Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church

Interfaith controversies subsection
I'm moving this here so that interested editors can modify it or discuss how to make a subsection for this article:
 * Interfaith controversies involving the Catholic Church have concerned relations with the Anglican Communion, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.

Merge from List of scandals of the Catholic Church

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the merge request was: consensus to merge. ''' PluniaZ (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A terrible new article, full of mistakes & mostly as POV as its title. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The "List of scandals..." is a POV train wreck that would require a massive rewrite to meet our guidelines. Not worth the trouble. If somebody wants to just blank and redirect it that would likely be acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the modern Papal apologies might be collected as a section here - I presume they check out. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The "List of scandas..." violates NPOV from start to finish and seems to have been created as an end run around the recent discussions that fixed similar issues with this article. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support I tend to agree with Ad Orientem for a blank and redirect. Most of this stuff is covered in more detail in other articles, making this list at the very least superfluous, and ( ...supply any adjective of your choice). (n.b., the brand new Persecution of Christians by Christians is another waste of space.) Manannan67 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Redundant; other articles are suitable about specific subtopics when their sections are too large for the main article. — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I know this probably isn't the correct venue, but it's the same editor and the same problem. God in Catholicism is a mess of synthesized non-sequiturs and IMHO should be blanked and redirected to Catholic Church which in comparison is not only concise but coherent. Manannan67 (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. PPEMES (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that that article is redundant to this one.gnu 57 09:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Scandal is different from Criticism tho, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a) people criticise scandals, and b) most of these are not really scandals - eg the Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2019 (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.

The Opening Paragraph Needs to be Reworded:
The opening paragraph of this page is a horrendously worded inflammatory opinion piece that bears no resemblance to the actual content: Subject to criticism by who? This sentence needs to cite sources.
 * The Catholic Church has been subject to criticism throughout its history for its beliefs and practices.

Where the formation of these other groups based upon criticism of the Catholic Church's beliefs and practices or were they political disputes that used religion as a post or pre-text? This sentence needs to cite sources.
 * Criticisms of the Catholic Church's religious beliefs and practices have often led to breaks with other Christian groups, such as the schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Reformation.

Criticized by who for what political decisions? The Church's promotion of the Crusades sentence conflicts with what this post actually states about the crusades, which was that the most of the crusades were actions taken by sovereign states, not by the Church itself. This section needs to cite sources.
 * The Catholic Church has also been criticized for its active efforts to influence political decisions, such as the Church's promotion of the Crusades and its involvement with various 20th-century nationalist regimes. More recent criticism focuses on alleged scandals within the Church, particularly alleged financial corruption and the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals.

Suggested New Opening Paragraph: Over the span of its existence, there have been a number of sustained criticisms against the Catholic Church. These criticisms have concerned its magisterial teachings and its activities outside of the sphere of dogmatic theology.

Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Any specific reason why "during" in the opening paragraph is capitalized? Myownworst (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ordination of women to the priesthood
First of all there was an omission in the lede; the Church cannot ordain women to the sacerdotal priesthood, and it is this ordination that has been the focus of Ordinatio sacerdotalis etc. So the statement must be qualified in this way. Secondly, the church cannot oppose something she cannot do. The church considers it impossible to ordain women to the priesthood. Could a Newtonian physicist measure a sphere using the Pythagorean theorem? The church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood and so canonically, it terms these as "attempts" to ordain a woman, because they cannot ontologically succeed. It would be incorrect point-of-view to say the church opposes it without qualification. Elizium23 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of my edit summary is that, on Wikipedia, as far as I know, we cannot say that the Church "lacks authority" to ordain women in the encyclopedia s own voice, especially not without attribution, because then we would be unduly favouring a particular side in the debate, that of the Church authorities which promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, while excluding secondary sources which criticize the Church s opposition and rationale from a third party perspective, which is by no means uncontroversial. That would violate the NPOV policy as well, because it would place undue weight on the institution s own claims, while omitting sourced criticism. The most neutral solution would be to say that the Church opposes the ordination of women, and then describe their rationale for doing so, while summarizing secondary sources that critique said reasoning. All notable viewpoints on an issue must be documented in proportion of their relevance and support in reliable sources, including criticisms of a particular entity, regardless of who they are, and that is what I was trying to do, to describe the Catholic Church s stance in a manner that does not engage in euphemisms or whitewashing. That would be well in line with a neutral point of view. 91.127.69.193 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's not neutral, that's taking a clear POV from the outside. Are you trying to say that outsiders could be the judge of the extent of the church's authority? If outsiders say that the church opposes ordination of women to the priesthood, then we can write that outsiders claim that. No problem. Critics say that the church opposes it. I have no problem with writing this way. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Outsiders" (A very loaded term to describe secondary sources with on Wikipedia, to say the least) as you called them can very much be reliable judges of the Church s actions, especially from the perspective of historians and independent theologians, and if a significant amount of observers challenge the rationale behind the Church refusing to ordain women, then we cannot say it in Wiki-voice and censor opposing voices. Period. Only unquestionable and verifiable facts not under serious dispute, such as the Earth s sky being blue, can be described in such way, and secondary, AKA "outsider" sources as you described them, are important for describing and analyzing a issue from a perspective the primary source simply did not consider, or was tainted by bias and lack of data, and are often given precedence over primary sources, per Wikipedia policy. We can resolve this dispute by having another person chime in if necessary, but the point is that NPOV does not allow us to state contentious claims as facts in the website s own voice, including those made by a primary source, such as the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis document itself, and what Wikipedia ultimately writes is determined by the consensus and preponderance of reliable sources on the subject matter, as the sources recently added show, even if it is not favourable towards the entity in question. Neutrally describing the Church s stance as opposition (Opposition is not necessarily a negative label, as plenty of movements and organizations throughout history have been opposed to a particular concept or policy without being malevolent in nature) and then stating their reasons why, along with sourcing criticism related to that issue with secondary sources, is the best way to remain compliant with NPOV. Summarizing every viewpoint and side related to the debate, including criticism, while not explicitly taking the side of any of the figures. 91.127.69.193 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The final line of the lead should simply reference that the church is critized for its doctrine against women's ordination. One side says it can't and won't, the other that it could and should; this can be elaborated on in the body of the article. The final sentence would then mirror simply mirror the Catholic Church article's final lead sentence. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is this even here? There is an entire separate article discussing this topic. The section in this article should be seriously trimmed as it already has a link to the Main. Manannan67 (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Which topic are you referring too? –Zfish118⋉talk 15:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See subject heading above. Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The header refers to a single sentence in the lead. If you are referring to the body text, two paragraphs on the subject of women's adoration is perfectly reasonable, and I do not understand the aggressive assertion that it must be reduced. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When there is an entire article on "Ordination of women to the priesthood" which is clearly linked at the top of the relevant section, I do not understand why you should find a recommendation that the section be trimmed in anyway "aggressive". Manannan67 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Croatia
"Catholic clergy have been implicated in the violent repression by the Ustaše regime in Croatia during the Second World War." The information is reliably sourced, and covers the Catholic Church's controversial involvement in the Croatia. No argument has been provided as to why it should be excluded, only a statement that it does not include "criticism", which seems unfounded given the church's involvement in the Croatian government has been the subject of heavy criticism. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) –Zfish118⋉talk 18:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Zfish118.
 * The information is reliably sourced, and covers the Catholic Church's controversial involvement in the Croatia. Not disagreeing at all with this.
 * You claim that it is unfounded to say that this sentence does not include any criticism because the church's involvement in the Croatian government has been the subject of heavy criticism. Where is this heavy criticism? I'm not deny it exists, but no reference to this criticism existing appears in the line "Catholic clergy have been implicated in the violent repression by the Ustaše regime in Croatia during the Second World War".
 * When a sentence includes no criticism, examples of criticism, or citations to prove such criticism exists, it's inclusion in an article titled "Criticism of the Catholic Church" is unwarranted. This is for a few reasons.
 * (A) It is confusing to our readers why this fact is included in this particular article.
 * (B) It doesn't help them understand Criticism of the Catholic Church any better, which is the ultimate aim of any Wikipedia article.
 * (C) Its inclusion in a Criticism article without citations about criticism seems to invite criticism, violating Wikipedia's NPOV.
 * (D) It may be relevant somewhere else on Wikipedia, but it is simply out of the scope of this article.
 * Please provide some evidence, other than your personal assertions, that the church's involvement in the Croatian government has been the subject of criticism (heavy or otherwise).
 * Additional note: the section which this sentence keeps being added to, is entitled "Nationalist Critique". The entire rest of the section is talking about various Nationalists criticizing the Catholic Church, while the sentence we are talking about is about the Catholic Church working with nationalists. Kinda the opposite of a Nationalist Critique. So even if the sentence was included, it should go somewhere else, not in the section it currently is. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is freely available on the Internet Archive. The chapter is 10 pages long. If you believe the sentence is so flawed it should be deleted, you could have read the source and fixed all of you points above, but rather you have spent your time arguing that the sentence should be deleted. I disagree, and believe the implication in violence in Croatia is inherently critical, and thus does NOT require immediate deletion; on the contrary, I believe the information is so critical that even an imperfect reference to the Croatian violence MUST remain in the article. If you continue to disagree, please seek a WP:Third Opinion on the matter. –Zfish118⋉talk 13:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do continue to disagree, but to be honest this is starting to become an edit war so I am just going to leave this, and if someone else comes in and breaks the deadlock one way or another, that's great. But in the mean time, I will simply let it lie. All the best, happy editing. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)