Talk:Contrition

POV Tag
I have added a POV tag, as this article seems to be written entirely from the Roman Catholic perspective, and does not accurately reflect understandings of Contrition beyond that perspective. -- Pastordavid 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
Am I missing something or can I just not read the reference here. Luke 8:5 states, "A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it." It does not say, "Except you do penance you shall all likewise perish". Also, the Christian faith has very little to do with the Old Testament law in Ezekiel as described clearly in Romans. The concept of Contrition should therefore be limited to the Jewish faith. Jcolino3 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag
Agreed with the above--said in the kindest way possible, this article has a decidedly Roman Catholic bent. One need not read further than the third line of the "Necessity of Contrition" section to come to this conclusion. --anonymous (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag
What other understanding for contrition is there? The word originates in middle ages Catholic Theology. It's a term and act not used by Protestants so it only makes sense that it references Catholic teaching. Like it or not the first "organized" church and theological terms like this was the RCC. Robocoastie (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag
Proposed edit: The use of "guilt" should be replaced with "conviction of sin" or "to turn away from sin" in association with contrition.

Reason: Guilt is not scripturally consistent with the repentant nature associated in the New Testament with having a contrite heart, and certainly seems oblivious to any context of a realization of God's mercy and grace, which are arguably necessary catalysts for any view of repentance. "...God's kindness leads you toward repentance" Rom 4:2 (NIV) The word “guilt” only appears twice in the NIV New Testament, both times in John (Jn 9:41 – Jesus addressing the Pharisees “… so your guilt remains.”, Jn 16:8 Speaking of the final judgment and what will be judged by God.)  There are both references to “unrepentant states” or if you prefer non-contrite hearts, no contrition was present.)

Proposed edit: There is the implication that the Holy Spirit crushes our heart due to sin that should be clarifed. E.g. Convition of our own sin, empathy of a fellow believer struggling with sin, or someone suffering unjustly due to the sin of another; any of these would crush our heart (through the work of the Holy Spirit). How the Holy Spirit convicts us depends upon one's theological basis: not of our works in Protestant thought, and through the sacraments of the church in Catholic thought.

Reason: The current definition centers around the acknowledgement of sin in contrition, yet central to conviction of sin is the work of the Holy Spiirt. This cause of contrition (or the state that is brought about in relation to repentance) is the work of the Holy Spirit, per the above differences in faith. Such clarification seems helpful and central to the definition.

Contrition can be explaned on common grounds of understanding, leaving the mechanics of how repentance is achieved and realized to each mainstream groups of faith. I propose these be spelled out as noted above.

Tristar7737 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism
I've just put back the references to catholicism where they are appropriate.


 * "a sorrow of soul and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future" or also "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again". This is a quote from the catholic Catechism.... why was the source removed?!?! (Catechism of the Catholic Church:1451)
 * "Catholic writers have always taught the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin, and they have insisted that such necessity arises" This line is in reference to the Council of Trent it is catholic, not just generic to all of christianity.
 * "In accordance with Catholic teaching contrition ought to be prompted by God's grace and aroused by motives which spring from faith, as opposed to merely natural motives, such as loss of honour, fortune, and the like." is in reference to the council of trent again, specifically catholic.
 * "Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc." is in reference to the council of trent more catholicism.
 * "In accord with Catholic tradition contrition, whether it be perfect or imperfect, must be at once (a) interior, (b) supernatural, (c) universal, and (d) sovereign." this line is the setup for the 4 subsections, supported by the council of trent again.

I can understand wanting to keep it neutral with a generic "christianity" but when the topics being discussed are presented from the catholic perspective, using catholic dogma, it's not just a matter of being PC. It's just incorrect, to say that those beliefs apply to all of christianity, when they certianly do not. Many protestants believe in faith alone. I can see there is a concern of POV, but changing the word "catholic" into "christian" does not alieviate that concern. How about adding more material from the other side of the arguement, rather then relabeling the existing one? Smitty1337 (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a very Catholic article... move to Contrition (Catholic Church) ?
Maybe it should move to Contrition (Catholic Church), so there will be no question as to whether a Catholic POV is appropriate or not?  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree (about the move, if not your war cry :-) ). See just-added "Post-merge cleanup" section below. Sleety Dribble (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: "'Unanimous consensus: DO NOT MOVE.'"  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Contrition → Contrition (Catholic Church) – This article is pretty clearly from the Catholic perspective, almost exclusively so, with only a handful of passing mentions of other Christian (specifically Protestant) views. Just a reflection of what the article actually is. Also would leave "Contrition" open to discuss other things, perhaps a broader perspective of the term in Christian theological use. See also what I and Tristar7737 mentioned in the above sections of this talk page.  Deus vult!  Crusadestudent (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes it is overweight to pre-Reformation content, but one would expect any theological subject to be. Post-reformation content, if it is distinctively Catholic/Protestant should be split and marked as such and balanced. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thing is, there isn't any substantive post-Reformation content. Protestant views only get a mention in passing.   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then add an expand tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per In ictu oculi, … … the page IS open to discuss … a broader perspective of the term in Christian theological use. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WIthdrawn by nominator.  Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-merge cleanup
I came here looking to be able to cite the page on an item I'm writing on perfect contrition ... and stayed to do a bit of gardening! I see it's in a post-merge state, so I assume this is OK. If any of the regulars object to anything, no problem just revert away. Here's what I did, and then a couple of comments -- as a dispassionate visitor if you will -- on what could still could be done. FWIW, I am Catholic.


 * 1) Citation style. Something had broken in the move of several Catholic Catechism citations to  style. (In particular it had left part of the description of the very concept I was looking for as self-contradictory.) That move to clean up and shorten the references was definitely worthwhile, but since there was already a de facto citation style in place -- i.e. named references -- I fixed the broken-ness using that approach instead of sfns (removing the latter). I then made the pre-existing names a bit more standard in form, and cleaned up one or two others. Overall, I think that fixes the  problem that has been tagged for a while, so I've removed that template.
 * 2) WP:OR. I've tagged some possible WP:OR in the Necessity section. It's the big second paragraph. Its individual components are well-linked (although they would probably be better moved to the named citation style, and away from the inline approach), but as a whole may be falling foul of WP:SYN. Fun aside, (given the subject of *this* article):  WP:What SYN is not used to open with the cutesy note that SYN warns against committing "original syn". OK, well *I* thought it was fun. :-) 
 * 3) Lead. I tightened this up a lot, but with the aim of not removing anything of substance. I did remove the piece on differences in views on absolution between Catholicism and "most Protestant denominations", for two reasons. First, in terms of contrition per se, it's simply not needed (certainly not in the lead). Second, since the question of WP:NPOV is one we need to be careful with, if the issue of absolution is going to be discussed, I suggest it needs to be in terms of more than The Catholics, and Everybody Else

So, that's what I've done. Apologies if any of it steps on any toes. As I say, revert away. As to what else needs done, my last point on Catholics vs The World applies to more than just the notion of absolution and I suggest that needs fixed. Remember, in the following, I am a Catholic

A key question seems to be, what do we want the article to be. It could be about the idea of contrition in general or a more precise context, perhaps one from within the hierarchy implied by the following particular line therein:


 * Religion
 * Christ-centric religion
 * Nicene-Christianity Christ-centric religion
 * Catholic Nicene-Christianity Christ-centric religion

Can we agree that no matter where it may be going, right now it is substantially the last of those? The article is almost all about how we Caf'licks see things. (And that's despite the existence of the "Lay use" section, and the valiant effort by to tell us about how the US once expressed contrition to the UK for thinking they were smuggling.) And I think that needs fixed, at very least by a title change, but more important is that the balance needs to be...well, balanced. It's just way too Catholic at the moment. I don't really consider this to be a WP:NPOV thing. The fact that the Catholic stuff *is* Catholic is clear (other the title, but see my proposal below). It's more a potential lack of scope (I say "potential" because it's quite possible the reason its heavily Catholic is because we Catholics, as is our wont, spend a heckuva lot of time feeling guilty about stuff. So maybe we just have more to say on contrition! :-) )

As a way forward, I'd propose one of the following might be worth a try:


 * 1) Boost the "Other than Catholic" stuff (i.e. my "Nicene-Christianity Christ-centric religion" hierarchy level), at least as a group if not as individual faiths. And I don't know the theology enough, but if it's possible to have the "Catholic stuff" be the "Catholic/Eastern-Orthodox stuff" all the better
 * 2) If there's just not that much stuff with which to boost the "Other than Catholic" stuff", but still enough to be mentioned, then instead prune the Catholic stuff right back to basics, and shove the bulk of what is pruned into a new "Contrition (Catholic church)" article which can be "See-also'ed" from the new more balance and shorter "main" article.

Phew! That's three hours of my life I'm not going to get back. If I have just spent them writing drivel and thereby wasted something similar in each of yours, please be assured that I am very, very, contrite. And I mean that in a most perfect way. ;-) Sleety Dribble (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)