Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 8

Rm promotional rambling
I've removed promotional rambling added to the article. As encyclopedia editors, we must present reliably sourced material in a non-obfuscatory way that observes due weight. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with part of what you say here, but not the conclusions you draw. WP:LEDE says the opening should summarize the material in the body. In your version, we only show one part of the teaching. Taking your rambling comment to heart, however, I am going to restore a trimmed down version of the content.
 * The same is true of the second part. I didn't think that pulling out part of their language was undue but, if you do, I will make an attempt to trim it down. If we are going to include part of what the CMA says, we should include their full position. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your additions to the lede are a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE. I must once again remind you that the function of Wikipedia is not to present "both sides" of an issue, but to reflect the issue as discussed in reliable sources, which do not support the argument that the RCC believes in treating gay people with respect or that its positions towards gay people are simply collateral damage of its positions towards unmarried heterosexuals. Please remove this promotional crap, I shouldn't have to remind you of this every few months. As for the CMA garbage, find a reliable source or I'll remove it again. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to present both sides so much as I am trying to paint a complete picture. It is just of much of a problem for weight purposes to exclude pertinent information as it is to include non-pertinent information.
 * Also, I am trying to AGF, and I wish you would do the same. I don't think the tone you are using is useful in that regard. Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I have to wonder why you are railing about "treating people with respect". If you are intellectually honest you would know that the kind of RS you are talking about here will, by design, highlight perceived injustices and -- at best -- ignore instances were justice was served. I find that the so-called RS in these articles are poor quality and highly biased WP:PRIMARY sources, such as news outlets with eyewitness or breaking news stories, or pretty much LGBT blogs with a large audience (one calls a Catholic man a "wingnut" -- bravo for equality). These news outlets are out to sell ads and impressions, they are not scholarly research and they are not going to want to pick up stories about LGBT people being received with respect and kindness by Catholics, such as ministry to AIDS victims or dozens of people in Confession every week for decades. The silence is deafening. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be verging on explicitly articulating that you do not agree with WP:WEIGHT or WP:RS as Wikipedia policy. The place to have that conversation is not on one little talkpage. Moreover, both of you appear to see your participation in this article as presenting the "Catholic side" of the issue where reliable sources have failed to do so. Given that you both appear to agree that reliable sources and policy do not support these edits, and your quarrel is with the policies and the sources themselves, I again recommend reverting the addition of this unencyclopedic promotional rambling, and taking your campaign to another venue, whether that is on Wikipedia or off it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Again, that is misstating my position. I am not looking to show any "side." I am looking to paint a complete picture, completely in accordance with WP:DUE. I also believe the sources support the edits. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re your last edit: really? It's "not at all clear" to you why an op-ed from a fringe activist isn't a usable source for reiterating meaningless promotional glurge about "compassionate dialogue"? You've got to do better than that. As for the crap you've been trying to add to the lede for over a year(!), I must reiterate for something like the fiftieth time that grossly inflating a self-published promotional statement as a rebuttal to a vast body of reliable sources in the name of both-sidesism (oh, sorry, "painting a complete picture"), while removing the sentence that sums up the article in the most accurate and encyclopedic manner, is the opposite of WP:DUE. I don't know what further productive conversation we can have on this topic given that you clearly disagree with WP:WEIGHT as a policy. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've never heard of James Parker before this, so I quickly Googled him. If the International Business Times is willing to give him a byline, then I dispute the characterization as a "fringe activist." (That's not to say I agree with his stance, just that he has some credibility here.) I think The Catholic Weekly is a perfectly appropriate source, particularly when we have a primary source to back up the claim being made here, word for word. If your problem is with the source is that it is an op-ed, then I will point out that the other sentence in this paragraph is also cited to an op-ed. Since I am not convinced that the opinion of a tertiary organization belongs in here in the first place, I am glad to remove it.
 * Your point about changing the consensus on the lede is better taken. Since is the only other editor involved in this conversation, perhaps we could ask him to weigh in. I contend that WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEDE are precisely the reasons why the lede should be expanded. We have three paragraphs and an entire daughter article on the Church teaching. I would argue that it is the most important section of the entire article.
 * However, your preferred version leaves us with only a dozen words to summarize all of that teaching. For comparison sake, the daughter article is over 3,000 words. Perhaps my version is too verbose, but yours is certainly inadequate.
 * Finally, I will ask you again to moderate your language. I don't find it to be helpful or written in a collaborative spirit. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC) PS - Since has been active in the article lately, perhaps he could also opine here. I would appreciate his opinion. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that this fringe activist reiterates, word-for-word, the promotional glurge of a fringe organization is not a point in favor of either of them. With regard to the lede, I said it a year ago and I'll repeat it: feel free to draft a more verbose version of the lede that adheres to WP:DUE. Overinflating this promotional crap as a counter to the reliable sources documenting the Church's position is the opposite of that. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger O'Toole, I am aware of this discussion (but for what it is worth, your attempt to ping me did not work). Roscelese, what do you think of this edit? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a problem with the previous wording but I also don't strongly object to the change. I might suggest removing "doctrine of" as a further improvement, since our article clearly goes beyond "doctrine". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You argue that we shouldn't accept a source written by Parker because he is "a fringe activist." Why, then, should we include the CMA at all if they are "a fringe organization?" --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been nearly a week, Roscelese. Could you please explain why Parker is unacceptable as a fringe activist, but the Catholic Medical Association, a fringe organization, should be included? Thank you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assumed that "why can we cite Scientific American, but we can't cite an editorial from a fringe anti-science activist" was a joke question. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger O'Toole, I am aware of this discussion (but for what it is worth, your attempt to ping me did not work). Roscelese, what do you think of this edit? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a problem with the previous wording but I also don't strongly object to the change. I might suggest removing "doctrine of" as a further improvement, since our article clearly goes beyond "doctrine". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You argue that we shouldn't accept a source written by Parker because he is "a fringe activist." Why, then, should we include the CMA at all if they are "a fringe organization?" --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been nearly a week, Roscelese. Could you please explain why Parker is unacceptable as a fringe activist, but the Catholic Medical Association, a fringe organization, should be included? Thank you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assumed that "why can we cite Scientific American, but we can't cite an editorial from a fringe anti-science activist" was a joke question. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Please forgive me for not being more clear. Are you saying that The Catholic Weekly is not a RS? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the paper as a whole isn't RS - certainly a random look at some of its reportage is giving me doubts - but we're talking specifically about an opinion piece from a loony, being cited to support the inclusion of a 100% promotional quote from an organization advocating fringe views. I can't believe you're still pretending this is a real question. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Why is it that one position of an organization advocating fringe views is acceptable, but another of their positions is not? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because WP:RS is policy. Do not continue wasting everyone's time with this tendentious thread. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

New lede
The issue of the lede has been discussed elsewhere, but is tangled up in a discussion about another topic. WP:LEDE states that "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..." I contend that the current lede does not do so. The Church Teaching section is clearly the most important section in this article. However, the sentence describing it in the lede is the shortest of the entire section. Judging by word count alone, it would seem that the entirety of the church teaching is just as important to this article as is a list of notable LGBT Catholics. This clearly fails WP:DUE. This is especially true when you look at the next two sentences. Both are quite long and speak to history. It is undue to have 15 words about the teaching and then 41, almost three times as many, about history.

The MOS also says the lede should also "summarize the most important points." To simply say that the Church considers homosexual acts to be a sin does not adequately or accurately summarize the Church teaching section. Furthermore, that is the opening sentence of the article. However, the MOS:FIRST sentence is supposed to "tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." The current first sentence just summarizes one aspect of church teaching. It's doesn't even cover the whole teaching, much less the rest of the article.

Along those lines, the MOS:BEGINning of the article should "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." The current version does not do that. Why, for example, would the church provide pastoral care to LGBT people (and have some calling for more) if all they were was a bunch of sinners, end of story? For all of these reasons, I believe that the lede needs to be expanded and so am proposing a new first paragraph below. I would welcome the contributions of others in proposing edits so that we can gain consensus and move it to the main.


 * The relationship between the Catholic Church and homosexuality dates back centuries, and covers church teaching, dissent from it, pastoral care provided to LGBT Catholics, and public policy positions to further those ends. The Church teaches that it is not sinful to have a homosexual orientation but that sexual activity between members of the same sex is. This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers. Historically, the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society.

What do others think? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you're still overinflating a recent and minor aspect of the topic. Please review the part of WP:LEDE that states that the emphasis given in the lede should reflect the importance to the subject, as well as the parts of WP:WEIGHT that you've been having trouble with before. I do not agree with proposed revisions which seek to obscure or demote the RCC's historical and current position opposing homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I addressed that already: "To simply say that the Church considers homosexual acts to be a sin does not adequately or accurately summarize the Church teaching section." Do you believe that the current language is a complete and adequate summary of the Church Teaching section?
 * Additionally, I believe the final sentence adequately expresses the Church's historical position on the issue. Do you not? Would you like to suggest some better language instead?
 * Do you believe the MOS:FIRST sentence meets the standards set by the Manual of Style? I don't, so if you do I would appreciate it if you would explain your position.
 * Finally, it would be helpful if you proposed some edits to my proposed language instead of just saying no. I'd like to work together with you to improve the article, but it won't work if your only answer is "no." --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the current language is a far more accurate summary than your versions, since, as I said, your versions violate WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV in overinflating a recent and minor part of ~the teaching~ in the spurious pursuit of both-sidesism. It is, for instance, very obviously inappropriate to imply that "there's nothing wrong with being gay" is an essential and lede-worthy part of ~the teaching~ based on some pedantic caviling, when our articles clearly show, reiterated in document after document, that the church considers homosexuality at best a tendency towards a sin. If we are going to expand the lede, the section on ~the teaching~ would not be the first candidate for expansion, as the article on history is quite long, and minimally represented in the article, no thanks to your recent WEIGHT violations with regard to HIV. For the hundredth time, weight is about reflecting the balance of material, not about making sure there is an equal amount of subjectively "negative" and subjectively "positive" material if that isn't what reliable sources show. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my questions. Do you believe that first sentence is an adequate summary of the teaching? Would you like to propose some altered language on the history? Do you believe the first sentence meets the standards of the MOS:FIRST? I wish you would do so now, instead of continuing to cast aspersions. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first sentence very clearly and obviously satisfies MOS:FIRST. It is clear, focused, in plain English, etc. unlike other proposals which have waffled, overloaded the lede with jargon, misrepresented the article, etc. What is it that you are so confused about? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am confused because the MOS says the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. As you point out, things like this history of the Church are obviously included in the scope but do not appear in the current first sentence. Could you please reconcile your position with that fact?
 * You still have not answered the other questions. Do you think the sentence describing the teaching section is an adequate summary? Are you satisfied with the sentence on the history in the lede?
 * Additionally, could you please explain how my proposed language misrepresented the article? Or what jargon I am introducing? Perhaps if we could find better verbiage then we could move forward. I would like to work with you to improve the article. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think you've more than shown that you could work to improve the article by working on things that aren't this article, instead of continuing to tendentiously introduce poorly sourced promotional language month after month, misrepresent the sources and the article by overinflating statements that you view as positive for the sake of "balance" while omitting ones that you feel could be seen as negative, and violate NPOV in general. There is nothing new under the sun, you've been doing this for over a year. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered the other questions. Do you think the sentence describing the teaching section is an adequate summary? Are you satisfied with the sentence on the history in the lede?
 * Additionally, could you please explain how my proposed language misrepresented the article? Or what jargon I am introducing? Perhaps if we could find better verbiage then we could move forward. I would like to work with you to improve the article. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think you've more than shown that you could work to improve the article by working on things that aren't this article, instead of continuing to tendentiously introduce poorly sourced promotional language month after month, misrepresent the sources and the article by overinflating statements that you view as positive for the sake of "balance" while omitting ones that you feel could be seen as negative, and violate NPOV in general. There is nothing new under the sun, you've been doing this for over a year. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, could you please explain how my proposed language misrepresented the article? Or what jargon I am introducing? Perhaps if we could find better verbiage then we could move forward. I would like to work with you to improve the article. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think you've more than shown that you could work to improve the article by working on things that aren't this article, instead of continuing to tendentiously introduce poorly sourced promotional language month after month, misrepresent the sources and the article by overinflating statements that you view as positive for the sake of "balance" while omitting ones that you feel could be seen as negative, and violate NPOV in general. There is nothing new under the sun, you've been doing this for over a year. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

History section

 * 1) "I'm no expert, but I don't find it in the original" - Slugger, this is exactly the problem with your editing of this article. You fundamentally do not appear to understand, no matter how many times you hear it, that Wikipedia is not here as free web hosting space for the Catholic Church, and that we instead report the views of reliable secondary sources.
 * 2) It is not inappropriate to include a brief statement about the church's political activity in the history section, given that it's a significant part of the history article, and to link it, within this article, to our political activity section.
 * 3) You cannot seriously think it's appropriate to refer to homosexuality as a vice in Wikipedia's voice.

if you're still interested in this article, any thoughts on how to expand our summary of the history article in a WEIGHT-compliant manner and if there's any more of it that could be in the lede?

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not a representative of, nor representative of, the Catholic Church. In fact, unlike you, I don't disclose my religious affiliation on Wikipedia. By your editing history it is clear you have an interest in Catholic issues though you are not Catholic. For all you know I could be another non-Catholic interested in these issues. Your point about reliable secondary sources is well taken. However, the original language did not attribute the position to the person offering it but rather stated that position as a fact.
 * Also, I did not introduce the word vice to the article. Putting it into quotation marks, however, is also implying in Wikipedia's voice that the opinion of the church is wrong. Perhaps we could find another way to phrase it that would gain a consensus. Would you like to propose something? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I did not introduce the word vice to the article. Putting it into quotation marks, however, is also implying in Wikipedia's voice that the opinion of the church is wrong. Perhaps we could find another way to phrase it that would gain a consensus. Would you like to propose something? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Roscelese. I've been away, and have not been able to pay close attention to this article. I'll review things and consider the issues you mention. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that there is anything I can do to suggest how the history section should be expanded, though no doubt it should discuss the Catholic Church's political actions, among other things. As for the lead, I would say that some, at least, of the content that Roscelese removed here is too close to promotional content. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looking forward to your input when you've had more of a chance to look at the material. The question with the history section is a question of what we are including as summary of the main article, History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality. Slugger, Wikipedia is not free web hosting for the Catholic Church; we use the interpretations of reliable secondary sources and we do not claim in Wikipedia's voice that homosexuality is a "vice". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word persecution in History section
As I explained in my recent edit summary, "punishment" or some word that does not cast a pejorative light on the activity, should be used instead of "persecution" in describing the Church's actions against homosexual activity in the Middle Ages. If the source we are using here also happened to say "persecute" then we should state the fact more objectively or else tell the reader right in the text that this is how a particular source sees the situation. 68.0.205.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The IP also has a point about punishing proclivities or people - the current preferred text reads as the former, and it's downright nonsensical. Hurts my brain just to read it. Does the source use "persecute"? It is a horrible word to use for this, something that was not considered persecution in its day at all. Neutral terms are better. Elizium23 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The source uses "persecution," but I have no strong feelings about "punishment" (although I would still say "of," not "for"). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * punishment "of" people "for" doing X, Y, Z? You don't punish actions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, you absolutely can punish offenses, actions, crimes, sins etc. But I don't feel strongly about this. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would seem that we have a consensus here for "punishment" rather than "persecution." Any substantive objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.205.15 (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Individuals
I've removed your addition since our section here is a brief blurb of List of LGBT Catholics - there, if anywhere, is the better place to list more marginal individuals, while the ones identified here are some of the more notable ones. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Vine & Fig
I've removed the mention of/link to Vine and Fig - is there a source indicating that it is notable? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge
Hey everyone, I saw that there was a suggestion to merge this article with another. Would this be helpful? I've never merged before, I just saw it suggested and thought it would be interesting to talk about it.Amethystloucks (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Change in 2020: Words of Pope Francis
However, Pope Francis has said he supports LGBT civil unions, which, by Papal Infallibility, means that the Catholic Church now supports Same Sex Civil Unions. --188.96.185.39 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * New York Times: In Shift for Church, Pope Francis Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, 23 Ocotber 2020 --92.77.57.144
 * CNN.com: Pope endorses civil union laws for same sex couples
 * Katholisch.de: Papst Franziskus befürwortet Lebenspartnerschaften homosexueller Paare (german) --92.77.57.144 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have read the terms and conditions outlined in the article on Papal Infallibility that you link to. William Avery (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at Talk:Dissent_from_Catholic_teaching_on_homosexuality: it could be appropriate to mention this statement here, but we could not engage in original research to assert that this somehow overrules anything else we say in the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted your vandalism, Roscelese. The words of pope Francis in the film Francesco should be mentioned in the beginning of this text. --Meltnrwgema (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted back. The claim about papal infallibility is WP:Original research; Catholics don't consider everything the pope says to be automatically infallible. gnu 57 18:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding on to what Gnu57 says, we have yet to see evidence that this new statement reflects a change in the views of the institutional Catholic Church on homosexuality in general, or even, for that matter, any evidence that this remark in a documentary was meant as a policy statement rather than a personal opinion. Again, it may be worth mentioning in places where we discuss how the church has responded to the mainstreaming of gay rights and acceptance of gay people, but it would be original research to say that it overrules the rest of the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As has already been said, Papal infallibility does not apply to everything a pope says, but more critically, it seems that according to the Vatican at least, the quotes were way taken out of context to mean something that they were not originally intended for. JMM12345 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Merge carried out
At this point I have carried out most of the selective merge from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. (I'm not able to finish it up today but I have left the stuff I still need to get to in a separate revision before converting it to a redirect, so it's easy to return to shortly.) Essentially, I imported things that this article did not contain, while declining to import repetition, glurge/fancruft/apologetics, and other stuff that wasn't meaningful (like Chaput's 2015 statement to the press vaguely waving at reconsidering the phrase "intrinsically disordered," which obviously didn't go anywhere).

I have also taken the opportunity to remove from this, the target article, 1. the statement that Veritatis splendor was the first papal encyclical to refer to homosexuality - I don't consider this meaningful to the reader in light of the several previous paragraphs which are about all the airtime the church has given to the Gay Question, and the contents are repetitive - 2. the bit about Francis's possible support of civil unions, in light of the Vatican's later retraction of that statement. I could see an argument for including a line about Francis's vaguely more accepting views (and would be happy to participate in workshopping one), but I can also see an argument for omitting anything that doesn't actually change the church's position or activities in regard to gay people, and 3. some unproductive external links.

Back soon?

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've completed the merge by selectively merging in the synod- and region-specific material in a way that makes sense in this article (eg. the stuff about blessing same-sex unions in Germany and Austria -> a section on same-sex marriage here). As before, I have not merged some of the material that was repetitive (eg. Basil Hume's statement about homosexuality being wrong doesn't tell us anything that hasn't been stated in the article already), misleading (one document might have stated that AIDS isn't a punishment from God, but others stated that it was), or otherwise pointless. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You said here that you were not done with the merge and that you would finish it later, but then you never did. I waited more than a week for you to complete the merge, and then took it upon myself to do so. The merged article had been stable for nearly a year. The consensus was to merge the two articles. If you want to remove 30k of stable prose, please gain a consensus for it here first. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With the exception of your !vote, there was unanimous consensus for a selective merge in light of the extreme cruftiness of the merged-in article. If you wish to gain a new consensus, please propose the additions you want to make and see what people think. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe you have it backwards. I am not trying to add anything. You attempted to remove. There was a consensus for that material. If you want to remove some, then please propose some new prose here. I would be glad to workshop it with you and others. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I proposed and gained consensus for a selective merge, specifically citing how garbage-filled the merged-in article was. You were the only user to diverge from this consensus. It is now your turn to propose changes if you believe that you can persuade people to your way of thinking. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You may have considered the article to be "garbage-filled," but it was stable for 10 months. That indicates to me that there was a consensus for it. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that my proposal to selectively merge it gained a consensus that was unanimous except for you suggests that you were incorrect in your assessment of the community's views. Now it is your turn to propose changes if you wish to seek a new consensus. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You proposal for a "selective" merge was accepted, but was short on details. Most of the !votes also focused on how similar that topic was to this article, not on which content to move over and which to leave out. I don't think it is fair to expect people to have divined exactly what you wanted to select to include and what you didn't. I have created a new sub page here on talk requested some assistance below so that we can get the wider community's input on what to include and not. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the teaching section
There was a consensus for a "selective merge" from Catholic teaching on homosexuality to this article. Now that they have been merged, there is a dispute about which content from the merged article belongs here. A new sub page, Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/teaching, has been created to work on the language and then move it into the main. Please consider helping in that effort. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Obviously I prefer the selectively merged consensus version, for the reasons explained above: it removes high levels of repetition, content that was unencyclopedic (levels of detail more suitable for a fansite, material aimed at pushing a non-neutral POV, quotes for the press that reflected no change of position or rhetoric, etc.), and a number of false or misleading statements. I don't think the version I linked is lacking anything valuable that was present in the article before the merge; it is more compliant with policy and much more readable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The selective merge proposal had the most support, and to me it makes the most sense. Otherwise, the glaring faults of the source article would be carried here. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "The church teaches that gay people are called to practice chastity." -seems superfluous. If you click on the link it says "Everyone is called to chastity." (I really couldn't figure out how to enter this on the newly created Talk page.) Manannan67 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted the recent removal of the reference to the church's political activities against gay rights. It's a brief sentence in the history section which links to another article section (which itself summarizes a whole sourced article). This is also part of the church's history on this topic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no linkage, since the part that actually discusses actual political activity is five sections below it. It's just a single, context- and source-free statement, and even having sources wouldn't rescue it from lacking context where it's placed. At the beginning of "Political activity", it's redundant; maybe it would fit in the lede, but that's it. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "There's no linkage, since the part that actually discusses actual political activity is five sections below it" - That's why the removed sentence links to that section. It is a one-sentence summary of a larger section, which is not an unusual thing in WP articles. I mean, we could add five citations to their activity against gay rights in various countries, but just linking to a well-sourced section/article with a one-sentence summary seems fine to me. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Calton on this, it is lacking context where it is placed, and there is no need for it to be there exactly. HelpfulPi (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Church and "homophilia"?
Someone could expand the article on love (without sex) between same sexes. If I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church has no issue with love, as long as the lovers keep their pants on, so to speak. Perhaps love in itself is not regarded as homosexuality? Is one homosexual if in love but not having sex? 2A02:AA1:1005:8678:E162:1956:E287:2029 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. This position is not mainstream Catholicism, I think. But i just added a sentence about this under "Church teaching": Eve Tushnet, a gay Catholic herself, has argued that Catholic teaching accepts "non-sexual love" between same-sex partners. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If one reads, and most importantly understands, the Catholic Church teachings, it is quite obvious that love is what Christianity is all about. Mainstream indeed. Homosexuality - the act of sex between people of the same sex, is not regarded as love by Catholic teachings. Eve Tushnet uses the word "partner". I am not certain that the Catholic Church would accept two people of the same sex as being partners, partners of what? Matrimony in the Catholic Church is basically a sacrament for couples that in principle can produce offspring (by themselves). Without the ability of reproduction there would not be any need for this sacrament. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, interesting article about Eve Tushnet, just too bad most of the sources are begging for a handout. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rv
Have removed citation needed tags for cited material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you just intended to revert Sakuxon's edits, but you ended up also reverting my edit which was just closing a quotation mark. Would you have any objection If I redid my edit?JMM12345 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)JMM12345
 * No problem. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Socking
Decades old, see Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Pope Francis did NOT accept same sex civil unions. he stated that we (Catholics) must act civilly towards homosexuals. 2600:1007:B03D:5BDF:4D3C:4531:3A81:6704 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead: The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexual activity within society.
Elizium23 has recently changed the sentence in the lead from "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexuality within society. to "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexual activity within society."

I disagree with this change for the following reasons: 1 It overlaps partly with the first sentence of the lead (homosexual activity is a mortal sin). 2 A link to the homosexuality article seems a good idea. 3 The church is not only opposed to homosexual activity but also against celibate homosexual people living together, marrying,.... It is in favour of discrimination against homosexual people even when they don't have sex (in housing, the army, teaching, becoming priests...). It wants to keep its right to kick out homosexual children from Catholic schools. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality into Catholic Church and homosexuality
Undo WP:POVFORK and proliferation of overlapping articles re: LGBT/Catholic topics. Elizium23 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Published sources exist describing the specific topic, for instance this USA Today piece, so the topic stands according to WP:GNG. The article was created in June 2018 by Slugger O'Toole, known for his energetic defense of Catholic catechism, so it could hardly be considered a POVFORK at creation. Relative to the guideline at WP:Splitting, the sizes of the two articles don't demand a split, and they don't require a merge, so size isn't a factor. I think there is sufficient material to keep the two articles split. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. A review of the article history: Catholic Church and homosexuality is the longstanding article. In March 2018, Catholic teaching on homosexuality was created, and in June 2018, Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality was created. In April 2021, Catholic teaching on homosexuality was merged into Catholic Church and homosexuality, on the basis of the former being a POV duplication of the latter. I think it is time for the other shoe to drop. The POVFORK dichotomy of one "Teaching" and one "Dissent" article was never appropriate; the complexities of the issue should be dealt with in the main article. I find it particularly troubling that the section discussing protests of the church by outside groups is relegated to the Dissent article, which is not at all where I would expect to find it. In terms of length, both existing articles contain sections that should be written in summary style but are far too long (including at least one that is longer than the article it should be summarizing), so there is a lot to trim to make for a more readable, accessible, and comprehensive combined article.--Trystan (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. At the time this daughter article was spun out it made up 60% of the prose in the main article. That was clearly an undue weight issue. Today, the dissent article has 51 kb of material and the parent article has 38kb. We would have the same problem if they were to be merged. That's not to say that some material should not be moved back or forth, in line with Trystan's comments, but on the whole I agree with Binksternet. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the combined article would be too big (I also expect the dissent article to continue growing). If the articles are merged, the dissent section would overwhelm the rest (creating undue weight). We could (and should) summarize it more but I think most of it is notable. Trystan is right that we should use the dissent article only for internal Catholic dissent, the external rejection of the teaching should be in the Church and Homosexuality article. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:10CC:4BFE:D9CC:AAF8 (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am this IP. I think I was wrong. I now support the merge. The movements can easily be mentioned in the dissent section once and linked to their articles, and that would be most of the content. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:E1E3:34:3BF6:F855 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting policy question: is a 64-bit interface ID change enough for a second !vote, or do you get to override the other one? Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The dissent page is full and well sourced. A merge would only be possible if sections like Movements were split off the dissent page with a summary left so that the information would not be lost in a page merge. Gusfriend (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The "Dissent" article is so similar to the homosexuality article that "Dissent" could become a section of the aforementioned article, regardless of length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdr150 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 December 2022 (edit) (UTC)