Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Proposed merge of Pastoral care for gay Catholics into Catholic Church and homosexuality
To avoid duplication and more work. The pastoral care article also is unclear about what it is exactly. Pastoral care seems just a way for bishops to be diplomatic. It also seems like a POV fork. To keep due weight, I propose to not merge things only sourced to advocacy organisations (like new ways ministry) or individual bishops statements (these should be in their individual articles). 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:E1E3:34:3BF6:F855 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The daughter article is larger than the parent article, which would create a huge UNDUE issue if they were to be merged. Even if the daughter was paired back, which I don't think it should be as the content is sourced, relevant, and has consensus, it would still be too much. People should remember that these articles were spun out years ago for good reason. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Due to the UNDUE issue. There is more than enough content on the Pastoral care page to justify a stand alone page and it is just one facet of the parent page. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mature enough of an article to stand alone.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 04:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been more than a month without discussion and it appears the consensus is to keep the articles seperate, so I am closing this. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning the bible in the lead and linking it to "The Bible and homosexuality"
My edit adding This teaching, according to the church originating in the Bible, has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers. was reverted.

To clarify: I think the lead should mention that the church says that its teaching is based on bible verses (later mentioned in the article) without implying if their interpretation is correct or not. That the teaching has been developed later by theologians and ecumenical councils is a fact and I don't want to imply otherwise. If someone has a better idea how to put this into words, I'm open to that.

Why the lead should mention the bible (+the link): 1) We mention theologians and ecumenical councils (so to Catholics also popes), the only authority (to Catholics) that we leave out is the bible. 2) The discussion in theological pieces, but also generally, revolves around the interpretation of the passages of the bible. (and ofcourse natural law but this is covered by "theologians") 3) The catechism cites the bible. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:17AF:E2FD:D828:F9F7 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * How about introducing it as an interpretation of the Bible by the church, leaning just a bit harder on the human factor and less on assuming the Bible as gospel? Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "the Bible as gospel" You mean as unreliable and untrustworthy as the gospels? Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition and revert of Francis' response to dubia by Burke, Bradmüller, et al.
Two editors in quick succession added, and then removed content about the recent dubia by two cardinals and others addressed to Pope Francis, which included questions about the blessing of same-sex unions, and other matters. Neither the addition of this content, nor its removal, were proper; at least not for the stated reasons in the edit summaries. The addition of content (diff) was improper, because there was no valid sourcing. Although two references were provided, the first was the letter by the cardinals itself, along with the Pope's reply, thus a WP:PRIMARY source, and the second one is from the news and information portal of the Catholic Church in Germany, and so isn't independent, and since the article dealt heavily in quotations with no analysis, it's really only repeating content from the primary source, and cannot be counted as secondary. So, the addition of content in Wikipedia's voice based on these primary, non-independent sources fails our reliable sourcing policy and amounts to the opinion of the IP editor who added it, and therefore is inadmissible original research.

For those reasons, I agree with the removal of this content in this edit. However, not for the reasons stated in the revert summary, which gave no justification based on policy- or guideline, but rather provided yet another non-independent, primary source, namely, the English translation of the response by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This amounted to removing the previous WP:Original research by an argument based on more WP:Original research, therefore, not a valid reason, either. On balance, since the burden of proof is on the person wishing to add content, the removal was correct, even if the stated reasoning was not.

I would support inclusion of the content if proper reliable sourcing could be found, meaning WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:SECONDARY, but for now, the status quo is the correct one, per policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)