Talk:Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

Name
Wow, I wonder if this is the longest article name on wikipedia or what? The Ungovernable Force 07:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is. But it's the *exact* title of the publication in English (as published by Vatican forces). Couldn't see any part of the title being "subtitle", so this page name is completely conform to naming conventions (books). --Francis Schonken 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But maybe the name could be simplified? Like "2005 Vatican instruction on homosexuals in the priesthood"? ::Lumendelumine 08:35, Dec 23 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the longest article title. For instance, Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D is longer. —Lowellian (reply) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not Neutral POV
This article is clearly written from a LGBT-friendly POV. Let's please remember WP:NPOV and keep in mind that just because someone doesn't agree with Church teaching doesn't mean there shouldn't be balanced presentation. 65.182.51.67 05:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT rights organisations?
The article states that "a person openly supporting LGBT rights organisations" would be barred from the priesthood. Given that the Catechism states that people with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2358), support of LGBT rights organisations would seem to be justified, since "gay culture" doesn't mean the same thing as gay (or LGBT) rights.134.226.1.194 09:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, that commentary is factually challenged. Such a disqualification would depend on which organization they supported, based on its promotion, or not, of gay culture.  Actually, that whole section is written quite poorly and can use some reworking....Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I consolidated a lot of the content across the whole article, removed some dubious OR, and improved the style significantly.  I wouldn't object to a prudent rename of the whole article, but am not going to suggest a name at this time.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Austrian sex scandal?
Someone put an uncited comment in the lead paragraph about an "Austrian sex scandal". There was no indication what this was about, and all the links were to general terms like "Austria". So I removed it. --John Nagle 07:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I provided references, and converted footnotes to current Footnotes technology. --Francis Schonken 09:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did a bit of cleanup on the style, but didn't make any substantive changes. --John Nagle 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability?
Someone tagged the article with a "notability" tag, with no explaination. This instruction was written up in the New York Times, The Guardian, and many other major papers, and is so cited. It set off a major controversy and is still an issue. --John Nagle (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge
I suggest that we merge this page into the larger article on homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood. My reasoning is that it provides a lot of detail on recent Vatican interventions on discipline - but focuses just on one specific document. By merging it into the other article it will improve the other article considerably in terms of context. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The document is significant in its own right, and (on the other hand) only gives an early 21st century approach; the general discussion would be broader than the 21st century document. So, no, not a good idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The document is notable enough in its own right. It made a list of the "top religion stories of 2005". Much press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is notable, but I think it makes more sense having a context. May be it's really a candidate for wikisource rather than a standalone article. I just can't see the merits of having something separate. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with merger. To echo the above commentators, the document is notable in its own right. —Lowellian (reply) 18:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320162135/http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320162135/http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm to http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2005/newsflash-dec20-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325154015/http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf to http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325154015/http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf to http://www.nacdlgm.org/pr112905.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)