Talk:EWTN/Archive 2

SIGNIS and official status
There's been a lot of back and forth recently centered on EWTN's lisitng by SIGNIS. The intent of the claim was clearly to make a case for EWTN having some official status within the RCC, and to imply that its production enjoys oversight and approval by the Vatican. The claim does not seem to be sustainable, and the qualifications that have piled up around it have now really deformed the intro, and turned it into a sort of subsection. I'm clipping the mention back to undisputed essentials; maybe somebody wants to create a section on EWTN's status as an official church organization (though I predict that's going to be heavily contested). DavidOaks (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly this looks like Soidi and/or Nancy are taking their arguement from the Roman Catholic Church page to this page. EWTN has the oversight of their local Bishop, pure and simple. In the past the local Bishop has told EWTN to do different things and they have complied. They may be members of different organizations but in general they are monitored by the church via the normal church hierarchal structures. And I theorize that anytime EWTN may say something wrong or contraversial the local bishop gets an earful. Marauder40 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Marauder is quite right. There is no need to bring the question here or to keep it here.  Soidi (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

-The question is clearly put-EWTN and SIGNIS/Official Rom. Cath. approval/status. The question has not been definitively answered. "I Theorize" Doesn't answer the question-only facts can> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.88.252 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care whether Signis is mentioned in the lead or not. The blooming of the article that was taking place with Soidi and Nancy's comments was the only thing I was addressing.  I never proposed adding anything with the "I theorize" to the article.  If someone wants to add that EWTN is part of Signis, that's fine.  If someone wants to add it to the lead, not a big deal in my mind.  What officially that means as far as EWTN programming is a different story.  It is FACT that EWTN has modified what it has done based on input from Bishops.  As far as I know there has been nothing published about EWTN modifying its programming based on its membership to SIGNIS. Marauder40 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a significant fact to include EWTN's membership in SIGNIS because SIGNIS is listed as an approved Catholic organization in the Church's official worldwide directory - a referenced fact that I had included but was deleted. I am not going to edit war over keeping the rest of the sentence that DavidOaks deleted but I will object to deletion of mention and link to SIGNIS. However, I think the article is less informative with just the link with no explanation of the relevance of the membership.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And as long as EWTN's membership of that organization is not used as a basis for an original-research claim that everything on the EWTN website is overseen by the Roman Curia (!), I will not insist on a mention of the fact that, while SIGNIS has official Church recognition as an international association of the faithful, EWTN has no such Church recognition. (The claim of Vatican approval of all that EWTN publishes has as much logic as a claim that everything published by each and every one of the member universities of the International Federation of Catholic Universities has Vatican approval: the IFCU also is "listed as an approved Catholic association in the Church's official worldwide directory".)  Soidi (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick note, here: EWTN is actually not under diocesan jurisdiction, except in a general manner. Bishop Foley once prohibited priests from celebrating Mass ad orientem, which applied to the geographic area of the diocese, and thus tied EWTN's hands as well. However, the bishop cannot order or prohibit EWTN specifically regarding any action. Korossyl (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that basically what the article said before, when it said something about the name not having the word "Catholic" in it for a purposefully reason? The priests that work at EWTN are obviously accountable to a bishop or the head of a religious order but the station itself is not.OfficialVaticanJanitor (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so.BaronVonSthup (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is the supposed significance of EWTN's membership of SIGNIS should perhaps be clearer in view of the news of the hosting of events promoting sexual license, cross-dressing and homosexual ideologies by three United States Jesuit universities, all three of which are members of the Vatican-approved ICFU. Soidi (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism by Robert Sungenis
In regards to the recent restoration of criticism: The question is not as to whether the criticism is verifiable, but whether it should be mentioned. WP:V, WP:SOURCES, and WP:FRINGE make it clear that merely being able to cite a source does not automatically make it deserving of mention. Or in the words of WP:FRINGE: "All significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, in proportion to their prominence... Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." I believe there are three reasons why the Sungenis book does not merit attention:

(1) Sungenis does not have proper (widely-accepted) academic credentials, and does have a reputation for holding decidedly fringe views regarding science, antisemitism, and (arguably) the Church. (2) Neither does Sungenis have a significant reputation for having meritorious, mainstream views of ecclesiastical matters, having not received an imprimatur for any of his works in the past ten years. This would not be significant, were it not for the fact that he is here criticizing a Catholic organization for being un-Catholic. He lacks the clout and credentials which would establish him as an authority on the subject (I use "authority" here colloquially, not ecclesiastically). Rather, he does have an established reputation for conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. (3) The publisher, Good Counsel Publications, seems to publish books only by one man, Christopher A. Ferrara. It lacks a website, and smacks of being a large, well-managed vanity press. Materials published by such fail most of Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines.

On the other hand, WP:FRINGE continues: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." The book in question has indeed been responded to by at least one high-profile member of the EWTN faculty, Fr. Trigilio. The book is rather high-profile, in spite of its (rather humble?) origins. Some mention of it is indeed merited.

I believe the comments by Sungenis should be removed altogether. They are not even from the book, but from a review of the book. They have not been referenced extensivey, and the author is of dubious credibility. I believe this fails the three WP policies I referenced above.

Mention of the book should be maintained, but the quotation in its present form should be removed. As is, it lacks context, making claims which sound bizarre whether you're a defender or detractor of EWTN. There are four specific accusations made. I have removed the two stranger ones, about the "pagan ceremony" of the Mass and of Catholics needing to celebrate Jewish holidays. The current form reads as such: "that the network undermines the Catholic faith by such actions as accompanying an image of the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance with pounding rock music, and purportedly speaking of the sacraments as not really necessary for salvation, among others." This is a fine but vague line, but it seems to me that any more specific criticisms would have to be verifiable to EWTN broadcasts as well, not just the book making the criticisms (unless it itself cites specific broadcasts). Is this acceptable? Korossyl (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What Sungenis said is independent of the book, although he said it in a review (partly critical) of the book. His statements about EWTN are not unbelievable or bizarre: "When Mother Angelica resigned in 1999 to prevent a possible investigation by a Vatican envoy, for which the local bishop had made a request, EWTN was put under lay management so as not to come under the control of a religious or a cleric, who would be answerable to the United States Episcopal Conference. Many on the board and the theological committee are former Protestants. On grounds of theological content, passages are edited out of the tapes of Mother Angelica's broadcasts."  Sungenis indicates that he has good sources for all of this.  So why bann from the article the verifiable information that this claim has been made?
 * As for the book, its accusations are simply the sort of thing that you find in the publications and websites of (ultra-)traditionalist Catholics. They have been made.  Verifiably so.  I was tempted to select some that to non-traditionalist Catholics (like myself) would seem even more outrageous; but I thought that would be unfair.  Traditionalist Catholic views and accusations are included in the article Traditionalist Catholics.  Responses are also given in that article.  Since you know how EWTN responded to the book, wouldn't it be a good thing for you to add something about that response?  Platia (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, good points, all. I was a bit confused as I was starting that post, mixing up Sungenis and Ferrara. I meant to say, Sungenis is unqualified, and Ferrara makes bizarre claims. All in all, Sungenis makes a sensible argument, one I happen to disagree with.
 * Ferrara's accusations, on the other hand, just seem weird. What broadcast involved the Pope getting rubbed down with herbs by women? I'm certain no EWTN faculty member has ever said that Catholics need to observe Purim, either. I don't doubt that the author has some basis for both of these statements, but I do think there might be some, ah, exaggeration involved. I think to post just those comments without any additional context or explanation, however ridiculous they may immediately appear, would be to perchance violate neutrality.
 * The Sungenis comment is most useful, I believe, for neatly summarizing a point the book makes on its own. Ideally, the book itself could be quoted, but I'm sure the review is much more succinct. How would you feel about this: We would leave Ferrara's paragraph as I modified it, and restore Sungenis' paragraph completely. Then, per your suggestion, I would get around sometime to writing up EWTN's response. What do you think?
 * Sorry if I was a bit snippy earlier... there's been so much edit-warring over this article, I tend to get a bit too easily worked up over it. Thanks for writing back! Korossyl (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that we two have no disagreement whatever. Perhaps you have not yet noticed that, on the basis of another more balanced source that I came across, I have reinserted in the article some of Sungenis's information, citing both the other source and Sungenis.  Because of your objection I did not insert all of the information.  And perhaps it is unnecessary to do so.  Platia (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a citation for Rome appointing an apostolic visitor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.88.252 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. "The second dispute with a bishop prompted Rome to appoint an Apostolic Visitor into the life and affairs of Mother Angelica's monastery. The Visitor, Archbishop Roberto Gonzalez, concentrated on three things ..." is in a source already cited in the article.  Platia (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Vatican II position
An anonymous editor removed Pre-Vatican II from the phrase "celebrating Mass in the ad orientem position". I agree with the edit because Pre-Vatican II is an unneeded and actually incorrect qualifier. The difference is between extraordinary form of the Mass and the Ordinary form of the Mass, not before and after Vatican II. Both forms were still allowed after Vatican II, just the ordinary form was "preferred." Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Beside, the posture in question was not obligatory even in "Pre-Vatican II" times. See Ritus servandus, V, 3 in the Tridentine Roman Missal. Platia (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I'm always suspicious when an anonymous editor removes longstanding text without the courtesy of leaving an edit summary (bluelinked here in case they're watching).  CliffC (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link
Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1399, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

deleted text
Certainly didn't mean to do anything "contentious" -- just observed that an anon had deleted a large block of text without explanation (in the course of making a good many apparently GF edits as well). I'm among those who have called for good use of the talk page. The deleted text appears below; let's seek consensus for inclusion, exclusion or editing. DavidOaks (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Throughout its on air history, “The World Over,” ETWN’s news program has interviewed and featured Republican figures including Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.The Heritage Foundation is a think tank that plays a major role in Republican administrations. The Heritage has been cited as contributing to the planning of economic and policy formulations concerning the war in Iraq. This contradicts Catholic views as both Pope Benedict and previous Pontiff John Paul II have condemned the war in Iraq.    This raises a conflict between EWTN's Catholic representation and Republican interests. Other examples of this are: In his interview with George Bush on Aprill 11, 2008, Raymond Arroyo (EWTN News Anchor) mentioned defending christian minorities and did not mention on international television, the popes condemnation of the war in Iraq. When Mr. Bush brought up the subject of moral relativism, Arroyo did not raise the issue of the legalistic definition of torture, which the Catholic catechism condemns (CCC2297).  Arroyo cited alleged Iranian speed boat threats to US naval vessels on The World Over twice, but then made no follow up comments when this incident was found to be a hoax. The contact with Republican figures such as the Heritage Foundation, Iraq war advocate George Weigel, the publication 'National Review', and others such as Laura Ingraham continue to raise conflict of Catholic representaion. Other Arroyo/EWTN contacts that raise this conflict are Bill Donohue of the Catholic League-former Heritage Foundation scholar in residence, and Franciscan University of Steubenville- which has a link to the Heritage Foundation on the student internship portion of its web site . EWTN news coverage has been assisted by Fr. John Neuhauss, whose views on the war in Iraq also contradict the Pope's. EWTN also employs Michael Novak who went as far as to say: "Saddam Hussein has the means to wreak devastating destruction upon Paris, London, or Chicago, or any cities of his choosing, if only he can find clandestine undetectable 'foot soldiers' to deliver small amounts of the sarin gas, botulins, anthrax, and other lethal elements to predetermined targets..." (National Review Online, February 10, 2003).


 * Sorry if my edit summary came across as identifying your edit as the contentious one, I think you missed one fact - the text the anon removed without explanation and that you restored was the same contentious text he himself added (also without explanation) three minutes earlier. Much material on this talk page and the history page of the article itself shows that this person has added the same, or similar, contentious and OR-laden material again and again while ignoring all calls to use edit summaries, take it to the talk page, add a single statement at a time so it can be discussed, etc, etc.  I don't see any value in memorializing one of his edits here on the talk page or beginning what's sure to be a unilateral discussion of it.  If he wants to add one statement at a time and explain and defend it, that's fine. Best, CliffC (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I pretty much concur with CliffC's summary but understand David's confusion; the IP's retraction of their problematic addition was a good thing but it may have had the unintended consequence of having editors see the second edit as an unexplained deletion. There has been a slow trickle of similar soapboxy edits on related articles like George Weigel, Raymond Arroyo, etc., over the last year or so, about every couple of weeks.   I think all is well now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The confusion is certainly understandable, I must wonder if the anon's 'retraction' was actually a sly attempt to accomplish what actually did happen. --CliffC (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's giving this anon more credit than his track record warrants. My hope for a discussion is probably baseless, since s/he has ignored all previous encouragement to discuss. DavidOaks (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Section
Dear Staff,

Unfortunately, I believe the entire page should be labeled as a disputed article, or, at the least, the section "Confrontations, controversy and criticism" needs to be disputed or deleted, since it seems Robert Sungenis is using this section (and references) to advance his book - it would not be the first time someone has tried to do this, on Wikipedia or elsewhere!

The very last paragraph of that section is totally untrue -- my own sister (now deceased) was a Eucharistic Minister for many years, and I've been an active participant of EWTN for several years (and an active Catholic for many more), and I can tell you that the below paragraph (which includes the Robert Sungenis reference) is at the least a twisted statement or at the worse is an outright lie!

This paragraph states: "...claimed that the network undermines the Catholic faith by what the author called the many strange and heterodox elements of its content which, according to him, included accompanying an image of the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance with pounding rock music and speaking of the sacraments as not really necessary for salvation.[14]

Not true!

That final paragraph is a very damaging (a/k/a slanderous) statement, since, that is the very last paragraph of the page itself, and as the old saying goes, people usually only remember the very first and last thing a person says (or writes, in this case) about them.

Other portions of the "Confrontations" section are also untrue, as follows:

"...As a result, the Holy See appointed an apostolic visitor to examine the situation of Mother Angelica's monastery. To prevent the Holy See from making changes in the way her network was run, Mother Angelica resigned her positions on the EWTN board. This action cut all official connection with her monastery, bringing EWTN under an entirely lay management, none of whose members were directly dependent on the bishops or the Holy See.[12][13]"

On first glance, this statement makes it seem that the Our Lady of the Angels Monastery has cut all ties with the Catholic Church - again, not true!

On the contrary -- the Vatican is acutely aware that EWTN is an integral part of the Holy Father's work of spreading the Gospel around the world, with EWTN airing extensive live coverage of Pope Benedict's recent visit to the Holy Land, as their latest contribution of broadcasting Papal visits, in addition to the live or taped airing of the weekly Papal audience, and extensive live coverage of Pope Benedict's visit to Australia in 2008 for World Youth Day.

The same section of this page might also confuse those who wish to attend Daily, Sunday or Holy Day Mass at the Monastery's (EWTN's) Our Lady of the Angels Chapel, making the reader believe that to attend Mass there would not be considered "official", however, Catholics within the Diocese of Birmingham (or the many visitors to the Monastery or EWTN who come from outside the area) who attend Daily, Sunday or Holy Day Mass at the Our Lady of the Angels Chapel are satisfying their weekly Mass attendance, in accordance with Canon Law -- since, like any other parish in the Birmingham area, the Monastery is situated within the boundaries of the Diocese of Birmingham.

I've attempted to correct the errors in this section in good faith (including the "toilet" quote that is included in this same section, which, though based on a remark Mother Angelica made in anger, is not in the spirit of the page itself and should be deleted), but my corrections were undone (perhaps because I forgot to leave an explantation of my edits - my error).

However, I believe this entire section needs to be at the least labeled as disputed, since it does contain a number of inaccuracies or outright lies.

Please advise, and thanks in advance for your assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glades2 (talk • contribs)


 * What you seem to be saying is that there are controversies and differences of opinion, which is absolutely accurate, and is what the section says. So what you need to do is give WP:RS for counter-views, to provide proper balance. DavidOaks (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur. A way to proceed: Do the sources actually make the claims made in the article?  If not, then the article should be fixed.  If so, then the issue is twofold: are the sources reliable? and if so, are we citing them too much (or too little), that is, with undue weight?


 * The biggest drawback of the article (IMO) is not the controversial material, but it being in its own section which tends to become a ghetto of POV jockeying. It thus reads poorly, even if nominally balanced.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading your question, I believe that Robert Sungenis is being quoted or referenced to the point that the final section of the page seems to have become a vehicle for his book (as you asked, "...are we citing them too much...that is, with undue weight?") -- which is not in the spirit of this web site -- so I believe it correct to challenge this section's credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glades2 (talk • contribs)


 * What do you believe the "purpose" of Wikipedia is? That is commonly the problem that many new editors have.  Wikipedia is a collection of references.  References often disagree with one another.  Sometimes they are outright lies.  Sometimes they are proven wrong at a later point in time.  Wikipedia is not a fact-finding service that decides what is truth and what is false.  It is merely a collection of references.  To counter a reference, the common process is to find a reference that contains an opposing view and use it in the article. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that (and appreciate your opinion), but many around the world consider Wikipedia to be an "electronic encyclopedia" -- or fact -- but, since Robert Sungenis is a biased observer (he's an obvious enemy of Mother Angelica), that makes anything he says (within the section) as being subjective in nature, since it goes outside of the boundaries of explaining what EWTN does as a Catholic television network, and instead inserts opinions or references that give the reader a fictionalized version of the organization or it's problems. To quote or reference an article or book that can be substantiated is one thing, but to quote or reference a book that was obviously written by an enemy of the person who founded the organization that the Wikipedia page is being written about is another, and is the basis for my dispute...

Glades2 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Sungenis seems to represent an issue of undue weight, and there may be a way, editorially, to reduce the space given to his charges without concealing or denaturing them. At any rate, the thing you want to do is to find a reliable source that counters Sungenis, or one that identifies him as an antagonist of Mother A, so that it becomes clear to readers that there's a genuine controversy here. As stated above, Wikipedia isn't here to settle disputes, but to give the subject proper coverage. DavidOaks (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DavidOaks, thanks very much for giving me that opportunity - I'll have to research this and will get back to you directly.

Glades2 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So, far, with the exception of one article that questions in detail the scientific beliefs of Mr. Sungenis (he is a Geocentric - oh, boy), I have not found any one article that speaks of Mother Angelica as it concerns the accusations made by Mr. Sungenis in his book, however, I did find individual blogs and posts that do speak of his being critical of EWTN...

Still, the reality is that last section, as mentioned by Baccyak4H, does read poorly and IMO is unfairly written, since the reader will ultimately overlook the heading of the section and take what is written as fact - which it largely is not...

I will continue to check on any reliable sources that speak of Mr. Sungenis and EWTN...

Glades2 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was about to give up when I searched the Internet using only the name of Robert Sungenis (I guess less is more when searching the web), and found a number of articles that strongly question Mr. Sungenis and his beliefs, not only scientific but scriptural and anti-semitic as well, and in particular, one article that describes his rambling 2007 letter to the Vatican. I'm unsure whether to post the links here (since they do not mention Mother Angelica but mention his criticsm of certain aspects of the Catholic Church (including his criticsm of Pope Benedict) as compared to his version of church practices), but I have saved them if you need for me to post them here or elsewhere.

On reading a few of these articles, they do seem to serious cast doubt on his integrity as a reliable source of criticsm of EWTN, in as far as his being quoted or referenced in the last section of the Wikipedia page.

Glades2 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful not to confuse reliable with infallible. An opinion may be highly suspect but if the opinion itself is reflected accurately (that is, if Sungenis were to read it and say yep, that's what I think), then we consider the source for the opinion reliable (although the opinion itself might not be).


 * This sounds more like an issue about weight, that is, are we giving his opinion too much space in the article? Relative to what you seem to have found about him (which roughly reflects what I found, although you went deeper), it seems his opinion is usable (he is an author), but should not be given much weight.


 * If one agrees with my analysis, then there are two ways to proceed. Trim his coverage, or expand more mainstream coverage (or both).  I always prefer the latter, as it makes for better articles, but it takes more work.  Why don't you propose a more muted inclusion of Sungenis's opinion here for discussion? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine, but would it remove the last sentence of the disputed section? That sentence alone is a lie and should not be shown, since, as someone who watches the EWTN daily Mass every day, I can tell you that what Sungenis describes has never been done (to take that a step further, to do that would be a grave sin, per Canon Law, and has NEVER been a part of any celebration at the Monastery - actually, if the accusation weren't so serious I'd have to laugh, since to accuse a very conservative organization like EWTN of playing "rock music" is strange unto itself, though as the saying goes when concerning Sungenis and his accusation, "consider the source"), but in the end his odd and untrue accusation makes EWTN look very bad to anyone around the world who searches for information of them on this web site.

Thanks again for your help.

Glades2 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the source given for the last sentence and the statement in the article about the rock music is not a lie, in that the source does indeed say that. Note too that that source is not from Sungenis. Whether or not it really happened of course is a different issue, but I will add both that it will be hard to prove a negative, that it never happened (unless a source has someone claiming that it didn't, then we use editorial discretion to describe what the sources say with an eye toward NPOV), and that I have heard rock music in the bridge between a commercial and the resumption of one of its radio shows.  So the claim about the TV issue is not totally implausible.  But it is not our experience which we describe, but what the sources say.


 * I will add that I find the tone of that source quite polemic, as well as only marginally credible, if at all, for anything other than the content of the statements made during that interview (some characterizations of the faith there are quite dubious, to put it charitably). Trimming the music detail and leaving only the general modernist claim might be a good thing to do.  Let's see if there are other opinions about this.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's understood - do you think the changes you mentioned could still be done, even if no one else comments? I hope so since as you mentioned the person referenced does create an air of uncertainty, that's for sure (pardon the double entendre)...

Glades2 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, two does not a consensus make, but part of the mantra of the project is to be bold. If someone objects, they have a right to revert and ask for further discussion before finalizing a consensual change.  I went ahead and made such a change, so don't worry.  I am open to the fact that it will not stick given more dicussants, but they can read the above discussion.  Note I haven't touched Sungenis's material.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did read the last paragrah, and it does read and end better, that's for certain, since it's now stating the comments of some observers (of EWTN embracing certain earlier teachings), versus the subjective ending of someone who thinks they heard rock music. As you said, we'll see if it remains! Glades2 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, nice cleanup, especially of the inline book links. --CliffC (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)