required is in no way, shape, or form, remotely true.Farsight001 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Farsight. This sentence is not claiming anything about the name of the Catholic Church. It is just being used to state a fact - an acceptable use for primary sources. The note was agreed line by line in the mediated consensus, and also contains the unreferenced sentence "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." which Gimmetrow and Laserbrain curiously do not want to remove. The sentences are both based on primary sources and point in different ways. Both are part of the mediated wording.  Xan  dar   23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Catholic Church" is used more commonly than every other term the Church uses in its own documents? I am disputing this sentence because I believe it is wrong - that there are other terms used as frequently or more frequently than CC in the Church's own documents. Do you actually dispute that the Church refers to itself in various ways? This is not related to the page rename - this is about a claim in the text for which you have failed to provide sources or clarify, despite a proposal on the table two months ago that was agreeable to most people and would have addressed this issue. At this point, because of the refusal to change the text or discuss the issue, it is an issue of WP:Verifiability policy. Gimmetrow 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Grimmtrow, you have long since crossed into the realm of disruptive editing. I have explained repeatedly to you why your request is unnecessary and silly and you simply continue saying the same thing over and over and over again, whilst completely ignoring the fact that I'm saying anything.  The page on disruptive editing describes this sort of action as a clear identifying mark of a disruptive editor - "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."  If you want us to take you seriously, ignoring our explanations and repeating yourself rather vainly I must say, is not going to help you achieve that at all.Farsight001 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have explained to you that the assertion in the text is not obvious and therefore, if editors will not change it or provide sources as required by Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, then the assertion doesn't belong. You have not provided any evidence. Gimmetrow 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Farsight, have you considered that you might be able to find a secondary source that backs up your claim within like five minutes and put this whole thing to rest? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So is this your Farsight and Xandars way to tell Gimmetrow to please shut up? You know like you both have already done to Taam and Cody and others here? Or maybe you can call Encyclopedia Britannica rubbish again.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Farsight001 and Xandar but without agreeing with 100% with Taam, Cody and LoveMonkey. I kind of agree with Gimmetrow although I'm not as exercised about this issue as he is.


 * The challenged statement needs a citation to a reliable source that says exactly that. To point to a handful of documents and make an assertion based upon textual analysis of those documents is already original research; to widen the assertion to documents beyond those cited is totally unacceptable.  I doubt that we will find a citation that supports the assertion made in the current text and so the best course of action is to rewrite the text so that it is supportable.


 * I think the best direction to head towards is to say "In some of the Church's core documents (e.g. Catechism, Lumen Gentium, Humani Generis, whatever), the title 'Catholic Church' is used far more frequently than 'Roman Catholic Church'.] This avoids making assertions beyond what we can support with citations.


 * --Richard (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where misuse of policies takes place; when the tide goes against find any policy to throw up to cause contention. Richard, with your statement the next word out of Gimme's and Cody's mouth is how frequently? How many more times is it used? What source for that? Suffice it to say this language was the result of a months long mediation. If anything, Gimme and company need to stop editing the article, bring the issues solely tot he discussion page until such time as a compromise is reached.
 * This is petty, it is choking on gnats, and follows closely in their POV and resistance to accept reality. I again strongly suggest you fellows get a personal blog where you can pontificate on your personal views to your heart's content.
 * There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history. What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents. That is all the sentence is attempting to reflect to the reader; nothing more and nothing less. Guys, patience is one thing, but you appear to seek a special place in the minds of each editor on this page. That type of karma will reap some really bad things. It is time to back off for a short while and accept reality. Just a thought. -- Storm  Rider  19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * StormRider wrote "There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history."


 * Richardshusr responds: Yes, precisely. And that is why the sentence in question should be altered or removed.  It's the same argument as the one about the "official name" of the Church.  If you can't find a source that says it, then the sentence cannot stand.


 * StormRider continued "What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents."


 * Richardshusr responds: Saying something is "Self-evident" works in Declarations of Independence but not it won't fly in Wikipedia. However, if we allow ourselves some leeway regarding Original Research, we can examine these so-called "most significant documents" and determine whether the assertion is true for the ones that we pick.  The proposed change to the current article text is to narrow the assertion to be limited solely to documents where we have visually inspected the text and determined the truth value of the assertion.  With citations, any reader can verify whether or not the assertion is true for those documents.  Since we would make no assertion about the frequency of use in any other documents, we would stand on unassailable ground.


 * --Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think we have already crossed boundaries into subjective territory here. Neither party can argue that they are firmly within a policy-bound right to either include or remove the sentence. As such, it would seem prudent to stick to the statement agreed on in mediation. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:V. The editor who wrote the disputed sentence (the same editor who wrote the text that originally led to mediation, by the way), refused to discuss it during mediation, which therefore prevented the formation of consensus. However, if you think the mediation result should stand, then at the end of mediation the sentence was tagged with [citation needed]. Recall, it took multiple RFCs and a mediation over the course of a year to get one unsourced, biased word removed from the article. During that time, the editor who originally added the text refused all attempts at compromise. The same editor also wrote the now-disputed sentence, also unsourced and biased, refused to discuss it during and after mediation, and still continues to refuse all attempts at resolution. Some might characterize that sort of behaviour as obstructive WP:OWNership. Indeed, you might say this issue is "petty", but petty issues shouldn't take 4+ months to resolve. Remember, there was a proposal on the table months ago that I, Richard and Sunray supported, and it didn't get implemented because of an objection from the same editor. Gimmetrow 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you—but I'm not sure folks are ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. Articles "should" be based on reliable, third-party sources. But what if several editors are hell-bent on putting the text in and insisting that there are no secondary sources and the primary ones should appease readers? I'm trying to view this from a casual reader's perspective. Will they read that note and think, "How do they know that's what the church prefers?" and start looking at the sources? Further, will they reject the Vatican sources as proof of this statement? Dunno... and the ArbCom case is going to be rejected because it was poorly-constructed and unclear in its scope. I don't see a clear answer on how WP:V should be interpreted here. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a complete falsehood, Gimmetrow. Several compromise versions of the text of this very line were presented to you, including one that you had suggested yourself earlier. You rejected all these alternative wordings and changed your position yet again. After that some of us gave up, since you seemed resolved never to come to agreement. Similarly you have not commented on the other uncited statement in the note which I mentioned just above: namely "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." Should this be removed as well, although it tends to support your positions? The fact is that we agreed not to make a direct statement that "X is the Church's official or proper name" partly on your insistence - where secondary references WERE found for that form of wording, but you then started quarrelling with them at length. We then agreed to include the two factual primary-source-based sentences, one of which you are now cavilling at. One of the reasons that these "petty" issues took SO long to resolve, was your continuous pedantic obstructiveness. For example trying to argue that "The Church" is the proper name of the Catholic Church.  Xan  dar  19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, I think the issue is between using a universal quantifier and an existential quantifier. To wit, the universal quantifier asserts something on the order of "in all the Church's official documents and contexts, it uses 'Catholic' more frequently than it uses 'Roman Catholic'".  Using an existential quantifier asserts "In certain specific documents (which are cited), the term 'Catholic' appears more frequently than 'Roman Catholic'."  If we can agree to use an existential quantifier rather than the universal one, I think we can resolve this issue. --Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-evident only for Declaration of Independence? Alas, then "to wit" would need to be limited to Shakespeare.:)
 * IF we are to pursue this line of thinking, then we cannot say "more frequently" because the sources do not support that it appears more frequently. We can support that in some of the most significant documents of the Catholic Church it uses Catholic Church to refer to itself. Issues of frequency would need to be supported by the source(s).
 * I have to agree with Xandar that the entire mediation was full of straining on wording, bending over backward to find support. It is unbelievably strange that the participants still want to fight about the agreement. It begins to reek of bad faith. -- Storm  Rider  03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, it is really unfortunate that this discussion was brought to ARBCOM and, as a result of the mediation being referenced, the entire mediation proceedings were deleted to protect the privilege of confidentiality of mediations. I think this is truly unfortunate and would hope that the mediation proceedings are restored after the case is rejected by ARBCOM (if that hasn't already happened).

In the meantime, I cannot prove my recollection of the mediation and so I have ask you to trust my good faith attempt to remember the end phase of that process.

My recollection is that the mediation ended with an agreement that the core of the mediated agreement was based on these four points:


 * 1) a change of the lead sentence to mention "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" in that order
 * 2) an agreement to say nothing as to whether there was an "official name" of the Church, much less what that name might be
 * 3) an agreement to seek support of a wider audience for a change in the title of the article
 * 4) an agreement not to lock down every last word of the note as there were still some outstanding concerns about the specific wording

Xandar remembers Gimmetrow's last minute objections and a general feeling that he was the last holdout in achieving consensus. Gimmetrow agreed to go with the overall consensus provided that his issues could be raised after the mediated agreement was implemented. I also had some relatively minor issues with the wording but they were more stylistic as opposed to Gimmetrow's objection which was (from his POV) more substantive. Both Gimmetrow and I agreed to let the mediation move forward as long as the wording of the Note was not considered "cast in concrete" and was open to further discussion and fine-tuning after the mediation was closed.

I write this so that you and others will understand that while Gimmetrow's raising of the issue may be annoying, it is not, as you charged, "bad faith".

--Richard (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why this continues to be discussed. It has been debated ad nauseam. Gimmetrow does not accept the wording, but has not been able to get consensus for his view. To continue raising it, putting tags on the phrase, and editing warring is simply disruptive. Please give it a rest, folks. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You, Richard and I supported a sentence two months ago that would have resolved this. And again, I remind you for the last time, Sunray, address content. You could, for instance actually add sources to the article text. Gimmetrow 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All the major documents on the Vatican website were searched, and as I recall, only five major pronouncements in the last 200 years even contained the wording "Roman Catholic Church". The statement in the note is beyond dispute.  Xan  dar   15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason that I've never thought that the sentence in question needed a reference is that there are a total of four references in the next two supporting sentences. However, I realize that this may not be clear to folks who were not involved with the drafting of the note. Here's a simple solution to the problem: The Whitehead citation, which appears in the note as #7 actually supports the first sentence very well. I suggest that we move reference #7 to follow the sentence "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." Would this make things clearer? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring up Whitehead again!!! I thought there was some consensus that he was an inappropriate source for statements of fact, just for opinion? Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There were lengthy discussions about Whitehead as a source. It was decided to use Whitehead as a secondary source to back up the primary sources referred to in this part of the note. So Whitehead is being used that way in the note. I am only suggesting that we move that reference to a preceding sentence in that part of the note. Would you be able to accept it on that basis? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the article makes a claim about more than CC and RCC. If the sentence remains, I want it clearly restricted to a statement about only those two terms. Two months ago Richard and Sunray supported this sentence: "In its own documents, the Church uses the term CC more frequently than RCC." I also support that. Is that a consensus? I would also support Richard's suggestion above to restrict the statement to particular documents (such as: "In X, Y and Z, the term CC appears more frequently than RCC") but that wasn't my main concern here. Gimmetrow 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that any proposal suggested since the end of the mediation is better than the one agreed by consensus of editors at mediation. The editors of EWTN, a member of SIGNIS use Whitehead as their source to explain the Church's name, they are all scholarly experts on the Church. We did not need Whitehead in the agreed mediation but since some people can't stop challenging us, like Gimmetrow, maybe we should put him back into the article. There are no bad reviews of this source even though Gimmetrown and Soidi have tried and tried to discredit it.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with an editor above that suggested that Gimmetrows continued involvement in this matter is violating WP:Disrupt. I wish someone with power could do something about it because our article is prevented from moving forward because of this disruption. Thanks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, the text in the article asserts that the term "Catholic Church" is used in the Church's documents more than any other term. Whitehead does not support that claim. Indeed, editors have consistently said that there are no sources which could support such a claim. It is the editors who continue to support an unsourced, biased claim, contrary to policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view, that are disruptive to the article. Gimmetrow 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence is cited to Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the documents the Church calls its "Constitutions". No where in these documents does the Church use the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to itself, the sentence is thus cited and this cited sentence was agreed by consensus at mediation. Please stop being disruptive Gimmetrow, if it werent for your other types of help on Wikipedia I would think you were just a troll. I think you should consider that is what your participation on this page has become.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, the claim in the article is about relative frequency of terms. What you just said has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the disputed claim. Please address content and avoid personal attacks. Gimmetrow 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations were agreed at mediation. I see someone has now deleted the entire mediation page. I don't see that as helpful. The citations to original documents were used as it was agreed that in some instances, original documents can be used and this sentence was one of those instances. As mentioned earlier, if you are uncomfortable with this, we can add Whitehead as another reference because he says the same thing. What I don't understand is why you are disputing a consensus agreed text over and over again when you know that the sentence is a)true, b)cited, c)other unused sources also say the same thing and d)you don't have any source that disputes the sentence. I can understand if it were a contentious statement but it isn't and there are no sources that argue your point. If you want us to eliminate the sentence, then provide a source that says otherwise. The mediation clearly validated the fact that there are no sources that say otherwise.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. This is the same pattern of behaviour from you that led to mediation. You do not get to add a biased, unsourced statement in the article and then demand others to provide contrary "sources". You are required per WP:Verifiability to provide sources for all material you add to the article. That is your burden of evidence, and you have failed to provide that for months, exactly like you did before. Gimmetrow 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No Gimmetrow, a consensus of editors agreed at mediation to this sentence and sources after detailed examination of issues and sources. You are not respecting that mediation which agreed that the burden of evidence has been met.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your invocation of consensus here is a violation of good faith and civility. The sentence I am disputing is most likely incorrect, and Sunray even admitted as much. It is clearly unsourced, as editors have acknowledged above. Gimmetrow 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Invocation of consensus is hardly a violation of anything. Indeed, having consensus on your side trumps having a personal bias every time.  Gimmetrow, you don't agree with consensus.  That is your right.  But you are in a minority, and your arguments have not persuaded the community.  You are being disruptive.--anietor (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus at mediation was that these issues would be discussed later. It's possible that the "agreement" of editors who refuse to discuss the issue, who regularly invoke procedural arguments to stifle discussion, who obstruct improvements on even "petty" issues for months at a time, who refuse to follow Wikipedia's content policies, and who have established a long-term pattern of refusal to follow such policies, might be characterized as disruptive WP:OWNership rather than consensus. Gimmetrow 05:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With the respect to the bad faith which is being imputed to Gimmetrow I would just like to point out an Encyclopedic source that seems to share his doubts:"Roman Catholic Church, Christian church headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome (see papacy and Peter, Saint). Its commonest title in official use is Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Roman Catholic” is a 19th-century British coinage and merely serves to distinguish that church from other churches that are “Catholic” (see catholic church). The term “Roman Church,” when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome. Roman Catholics may be simply defined as Christians in communion with the pope." (Columbia Encyclopedia on-line, accessed 29 August 2009) I'm only placing this here in response to the name calling (once again) brought against an editor who just happens to be looking for a reliable source - a good thing for Wikipedia - it doesn't mean I share the view expressed. Taam (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s I noticed Nancy Heisse has added to the reference book list the following: "THE ENTITY: FIVE CENTURIES OF SECRET VATICAN ESPIONAGE By Eric Frattini" which reviews say describes how the Vatican has operated hit squads and top secret rat-lines to allow Nazi's to escape etc and the pursuit of people they don't agree with. It seems an extremely strange addition since she normally leans heavily towards an unblemished account of Church history and also since the book has been panned in a review I read in NCR. Are you trying to tell us something Nancy about how the Church will deal with people who don't agree with you :-), but anyway I don't think it is a reliable source for what is being asserted in the relevant article section which appears now to be very loaded in an apologetics sense. Taam (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Taam, many encyclopedias are not always reliable ( especially with religion-related information ) and often contain incorrect information - such as the incorrect claim you've cited that "Roman Catholic" is of 19th century British origin.  The origin of the term is much earlier than this.  Afterwriting (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree as I alluded to in my post. However my opinion or yours is not what matters but what reliable sources say, if there is no reliable sources to confirm something we shouldn't be asserting it. In this instance the Colombia Encyclopaedia may have been using your reliable source Whitehead who in part states: "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language." Now even an outsider such as I knows this is nonsense, but as you say you can't always trust an encyclopaedia. Anyway my point was I thought it wrong that Gimmetrow was being marginalised and name-called when he has at least one major encyclopedic source that contradicts what the team here asserts without any reliable source. Taam (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Does a sentence without a source meet WP:Verifiability requirements?
The article currently asserts:
 * The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents."

This sentence has no source. It appears to be based on a google search of documents on the Vatican website. The sentence appears to claim that 'CC' is "usually the term" the Church uses in all its documents to refer to itself. However, the Church uses other terms (besides CC and RCC) to refer to itself, and some of those are used as frequently or more frequently than CC in documents I have checked, so I have disputed this sentence. I have been asking that the sentence be rephrased so that it clearly refers solely to CC and RCC, or that it be removed. Back on 5 July 2009, Richard proposed and Sunray agreed with the rephrasing
 * "In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC".

That would have resolved the problem, but over two months later, nothing has changed in the article.

It has also been alleged that making the claim of all Church documents, rather than a select set, is a logical jump of original research. An editor above also proposed limiting the claim to refer only to some select set of Church documents.

This RFC asks: Does the disputed claim need a source? Does it need clarification? If it is not changed, is the disputed claim in violation of WP:Verifiability, or not? Gimmetrow 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside comments
I think Gimmetrow your separation of "insiders" from "outsiders" reveals a lot about the problems with this article. As was pointed out last year the most common name by which she refers to herself on the Vatican web site is the "The Church" (5,580) followed by "Catholic Church" (3,500 hits). The "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" that appears in so many official Church publications relating to, for example, the order of the mass doesn't feature really on the Vatican site but the numbers involved must be very large I guess. Taam (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Further information
The sentence referred to by Gimmetrow is followed by two supporting sentences. When drafted, it was a paragraph (though paragraphs were dissolved when the note was finalized). Nevertheless the sentence only makes sense if you read the following two sentences:

"The name 'Catholic Church', rather than 'Roman Catholic Church', is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council."

Discussion of RFC
Sunray, is it your explicit position that a group of editors acting against Wikipedia' content policies may form not just a majority, but a consensus to disregard those content policies to defend an unsourced sentence disputed by others as factually incorrect, biased and original research? Gimmetrow 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Whitehead would be a valid source for this statement (not only does his article not say this, but the article is not scholarly and is more an opinion piece). There is a lot of "consensus" around this article that ignores basic Wikipedia policies.  WP:V is a central policy that should not be abandoned, and as yet editors have not provided a source that verifies this sentence. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is ignoring WP policies. There is a great deal of evidence to corroborate the statement. Leaving aside Whitehead, the first three references present that evidence rather well, IMO. Sunray (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny. None of those sources refer to the relative frequency of the term CC compared to all other terms the Church uses to refer to itself, and in the documents apparently referenced, not only are other terms used more frequently, but in some of those documents, 'CC' is not used at all. [fails verification]. Gimmetrow 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow, it is not a choice between consensus and WP policy. That is a false choice, and a rather disingenuous suggestion.  It is, as in most cases in WP, a choice between competing positions, whose editors all believe their positions are supported by WP policy.  It is a rather hollow argument for you to say that consensus is trumping policy because consensus didn't agree with your view.  Assume good faith, and assume that editors are not disregarding WP policy when they state a position.  Your argument is no stronger than if Sunray, or any other consensus-supporting editor, said YOUR view is invalid because they believe your position is not supported by policy.  It's really just a $50 version of saying "You're wrong because I know I'm right."  That's why we value consensus.  Otherwise there would be no resolution to anything.  --anietor (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have still failed to provide any valid source for the claim in the article, and have not rephrased the claim in article to avoid the dispute. You have, indeed, restored the disputed claim, although WP:V says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Can you identify the source in the article which "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article" as WP:Verifiability says it must? Gimmetrow 04:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this really a substantive request for comment, or is it, as it might seem to many, simply one editor who refuses to accept what was agreed it during the previous mediation? If the latter, might not WP:DE apply? I was not myself a party to the mediation, but it seems to me that the sourcing is sufficient, particularly given the lengthy discussion which took place earlier. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article claims that term A, rather than term B, is used more frequently in documents, which I dispute because terms C, D and E appear to be used at least as frequently as term A. So where is the source that "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article"? The only sources referred to so far are the primary source references in the sentences following this claim. Unfortunately, in these very primary documents, term C appears more frequently than term A. Please elaborate on your statement that "the sourcing is sufficient", since I really don't see how it is sufficient. Gimmetrow 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First some disclosure, I am a reasonably scholarly Catholic and am familiar with the language the Church uses. I have a number of points to make on the issue. In conclusion, the statement in question is both true, and moreover is verifiable. It may however, be slightly unclear, resulting in this dispute. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The terms documents use depends on context and what it is actually talking about. There is a difference between a church (a building), the Church (the organisation), a Catholic church (a building that is administered by the organisation), a catholic church (either a building or organisation that seeks to be universal), the Catholic Church (the big thing the Pope leads), the Church of Rome (the particular organisation based in Rome and overseen by the bishop of Rome (who also happens to be the Pope)), the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to other Catholic traditions - Greek, Coptic, etc.) and a Roman Catholic church (a Catholic church that follows the Roman tradition).
 * Crudely and in brief, "the Church" is a divine institution while "the Catholic Church" is a human institution that manifests "the Church".
 * Blindly counting words is irrelevant, if not purely because it does not take into account what the document is actually talking about.
 * The sentence in question does not claim that "Catholic Church" is the most-used term, but that it is used rather than "Roman Catholic Church".
 * As this article is titled "Catholic Church" I assume is it about the Catholic Church, which does indeed refer to itself as the "Catholic Church" in official documents, as demonstrated by the supporting sentence given by Sunray that should also be included.
 * The definitive definition of the Church by herself is thus: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."—Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, section 8.
 * Thank you for your comments. Indeed, I have said before that "the relative frequency of use of various terms in a document is likely to depend on the context and purpose of the document." If the claim in the article depends on analysis of context, we don't tell the reader enough info to even verify the thought process, let alone verify that it is not WP:Original research. The sentence claims that "A, rather than B, is the most-used term". As presented, this is a purely statistical claim. The "rather than" clause doesn't restrict the main clause, so it does assert that "A is the most-used term". If a claim said that "A, rather than E, is the vowel usually chosen by contestants in game X", it would be saying that "you might think E is the most common, but it's really A". I understand that people may not read the sentence that way, but I think it clear that it can be read that way. The text hasn't been changed to remove this reading, either. Gimmetrow 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that after months of dispute, the disputed sentence has still not been changed to address the disputed point, nor has any source been provided in the text to support the disputed point. How can this be consistent with Wikipedia's content policies? Gimmetrow 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not use the source I just gave? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean the quote from Lumen Gentium, it doesn't address the disputed point, which is a text in the article which claims that one specific term is the term "usually used" by the Church to refer to itself. Gimmetrow 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason it hasn't been addressed is because it's not "the disputed point." It's YOUR disputed point.  Consensus, policy, etc, etc.  It's all been said before.  Moving on...  --anietor (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's a claim in the article. If you don't want to make that claim, then why have you refused for months to rephrase or remove the claim in the article? Gimmetrow 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the article itself not better be called the 'Roman Catholic Church' as all denominations of Cristianity are derived from catholisism.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Note that this RFC is not about the name of the article, or even the name of the entity. It is about a claim in the article which doesn't have a source attached, and which, as it is presented in the article, I consider incorrect. Gimmetrow 15:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like original research to me. Have you tried WP:ORN? Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Gimmetrow 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that after months of dispute, the disputed sentence has still not been changed to address the disputed point, nor has any source been provided in the text to support the disputed point. How can this be consistent with Wikipedia's content policies? I'm not saying this is a major point, but it is an unreferenced and arguably biased statement, and it should have been fixed one way or another months ago. If a source or other fix is not provided within 24 hours, I will tag this disputed sentence with [citation needed], and I will report to AN/I any editor who removes the tag without rectifying the problem. Gimmetrow 09:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And I note that after months of discussion, Gimmetrow has taken his disagreement with consensus, and his own interpretation of wp policy, and argued that it is a highly-disputed point and warrants a tag...because he disagrees with it. As has been noted so many times by now, just because you do not like the result of the various RFCs, mediations and ultimate consensus does not warrant a tag to the article.  Under that approach, the tag would never be removed, unless you believe that there will be 100% consensus at some point.  Optimistic, but unlikely.  --anietor (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be fixed by removing or rephrasing. We have even had rephrasings that were acceptable to me, Richard and Sunray. The only way I can make sense of your position is to posit two things - you believe that consensus can reject WP:V in some instances, and that you believe there is an actual consensus to do this on this point. If you do not hold those positions, then you believe WP:V is not subject to consensus, and as a result you are required by it to provide sources for disputed statements, or remove them. Gimmetrow 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unverified statement
The statement in the lead that many historians share the view that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Christian commmunity founded by Jesus" is still unverified.  The quotation ""Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome", which is presented as the source for this statement, only says that historians saw Peter as the first pope/bishop of the local Church "in" Rome, which (unless personal interpretation is added) is not what has been put in the lead. "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research" (WP:OR). (Do people who look back on Peter as the first bishop/patriarch of the local Church in Antioch, another of the Christian communities (plural) that he founded, thereby declare that the present-day Church of which the Patriarch of Antioch is part is the (i.e. one and only) continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus?) Soidi (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Soidi, I think has a good point. In the first situtation he brings up about Peter, would it be more appropriate to introduce the concept of belief...many Christian historians share the "belief" rather than view? Peter and Apostolic succession is foundational to Catholicism and should be treated as a belief. I acknowledge this as a sacred topic and do not wish to offend; I would look to Nancy and Xander for their thoughts. It would also be important to qualify which historians are being presented; are they apologists who are historians or are they historians with a secular background? -- Storm  Rider  05:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Soidi and others that this sentence as written is problematic. Part of the problem is that we are trying to pack too much meaning into too few words.  This would be a good place for a Note.


 * I've been meaning to weigh in on this question for some time now but refrained from doing so because I didn't have time to compose a cogent argument. What follows is perhaps pedantic but I figure we should lay out the argument in detail and then figure out what we can source and how to present it.


 * There are continuations of the original Christian community founded by Jesus and there are valid continuations of that community; "validity", of course, is in the eye of the beholder. If you leave doctrinal bias out of it, all of "mainstream" Christianity can be considered a continuation of the original Christian community because Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Protestantism can claim the heritage of the first 1000 years of Christianity when all those churches were in communion.  Okay, you have a few churches that splintered off earlier such as the Oriental Orthodox but even they have a claim to part of that heritage.


 * It is important to note that, from the Orthodox point of view, they did not "splinter" off from the Catholic Church. Instead, it is the "Roman Church" which splintered off from the rest of the bishops.  Remember that, via apostolic succession, all the churches headed by Orthodox bishops are "valid" continuations of the original Christian community.


 * The argument that the Catholic Church  makes about "mainstream" Christianity is that the Body of Christ on earth comprises all Christians, some of whom are sadly separated from the "one true church" by schism (Orthodox and Anglicans) and heresy (Protestants).  Thus, all of "mainstream" Christianity is part of the continuation of the original Christian community.  I'm not 100% sure but I would wager that, by this definition, even the Restorationists such as the LDS Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses count as part of that continuation (heretical, perhaps, but part of the continuation in the sense that anybody who accepts Jesus Christ as Savior is part of the continuation).  NB: the Restorationists reject any claim to the heritage of "mainstream" Christianity because they consider it to have been corrupted shortly after the beginning of church history.  They don't see themselves as a "continuation" but a "restoration" that rejects the corrupt continuation represented by mainstream Christianity.


 * The Catholic Church claims that it is the "valid" continuation on the basis of apostolic succession, the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Based on apostolic succession, it accepts the Orthodox Churches and Anglican Churches as "valid" continuations that are separated from communion with the Roman Pontiff, primarily due to schism.  The Orthodox and Anglican churches more or less share this view with the primary difference being a different interpretation of the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  Well, the Orthodox also consider the Catholic Church to be heretical but that's perhaps not very relevant to this discussion.


 * The Catholic Church does not see the Protestant churches as "valid" continuations because they have not preserved apostolic succession. It also sees those churches as heretical although it does work towards healing the rifts between them because, after all, they are still part of the Body of Christ.


 * In summary, only the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches define "valid" continuation as dependent on apostolic succession. Catholic historians would see the Catholic Church as the one "valid" continuation.  Orthodox and Anglican historians would see the three "branches" as equally valid (excepting certain heresies which can always be remedied by other people coming to their senses and renouncing their heretical beliefs).


 * Protestants based "validity" upon fidelity to God's will as embodied in the Scripture. They clearly see themselves as part of the continuation.


 * Based on the above, it is hard to believe that secular historians would assert anything about who is and who is not a "valid" continuation. I would suspect that secular historians would not really discuss the concept of "continuation" at all.


 * What that leaves us is what historians with specific beliefs assert. I don't see how we can make any statements about what historians "agree with" unless we characterize what the religious beliefs of those historians are.


 * Not only do I believe that we should drop the phrase " a view shared by many historians of Christianity", I also believe we need a Note explaining how the Church's view of itself contrasts against the views of other branches of Christianity.


 * --Richard (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not some non-affiliated historians might express a view on "valid" continuations, without perhaps venturing to plump for "the" (one and only) valid continuation, the point is that the citation given does not in fact call the Church in question "the" continuation. The idea that it does express that view is only Original Research.  Soidi (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Soidi's position seems simply nit-picking. Historians see Peter as the first Pope of the Christian Church in Rome - verified. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church - any arguments about that? This foundation is not a belief but a historical conclusion drawn from the evidence. As for the issue of "validity", I think that is a red herring in this context. What we are talking about is the recognition by historians that the Catholic Church is that same Church founded by Peter in Rome - which is an important thing. Peter also founded the Church in Antioch, and perhaps others. But Rome is where Peter and his successors remained in continuing leadership of the Church.  Xan  dar   01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the Orthodox disagree vehemently with what you wrote and have done so for over 1000 years. What you put forth (that the Bishop of Rome and the leadership of the Roman Church are the leaders of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ) is a uniquely Catholic viewpoint.  The Orthodox see their churches as also continuations of that community, perhaps even more valid continuations because they have not fallen into heresy as the Catholics have (from the perspective of the Orthodox).  I'm not as familiar with the viewpoint of the Anglicans but I am under the impression that they have more of a "live and let live" attitude (three equally valid branches).  In the context of these issues, it is hard to assert that the Catholic Church is "the continuation" unless you emphasize the Primacy of Simon Peter based on Matthew 16:18.


 * Do you then assert that the Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants are not continuations of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ?


 * --Richard (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Xandar, please read WP:SYN. Your argument above is a clear example of violation of this Wikipedia policy.  So is the statement at present in the article.  Soidi (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either I've got the wrong statement in question, or WP:SYN doesn't apply here as there is one source for the statement, and a syn violation requires multiple sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsight001 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some people are tying themselves in knots here by reading things into the wording that aren't there. The article lead currently states (struck through section currently omitted):
 * Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church sees itself as the continuation of the original Church founded by Jesus Christ in his selection of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.
 * I'm not sure how this is claiming that other churches aren't "continuations" of or part of the original Church? On related issues, I'm not sure that even the Orthodox deny that the Pope is legitimate successor of Peter, or that Peter and his successors have a primacy. They only challenge the monarchial nature of the primacy. As far as Anglicans are concerned, their claim to continuance has to come through the Catholic Church. I know there are some protestant and other groups that claim separate lineage from the original church, but such claims have not been supported by academic historians. It would also be better to discuss all proposed wording or reference changes here rather than everyone having to keep checking the main page.  Xan  dar   14:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to create a new trinity? "The Catholic Church is the Church, the Orthodox Church is the Church, the Anglican Church is the Church, yet not three churches but one Church"? The natural reading of the statement that the RCC is the Church is that others aren't, but at best parts of it.


 * "Historians see Peter as the first Pope of the Christian Church in Rome - verified." False. In fact even the very earliest list of bishops of Rome, given by Irenaeus, says the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul. Even this goes too far historically. There was no bishop of Rome till the mid 2nd century:


 * Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 166: "Within a generation of this, a successor of Anicetus, now recognisable as a 'bishop' of Rome ...


 * ... By the third century it was becoming normal for there to be in each Christian community one bishop ... the organisation of Christian communities before the third century was much more fluid ..."


 * Edwards, Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, Cassell, 1997, page 52: "Polycarp ... mentioned no bishop in his letter to Rome and ... the letter to Corinth from that church does not suggest that there was a bishop in the Ignatian sense in either place. Hermas speaks of bishops and presbyters as one group and Justin mentions only a 'president' of the presbyters. It seems that the church in Rome was so conservative that it kept this New Testament pattern for its clergy for years after the development of the Ignatian-style bishop in Asia Minor ...


 * [page 53] ... there is definite evidence of such a bishop in Rome from the 140s."


 * That's just what comes immediately to hand. No doubt I can find plenty more. Peter jackson (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you could find many more. But what is the relevance? The article says "a view shared by many historians." It doesn't say shared by all historians. As it is now, that means some agree, some don't agree. Peter, you are using this talk page as a forum to discuss the actual validity of the claim. That's not what the talk page is for. Nor is it what the article is for. Your list of sources doesn't really get us anywhere, unless you are advocating the language say "shared by many historians, but not all of them." That would be redundant. "Many" doesn't mean "all". There is no need to qualify it further. --anietor (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict with Soidi below)
 * But "many" is an NPOV weasel word that tends to lend validity to the assertion. I attempted to change the text to read "shared by some but disputed by others".  That edit was reverted by Farsight001 on the grounds that we don't "we don't give equal validity to minority viewpoints".  I object to that reversion because the only argument that the assertion in question is the majority viewpoint would be based on the fact that Catholics are the majority (barely) of all Christians.  I haven't seen any arguments to assert that the majority of historians share this view.  Even if we could establish that the majority of historians share this view, it would have to be a near consensus to allow us to omit the minority viewpoint.  This is the core of NPOV.  We do not need to give "equal weight" to minority viewpoints but they do need to be represented and we are not doing that in the current text.


 * No doubt most historians share the view that the Catholic Church is part of the continuation of the original community founded by Jesus Christ. The question at hand is how historians view the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant faiths.  Anglicans and Protestants are clearly splinters from the Catholic Church.  And, as I argued earlier, the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses are continuations descended from the Catholics and the Protestants even if they reject such linkage.  The Orthodox have a different claim since it is much harder to establish anything other than doctrinal authority of the Roman Church over the Eastern Churches (e.g. AFAIK, Rome never appointed bishops in the East).  Thus, to assert that the Catholic Church is the continuation violates NPOV.


 * Part of the problem may lie in differing definitions of the word "continuation". Different people may be reading this word to have different meanings.  That is why I raised the issue of "valid continuations".


 * --Richard (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Xandar, since the Orthodox do not accept that the (R)CC is the continuation of the original Church, something that they claim for themselves, would you accept then, in line with what you have written above, a change from "the continuation" to "a continuation"? I don't suppose so. It is not the same thing.
 * You have made a synthesis (or have you instead merely stated your own original-research view?) by combining what is actually in the citation (about the local church in Rome) with the following, which you imply you can source: "The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church - any arguments about that? ... the Catholic Church is that same Church founded by Peter in Rome ... Rome is where Peter and his successors remained in continuing leadership of the Church." You have thus manipulated the citation so as "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" by the source. Soidi (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anietor, the cited source doesn't say many historians share the view that the (R)CC is the continuation of the original church. The Talk page is for, among other things, discussing the verifiability of claims such as this.  Soidi (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Richard, since the claim in the article is not verifiably supported, there is no point in adding to it an opposing claim, verifiable or not. Soidi (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is an attempt to turn an ecclesiological issue to a historical fact. Catholic scholars of Church history will assert one thing and Orthodox scholars of Church history will assert another one.  Imagine we were writing in the Cold War period.  How would we have represented an issue that was disputed by pro-U.S. scholars vs. pro-Soviet scholars ?  We wouldn't care which side was in the "majority".  We would say "some scholars say X and others dispute Y".  This is the essence of NPOV.  We present the dispute and let the reader decide which side to agree with. --Richard (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the problem is an attempt to turn an ecclesiological issue to a historical fact, without presenting in the article as source even a Catholic scholar who says it is a historical fact, though such exist. The cited source doesn't say what is attributed to it.  Soidi (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi. Saying "a" continuation" is inaccurate in the other direction, making it sound like one of hundreds, and that the Catholic Church acknowledges such wording. Would "the principal continuation" answer your objection? That would allow for other continuations, but retain the Catholic position.  Xan  dar   01:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi's tag of the statement is improper. The sentence has four references. The National Geographic says that historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church in Rome - the book is speaking specifically of the Roman Catholic Church in this paragraph. I do not see the need to tag a sentence because of the objections of one editor with a history on this page of making unsubstantiated claims that are not supported by either consensus or reliable sources. If there is an WP:RS that disputes the claim made in National Geographic, then we can tag the sentence or eliminate it or expose the scholarly dispute. However in this case there is no scholarly dispute - it is a fact that many scholars agree with the historical view of the Church regarding its own origins.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Nancy, the claim that many historians agree that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church founded by Christ - and thanks to Xandar for agreeing that there is a big difference between "the continuation" and "a continuation" - is presented as supported by only one reference, not four. And that one reference speaks of "the Church in Rome, not of the (Roman) Catholic Church.  You yourself have in the past been very insistent on the distinction between the two and on interpreting "Roman Church" as meaning only the Church in Rome.  So the claim that many historians hold that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church founded by Christ is at present unverified.  It may be a fact that many scholars agree with the (Roman) Catholic Church's view regarding its unique origins, so please cite a reliable source that says so.
 * Xandar, I have never disputed nor do I dispute that the (Roman) Catholic Church considers itself the (one and only) continuation of the Church founded by Christ. All I have asked for is a reliable source - one would be enough - that supports the article's claim that many historians agree with that view.  I thought that was clear.  Soidi (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, I see now that you have at last responded to the objection (not only by me, but also by Storm Rider and Richard) by adding two further references - I hope they are valid - but you have still kept the citation that does not support the claim in the article. Soidi (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Anietor, it wasn't me who turned this into a forum. I was merely responding to Xandar. To return to the official topic here, this is what policy (WP:OR) says:


 * "Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research". The boldface is in the original, not my addition.


 * So has anyone cited any RS that directly and explicitly supports what the article says, let alone many? As I suggested earlier, you might ask WP:ORN. Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute about whether the RS supports the article text. Some of us believe it does, a couple of others don't. Personally I think in essential the reference is correct, and the precise reference argument is another of these nitpicky disputes that go into minute detail of wording of concern to certain editors but not to readers. Basically one of the principal foundations of Catholic history and theology is that it is The Church founded by Jesus on Peter. It is a Catholic essential that Jesus founded only ONE Church, not many, that Peter led that One Church, and that his successors continue to lead it from Rome. The fact that Peter founded other dioceses is immaterial, since they were all part of the One Church led from Rome. Many historians support this view. That too is a fact that needs to be expressed. We also know that many Liberal historians do not support the view because they think the foundation may have been mythical. And Orthodox and some other Christians oppose the view for a different reason, that while accepting the Primacy of Peter and his successors in Rome, they feel that Rome departed from truth, and the true Church continued in their own communion. We are getting these things mixed up.
 * Having gone through these "reference" disputes before, I feel that some people will reject any other reference supplied that does not word for word duplicate the exact text in the article. And that is an unreasonable objection. References do not have to be word for word. So to cut through all that, I would ask those opposing the wording to suggest here alternative wording that covers the facts.  Xan  dar   23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stipulating that this is a Catholic viewpoint and that there may be a sectarian bias that governs which historians share the view and which do not. What was wrong with my edit (the one that Farsight001 reverted) that said "shared by some historians and disputed by others" with a Note to explain what the dispute is about?  I'm not sure that we can easily characterize which historians share the view (certainly the Catholic historians but probably the Anglicans as well as well as some Protestants).  Therefore, I think it is easier to assert that the historical perspective is driven by sectarian issues and just lay out what those issues are. (In a Note, of course!) --Richard (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article text has been upheld by a very longstanding consensus. Soidi is the only editor to dispute it. He has a history of holding this article up from advancement based on position that is not supported by sources. I am reluctant to put this article up for peer review as long as we are being harassed by Soidi whom I consider to be a troll based on the past year's activity and ridiculous arguments he brings up.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, Nancy... trying to shut down a discussion by calling established editors "Trolls". This constitutes a lack of civility. There are other established editors such as myself and Peter Jackson who agree with Soidi. Would you call us trolls as well? Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it ridiculous. I consider some of your positions to be wrong and some of your arguments to be specious but I don't call you a troll. Please reciprocate and keep the discourse civil. --Richard (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's have look at the exact words used. (As an aside, I could find only one of the three in the edit text, so I had to copy them from the visible text instead.)


 * Derrett, p. 480, quote: "... the activities of Jesus, and of Paul of Tarsus, cannot be understood without a knowledge of the peculiar world in which they operated. Some believe that Christianity was not founded by Jesus, called Christ, but rather by Peter with such of his associates who were apostles after Jesus's anastasis, which is usually called 'resurrection'. The faith of Peter, and the subsequent faith of Paul, are the rocks upon which the early churches were founded. Their psychosociological position at any rate must be known if one is to understand their proceedings. Others, this writer included, take Jesus as the inspiring force of the church."


 * This doesn't offer the remotest support for the statement in the article. But at least readers can see that if they bother to follow the link to the bottom of the page.


 * Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"


 * It seems to me that this could perfectly well mean the historians who were writing when the position was institutionalized, not present-day ones.


 * Norman, p. 11, p. 14, quote: "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime.", "The apostolate was established in Rome, the world's capital when the church was inaugurated; it was there that the universality of the Christian teaching most obviously took its central directive—it was the bishops of Rome who very early on began to receive requests for adjudication on disputed points from other bishops."


 * The first sentence needs context. Does "The Church" mean the Catholic Church? The second sentence again doesn't have much to do with what the article says.


 * Summary: the sources cited show at most that one historian (Norman) holds this view, and that's only if the context supports that interpretation. (I'm assuming there's nothing in the context for the Wilken quote that would make clear that it refers to the present day.)


 * Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, we know they are talking about the Roman Catholic Church because:
 * Derrett's book is discussing religion in the Roman Empire and the Christian Church in Rome.
 * Wilkins book is making reference to historians who looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church in Rome - do you know of any other institution in the world that claims Peter as their first pope? As far as I know, no other institution uses the term "pope" except for the Catholic Church.
 * Edward Norman's book is entitled The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History so I am pretty sure he is talking about the subject of the article : )  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But the quote you have provided from Norman is taken out of context and clearly does not mean what you think it means. See my comments below under "getting at the point". Harmakheru (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over the tag. Soidi, I support the point you are making; however, since it is clear that the owners of the article will not allow the tag to remain. Further edit warring over the tag may lead to protection of the page and/or blocking of the editors involved.

If this issue cannot be resolved via discussion on this Talk page, the next step in the dispute resolution process is an RFC followed by possible mediation.

--Richard (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought a tag was supposed to remain until the question raised - at least if supported by more than one editor - had been settled on the Talk page; but since you ask me to let the Owners of the Article have their way, I will. I have done so on similar matters already.  Soidi (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My issue is that the phrase takes a doctrinal position and places it in the secular arena of historical fact. "Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the church founded by Jesus Christ" is a workable phrase. Nancy, would you accept something like this? Richard's alternative is also good. I is fundamental that religion articles maintain a strict adherence to clarifying beliefs and not presenting them as facts. I do think this goes too far. -- Storm  Rider  16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not a case of a doctrinal position being placed in a secular arena. The issue is the fact that many historians agree with the Church's belief that it is the continuation of the original Church founded by Jesus, the one where Peter was established as the first Pope. The sources clearly state this. The following source is from the National Geographic book Geography of Religion. The quote is written by Professor of History of Christianity at University of Virginia Robert Louis Wilken. The book is further edited by Susan Tyler Hitchcock and John Esposito. Esposito is a professor of Religion at Georgetown University and Hitchcock is a respected professor and author of many books on history, culture and nature. Thus, the following quote is not just the work of one scholar, in addition, the quote mentions that historians, not historian, looked back throughout history and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome. The Church is also known as Roman Catholic Church and has never been affiliated with any other organization in its 2000 year history - here's the quote:
 * Wilken, p. 281, quote: "Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church. ... Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome"
 * In addition, I have added other authors to support National Geographic's position, a position that has less to do with theology and more to do with anthropology and recorded history. I am not in favor of eliminating the fact illuminated in the lead regarding an undisputed fact. No one has produced a source that says that all historians disagree with the Church regarding this issue. I have produced four sources that support the sentence. One of those, (Derrett), is a most respected scholarly series dealing with  history of Rome. The quote specifically states that "others" the author included take Jesus to be the inspiring force of the Church. He is contrasting the expressed position of other scholars who do not believe Jesus founded the Church. The author is supporting the opposite position and telling us that other scholars also support it. Thus - many historians agree with that the Church was founded by Jesus and that it is the continuation of the original Roman Church with Peter as the first pope - the first of many - the many that only exist in the Catholic Church.    Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have separated the term Apostolic succession from the sentence in question. It now reads "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.[23][24][25] Apostolic succession is the Church belief that its bishops are the valid, consecrated successors of the orginal Apostles. These have defined Church doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.[26]"  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is debatable whether or not apostolic succession can not be part of the original article text since that part of the sentence is cited to Lumen Gentium. The second part stating historians agreement is cited to the historians who effectively state this belief in different words. However, since I am being harassed by Soidi with the help of Richard - again. I am once again kow tow ing. I do not believe it is productive for this page to be harassed by Soidi who argues points that are not points of argument by scholars. Soidi produces no sources and then Richard thinks he is helping us be NPOV by supporting Soidi. You are not helping us Richard, you are calling us "owners" - when in fact - you are playing this part - to the detriment of the article. I do not appreciate your efforts and I would like some help from an admin who is interested in really helping, not taking the side of the page troll.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nancy, you have previously been asked to refrain from calling editors trolls just because you disagree with their points. Consider this a second warning. Just because someone disagrees with you on many points does not make him a troll.  Please concentrate on content and not editors. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, looking at the talk page history for the past year, it is obvious to me that Soidi fits the Wikipedia definition of a troll. I can say that if the shoe fits. I am just sorry that I do not have the help I need from admins who are supposed to be helping legitimate editors improve pages, not succomb to trolls. If Soidi had sources to support his positions, if he had consensus over the past year, I would not call him a troll but since he repeatedly argues with us over issues that are clearly supported by many sources - I would call this disrupting the page - obstructing progress. I am sorry that you do not agree. Maybe you would prefer a different set of editors on the page? Ones that create content based on WP:OR and ignore the best sources?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

getting at the point

 * Nancy, it is great to work with you again; it has been a while since we have had the opportunity to work. Forgive me, if I remain..."thick" when it comes to this issue. My concern revolves around the concept of neutrality. If I am an Eastern Orthodox, the statement is offensive. If I was a Southern Baptist, I would likewise be offended. As I LDS, it is offensive because it takes a belief, the belief that the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus, and makes it a historical fact. Unfortunately, I do not have the references you use at hand and thus I am unable to review the context of the statements. However, I would be highly suspect of any historian making such a bold statement; it is apologetic in nature and it is based strictly on faith or belief. It is like a historian, who is LDS, stating that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the actual restoration of the true church of Jesus to the earth. I know immediately that this historian is speaking from his/her faith and not from a historical position of fact. These types of statements are impossible to prove from a historical position. Again, as I said above, I know that this is sacred history for the Catholic Church and I seek to be respectful of that sacredness. Please do not take offense at my position.
 * Also, the use of the term "many"; is that one or four historians or is it the majority of historians? Nancy, do you think that most historians would support this statement? Can you understand how other churches might disagree with the statements of these individuals? Can you see how stating the beliefs of the Catholic Church is more neutral?-- Storm  Rider  19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, I have many LDS friends as I go to Utah quite frequently. I love them and I believe they are true Christians. However, I still have to create a page that reflects what the sources support. The article text states: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter,[22] a view shared by many historians of Christianity.[23][24][25]" These historians are mentioned in the references. "many" is not a set figure but National Geographic and Derrett imply that many historians agree with this view of history, neither source mentions whether or not it is due to the historians personal beliefs or not and neither do we.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I was wrong in my earlier post - this is less a matter of references than of content. In my view the Wilken and Norman references clearly cover the language used in the article. But this is not really what is being argued. What is being argued is the wording - that "many" historians agree with the Catholic Church that it is the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus on Peter. To address Stormrider's point, "many" is used to mean "more than a few". If a majority was claimed, the word used would be "most". Just to say "historians" without a qualifier would imply all historians. There is a limited number of words that can be used here. "Many" is the most apt.
 * Some people want reference to the historians to be removed - but that would be wrong - since this is an important fact. It is not just a subjective "belief" that the Church dates back to Peter, it is a fact backed (as far as any historical fact can be supported) by reliable documentary and archaeological evidence.
 * So the dispute as I see it boils down to the words "the continuation", which some claim are offensive. Personally I don't see how it is offensive to say that the Church itself and "many" historians believe this. It isn't as if the article was stating "It is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church is the one and only continuation of the Church founded by Jesus." Soidi has suggested changing "The continuation" to "a continuation". However to do this, we would have to have two sentences, one for the Church's view "the continuation" and one for historians, which could be amended to "a continuation". This however would be an ugly solution. I have suggested a change to "the principal continuation" which would seem to answer all valid points in that it doesn't exclude other churches. Comments?  Xan  dar   21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote from Edward Norman, The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History, when read in context, does NOT constitute historical support for the claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. The entire section in which this quote appears is prefaced with:  "The book begins with a few paragraphs on how Catholics understand the essentials of their faith."  Norman's statement that "The Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime" is not offered as a statement of historical fact but as a statement of what the Catholic Church believes about itself.  The same paragraph concludes, "the eternity to which men and women are called is infinite--and the judgment that follows is certain."  If the statement about Jesus founding the Church is to be considered a historical judgment, then this statement must be as well; they stand or fall together. Harmakheru (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote from Derrett also does not provide much support, if any. It is one thing to assert, as Derrett does, that "Christianity" as a religious movement was founded by Jesus in the sense that he was its "inspiring force"; it is quite another thing to claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church as an institution, since the Catholic church was (and is) only one of many manifestations of the "Christianity" which Jesus inspired.  It should also be noted that Derrett goes on to say that Jesus "repudiated the oligarchical or monarchical power-structures known elsewhere which, before long, began to appear in the church itself" (p. 544), and that "Jesus had no conception of an official priesthood ... It was virtually from the pagan world ... that the office of priest as we know it appeared" (p. 545).  Given that, it really is quite a stretch to cite Derrett as a source for the claim that the Catholic Church of today was founded by Jesus, which is what the present text seems to imply. Harmakheru (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And Nancy hasn't answered my point. Wilken says when the post was institutionalized, historians looked back &c. When was the post institutionalized? Centuries ago. So the statement, without more context, doesn't say anything about present-day historians. Furthermore, saying Peter was the first Pope isn't the same as saying the Catholic Church is the church. It would be perfectly consistent to say that the Pope is the true head of the church but the church is divided and RCC is only part of it. I don't know whether anyone actually does say that, but you can't simply assume things like that. Peter jackson (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement of Harmakheru and Peter jackson in this discussion. I'm not 100% convinced by Peter jackson's argument re Wilken. It seems reasonable to assume that "some", yea even "many" contemporary historians still hold the view described by Wilken. To me, the question isn't whether "many" historians share this view; the question is whether the statement is misleading due to its vagueness. Is it Catholic historians, Christian historians, secular historians or is the historian's religion irrelevant?

Nancy has repeatedly cited National Geographic as a source supporting the assertion in question. She indicated that there were too many historians listed in that source for her to type in all their names. Has anyone else looked at this source? Nancy, can you provide a direct quote from National Geographic so that we can evaluate the strength of the support for the assertion in question?

--Richard (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately contributions from Peter jackson and Harmakheru still seem to be focussed on negatively trying to pick tiny holes in the references, and not on positive engagement in finding the best wording. I'm not interested in getting back into the game we spent much of last year on, of constantly being asked for new references in order for other editors to try to pick new quibbles with them, or the person who wrote them, or the publisher, or their religion... The point is the content of the article. This is not the page for arguing doctrinal points on whether or not they think the Church founded by Peter in Rome and the Church that all reputable scholars agree has been based there ever since, is the same church, or some sort of different church, or that the "true" church split away from it x00 years ago... I have suggested a wording that answers the point about the text POSSIBLY SEEMING to imply that the Catholic Church is the only continuation from the original Church. No response to that has been forthcoming. If that wording is not acceptable, why not? And if not, what is their proposed wording and how do they reference it?  Xan  dar  22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of "picking tiny holes" in the references; it is a question of whether the references actually back up the statement they are supposedly supporting. And pretty clearly, if you read those references in their original context, at least two of them do not--which means it would be unscholarly and even dishonest to continue pretending that they do.  You are right that this is not the place to argue doctrinal points.  In fact, I think that is precisely the objection to the language as it now stands:  It looks very much like an attempt to import a confessional stance into Wikipedia under the guise of objective scholarship, which if successful could have dire consequences further down the line.  I can easily imagine some future college student claiming in a paper that as a matter of objective historical fact the Catholic Church is indeed the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and citing the Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church as proof:  "See, it says right here that historians agree the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus."  This is why it is so very important to be careful about the language that is used in such matters, and to make it both as clear and as dispassionate as possible.


 * As for better wording, that's simple: Just take out part about the historians.  "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter."  Period.  In fact, you could legitimately make the statement even stronger:  "The Church believes itself to be the sole fully legitimate heir of the Christian community ...", citing this to Pope Pius XII and Vatican II, with a footnote quoting the precise language from Lumen Gentium about how the Church founded by Jesus Christ and entrusted to Simon Peter "subsists" in the Catholic Church.  I would have no objection to that whatever; on the contrary, I would welcome it, because it is a more accurate statement of the Church's official position.  But as it stands now, the language strikes me (and apparently others as well) as an effort to suggest that what is actually a confessional statement should nevertheless be considered objectively true because it is supported by "many historians"--a gambit which moves the discussion out of the realm of objective scholarship and into the realm of apologetics. Harmakheru (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to Nancy's third source (Wilken's article in the National Geographic Geography of Religion), it is no better than the other two. Again, context is the key.  In the Foreword the editors explicitly state that the book was intended as an "antidote" to "religious warfare", that they "invite you to discover the realms where God lives", and that each chapter includes "a major essay by a member of the Board of Advisers" which "reveals a personal view" of the faith they practice.  Wilken's personal essay begins, "The rhythm of my life as a Christian ...", and from what follows it seems nearly certain that he is a Roman Catholic.  The article itself does indeed say, as Nancy claims, that some Christian communities were founded "by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church" (although the footnote leaves out the part that explicitly locates these communities "in Judaea", and it does not indicate the omission by ellipsis or otherwise, thereby potentially leaving the reader with a wrong impression of what the author actually wrote).  But then the same article also states as fact that "Many miracles took place on or near the Sea of Galilee.  Jesus walked on the surface of the water." (p. 274)  It also states as fact that "He was the promised Messiah ..." (p. 276)  Again, taking context into account, it looks very much as if Wilken is not writing as a secular scholar of religious history but as a Catholic telling the Christian story from a confessional perspective.  Harmakheru (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not willing to play the game where one side keeps demanding new references and then rejecting them time after time for various reasons. That is endless. I don't think most of the criticisms made of the references already supplied are very sound. Comments on WIlken above veer into not wanting to accept any historian as a source who is not an avowed and registered atheist. Nancy challenged people to come up with alternative references, but they didn't. On the substantive issue, removing reference to the historians is denying the fact that historians do acknowledge that the Catholic church today is direct continuation of the same community founded apostolically in the 1st century. Stating that is reporting an important fact, not importing confessional stances into Wikipedia. We cannot censor that information. The concern raised has been not that the Catholic Church is not a continuation of the original Church, but over wording that may suggests that it is the sole continuation. I have put forward proposed wording which I believe covers that. And I am sure editors are open to wording suggestions that are verifiable and which present all the facts, including the historical background of the Church in an unambiguous manner.  Xan  dar   23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the proposed references are being rejected because they don't support the claim in question. In fact, if references are proposed again and again in support of a questionable statement and keep getting shot down, perhaps that's an indication that there's something wrong with the statement itself and it ought to be deleted.  As for the "avowed and registered atheist" comment, I agree it is possible for people of faith (Catholic/Christian or otherwise) to be good historians.  But if you want to cite them AS historians then they need to be writing as historians, and not as representatives of their confessional stance.  Do you seriously believe that when Wilken states without qualification that Jesus was "the promised Messiah", or that he walked on the waters of the Sea of Galilee, he is writing as an objective historian?  Of course not--he is writing as a Christian telling the Christian story.  But if he's not writing as a historian, then you can't cite him AS a historian when he says it.  Otherwise, I could probably dig up some respectable historians and scholars who, when writing confessionally, say some very nasty things about the Catholic Church.  Just imagine:  "Many historians believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon predicted in the Bible by the Apostle John."  Wouldn't that be fun? Harmakheru (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:reliable source examples suggests we use scholarly works with good reviews written by professors who are experts in their fields and published by University presses. Never does Wikipedia ask us to consider the authors religious views. We just look at book reviews in scholarly journals. Can you give us some bad reviews for the books we have used to support article text?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * National Geographic is not a university press. And it is not up to me to find "bad reviews" to debunk your citations; it is up to you to find good reviews that bolster their credibility.  But in fact, as far as I can tell, the National Geographic book has no reviews at all.  It seems to have been totally ignored by the academic community--which is something the Wikipedia guidelines explicitly warn about as evidence that a book may not be worth taking seriously. Harmakheru (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Towards a resolution
Xandar wrote "It isn't as if the article was stating "It is an undeniable fact that the Catholic Church is the one and only continuation of the Church founded by Jesus." Soidi has suggested changing "The continuation" to "a continuation". However to do this, we would have to have two sentences, one for the Church's view "the continuation" and one for historians, which could be amended to "a continuation". This however would be an ugly solution. I have suggested a change to "the principal continuation" which would seem to answer all valid points in that it doesn't exclude other churches. Comments?"


 * Actually, although it may be a bit clumsy, this might be the path to a resolution.


 * The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Historians generally accept the Catholic Church as the continuation of the Roman Church founded by Saint Peter, one of the five patriarchates of the early Christian church.

I think this approach help address the problem by separating what the Church believes from what historians believe and without getting into the tarpit of "the continuation" vs. "a continuation". Both sentences should be easily sourceable. I don't think anybody disputes that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original Roman Church. The dispute is about whether or not the Roman Church constitutes the entire continuation or just a continuation of one of the patriarchates. We have been ignoring Xandar's proposed solution when it, in fact, neatly sidesteps the knotty problem that we've been grappling with.

--Richard (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem here is a lack of specificity in the terminology. "Continuation" is extremely vague--do we mean continuity in time, continuity of authority, continuity of structure, continuity of doctrine, continuity of membership?  (The Soviet Union was in some sense a "continuation" of Czarist Russia, but many people would vehemently object to describing it as such without further qualification.)  Changing this to "the principal continuation" doesn't help much, for the same reasons:  "principal" in what sense?  Unless this is carefully qualified, it risks the ire of, say, the Eastern Orthodox, who consider themselves--not Rome--to be "the principal continuation" of the apostolic Church, for reasons which seem at least as valid to them as the reasons offered by Roman Catholics for their side.  And of course Protestants have their views on the subject as well.


 * There is also a problem with any formulation describing the Roman Church as "founded by Saint Peter"; Peter was almost certainly martyred at Rome, as was Paul, but there were Christians in Rome long before either of them ever set foot there, so they did not "found" the Church in the usual sense of the term. And any mention of the five patriarchates immediately raises all sorts of issues:  In the early centuries there was no patriarchate at all in either Constantinople or Jerusalem, and Antioch's claim to apostolic foundations is at least as strong as Rome's. Harmakheru (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Harmakheru, comments above mirror one side of the debate on the origins of the Church, that espoused by Eamon Duffy. I am not sure if other scholars agree with Duffy but we put his side in the article. We also have several scholars noted for the other side. We have provided both POVs. The point made in the lead just clarifies for Reader that the Church position is also one held by many historians. It never says it is the one and only continuation and I think much fuss is being made over this for no reason. Where are the sources to support the opposers of the article text? What scholar says that no historians agree with the Church's view? Please provide links to WP:RS sources so we can see what you are looking at to form your opinions.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got it exactly backwards. No one needs to provide a single source to support opposition to the current text; it is incumbent on those who defend the text to provide credible sources in its support, or it should be deleted.  You can't just toss an unsupported claim into the text and insist that it must remain there until someone can prove it wrong; if you want the text in there at all, you have to show that it is RIGHT, by providing appropriate supporting citations.  Right now the text in question has three citations, none of which properly support it.  If those citations were to be deleted, as they ought to be, then the current text is left without any support at all, and should be deleted as well.  And even if all three citations are allowed to stand, the statement about "many historians" would still be in violation because it constitutes original research.  As WP:RS itself says, "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. ... The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor."  The same principle holds for claims of "many".  What you need is not three (questionable) sources that say X, but a reputable source which says, "many historians believe X".  None of your sources, even if they were otherwise acceptable, actually say that. Harmakheru (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, your proposed reword is unsupportable with any reference. What source says what historians generally agree with? Our text is more correct and true to the sources. It does not make a judgement on whether most or some historians agree which is unmeasurable. The National Geographic book says "once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome". Contrary to Peter Jackson's faulty analysis, historians looked back for centuries and saw Peter as the first pope - this is not something we really need to debate do we? This is not a point of contention between historians, its just a fact. I think Peter Jackson needs to provide some sources if he is going to attempt to divert the discussion along those lines. I would appreciate your help Richard.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The National Geographic book is not a history book; it is a collection of confessional statements made, in many cases, with virtually no reference to normal standards of historiography. The same author who writes what you quote above also states AS FACT that Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee and was the promised Messiah.  Such statements are not the work of a historian writing AS a historian, and should not be cited as such. Harmakheru (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Harmakheru, the article text does not use the words "most" or "all", it uses the word "many" supported by National Geographic that says "Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the Church of Rome." This source, which is really all I need is additionally supported by two modern scholars who agree with the Church position. We just threw them in there as examples to illustrate what National Geographic is saying. Your argument is not sourced at all. How can you ask us to eliminate such concrete sourcing to bow to your unsourced personal opinions?  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See above--the National Geographic article is not a valid source. Neither are the other two you use, for reasons I have already explained.  You cannot use confessional statements as if they were history.  And I don't need a "source" to point out that your sources do not say what you claim they are saying, or that when read in context they fail the standard of objective scholarship.  You are the one making the claim; the burden of proof rests on you, not on your opponents. Harmakheru (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you need to provide a source to support your personal decision to berate these sources. We can't rely on a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion of a source, we need to see what scholars and scholarly journals think before we toss them. According to WP:RS these sources satisfy the highest qualifications of Wikipedia policy. National Geographic book is an encyclopedia, a peer reviewed scholalry work collection of different scholars on the subject of Religion. Edward Norman is famous historian at the world's most respected university for history (Oxford), his book is a university press. Derrett is writing in a highly respected scholarly series called Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. This constitutes a range of scholarship.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The National Geographic book is not an "encyclopedia"; it is a coffee-table book. If you will check Google Scholar you will find exactly three "citations" of it, none of them significant.  It is not a "peer-reviewed scholarly work"; it is a collection of essays by practitioners of various confessional orientations, including Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and a rabbi.  The primary editor, Susan Tyler Hitchcock, shows up on Google Scholar as an author of poetry books for children and a book on gathering wildflowers.  The secondary editor, John L. Esposito, has an extensive publication list but his expertise is in Islam, not Christianity.  The only other member of the "Board of Advisers" who might provide some "peer review" of an article on Christianity is Laurie Cozad, but according to Google Scholar she only has a handful of publications and they are on topics like witchcraft, snake worship, and demonology.  That leaves Wilken himself, who is a genuine scholar with genuine expertise in Christianity--but, again, he is clearly not writing in this case  AS a scholar according to scholarly standards, but as a member of a particular religious confession expressing his own confessional beliefs.  Again, if you are going to accept Wilken's statements about the papacy as fact just because he says so, then you must equally accept as fact his claim that Jesus walked on water and was the promised Messiah.  These are not the sort of statements one finds in scholarly publications; they are confessional claims, not historical ones, and have no place in Wikipedia.


 * The other two sources are fine as sources, but they don't say what you want them to say. The Norman book explicitly says that his opening paragraphs, from which you quote the statement that "the Church was founded by Jesus himself in his earthly lifetime", are "how Catholics understand the essentials of their faith"--which clearly distinguishes it as a confessional statement rather than a historical one.  And the Derrett article, which is quite excellent, does not say that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, but rather that Jesus was "the inspiring force" of "the church" (lowercase "c") which he identifies with "Christianity" in general, not with Catholicism--and he later states quite clearly that Jesus knew nothing of any Christian priesthood and was opposed in principle to the kind of hierarchy which is fundamental to the Catholic Church, so he clearly cannot believe that the Catholic Church as presently constituted was founded by Jesus.


 * So on close examination, all three of the sources you offer in support of your claim simply evaporate. That leaves you with nothing but a bare, unsourced assertion--which, under Wikipedia rules, must be either re-sourced or deleted. Harmakheru (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy, it would help if you could keep up to date on the points people make. You seem to be always at least one step behind. You replied to my first point about Wilken only after I repeated it and added a second, to which you haven't replied. Similarly, your recent replies continue to ignore points made by others. Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To hammer home a previous point about the National Geographic book that Nancy is touting as "a peer reviewed scholarly work", the book's article on Buddhism states as fact that on the day of the Buddha's birth, "two celestial figures appeared from out of the clouds, showering [the Buddha's mother] with water and lotus blossoms." (p. 136) Later on, describing the day of the Buddha's death, it states as fact that "The trees burst into unseasonable bloom and heavenly song filled the sky." (p. 146)  Can I add these statements to the article on Buddhism as objective historical facts, and justify them by citing the National Geographic book?  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If the book is to be accepted as peer reviewed scholarship supporting the objective truth of confessional Catholic positions, then it must also be accepted as scholarly support for the objective truth of confessional Buddhist positions. Harmakheru (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is silly. You are confusing sections of a work describing the beliefs of a religion - which most such works do, with sections looking at the historiography of that religion.  Xan  dar   12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the problem, but I am not the one who is confused about it. Throughout the National Geographic book being cited, the authors themselves intermix confessional statements and historiography, without distinction, even in the same paragraph, which makes it a matter of individual judgment as to when they are doing the one or the other.  Nancy wants to pull a couple of sentences out of the middle of this mishmash, declare that in these particular sentences the author is in "historian" mode, and then use them to back up a controversial confessional claim.  In the process she misquotes one of the statements, thereby making it say more than the author intended, and misapplies the rest of it to support a claim it doesn't make.  That isn't the way to do serious scholarship. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On Richard's proposed wording: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Historians generally accept the Catholic Church as the continuation of the Roman Church founded by Saint Peter, one of the five patriarchates of the early Christian church." I think it could, with some amendment, form a basis for progress, remembering that we are discussing the lead, where things must be kept short and clear. This will be a far more productive avenue to go down than arguing forever about whether we like a particular book or not.  Xan  dar  12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) To make it more precise and short, what about: "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Church founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Most historians accept that the Catholic Church is a continuation of the original Christian community founded in Rome by Saints Peter and Paul."  Xan  dar   12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) "Most historians" is original research unless you can come up with a proper source that explicitly says "most historians" accept this. At the moment you don't have one.  (2) The "original Christian community" in Rome was not founded by Peter and Paul, since it already existed before either of them arrived there. Harmakheru (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the phrase "most historians" should be resolvable by switching to something like "many historians". The issue here is to find a suitable source.  The connection between the current Catholic Church and the original Christian Church in Rome doesn't seem to be much in dispute.


 * As for "original Christian community founded in Rome by Saints Peter and Paul", we could perhaps find a mutually agreed upon formulation such as "the original Christian community in Rome of which the apostle Peter served as the first bishop" ("first" bishop may be debatable; to assert that Peter was the "first" bishop is to assert that the Christian community in Rome had no bishops prior to Peter; I'm unclear if anybody challenges this assertion; )


 * It may help if we list the "landmines" that we are trying to step around:


 * The Christian community (Church) of which all Christianity is a continuation was not founded in Rome but more likely in Palestine/Asia Minor (Jerusalem, Ephesus, etc.)
 * The Christian community in Rome was not founded by Peter and/or Paul (in the sense that there were Christians in Rome before Peter and Paul got there)
 * However, in Against Heresies written 175-185, Irenaeus refers to the Catholic Church as "the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul" (see our article on Saint Peter)
 * Peter is generally recognized as having become the leader of the church in Rome (the "bishop" if you will although there don't seem to be any contemporary sources that refer to him as such, see Bishop)
 * The system of metropolitans is first mentioned at the Council of Nicaea recognizing the rights of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (and probably Antioch). Eventually, Jerusalem and Constantinople are added to form the Pentarchy by the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).
 * The term Patriarchate does not come into use until the time of Emperor Justinian in the 6th century
 * So, mentioning the church of Rome as one of the pentarchies is accurate but a bit anachronistic


 * In summary, there seems to be no problem asserting that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Church of Rome and few problems asserting that Peter was the first bishop of that Church (and thus retrospectively, the first Pope). However, there is an issue of accuracy if we assert that the Christian community in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul (per Catholic tradition).  There is also a problem if we assert or imply that it is the sole continuation of the Church founded by Jesus Christ (Catholic doctrine).
 * --Richard (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Richard, for your very thoughtful analysis. Unfortunately, there are still some difficulties with the approach you suggest:  (1) "Many historians" is still original research unless, as you say, you can find a proper source for the statement.  Given the vagueness of the claim (including the lack of precision as to what is meant by "continuation"), this may be difficult to the point of impossibility.  (2) Any statement about the "original Christian Church in Rome" is problematic because almost nothing is known about that church's membership, structure, leadership, doctrine, or eventual fate, much less its continuity (or lack thereof) with what later became the Catholic Church.  A great deal of scholarly ink has been spilled trying to tease out the implications of a bare handful of statements in first century documents, but there just isn't enough to construct anything like a coherent history.  (3) It is not "generally recognized" that Peter "became the leader of the church in Rome".  This is, of course, the traditional confessional position of the Catholic Church, but there is very little actual history to support it, and many scholars--including eminent Catholic ones--flatly reject it.  For example:


 * As for Peter, we have no knowledge at all of when he came to Rome and what he did there before he was martyred. Certainly he was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense).  There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church--a claim not made till the third century.  Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 when Paul wrote to the Romans, and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital." (Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity (Paulist Press, 1983).


 * It would probably be less objectionable historically to say that the Catholic Church is institutionally continuous with the Church at Rome which produced the Epistle of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, but that's not going to get a lot of the people here what they want out of this. One could perhaps plausibly claim that the Catholic Church is institutionally continuous with at least some portion of the Christian community at Rome among which Simon Peter ministered in the months or years just prior to his martyrdom (although judging from Clement's letter it seems likely that it was some other portion of that same community which ultimately caused the deaths of both Peter and Paul) but I suspect that's not going to fly, either.


 * This is part of the reason I have suggested striking the whole reference to "many historians" in this section. It introduces issues into the discussion which are almost insolubly difficult to resolve without extensive qualification, and it does so for no good reason.  The paragraph makes perfect sense and achieves its proper purposes without dragging the historians into it.  Why not just leave them out and save everybody a lot of trouble and confusion? Harmakheru (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow... that's why I love Wikipedia. I'm always learning new things... some of it is even true... ;-)


 * Seriously... we have already tried deleting the bit about "a view shared by many historians" but it was restored and since I try really hard not to edit war, I let it go. Perhaps Xandar and NancyHeise will reconsider after reading your comment above.  I am fine with deleting the phrase in question.


 * --Richard (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I just add a remark specifically addressed to Nancy, since she seems very keen on FAC? I've been told (Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 18) that FAR seems to be almost entirely concerned with citations. If that's true, and maybe even if it isn't, doesn't it seem likely that they'd be very strict about that one thing? And that FAC would be just as strict? Peter jackson (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eliminating the historical view is not on. If that is what some people are after, they are not going to get anywhere, since that is not a legitimate object. Harmakheru may quote the odd fringe historian who tries to suggest that Peter founded some different and mythical church, which somehow vanished into thin air within the 1st century. But such is mere unsupported speculation. Cavilling at the word "many" is another profitless exercise. The word like "some" and "most" is used extensively across Wikipedia because it is useful. What are we supposed to substitute it with? 489? 67% These are impossible figures to specify and if an attempt were made it would be challenged in another endless cycle of argument. What we need to see from objectors is some sign of referenced, constructive suggestion for wording that doesn't rely on censoring the facts.  Xan  dar   21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you might try actually reading what people write and responding to it, instead of distorting it into straw-man arguments you can knock down more easily.


 * Second, the position you are championing as "the historical view" and "the facts" is no such thing, and your determination to force it on everyone else, come hell or high water, looks very much like an attempt to impose Catholic apologetic baggage where it has no business being.


 * Third, if you think Raymond Brown and John Meier are "odd fringe historians" then by that very fact you have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You and Nancy are basing your "historical view" primarily on an out-of-context quotation from a National Geographic coffee-table book for which Google Scholar reports only three citations, none of them significant.  Try googling Brown and Meier and see what happens.  Their book on Antioch and Rome, from which I quoted, has 47 citations; Brown's book on the Gospel of John has over 200; his book on New Testament Christology is also over 200; and so forth.  Similarly, Meier's biography of Jesus has 161; his book Rethinking the Historical Jesus has 95; and so forth.  You are dismissing as "fringers" some of the heaviest hitters in the field.


 * Another mainstream scholar who works in the same area is Oscar Cullmann. Google Scholar gives at least 37 citations for his book on St. Peter, and it is considered one of the major works in the field.  (This is confirmed by one of the books that cites Cullmann--"What is Catholicism", published by Our Sunday Visitor, with a foreword by Cardinal Avery Dulles--which begins one paragraph by saying, "Since Cullmann ..." in the same way a book on physics might say, "Since Einstein ...")  Here is what Cullmann has to say on the subject:


 * In the New Testament [Jerusalem] is the only church of which we hear that Peter stood at its head. Of other episcopates of Peter we know nothing certain.  Concerning Antioch, indeed ... there is a tradition, first appearing in the course of the second century, according to which Peter was its bishop.  The assertion that he was Bishop of Rome we first find at a much later time.  From the second half of the second century we do possess texts that mention the apostolic foundation of Rome, and at this time, which is indeed rather late, this foundation is traced back to Peter and Paul, an assertion that cannot be supported historically.  Even here, however, nothing is said as yet of an episcopal office of Peter.


 * So now we have three respected mainstream historians--Brown, Meier, and Cullmann--who are seriously at odds with your alleged "historical view"; and certainly for anyone who knows the field well enough to recognize the names of the major players, these three count for a lot more than any of the three sources you and Nancy are claiming, even if you were using them correctly (which you aren't). I must also ask by what right you, a single editor, presume to unilaterally declare what shall or shall not be done with a Wikipedia page.  Isn't there a rule about that sort of "ownership"? Harmakheru (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And while we're at it, let's add Henry Chadwick's The Early Church (245 citations, according to Google Scholar): "No doubt Peter's presence in Rome in the sixties must indicate a concern for Gentile Christianity, but we have no information whatever about his activity or the length of his stay there.  That he was in Rome for twenty-five years is third-century legend."  And finally there is J.N.D. Kelly's Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, published by Oxford University Press, with 126 citations (and don't forget that according to Nancy, Oxford is "the world's most respected university for history"):  "Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops.  Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all Peter's as presumed leader of the community."


 * So now we have five--Brown, Meier, Cullmann, Chadwick, and Kelly, all of them highly respected by mainstream scholarship as authorities in their field, with citation counts to match, and none of whom agree with you--while you have, at best, a coffee-table book from National Geographic, with a citation count of 3. Which side do you think serious scholarship ought to come down on? Harmakheru (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And here is an article from the Scottish Journal of Theology arguing that Peter never went to Rome but died in Jerusalem. Perhaps the author is a lesser light than the ones presented by Harmakheru but the point is that the linkage of Peter to Rome is not a closed issue (as I, having been taught the Catholic doctrine, had always assumed it was). --Richard (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying again
Taking the above discussion into consideration, consider this rewrite of the article text:


 * The Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church through his consecration of Saint Peter. As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  Historians agree that, from the earliest years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration.


 * Through Apostolic succession, the Church believes that its bishops are valid, consecrated successors of the original Apostles.

This approach neatly sidesteps any assertion as to whether the Catholic Church is the whole of the Christian Church or just part. It also sidesteps any assertion as to whether Peter and Paul actually founded the See of Rome or whether Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. Also note that I removed the word "the" from the assertion that Catholic bishops are "the valid successors of the original Apostles". The Catholic Church recognizes a bunch of non-Catholic bishops as "valid successors of the original apostles". Thus, its bishops are among the valid successors rather being the only valid successors.

Comments?

--Richard (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to the first sentence, it would be safer to use the language of the Catechism (section 816) which says that after his resurrection Christ "entrusted" the Church to the "pastoral care" of Simon Peter. Explicitly linking the founding of the Church to the "consecration" of Peter (whatever that means) is chronologically and theologically debatable and opens up another can of worms that doesn't need opening.


 * With respect to the arbitration of doctrinal disputes, it would be safer to say "the early years" rather than the "earliest" years. Cullmann, who is a good representative of the more skeptical position on such things, says that "the Roman church does not play a leading role at all during the lifetime of the apostles.  At the earliest it begins to play such a role in Christendom at the turn from the first to the second century." (p. 163)  This would certainly be "early", but not "earliest". Harmakheru (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating Harmakheru's comments, we get something along the lines of:


 * The Catholic Church believes that after his resurrection Jesus Christ entrusted the Church to the pastoral care of Simon Peter.  As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  Historians agree that, starting in the early years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration.


 * Through Apostolic succession, the Church believes that its bishops are valid, consecrated successors of the original Apostles.

Are there any objections to this wording?

--Richard (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To say "respect and authority consonant with" sounds compatible with the Orthodox position. Catholics believe that Jesus promised and gave Peter a primacy of jurisdiction, that this was given not just to Peter but also to his successors, and that this primacy vested with the Roman Pontiff. It seems odd to me to use the same word ("believes") about these doctrinal points and also about Peter's connection to Rome, but if the Church is tied to a "belief" about that connection, it would seem to be more that Peter was martyred at Rome. Gimmetrow 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow, the problem here is differentiating between which "historical facts" are based on Church tradition and which are supported by a wide consensus of historians. Harmakheru has presented sources that suggest that the historicity of the "founding" of the Church by Peter and Paul is disputed.  The Church believes that the See of Rome was founded by Peter (and Paul) and that Peter was its first bishop.  Whether this is accepted by a consensus of historians or not is not clear but there are some big names who dispute it.  It's not clear to me that the historicity of these events is crucial to the Church's claim to the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff except perhaps for that minority which argues that Peter never went to Rome at all.


 * As for "respect and authority consonant with" being "compatible with the Orthodox position", I think this is a matter of definition. The phrasing is certainly wide enough to accomodate the Orthodox position but I think it also captures the Catholic position.  The two sides disagree on how much "respect and authority" is implied by the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  If you dislike this phrasing, do you have an alternate to propose?


 * --Richard (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But what would it mean to say "the Church believes" something about history, if there is no normative statement from the hierarchy and significant Catholics openly disagree with it? We might say "Irenaeus believed that Peter founded the church at Rome", but did he mean "founded" in the same sense most readers will assume? Gimmetrow 12:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow, are you referring to the proposed sentence: "As the continuation of the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."?


 * If so, perhaps the problem could be resolved by this approach: "As the continuation of the See of Rome, according to Church tradition was founded by Peter and Paul, the Church asserts that it is due the respect and authority consonant with the Primacy of Simon Peter and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."


 * Here "Church tradition" is non-Scriptural information that we have via Church fathers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius.


 * We could further clarify the differentiation by changing the proposed text to read: "The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ founded the Christian Church through his consecration of Saint Peter."


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


 * I think it's bad form to mix doctrinal points and disputed quasi-historical but not universal traditions. Mixing suggests or implies the doctrine depends on the disputed historical accuracy of that tradition. That implication might be part of the reason in some places the text says "historians agree" without saying "historians disagree". Gimmetrow 09:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Historians agree that, starting in the early years of Christianity, doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration." Well, first of all, you need a citation to support that. Then there's the question of weasel words. How early? All disputes or only some? By everyone or only by some people? Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can find a citation fairly easily. We might wish to rephrase it to say "Doctrinal disputes were referred to the See of Rome for arbitration as early as....".  As for the "all or some" questions, this assertion is in the lead section and so it is appropriate to gloss over some of the finer details.  I think the "all or some" tack is going off in the wrong direction.  The Orthodox don't really challenge this.  I think what they challenge is whether this was being done as a deference to Rome as having a "first among equals" status and also as a relatively neutral third-party as opposed to a monarchical authority.--Richard (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is a difference between any disputes, and disputes in the West, which should be no problem for anybody who accepts that Rome was a Patriarchate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "the See of Rome which it believes to have been founded by Peter and Paul": that sounds a bit odd. Don't they believe Peter was the main founder & Paul just a sort of assistant? Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We can fix this easily if that is so. I've seen references to "Peter and Paul" so I suspect there is a bit of muddling of the two.  This seems like a lesser issue but feel free to present arguments for "mostly Peter" if you like. --Richard (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the article again, the body of the article never goes into detail about who founded the See of Rome, or into much detail about Peter and Paul. It is against WP:LEAD to include this info about the origins of the See of Rome in the lead if it not in the body, and I think this is likely too detailed to include in the body of the article too. (The appropriate article for all of this detail is Apostolic succession.) If we can't just do away with the "many historians agree..." phrase (the simplest solution, as this is a level of detail not needed in the lead), then something along these lines would work "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus in his consecration of Saint Peter.[22] Evidence for the historicity of these claims is mixed." Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Karanacs, with all due respect, "Yuck,no." I would assert that all of mainstream Christianity (and indeed really all of Christianity) is a continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus (that is, they are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of the original Christians).  Those who assert apostolic succession (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans) are in the business of differentiating between "valid" successors and the others.  It is the historicity of apostolic succession (or, more precisely, the papal succession) from Peter that is at issue here, not the consecration of Peter (which, I believe, most Christians accept).  It is true that there are theological and ecclesiological disputes about what exactly Jesus meant when he consecrated Peter but, unless we are getting into a discussion of the historicity of the Gospels, your text questions the historicity of the wrong thing. --Richard (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken; what I think is key here is that we do not get into a long argument in this article on the validity of apostolic succesion, that the lead contains only the most important bits of the article, that nothing is in the lead that is not in the article text, and that both lead and article accurately reflect scholarship. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The latest contributions from Richard are way off track. They have gone right off topic and are far too detailed for the lead. What is being discussed is possible alternative text for just ONE SENTENCE. Karanacs point that we are merely talking about the lead - which is a condensation of what is written elsewhere - is correct. On the point of revisionist historians who postulate theories that peter was never in Rome or other realms of unevidenced speculation. This is already covered by the use of the term "many" historians state that...."  Xan  dar   22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the lead reflects the article body, and the article body (as appropriate) gives both viewpoints equal weight, then we should do the same in the lead. It should say something about divided opinions, rather than just present one side; or we can just remove it from the lead. Karanacs (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Many historians state that" clearly indicates that other historians may have different opinions. The point being made is that there is clear historical basis for the Church's foundation in Rome by Peter and Paul.  Xan  dar   00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Brown, Meier, Cullmann, Chadwick, and Kelly are not "revisionist historians", and their positions are not "unevidenced speculation"; on the contrary, they are the scholarly mainstream, while the position espoused by Xandar and Nancy is nothing but unevidenced speculation. They claim their position is supported by "many historians" but so far they have not been able to provide a single one that isn't either misquoted, misinterpreted, or misused.  Even within the Catholic Church, scholars no longer feel bound to proclaim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, or even that he ministered for long in the city before his death there.  In fact, Brown and Meier's book, which denies both, has the nihil obstat and imprimatur.  In the United States, the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs sponsored an ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Lutheran scholars, resulting in a joint statement which declared:  "There is increasing agreement that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there, but we have no trustworthy evidence that Peter ever served as the supervisor or bishop of the local church in Rome."  (Building Unity, Ecumenical Documents IV (Paulist Press, 1989), p. 130.)  As far as I can find, even the current Catechism has abandoned the claim of Peter's long stay and episcopal office; the Catechism frequently refers to the Pope as the successor of Peter, but it never refers to Peter as the bishop of Rome and tells us little or nothing about his sojourn there.  If Rome and her scholars have abandoned the old legends, which mainstream historians declare to have no demonstrable basis or historical value, why do Xandar and Nancy cling to them so tenaciously, and insist that they be treated by Wikipedia as proven facts?  If indeed there is "clear historical basis" for their claim, why can't they come up with any proper sources that say so? Harmakheru (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Karanacs suggestion, it is by far, the most reasonable and one that respects Wikipedia's policies of allowing Reader to know both sides - that some historians agree and others don't, a referenced fact we have already presented in the Origins and Mission section. Harmakheru seems to be just arguing a point we have already covered in that section, that some historians disagree.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did make an edit some time ago that changed the text to read "a view shared by some historians and disputed by others". Admittedly, the "disputed by others" was supported by a lame reference but I assumed other editors would be able to offer a better one.  My edit was reverted by Farsight001.  Are there any objections to making this edit again?  We could use Harmakheru's sources as references for the "disputed by others" text. --Richard (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of style, some historians hold that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, others see no evidence for it would be simpler; a third clause, that some doubt that there was any single bishop of Rome in the first century, may be too long for the lead, but is clearly supportable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most historians think there was no bishop of Rome, or anywhere else, until the 2nd century. I've already given 2 citations above & have 2 more to hand.


 * Perhaps a more straightforward statement would be something like "Even in the 2nd century, Rome was recognized as the head of the Church in some sense." This avoids abstract questions about the "same" church. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That's both Olympic-level vagueness - and off-topic.  Xan  dar   23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor is there a source for any claim that it is Roman Catholic doctrine that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome; many Roman Catholics, and many Protestants, may believe and teach it, but that's not the same thing. The miracles of Saint George have also been widely held and taught, but they are nobody's doctrine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More irrelevance - even if it were true. We're talking about the origin of the Catholic Church, so the exact title of Peter is not significant. Actually all the Apostles, by definition, held the status of Bishop.  Xan  dar   23:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

being bold
I've been bold and removed the clause from the lead that stated "many historians agree" on the origin of the Catholic Church foundation. The entire rest of the paragraph discusses church beliefs; adding anything about historians here is really inappropriate and jarring. Many sources have been provided above that appear to show that this "historians agree" statement is likely not the mainstream opinion, and the lead is absolutely not the place to delve into so much detail. Karanacs (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this on the basis that "many historians agree ..." doesn't really mean much or prove anything. I imagine that "many historians disagree ..." is also the case.  The article already contains too many comments that appear to be included for some kind of apologist purposes and do not belong in a secular encyclopedia.  Afterwriting (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the removal. It's the easiest way to resolve the issue without getting into a detailed explanation of why some historians agree and others don't. --Richard (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)