User talk:LCP

Talk Archive:

"Contemporary Roman Catholic views" is a mess
The more I look at it, the less I understand the edits made to it by ADM over the weekend. For example, the section starts by talking about how nuances of Catholic teaching have been overlooked of late. This makes no sense without the context of the version of last week. I've started reorganizing, but it is such a mess, I am leaning toward a full-blown revert. Anyone else have any thoughts?LCP (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would add that the term Church teaching just means the positions taken by various Catholic leaders, especially Popes, Cardinals and Archbishops, on various issues. Please note that the mode of Catholic decision-making on social issues is not based on things like the texts of the Bible, early theology, modern science, the women's rights movement or representative democracy, but that it works a lot like a conservative political party, which has a President and a College of public representatives, who each have to try to build a consensus. Their views are their own and not anyone else's. ADM (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statements belie a profound ignorance of Catholicism and how Jesus has set up his Church. Please read the article on Apostolic succession. And then, read the article on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Among other things, it points out, "The contents are abundantly footnoted with references to sources of the teaching, in particular the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils and other authoritative Catholic statements, principally those issued by recent Popes." Finally, you can look up Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church for an examination of how the Magisterium interacts with scientific findings. Having said all that, I have to add that you are correct on one very important point: The Church is not a representative democracy. Jesus didn't set it up that way. If you want truth by democracy instead of truth by the Holy Spirit, there are several options. If you like the feel of orthodoxy (without all of that pesky Roman Catholic business about the Pope and apostolic authority), you might try the Episcopalians. I hear the laity has recently voted to give their bishops permission to bless homosexual unions; if that isn't democracy, I don't know what is! LCP (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My statement merely reflects the assent given by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi. If we really believe the Church is the Body of Christ, then we must believe that the Magisterium of the Church is authentically guided by a Spirit-led authority which actually expresses divine intentions for the pastoral care of humanity's flock. According to this perspective, which is abundantly found in the texts of Vatican II (i.e. Lumen Gentium, Ecclesiam Suam), the truth of the Church speaks on its own because it is the truth. Citing Jesus in an individual and historical manner is okay, but it doesn't necessarily express the more profound mystery of Christ being fully united to his Spouse the Church. ADM


 * Please forgive me if I mistook your intention. You said, "I would add that the term 'Church teaching' just means..." and you added info about a rogue group that claims to be Roman Catholic but which is rejected by Roman Catholic leadership. Granted that, it seemed to me you were downplaying the importance of the Magisterium in Roman Catholic teaching. By the way, there is no need to post comments in more than one place. Either here or on the Christianity and abortion page would have been fine.LCP (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Christianity and abortion
Be aware of WP:CANVASS. You have been leaving a number of posts to editors regarding Christianity and abortion, making it clear you oppose one editors' edits, and attacking her character and generally showing ABF. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the message I left:
 * "Your objective input is requested on Christianity and abortion


 * "I am currently on the brink of an edit war with a revisionist contributor (User:IronAngelAlice) who wants the Christianity and abortion section to suggest that Christianity has taken a somewhat equivocal and lenient view of abortion. Your objective opinion would be greatly appreciated. Please look at the history. Thanks!LCP (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)"


 * As you can see, there is no character attack, and while I did suggest I disagreed with the edits, I also make it clear that I was looking for objective feedback.LCP (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the linked policy. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. I indicated that I disagreed with the other editor and I didn't leave a note on the discussion page of the topic in question. Thanks for the tip. I'll be more circumspect next time.LCP (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. You are more than welcome. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abortion
Who is that twit? She is completely misrepresenting history. I don't have a lot of time, but I have done what I can. I don't know if I will play too much more of a role. What is evident is that she has an agenda and is seeking to twist the article to meet her desires. I particularly like the way she reverted my edits on Lutheran as an Anon; that is a type of stupidity that is seldom seen.

Have you posted this article on the Christianity wikiproject page? We need to get more editors involved in order to assist in controlling her efforts to turn the article into her personal soapbox. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have had several run-ins in the past. It is the same story wherever she goes. It makes editing very painful. I don't have much time either. And no, I have not posted the article on the Christianity wikiproject page. Nor do I know how. If doing so isn't time consuming, can you do so? Thanks!!!LCP (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)