Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 16 September 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Catholic Church has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed January 30, 2008 Peer review Reviewed February 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 1, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 19, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept October 4, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholic Church article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 27, 2007.

Compromise?

(Roman) Catholic Church? Catholic Church (Roman)? Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, another possible article title could also be "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)", although it is a bit longer than the other proposals above. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no need to go into the naming issue again. It was decided according to independently arbitrated consensus and Misplaced Pages naming-policies, just a few weeks ago. The common name is Catholic Church. The self-identifying name is Catholic Church. You do not put a disambiguator on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most of the people who have posted above in favour of RCC are either those who did not accept the result of the lengthy and full dispute-mediation process, or are drive-by posters who have refused to engage with the debate and the relevant policies. And we know from past history that even one of the unsatisfactory artificial constructions above would not end matters. Xandar 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not force us to use "Catholic Church" as an article title, it states "that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article", so it states that we could also use it as a redirect, and as far as I see, the WP:NCDAB is clear enough in stating that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". (And as it was mentioned before, an article called "Catholic Church" can also refer to the religious concept "catholic Church" (which is important for many Churches), and the following book even claims that "The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too.".) Also, the WP:NCON claims that when there are more self-identifying entities claiming the same name (and as discussed before, there are more self-identifying entities claiming this title), we should use disambiguation ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."). (And that "Maputa" example, does not claim that the "Maputans" also called themselves "Cabindans".) Also, the WP:NPOV states "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.", this means that we should choose a less controversial self-identifying name, "Roman Catholic Church" is also a self-identifying name, and at least in my opinion, it is less controversial and also less ambiguous. As far as I see, it is "subjective criteria" to give to just one self-identifying entity, a title (without any disambiguation) which is claimed by multiple self-identifying entities. So, as far as I see, the wiki naming policies and guidelines don't really support the current article title without any disambiguation. However, those things were already mentioned several times earlier, although they seem to have been ignored, but there was nonetheless discussion about naming policies and guidelines regarding this. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Majoreditor (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And no again. There is no reason to even discuss the topic again this soon after the arbitration ended. A year or two from now, maybe. Now, no. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Slip of the fingers there. There was no arbitration. Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you John Carter, I think you also meant to say mediation, not arbitration. The mediation just ended a month ago with vast consensus agreement to name the page Catholic Church per review of Misplaced Pages naming policy rules and evidence of scholarly and tertiarty sources that all say Catholic Church is the name this church has "claimed as its title". We found zero tertiary or scholarly sources that say any other church has claimed this name as their title. NancyHeise 02:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One would think that the "Misplaced Pages Rules" are carved in stone by an authoritative body. So now we end up with the situation that a small group of mainly anonymous editors can now ensure that Misplaced Pages conforms to the requirements of one organization and which is in opposition to the vast majority of independent and reliable published reference sources which use "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholicism" as the name of their article (See data section above). Surely this can't be right? Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of original research, proving this name or that, but rather reporting on independent academic consensus. Taam (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We've done all the research very thoroughly during the mediation. This was one of the benefits of having a long, focussed mediation, rather than a few drive-by posters saying their granny thinks the name is X. The objective research done during the official dispute-resolution process shows that Catholic Church is the most commonly-used name in English and that it is the self-identifying name. It is also the name attested by our most reliable references. All Misplaced Pages naming convention requirements are more than met for the current title. Xandar 11:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, it's hard to figure out where to begin addressing the string of inaccuracies (and possible misrepresentations) in your post. To imply that the lengthy discussion, mediation, etc. that preceded the title change was the work of "a small group of mainly anonymous editors" is outlandish. Links to the discussion have been given so many times, so I'll spare everyone another. Misplaced Pages is not conforming to any organization, the title is consistent with, not in opposition to the vast majority of independent and reliable sources, and CC brings the article in line with WP policies and guidelines. Those that oppose CC as the title have consistently based their argument on original research, potential third party sensitivities, previous theological and political considerations and other irrelevant material. Disagree with the title if you want, but at least have the intellectual honesty to accurately represent how we got to this point. --anietor (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Just to recap: the naming of an article such as this one can be contentious as you know well by now. In order to determine what name should be used I follow the precedent of independent reference and academic sources which overwhelmingly uses "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholicism". I do not see it worthy of a badge of honor to proclaim that Misplaced Pages goes it's own way and boasts about not following independent academic world. I can understand with a new emerging event in the world that naming of a new article may involve doing original research to find out what the consensus is in the absence of published reliable independent academic sources. But that is not the case in this instance, for we have plenty of such sources who overwhelmingly use "Roman Catholic Church" or close variant. All this was overlooked apparently so now we have a Misplaced Pages article that is completely out of step with nearly all similar published independent reference sources and common sense tells me that cannot be right. Misplaced Pages comes top of the Google search engine so often and is used daily by many thousands of people yet this article was changed by a relatively small group of editors of unknown academic status, contrary to the ways of the rest of the world in major independent reference sources. This link list all such reference sources I have been able to find so far. As regards intellectual honesty, this is something a value very dearly in a person so if you feel I'm being obtuse in this matter I would indeed appreciate you taking the time to explain why my analysis is flawed and not simply resort to legalism and invoke a rule which in turn may only have come about by another small group of editors of unknown academic status. In a nutshell is Misplaced Pages for following independent academic consensus or not? Taam (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the issue, in case you didn't notice among the flurry of posts, has been closed again. Thus, to be blunt, please shut up about it. Second, you, Taam, seem to be the ONLY person claiming that academic and reference sources "overwhelmingly" use Roman. Frankly, I don't know how you can say that, either, considering all the evidence to the contrary that has been presented to you. You say it is us who overlook it, but does that make any sense? That dozens of editors overlook something while one does not? Is it not more likely that you're just not paying attention well enough?Farsight001 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your contribution though, possibly due to my poor prose, you do not seem to have dealt with the issue raised. I have given a link to my user page which lists all the major independent and reliable reference sources and what they say regarding the naming of entries and articles relating to the subject of this article. Please note the emphasis on independent and the need for neutrality on contentious names, i.e we know the claims the Church makes for herself but the point is in neutral significant academic reference works "Roman Catholic Church", or a close derivative, is overwhelmingly used according to my findings. If you disagree with this then please link to where you have established that this is not the case. I have put up the evidence I have found to back my case. If you show me this is incorrect, and that for reasons not clear to me at present my analysis is wrong, then I will gladly walk away. Taam (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course the hubris involved in calling the Roman Catholic the one and only Catholic church is overwhelmingly contentious. Also the ignorance of people claiming that the Greeks should give up a word from their language to the Euro-centrcs is mind blogging. No one wants to address what that means to say that Greeks no longer have a right to a word in their language. If you doubt read this comment..

May I also point out that when the Orthodox Church Split from the Supreme Authority of Rome, it lost all rights to claim the name is previously had as Catholic Church. --Rockstone (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How can any of this be productive? This is to say that people are not allowed to use their own language and their own words ("Greek" the word Catholic is GREEK the word Universa is Latin)? And for any Orthodox wishing to doubt this (show your loyalty) then they will have to and therefore must stop reciting the creed. WON'T THEY -no ecumenism. Do people really think that people will not be able to figure this out? This level of arrogance and unilateral behavior is breath taking. We Orthodox are not part of the Catholic church anymore? We can't use the Greek word for Universal to describe ourselves? And for people here who disagree with the word being Greek and belonging to the Greek language (using political dirty pool-gnosticism) to have this article named their way. How unethical a power grab is this? Now people here who are not Greek are literally taking a word away from the Greek people and the Greek language. Even though they have an English word and a Latin word that they can use instead? And the dirty pool here telling people they are no allowed to object and to shut up the debate is over, well I think that this shows just how loving Christian this organization really is. And also what people can expect when they raise objections.. Dirty Pool- gnosticism. As if something wrong is justified in and because the wrong thing is a wide spread claim or commonality. Arguing over words and political power play, rather then balanced truth. Sophistry and nihilistic relativism (filthy poshlust mysticism) rule the day. Not only are the objectors browbeaten but then the uncalled for, but so is the disrespectful behavior to the "other" Christians here too. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it appears the wounds of the past continue to cause pain today. If you have been offended, please accept our apology. I would ask you to consider that thoughts, beliefs, and doctrines of one group do not hinder, infringe, or invalidate the beliefs, doctrines, and faith of another. I would also propose that church names do not have an impact either. Catholic Church is the name of an organization; it is not a limitation or a proclamation of exclusivity. Even if it was intended as such, it would still have no impact upon my beliefs or my church affiliation. Many churches proclaim to the the "one" true church, but their proclamation is a statement of faith and does not block or lessen my own faith. The Orthodox Church remains vibrant, intact, and living. Her name does not invalidate the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church just as the CC's name does not invalidate the catholicity of the Orthodox Church. This whole discussion must be framed solely in regards to the name of the church and has nothing to do with the doctrine, beliefs, and faith of any other church. --Rider 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Stormrider this poshlust is just unjustified. Your an excellent person with what appears is a good heart. But people telling each other to please shut up is way past unacceptable.I have never met an everyday RCC christian that I didn't think the world of or love dearly. We are told from pulpit all men are brothers and to love everyone. There is no love here this stuff is lowdown and shameful. No one is listening, and yet everyone is getting hateful to get heard. Uncalled for and not Christ- like. No love only power-lust and self-righteous poshlust.LoveMonkey (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is a name used by more organizations. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FS: "Second, you, Taam, seem to be the ONLY person claiming that academic and reference sources "overwhelmingly" use Roman." Well, I don't know about academic sources, but I've certainly said that most reference books in English have their entries under R. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you call a reference book. EB and Oxford dictionaries do not decide our naming. Common names and self-identifyying names are the relevant criteria. However, I'm afraid that Cody and LM will never agree with consensus on this issue. Xandar 21:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So is it Rubbish to say its shameful to imply that a couple of editors and their consensus on Misplaced Pages should carry more weight then say Encyclopedia Britanicca? Tell me how so? Mr calling valid sources rubbish.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For Taam and others in this discussion

• Academic American Encyclopedia is cited by 92 books per
• The following excerpt comes from page 211 of Volume 4:
• "Catholic - The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning "universal". It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (d. about AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished true believers from false believers. After the break (1054) between the Western church and the Eastern church, it was used to identify the Western church, the Eastern church was called orthodox. At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a distinction was made between "Roman" Catholics and members of the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the time of the Oxford Movement in the 19th century. In popular usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with the Church of Rome."
• This excerpt was authored by John E. Booty, it is found on page 211 of Volume 4 of Academic American Encyclopedia, year 1995 published by Grolier, Inc. ISBN 0717220591
• Encyclopedia Americana has the article for Catholic Church at "Catholic Church" with a "See Catholic Church" at the entry for "Roman Catholic Church".
• These are independent sources, encyclopedias that supplement the other encyclopedias, dictionaries and our scholarly source, McBrien's The Church - all of which say the same thing, that the Church claimed "Catholic Church" as its title. This is obviously not a WP:NPOV problem since both Catholic and non-Catholic sources agree on this fact, a fact that is not disputed by academia but only on this Misplaced Pages page. NancyHeise 00:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Concordat etc

Haldraper and Taam have been adding pieces to the section dealing with Nazi Germany. I have edited these additions. 1) The concordat was suddenly introduced with no explanation of what a concordat is or does, or the prior history of concordats. As such a reader would gain the impression that was some sort of special treaty of alliance and common-views between the Church and the Nazi party, rather than a standard procedure for protecting the religious freedom of the church, signed with any country that will do so. Unwarranted claims were made for this particular concardat validating Nazi Germany. 2) The Lapide figures for the rescue of jews were removed uneccessarily. 3) A vague and highly emotive statement was added in the form of a quote to the extent that the Vatican helped Nazi war criminals. I think I know what is being hinted at. But even if the incidents sometimes alleged were noteworthy enough to be in this section, it would need to be in a factual not hysteric manner. Xandar 23:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Pinchas Lapide and David Dalin

User Savidan deleted the Lapide reference, wisely imo, and advised in the edit summary to check the article Three Popes and the Jews for background information. Xandar reverted this with no explanation. I expanded the cited source to include what the author said with regard to the non-factual basis of Lapide's figures, i.e István Deák was being selectively quoted. Xandar has no problem including an out of context quotation from Deak used in a dramatic fashion and lacking a factual basis but then objects to another of Deaks observations regarding rat lines from the same page because it looks emotional and lacking facts! One flatters and the other doesn't. Haldraper, despite Xandar's edits the Nazis thought that the 1933 concordat was special, Bergen (Nazi Ambassador to the Vatican) described it as "unique"(p. 131) and of the 38 agreements made by the papacy between 1919-1938 "none was more controversial or had a greater impact on the reputation and the moral integrity of the Church than that with Nazi Germany."(p. 120) and whilst it is described "as not intending to give legitimacy to the Nazi regime"..."that was it's consequence".(p. 181) Taken from "Controversial concordats", Frank J. Coppa, CUA Press, 1999, ISBN 081320920X In short your idea to expand this section seems well founded. Taam (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unreferenced additions to the section which were inserted with neither discussion nor consensus - they make the section longer and move the discussion off point. Pinchas Lapide is the most respected Israeli historian, his work interviewing WWII and holocaust survivors is considered "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar on the subject". . NancyHeise 01:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and another historian apparently calls that definitive work "consistently erroneous" as well as "replete with egregious mistakes and distortions", according to references in the Wiki article on Three Popes and the Jews. Gimmetrow 03:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And other historians support it. In any event I think serious disagreements are with regard to exact numbers helped rather than the principle. On this issue there have been a whole slew of politically-opinionated and often scurrilous works produced to make certain points, which is why we have to stick to relevant facts and not seek out emotive-sounding phrases. Xandar 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam inserted information on the Pinchas Lapide estimate as disputed by historian Istvan Deak. Since other historians consider his work to be the most important and accurate of any historian, I have added this POV also. The sentence now reveals both POV's without eliminating the fact that Pinchas Lapide, a non-Catholic Israeli historian who actually interviewed survivors, said what he said. NancyHeise 15:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add one other point for the moment, there are many others matters of concern in this section, regarding the Lapid claims that Savidan wanted deleted due to unreliablility of the numbers stated. Nancy Heisse has now added the the following colorful passage "others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust" quoting David Dalin as Lapides shining authority. However I don't feel this is justified. On p. 99 "The myth of Hitler's Pope" David Dalin states, supposedly quoting directly from Time Magazine, that Einstein paid tribute to the moral "courage" of Pope Pius and the Catholic Church in opposing "the Hitlerian onslaught" on liberty and that "only the Catholic Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign..." Time Magazine December 23 1940, 38-40. However the Time Magazine article is now online and we can see that contrary to what Dalin asserts there is no mention of Pope Pius or the Catholic Church in the article, he has added to what the article actually says and makes it look like a direct quotation. What are we now to make of the dishonesty claims Dalin seems so quick to attribute to others who don't share his views? Unlike him I think we should be generous and just assume a mistake but lets not treat him as the article does as an infallible source that sanctifies the opinions of Pinchas Lapide. As other scholars have remarked about Dalin's research "a generalization as inaccurate as Dalin's will not bear scrutiny"...b"such a simplistically polemical description scarcely makes recognizable the critics Dalin most has in mind"...Dalin's claims are as dubious as they are sweeping. (Ritner, Carol and Roth, John K. (eds.). 2002. Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. New York: Leicester University Press. ISBN 0-7185-0275-2) Based on facts viewable online at Time Magazine what these scholars say seems to based on something substantial rather than just opinion warring and bad mouthing, something Dalin seems to indulge in frequently. I'm with Savidan on this issue. Taam (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam raises an important point, the tendency of some editors to remove primary sources in favour of (mis)interpretations of them by their favourite authors. For example, my link to the official English translation of Mit brennender Sorge (on the Vatican website no less) was speedily replaced by quotes from priests/scholars whose over egging of the pudding on this subject is discussed on the encyclical's own page. The Lollards had the right idea: let people read the text in their own language and form their own conclusions rather than filtered through the dubious works of agenda-pushing academics.Haldraper (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we decide to say about Pinchas Lapide and Dalin, it should be done in a Note. The main text of the article should not appear to argue with itself. If we decide that it is worth noting the debate about the assertions made by Pinchas Lapide, we should simply say something like "There is some debate about the role that the Church played regarding the persecution of Jews by the Nazi and Fascist regimes. Some have criticized the Church for not doing more to oppose it; others have praised it for saving hundreds of thousands of Jews from death at the risk." Any discussion of specific sources should be relegated to a Note. --Richard (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any serious debate about the fact that the Church saved many hundreds of thousands of jews. That is a fact. And as for Rabbi Dalin - he certainly has no motivation to be acting as a propagandist for the Catholic Church on this issue. Not only does Taam want to exclude Catholic scholars. He now wants to badmouth even Jewish scholars who support the Church's point of view on the holocaust. Xandar 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before it's the absence of sound Catholic scholarship I lament in this article and the presence of loaded apologetics from polemicists of whatever religious stripe. I objected to the latter(in the form of Davild Dalin) being used to give some air of certainty to the Pinchas Lapide numbers when he himself is not a paragon of impartiality according to other scholarly sources. Just because David Dalin is now employed by a bastion of a certain brand of Catholicism (Ave Maria College) is no reason to exclude him but when so called "conservative" Pius defenders do not like his scholarship then I feel there is just cause for not using him as a shining authority for validating the claims of Pinchas Lapide who himself is not universally accepted as a reliable source on this matter. I gave an example of Dalins scholarship with links to the original source material but as usual Xandar ignores this and prefers to hint that anyone who is looking for accuracy is either anti-catholic or anti-Jewish, shameful. Taam (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have moved all this discussion of sources and their credibility into a Note and left behind what I think is a fairly NPOV summary of the debate. --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Background context of 'Mit brennender Sorge'

The problem with the section on relations between the Church and the Nazis is that it skips 1933-36 and jumps right to 1937 giving the erroneous impression that 'Mit brennender Sorge' fell from the air one day rather than being a response to violations of the Reichskonkordat, especially article 31. Without this context, the reader is given the false impression that the Church was always a principled and implacable opponent of Nazism. It amuses me how some editors present the published opinions of their favourite Catholic priests as 'academic consensus' but reject mainstream historians who make the valid point that the Reichskonkordat gave the Nazis a degree of international legitimacy they would not otherwise have had.Haldraper (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you raise an excellent point about the relevance of the concordat and it should be included - with citations. Also agree with your point about sourcing - if you look back on this page you will see several errors that have already been fixed in this one small section yet all claiming to be from reliable sources. Errors happen with us all but tend to be randomly distributed when it's not bias at work, but in this section it was all in the direction of flattering the Church and it's in this context the attempt to eliminate reference to the Concordat can be viewed. Taam (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Haldraper, it didn't take you long to get away from the view that we need to cut the History section! It's always good to see repentance. As I've said, to introduce the concordat, you have to set it in context, what it does, why, and past German concordats. Maybe you also have to mention anti-clericalism and the Kulturkampf. Is it important enough to earn all this space? Especially when its only usage seems to be by some journalists and popular historians to imply (falsely) that the Church in some way supported Hitler. The idea that the concordat gave Hitler some added legitimacy is a (minority?) opinion. Hitler already had international recognition and legitimacy in the Four-Power Pact. And Taam, there is a difference between "flattering" the Church, and not putting in statements specifically designed to imply events that didn't happen, or chains of causality that are pure speculation. Xandar 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No Xandar, I still think it needs radically cutting down but not being able to reach consensus on that point doesn't mean we can't try to make it more NPOV. At the moment it is very one sided and as Taam say only includes views flattering to the Church. Only someone writing from a Catholic POV would omit 1933-36 and jump straight to 1937 when the Church came out against the Nazis.Haldraper (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My view on the concordat is this: unless university textbooks give undue weight to the issue, neither should we. Right now, the concordat is not a significant event that is viewed by scholars as anything other than a diplomatic effort between one independent state with the leaders of another independant state. There is nothing in the concordat that encourages killing Jews so why is this an issue? The Nazi's were in power, other independent states signed agreements (concordats) with them, diplomatic efforts are supposed to be exhausted before calling for war and this was a diplomatic effort before the war - one which exposed the Nazis for what they really were - monsters. If the Catholic Church did not sign the concordat before the war, they would not have been the first to know what the Nazis were up to. It was the Church who was the first to denounce the Nazis and warn the German people against them - something they suffered in order to do - because they had the advantage of seeing how the Nazis reacted to the concordat. If anyone wants to insert more information on the concordat, then lets give both sides but I argue that more information gives undue weight to the issue and makes the article go off topic. Maybe this information would be more appropriate on Pius XII or Catholic Church and the Holocaust where the concordat is discussed in greater detail and does not give both sides of the issue. NancyHeise 15:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nancy but you've either missed or decided to evade the central point. We're discussing relations between the Church and the Nazis. The Nazis came to power in 1933 yet the account in the article starts with 'Mit brennender Sorge' in 1937, without mentioning the Reichskonkordat signed in 1933 or the violations of it that led to that encyclical. It doesn't matter whether you think the concordat was right or wrong, there would have been no 'Mit brennender Sorge' without it because there would have been nothing for the Nazis to violate. You seem to want to exclude any mention of the Reichskonkordat in case it reflects badly on the Church, however much that skews history and makes 'Mit brennender Sorge' seem like a sudden clerical whim rather than a reaction to the Nazis' actions. I can live without the academic reference to how the Reichskonkordat was perceived internationally but to exclude any mention of it radically misrepresents the context in which 'Mit brennender Sorge' was written.Haldraper (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your edit adding mention of the concordat with wikilink. I think that is a good edit. It does not mention that the Church was persecuted by Nazis just prior to signing the concordat which was meant to protect people from further persecution by same Nazis.. However that can be added to the page on the concordat I suppose. NancyHeise 16:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy, yes I agree that the place for further discussion of the Reichskonkordat is on its own page, what is important here is making clear the link between the violation of it by the Nazis and 'Mit brennender Sorge'.Haldraper (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. NancyHeise 16:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read the section again, as well as Mit brennender Sorge and the English translation of it on the Vatican website, a few more improvements strike me.

"the encyclical 'Mit brennender Sorge' in which Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology – especially its theory of racial superiority"... labelled the Nazi leadership "insane and arrogant" is one academic viewpoint (and is referenced as such) but is certainly not the only one as the Mit brennender Sorge page points out. To take one example, the "Wahnprophet" ("insane prophet") passage in the original encyclical is very oblique and certainly does not openly label the Nazi leadership as "insane and arrogant". I think it would be better to have a direct quote from the encyclical condemning Nazi racism ("the so-called myth of race and blood"), an inline reference to the encyclical on the Vatican website and the exisiting wikilink so people can read about the different academic assessments of it.

"and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization" is also a rather debateable statement. What about the Confessing Church who issued a similar anti-Nazi statement in 1936 and had 3,000 pastors, 700 of whom were arrested by the Nazis? Maybe better just to strike that sentence than get into a debate about it?Haldraper (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One more point: although it continued after it, persecution of the Church, including show trials of monks, led to 'Mit brennender Sorge' rather than the other way round, see http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2857&CFID=14409674&CFTOKEN=17908316Haldraper (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Confessing Church was not a major organisation but a pressure group in the Protestant Church, most of which had adopted the Aryan Paragraph expelling all pastors and officials of Jewish origin. The idea that the Catholic Church was just protesting about attacks on itself is also false, since a major theme in Catholic attacks on Nazism was its racist and utilitarian ideology. Xandar 22:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, who is suggesting the Church was only protesting at its own persecution? I'm proposing a direct quote from the encyclical that condemns Nazi racism.

On your other point, how do we define 'official' and 'major'? The Nazis had obviously been denounced by their political opponents and Jewish organisations long before 1937, e.g according to encyclopedia.com: "In March 1933 Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the Free Synagogue in New York, founder of the Zionist American Jewish Congress, organized a meeting in Madison Square Garden to protest the new German government's persecution of Jews. An estimated fifty thousand people, more than the arena could hold, showed up to hear former New York governor Alfred E. Smith, current New York senator Robert Wagner, Bishop William Manning of the Episcopal Church, and Methodist bishop Francis McConnell join Rabbi Wise in condemning Nazi atrocities." Are these people not official enough or the organisations they represent not major enough?Haldraper (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike those American organisations, the Catholic Church was surrounded by a fascist state, namely Mussolini's Italy. What exactly do the revisionists and certain, shall we say lobbies, who slur Saint Pius XII, expect the Church to have done? Send out the Swiss Guards?

Pius XII wasn't an idiot, anybody who has read at least lightweight coverage of the Italian state's occupation of Papal territory until the 1920s and the Roman Question could see why he kept his head down a bit. And especially with the Kulturkampf in Germany in recent memory, why would he push and push to try and invite state reprisal peresecutions against Catholics by a dictator? For what purpose or gain? The role of the Pope isn't to try and get his members placed in concentration camps.

The Papacy wields the spiritual sword, it tries to advise and attempts to guide statesmen metaphysically, spiritually and morally (as it did in regards to German socialist racialism, since the New Covenant which make's up the Church's membership is open to all nations) but ultimately the temporal sword is firmly in the hand of Caesar and his conscience. Blame those subversives who ignited the French Revolution for the Church currently not having the correct amount of influence over temporal affairs. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, sorry but what are you talking about? We're not debating the rights and wrongs of what the Church did, we're looking at whether Bokenkotter's claim that it was the first major organisation to officially denounce Nazism, in 1937, stands up. I am suggesting that the evidence is there that it does not.Haldraper (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I admit that I am not very knowledgeable in this area; however, it strikes me that the 1933 meeting in Madison Square Garden was not an official meeting of any "major organization" and I suspect that none of those attending were representing their organizations in an official capacity i.e. in such a way that their position represented the official position of their organization (other than, of course, Rabbi Wise's position being the position of the AJC).

I do see that there is a problem with the phrase "the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization". As written, it seems to be open to challenge but I think the solution is to reword it so that it is more precise. Let us first determine what we are trying to say here. I think we are trying to say that the Catholic Church was the first major religious denomination/branch/whatever to denounce Nazism (excepting, of course, Jewish organizations). I think there are two basic approaches to consider here:

1) We could say "first major non-Jewish religious organization" or

2) We could say "first major Christian denomination"

If either of the above is true, it is a noteworthy assertion.

--Richard (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As previously noted on this is page: The use of the Falconi quote, "the first official denunciation of Nazism", out of context from Father Thomas Bokenkotter book colors the section heavily in one direction when in fact Falconi critizes the moral worth of the encyclical "so little anti-Nazi is it...".. "concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights and privileges".."even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprived the document of it's noble and exemplary intransigence" To simply rip out in mid sentence the aforementioned "limitations" is not doing justice to the source and I can only guess that Father Bokenkotter (assuming he himself has not been subject to unintentional out of context redaction) is that he has read it from another secondary source, because there is no way I could conceive he would have used Falconi in this way if he had the book in front of him. Taam (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I share Richards comments about it being noteworthy if either of the two opinions are asserted through a reliable academic source. It's not sufficient to hold this as an opinion and place it in the article. At present we have Father Bokenkotter quoting Falconi out of context. If it stays in so should the other parts of Falconi's opinion be included in order not misrepresent his views. If we cannot find an academic source that validates Richards opinion, and it's not desirable to include the full scope of Falconi's opinion, then suggest taking it out completely. Taam (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oops. I confess that I was focusing narrowly on the recent discussion about "first official denunciation" and I had not included consideration of the Bokenkotter/Falconi question. Surely, these are not the only two reliable sources that have discussed the Reichskonkordat and Mit Brennender Sorge. Are there additional sources that we can use to provide a more neutral perspective? --Richard (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Mit brennender Sorge page has a useful discussion of the varying academic viewpoints.Haldraper (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are not a valid source for other Misplaced Pages articles, and research should really be wider-spread. As far as griping about the Falconi quote is concerned, there comes a limit to how much extra cavilling, innuendo and quote-topping can be accommodated in an article like this. Already the section on the Church and the Nazis is so long that it is becoming Undue Weight. It will probaly need to be shortened rather than enlarged, while remaining factually balanced. And Taam, it would be a lot more helpful if you lost your attitude to other editors and to some of the material, the latest evidence of which is "ironically" adding "Father" Bokkentoter to each quote - implying that being Catholic denies you the right to cover Catholic history. Xandar 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, Taam raised a reasonable point about the Bokenkotter quote. It would be more helpful if you engaged with it rather than questioning his motives.Haldraper (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that if you go through my edit history you will see that I use Catholic scholars frequently in my contributions, not just in Christianity related articles but Egyptology, so I cannot accept your suggestion. The problems highlighted with this article however indicated too much emphasis placed on certain sections on "scholarly" sources that read more like non-scholarly apologetics, i.e errors of fact or opinions being made to look like fact as per my previous posts relating to the MSB encyclical. What I lamented was the absence of sound Catholic scholarship, that I'm familiar with, and the presence of a poor imitation. In the beliefs section I of course would like to know what the Church herself teaches but in the history section it has to reflect the broad range of scholarly opinion in controversial areas and not be seen to depend too heavily on sources who might not be considered neutral to the detached reader. Taam (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And now it is Xandar who is arguing for shortening the History section! Will wonders never cease? Seriously, Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources; however, they are useful references when the text in question cites reliables sources which the "Assessment" section of the Mit brennender Sorge article does.

I think the issue is that the current text is too simplistic and simply needs to be rewritten. I found this to be an interesting treatment of the issue. (World Christianities c. 1914-c. 2000 By Hugh McLeod)

I gather that the problem is that too many people want to argue on one side that Reichskonkordat and MBS were either sellouts or on the other side other people want to argue that the Church was the first to denounce fascism and Nazism on moral principles alone. In fact, the truth seems to be somewhere in between. The source that I linked to suggests that Pius XI was initially "tolerant of undemocratic, even fascist regimes", he became "increasingly occupied" with the rise of totalitarianism. At the risk of running off the rails, I would comment that this is the same charge that is made of U.S. foreign policy which has been "tolerant of undemocratic, even fascist regimes" at times and has had to come to grips with what its core values are. (Yeah, yeah, this last bit is definitely OR wrt to this discussion). Nonetheless, the point is that we need to have a more sophisticated portrayal of the situation that the Church was facing in the 1930s and 1940s and how it addressed this challenge.

Perhaps we should say something like "In the 1930s, the Church was faced with the dilemma of how to respond to the rise of totalitarianism. After making an effort to negotiate a modus vivendi with such regimes in Germany and Italy, it found such accommodation increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of ever more aggressive challenges to its rights by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After a series of protests made against such infringements of its prerogatives, the Vatican felt it necessary to issue two encyclicals opposing the policies of Hitler and Mussolini: Non abbiamo bisogno in 1931 and Mit Brennender Sorge in 1937. However, the exigencies of the geopolitical situation constrained the ability of the Vatican to oppose these regimes directly."

--Richard (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, we could argue about all that and I'm sure people would. Surely better to state facts - the Church signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933, 'MbS' was issued in 1937 and said 'x' - than engage in speculation about the motives and thinking of the Vatican.

I've been surprised to find that 'MbS' does seem to be the first official Church document condemning Nazism so it appears that sentence should stand.Haldraper (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard's summary seems quite good in that he avoids trying to prove anything about what the Church did or didn't do and with slight rewording and dropping his aside about America I think we are on safe ground with scholarly sourcing of the material. The other way proposed by Haldraper is also sound, it follows the example of the article dealing with the encyclical. The disadvantage is that on a main article, which is an overview of the organization, it may be slightly jarring to have an academic discourse in the middle of the text. But this may be unavoidable if "colorful" quotations are already in place and in order to introduce neutrality they have to be balanced with opposing opinion. IMO articles like this should avoid at all cost such dramatic passages that look to the detached reader as is they are being spoon fed material to prove a particular point of view. Richard's overview seems more realistic and is not trying to sell anything one way or the other. Taam (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Section is too long and strangely weighted

IMO this section on 20th century is far too long anyway, or at the least very strangely weighted, absolutely no other Pope has a section as long as Saint Pius XII. It only vaguely hints at the Communist threat (which eslaved the peoples of Eastern Europe and was trying to take over the West), it goes on too much about Jews (when 70 million people died in WWII, mostly Christians). It focuses too much on German socialism, drawn out relativistic dancing about the Church's position on them. While more stable, less war mongering governments it actually had good relations with like Franco and Salazar (both of whom stayed out of the war) are barely mentioned. Then it mixes in Mr Wojtyła's out of context cringe worthy comments years later, which rank along side his kissing of the Koran and the 1986 celebration with pagans at Assisi, in the annals of eye rolling self-debasement. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, do you realise how anti-semitic a remark 'it goes on too much about Jews' is? Given your obvious admiration for the fascist regimes of Franco and Salazar maybe you do. The Christians who died in their millions in WWII didn't - with very few exceptions - die because they were Christians but American, British, German, Polish, Russian etc civilians and soldiers. The Jews who were industrially murdered by the Nazis died because they were Jews. Actually, the whole article doesn't 'go on about the Jews' nearly enough given the long history of Christian anti-semitism. I've no idea what your 1986 Assisi pagans remark refers to btw but I'm assuming it's as off the wall as all your others.Haldraper (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it is "antisemitic" in the slightest, to mention the fact that the majority of World War II casualties were Christians. Its undeniable. Its racist and the height of arrogance to say out of those 70 million lives lost, the only ones worth a mention are Jews. What about ethnic Poles (Catholics) persecuted under German socialism? They're especially relevent to this section. And why are Christian civilians lives "irrelevent" (including Roma), whilst Jewish ones deserve whole paragraphs here? In any case that is not the major political reason for WWII. Britain, US and others went to war with Germany because of Hitler's rabid expansionism. The reason neutral, non-fascist, corporatist governments such as Franco's and Salazar's are more relevent to this article, is because Catholicism was actually a core part of the state itself, whilst for the German socialists or even Mussolini (an atheist) it wasn't. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason that Christian lives are "irrelevant" here is that this is not an article about World War II. This is an article about the Catholic Church and some have charged that the Church aided Nazi and Fascist regimes either intentionally or unintentionally. This is the core of the question in this section about Pius XI and Pius XII. It would be silly to argue that the Vatican reached an accomodation with Hitler in order to facilitate the persecution of Polish Catholics. However, it has been alleged that the Vatican was at least unsympathetic to the plight of Jews and could have done more to help them. This is the charge that is being presented and answered in this section. Comparing the number of Jews killed to the number of Christians killed is irrelevant in this article. It might be more relevant in other articles but not here. --Richard (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The section is certainly reaching Undue Weight at its present length, compared to its relevance to the total history of the Church. There also seems to be a tendency in some comments to look at Nazism with 20:20 hindsight. We know NOW what Hitler and the Nazis did. In 1933, the Nazis were just another extreme right wing junta with racist overtones. Context tends to get forgotten here. In the same period Stalin was killing hundreds of thousands of bourgeois peasants, and thousands of Orthodox and Catholic priests. The Kuomintang and Japanese were slaughtering vast numbers in China. In the southern USA and elsewhere murderous racism was being openly practiced. Implying that the Church was "late" to condemn Nazism is therefore somewhat of a distortion. Xandar 21:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be true but, unless you have a citation from a reliable source to support it, it's OR. My proposed text has such a citation. It is also fairly short and can be rewritten in such a way to reference key articles such as Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender sorge. Do you wish to challenge my proposed text? --Richard (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my main disagreement with your proposed text for the section in question is that it doesn't mention the Church's opposition to nazism/racism, per se. It just talks of "infringements of church perogatives" as if that was the only quarrel. However this section is one which Nancy has played more part in than me, so I would be interested in her thoughts. Xandar 23:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be open to modifying the proposed replacement text to include the Church's moral opposition to Nazism and racism as expressed in Mit Brennender Sorge. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area so I would welcome help in getting the wording right.

"In the 1930s, the Church was faced with the dilemma of how to respond to the rise of totalitarianism. After making an effort to negotiate a modus vivendi with such regimes in Germany and Italy, it found such accommodation increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of ever more aggressive challenges to its rights by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After a series of protests made against such infringements of its prerogatives, the Vatican felt it necessary to issue two encyclicals opposing the policies of Hitler and Mussolini: Non Abbiamo Bisogno in 1931 and Mit Brennender Sorge in 1937. Mit Brennender Sorge included criticisms of Nazism and racism. However, the exigencies of the geopolitical situation constrained the ability of the Vatican to act in opposition to these regimes."

--Richard (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I appreciate the effort to improve the article but I do not think this is an improvement. First, it omits glaring facts brought out in all scholarly books that the Church was the first to renounce Nazism in Mit Brennender Sorge, that this precipitated enhanced persecution of the Church and that no other organization in the world, not even Jewish organizations went so far or did so much to prevent the massacre to come or save lives once it had begun. I am not in favor of hiding the most major and basic facts highlighted in weighty manner by all scholarly works on the subject. NancyHeise 23:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... it seems I should have re-read the current article text. I think the issue is not so much that I am trying to omit stuff as I was focused on making particular points and failed to include points which you brought to my attention.

So, let's try and merge in some of my proposed text with the existing text...

In the 1930s, the Church was faced with the dilemma of formulating a response to the rise of totalitarianism. Although the Vatican initially attempted to achieve a modus vivendi with the new regimes in Germany and Italy via agreements such as the 1933 Reichskonkordat, it found such accommodation increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of ever more aggressive challenges to its rights by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Violations of the Reichskonkordat by the Nazis culiminated to the issuance of the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge in 1937 through which Pope Pius XI condemned the neopaganism of Nazi ideology and the "myth of blood and race" Smuggled into Germany to avoid suppression by the Nazi regime, the encyclical was read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by a major Christian church. Pius XI later warned a group of pilgrims that antisemitism is incompatible with Christianity. When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded with harsh measures rounding up 92 converts including Edith Stein who were then deported and murdered. "The brutality of the retaliation made an enormous impression on Pius XII." In Poland, the Nazis murdered over 2,500 monks and priests and even more were imprisoned. In the Soviet Union an even more severe persecution occurred. After the war, historians such as David Kertzer accused the Church of encouraging centuries of antisemitism, and Pope Pius XII of not doing enough to stop Nazi atrocities. Prominent members of the Jewish community contradicted the criticisms of Pius and spoke highly of his efforts to protect Jews; The Israeli historian Pinchas Lapide interviewed war survivors and concluded that Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands". Some historians dispute this estimate while others consider Pinchas Lapide's work to be "the definitive work by a Jewish scholar" on the holocaust. Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read "We're deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant." This papal apology, one of many issued by Pope John Paul II for past human and Church failings throughout history, was especially significant because John Paul II emphasized Church guilt for, and the Second Vatican Council's condemnation of, anti-Semitism. The papal letter We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, urged Catholics to repent "of past errors and infidelities" and "renew the awareness of the Hebrew roots of their faith."

How does this sound? --Richard (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too long. If you want to introduce the concordat, I would say this: "In an effort to prevent further loss of life and property by Nazis who were persecuting Catholics in Germany.... NancyHeise 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the text by eliminating extraneous detail or moving it to a Note. Haldraper and I object to your introduction of the concordat. See section below. --Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology and motivation for Reichskonkordat

Nancy, you've added two things to the Reichskonkordat section I'm a bit dubious about:

1. the Nazis were already persecuting the Church before it was signed. Given the Enabling Act that gave them total power was passed, with the support of the Catholic Zentrumspartei, on 23 March when negotiations were at a late stage in Rome it seems odd to suggest persecution had already started, especially as it goes on to say that breaches of the concordat led to 'Mit brennender Sorge'.
2. the purpose of the concordat was to stop persecution by the Nazis. As Pacelli had been attempting to negotiate it since 1930 with successive German governments this too seems at best a partial statement.

I don't have the Coppa book you're using as a ref to support these edits so perhaps you could expand a bit.Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I share Haldraper's concern about these two sentences. The Nazis became the largest party in the 1932 German elections. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. The "Enabling Law" which gave him dictatorial powers was passed on March 23, 1933. The Reichskonkordat was signed on July 20, 1933. What exactly were the Nazi persecutions of the Catholic Church prior to July 1933? As Haldraper, comments, if the negotiations for the Reichskonkordat had started as early as 1930, how could it have been motivated by an attempt to stop persecution of the Church by the Nazis who were not in power when the negotiations started and had probably not started persecuting the Church in the period between January and July of 1933?

A more likely interpretation is that Hitler signed the Reichskonkordat with the expectation that it would lend support to his regime and with mindset that he could violate it with impunity later if he wished.

I am going to remove these two sentences as they seem a bit incredulous to me. Citations to reliable sources notwithstanding.

--Richard (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Motivation of critics of Pius XII

Important to note, that the so called "charges levelled" as Richard puts it, are rather more a case of gutter vipers, both internal and external, trying to perform a character asassination on a man unable to retort, for their own political benefit. This is including but not limited to various Modernists/Liberals within the Church who want to stop the canonisation of a strongly orthodox Pope, in the form of Pius XII (particularly elements in Germany and France), Secularists who want a new card to brandish along with their "Crusades Card" as an argument against religion and also in the United States especially, anti-Catholic lobbyists such as the Abraham Foxman's of the world, who are notorious for wanting to stop the Vatican recognition of Pius XII's sainthood, as a means of pulling the rug out from under the feet of a more traditional Catholicism. This is important to keep in mind, that the subject is politically motivated, rather than intellectually or empirically of note. Not only is it highly overemphising (needing only 1 or 2 sentences), something which is ultimately of minor importance in the overall summary of a history of the Church, but it is also against WP:RECENTISM policies. Wojtyła's personal comment years later (and in fact the whole section on him) is also out of place. It should be in the section after Vatican II, when he was actually Pope, not mixed in with the industrial age section. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit war over note

I'm not going to revert this edit again; rather, I'm just pleading for some reasoned action by the parties edit warring over the section. I realize that in mediation, you seem to have agreed that the church prefers to call itself the "Catholic Church". I take no position on the issue, but at least one editor is disputing a statement being added into the article to that effect without a secondary source. This is required per WP:V, no matter your opinion on the issue. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to find a secondary source simply stating that the church prefers to call itself as such.

Anyway, as a non-involved admin, I'm going to be watching the page for edit warring, and I will not hesitate to block editors who revert each other without reason or discussion. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this. 1.) Secondary sources are PREFERRED, not required. 2.) Extremely obvious statements require NO citation in the first place. Thus, that you say a secondary source is required is in no way, shape, or form, remotely true.Farsight001 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Farsight. This sentence is not claiming anything about the name of the Catholic Church. It is just being used to state a fact - an acceptable use for primary sources. The note was agreed line by line in the mediated consensus, and also contains the unreferenced sentence "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." which Gimmetrow and Laserbrain curiously do not want to remove. The sentences are both based on primary sources and point in different ways. Both are part of the mediated wording. Xandar 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Catholic Church" is used more commonly than every other term the Church uses in its own documents? I am disputing this sentence because I believe it is wrong - that there are other terms used as frequently or more frequently than CC in the Church's own documents. Do you actually dispute that the Church refers to itself in various ways? This is not related to the page rename - this is about a claim in the text for which you have failed to provide sources or clarify, despite a proposal on the table two months ago that was agreeable to most people and would have addressed this issue. At this point, because of the refusal to change the text or discuss the issue, it is an issue of WP:Verifiability policy. Gimmetrow 00:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Grimmtrow, you have long since crossed into the realm of disruptive editing. I have explained repeatedly to you why your request is unnecessary and silly and you simply continue saying the same thing over and over and over again, whilst completely ignoring the fact that I'm saying anything. The page on disruptive editing describes this sort of action as a clear identifying mark of a disruptive editor - "repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." If you want us to take you seriously, ignoring our explanations and repeating yourself rather vainly I must say, is not going to help you achieve that at all.Farsight001 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have explained to you that the assertion in the text is not obvious and therefore, if editors will not change it or provide sources as required by Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy, then the assertion doesn't belong. You have not provided any evidence. Gimmetrow 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Farsight, have you considered that you might be able to find a secondary source that backs up your claim within like five minutes and put this whole thing to rest? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So is this your Farsight and Xandars way to tell Gimmetrow to please shut up? You know like you both have already done to Taam and Cody and others here? Or maybe you can call Encyclopedia Britannica rubbish again.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Farsight001 and Xandar but without agreeing with 100% with Taam, Cody and LoveMonkey. I kind of agree with Gimmetrow although I'm not as exercised about this issue as he is.

The challenged statement needs a citation to a reliable source that says exactly that. To point to a handful of documents and make an assertion based upon textual analysis of those documents is already original research; to widen the assertion to documents beyond those cited is totally unacceptable. I doubt that we will find a citation that supports the assertion made in the current text and so the best course of action is to rewrite the text so that it is supportable.

I think the best direction to head towards is to say "In some of the Church's core documents (e.g. Catechism, Lumen Gentium, Humani Generis, whatever), the title 'Catholic Church' is used far more frequently than 'Roman Catholic Church'.] This avoids making assertions beyond what we can support with citations.

--Richard (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is where misuse of policies takes place; when the tide goes against find any policy to throw up to cause contention. Richard, with your statement the next word out of Gimme's and Cody's mouth is how frequently? How many more times is it used? What source for that? Suffice it to say this language was the result of a months long mediation. If anything, Gimme and company need to stop editing the article, bring the issues solely tot he discussion page until such time as a compromise is reached.

This is petty, it is choking on gnats, and follows closely in their POV and resistance to accept reality. I again strongly suggest you fellows get a personal blog where you can pontificate on your personal views to your heart's content.

There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history. What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents. That is all the sentence is attempting to reflect to the reader; nothing more and nothing less. Guys, patience is one thing, but you appear to seek a special place in the minds of each editor on this page. That type of karma will reap some really bad things. It is time to back off for a short while and accept reality. Just a thought. --Rider 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider wrote "There are no references for citing what names the church uses most; they do not exist. I am not aware of a single academic that has counted the names of the Church in all of the documents for its 1700 to 2000 year history. Frankly, I think it an impossible task because one cannot be sure to have obtained a view at each and every document for the entire history."

Richardshusr responds: Yes, precisely. And that is why the sentence in question should be altered or removed. It's the same argument as the one about the "official name" of the Church. If you can't find a source that says it, then the sentence cannot stand.

StormRider continued "What is self-evident is that the Church uses Catholic Church on all of its most significant documents."

Richardshusr responds: Saying something is "Self-evident" works in Declarations of Independence but not it won't fly in Misplaced Pages. However, if we allow ourselves some leeway regarding Original Research, we can examine these so-called "most significant documents" and determine whether the assertion is true for the ones that we pick. The proposed change to the current article text is to narrow the assertion to be limited solely to documents where we have visually inspected the text and determined the truth value of the assertion. With citations, any reader can verify whether or not the assertion is true for those documents. Since we would make no assertion about the frequency of use in any other documents, we would stand on unassailable ground.

--Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think we have already crossed boundaries into subjective territory here. Neither party can argue that they are firmly within a policy-bound right to either include or remove the sentence. As such, it would seem prudent to stick to the statement agreed on in mediation. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:V. The editor who wrote the disputed sentence (the same editor who wrote the text that originally led to mediation, by the way), refused to discuss it during mediation, which therefore prevented the formation of consensus. However, if you think the mediation result should stand, then at the end of mediation the sentence was tagged with . Recall, it took multiple RFCs and a mediation over the course of a year to get one unsourced, biased word removed from the article. During that time, the editor who originally added the text refused all attempts at compromise. The same editor also wrote the now-disputed sentence, also unsourced and biased, refused to discuss it during and after mediation, and still continues to refuse all attempts at resolution. Some might characterize that sort of behaviour as obstructive WP:OWNership. Indeed, you might say this issue is "petty", but petty issues shouldn't take 4+ months to resolve. Remember, there was a proposal on the table months ago that I, Richard and Sunray supported, and it didn't get implemented because of an objection from the same editor. Gimmetrow 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you—but I'm not sure folks are ever going to see eye-to-eye on this. Articles "should" be based on reliable, third-party sources. But what if several editors are hell-bent on putting the text in and insisting that there are no secondary sources and the primary ones should appease readers? I'm trying to view this from a casual reader's perspective. Will they read that note and think, "How do they know that's what the church prefers?" and start looking at the sources? Further, will they reject the Vatican sources as proof of this statement? Dunno... and the ArbCom case is going to be rejected because it was poorly-constructed and unclear in its scope. I don't see a clear answer on how WP:V should be interpreted here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete falsehood, Gimmetrow. Several compromise versions of the text of this very line were presented to you, including one that you had suggested yourself earlier. You rejected all these alternative wordings and changed your position yet again. After that some of us gave up, since you seemed resolved never to come to agreement. Similarly you have not commented on the other uncited statement in the note which I mentioned just above: namely "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance." Should this be removed as well, although it tends to support your positions? The fact is that we agreed not to make a direct statement that "X is the Church's official or proper name" partly on your insistence - where secondary references WERE found for that form of wording, but you then started quarrelling with them at length. We then agreed to include the two factual primary-source-based sentences, one of which you are now cavilling at. One of the reasons that these "petty" issues took SO long to resolve, was your continuous pedantic obstructiveness. For example trying to argue that "The Church" is the proper name of the Catholic Church. Xandar 19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, I think the issue is between using a universal quantifier and an existential quantifier. To wit, the universal quantifier asserts something on the order of "in all the Church's official documents and contexts, it uses 'Catholic' more frequently than it uses 'Roman Catholic'". Using an existential quantifier asserts "In certain specific documents (which are cited), the term 'Catholic' appears more frequently than 'Roman Catholic'." If we can agree to use an existential quantifier rather than the universal one, I think we can resolve this issue. --Richard (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-evident only for Declaration of Independence? Alas, then "to wit" would need to be limited to Shakespeare.:)

IF we are to pursue this line of thinking, then we cannot say "more frequently" because the sources do not support that it appears more frequently. We can support that in some of the most significant documents of the Catholic Church it uses Catholic Church to refer to itself. Issues of frequency would need to be supported by the source(s).

I have to agree with Xandar that the entire mediation was full of straining on wording, bending over backward to find support. It is unbelievably strange that the participants still want to fight about the agreement. It begins to reek of bad faith. --Rider 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, it is really unfortunate that this discussion was brought to ARBCOM and, as a result of the mediation being referenced, the entire mediation proceedings were deleted to protect the privilege of confidentiality of mediations. I think this is truly unfortunate and would hope that the mediation proceedings are restored after the case is rejected by ARBCOM (if that hasn't already happened).

In the meantime, I cannot prove my recollection of the mediation and so I have ask you to trust my good faith attempt to remember the end phase of that process.

My recollection is that the mediation ended with an agreement that the core of the mediated agreement was based on these four points:

1. a change of the lead sentence to mention "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" in that order
2. an agreement to say nothing as to whether there was an "official name" of the Church, much less what that name might be
3. an agreement to seek support of a wider audience for a change in the title of the article
4. an agreement not to lock down every last word of the note as there were still some outstanding concerns about the specific wording

Xandar remembers Gimmetrow's last minute objections and a general feeling that he was the last holdout in achieving consensus. Gimmetrow agreed to go with the overall consensus provided that his issues could be raised after the mediated agreement was implemented. I also had some relatively minor issues with the wording but they were more stylistic as opposed to Gimmetrow's objection which was (from his POV) more substantive. Both Gimmetrow and I agreed to let the mediation move forward as long as the wording of the Note was not considered "cast in concrete" and was open to further discussion and fine-tuning after the mediation was closed.

I write this so that you and others will understand that while Gimmetrow's raising of the issue may be annoying, it is not, as you charged, "bad faith".

--Richard (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why this continues to be discussed. It has been debated ad nauseam. Gimmetrow does not accept the wording, but has not been able to get consensus for his view. To continue raising it, putting tags on the phrase, and editing warring is simply disruptive. Please give it a rest, folks. Sunray (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You, Richard and I supported a sentence two months ago that would have resolved this. And again, I remind you for the last time, Sunray, address content. You could, for instance actually add sources to the article text. Gimmetrow 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

All the major documents on the Vatican website were searched, and as I recall, only five major pronouncements in the last 200 years even contained the wording "Roman Catholic Church". The statement in the note is beyond dispute. Xandar 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason that I've never thought that the sentence in question needed a reference is that there are a total of four references in the next two supporting sentences. However, I realize that this may not be clear to folks who were not involved with the drafting of the note. Here's a simple solution to the problem: The Whitehead citation , which appears in the note as #7 actually supports the first sentence very well. I suggest that we move reference #7 to follow the sentence "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." Would this make things clearer? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bring up Whitehead again!!! I thought there was some consensus that he was an inappropriate source for statements of fact, just for opinion? Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There were lengthy discussions about Whitehead as a source. It was decided to use Whitehead as a secondary source to back up the primary sources referred to in this part of the note. So Whitehead is being used that way in the note. I am only suggesting that we move that reference to a preceding sentence in that part of the note. Would you be able to accept it on that basis? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in the article makes a claim about more than CC and RCC. If the sentence remains, I want it clearly restricted to a statement about only those two terms. Two months ago Richard and Sunray supported this sentence: "In its own documents, the Church uses the term CC more frequently than RCC." I also support that. Is that a consensus? I would also support Richard's suggestion above to restrict the statement to particular documents (such as: "In X, Y and Z, the term CC appears more frequently than RCC") but that wasn't my main concern here. Gimmetrow 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that any proposal suggested since the end of the mediation is better than the one agreed by consensus of editors at mediation. The editors of EWTN, a member of SIGNIS use Whitehead as their source to explain the Church's name, they are all scholarly experts on the Church. We did not need Whitehead in the agreed mediation but since some people can't stop challenging us, like Gimmetrow, maybe we should put him back into the article. There are no bad reviews of this source even though Gimmetrown and Soidi have tried and tried to discredit it. NancyHeise 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with an editor above that suggested that Gimmetrows continued involvement in this matter is violating WP:Disrupt. I wish someone with power could do something about it because our article is prevented from moving forward because of this disruption. Thanks. NancyHeise 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the text in the article asserts that the term "Catholic Church" is used in the Church's documents more than any other term. Whitehead does not support that claim. Indeed, editors have consistently said that there are no sources which could support such a claim. It is the editors who continue to support an unsourced, biased claim, contrary to policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view, that are disruptive to the article. Gimmetrow 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is cited to Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, the documents the Church calls its "Constitutions". No where in these documents does the Church use the term Roman Catholic Church to refer to itself, the sentence is thus cited and this cited sentence was agreed by consensus at mediation. Please stop being disruptive Gimmetrow, if it werent for your other types of help on Misplaced Pages I would think you were just a troll. I think you should consider that is what your participation on this page has become. NancyHeise 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the claim in the article is about relative frequency of terms. What you just said has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the disputed claim. Please address content and avoid personal attacks. Gimmetrow 00:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The citations were agreed at mediation. I see someone has now deleted the entire mediation page. I don't see that as helpful. The citations to original documents were used as it was agreed that in some instances, original documents can be used and this sentence was one of those instances. As mentioned earlier, if you are uncomfortable with this, we can add Whitehead as another reference because he says the same thing. What I don't understand is why you are disputing a consensus agreed text over and over again when you know that the sentence is a)true, b)cited, c)other unused sources also say the same thing and d)you don't have any source that disputes the sentence. I can understand if it were a contentious statement but it isn't and there are no sources that argue your point. If you want us to eliminate the sentence, then provide a source that says otherwise. The mediation clearly validated the fact that there are no sources that say otherwise. NancyHeise 02:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the same pattern of behaviour from you that led to mediation. You do not get to add a biased, unsourced statement in the article and then demand others to provide contrary "sources". You are required per WP:Verifiability to provide sources for all material you add to the article. That is your burden of evidence, and you have failed to provide that for months, exactly like you did before. Gimmetrow 03:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No Gimmetrow, a consensus of editors agreed at mediation to this sentence and sources after detailed examination of issues and sources. You are not respecting that mediation which agreed that the burden of evidence has been met. NancyHeise 03:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your invocation of consensus here is a violation of good faith and civility. The sentence I am disputing is most likely incorrect, and Sunray even admitted as much. It is clearly unsourced, as editors have acknowledged above. Gimmetrow 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Invocation of consensus is hardly a violation of anything. Indeed, having consensus on your side trumps having a personal bias every time. Gimmetrow, you don't agree with consensus. That is your right. But you are in a minority, and your arguments have not persuaded the community. You are being disruptive.--anietor (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at mediation was that these issues would be discussed later. It's possible that the "agreement" of editors who refuse to discuss the issue, who regularly invoke procedural arguments to stifle discussion, who obstruct improvements on even "petty" issues for months at a time, who refuse to follow Misplaced Pages's content policies, and who have established a long-term pattern of refusal to follow such policies, might be characterized as disruptive WP:OWNership rather than consensus. Gimmetrow 05:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With the respect to the bad faith which is being imputed to Gimmetrow I would just like to point out an Encyclopedic source that seems to share his doubts:"Roman Catholic Church, Christian church headed by the pope, the bishop of Rome (see papacy and Peter, Saint). Its commonest title in official use is Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. “Roman Catholic” is a 19th-century British coinage and merely serves to distinguish that church from other churches that are “Catholic” (see catholic church). The term “Roman Church,” when used officially, means only the archdiocese of Rome. Roman Catholics may be simply defined as Christians in communion with the pope." (Columbia Encyclopedia on-line, accessed 29 August 2009) I'm only placing this here in response to the name calling (once again) brought against an editor who just happens to be looking for a reliable source - a good thing for Misplaced Pages - it doesn't mean I share the view expressed. Taam (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s I noticed Nancy Heisse has added to the reference book list the following: "THE ENTITY: FIVE CENTURIES OF SECRET VATICAN ESPIONAGE By Eric Frattini" which reviews say describes how the Vatican has operated hit squads and top secret rat-lines to allow Nazi's to escape etc and the pursuit of people they don't agree with. It seems an extremely strange addition since she normally leans heavily towards an unblemished account of Church history and also since the book has been panned in a review I read in NCR. Are you trying to tell us something Nancy about how the Church will deal with people who don't agree with you :-), but anyway I don't think it is a reliable source for what is being asserted in the relevant article section which appears now to be very loaded in an apologetics sense. Taam (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Taam, many encyclopedias are not always reliable ( especially with religion-related information ) and often contain incorrect information - such as the incorrect claim you've cited that "Roman Catholic" is of 19th century British origin. The origin of the term is much earlier than this. Afterwriting (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree as I alluded to in my post. However my opinion or yours is not what matters but what reliable sources say, if there is no reliable sources to confirm something we shouldn't be asserting it. In this instance the Colombia Encyclopaedia may have been using your reliable source Whitehead who in part states: "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language." Now even an outsider such as I knows this is nonsense, but as you say you can't always trust an encyclopaedia. Anyway my point was I thought it wrong that Gimmetrow was being marginalised and name-called when he has at least one major encyclopedic source that contradicts what the team here asserts without any reliable source. Taam (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Does a sentence without a source meet WP:Verifiability requirements?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The article currently asserts:

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents."

This sentence has no source. It appears to be based on a google search of documents on the Vatican website. The sentence appears to claim that 'CC' is "usually the term" the Church uses in all its documents to refer to itself. However, the Church uses other terms (besides CC and RCC) to refer to itself, and some of those are used as frequently or more frequently than CC in documents I have checked, so I have disputed this sentence. I have been asking that the sentence be rephrased so that it clearly refers solely to CC and RCC, or that it be removed. Back on 5 July 2009, Richard proposed and Sunray agreed with the rephrasing

"In its own documents, the Church uses "CC" more frequently than "RCC".

That would have resolved the problem, but over two months later, nothing has changed in the article.

It has also been alleged that making the claim of all Church documents, rather than a select set, is a logical jump of original research. An editor above also proposed limiting the claim to refer only to some select set of Church documents.

This RFC asks: Does the disputed claim need a source? Does it need clarification? If it is not changed, is the disputed claim in violation of WP:Verifiability, or not? Gimmetrow 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside comments

I think Gimmetrow your separation of "insiders" from "outsiders" reveals a lot about the problems with this article. As was pointed out last year the most common name by which she refers to herself on the Vatican web site is the "The Church" (5,580) followed by "Catholic Church" (3,500 hits). The "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" that appears in so many official Church publications relating to, for example, the order of the mass doesn't feature really on the Vatican site but the numbers involved must be very large I guess. Taam (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Further information

The sentence referred to by Gimmetrow is followed by two supporting sentences. When drafted, it was a paragraph (though paragraphs were dissolved when the note was finalized). Nevertheless the sentence only makes sense if you read the following two sentences:

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Notes

1. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
2. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (2003). "Catechism of the Catholic Church." Retrieved on: 2009-05-01.
3. The Vatican. Documents of the II Vatican Council. Retrieved on: 2009-05-04. Note: The Pope's signature appears in the Latin version.
4. Declaration on Christian Formation, published by National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington DC 1965, page 13
5. Whitehead, Kenneth (1996). ""How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?" Eternal Word Television Network. Retrieved on 9 May 2008.

The foregoing passage was drafted during the mediation and accepted by consensus. Attempts to modify it on this page have not achieved consensus. Alternate wordings seem moot now, since the question asked is: Does a sentence without a source meet WP:Verifiability requirements? It has been suggested that the Whitehead source at the end of the third sentence supports the statement and could easily be moved to the end of the first sentence. Again, this proposal did not gain consensus. Since most people are fine with this section of the note as is, perhaps the best option is to leave it alone. Sunray (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Sunray, is it your explicit position that a group of editors acting against Misplaced Pages' content policies may form not just a majority, but a consensus to disregard those content policies to defend an unsourced sentence disputed by others as factually incorrect, biased and original research? Gimmetrow 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Whitehead would be a valid source for this statement (not only does his article not say this, but the article is not scholarly and is more an opinion piece). There is a lot of "consensus" around this article that ignores basic Misplaced Pages policies. WP:V is a central policy that should not be abandoned, and as yet editors have not provided a source that verifies this sentence. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is ignoring WP policies. There is a great deal of evidence to corroborate the statement. Leaving aside Whitehead, the first three references present that evidence rather well, IMO. Sunray (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny. None of those sources refer to the relative frequency of the term CC compared to all other terms the Church uses to refer to itself, and in the documents apparently referenced, not only are other terms used more frequently, but in some of those documents, 'CC' is not used at all. . Gimmetrow 03:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, it is not a choice between consensus and WP policy. That is a false choice, and a rather disingenuous suggestion. It is, as in most cases in WP, a choice between competing positions, whose editors all believe their positions are supported by WP policy. It is a rather hollow argument for you to say that consensus is trumping policy because consensus didn't agree with your view. Assume good faith, and assume that editors are not disregarding WP policy when they state a position. Your argument is no stronger than if Sunray, or any other consensus-supporting editor, said YOUR view is invalid because they believe your position is not supported by policy. It's really just a $50 version of saying "You're wrong because I know I'm right." That's why we value consensus. Otherwise there would be no resolution to anything. --anietor (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have still failed to provide any valid source for the claim in the article, and have not rephrased the claim in article to avoid the dispute. You have, indeed, restored the disputed claim, although WP:V says that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Can you identify the source in the article which "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article" as WP:Verifiability says it must? Gimmetrow 04:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a substantive request for comment, or is it, as it might seem to many, simply one editor who refuses to accept what was agreed it during the previous mediation? If the latter, might not WP:DE apply? I was not myself a party to the mediation, but it seems to me that the sourcing is sufficient, particularly given the lengthy discussion which took place earlier. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that term A, rather than term B, is used more frequently in documents, which I dispute because terms C, D and E appear to be used at least as frequently as term A. So where is the source that "unambiguously supports the information as it is presented in the article"? The only sources referred to so far are the primary source references in the sentences following this claim. Unfortunately, in these very primary documents, term C appears more frequently than term A. Please elaborate on your statement that "the sourcing is sufficient", since I really don't see how it is sufficient. Gimmetrow 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First some disclosure, I am a reasonably scholarly Catholic and am familiar with the language the Church uses. I have a number of points to make on the issue.

• The terms documents use depends on context and what it is actually talking about. There is a difference between a church (a building), the Church (the organisation), a Catholic church (a building that is administered by the organisation), a catholic church (either a building or organisation that seeks to be universal), the Catholic Church (the big thing the Pope leads), the Church of Rome (the particular organisation based in Rome and overseen by the bishop of Rome (who also happens to be the Pope)), the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to other Catholic traditions - Greek, Coptic, etc.) and a Roman Catholic church (a Catholic church that follows the Roman tradition).

  Crudely and in brief, "the Church" is a divine institution while "the Catholic Church" is a human institution that manifests "the Church".

• Blindly counting words is irrelevant, if not purely because it does not take into account what the document is actually talking about.
• The sentence in question does not claim that "Catholic Church" is the most-used term, but that it is used rather than "Roman Catholic Church".
• As this article is titled "Catholic Church" I assume is it about the Catholic Church, which does indeed refer to itself as the "Catholic Church" in official documents, as demonstrated by the supporting sentence given by Sunray that should also be included.
• The definitive definition of the Church by herself is thus: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."—Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, section 8 .

In conclusion, the statement in question is both true, and moreover is verifiable. It may however, be slightly unclear, resulting in this dispute. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Indeed, I have said before that "the relative frequency of use of various terms in a document is likely to depend on the context and purpose of the document." If the claim in the article depends on analysis of context, we don't tell the reader enough info to even verify the thought process, let alone verify that it is not WP:Original research. The sentence claims that "A, rather than B, is the most-used term". As presented, this is a purely statistical claim. The "rather than" clause doesn't restrict the main clause, so it does assert that "A is the most-used term". If a claim said that "A, rather than E, is the vowel usually chosen by contestants in game X", it would be saying that "you might think E is the most common, but it's really A". I understand that people may not read the sentence that way, but I think it clear that it can be read that way. The text hasn't been changed to remove this reading, either. Gimmetrow 11:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Intros numbers don't add up

The intro says the Catholic church has over one billion members, then says it has one seventh of the world's population. Since there aren't seven billion people in the world, one of those numbers has to be wrong.

Robin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.178.69 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should consider the possibility of rounding error when dealing with significantly large numbers that have been simplified for ease of understanding (known as rounding). Gentgeen (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Enlightenment

The article text reads "The end of the Napoleonic wars brought Catholic revival, renewed enthusiasm, and new respect for the papacy." I have two problems with this sentence. First of all, there is a problem of causality. Is it really true that "the end of the Napoleonic wars" brought about those results? It makes it sound as if the purpose of the Napoleonic wars was to achieve those results. Now, I admit that Catholic rulers may have opposed Napoleon because of his secularism and anti-clericalism. However, these results are more likely side effects of the end of the Napoleonic wars rather than the direct objectives. Thus, the word "brought" is probably a less than optimal shorthand for what we really want to say.

My second problem with this sentence is one of locality. Where did these results occur? In France only? In selected European countries? Surely, these results did not occur in Great Britain, Prussia, Russia which were the primary opponents of Napoleon.

--Richard (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted Richard, I missed that extreme example of POV. I mean, how on earth could you reference it? It's not like you can say: 'a 1815 poll by MORI found the Pope's personal approval rating had gone up by 5%'. And even if you could, it would be impossible to prove causality as you say. Will remove if you already haven't.Haldraper (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What the sentence is trying to reflect is the sea-change in Catholic fortunes that came with the ending of the Napoleonic Wars. The period from 1715-1815 can be seen as one of the Church taking continual hits in much of Europe, with Enlightenment secularism, potuguese, Spanish, and Austrian anti-clerical regimes, the suppression of the Jesuits, and first Gallicianism and then the large-scale assaults on the Church across Europe of the French-revolution/Napoleonic period. With the fall of the Napoleonic system there was a restoration of governments more friendly to the Church, and a popular move back to Catholicism by people who had experienced the consequences of unrestrained "enlightenment". Xandar 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard clearly raises a rational concern. The fortunes of the Church were not universal following the Napoleonic Wars. The Church, especially the Jesuits, fared quite poorly in Spain under Isabella II as one notable example. Additionally, the Catholic revivals of the time period were often rooted in other factors that were at best tangentially related to French/Napoleonic factors and more often a matter of "local" politics and long-extant trends. In combination with these diverse factors, it must be also considered that the Catholic resurgence while rooted in the Roman Catholic Church, affected a large swath of other Christians. For example, there was the Oxford Movement in Britain, which was firmly rooted in English politics and a reaction against liberal theology. The Oxford Movement produced several prominent converts to Roman Catholicism, but had a larger impact on the Anglican Church. The broader context of the Catholic revitaliztion also needs to be considered. It took place as part of a broader revival of and renewed interest in Christianity that saw the rise of the Second and Third Great Awakenings; Liberal Christianity, Evangelicalism and Restorationism. Attributing a purely Catholic renewal to the end of the Napoleonic Wars is jejune and inaccurate. --Vassyana (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization of the "History" section

Well, I didn't intend initially to make a significant reorganization of the History section but once I got started moving one thing, other changes suggested themselves and I wound up making some significant changes; however, I did not delete anything in the process.

I reorgaized the history of the last few centuries into four major sections: "Reformation and Counter-Reformation", "Age of Discovery", "Enlightenment" and "Industrial Age". It seems strange to discuss Church history without a major section on "Reformation and Counter-Reformation". The article did discuss it but did not put that discussion under its own section heading which is what I did. The discussion of the Church's missionary activities properly belongs under "Age of Discovery". The anti-clericalism of the French Revolution is associated with the Age of Enlightenment so I created a section to discuss that. I left the remainder of the 20th century under "Industrial Age" although I have my doubts about that being the appropriate section title and about the contents of that section. I will discuss those concerns in a separate section.

--Richard (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Industrial age

This section covers roughly the period from 1870-1960 (loss of Papal States to Vatican II). The topics discussed are: Rerum Novarum, loss of Papal States/Roman question, anti-clericalism and opposition to Nazism/Fascism. It may be that these are the significant events of this period. However, the thing that strikes me most about this section is that there is no over-arching theme and the second thing that strikes me is that there is a lot of discussion of anti-clericalism (perhaps too much discussion of it).

At the risk of being pedantic, there should be an over-arching theme to every section. That's the purpose of a section. Section titles should provide a hint of what that over-arching theme is and the lead sentence of the section should summarize the theme.

If we are to have a section on the "Industrial Age", we should focus on Rerum Novarum and Catholic social teaching. We could discuss the involvement of Catholics in the labor movement in America, the Catholic Worker Movement, etc. See History of Roman Catholicism in the United States for more info on these topics.

The discussion of Reichskonkordat, Pius XII and the persecution of Jews does not properly fit under "Industrial Age". Perhaps a more appropriate title would be something like "Response to Nazism/Fascism".

Without diminishing the importance of anti-clericalism, the amount of text that we devote to it tends to distract from the other topics. I think we should have a section titled "Anti-clericalism". We need a lead sentence to that section which ties the anti-clericalism in various countries to a single theme. I will try to provide one.

--Richard (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the new History section sub-divisions added by Richard. The History section is subdivided temporally rather than by themes. Thematics are incredibly confusing from a narrative point of view, and risk raising long arguments as to what incidents are worth a "theme" of their own. "Nazis and WWII" certainly didn't. I have left the division between Reformation and Age of Discovery - which I think is useful, even if the sections overlap slightly. As far as the heading "Industrial AGe" is concerned - it was never meant to refer simply to the Industrial Revolution and its effects. It was simply chosen for convenience as a term that covered the period early 19th to mid-20th Century. No other name seemd to cover the relevant period satisfactorily. Xandar 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazism and Fascism

Well, I don't feel that strongly about "Nazism and Fascism" being a separate section although I rather think any topic with three or more paragraphs is a candidate to be a section unto itself.

I do, however, think we should rethink the linkage from Enlightenment to anti-clericalism. Without personally endorsing the view, there is a very mainstream attitude that organized religion, especially the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, are bastions of aristocracy, conservatism, reaction and oppression of the masses. From this POV, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches stand against reason, progress, freedom and democracy. Anti-clericalism of the 19th and 20th centuries is rooted in this POV. Mixing the story of anti-clericalism in with other topics such as Rerum Novarum and Reichskonkordat and Mit Brennenden Sorge obscures this point.

--Richard (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Nazism and Fascism paragraphs is that they have grown too large relevant to the rest of the article, and this tends to be giving them Undue Weight. Giving this a section of its own would worsen that problem. As far as anti-clericalism is concerned, it has occurred from the 18th Century to the present (even earlier in spasmodic episodes,) and cannot be compartmentalised into one period. The enlightenment went hand-in-glove with anti-clericalism, promoting some of the views Richard describes. The simple fact is that these attitudes and prejudices survived in 19th and 20th century movements such as those in Italy, Spain and Latin America, as well as into Liberalism, Anarchism, Communism and elements of Fascism. As an important recurrent force it needs to be mentioned in connection with these later time periods. Xandar 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Nazism and Fascism" as a separate section - yeh, you're probably right. Sections tend to grow and this text needs to stay at its newly reduced size. I cut it back as much as I could and it seems you agree that I haven't taken out anything vital so we can only hope that other editors agree as well.

--Richard (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

Re: "Anti-clericalism" as a separate section - Xandar and I agree that "The enlightenment went hand-in-glove with anti-clericalism". I do see that there are problems in trying to cover in a single section a topic which covers 200-500 years (depending on whether you count it as starting with the Reformation or the Enlightenment). My key concern here is to link the anti-clericalism of the 20th century with the Enlightenment and with the socialist movements which started in the 19th century. As the text currently stands, the anti-clerical persecution in Republican Spain, the USSR, Peronist Argentina and Cuba are mentioned in scattered paragraphs with no unifying theme.

I think some editors of this article suffer from knowing that these 20th century anti-clerical persecutions are all leftist movements whose roots are based on Enlightenment/socialism/Marxism and so they don't feel it is important to spell it out for the reader. I think this is a mistake. Not everyone is going to understand this and we should be more explicit. I acknowledge that the text does say "Outside Europe, secularist, and later Marxist-leaning, governments also at times confiscated Church properties and placed restrictions on people's religious freedoms." However, I don't think this is enough because, as the article is currently written, the reader could get a sense that this anti-clericalism ended or petered out around the time that Calles was deposed in Mexico. If we are not going to bring the 20th century anti-clericalism of Republican Spain, the USSR, Peronist Argentina and Cuba into the "Enlightenment section", then we should make sure to spell out the linkage in the "Industrial Age" section.

Somewhere in all this, we should allow that the Church did often wind up on the side of aristocracy, privilege, the power elite and rightist authoritarianism. Thus, we should not cast all anti-clericalism as being motivated by pure evil even if evil actions were committed. It's not as if the Church was completely innocent even if many innocent Catholics suffered.

At the same time, we should not allow the article to fall into the stereotypical dichotomy of "Progressive/socialist" on one side and "Catholic/conservative/reactionary" on the other side. The article text does say "In response to growing concern about the deteriorating working and living conditions brought about by the Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum Novarum. This set out Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions, the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions". However, this gives inadequate coverage to Catholic social teaching which wasn't limited to one encyclical but rather an ongoing movement in the Church. Being an American, I have a rather U.S.-centric perspective. However, one look at Catholic social activism in the United States should provide an indication at how impoverished our coverage is of this topic. You want to talk about undue weight? This topic needs at least 3-4 sentences instead of the paltry single sentence that it gets now.

Striking an NPOV stance on these issues is really difficult because there are many complex, intertwined phenomea involved. However, we must try to neither demonize the Church nor whitewash it.

--Richard (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with adding Jacobin/Whig POV in regards to anti-clericalism. It would turn the article into some sort of Revolutionary Inquisition, which strives for Liberal and later Communist "orthodoxy". Why would the Church of Christ be in anyway "guilty" if it did not conform to earthly naturalistic revolutionists in Catholic countries? Doesn't make sense. Be very wary of distortions of the past, authored by revolutionary revisionist ideologues, especially when it comes to the topic of Church or Crown and the masses. An important word is missing in regards to the battle described though, and that is Freemasonry, along with contemporary Papal condemnations of it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's wrong (from your POV) doesn't mean that it should not be included in the article. The fact that you are able to put a label to it (Jacobin;Whig) lends credence to the assertion that it is a notable POV and therefore must be presented according to NPOV policy. --Richard (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

With Catholic social teaching, we shouldn't confuse it with utopianist "progressivism" and "socialism". It is social and is against untamed materialistic capitalist exploitation of man, yes. But this comes not from a socialist or subversive perspective, rather an organic, corporatist and realist one. Don't forget that for conservatives in Europe, originally, liberal capitalism was viewed with grave suspicion that it would erode traditional society and lead to atheistic materialism - it was strongly associated with Calvinistic protestantism. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Catholic social teaching is not socialism although I'm not convinced that it isn't "progressive" according to some definition of the word. My point is that the Catholic Church is not to be identified purely with conservative oligarchical authoritarianism. There are many values, teachings and actions that a progressive/socialist would agree with. There have been Catholics martyred by right-wing death squads in Latin America. (Oops, another part of the history of the Church that is omitted in this article.)

--Richard (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any major problems with what Richard is saying here. However it is what text and references that are proposed that needs discussion. Xandar 22:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Enlightenment and Revolution

Haldraper reverted my changes to the Enlightenment and Revolution section, which I have restored, since the text makes more sense this way, having been jumbled in earlier edits. (Edict of Nantes had very little to do with the French Revolution). Also Haldraper's change to the sentence on the Catholic revival post 1815 is not backed by the reference, and presented an unwarranted negative spin, (Church "power" grew - rather than revival and enthusiasm). Xandar 22:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

My main problems with that sentence are:

1. it is very vague: how did this 'revival', 'enthusiasm', 'new respect for the papacy' manifest itself (Church building, Mass attendance, ordinations) and in which countries and amongst which social classes? I would guess that 'much of Europe' doesn't include Britain, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, northern Germany or the Balkans.

2. it seems to be the view of self-described 'cradle Catholic' and member of the Pontifical Historical Commission Eamon Duffy, which I've now made clear, rather than academic consensus. I recognise the understandable tendency amongst Catholic editors to use refs from their favourite authors like Duffy but it would be more helpful in the current discussion if we could use a ref that was both avaiable online and from a more mainstream historian of post-Napoleonic Europe.Haldraper (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, Duffy's book is viewable at Google books but the ref given in the article (p. 214-216) doesn't check out.Taam (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also your concerns about "cradle catholic"'s view of history - there are 31 citations in this article using this one book and surely that cannot witness to the neutrality of a religious article. Taam (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Taam, as you say it's clearly a major problem that the Duffy ref cited bears no relation to the sentence it's supposedly supporting. Perhaps someone who's actually got the book could find the correct one.Haldraper (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that maybe the sentence related to another book or page but has got mixed up in the editing somewhere along the line. The point is if you are unhappy about some point and nobody provides a suitable ref then such information can be deleted. Taam (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The ref to Duffy is from the hard cover edition. The paperback edition is the online version Taam is referring to. The page numbers are different for these two editions. Eamon Duffy is one of the most oft cited books, also used by Encyclopedia Britannica as a reference. Duffy also provides our opposing POV in the Origin and Mission section. We can't eliminate a valid reference that meets the highest standards of WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples just because someone here does not like them. We searched but could not find any bad reviews of his book in any academic journal. NancyHeise 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but what we have now clearly established is that everything you have written about Duffy is only applicable to those parts that do not offend you personally but when he speaks about the "appalling atrocity" done at Beziers he is not to be used. This is not acceptable behavior. On the broader issue of neutrality it's my opinion there should not be so much dependence of religious scholars in the history section for obvious reasons. Taam (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, if you want to use the words "appalling atrocity" go ahead. Please make sure you place another Duffy cite in the Bibliography and identify the ref as "Duffy paperback edition" to differentiate it from the simply "Duffy" cites that are to the hardcover edition. However, I think that "appalling atrocity" is descriptive of the event. You might want to note that the Pope did not sanction this atrocity and preached against such action. I will provide a ref if you like. NancyHeise 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Hi, I don't watch this page and look on here very occasionally. But I have noticed that:

• many knowledgeable people type here - a lot
• they all want to discuss and improve this article.
• they all seem to know how to get references and discuss them

Personally, I think this article is in pretty good shape - too long perhaps, but that is no major issue. On the other hand, a few key articles on the right hand tool bar still have "attention needed" type flags on them. Key examples are God the Father and Holy Spirit. These are key Catholic topics, of course: The Trinity being the essential element of Christianity. I don't have time to work on these pages myself, but perhaps someone else will look at those, based on this suggestion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic succession in the lead section

The thkrd ;aragraph of the lead section mentions "apostolic succession" twice and the "twelve Apostles" twice in three sentences. The text should be rewritten to avoid the repetition.

"Through apostolic succession, the Catholic Church believes itself to be the continuation of the original Christian community founded by Jesus in his selection of Saint Peter, a view shared by many historians. The Catholic Church considers its bishops to be validly ordained according to the doctrine of apostolic succession, making them valid and true successors to the twelve Apostles. It is believed, therefore, that the bishops, priests and deacons receive spiritual and sacramental authority, via the twelve Apostles, from Christ."

--Richard (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic missionaries as leaders of the abolition movement

In the "Cultural influence" section, the article text says "Catholic missionaries in the Americas were one of the five main leaders in the abolition movement". I have two problems with this sentence. The first is one of diction. "Leaders" are usually individuals; thus, "one of the five main leaders" should indicate an individual. Perhaps the text means to say "one of the five main leading groups" which is awkward phrasing but at least is a more comprehensible assertion. The second problem I have with this sentence is the assertion that Catholic missionaries were leaders in the abolition movement. Because the bulk of Catholics lived in slaveholding states (Maryland and Louisiana), the Catholic Church avoided taking a stance on slavery and abolition. In fact, some bishops and religious orders owned slaves. I therefore feel that it is necessary to understand more clearly what the citation to Owen Chadwick actually says. Can anybody shed light on this question? --Richard (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, the passage reads: "The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and french revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians, such as the Quakers (William Penn would not allow slaves in 'his' colony of Pennsylvania), and devout English evangelicals led by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce." He then goes on to describe significant steps in the abolishing of slavery. Chadwick was only being quoted originally as showing Catholicism being anti-slavery whereas he actually points out the pro-slavery stance as well. I'm surprised that you hadn't noticed this until now but I will try an improve my poor prose to accommodate your points.Taam (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, you wrote "I'm surprised that you hadn't noticed this until now". Well, you know, I've been wrapped in faaar more important things like the title of this article, whether there is an official name of this Church and whether "Catholic Church" is used more than "Roman Catholic Church" or more than all other terms including just simply "the Church". (I will point out that this last sentence is written with dripping sarcasm in case it isn't obvious). Seriously, I've been re-reading the History section backwards from the 20th century and identifying issues as I go.

I think it is fair to say that, in general, missionaries have been more concerned about the evils of slavery than the clergy in the established churches. A Google of "Catholic missionaries slavery abolition" will yield some sources to support this thesis. However, your assertion that "the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements" seems to be contradicted by several sources who assert that Jesuits in Maryland did own slaves. Google "Jesuit slavery" for some sources in this regard.

I am not one to harshly criticize the Catholic Church on this issue. I believe it is unfair to judge people of another time by the standards of our time. However, it is important that we get our facts straight and present a balanced view. As I understand it, there was some debate in the Catholic Church between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists.

Our article on Abolitionism tells us:

Daniel O'Connell, the Roman Catholic leader of the Irish in Ireland, supported the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in America. ... O'Connell, the black abolitionist Charles Lenox Remond, and the temperance priest Theobold Mayhew organized a petition with 60,000 signatures urging the Irish of the United States to support abolition. O'Connell also spoke in the United States for abolition.

The Catholic Church in America had long ties in slaveholding Maryland and Louisiana. Despite a firm stand for the spiritual equality of black people, and the resounding condemnation of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, the American church continued in deeds, if not in public discourse, to support slaveholding interests. The Bishop of New York denounced O'Connell's petition as a forgery, and if genuine, an unwarranted foreign interference. The Bishop of Charleston declared that, while Catholic tradition opposed slave trading, it had nothing against slavery. No American bishop supported abolition before the Civil War. While the war went on, they continued to allow slave-owners to take communion.

So... if there were Catholic missionaries in the United States or its territories who advocated abolition, I would like to know who they were and what they did or said to support abolition.

--Richard (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Richard you misunderstand me. I'm asserting nothing - what your on about has been there for a long time, all I have done today is simply check cited material against what the source actually says and included the less flattering material that was missed out for whatever reason, i.e the pro-slavery material that Chadwick also mentioned. Perhaps you should ask the regular editors why they, not me, use Chadwick to assert the missionaries were leaders in the movement. I know more about the practice and teaching of the Church re slavery between the 15-16th centuries but I have a reference work by a good priest-scholar who doesn't whitewash and when I get the chance....Taam (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Taam, I now see that the comment about "Jesuits never allowing slaves on their settlements" was inside the quotation from Chadwick and therefore is his assertion and not yours. Hopefully, someone else will respond with an explanation of this apparent contradiction as the current text does seem to strike too much of an apologetic stance and therefore seems unencyclopedic. --Richard (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the quotation from Chadwick above is unvarnished, a straight lift from the book. Regarding the current text striking a "too apologetic stance", all I can say is what did you think of it before the balancing pro-slavery texts from Chadwick was added today? Surely this is going in the right direction! Taam (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the worldwide Church, not significantly the United States, over which the Catholic Church had very little influence at the time. Taam's highly selective additions to the text are discussed below. But selecting anecdotes about what Francis Xavier may have said over breakfast in 15xx is not helpful to a real discussion of what the Churches policies and influences were. As far as Chadwick is concerned, Nancy is the best person to comment. However saying "X that is negative has been left out", is not a very strong argument, when it can equally be added that "Y and Z that are positive have also been left out." As always, this is a matter of overview and condensation. Xandar 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar. I think Taams selective additions are bent on demonizing the Church, not giving Reader the actual acts of the official Church but selectively highlighting those individuals who may have disagreed with the official Church position, like some US bishops whose personal opinions did not make official policy. NancyHeise 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again were I, using your very own sources, provide a more inclusive picture of what the scholar says in contrast to a cherry picked passage but I am the one who is being selective? Sorry but I now see a pattern in both you and Xandars responses which refuses to engage in scholarly discourse, instead you seem to think that merely saying I am being selective and so forth makes it so, this doesn't seem very Christian to me to be frank. Taam (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, please drop the ad hominem comments. None of us can claim to be even 0.00001% like Christ.

I think the difficulty here is the attempt to cast the Church in a purely positive light rather than a truly balanced perspective. IMO, the truth is that the Church has historically been associated with the established power elite. This is one of the reasons why the Enlightenment is able to cast it as an enemy of enlightened reason.

• When Paul writes to Philemon, he does not tell him to free the escaped slave, Onesimus, but instead enjoins Philemon not to treat Onesimus harshly and to welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul. This is not pro-slavery but it is not abolitionist either.

• When Christianity becomes the official state religion of the Roman empire, it does not abolish slavery call for the abolition of slavery.

• Slavery declined in the Middle Ages in most parts of Europe as serfdom slowly rose, but it never completely disappeared. Do we see the Church campaigning against the evils of serfdom? AFAIK, it did not.

• The Church does complain to Ferdinand and Isabella about the treatment of Native Americans by the Spanish colonial administration. There are, however, records of harsh treatment of Native Americans by missionaries including the forcible capture and return of runaways from the missions. This may not be "slavery" per se but if it "looks like a duck and quacks like a duck", well, you know...

• So, where exactly has the Church campaigned against and helped to end slavery? Not in Europe, slavery seems to have died a natural death there. Perhaps it was in pagan countries in Africa and Asia. Fine, let us give credit where credit is due.

• But, let us also comment about its inability and/or unwillingness to do anything proactive about slavery in the United States. Put the blame on those renegade American bishops who carefully interpreted In Supremo Apostolatus to apply to slave trade but not to slavery per se.

Now, we don't have space to detail all of the above but what we need is a tightly written summary which provides a balanced perspective. We should not judge 2000 years of Church history harshly through the lens of 21st century standards but we should not exonerate it completely either.

--Richard (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My concern Richard is that the present text misrepresents a scholarly source and that should be fixed meantime either by including the full context of his views, as my edit did, or alternatively taking out the highly selective flattering clip that Xandar wants included. Do you agree? Taam (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard - all people all over the world practiced slavery. Christian Europe was the first to eliminate the practice when orders of monks were formed for the purpose of purchasing and freeing slaves. This was the beginning of abolition. The first condemnation of any slave practice anywhere was by the pope when he condemned the slavery of the Amerindians. This was just a short time after the New world was discovered. The abolition movement grew from there. Our sentence in Cultural influences section does not go into detail on slavery but it states the main issue in that the Church played an important role in the abolition movements. I say movements instead of movement because there was more than one throughout history. The Protestants were not around for the first efforts and would not have participated in the latter if they had not first been Christianized by the Catholic Church. NancyHeise 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is one POV. If other POVs can be presented with citations to reliable sources, they should be included for balance. It seems that the full quote from Chadwick that Taam wants included qualifies as such and so why can't we include it? Seems like a case where we either need to say more than we have now or less than we have now. --Richard (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick is one of several sources citing Catholic involvement in abolition. Taam only wants to include Chadwicks discussion of the latest abolition movement but ignores the previous abolition movements which were solely Catholic efforts. I have a problem giving undue weight to whole Chadwick quote because of this - it is uncomprehensive. The statement in the article is a one sentence statement, not a discussion of slavery which would need to be comprehensive. This would be inappropriate and violate WP:Undue on a single issue. I would be in favor of a note that gives a sentence to each abolition effort and the fact that slavery was a worldwide institution before Church efforts to eliminate it. NancyHeise 01:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

When and where did Taam state he wanted only to include Chadwicks discussion? Why do you peristently misrepresent anybody who is trying sincerely to give a balanced account of what scholars say rather than ripping out of context clips that flatter the Church? Please stop this. At present you have selectively taken one part of Chadwick out of context and thats not right. If he is to be in he must be represented accurately. Taam (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chadwick was not taken out of context, his ref is after the notation that missionaries were among the leaders, other refs are used for the other parts of the sentence. The article is about the Church, not slavery, you seem to want the latter and I disagree with you. We have highlighted the Church's role in slavery abolition, we do not discuss everyone else in the world's role and we should not. That belongs in the article on slavery. NancyHeise 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says "Historians note that Catholic missionaries, Popes, and religious, were among the leaders in campaigns against slavery." Can you please provide google books links for ref 2 and 3 that is cited for this source that states clearly what the article asserts. The point is the article gives the impression that the Church was at all times and places at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement whereas Chadwick (ref 1) asserts that Pope, clergy, monastries and nunneries were happy to own them (p. 189) as well as other instances on p. 242. There is no problem on my part in adding something about how common slavery was in parts of the world but I don't like the selective clipping of sources such as Chadwick. To repeat if we cannot treat an issue in a balanced way through supposed space limitations then we shouldn't treat it all.Taam (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added text that provides a more nuanced exposition of the Church's record wrt slavery. --Richard (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Taam's request, I have posted more sources in the section below entitled Slavery. It seems that others have posted other sources as well. Clearly it can no longer be argued that the Church was not at the forefront of abolition when we have all these sources saying it was. NancyHeise 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cathars

Xandar objects to the following edit:

The original text read:

"After a papal legate was put to death by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the " I expanded this to read:

"After a papal legate was put to death in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade which climaxed with the "appalling massacre" of the Cathar town of Bezier in 1209, offering an indulgence to all who took part in the campaign."

The source for the material is here

I cannot see any justification for Xandar's reversion especially since the section is preceded by: "12th century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a belief which stated that matter was evil, "prohibited marriage, encouraged suicide, and ... combined asceticism with immorality." which is somewhat colorful and fails to cover how the Cathars viewed the Church of the period. It kind of demonises the Cathars, i.e they were immoral and killed a papal legate and but glosses over what the other side did. Please note this is not my source but what was already in the article , all I have done is expand it to balance the text. I would invite comment to justify the deletion of this cited materialTaam (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the article on the Cathars, so "how they viewed the Church of the period", is not of necessary emphasis here. Nor is it a list of all the evil events in history that some people want to selectively lay at the door of the Catholic Church. The information deleted by Taam - that the Cathars were responsible for the killing of the Papal legate, is important since it relates to why the Crusade was launched. The information added, about an event in the wars that subsequently took place, is inaccurate, (Beziers did not "climax" the conflicts), and is not central to the very limited extent of this narrative, ie. the progress from Cathar heresy to the foundation of the Medieval Inquisition. In addition Taam's wording includeed opinionated emotive phrasing ("appalling massacre"), and also misleading juxtapositions, framing Pope Innocent's comments around the massacre at Beziers and then wrongly implying, again by juxtaposition, that the indulgence was offered for the massacre! In any event, this is not the article for selectively chosen individual events from individual campaigns. Xandar 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• The text read as if the Cathars were evil, killed the legate and therefore had it coming to them.
• The original text said the papal legate was put to death and so did the revised version. The only difference is that the reliable source used by the article doesn't state explicitly that he was killed by the Cathars and neither does the revised version which is therefore more faithful to the original source.
• The opinionated wording is not mine but the reliable source used by the article. I don't understand why you can object to this especially since the section begins with highly emotive quotation taken from Bokenkotter.
• The juxtaposition you mention is not mine but taken directly from the source you use, not one I have picked.

• You appear to wish to selectively take from the source whatever is good but suppress anything that departs from the ideal. This cannot be correct especially so in this instance when the author describes himself as a cradle Catholic and is used extensively by you throughout the article. At present you give no grounds for deleting this information. Your own opinions are exactly that - your own - and Misplaced Pages goes by reliable sources, and in this instance it is one of your own. Taam (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Taam that the text made it sound as if the killing of the legate was the Church's justification for launching the Albigensian crusade. That seems off-the-mark to me.

I agree with Xandar about omitting Beziers and other details because it is too much detail for an article of this scope. However, I would also delete the information about the death of the Papal legate. This event fits Xandar's comments about individual events being inappropriate in an article of this scope. It may well be true that the death of the legate triggered the Crusade but that was just the proximal cause not the true underlying cause. The Catholic Church goes around launching crusades because a legate got killed? yeah, right... just like the U.S. went to war against Spain because a battleship sank in Havana harbor. The text, as written, gave undue weight to the death of the legate.

If its too much detail about what the reliable source calls an "appalling massacre" then why have we the long Bokenkotter quotation that demonizes the Cathars? Taam (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cathars are not being demonized, Bokenkotter is just informing Reader as to why the Catholic Church felt they needed to be eliminated - because of their beliefs which encouraged certain behaviours, like suicide, that the Church deemed unhealthy for the general population. Why do we not want this information in the article? We tell Reader not just the What in an encyclopedia, we also tell people the Why - Taam wants to omit the Why - why? : ) NancyHeise 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the article is not about the Cathars or about the Albigensian Crusade. Do we go into similar detail about any other Crusade? (Well, OK, we do have one sentence each about the First and Fourth Crusade but not to the point of discussing death of legates or evil heresies.) Do we go into detail about the St. Bartholomew's massacre and the expulsion of the Huguenots from France? Please, there's 2000 years of history here. Let's show some judgment in picking what to include here. --Richard (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to recap I used the articles reliable source but expanded it slightly to reflect what Duffy wrote. It seems as plain as day that whilst Bokenkotter is allowed a long quotation to describe how the Church viewed the Cathars in a onesided manner, the mention of the Papal legate being killed, followed by the omission of what your scholar calls an "appalling atrocity" (under the direction of the Papal Legate, so I understand) that this section is just about providing a one sided whitewash of what happened. I repeat it is your reliable source who feels this is worthy of mention and to delete it is an abuse of neutrality. Taam (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't go into detail about St.Bartholomews massacre because it was not something sanctioned by the Church. There is a difference between the history of the Church and what individual Catholics do on their own. There was no Pope Urban preaching crusade when St Bartholomews happened and that is why it is omitted from this history section. The expulsion of the Huguenots was the decision of a French King - not the Church - omitted for the same reason as St. Bartholomews.

Does Duffy say Cathars were not preaching suicide? No. It is not onesided to state a plain fact about the Cathars beliefs. We have just represented why the Church viewed these people as threats. We make no personal claim as to whether this is justified or not, we just put the fact on the page. Taam, it is your own mind that creates some kind of POV about this fact, you think we are doing someting awful by telling Reader what the Cathars believed. However, they were killed by Church decree because of their beliefs and we are just bringing this fact out in the article. I do not agree that anything there violates WP:NPOV. NancyHeise

Who has mentioned the St. Batholomews massacre? thats not what we are discussing. Your reliable source Duffy affirms an "appalling massacre" took place and you simply want to suppress it and that is not correct use of scholarly sources. To repeat, you cannot just rip out one part out of context to "build up" a case agaianst the Cathars. This section reads like a very poor attempt to prove the Cathars were bad and had it coming to them and it does it by abusing sources.Taam (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If the First and Fourth Crusades can be summarized in a single sentence, how many sentences are needed to present the Albigensian Crusades. And why are the Cathars more worthy of coverage than other heretics? See List of Christian heresies for a list of candidates for inclusion in this article.

--Richard (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Because not all of the crusades were initiated by the Church. We give space to those that were which includes the Albigensian Crusade. We omit from this section the fact that the first form of decent law and order stems from the abuses commmitted by the initial crusaders. The Inquisition put an end to the pyromania that characterized lay efforts to eliminate enemies. Instead of whole towns being burned at the stake, we ended up with maybe two or three people instead. The Church was the only institution that offered the people some kind of government stability and legal system. I want to bring this up in peer review because it is a significant notable contribution of the Church of that era that is presently overlooked in the article. We want to tell people about the crusades and inquisitions but no one seems to realize the impact on Western civilization that these events ultimately made - positive impacts that are currently omitted. I get upset with accusations of POV by Taam for this reason. There is so much that this article fails to mention that should be mentioned and he wants to highlight minutia. NancyHeise 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I view both the death of the papal legate and the massacre at Beziers as extraneous detail that should be deleted.

I do agree with you that the Inquistion can be presented in the light of a more stable legal system although this does not exonerate it.

I suppose being sentenced to death by a jury of 12 peers is better than getting lynched but it's not a solution if you're against the death penalty.

That notwithstanding, why are you waiting for peer review to add the points you want to make about the Inquisition(s)?

--Richard (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I will not be able to spend the time necessary to do a decent job until after September 15th. This is when Brianbolton and I agreed we would consider peer review for this article. I am going out of town and am very busy at present. I look forward to improving this article during a full peer review with input from all the interested parties, not just Taam who seems to be a very biased editor that I do not seem to be able to come to agreement on important issues. It would help if his sources were better than mine but they are not and I get turned off when people come here and tell me that the most universally respected source on the history of the Church - Bokenkotter - is somehow inappropriate because Bokenkotter is a priest. If there are any academic journal reviews saying he is an inappropriate source who is biased, I have yet to see them, I have only found fabulous reviews evidenced by the fact that his book has been around for three decades with three reprintings and is still widely used as a university textbook after all these years. NancyHeise 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Xandar has reverted material. The text originally read:

"Historians note that Catholic missionaries, Popes, and religious, were among the leaders in campaigns against slavery."

Now on checking on google books today I could not find anything in 2nd and 3rd refs (Noll and Duffy) ref's to support the assertion about "the leaders in the campaign against slavery" so I deleted them. Owen Chadwick in the 1st ref does make such an assertion however he also mentions the pro-slavery stances taken elsewhere so I expanded to the text to read: "Owen Chadwick notes that Pope Nicholas V allowed the Portuguese to take slaves, that throughout Latin America clergy, monasteries and nunneries owned slaves whilst treating them humanely as an example to landowners. He notes that Saint Francis Xavier suggested using slaves to ease the debt situation at the college in Goa whilst Catholic missionaries in the Americas were one of the five main groups who campaigned against slavery."

In other words I have simply used the existing source to cover both pro and anti-slavery comments made by the existing articles reliable source. I seek comment as to why this has been deleted before reverting. Taam (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again you are presenting anecdotal events in a misleading way, and so creating a false synthesis. Incidents taken out of the context of Church policy are selectively mined and pasted together, and then laid on top of one positive statement, so there is six times as much anecdotal material added, trying to imply that the Church was pro-slavery, than the length of the original statement. Again this is unbalanced, anecdotal, presents a false perspective, and is non-encyclopedic. Xandar 22:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying Xandar is that we will take out the nice part from Chadwick which gives the impression that the Church has always been anti-slavery and ignore that parts where Chadwick points out the pro-slavery deeds. If you wish we can split this up into different sentences giving the page number from Chadwick for both sets of data. Which do you prefer?

What I'm saying is that your anecdotes are non-encyclopedic, selective, and amount to an attempt at a misleading synthesis. This is not the place for individual slectively-chosen anecdotes, but an overview of the position of the Church, and its contribution to the debate on slavery. For your anecdotes above, I could add another dozen pointing the other way. That would just produce an overlong section that is unsuitable for this article. Once again you appear to be attempting to use anecdotes in order to make implications, in an article to which they are entirely unsuited. If you're wanting to re-work a section of the article, it is best to discuss proposed alterations, and be prepared to stick to the limitations of the article format i.e. an overview of trends. Xandar 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you since you are the one who is being selective about Chadwick, not me. If you don't want to put in all his observations about the Church and slavery then take out the solitary fact you do wish to keep which completely distorts what the source says out of context, i.e making it look that the Church has been consistently anti-slavery when Chadwick doesn't say that. This is gross abuse of scholarly sourcing you cannot cherry pick like this. Taam (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, the first instance of anyone, ever, in the entire world, condemning slavery of a group of people is the Church prohibition of slavery of the Amerindians. Slavery was a fact of life everywhere except Christian Europe - a Europe Christianized by the Catholic Church. Maybe we should go further in this section to bring these facts about since there is such obvious confusion here. NancyHeise 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you appear only to have read sources that selectively use anti-slavery papal bulls and deeds but leave out the pro-slavery material. It doesn't matter what you or I think it's what scholars note. You seem to want to take out anything which departs from the ideal with respect to the Church but thats not Misplaced Pages is about. You must edit in a neutral way and allow scholarly material that you would rather not deal with. I strongly suggest that you and Xandar also stop misrepresenting what people say, i.e when using scholarly sources that are inclusive you automatically turn around and say the opposite and make charges of being selective. As I have previously said this is not very Christian in my eyes and it does nothing to attract me to Catholicism. Taam (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cultural Influences section does not name any papal bulls. The section includes a sentence that says that popes, Laymen and Religious in the Church were leaders in the campaigns against slavery. All referenced to the various sources that support the wording in the sentence. What is omitted in the Cultural Influences section that I think makes it anti-Catholic is the fact that slavery was an institution practiced everywhere in the world by everyone and that Christian Europe, Christianized by the Church, was the first to try to eliminate it and did so because of Gospel teachings. We should be telling people what life was like for the people before the Church came along but we don't. That makes the article lack comprehensiveness. We have said, in the most concise mannner, the societal ills fought and in some cases eliminated by the efforts of the Church. All of these are referenced to scholarly works, many of them written by non-Catholics which should not matter anyway but does to people like you it seems. NancyHeise 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is Popes, laymen and religious in the Church also sanctioned slavery as Chadwick point out in his book. Your abusing scholarly sources by cherry picking the one part and leaving out the others. 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery was an institution that was accepted by all cultures worldwide, it was the norm, not the exception. Yes, there were popes laymen and religious that approved of slavery but why would we bring that out if the entire world approved of slavery? It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to bring this out. Our sentence is referenced to scholars so I don't understand why there is any kind of gripe here. We just put the facts on the page but you want to highlight a non-fact that is not brought out by scholars as something abnormal or unusual. NancyHeise 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this has to be one of the strangest posts I have read on Misplaced Pages. Rather than get sidetracked it seems sufficient to say that whilst it may violate your own sense of NPOV the norm is to reflect what a scholarly sources says as best we can, you cannot simply suppress the bits you do not like from a scholarly source and highlight what you do approve and thus misrepresent Chadwick. On the other hand if you have found new page numbers in the 2nd and 3rd ref that directly and unambiguously support the assertion made in the text then please advise because they didn't check out today. Taam (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent Chadwick. The article is about the Catholic Church, not slavery. You want a sentence that discusses the latter and not the former. I disagree with you. Consensus of editors agreed with me. NancyHeise 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can go and read the book and see how you have cherrypicked Chadwick. If you feel the article cannot give adequate space to represent a scholars view that don't deal with it all. It's very wrong to use sources this way. Taam (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, the accusation of cherrypicking is a personal attack and a violation of wikipedia policy. Anyone can go and read it and see that I have referenced a section of his sentence that is talking about the Catholic Church. Our article does not discuss the efforts of others to end slavery it just says that certain segements of the Church were leaders in the efforts. REFERENCED FACT. NancyHeise 01:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what else you call it when a scholar has one passage about slavery and the Church quoted when it puts the Church in a positive light but other passages where he puts it a negative light are ignored? Is there a more apt description, especially so when seen in the context of Duffy's selective use as mentioned elsewhere on this page and the ongoing issues with Mit Brenennder Sorge etc. Why is that it always comes out in the side of flattering the Church and not a more random distribution as happens with normal human error? Also why is it a personal attack when an observation is backed up with scholarly sources but the continual misrepresentation of editors by you and Xandar is considered ok? It seems that both of you fill the talk page with lots of obstructive material that ultimately drives a lot of good faith editors away and the article is allowed to continue with problems like this. Taam (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found this article by Rodney Stark which I think is very enlightening. True, it is an apologetic defending the church's stance wrt slavery but it at least recognizes that there are criticisms and addresses them head-on. In a nutshell, Stark's argument is that we must separate the Church's teaching on slavery from the practice of individual Catholics even when those individual Catholics include clergy, bishops and even Popes. Viewed this way, we cannot find evidence of the Church teaching in favor of slavery and we can find many instances of the Pope protesting against slavery. It is true that the Church accepted slavery in antiquity and perhaps even into the Early Medieval Age. Slavery was not recognized as a sin until Thomas Aquinas.

Thus, I imagine changing the text to read something like: "Although the Church accepted slavery as a social institution in antiquity and even into the Early Medieval period, some Catholics such as Saint Bathilde, Saint Anskar, Saint Wulfstan and Saint Anselm campaigned against slavery and the slave trade. By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been abolished throughout Europe. After Tomas Aquinas declared that slavery was a sin, this teaching was upheld by several popes, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537. The Church's campaign against slavery continued on for several centuries. A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials;however, these were largely ignored despite the threat of excommunication. Nonetheless, Catholic missionaries such as the Jesuits worked to alleviate the suffering of Native American slaves in the New World. In spite of a resounding condemnation of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, the American Catholic Church continued to support slaveholding interests until the abolition of slavery."

--Richard (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Stark's apologetic piece misses out the papal bulls that sanction slavery. Incredibly he calls "Sublimeus Deus" magnificent but fails to point out that the executing brief for it was canceled by Pope Paul III shortly thereafter and that the same Pope authorized the enslavement of people in Rome, including Christians. He also fails to point out that the anti-slavery bulls did not apply to those who were "enemies of Christ" i.e those who defended their homelands from the invaders.

Here are the passages that Nancy Heisse and Xandar want to suppress from their own reliable source regarding slavery:

• "Pope Nicholas , who was one of the best popes of the 15th century but knew nothing of what went on overseas, had already issued a bull in 1452 which allowed the Portuguese to make slaves. Throughout Latin America clergy, monasteries, and nunneries were happy to own them. They did try to treat their slaves with justice and humanity, and tried, mostly in vain, to persuade landowners to follow their example. They attacked illegal modes of slaves, but seldom the existence of slavery itself." p. 189-191

• "Yet when the great campaign began in the late eleventh century to stop the clergy from having wives, it was ruled that such wives, as illegal persons, might be sold into slavery". P. 242

• "When Francis Xavier, to whom none can deny the title of saint, heard that the college at Goa was in debt, he suggested that a way out was to buy some slaves" P. 242

• The other passage from p. 242 which presents the Church in a anti-slavery light they want to keep as I do with references to the above as well for neutral point of view and to reflect the range of the sources observations not just the anti-slavery part.

The foreword to Father John Maxwells book "Slavery and the Catholic Church (Nibil Obstat, Imprimatur 1973) says "The fact is the history of Catholic teaching concerning the moral legitimacy of slavery is not simple and straightforward. The Church's attitude to slavery have been so widely misrepresented..."(p. 3)

Father Maxwell covers all of the pro and anti-slavery texts in his book and writes in the introduction "Since the 6th century and right up until the twentieth century it has been the common Catholic teaching that the social, economic and legal institution of slavery is morally legitimate provided that the masters title of ownership is valid and provided that the slave is properly looked after and cared for, both materially and spiritually. This institution of genuine slavery, whereby one human being is legally owned by another, and is forced to work for the inclusive benefit of his owner in return for food, clothing and shelter, and may be bought, sold, donated or exchanged, was not merely tolerated but was commonly approved of in the Western Latin Church for over 1400 years". (p. 10) The scholar Jesuit Cardinal Avery Dulles writes "For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin." he lists the anti-slavery texts like Stark but also fails to mention the pro-slavery ones and continues "No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources."

Father Maxwell's book is the only one I have encountered by a modern Catholic scholar who deals with all the relevant texts not just the anti-slavery ones. imo it's not possible to have a correct understanding without both sets of material. Taam (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again Taam is raising lists of anecdotes and alleged actions by individuals, which have very little bearing on this page, which is about Church policies. Nor is this article a redaction of some individual's book, it covers major trends. Anecdotal events and occurences in a 200 page book, if it is neutral in wording, are set in context and balanced. What Taam is doing is a "Hitchens-style" job of cherrypicking negative events out of context and patching them together to produce distorted inferences. I could then add in other anecdotal incidents of priests dying to fight slavery, defending slaves, supporting revolts etc. I'm sure he can find books which try to blame the Church for slavery and every other evil on the planet. That does not mean that they can be quoted out of context and given Undue weight on this page. I don't know why Taam is so keen to blame one of the only organisations to condemn and discourage slavery before the modern period, for this institution, but his is not a balanced view. Is he off to the Islam article to insert a paragraph on that religion's attitude to slavery? As before, substantial contested wording changes need to be worked out on this page in an atmosphere of calm and compromise rather than point-scoring. Xandar 11:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The list of "anecdotes" is from your reliable source. It is you who have selected one to the negelect of the others becuase it flatters the Church. Father Maxwell writes "Since the 6th century and right up until the twentieth century it has been the common Catholic teaching that the social, economic and legal institution of slavery is morally legitimate provided that the masters title of ownership is valid and provided that the slave is properly looked after and cared for, both materially and spiritually. This institution of genuine slavery, whereby one human being is legally owned by another, and is forced to work for the inclusive benefit of his owner in return for food, clothing and shelter, and may be bought, sold, donated or exchanged, was not merely tolerated but was commonly approved of in the Western Latin Church for over 1400 years". Why can't you simply engage with points I raise instead of all this hot air. Do you agree that you have taken one point from Chadwick and ignored the rest, especially the papal bull sanctioning slavery and that another Catholic scholar notes that the Church through long periods of time sanctioned various forms of enslavement? What is your repsonse to these substantial points. ? Taam (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar that focusing on anecdotes of specific actions by specific individuals is inappropriate here. However, asserting things like "some popes owned slaves" as Cardinal Dulles does is OK if we are talking about more than one or two popes. Similarly, I think it is important to at least mention the divergence of the American Church from the modern understanding of In Supremo Apostolatus.

Xandar and Nancy may wish to divorce the actions of segments of the Church faithful from the teachings of the Church but, IMO, this is not appropriate. People understand the Church to be more than the teachings of the Church; the Church is how those teachings actually play out in everyday life. If the faithful ignore or oppose the teachings of the Church, that can be notable and encyclopedic.

I withhold judgment on Maxwell until I understand his points better. I like what Cardinal Dulles wrote. Let's start there.

1. For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin."
5. "No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
6. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

This is excellent stuff. Except that it would be weak style and inappropriate in an article of this scope, I would almost quote Cardinal Dulles directly. We should probably quote him in the references.

My one question is that Stark argues that Aquinas found slavery to be a sin and Cardinal Dulles doesn't seem to read Aquinas the same way.

This is a critical point because Stark asserts that it is the Thomist teaching about slavery that is the spark for papal bulls condemning slavery.

I would like to see what Taam calls "pro-slavery texts" and evaluate them against what Cardinal Dulles wrote.

--Richard (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Father Maxwells comments re St Thomas Aquinas and slavery:

"St Thomas Aquinas in mid-thirteenth century accepted the new Aristotelian view of slavery as well as the titles of slave ownership derived from Roman civil law, and attempted - without complete success - to reconcile them wit Christian patristic tradition. He takes the patristic them,(iv) (3) above, that slavery exists is a consequence of original sin and says that it exists according to the "second intention" of nature; it would not have existed in the state of original innocence according to the "first intention" of nature; in this way he can explain the Aristotlian teaching that some people are slaves "by nature" like inanimate instruments, because of their personal sins; for since the slave cannot work for his own benefit slavery is necessarily a punishment. He accepts the symbiotic master-slave relationship as being mutually beneficial. There should be no punishment without some crime, so slavery as a penalty is a matter of positive law. (Maxwell p. 47) St Thomas explanation continued to be expounded at least until the end of the 18th century." (Maxwell p. 84) Taam (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The following are extracts from the overview section of Father Maxwells book which outline the pro-slavery texts, the anti-slavery texts we can cover as well since even these are not blanket condemnations of slavery but in some cases are only applicable to newly baptized, those who submit to Christian rule (if they don't accept the invaders then it is a "just war" situation as far as the Church is concerned), and those that do not condemn transatlantic slave trade whilst banning slavery of native Americans:

• Slavery is imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

(a) The crime of assisting the Saracens 1179-1450.....

(b) The crime of selling Christian slaves to the Saracens 1425. Pope Martin V issued two constitutions ....Traffic in Christian slaves was not forbidden, but only their sale to non Christian masters....

(c) The crime of brigandage in the Pyrenees mountainous districts, 1179....

(d)Unjust aggression or other crimes, 1309-1535. The penalty of capture and enslavement for Christian families or cities or states was enacted several times by Popes. Those sentenced included Venetians in 1309.......Henry VIII of England in 1535...(Maxwell p. 48-49)

• Papal grants to the Kings of Portugal, giving authority to enslave "Saracens" and other non-Christians of West Africa with whom Christendom was at war, 1452-1514

In 1452 Pope Nicholas V addressed a brief Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery"

• Two years later, in 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed every word of his previous brief in a longer one addressed to King Alfonso V Romanus Pontifex...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future.

• In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them....(Maxwell p. 54)

• Papal grant to the Kings of Spain giving authority to enslave the "Saracens" and other non-Christians of America with whom Christendom is at war, 1493

There was a significant phrase in the brief of Pope Nicholas V to King Alphonso V in 1454 which extended the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to territories already acquired but also to those which might be acquired in the future. After the discovery of America in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella were foresighted enough to see that if Spain did not receive from the Pope in regard to the American "Indies" the same authority and permissions which Portugal had received in regard of West Africa, then Spain would be at a disadvantage in making use of her newly discovered territories. Accordingly Pope Alexander VI was approached and already on May 3 1493 he issued two bulls on the same day in both of which he extended the identical favours, permissions, etc. granted to the Monarchy of Portugal in respect of West Africa to the Monarchy of Spain in respect of America.....and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery...wherever they may be.(Maxwell p. 55) Taam (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Papal decrees concerning the institution of slavery in the city of Rome 1535-1566

... Pope Paul III, a year before his death...revoked the privilege of the conservatori in this matter, and declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome...(Maxwell p. 74-75)

• Papal involvement in the use of Moslem galley slaves in the galleys of the Pontifical squadrann, 1629-1788.

There are records which show that from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves for the Pontifical squadran...In general galley slaves could be convicted criminals condemned to a life sentence...captured non-Christian prisoner of war who cold be ransomed..."volunteers", who through indigence had sold themselves into slavery... (Maxwell p. 76-78)

• The Holy Office on slavery in West Africa, 1686, and Ethiopia 1866.

...In 1866 the Holy Office issued an Instruction in reply to questions from a Vicar Apostolic..."Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons...it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated...(Maxwell p. 78)

Fr. Maxwell references all his documents to the original source so if if anyone is interested let me know for further details. Will post also the "anti-slavery" texts when ready so we can through what kind of slavery was under the ban what kinds were not.Taam (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of this stuff seems to be opinion or selective snips and out-of-context material. Muslim galley slaves for example are more properly seen as prisoners of war. And papal bulls aimed at Muslims are written in the context of the long-term policy of Islamic enslavement of Christian captives which was consistent and took place all across the Christian world wherever raiders could reach from the 7th until at least the 18th Century. Similarly calling certain forms of labour-punishment for crime "slavery" is stretching a point. The difference between Christian toleration of the legal principle of slavery - dominant in the Roman World into which Christianity emerged, and not challenged by Jesus or Paul in the gospels, also has to be separated from other principles. In other words saying Christianity didn't forbid slavery in X00 Ad is putting the cart way before the horse. The principle of slavery was universally and unquestionably established in all cultures. It was the law, and the bedrock of the Roman and World economy. Jesus and Paul had said, obey the law and concern yourself with heavenly things rather than political. Paul himself famously argued that slaves should obey masters and dedicate their sufferings to God. So it is hardly surprising that Christianity did not at once turn into a political campaign against slavery. That would have changed the whole nature of the movement. I'm afraid some of the opinionation seems to start from the basis of 7th century Christians not having the political ideology or the priorities of 21st Century liberal-democrats. The point is that the Christian principle of "Do unto others" was gradually seen as applying to the issue of slavery, but at first in an individual-responsibility and gradualist manner. The key point is that slavery was seen as wrong by Christians - and largely ONLY by Christians (even the "Enlightenment was actually the hay-day of slavery) - and slowly abolished. Attempts to paint the Church as some way responsible for slavery are therefore misplaced. Xandar 22:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you are overstating the case when you characterize others as attempting "to paint the Church as some way responsible for slavery". What we have established is that the Church did not consider slavery to be wrong. You provide arguments why we should not judge it harshly for that. From a sociological perspective, there is perhaps some validity to those arguments. However, we give the Church credit for establishing other values which were not commonly accepted in the Greco-Roman culture such as equality of women, monogamy and opposing practices such as infanticide, etc. If we give it credit for being pioneers in championing such values, it is reasonable to at least note that opposition to slavery was wrong was not one of the early values that it championed. It is reasonable to state that humane treatment of slaves was one of those early values and, as you say, abolition was a later development. I'm not yet clear when slavery became considered a sin. Some such as Rodney Stark say as early as Aquinas. Some say later. This article is not the place to present the various sides of that debate. Suffice it to say, even after the Church started to oppose slavery, it had a tough time getting the faithful to heed its pronouncements on the topic. (cf. Rodney Stark). The Catholic Church may have been the first to oppose slavery but the Protestant countries appear to have ended it earlier than the Catholic countries. There may be socioeconomic and geopolitical reasons for that fact. I'm not arguing that the Protestants were nobler or holier than the Catholics. I'm simply pointing out that Catholics may be more associated with slavery in some people's minds because of this quirk of history. Is it the fault of the Catholic Church? Perhaps not; however, we need to address the issue in a way so that the article does not come off as a simple whitewash but rather a nuanced and informed explanation of the nuances. Thus, the story we need to tell is more nuanced than the current text that baldly asserts that the Church opposed and, in some cases, helped to end slavery. Or we could omit it altogether. This is one of those cases where the article needs to either say more or say less on this topic. --Richard (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible for me to type and post all of Fr Maxwell's book so in response to Richards request for info on Papal pro-slavery info I posted headings from the book but if someone would like a more detailed account of a particular part please let me know. As for Stark on Aquinas I think he gets it wrong whereas Maxwell's is a good summary. Dom Bede Jarrett, a Dominican-Thomist with a special interest in social theories and the middle ages, confirms Maxwell's view that Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason. (p. 97) whilst this link (p. 62) gives the passage from Aquinas that Fr. Maxwell refers to. It should of course be clear that the Church during the slave era never taught that slavery was intrinsically evil because that would have meant Popes had taught sin as in their string of pro-slavery bulls issued in the 15/16th century listed above. Hence the Holy Office assertion given above affirming the same as late as the 1860's. I agree with Richard that we either treat the issue of slavery neutrally in the cultural influences summary section or not at all by simply pointing out to the reader that it's a cultural influence in this area is a complex subject and linking it to a more detailed article. Taam (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I have removed the bit about Aquinas determining that slavery was a sin per your comment about the interpretations of Maxwell and Dom Bede Jarrett. It's not within the scope of this article to resolve the difference of opinion between Stark on one side and Maxwell and Dom Bede Jarrett on the other. I'm not sure how to work in the evidence you have presented about the Church's toleration and ownership of slaves. I think it is reasonable to take the stance that Church teaching evolved from accepting slavery as part of the way things are to something undesirable and then finally something unacceptable. I have tried to write the text to reflect this stance. I'm not sure if this addresses all your concerns. It's already a lot of text for an article of this scope and I would like to cut it down rather than expand it. Do you feel your concerns have been addressed in the current revision of the relevant text? --Richard (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, as I have indicated several times in our discussion, this article's broad scope simply does not allow for a detailed and sophisticated discussion of the Catholic Church's stance towards slavery over 2000 years. The best we can hope for is a tightly written, NPOV summary of the key points.

I have taken much of the material that you have provided from Maxwell's work along with the excellent bit from Avery Cardinal Dulles and inserted it into our article on Christianity and slavery. That article is a mess and needs a lot of work. I invite you and other interested editors to join me over there to work on that article. --Richard (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of the above stuff from Taam is selective, negatively-spun and heavily misleading. Bunging it wholesale into another article is not a good idea. Even some of Richard's assumptions are based on fallacies. For example the statement that Protestant Countries ended (New World) slavery earlier than Catholic ones: Looking at the facts we see: 1761 Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India, but not Brazil or Africa, France abolishing slavery (partly-abortively) in 1794, in 1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo , 1813 Argentina abolishes slavery, 1821 Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela abolish slavery, 1823 Chile abolishes slavery, 1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery, 1829 Mexico abolishes slavery, 1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery, 1834 British Empire Abolishes slavery, 1842 Uruguay abolishes slavery, 1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies, 1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery, 1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies, 1865 United States abolishes slavery, 1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies, 1886 Cuba abolishes slavery, 1888 Brazil abolishes slavery. Xandar 13:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar wrote: "Bunging it wholesale into another article is not a good idea." Well, look at Christianity and slavery and either edit the article or comment on its Talk Page as to how to improve it.

BTW, thank you for the list. It will be useful in other articles.

--Richard (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... actually a fuller list can be found here. --Richard (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:the chronology of abolition. Actually, I was thinking Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe when I said Protestant vs. Catholic. This may be an unfair comparison since slavery was probably never very prevalent in Northern Europe to begin with. I note that Holland and Denmark are in the list above so perhaps I was wrong. Where do Germany and the rest of Scandinavia fall into this list chronologically?

Perhaps the issue is that Europe had abolished the enslavement of white Christians but not of non-Christians and so slavery was more acceptable in the colonies. However, even though some of the enslaved peoples became Christian, slavery was so entrenched that the proscription against enslavement of Christians got lost somewhere along the line.

--Richard (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the material I posted was from Abolition of slavery timeline, which is very incomplete regarding slavery in Europe in general. Of course Northern Europe was entirely Catholic/Orthodox until the 1520-70 period. The state of affairs in southern Europe tends to be complicated by interactions with islam, the American trade, and the existence of so-called "galley-slaves", who can actually probably classed as inhabitants of mobile prisons rather than members of a slave-class as such.

Regarding the Cultural Influences section. there is certainly now too great an emphasis on this issue there, and the whole section is unbalanced and in need of a re-write. Xandar 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar, please see my comment to that effect in the next section (Slavery II) By the way, here are more sources to consider regarding the Church and its efforts to end slavery are:

• Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
• Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
• Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis University of North Carolina Press (book review from The Journal of American History here p. 137 "Cochins main concern however was to present a detailed defense of the Catholic Church as working throughout the centuries to apply 'abolute principles' of Scripture that defined "the equality of men before God, the lawfulness of wages, the unity and the brotherhood of the human race," the duties of mutual love to neighbors and the Golden Rule. Cochin put into the present tense what he claimed the leaders of the Catholic Church had always done: "Occupied moreover, before everything the enfranchisement of souls, they seek to make of the master and the slave, two brethren on earth, and of these brethren, two saints in heaven. To those who suffer they say 'Wait!' to those who inflict suffering, 'Tremble!'" NancyHeise 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

These references just posted above and all the others posted here make the point that this article is making in the Cultural influences section in that the Church was a leader in the campaigns to end slavery. Richard has brought out in detail some of these instances of leadership but no one has added to the article the fact that slavery was a worldwide institution practiced everywhere by everyone until the Church began to chip away at it. It is POV to say anything about the Church's efforts regarding slavery without making this point also. However, the article simply needs to say that the Church was a leader in the campaigns to end slavery - all the rest of these details should go into the article on slavery because it is too much for this article. If we are going to go into slavery, why not go into other issues like human sacrifice and polygamy that the Church also led campaigns against? Why are we so focused on slavery? Isn't human sacrifice something even worse? I oppose the efforts of Taam and Richard to expand the cultural influence section because these efforts are onesided and create unbalanced effect. I prefer the previous wording that was agreed by consensus before Richard and Taam came along. Thanks anyway for your efforts. NancyHeise 02:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is sources. A sound source is one who deals with all the papal bulls etc. relevant to slavery. In the works you mention above could you please quote the passages that deal with Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex so we can continue the discussion? Taam (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

Nancy wrote "Thank you for your efforts anyway." The tone of it sounds dismissive and condescending.

Nancy wrote "I prefer the previous wording that was agreed by consensus ... " I would like to point out that this suggests that Nancy is the "Keeper of the consensus". If she prefers a proposed change to what the "consensus" has previously blessed, she gets to approve it. If not, she gets to reject it. This smacks of ownership. I was not aware that Nancy had been appointed to serve in a role of "Keeper of the consensus".

As has been previously shown, consensus can change although sometimes proving that it has changed can require lots of effort (e.g. a year-long mediation). No text that is deemed to have been "blessed by consensus" is unassailable. Anyone can challenge it and no one editor can assert that the consensus has not changed.

The next step in the disputes that are ongoing would be an RFC. If progress is not made towards a mutually agreeable resolution, I will consider opening one or more of them.

--Richard (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery II

Richard, your edit this morning to this section is an improvement, however there are a few points that need clarified which I have numbered below. Though these comments might seem quite lengthy hopefully it only amounts to slight word changes. The article states at present:

"(1)By the end of the Medieval period, enslavement of Christians had been largely abolished throughout Europe (2)although enslavement of non-Christians remained an open question. Although Catholic clergy, religious orders and even popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in (3) 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery(4) by Pope Paul III in 1537. (5)A number of Popes issued papal bulls condemning enslavement and mistreatment of Native Americans by Spanish and Portuguese colonials;however, these were largely ignored (6)despite the threat of excommunication."

• (1) Between the 6th and 12th century there is evidence of a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity-justice and coupled with social changes these had a transforming effect of slavery into serfdom, should we not link up with the latter?
• (2) On what grounds do we assert it was an open question? We cannot say "began to turn" because of point(4)
• (3) This refers to Sicut Dudum and the subsequent bull issued in 1436 (which tempered the first after protests by King Duarte) which applied to the newly converted (same for the bull issued in 1462), so we should state this explicitly, i.e not a blanket ban as is suggested. I can supply scholarly references in addition to Father Maxwell for this. Could you also confirm what are the 3 bulls we are referring to here.
• (4) There was no "culminating" indeed the opposite happened, i.e see Maxwell above re the pro-slavery bulls that preceded Pope Paul III "Sublimius Deus" in 1435.This bull followed after the Royal edict of Charles V banning slavery so the Pope is following and not leading or innovating as might be suggested. Paul III also sanctioned slavery (see Maxwell above) so we should make it clear that it was only certain types of slavery that came under the ban whilst others he approved. Paul also revoked the executive brief (excommunication threats etc.) relating to Sublimius Deus after protest by the Spanish monarchy very soon after it was issued, again multiple scholarly sources for these assertions.
• (5) We also have a number of bulls sanctioning slavery so how do we wish to express both aspects?
• (6) See point (4) regarding the withdrawal of excommunication threat.

There are other points but for simplicity have limited comments to the above three sentences to begin with. When you are ready, and if you wish, I can also post the "anti-slavery" texts and go through what is and is not under the ban. Xandar, if you dispute any of the assertions Father Maxwell makes could you please provide scholarly sources for them instead of your own very characteristic utterances; substance not hot air is needed. Taam (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I addressed point #1 by adding more or less what you wrote to the text of the article.

Re #2, "remained an open question" is perhaps too generous a euphemism; would you prefer to simply say "enslavement of non-Christians remained permissible"?

Re #3, I have modified the text to say that the bulls were "against slavery" rather than "for the abolition of slavery". If you insist on clarification, I would prefer to leave that to a Note as the text is quite long already. As for the "3 bulls", I was paraphrasing Rodney Stark so you will have to look to his article to verify whether the 3 bulls he was talking about are the ones that you have in mind.

Re #4, we might wish to change the phrase "culminating in" to something like "followed by". I would not get into the details of which types of slavery came under the ban and whether the threat of excommunication was later revoked. If you absolutely insist, these points could be presented in a Note. Once again, the article text is already quite long for this context. There are other articles where these details can be presented in the main text.

Re #5, I am not convinced that the bulls "sanction" slavery so much as they recognize them as a "fact of life" and proceed to deal with the implications of slavery as a social institution. I think it is reasonable to indicate that the Church continued to tolerate slavery and deal with it in the course of normal business while, at the same time, attempting to temper its harshness and working to abolish it. The 20th century may have accustomed us to rapid social change. Let us not judge the Church too harshly using the anachronistic lens of modern times.

Re #6, responded to in my response to #4 above

--Richard (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1. If you add that slavery was largely transformed into serfdom though never abolished as such then we can tie it in with scholarly sources.
• 2 Dealt with in point 1) and 3), simply delete "slavery for non Christians remained an open question" which means we don't have to cover who and what kind of slavery was tolerated, i.e Christians could indeed be enslaved under certain circumstances as well non-Christians.
• 3 Suggesting saying that in 1435 the enslavement of newly converted Christians was banned but subsequent papal bulls sanctioned it for Muslims or non-Christians (the Pope actually said "to invade, search out", i.e it wasn't just passive toleration, and to subject them to "perpetual slavery"). Also suggest saying simply that Paul III banned certain types of slavery in the Americas in 1537 but allowed other kinds of slavery in Rome . By using "certain types", or words to that effect, it means we don't have to cover "enemies of Christ" or the lack of condemnation of the transatlantic slave trade (as scholars note), save in a note, or if at all in this article. The most important point in this is that there is no blanket ban of slavery at this point, as the Holy Office repeats in the 1860's.
• 4 If point 3 is taken care off then this is sorted as well.
• 5 As above.
• 6 As above.

The above is highly compressed summary but I think we can cover it ok with scholarly sources. Taam (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

All I see this section of talk coming to is the undenible fact that the Church was a leader in the campaigns to end slavery, exactly the point we were making in the original sentence. Now that point has been expanded to include the actual detailed facts supporting the point made. This is too much detail for this article. All we needed was an overview of Cultural influence of the Church and you have turned it into a mini article on slavery that does nothing to change the original meaning of our original sentence but just draws it all out into a long discussion that is inappropriate here. Why don't you put that long expose on the slavery page instead? We can link it on this page and thus keep our article in line with WP:summary style. NancyHeise 02:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I group noted the slavery section. I think it is a good note but we should discuss its necessity at peer review. NancyHeise 03:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, the note is obviously incorrect based on scholarly sources who are experts in this field. Could you take the time to reply to the points I raised above yesterday and if there are points you want scholarly citations for then please let me know. At present it looks like an attempt to bury out of sight unpleasant information that displeases Nancy Heisse and Xander whilst the main article still asserts much to much according to scholarly sources who deal with all the papal bulls: not just the "nice" ones, as in works of scholarly piety, or loaded apolgetics material, so prevalent in this article. Taam (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, could you please either edit the Note yourself or propose wording which will address your concerns? I don't feel up to the task. I also suggest that, at this point, it would be better to see if we can come up with one sentence which captures what we are trying to say in the text that has now become a Note. --Richard (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I am awaiting a reply from Nancy Heisse regarding how her reliable sources treat the pro-slavery bulls and will then revise the note and article to reflect all points of view. I don't think there is any chance whatsoever with the present editors who control this article accepting anything that doesn't conform to their version of the ideal therefore I would like your assurance that you will not simply walk away before I embark on this. Taam (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, Taam, what are you, a mindreader? Like you, I have been frustrated on numerous occasions by the conditions under which one must edit this page; however, I do have to say that this is a fantastically well-written article and NancyHeise must be given much of the credit for that. Were it not for that awesome contribution, her sense of ] would be truly intolerable. Similarly, I read, consider and value much of what Xandar says although I find him also to be overly partisan in defending the Catholic Church from criticism. NPOV does seem to be a four-letter word around here.

My frustration has indeed been rising over the last couple of weeks with a few bursts of testiness which I regret and apologize for. When this kind of thing happens, I often seek other outlets for my editing work and I have begun to embark on other projects related to the Catholic Church so as to decrease my emotional involvement in this particular article.

I have started to give up hope of changing the current text to address your concerns although I am contemplating issuing RFCs on the two issues of Bokenkotter/Falconi and authorship of the MBS draft. You have my assurance that I will keep this article and its Talk Page on my watchlist and will assist in getting your issues considered and addressed (as should be obvious, this is not a promise of unconditional support but rather a commitment to look at what you present with an open mind).

If you feel that there is something in particular that I have not seen or paid sufficient attention to, you are welcome to leave me a message on my Talk Page.

--Richard (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Influence II

Xander has reverted some more material.

The original text reads: However, "the critics of Christian tradition" say Church teachings have perpetuated a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained even though official Church teaching considers women and men to be equal, different, and complementary.

Using the same source I corrected it to read:

However, "the critics of Christian tradition" say Church teachings have perpetuated a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained whilst Peter Kreeft notes that the modern Catechism teaches that women and men "are equal as persons", and "complementary as masculine and feminine".

The original text makes it look as if the Church has always taught what is currently in the current Catechism which I think is very confusing. Please note I'm quoting directly from the existing reliable source used by the article who gives refs to the modern Catechism. Once again I seek explanation for this deletion before reverting. Taam (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The full text which I restored is in two parts, it reads:

"However, "the critics of Christian tradition" say Church teachings have perpetuated a notion that female inferiority was divinely ordained even though official Church teaching considers women and men to be equal, different, and complementary"

Taam left the criticism in the first part in clear prose, but changed the second part by placing it in formalistic, harder to understand, prose, and attributes it to Kreeft in the text. What was the purpose of this change? We don't have to copy the exact wording of sources, and Kreeft has been used as a secondary source commenting on the catechism. There is no need to attribute the opinion to him in the text, and no need to use exceptionally formal language - especially not in one part of the sentence but not the other. And the text is quite clearly set in the present tense. Taam's change was not an improvement. Xandar 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't you see the synthesis, i.e juxtaposition of what seems two different issues, i.e the historical treatment of women and what Peter Kreeft says is currently in the Catechism. If what Peter Kreeft is saying has always been the teaching of the Church can you point me to authoritative documents other than the modern era, especially the Catechism. As it stands my corrections are more faithful to the source and your are misleading especially in the synthesis of two different sources. Taam (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion about the substantive issues here, I will comment that I think it is poor style to attribute opinions to relatively unknown authors directly in the text. If you are quoting Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, then they should be named in the text; otherwise, name the person in the footnote. If you wish to indicate that not everybody believes this, then use a weasel word like "some". --Richard (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Kreeft is an apologist and if we are stating something which seems very iffy, i.e the assertions made in the modern catechsim as having prevailed throughout the Christian era then yes we should note who is saying it. Taam (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Kreeft would make the section POV and unbalanced. We need Kreeft to reference the fact that official Church teaching considers women to be equal, different and complimentary. By the way, Kreeft is not a "Catholic Apologist". He is a professor of philosophy at Boston College . There are no requirements on Misplaced Pages that sources be non-Catholic so I don't understand the problem with using his Nihil obstat Imprimatur source as a reference for official Catholic teaching. NancyHeise 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about removing him? As for apologetics - I have read some of his works, indeed one of them is about apologetics. Could I also point out we are not in the beliefs section of the article so Nihil Obstat etc. isn't a criteria for inclusion when we are dealing in part with Church history though it is when ddealing with modern Church teaching. That seems to be a problem here were the current catechism might being used in an anachronistic way through synthesis Taam (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence makes a statement about official Catholic teaching. We used a Nihil Obstat book to reference that statement - what's your problem with that? Would you rather we use a book that does not have a Nihil Obstat? Why? NancyHeise 23:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To repeat, the problem is with synthesis, the putting together of two different sources and the application of the modern teaching, as reflected in the Catechism, to have been applicable throughout the history of the Church. My edits are more faithful to the source, whilst the original distorts. Taam (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been applicable throughout the history of the Church that men and women are considered equal different and complimentary. This is Church dogma. It is one of the reasons why most of the converts to the Church in the earliest years of Christianity were women. Please provide a scholarly reference that says otherwise before criticizing the sentence.NancyHeise 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not me making the assertion it's you so please point to where this dogma was defined by the Church and when and then we can edit the article to rid it of your synthesis of sources and the possible retro application of modern teaching to the past. Taam (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that the definition of "equal, different and complementary" has changed over time. It is indisputable that certain practices condoned by the Church are now considered to be infringements of women's rights. As with its position on slavery, I do not have the sense that the Church has been arguing since the 1st century C.E for women's rights as we conceive them today. Their failure to argue for women's rights as we conceive them today is not necessarily an indictment of the Church in particular but of Western society in general. Presenting this in a balanced way will be difficult as we must walk a narrow line between exoneration and excessively harsh judgment. --Richard (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are both asking of me is WP:OR. Peter Stark's Rise of Christianity clearly outlines the Church belief in equality of men and women. Richard, you must be an Anglican because I could not understand your argument unless you were coming from that point of view. Your comment "It is indisputable that certain practices condoned by the Church are now considered to be infringements of women's rights." What practices condoned by the Church are "indisputable" infringements on women's rights? Please tell me because I can not imagine what this could be unless you were discussing women's ordination - an Anglican invention. I certainly think that this is "disputable" because I do not believe that women are being discriminated against by not being allowed to be priests - which is not a right but a privledge. God made men and women different complimentary and equal - it takes two to make and raise a baby, spiritual or flesh. It is a figment of the imagination to perceive that one is more important than the other and the Church maintains this belief even though some Catholic throughout history have had personal problems with it - that is not a concern for the article. NancyHeise 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I still await your answer on my point about synthesis, i.e two sources are brought together giving the appearance they are in dialogue when they are not and also the point about the modern Catechsim being used retrospectively to prove that this has always been the common teaching and practice of the Church, i.e where is the dogmatic definition you assert and when was it issued? My edit separated the sources to avoid sysnthesis and made it clear that the "complemnetarity" teachings are taken from the modern catechsim in the absence of any citation that they are long standing phrases that have always used in Church documents. Taam (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bogus point. The sentence clearly indicates the PRESENT teaching of the Church, which is what is being talked about, while it is actually the negative first part of the sentence that is vague. Even historically one of the key things about the Church is that men and women were always held morally and rationally equal before God. That's probably why Catholicism has more prominent female religious figures than virtually any other major faith, and this approach certainly flowed out into the secular world too. Medieval Islamic visitors called the Christian world "a paradise for women.". Xandar 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't answer my points about the introduction of synthesis etc. I haven't raised anything about Islam or the other issues you mention, it's a simple matter of avoiding the joining together of two separate sources as if in dialogue. Also should we also introduce papal text that illustrate the submissive role of woman as taught by the Church, or not, to place it in the context of the current catechism teachings re equality and complementarity, i.e explain a bit better what this actually means in practice? Taam (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then why don't you point us to such papal text requiring women's submission? I certainly do not see this in the Catechism, the official expose of Catholic beliefs. I have referenced the place in the Catechism that says women and men are equal. I think you just have in mind some Catholic law that isnt a law and you want us to insert this into the article when doing so would be pure WP:OR. NancyHeise 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On looking at Peter Kreeft book cited page ref (61) he does mention the passages from the modern catechism, he does mention a single passage from scripture that he feels supports the catechism but fails to give the passages from, for example, the NT regarding the role of women, especially St. Paul. This reads like poor apologetics (the article I mean) in its joining of these two. I don't have the Stark book but I suspect he may indeed be referring to the passages Kreeft doesn't deal with and that is what I mean by a false dialogue being synthesized as if one is answering the arguments of the other.

Now the concern about using Kreeft and using the modern Catechism anachronistically is expressed by a scholar(there are many more examples) as follows:

"Before Vatican II, popes assumed and explicitly taught women's inequality and subordination to men, as well as condemned advocates of both women's equality and public roles for women." p. 270

"Since the time of John XXIII the popes have repeated the message that woman are equal and should be granted equal rights. Whereas the earlier teaching had defined the paternal role as governing, protective, and supportive (in a material sense), and the maternal role in terms of indiscriminate love, personal service, and religious and moral instruction, the Council and succeeding popes make fewer gender distinctions between the educative role of parents." p. 270 ("Change in official Catholic moral teaching", Christine E. Gudorf, Paulist Press, 2003, ISBN 0809141345)

Please note am using a scholarly source rather than direct quotations from Papal texts which you elsewhere deprecate. You will not accept what was a very modest attempt to tone down a colorful use of sources so it seems we must now include more scholarly opinion that believes the Church's teaching has changed over the years with respect to women and not the way the article tries to present it.Taam (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mit Brenneder Sorge and WWII section

I do not like the way this section has obscured the Church's role in WWII by placing all pertinent information into several notes. This is abuse of the note and makes the article uninformative. All the the information in those notes should be in the article except for the very long section devoted to selective quotes from Carlo Falconi that are not repeated in other scholarly works. The reason why we used the quotes we used before was because they were repeated by other, more modern scholars, namely Bokenkotter whose book is the most widely used university textbook on the history of the Catholic Church - Falconi's is not. NancyHeise 23:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that the History section is too long and that the Reichskonkordat/Mit Brennender Sorge section is a contributor to this problem. Even Xandar feels this. University textbooks are not superior sources to scholarly work. Perhaps the opposite could even be asserted. I have worked hard to keep material in the Notes that I thought should have been deleted altogether.

Also, as has been said about other sections, this is not an article about the Reichskonkordat, Mit Brennender Sorge, Pius XI or Pius XII. We must keep this section brief as well as other sections.

--Richard (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The university textbook I am referring to is a scholarly work - Bokenkotter. It has notes, bibliography and is written by a university professor who is an expert on the subject of Church history. It is the most oft cited work per Googlescholar and has zero bad reviews in academic journals. Per WP:reliable source examples this book meets the highest qualifications of Misplaced Pages for a history article. Also, I am willing to trim History section if such a decision is made by consensus during a peer review which is planned for this article as soon as it stops being the target of disruption by those who are stuck on the name issue. We are waiting for that to subside before beginning peer review.

We have found that the most controversial sections needed to have more information than less in past FAC attempts because this is what FAC reviewers asked for - please see the article history for the comments made in previous FAC's. None of these people asked for less history, almost all of them asked for more. Thus I do not see how we can cut bare facts out of the article without a full peer review to help us determine an actual consensus. NancyHeise 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts are still presented in the Notes. Please leave them there and then let's see if there is a call to have them brought back into the main text during Peer Review or FAC review. I think you'll find that the text scans a lot better without all the extraneous details provided to address every little quibble or contentious debate that various people have. That approach yields an article that resembles a camel (i.e. a horse designed by committee). --Richard (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, the notes create the worst prose I have ever seen in the article since I came along. It chops the information and puts the most important issues into notes. That is not OK and violates WP:NPOV. Why don't we leave the article without the notes and propose them at Peer Review after everyone has read the article in the state it was when last edited by a large group of editors who agreed to current text? I want them to see what consensus wanted first and then propose changes afterward for that same group to reconsider. NancyHeise 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read the latest version. It was like watching a tennis match at Wimbledon! Academic A said this but Academic B replied this but Academic A countered this. When I'd rubbed my sore neck, I shortened the section to the historical facts and Bokenkotter's comments in quotes. I think some people are losing sight of two things: firstly, this is meant to be an overview of the History of the Catholic Church; secondly, both the Reichskonkordat and Mit brennender Sorge have their own pages where the academic controversies surrounding them are fully explored. There is therefore no need to replicate that here.

I am also beginning to wonder if some editors have actually read 'Mit brennender Sorge' rather than some of the more overexcited and far-fetched interpretations of it they present as fact on here. Here's one fact for you folks, it doesn't namecheck the Fuehrer once, never mind label him a 'mad prophet' as some people have stated. That is an inference that some academics have drawn. I am also slightly puzzled as to why my link to the encyclical on the Vatican website has now been removed twice thus denying people the chance to actually read the text of the document we're discussing.Haldraper (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

We are getting into an unproductive edit war over this text. Please stop.

I made some changes. NancyHeise reverted those changes. I added some different text. Haldraper reverted back to a version that has some of my original changes but not all. The next expected step in this sequence is for NancyHeise to revert Haldraper's edits back to her preferred version.

This is not the only section of this article that has been edit-warred over in the last couple of days.

PLEASE DON'T CONTINUE THIS EDIT WAR! If it continues, I will ask an uninvolved admin to protect this page to encourage discussion over edit warring.

I do not like the version of the text after NancyHeise's edits. I like the version after Haldraper's edits better but not completely as it leaves in much of the extraneous detail and debate over sources that I think belongs in Notes rather than in the text of the article. However, I have not reverted anybody's reversion of my edits as I do not wish to start an edit war.

I propose that we leave Haldraper's edits in place pending discussion of any changes.

Please... discuss here on the Talk Page rather than communicating via reverts and edit summaries.

--Richard (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I understand your reversion of my added text. It makes sense although I don't fully agree with the final result. I just felt something had to be added to expand on the "persecution of the Catholic Church before the Reichskonkordat". I'm turning in. I'll look at this again in the morning. --Richard (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I second your comments: I too am trying to avoid an edit war and achieve a text that we can all agree on. As it happens, I thought your use of the note to sum up the academic debate was the way forward but that seems not to be acceptable to other editors for some reason. I also note that Nancy is still to answer the point about what persecution German Catholics were suffering at the hands of the Nazis between January and July 1933 that prompted the Vatican to sign the Reichskonkordat.Haldraper (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Would also add that scholarly sources do not agree that the Encyclical was drafted by the future Pius XII as the article asserts via Father Bokenkotter and that Bokenkotter (possibly through a secondary source and not his own fault) is quoting Falconi highly selectively ("the first great ...") and out of context. This is not good scholarship. If Falconi is to be quoted like this then the rest of what he says should go in as well. He should not be misrepresented in this way. Taam (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem has been caused however by certain people making major, (in my view, POV,) edits to the page without working them through here first. Even if operating on the advice in the BOLD - REVERT - DISCUSS essay (which is neither a policy or guideline); REVERT still plays the significant part in that process, and discussion takes place under the stable version. Consensus remains what we're working toward in making any changes. I don't think Nancy is saying that all of the old wording is sacrosanct, but that we revert to that as the basis for discussion. Taam I think is working under several misapprehensions. 1) That if he can find any referenced criticism of the Church or any of its members on any issue, it has a right to go in the article. In an organisation with a 2,000 year history, we would end up with an incredibly long article. 2) That NPOV means that every positive statement about the Church has to be immediately refuted. The article deals with episodes that are criticised about the Church, like the Inquisitions, as well as the many episodes that are very positive. In the balance of most articles on often-controversial topics (eg Islam or even United States), it can be seen that this article already includes far more critical material than is standard; and 3) That we are discussing individual episodes in detail rather than going over the major trends that occurred. Any individual episode added has to be very significant and set in its proper context. In other words including the signing of the Reichsconcordat needs to explain what concardats were, and weren't, and why and how often they were signed - otherwise the bare statement, out of the blue risks being very misleading. Matters like these mean that major wording changes really need full negotiation on this page. Xandar 10:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As per usual Xandar completely misrepresents what I say and ignores the issues I raise, i.e Falconi being quoted very badly out of context and that Cardinal Pacelli didn't draft the encyclical according to scholarly sources. Can you please deal with these issues. The point is you cannot simply take out from your reliable sources the "nice" parts and then ignore those same sources when it doesn't flatter the Church. For neutrality sake sources must be used in context and not cherrypicked as you and Nancy Heisse would have it. Taam (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD may not be a policy or a guideline but I find it works well when there are two editors involved. With more than two, it can get a bit messy and discussion should come as early as possible in the process. I confess that I was probably a bit testy last night as I was wrapping things up at 1:30 am local time. I was watching my edits disappear not just under NancyHeise's reversions but under Haldraper's as well and I was a bit frustrated. Let's try to discuss this text some more before going back to editing again. I am hopeful that we can resolve these issues and arrive at a mutually agreed upon text. --Richard (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

People on this page need to understand some things. First, we do not interpret original documents, that violates WP:OR. We are supposed to rely on scholars to do that and we are supposed to use the most highly regarded sources, not the least regarded sources in the article. Bokenkotter is the most highly regarded source. If you do a search of all the universities that use his book as a textbook, it is quite impressive. You dont have the same result for any of the others proposed here. The fact that Bokenkotter's book is written by a scholar, an expert in the subject matter of Church history, that his book has been used as a university textbook for decades with three reprintings and all reviews of his book in academic journals praise it highly presents us with a unique chance to use "the most scholarly work" over others that are not so well known or, like Taam's Carlo Falconi, are old and almost out of print. Misplaced Pages requires us to use "modern scholarship" and that is what we have used. I am not in favor of junking Bokenkotter's references and inserting Falconi, whose opinions comprise such a minority view that is not reprinted in other scholarly works. NancyHeise 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy has again added the claim that the reason the Reichskonkordat was signed was to stop further Nazi persecution of individual Catholics and Catholic institutions in Germany. Both myself and Richard have already pointed out the two basic flaws in this argument: one, Pacelli had been attempting to negotiate a concordat since 1930, three years before the Nazis came to power; two, Hitler became Chancellor in January and the Nazis gained dictatorial powers in March 1933, when negotiations in Rome were already at a very late stage. It would help if Nancy could outline what Nazi persecutions of Catholics had already occurred in January-July 1933 and preferably cite the Coppa ref that others don't necessarily have access to.Haldraper (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now had the chance to read pp 132-37 of Coppa's book on Google books, I accept that Nazi persecution of Catholic clergy in Bavaria in June-July 1933 probably did play a part in creating a sense of urgency in the Church's longstanding campaign to conclude the Reichskonkordat. I have rewritten the section slightly but only to improve the style by avoiding repetition of 'persecution', 'Nazi(sm)', 'Vatican', 'agreement'.Haldraper (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re drafting of MBS and the use of Falconi: These is quite a simple matters, Bokenkotter is quoting directly from Falconi, i.e he using Falconi as an authority out of context and all I'm saying is that Falconi must not be misrepresented in this way. This shouldn't be a difficult point to grasp - no scholar is praised for doing such a thing, no amount of bluster about Bokenkotter this or that is going to change the fact that Falconi is badly misused here and it must be corrected. Also the assertion that Cardinal Pacelli drafted the encyclical is not accepted by scholars who are specialists in this area. Nancy Heisse is quite content to use sources that mislead so long as it presents the Church or the future Pope in a positive light and will not accept any evidence to the contrary, this cannot be right as it violates every principle of neutrality. Taam (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Taam, do you have any sources which either assert Falconi's POV or criticize Bokenkotter's misuse of Falconi as a source? Do you have any sources which reject the assertion that Pacelli drafted the MBS encyclical? I think presenting such sources would be the best hope of getting Nancy to budge on these points. --Richard (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The ref that supports the statement that Pacelli drafted 'Mit brennender Sorge' is from John Peter Pham's book not Bokenkotter's.Haldraper (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As it happens on page 246 of the book Pham states it was Cardinal Faulhabur who drafted the outlines of MBS. Taam (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Hal. It is perhaps a bit confusing because there are two different issues being discussed at the same time. The first is whether Bokenkotter's allegedly selective use of quotations from Falconi to praise MBS is an accurate representation of Falconi's view. Falconi does say some laudatory things about MBS but also some negative things. It appears that Bokenkotter cherry-picked the good stuff (either deliberately or unintentionally). Is it therefore appropriate to quote Bokenkotter's representation of Falconi's POV when it seems patently obvious that Bokenkotter has misrepresented it? I am asking for sources that criticize Bokenkotter for making the misrepresentation that Taam alleges he has done. Another solution would be to find someone who praises MBS directly without reference to Falconi's characterization to MBS. Second, there is anecdotal evidence to support the notion that Pacelli drafted MBS. Taam asserts that this assertion is not supported by scholars who are specialists in the area. Since so much has been written on this Talk Page about MBS, I don't remember whether Taam has provided citations to support his assertion. That's what I'm asking for. --Richard (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Falconi is directly quoted by Bokenkotter as saying MSB was "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism". The relevant text which comes before and after the clip used by Bokenkotter states, i.e "what is beyond doubt is that the encyclical that came out on March 14th certainly cannot be described as an anti-Nazi encyclical. So little anti-Nazi is it...concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights...even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler...the very thing to deprive the document of its noble intransigence" All these "limitations" preceed the sentence fragment used by Bokenkotter. The text that follows after the Bokenkotters clip states "It was the encyclicals fate to be credited with a greater significance and content than it possessed". Basically Falconi has been cherrypicked by ripping out of the passage the part that flatters. Bokenkotter is a scholar so why did he not assert this as his own opinion other than he was relying on Falconi's reputation as an authority in this area. What do we do when it appears transparently obvious that a source is being misused in this way?

On the issue of who drafted the encyclical: I don't deny, based on reliable neutral sources, that Cardinal Pacelli had an input, if you look at the main article for MBS I duly noted a specific passage that a scholar attributes to Pacelli. According to Falconi (remembering he is Bokenkotters expert) "Details of the background and drafting of the anti-nazi encyclical have only recently become known" and that "Faulharbers draft, composed in three nights, consisted of eleven large single sheets written in his own hands... is not so much an amplification of Faulhabers draft as a faithful and even literal transcription of it (even the encyclicals opening words echo those of the draft, which began "Mit grosser sorge). Cardinal Pacelli, at Pius XI's request, merely added a full historical introduction..." Falconi seems to have direct knowledge of the actual manuscripts rather than repeating what is encountered in a chain of secondary sources. Rather than argue is it not better to simply delete who drafted the encyclical, who contributed, and in what proportion etc? Taam (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now read the whole chapter on the Reichskonkordat in Coppa's book, I have slightly rewritten the opening sentence. Rather than just saying the Church signed it to protect itself, Coppa identifies several factors that impelled the Church and the Nazi regime to conclude a concordat: on the Church side, protection of clergy/Church schools, belief in the possibilty of an ongoing 'modus vivendi' with the regime and the 'great goal' of the concordat itself; on the Nazi side, the double-sided strategy of obtaining Centre Party votes for the Enabling Act before forcing it to dissolve. He also leaves open the question of whether it was the Vatican or Nazis who opened the final negotiations for it. All of which of course should be discussed on its own page.Haldraper (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church in Croatia and anti-Semitism

Anietor has removed the quotations I added to the section on WWII on the grounds that they are by 'rogue' archbishops. Leaving aside his dodgy terminology here, he seems to be introducing a double standard: where Catholic clergy opposed the Nazis and were persecuted, they are to be presented as representatives of the Church; where they supported the Nazis and participated in persecuting Jews and others they are not. This is simply ahistorical: it ignores the continuous links between these archbishops and the Holy See as well as the Church's tradition of anti-semitism that formed their attitudes. You cannot answer the question 'did the Catholic Church support or oppose Nazism in Europe in World War II?' with a straight Yes or No. In most countries, it clearly opposed it but in some it did not: balance requires that we reflect that fact.Haldraper (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The principle that Haldraper is talking about is important. Given that this is the main article, issues should really be focused on what the Church did and not what individuals did. Accurately, there are few people who speak for the Church as a whole and a priest, bishop, or even an arch-bishop cannot independently take it upon themselves to do so. These individuals and their actions may/should be mentioned in sub-articles depending on their importance to the topic of course. However, in this article I submit that if the Church is not acting, it is not appropriate for this article. Does that make sense to others? --Rider 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, I take you to mean that we should only include official pronouncements and actions of the Church rather than of individual Catholic clergy and laity. In that case, we'll have to remove the references to the Dutch bishops, Edith Stein and the persecution of priests and monks in Poland and the Soviet Union as these relate to the experiences of individuals rather than the Church as a body. The picture of Dachau will also have to go. I would prefer to return a more balanced section that discusses both official and individual Catholic responses to Nazism.Haldraper (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. When the persecution is focused on the Church, but experienced by inidividuals, then it is appropriate to include. These individuals were targeted because they were Catholic or represented the Church, not becuase their name was Joe and they worked down the street. The distinction I propose is that that topics must be germane to the Catholic Church as a whole and not the sole actions of an individual. Another example, throughout history there have been many individual priests, theologians, etc. that chose to act independent of the Church. Their actions are not the responsibility of the Church and should not be mentioned in this article unless it created a fundamental shift in the Church's actions. Have I made the distinction clearer to you? This is just my opinion which I think will help in keeping the article focused. There just is so much information that sub-articles will be the place where editors can really explain specific eras in detail rather than this article. Does this make sense? --Rider 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with representing "both official and individual Catholic responses" is that there is unlikely to be any issue where the official Church position is adhered to, in principle and/or practice, by every Catholic, even by every member of the Catholic hierarchy. Pick an issue, and there will definitely be a priest (and probably a bishop on all but core theological issues) that has a position contrary to it. Under Haldraper's approach, every issue would have to be represented by this opposing position to make the article "balanced." That is certainly not the case. As Stormrider and others point out, it may be relevant in other sub-articles. But unless this is going to be the longest article ever written, and extended to represent every position of any catholic on any issue, we need to have some limitations in the main article. There is also a difference when discussing issues such as the persecution of priests and monks in Poland. It was their membership in, and representation of the Catholic Church that resulted in their persecution. That makes it relevant to this article. --anietor (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest addition seems more balanced to me, although given the disagreements it should have been discussed here first. --Snowded 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I should have. It deals with anietor's 'rogue' quotes issue and - very briefly - provides some balance to the anti-Nazi record of the Church elsewhere in Europe.Haldraper (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be discussed here first. Watering it down doesn't make it relevant, NPOV, or necessary. Given the responses above, there should be some consensus before any changes are made. --anietor (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, please explain why you think my sentence on the role of Catholic clergy in Croatia in WWII was irrelevant, POV and unnecesary in a section dealing with Church-Nazi relations. Surely we need some balance here?Haldraper (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What you propose is not balance. You are comparing apples and oranges, Haldraper. In an article about the Catholic Church, the Church position should not be set up in contrast to the beliefs of individual members, especially when those members are not adhering to the Church's position. It would be different if, for example, this were an article about the role of religious leaders during WWII. Then setting up a comparison between Bishop X in Germany and Bishop Y in Croatia would make sense...or even Bishop X in Germany and Bishop Z in Germany. Understand that I am not taking the position that the things you inserted did not take place, or that such accusations are merely anti-Catholic propaganda, etc. This is not an issue of apologetics or minimization. It's an issue of setting up a false or misleading comparison, and portraying tangential matters out of balance. --anietor (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we tend to think of the "Catholic Church" as a single church with a single head in Rome to which bishops submit as subordinate creatures. In fact, this is not a completely accurate model. Each bishop is head of his own church and, despite declarations to the contrary, there is a certain amount of conciliarism at the national level (yes, yes, I know these are bishops' conferences not bishops' councils but the point is each bishop is neither completely independent of nor completely subservient to Rome). Thus, Catholics experience Catholicism through the lens of their national conference, or in the case of the pre-Vatican II era, their local bishop or archbishop.

Thus, if we limit ourselves to describing the Church as solely the pronouncements and actions of the Vatican, we are not describing the whole church. If you develop a tumor on your leg, do you say "That leg is not part of me? That leg is not me?" If they amputate your leg, do you say "That wasn't my leg that they amputated?" No. You say "I had to have my leg amputated because of a tumor." I am not familiar enough with the Croatian episode to discuss it in detail but, using the example of American bishops supporting slaveholders during the American Civil War, describing those events is describing the Catholic Church as Americans of the time experienced it. Those bishops may have not have been in accord with In Supremo Apostolatus but they were still the Catholic Church in the United States. We cannot just describe what the Vatican says and does; we must also describe what the rest of the Church says and does in response to what the Vatican says and does. That would yield a fuller and more accurate description of the Church.

Now, personally I think this whole episode in Croatia might merit one short sentence at best. We might say something like "At the local level, most Catholic clergy opposed Nazism and some acted heroically to protect Jews from persecution. In a few cases, such as in Croatia, Catholic clergy actively fostered anti-Semitism among the laity." And, that's it. We needn't go into detail about what a specific archbishop or bishop said. That's too much detail for an article of this scope.--Richard (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Richard I agree with your last point. That's why I shortened what I had written to a single sentence myself. That sentence read: "In Croatia however many Catholic clergy participated in Ustaša campaigns of violence against Serbs, Jews and Roma", with refs to the Phayer book and the Yad Vashem website to support that statement.

You make an important point about the independence of national churches. As you say, in what way was the Croatian Catholic Church not part of the Catholic Church? Their bishops were under the discipline of and ultimately removable by the Pope. Anietor also seems to be working with a false historical model that gives the Church an official position before WWII of opposing the Nazis' persecution of the Jews and sees those archbishops who supported it as somehow 'rogue'. He seems ignorant of/wilfully blind to the Church's centuries long tradition of anti-semitism, encapsulated in the catechism until the 1960's that included the question 'Who killed Christ?' with the answer 'Pontius Pilate at the behest of the Jews'. In that worldview, it is perfectly possible to see the Dutch bishops who spoke out against deportations as having a 'rogue' position from the Church's then official teaching. Part of the problem I think is that Catholic editors born after the Second Vatican Council do not really appreciate (maybe intellectually they do but not emotionally or psychologically) how different the atmosphere of their Church would have been in the 1940's, on this and many other issues.Haldraper (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hal, while I am not unsympathetic to your POV re the Church and anti-semitism, I think your comment about the Church's anti-semitism being "encapsulated in the catechism" is overreaching. It is perhaps a facile but glib shorthand which fails to capture the relevant nuances. That notwithstanding, why can we not say that the Catholic Church tolerated and even encouraged centuries of anti-Semitism? Is that not one of the "cultural influences" of the Church? Or is there something that requires "cultural influences" that we mention to be only the salutary ones? --Richard (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I do think that some Catholic editors operate an unwritten rule to that effect which has given both the history and cultural influence sections a pro-Church bias with every criticism immediately followed by either a refutation or qualification/ justification putting the Church in the best possible light.

On the immediate point of the Croatian Church, that is not possible which is why I think the sentence has been deleted on the (unexplained) grounds of irrelevancy/POV despite it being in the section on the Church and Nazis in WWII, Anietor saying he accepts the facts as stated and them being supported by references.Haldraper (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I am not sure we are saying anything different. My point focuses on where should these isolated issues be covered? Should they be here in the main article or in sub-articles. I may be wrong and I freely admit that being an outsider to the Catholic Church I may have missed some areas in my studies, but the independence of archbishops is found only within a specific set of parameters. There is only one head of the Church and that is the pope. Throughout history the Church has definitely taken actions and made her position clear in a vast array of areas. These are the areas that I think are appropriate for this article. A rebellious bishop is the exception and his actions should more appropriately be addressed in a sub-article. I would agree that the concept of rebelliousness may be addressed here. It is late and I am not sure that I am explaining myself well, but I hope you understand the gist of what I am proposing. My objective is a tight, concise article that is strictly limited to the Church as a whole. Its history is just too long that if we addressed everything, no one would read it because of how long it would become. Good night, I still have some reading to do about the Camino de Santiago de Compostela. Peace, --Rider 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, it is only by viewing them through the Church's current position on anti-semitism that the Croatian and Slovakian bishops' public statements appear 'rebellious', 'exceptional', 'rogue': in the early 1940's they were of a piece with what the Church had taught for at least 1,500 years. What is notable in fact is that the Croatian and Slovakian clergy's Nazism was the exception: Polish priests for example did play an honourable role in opposing Nazism, partly for nationalist reasons but also in saving individual Jews, despite pre-war Catholic Poland being probably the most anti-semitic place in Europe.Haldraper (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Church has never been "anti-semitic", which suggest racial connotations. The earliest Catholics were semites and absolutely anybody in the world who rebukes apostacy, rebukes heresy, realises the divinity of Christ & the role of the Church as His living body, is free to participate and benefit from it. There is no "racial" exclusion, its positions are based on theology and doctrine. What the Catholic Church has opposed throughout the ages without compromise is untruth and attacks against Christ. Attacks by any group who claim that Christ is not God, or groups who deny the reality of the Trinity. Its really as simple as that. By all means mention something along those lines in such a context.

Is the Church opposed to the teachings of Rhabbinic Judaism? Yes, because they deny the divinity Christ. But to the same extent is Rhabbinic Judaism opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Yes, because we accept the divinity of Christ. Naturally, in the 21st century, various relativist secularists who would like to promote religious indifferentism (as a means of pushing atheism), try to revise this and paint it in a different light. The Church is not "racist". This could be said of absolutely any religion in the world. Sorry it doesn't fit in with the relativistic secular agenda, but there it is, the only thing we prostrate ourselves before is God. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As way off beam as usual Yorkshirian. The earliest Catholics were not semites, I presume what you are trying to saying in your spectacularly cack-handed way is that the earliest Christians were Jews which is so obvious it doesn't need saying and is totally irrelevant to the discussion we're having about the Croatian Church in WWII.

The real issue - which you don't even come close to addressing - is Christian anti-semitism, the special opprobrium directed at the Jews as a people as 'the killers of Christ', which has led over the centuries in Europe to ghettoisation, the 'blood libel', pogroms and ultimately the Holocaust.Haldraper (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Christian" anti-semitism. That is largely an invention of modern-day theorizers. Jews were occasionally subject to episodes of persecution in Christian lands - as were Jews in non-Christian lands, and virtually every minority in every majority culture. Xandar 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy-Roman Empire

Richard comments above "However, we give the Church credit for establishing other values which were not commonly accepted in the Greco-Roman culture such as equality of women, monogamy and opposing practices such as infanticide, etc" and this seems to be based on the assertion in the Cultural Influences section which reads "Christianity affected the status of women in evangelized cultures such as the Roman Empire by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy". However as previously mentioned on this talk page St. Augustine said the Church had followed the Roman practice i.e monogamy and indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts "The so-called classical nations of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans, show, as contrasted with the East, a decided dislike to polygamy, which legally at least was never recognized among them." Therefore I think the reference to the Roman Empire should be deleted from this article section in order to avoid having to go into lots of detail and qualifications. Taam (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not because the abuses of women in the Roman Empire comprise a large portion of Peter Stark's The Rise of Christianity. Men in the Roman Empire could have concubines, prostitutes, lovers et al while women could not. Men could divorce women by telling her to leave but women could not divorce a man no matter how abusive if he did not want the divorce. Christianity introduced the concept of making the man's adultery equally sinful as women's adultery, this applied to divorce as well. Female infanticide was huge in Roman Empire and prepubescent girls were married off to older men who would not wait until she was old enough to consummate the marriage. Christianity changed this. I will provide a quote and page number in next post. I doubt that we can just brush off Roman Empire since clearly, these were radical societal changes brought about by the Church influence. NancyHeise 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Book Excerpts on Roman Empire

• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."

• Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once." NancyHeise 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a risk here of burying underneath the above large dump of irrelevant information the point that Christianity followed the Romans in monogamy as St. Augustine advises and that polygamy was not sanctioned in the Roman Empire as confirmed in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The so-called classical nations of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans, show, as contrasted with the East, a decided dislike to polygamy, which legally at least was never recognized among them." At present the article misleads about polygamy and the Roman Empire, can we please correct this? Taam (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Industrial age: Eastern Europe vs. China

Why is it that persecution of Catholics in Eastern Europe is covered in two sentences while persecution of Catholics in China gets five sentences? There are perhaps 13 million Catholics in China and 35million+ Catholics in Poland alone, not counting Catholics in other Warsaw Pact countries. I would argue that there is too much detail about China and that this should be cut down to one or two sentences. --Richard (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Some things require more explanation. We did not do a census of each country before writing about what happened. I don't think wikipedia requires that either. NancyHeise 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you only think they require more explanation. This is not an article about Roman Catholicism in China. One could argue for putting more information about John Paul II and the assassination attempt and the role of Bulgaria, etc. Not that I would make that argument but that story is arguably as important as the material presented about China. Bottom line is... the material on China is likely out of proportion to its importance. You may not have taken a census before writing the text. Perhaps you should now. --Richard (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Striking out part of my comment which was too snippy and for which I apologize. --Richard (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Christians in China are the one of the fastest growing parts of the Church besides Africa. I do not agree that we need to eliminate any sentences there for that reason. If you think we are unbalanced, then lets add another sentence to persecution in Eastern Europe. NancyHeise 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you wrote "Christians in China are the one of the fastest growing parts of the Church besides Africa." That may be true but the way to recognize that fact is to say just that, not by going into unnecessary detail about the Patriotic Church and its bishops. I have summarized the text to say more or less the same thing in fewer words. I do think the text about the Cultural Revolution and the status of the Catholic Church and Patriotic Church afterwards is unnecessary. Polish Catholics also got thrown in jail and persecuted in other ways and we do not mention details of that persecution. I am not advocating the addition of more details but for less detail all around. --Richard (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Chadwick, Owen p. 242.
2. Noll, pp. 137–140.
3. Cite error: The named reference Duffy221 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bokenkotter465 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Kreeft, p. 61.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment