Talk:Word on Fire

Church Militant is hardly a source
This paragraph should be removed, an opinion piece from Church Militant does not warrant that much attention. Furthermore the claims made are fallacious, and without evidence.

" Some traditional Catholic critics however have noticed that the series, while being relevant for providing basic teachings of the Catholic doctrine to the secular world also thought splendid and beautiful imagery, follows in different parts a strongly ecumenical viewpoint, failing to adequately present and discuss the more controversial topics of hell, sin, sexual morality and the necessity of the Church for salvation, even reducing in some cases the mission of Jesus Christ as a bearer of social justice values. Some parts also appear to be in contrast with traditional Catholic teachings, especially regarding the nature of hell and heaven or when the existence of Adam and Eve is denied." Constantine Phaulkon (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I reinserted the comment as a note to the article, instead of inside the body text, to provide readers a quick overview of the main critical points highlighted in the review. There is no denying that Church Militant has sometimes very questionable viewpoints on some subjects, still the review is well researched and documented, and the claims made are supported by original sources and direct quotations from bishop Barron's interventions. Stating otherwise seems more an ideological position, unless you can provide proof of the claims you deem fallacious and without evidence. Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I won't edit the note, but I would respond that such a lengthy section regarding a movie review from a dubious source, regarding a single series from the Word on Fire catalogue has little to do with this purpose of this article. It doesn't seem worthy of being a note for this reason. Given that the nature of the paragraph and source are explicitly ideological, insisting on such a random footnote is a greater indicator of ideological bias. Constantine Phaulkon (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As said, the source may be ideological, but the review is well researched and the claims reported in the note reflect the main points expressed in the show found to be problematic or in open contrast with traditional Catholic teaching. This information is relevant for those who have watched the series and wish to dig deeper into Catholic faith or for those who want to better understand the flair of Catholicism expressed by this show. Then of course, this article could be certainly improved, and more (positive) information added, to show the breadth of the media catalog offered by WoF and the merits and impact it made on the new evangelization. That, however, is another point. Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)