Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy/Archive 1

Moved this discussion from Talk:Anti-Catholicism in order to involve a wider audience.

Straw vote for the purpose of determining consensus
QUESTION: Should differences regarding church doctrine and church governance be moved to Criticism of the Catholic Church? Anti-Catholic bigotry will stay here.

Votes in favor

 * 1) Richard
 * 2) Wesley 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Brendanhodge 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved "opposition to church doctrine and church governance" to Criticism of the Catholic Church
In advance of the final outcome of the vote below, I have made this move because User:Vaquero has changed the intro of the Anti-Catholicism article in such a way that the text in question clearly is incompatible with the intro. Like anything else in Wikipedia, this move can be undone if the consensus runs in that direction. However, at this point in time, it appears the consensus is leaning towards moving the text out of this article.

--Richard 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IF you must move things, discuss them in detail here. The move became a mess on TWO article instead of just this article. Dominick (TALK) 14:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dominick, I acknowledge that there might be more than one opinion about where stuff belongs. Nonetheless, I did make the move based on prior discussion in this Talk Page.  The fact that YOU disagree with what other people said doesn't mean that YOU are right and the others are wrong.  I thought I was making an uncontroversial move of stuff that I either moved here or wrote myself.  I don't think I moved out much that had been here before I came to this article.  (I grant that I may not be 100% accurate on this but it's true for the most part.)


 * When I first moved that stuff here from the Roman Catholic Church article, somebody said "Hey, this article should be for stuff more along the lines of anti-Semitism." I explained that I was looking for a home for it and it seemed to be out of place in the Roman Catholic Church (see my comments to that effect above).  When somebody (I think it was T. Anthony) mentioned the Criticism of the Catholic Church article, I thought "Yeah, that way we can leave Anti-Catholicism for stuff that is along the lines of anti-Semitism.


 * I thought this was an uncontroversial move. Apparently, it's not.  Let's discuss it.  I think my previous comments on this Talk Page show that I try to be reasonable.  It would be great if we can agree on a systematic definition of what belongs in each of the three articles Roman Catholic Church,Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism.


 * Personally, I agree that disagreements over church doctrine and church governance are not the same kind of animal as irrational bigotry. If this article is about irrational bigotry, then none of the stuff that I moved this morning belongs in this article.  Believe it or not, it's not bigotry to suggest that some Catholic teachings (saints, indulgences, purgatory, etc.) are unbiblical.  You may not agree but, at the end of the day, it's a theological argument.


 * Comparing the Catholic church to the "whore of Babylon" and the pope to the AntiChrist?  Hmmm... It is a theological dispute but maybe this is crossing over into the area of irrational bigotry.  Maybe those charges should be documented here with reference to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article for the detailed explanation.: --Richard 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed all the content moves, but I just wanted to say that it makes sense to distinguish between plain bigotry and reasoned disagreements, like you're doing. Many times what begins as a reasoned disagreement can be turned into plain bigotry though, and that's where the line gets blurry. Identifying someone as a "heretic" can be an expression of strong theological disagreement in one context, and incitement for mob violence in another. See the Christianity and anti-Semitism article for how some people interpret the New Testament as inherently antisemitic because antisemites have quoted it and claim to be motivated by it, for example.


 * Once everyone agrees on which stuff goes where, the intro sections should make clear what is and is not in each article with a link to the other, so that the distinction might have a chance of being maintained in the future when new contributors come along and don't read the volumes of Talk pages to learn what's been hashed out. :-) Wesley 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Theological Disagreements
I have been giving this some thought. It seems to me that even strong theological disagreement may be made in an atmosphere of charity and mutual respect. Failure to recognise this fact is how Christians in general and Catholics in particular are accused of being anti-gay, when mere disagreement does not imply hatred or animosity. This is a very important distinction which is essential to maintaining civility in a pluralistic society.

Okay, off the soapbox. I would like to suggest that theologically distinct positions be mentioned on the Roman Catholic Church page with a link to the page of the group or church or movement which holds such disagreement. For instance, sola scriptura should be discussed at length on a reformation page. The RCC article should make reference to such a topic and refer to reader who wants more information. The same should hold for theological disagreements over the papacy, for instance, provided they are rational responses to the papacy. However, claims that the pope controls the world's media, has plans to take over the world or was the driving force behind Hitler, for example, really does belong here. Again, I would welcome any and all comments. --Vaquero100 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those comments, Vaquero. I agree with you.  However, the folks over at the Roman Catholic Church article disagree with you.  They want to restrict any discussion of theological disputes to those which are INTERNAL to the Catholic church.  The sort of disputes with Protestants that I have been writing about here do not, in their opinion, belong in that article.  That is why I moved them here.  See below for a discussion of whether theological disputes belong on this page or on the Criticism of the Catholic Church page.  Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.
 * --Richard 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the theological stuff should be on the Criticism of the Catholic Church page. The most bizarre/fringe theological notions, like the ones about secret pagan rituals being at the Vatican for example, would stay here.--T. Anthony 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I agree with you. However, I did that on Thursday morning (yesterday).  I moved all the theological and church governance stuff to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article based on discussion here.  Dominick reverted my move and made the "Making a MESS of a MESS" comment below.  At the current time, the vote is two-to-one in favor of the move,  T. Anthony and Richard in favor of the move and Dominick against.  That's a pretty thin margin and damn small quorum to be called a "consensus".  I'd like to hear what other people think.


 * --Richard 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all confused here. I think the immediate effect of the move could mess things up a little, but then you just clean it up afterwards. In the short-term I maybe see what Dominick meant, but in the long term I think moving most of that stuff is a good idea.--T. Anthony 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, we now have 3 in favor of the move and 1 against (Dominick). I'm going to start a vote just to try and reach a more formal "consensus".  For the time being, I am not going to issue an RfC unless someone else feels that we should do so.


 * --Richard 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This isnt the way to do this
Not at all. Please talk this out on the Talk page. Dominick (TALK) 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)