Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Pre-Reorganization

'From here on down is stuff done before this article was spun off of Roman Catholic Church. Much of it is more relevent to Catholicism now.

---

Yes, Falcon you've got a good point. You are very mature for a 14 year old.

Whose idea was it to replace any useful information in this article with a long, extensive list of see-alsos? We should compile a number of articles specific to the HRCC (Holy Roman Catholic Church) into this article, using headings and the TOC to delimit them. Otherwise, pages on things like Low Mass and such are largely useless and too narrow for an encyclopædic article. Falcon 18:39, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

This talk about a large and powerful Church doesn't mention its drawbacks. It just makes the Church look big and good. This looks biassed to me.Barbara Shack 15:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Why isn't this information merged into Roman Catholic Church? RickK 02:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dead right! I thought I was going to read about a splinter group. Here we have Wikipedia creating a body that does not exist. I have searched Google and the only references to a capital-W "Worldwide Roman Catholic Church" are Wikipedia derived. Please note that the Holy Roman Catholic Church (I believe that is its correct name) considers itself a whole lot more universal than worldwide! Psb777 05:14, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the process of renaming "Worldwide Roman Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" Psb777 07:26, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The worldwide links here will be moved to a new page Roman Catholic Church Worldwide and linked to from here. Then much of the contents of Catholicism will be moved here and a link to here inserted into Catholicism. Any thoughts? Psb777 07:35, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to shuck a lot of page history ;) Wetman 19:10, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Far better that we lose page history then have such bungled, encumbered, ambigious, duplicated and cumbersome content. We need to refactor the two. --Falcon 21:50, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

What's with the title "Roman Catholic Church new". Either it is moved to its permanent destination or it is moved out of the main namespace. This location is unacceptable. --Jiang 19:12, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Okay, I moved it to "Roman Catholic Church". What is going on is very bizarre. Can someone also explain "Was Roman Catholic Church"? --Jiang 19:18, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

moved from [talk:Roman Catholic Church new]

Quite possibly I am screwing up. I agree we don't want to lose the page history. But what is the wikipedia solution to splitting out a wjole lot of stuff from an article. Lots of Catholicism is about the Roman Catholic Church. Help!!!

I now have nothing re-directing to was Roman Catholic Church (which had previously redirected to catholicism and it now redirects to Roman Catholic Church. Everything that used to reference The Worldwide Roman Catholic Church now references Roman Catholic Church. What was The Worldwide Roman Catholic Church has been renamed to Roman Catholic Church new. Now I want to rename Roman Catholic Church new to Roman Catholic Church without disturbing any links. All this should preserve the page history. But I am in over my neck. As I said: Help!!!

Psb777 19:23, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

So you want to move some of the content at Catholicism here? All that is needed is that you insert into the page summary "content moved from Catholicism". --Jiang 19:29, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

---

Shouldn't this be merged back in to Catholicism? If not then great hunks of that article still need to be moved here? I don't know enough about the splinter churches' theology to know exactly how much but large sections of that page are written as refering to this church specifically? Maybe they need to be rewritten more generally. Rmhermen 21:43, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Catholicism should be a different topic than the Roman Catholic Church, because although the two are closely related, the former has more to do with being catholic and the various practices, whereas the latter is more or less the organisation of the Church itself. Perhaps a see-also would be a better option, and also refactoring of both pages. What a mess. --Falcon 21:47, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there any interest in a WikiProject on Catholicism? I am particularly interested in just creating a project that organizes the dioceses listed on this page better. Kent Wang 06:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on how the Catholic Church has shaped its belief system through various councils over the last 2000 years, how different documents and interpretations have been disregarded or agreed on, how the current bibble was drawn and what writtings were left out. In part this has been prompted by watching "The Da Vinci Code" with Tom Hanks. Also, I have Jehova Witness friends who have shown me how they derive their believes "directly" from their Bible, and have hence been considered a sect by the Catholics. As a spaniard who grew up in a highly devouted family I was never directed to read the bible and have never seen anyone reading it spontaneously.

I also feel that there should only be one article dealing with the Roman Catholic Church, and that all information should be structured under this heading. As enciclopedists we have to seek the truth and be factual, which by definition is critical and anti-catholic. The church already has a long list of banned books and writtings, Opus Dei for example, control ALL media access to its members and openly admit that they read their post "to protect them". We should not endeavor to compromise but simply expose knowledge. cgonzalezdelhoyo 07:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Content largely missing

I have just glanced through the history of the page, and there is a lot of good content that is largely missing from the current Wikipedia. I understand the page was merged into Roman Catholic Church but the criticism content looks like it has been eroded over time. Should this redirect be reverted to a regular page? If I hear nothing, I will do it. --ExtraBold 12:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is done. --ExtraBold 08:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a small portion explaining the Church's theological reasoning for opposing artificial contraception. --Domangard 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a Catholic discussion on Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church Dominick ^(TALK) 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical crimes edit

This wasn't good enough:

The Church is also criticized by some for its failure to admit past mistakes. Many claim that they have not taken sufficient responsibility for their alleged (but strongly denied) "complacency" in the Holocaust, for their persecution of Galileo Galilei, or for their actions during the Inquisition.

The Church response is that the crimes of the Church have been exaggerated, and that in 2000 years of Church history there have indeed been some wrongdoers within the church, but that the evil that has been committed have too-often been exaggerated and overemphasized, at the expense of the good that has been done in terms of preserving learning, establishing education and health care, charity, scientific and technical advancement and providing a moral basis for western law and society. Most atheists, humanists and freethinkers strongly dispute these alleged accomplishments.

The crimes in question are the Crusades, the Inquisition, and so forth, not the present failure to apologise for them!

The use of 'alleged (but strongly denied) "complacency"' to mean 'alleged complacency' is ridiculous. There is no extra meaning but the writer is trying to belittle the allegation, with scare quotes. Many would allege complicity, rather than complacency, particularly in the concentration camps in Croatia.

Whether the church has achieved all this good that is listed is off-topic for the article, it is just pro-Vatican spin.--ExtraBold 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism/Response ratio

As often happens with these sorts of pages, Responses to criticisms take up more space than the criticisms themselves. This needs to be rectified.

Also the article is almost entirely 'some critics say' ,'many in the Church argue'. Insisting on cites would go a long way to avoiding the to-and-fro debates that creep in here.Ashmoo 05:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no article featuring the criticism of any other religion or sect.

I realize the Catholic Church has received much more critcism than the protestant sects, but it's biased not to have anything, not even a stub, on the criticism of protestant sects or other religions. This article just feels more anti-Catholic than informative.

There is precedent for this type of article at Mormonism and Christianity. The article is currently of pathetic quality, however. CyberAnth 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the book section? Didn't H.G.Wells write a small volume criticising the Roman Catholic Church? Larry R. Holmgren 04:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Where is this article? 75.3.4.54 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are "criticism of" articles for several faiths besides us Catholics and most of them are in dispute. There's Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of religion, Criticism of atheism, etc. I see there is even a Category:Criticisms. Still Judaism is in a different situation as it faced centuries of persecution, but never had the ability to persecute anyone in that period. Well outside of a few fringe offshoots and I think Spinoza was kicked out. Still I think the history of 2100 years of criticism justifies giving Judaism "a break from criticism" here.--T. Anthony 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The criticism should be documented whether or not it was valid. And the idea "deserves a break" makes no sense in an encyclopedia. There should be a Criticism of Judaism article precisely because much of Christianity is based on an anti-Judaism polemics. This is not just the "Jews killed Jesus" charge (although that should be documented) but the fact that much of Christianity is based on the allegation that the Jews built a religion based on rules and Christ came to shatter that religion and replace it with one of grace. Whether you agree with this charge or not is irrelevant. What matters is that this is what many Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) believe. This has strong implications for Christian-Jewish relations.

--Richard 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest a part of me thinks most of these "Criticism of X religion" threads are non-encyclopedic. I find lists in Encyclopedias. For example there's something called "naval terms" in my encyclopedia that's just a list of naval terms with a sentence or two on each. Under Criticism there is "Criticism, Drama; Criticism, Literary; and Criticism, Music." If we're going to get the point of criticism for religions as, comparatively, small as Seventh-day Adventism or Judaism we might as well be doing Criticism of Sikhism or Criticism of the Coptic Church or whatever. Still if we're going to Criticism of Judaism it can't just be the notion Christianity is based on Anti-Semitism. Otherwise this article should be about how Protestantism is based on Anti-Catholicism. If we must have criticism of Judaism, and I don't think we must, then it should be real criticism about the religion. Perhaps criticism about parts of the Torah that non-religious Jews and others find offensive. Like its view of women and violence done toward the Canaanites.--T. Anthony 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Admittedly, there is a fine line between criticizing Judaism and being anti-Semitic but it is a similar line to that between criticizing the Catholic Church and being anti-Catholic.

A large part of Christianity is based on differentiating itself from the Jews. Think about this, if Christianity could not differentiate itself from Judaism, it would still be a Jewish sect. Actually, that's how Judaism started out. The book of Acts and the Epistles have a lot of discussion about how man's relationship to "the Law (Torah)" changed after Jesus. If James and the Jerusalem church had won, Christianity would still be a Jewish sect. It might not have survived and, even if it did, it would probably be a lot smaller and less influential than it is now.

Some validity to this. Differentiation is certainly important as it is in any religion that came from a previous background. Like say Buddhism to Hinduism or Bahai to Islam.--T. Anthony 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is the only criticism that can be made against Judaism. I'm saying it is the most widely spread criticism precisely because it lies at the core of the raison d'etre of Christianity.

Fine, but we have a good deal of articles already on Christian criticism of Judaism. My real position is still that this article you created is unnecessary. If we must treat Judaism as any other religion that's been criticized than let's treat it as any other religion that's been criticized. Otherwise why bother? The argument from history is unconvincing. The longest standing criticism of Catholicism is from Eastern Orthodoxy you going to add a bunch on that here?--T. Anthony 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, this anti-Judaic polemic gave rise to a lot of anti-Semitism. However, at least once a month, the liberal Presbyterian pastor at our church gives a sermon that castigates the Jews at the time of Christ for having an overly rigid system of laws. In essence, the charge is that Judaism was (and still is) a religion based on justification by works and that the Christian religion is one based on justification by faith and grace. (and, for the Catholics, by works too)

--Richard 03:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a specifically Protestant criticism and you should make clear to differentiate that from Christian criticism in general. Catholics and Orthodoxers value works as you concede. I have heard priests criticize Judaism, but it's not been very common in my life. The criticism I've heard in Church is that Judaism is unforgiving and doesn't teach love of enemies. I didn't like hearing that at Church and was a bit put out, but it was rare enough I noticed it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about Judaism to say what its views on forgiveness or enemies is. Anyway you're missing the main critic of Judaism today, the Islamic world. By focussing it on Christians you're betraying an unhealthy bias. I tried to correct that, but admittedly I haven't put much on Muslim criticism myself as I fear that'd be more explosive. Christians are fairly accepting of insults, Islam sees less so.--T. Anthony 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I switched political to Islamic.--T. Anthony 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've created it. You can add to it if you like. --Richard 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What belongs here vs. in the Anti-Catholicism article?

The discussion of moving text from the Anti-Catholicism article to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article involves the organization of at least three articles: Roman Catholic Church, Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism. I feel that we should have a single discussion on this topic rather than three seperate discussions on the Talk Pages of each of the relevant articles. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy. Please make any comments or suggestions at that page.

--Richard 18:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure these criticism articles are appropriate. However I would say this should be about why people think the Catholic Church is incorrect on certain points and what those points are. Anti-Catholicism should be about the history of those who were actively against the Catholic Church and encouraged hatred of Catholics. It should be more of a history and culture article. This article, the criticism article, should be a criticism article in the manner of philosophical criticism. Discussions of hatred or actions against Catholics should not be in here, but instead be in the Anti-Catholicism article.--T. Anthony 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We can make the comment here, or on a RfM please. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On a separate page (Talk:Roman Catholic Church), Dominick has explained that, by "RfM", he meant "Request for Move". On Talk:Roman Catholic Church, I have explained why I think a "Request for Move" is a bad idea. The very fact that I have to document this exchange here is a "proof by example" of why we need a common page for discussing these kinds of "cross-article" issues.

It's a bad idea to discuss "cross-article" issues in three separate places i.e. here and in Talk:Anti-Catholicism and in Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church. That's why I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy. Please conduct further discussion on that page.

I hope we don't have to vote on where we are going to have the discussion. Sheesh.

No wait, first let's vote on where to have the vote.  ;^)

--Richard 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You want to be sarcastic? Thats a heck of a way to work together.

I asked you about discussion of wikiproject on that page. The article is a mess. The moves make a lot more entropy. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of where to have a vote has ended. Since the most discussion on this topic so far is happening on the Talk:Roman Catholic Church page, I have started a vote there. Since I have identified five different options (some of which are not very likely winners), there may need to be a run-off if there is not a clear runaway winner. Please visit the Talk:Roman Catholic Church page and express your opinion if you have one.

--Richard 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass Merge Discussion

Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Mass_Merging Dominick ^(TALK) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Papal Supremacy

User:58.170.44.132 added "But the Pope has not always used papal supremacy for good." This may be true but it's inadequate and unencyclopedic without examples. I've deleted it but will let a better supported replacement stand.

--Richard 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Just noticed this. I don't have it to hand but I would recomend Peter De Rosa's 'Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy' which deals with the less wonderfull aspects of the Papacy in great detail. It's also worth pointing out that it is commenly heald that the 1st Vatican Council's rulings on Papal Infalibility where a reaction against the growing strength of a seculer Italian state under the Unification Movement.

--Heartsonsleeves (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-marital sex??

Wouldn't "extra marital sex" be more accurate?

Yes, I suppose so. However, more people approve of pre-marital sex which they see as "harmless fun" than approve of "extra-marital affairs" which is more likely to be considered a "sin". However, we could make it "extra-marital sex" if you think that's appropriate. Since you know where this is in the article, why don't you go ahead and change it? Be Bold!

--Richard 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, extra-marital ,means outside of married life whilst pre-marital means before marriage. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 22:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Wouldn't "sex outside marriage" be more accurate then, as it covers pre-marital sex and infidelity within marriage? Ros Power 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. Forget what I wrote earlier in this section. I meant what I wrote but it has nothing to do with the question. I clearly put my fingers in motion without putting my brain in gear when I wrote that. I have made the change in the article from "pre-marital sex" to "extra-marital sex".

--Richard 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But surely Extra-marital can mean before or after (or even during depending on your view point) marriage asurtely that is innaccurate. Does the catholic church now accept divorce? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 01:10, 24 May 2006(UTC)

Ok scratch that I thought we were talking specifically about sex before marriage duh! -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism

--Greasysteve13 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Chick

If the article's going to mention Chick's POV on the RC, then it's got to point out that he considers Catholics to be the devil's dupes (but that they're no different from most people in that regard). The referenced pamphlet spells out, for example, that Satan is the author of the RC Eucharist. To say that he thinks they're no Christians is to mislead by omission. In addition, the fact that a sizeable portion of conservative US Christians think the same thing is worthy of mention on the Criticism of the CC page. Jonathan Tweet 02:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POV

In my opinion this article is neutral and template should be removed. Superborsuk 10:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since no one has commented on this in two weeks, I will be bold and remove the template. --Richard 09:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Polytheism?

Has any thought of adding the accusations of polytheism? For example, I was reading in "The God Delusion" about the trinity, Mary, the angels and the endless number of saints could easily lead to accusations of polytheism. Trinity since its creation as an idea has been accused of polytheism. What about the "Mother of the Church" Mary? Surely she is the Mother Goddess of old classical paganism. The angels and the saints forming some sort of demi-gods. Also, the number of shrines and invocation of their the various beings beyond God in prayer and meditation, surely constitutes some form of polytheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.169.166 (talk • contribs)

Stated this way, your text is POV. An NPOV way of stating it would be to say that "Catholicism has been characterized as incorporating elements of polytheism. Arguments supporting this characterization include...". Of course, these criticisms need to be sourced to reliable sources. If you just add your text to the article verbatim, it constitutes original research and is liable to be deleted. --Richard 09:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Karlheinz Deschner

Why isn't today's foremost critic of the Catholic church, Karlheinz Deschner, mentioned in the article? Deschner’s opus maximus Christianity’s criminal history (in German) is monumental. I find it inexplicable that freethinking publishing houses such as Prometheus Books haven’t translated it. What a shame!! (I confess I have read only three of the ten volumes of Criminal history of Christianity that have been translated to Spanish.)

And, BTW, why is the article still tagged?

—Cesar Tort 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sex abuse scandal

I'm really unhappy with the closing sentence of this section - Some critics have charged that the Church's doctrine of mandatory celibacy for priests has been a major contributing factor to the problem; in response, the Vatican focused on the issue of homosexuality within the clergy - on a few levels. 1)It doesn't scan well 2) I'm not sure the Vatican's focus on hmosexuality was in response to the scandal nor does it go into how this focus is supposed to help things. Frankly, the church has yet to make any real response to preventing this in the future or dealing with it when it occurs. I'm not familiar enough with the background to make the additions myself, but I suspect there are some here who are. Either this needs to be fleshed out a little more or removed as it just really doesn't seem to fit as is.--Lepeu1999 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"However, it should be noted that the rate of child abuse is higher among US public school teachers." Can someone explain why this sentence is in the article? I don't see why this info "should be noted".Reinoe (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Inquisition??? Anyone???

How is the topic of the Inquisition absent from the topic of Criticism of the Catholic Church? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.102.110 (talk • contribs) 30 November 2007

Clarification under the Clerical Celibacy section

It should be noted that Emmanuel Milingo was removed from the position of archbishop in 1983, and he was excommunicated in 2006 because he ordained four men as bishops without a papal mandate. Perhaps this whole section about him should be taken out, as it could lead some people into thinking that the Married Priests Now! organization is somewhat legit, when in fact it is lead by a excommunicated heretic. --Minimidgy (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, there are exceptions (as the article states). Once such is given in this Associated Press report (followed by blogs unfortunately): Diocese hires married priest. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

It seems to me that some subsections have kind of lost the train of thought here. The idea is to state that a) Catholics say group x is a bunch of finks. b) Catholics are allowed to rebut this by saying that they never said this, said it in the Middle Ages but not today, were misquoted, or have no answer becuase they are correctly quoted.

Some editors are putting in what Catholics (once) said with some quotes from the Middle Ages or the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (they were still lynching priests in the American South then! Quite a different time). Then a statement saying that the church has horribly maligned them and the reason why. I think that arrangement misses the point of the article. It turns the article into a polemical treatise rather than a presentation of Catholic attitudes which is what the article is about. Student7 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the style established in Criticism of Mormonism is a good template: it was hashed-out to balance all the competing interests. The style satisfies the OR and NPOV policies. The style used there, and we may want to use here (BTW, I think many of the sections here already use this style) is:

Critics claim that the Catholic church has an unsavory policy blah, blah, blah. [Mandatory cite here]. Catholic apologists say that some rebuttal here. [Cite for rebuttal prefered, but not 100% required].

This format has lots of benefits:

• It forbids OR, by requring only criticisms that are published by verifiable critics
• The criticisms must be stated in a very factual, objective way
• Every criticism must be accompanied by a rebuttal of some sort, to balance out the criticism
• The overall tone of the article is a documentation of the published criticims. The overall tone is NOT an offensive list all the criticisms.
• The article should contain a brief section on the "History of Criticism of Catholic church" outlining the overall thrusts of the critical movements throughout history

Criticism of _past_ attitudes/policies are permitted only if they can be related (even tenuously) to the current status of the church (e.g. the church has not fully repudiated past policy XYZ), or if they were significant in the church's history (e.g. Inquisition). Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New sections?

I just skimmed this article, and I didnt see mention of a couple of criticisms (I'll look again):

• Criticism that Vatican is too wealthy; money transferred from peasants to church (e.g. Mexico 100 years ago ... is that still going on?); centralized beauracacy; Church exploits poor people. Of course, all this is balanced by the outstanding work the church and its affiliates do to _help_ poor people around the world.

• Miracles: Church places too much emphasis on miracles; miracles probably are not genuine; miracles fabricated often because they are needed for sainthood, etc.

• Inquisition: as another editor noted above in this Talk page: although there is some mention of the Inquisition and associated practices (witch hunting, etc) it deserves a named sub-section.

Noleander (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why some users remove or make POV article regarding inquistion. I hope they dont do it becouse they want to hide something. What happened during inquistion times was tragedy and should be openly discused.

Article on Criticism regarding inquistion looks like we speak about drinking coffe, or apologizeing for spilling a cup of tea. The fac is that inquistion was basicly a mass murder campaigne waged by Catholic church in order to kill/imprison those who oppose their actions and doctrines User:Sumaterana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.42 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sumaterana, you might want to read up on the topic in Wikipedia at [1]. Also the subsection following on "The Black Legend." People definitely were killed but not in nearly the numbers that people living in Protestant countries have been led to believe over the years. People were killed on all sides for their beliefs over the years including many by Protestant countries. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag needs explanation and details

I removed the POV tag. In order to put a POV tag on an article, the editor needs to state, with some specificity, on this Talk page what the POV issues are. E.g. "The wording in this article - such as hate-mongers and heretics - is overly negative" or "This article lists anti-semitism criticisms, but doesnt list any pro-church rebuttal". Without such specifics, other editors have no way of rectifying the POV-ness. If someone thinks this article is POV, by all means put the POV tag in, but add some notes here in this Talk page when you do so. Noleander (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

..and I just put the POV tag back. I read the article in its entirety, and it is a good start, but a lot of work remains. The following have to be done to make it neutral:

• Every criticism must be accompanied (usually at the end of the 1st sentence defining the criticism) by a citation, which identifies a verifiable source of the criticism.
• Every criticism must be accompanied by some, even a brief, rebuttal.

Noleander (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sects

Okay. Three denominations have been called "sects" by the church, particularly in South America. I suppose there is criticism of this someplace, but I didn't see it in the articles. I apologize if they were there and I missed it.

I may have been wrong about replacing the word "sectarianism." Feel free to restore it.

"Sect" is definitely a pejorative but it isn't "cult," though in Protestant culture they may think the two the same. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic church often uses "sect" term when speaking about non catholic religoius groups in europe too... User:Sumaterana

Mormonism

One of the difficulties about replying to "charges" about Mormonism is that nearly every other Christian denomination has the same or similar criticism. A Reuters article referred to the Mormons as a "sect."

None of this makes the RC church "anti-Mormon" which makes them sound like they support violence or something. Student7 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir, Catholic Church in many countries in the world speaks openly against Mormons, call their prophet false prophet and claim that Catholic church, not mormon is the true church. I dont go in the disscussion about who is right or wrong. I just say that they are in fact against mormons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.140.42 (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with discussing these things here and reporting facts in the article. But of course Wal-Mart says they are better than Target (two stores in the US). That is the nature of the business. They'd be stupid not to. Each religion, Mormons and Catholics claim they are each the true religion. They would have no respect from their adherents if they didn't. More importantly, they might shortly discover that they have no adherents!

But let's not take this too seriously. We can report the facts. Assuming bad faith on the part of editors is against Wikipedia policy. I don't think it is a good idea here to automatically assume bad faith on the part of the speakers either. They believe in what they are saying. All we are doing here is marshalling those facts. It's a straightforward editing job like every other one in the encyclopedia. I appreciate my fellow editors who have been objective about this.

The statements about theology certainly don't make Catholics pro-Mormon. But what do the facts, as Mormons see them, make Mormons? Anti-Catholic? Not everyone who disagrees with someone is "anti-". That is a television reporter's fantasy. Sounds great as a sound bite. We're not television. Student7 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Current quotes representing the Catholic stand on Mormons may be close to accurate but these sources are not well worded. The footnotes need to be from a scholarly source. dot-edu, the vatican, reliable news sources (Reuters, AP, BBC) - the referenced article may look professional but may not be reliable. If material sounds inflammatory, it might not represent Catholic thinking at all. Much easier to answer real quotes than inflammed ones not uttered by anyone reliable in the church. Please be careful. Student7 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, since the people who read this "side" are probably not the ones making mistakes on the other "side." But please use wiki footnotes in the articles and not just ones that throw reader out of article. See WP:FOOT. Student7 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who made this bizzare remark??

Within a Catholic context, the prayers for conversion of non-Catholics (Jews) is a charitable expression of love.

I suggest that if no qoute regarding this subject is given, this remark be deleted.

This has noting to do with reality?! (User talk:Sumaterana)

Inquisition

There's a unsupported, unfootnoted remark that states that the Inquisition was unjustly used to remove material goods from the innocent and give them to local authorities. Please name any system of justice with which we are both familar where that hasn't happened including modern "democratic" ones.

My suggestion is to stick with criticism of the design of the Inquisition, that is, when it worked "correctly" according to the framers. Plenty of room for criticism there, I would presume. Or at least document the frequency with which it didn't work. Student7 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

There has been plenty of scholarly analysis and ample time since 1272, to determine who started what crusade and why. I have placed one footnote by a statement. There are others that could be used.

Encarta supports the statement that the pope directly led only the first four crusades.Student7 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you getting at? Do you disagree with the current article? Do you want to add something? Your point is unclear in the above post. -- SECisek (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of this article to speculate if Europe would have been better off without the Crusades. Nor to judge the correctness of support for any of them. The article is supposed to be a scholarly write-up of historic criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church - which the new stub-section on the Crusades does quite nicely, if most incompletely.

As for your second point, the stub make no mention of the culpability or innocence of any of the popes, so your mention of them is strange. As for what is a crusade and what is not, it matters not that "most people associate "Crusade" with the fight for access to the Holy Land in the Middle Ages". For one, it is speculation to state what you think "most people" believe. In conclusion, most modern scholars (since Runciman's three volume history) all agree that a "Crusade" is a war fought by "Crusaders", which are defined in most modern scholarly works as Christian soldiers who had taken a vow to go to war and who earned indulgences for their services. That puts Indiana and Ike out.

Given the disgusting state of the entire article, I am still uncertain what faults you have found with my well sourced edits. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Albigensian Crusade was initiated by Innocent III, the pope legate Arnaud Amaury was in charged of repression. What difference it makes if the pope only indirectly started the crusades? they still played a important role. Other important personage of the church, for instance St-Bernard, were also influential. Sfoucher (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Culpability

I realize that there is a certain propensity to believe that anything that happened that wasn't good in the past 2000 years was somehow caused by the popes. Let me make this suggestion. If the pope instigated it, it can be footnoted. There is agreement (by now!) of the popes involvement. However, if the pope, like everyone else in Western Christendom (in this case) (and probably Eastern if the truth be known) supported something (Crusades, for example) that doesn't make him culpable. The fact that he might (or might not) be able to stop it is quite beside the point. He was no more than a bystander on the other crusades. A bystander that may have been cheering on the parade, but so what? I root for my favorite football teams on weekends, but if they win (or merely just play) I am not responsible! Either way. I did not cause their victory however I might try to claim it! Student7 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

missing aspect

No word about the practise of sedition as e.g. currently seen in Spain against, among others, homosexuals and the current government's approach of tolerance? Dorfklatsch 12:32, January 6, 2008

Need's to be noted?

"However, it should be noted that the rate of child abuse is higher among US public school teachers." Can someone explain why this sentence is in the article? I don't see why this info "should be noted".Reinoe (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</

The largest volume of child abuse is "at home", maybe 80%. No article. Maybe 15% at school. No article. 5% in religious institutions. Major article!

Kind of like going down to skid row, finding broken beer bottles and questioning people going by in autos during rush hour. Not the most likely source of breakage. Oh, well. Student7 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Additions

This article is really not in very good shape. I made some additions with references to help bring a little more perspective. This page looks like it was possibly started as a propaganda piece, not a true examination of Criticisms of the Catholic Church and could use a thorough rewrite and reorganization. Some comments have no references but there certainly are easy ways to find refs. If no reliable refs can be found because the position is such a minority view, then Wikipedia guidelines suggest the position should not be in Wikipedia. As a former non-Catholic who used to think the Church had some really stupid rules, I know all about Catholic Church criticisms and I will be happy to spread my knowledge of this subject as I have time. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd sugest aditions including:

1. A more thurough discusion of the Church's behaviour around the Nazis

2. The Church's recent actions regarding Queer Rites including (as a recent example) Bishop Devine's claim that there is a Gay conspiricy and that Queer groups have no right to go to Holicaust memorial services.

3. The Catholic Church's historical role in promoting Anti-semitism. The rebilding of the walls of the Gheto is only the begining.

4. The acusations made against the Church in Africa vis. telling people that condoms have holes in them and don't stop HIV/ AIDS.

This is by no means an exaustive list but may provide pointers for users who have more time to produce peices for this page.

--Heartsonsleeves (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename/move

Shouldn't this article be named Criticism of Catholicism? This isn't a criticism of a "church" its a criticism of the catholic religion. All the other articles such as Criticism of Atheism, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of Christianity have titles as such. Any objections? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of those other titles, but I actually think this title makes more sense. One cannot so much criticize a religion as disagree with it, or more precisely, its tenets. But one can certainly criticize an institution such as the Catholic Church. On the other hand, significant parts of this article are merely hashings of disagreements anyway. My gut feeling is to keep the name, but I'd be interested in other perspectives. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

One most certainly can criticize a religion, it happens all the time. I don't think abstract concepts are above criticism. Atheists don't have an institution such as "the church" but people criticize it as well, hence the article. My point is there should be some continuity between articles... and it seems there is already consensus regarding the naming of those other articles, and this one should follow. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a template for proposed name changes. "Move"? It goes on this page, right? It notifies every editor some of whom might not be following this topic.Student7 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or who might not realize that we are serious!  :) Student7 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I looked for one, that was the first thing I did. But I couldn't find it. If anybody knows where this template is (if there even is one) then please let us know. Or just add it to the page. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Church and State

I prepose that under the 'church and state' section we need to give an example of the catholic church's involvement in the early Irish free state.A TD (Irish MP) Dr.Noel Browne who was the minister for health and children attempted to start up a free medicial health scheme for mothers and their children,.The catholic thought it might involve contraceptives, so intervened, the scheme never happened and dr noel browne lost his job.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Browne http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7103/316 ~PoppyDadswell~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyDadswell (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New Order

The article should continue to begin with wider concerns before diving into the Protestant theological critique, which is already rather too prominent. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What Protestant theological critique? No one has posted here in a while-- are you referring to me? These are not theological edits. I only reordered material and may have deleted one small section-- Anti-clericalism.--Carlaude (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This article, seems to me, overburdened with editors representing a lot of different and comprably nonnotable views coming in and sticking there own criticism, "Roman Catholics don't like us either," anywhere.

I propose an reorder like this following four major sections of the Roman Catholic Church article.

• Opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs
• Opposition to Roman Catholic prayer and worship
• Opposition to Roman Catholic organization
• Opposition to Roman Catholic actions in History--Carlaude (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The two biggest benefit to this system that I propose, I suppose, is

• It will better separate criticism of Roman Catholicism events in the past from criticism of Roman Catholicism as it is now-- an important difference I think.
• It will make more clear where things go. --Carlaude (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with many of these changes but, realistically, more people are interested in the historical than the theological criticisms (see discussions above), which are mainly of interest to Protestants, and these should be given precedence I feel. "Criticisms of" articles normally deal with secular matters & are not really the place to cover theological differences. It might well be better to split the theology etc into a separate article. "Critisism of" is a very POV title for these sections, as the Catholics are equally critical of the Protestant POV - "theological differences" would be much better (also see discussions above). These sections also don't cover Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic objections, which are very different from "sola scriptura" etc. There are I suspect much fuller articles on many of these topics, which should be referenced, or given "main" tags. Anti-clericalism should not have been removed. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at the section large section on Opposition to teaching on modern ethical grounds. It is on thing than concern not just Protestants, and it can easily be moved to the top.

If a consensus of others want the history at the top I can live with that but I think this page will get plenty of use the way it is.

As for Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic objections, I agree, but I am trying to not rewrite anything (yet) so as to focus on the reorder. This new order should make it more clear that those such things are missing. The "sola scriptura" section looked/looks like it was written from a RC POV as much or more than a non-RC POV.--Carlaude (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

Main article: anti-clericalism

Anti-clericalism is a historical movement that opposes religious (generally Catholic) institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, and the encroachment of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. It suggested a more active and partisan role than mere laïcité. The goal of anti-clericalism was to reduce religion to a purely private belief-system with no public profile or influence. Anti-clericalism has at times been violent, leading to attacks and seizure of church property. Anti-clericalism has tended to be associated with the left of the political spectrum, and with middle and working class intellectuals.

Anti-clericalism in one form or another has existed through most of Christian history, and is considered to be one of the major popular forces underlying the 16th century reformation. The philosophers of the enlightenment, including Voltaire, continually attacked the Roman Catholic Church, its leadership and priests. These assaults led to the expulsion of the Jesuits from most Catholic countries by 1800, and played a major part in the wholesale attacks on the very existence of the Church during the French Revolution.

I removed Anti-clericalism this section with the note This is a movement, not a criticism and moved the link to "see also".

Now I admit it might be rewritten to warrant inclusion but, not as it stands. As far as I can tell, any movement in history that meets the description above for any reason (criticism) can rightly be called "Anti-clericalism."--Carlaude (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lost Footnote

I removed this footnote from the reference section. If you know where its mother is would you please help it find its way home.--Carlaude (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• This one appears lost: ³ Technically each diocese operates separately of its neighbours, while religious orders in each diocese are not answerable to or under the control of the local bishop. As a result suspicions about the behaviour of secular priests (priests belonging to the diocese) were not always reported to other dioceses or to religious order-run schools or hospitals, while abuse by religious priests (priests belonging to a religious order) was not always relayed by his order to the diocese and its schools. The most notorious example involved Fr. Brendan Smyth, a Norbertine Order priest in Ireland, whose activities (known about since 1945) were not reported to diocesian clergy let alone the police. In 1994, Brendan Smyth pleaded guilty to a sample set of 17 charges of sexual abuse of children in Belfast from a far longer list. A number of dioceses, the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh and Smyth's own order publicly blamed each other and accepted no responsibility themselves for the failure to stop Smyth over 47 years.

Proselytism

I find it a bit of a stretch that the RCC is criticized for just the fact (not the manner) of proselytism. The Proselytism section is written now as a criticism of its fact. I propose this section be removed as not noteworthy unless someone can provide citations-- or many write something that they are/have been criticized for a method of proselytism.--Carlaude (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make more sense of this passage - but the fact, not the manner, of missionary activity is certainly criticised by the Russians, & has been by others elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protestant sects

This sections seems to content that Evangelicals are (all) in sects, as the RCC means the term. Can anyone clarify. what is meant by that footnote: "Cardinals examine Catholics' flight to evangelical 'sects'"

Does it mean Evangelicals in general or those or just those Evangelicals that are "Evangelicals sects." If it means the second then the text need correcting.--Carlaude (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The section is getting a bit out of hand. One paragraph says, "Evangelicalism, however includes Protestant denominations that are among largest and most important in many nations, and includes denominations that are Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Methodist." It seems to say that Evangelism is larger than Catholicism. There are 1 billion Catholics. There are 1 billion "Protestants" (which include Orthodox, Episcopals, and Lutherans, BTW).

As of today, it is not physically possible for the total quantity of Evangelicals to "threaten" Catholicism with "domination" per se. The numbers just don't work out. Maybe they work out for the US or some other limited area, but the article is supposed to be worldwide, not just one country. Student7 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Protestants do not include Orthodox.
2. You are misreading the part you quote: "Evangelicalism, however includes Protestant denominations that are among largest and most important..." meaning Evangelical Protestant denominations are among the largest and most important Protestant denominations (and thus not well charirized as sects)-- not that Evangelical Protestant denominations are something compared to non-Protestant denominations. --Carlaude (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was, to strengthen the paragraph, that the people the RCC is supposedly attacking, have to be "weak" in some way. Otherwise who would care? If "Burma" were to go on a verbal rampage against "China", who would notice? the other way round, it might be page one stuff. So for the section to hold together in some sane fashion, the RCC has to be somewhat larger than Evangelicals. Claiming that there are more Evangelicals than Catholics may be fine if the point is to laugh at the attacks. But to take them seriously, RCC has to be larger, which I suspect is really the case.

We have a lot of media claims about lumping groups together for comparison. All Moslems for example, when everyone knows that the Shiites don't care much for Sunnis (and those aren't the only two). Internecine disputes tend to be worse than external ones. Evangelicals do not tend to report to the same boss. Saying that evangelicals collectively are so much but no group is larger than ____ might help. Anyway it was the US that was being used. This is supposed to be an international article I think.

I do see your point that since Evangelicals are "bigger than a breadbox" they are no longer sects. But what RCC definition of "sect" does size transcend? It might be helpful to insert that. RCC does not perceive Episcopals as a sect thought they are apparently much smaller than most Evangelical groups. So does having a big size help the argument/article?Student7 (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since "China" would care about a verbal rampage from "Burma" I do not see your point. You seem to care about claims of size.

This may be all moot until we get an answer to the question below.--Carlaude (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it important to the paragraph to decide how RC relates to an organization that is either a) much smaller (likely) or b) much larger. If the latter, who cares how they relate?

So to Roman Catholics, all others are sects?

This sections seems to content that Evangelicals are (all) in sects, as the RCC means the term. Can anyone clarify. What is meant by that footnote: "Cardinals examine Catholics' flight to evangelical 'sects'" Does it mean Evangelicals in general or those or just those Evangelicals that are "Evangelicals sects."--Carlaude (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing this somewhere else hopefully in this article. It seemed misplaced here so I replaced it with a correct reference. The article was missing anyway so if not dated, it has to go.Student7 (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You have now changed the text to say that the Catholic Encyclopedia call "any non-Catholic belief" a "sect" and and sited a page for "Evangelical" Church that uses the European meaning of Evangelicalism-- that it is a term for (all) Protestantism-- rather than the common North American meaning of Evangelicalism-- Protestant churches emphisizing the Word and the good news, but neither fundamentalist nor liberal.

1. This radically changes the whole tenor and meaning of this section.

2. Since the Catholic Encyclopedia was edited in the US, this view does not follow-- even with you citation.

3. It is contradicted by many instances of the RCC not using "sects" to refer to various Protestant churches.

4 It is also contradicted by the very next sentence-- "Roman Catholicism argues that it has never employed the term 'sect' in reference to major non-Evangelical Christian denominations such as Calvinism-Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Methodism."

5 Again-- the Orthodox are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic.--Carlaude (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Look. All I was trying to do was to amend the sentence/paragraph with the correct reference. "Evangelicals" was footnoted with a wrong reference that, originally (I think) went somewhere else. And yes, this seriously screwed up the paragraph/section. Not my idea!

The basic problem here is quoting a nearly 100-year old encyclopedia which has a lot of good stuff in it, but it probably not useful at all in determining current RC attitudes towards other religions. The people initiating this section may not have cared about that and rather enjoyed these unpleasant quotes.

I rather think that even then, the quote about all Protestants being sects was a bit offhand and escaped the chief editor. The section doesn't start off that way and kind of drifts into it's own conclusion of the priest writing it. The CE is credible and probably had the Imprimatur, but I'm not sure that one sentence really got through good screening at the time.

At the very least the sentence about the RC church "never using the term..." has to go. The sentence was unreferenced. "Never" is preposterous historically when you look at the history of the Reformation. I'm sure they found a lot worse terms than "sect!" Deleted it.

Took a second look and tried to rewrite it integrating the Evangelicals with the response. Destroyed the symmetry of the final quote unfortunately, so it needs help.

I think it is okay now, except for the now-stranded quote. All that is needed is a Catholic quote saying that they don't think that nowdays for mainline churches. Student7 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orthodox not a "sect"

Finally got what you were driving at with repeated allusions to the Orthodox.

Found this "document", don't know that it qualifies as a reference except in the loosest sense. It chronicles joint popes until just before 800 AD. So, the church was united. Whatever it did to heretics, it did jointly. http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm Student7 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Protestantism

An editor seems to think that unfooted WP:FOOT, quotes from improper sources such as blogs WP:RELY, WP:POV, mispelled "quotes" etc. should need a lot of discussion before changing or modifying. This is not true. Please furnish accurate quotes. Please do not insert words you wish people had said in order to make them look bad! Deliberate inccurate quotes will result in other editors suspecting everything you do. Even those who might otherwise agree with your POV. WP:BIASed commments are not appreciated. I try to help editors of good faith who disagree with my pov. Hard for me to do that in this case. Student7 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• What I objected to was the complete deletion of a section's content! It had acquired two tags but the content was missing. Anyhow, I've completely re-written the section and provided appropriate citations and Wiki-links. Yozzer66 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

What is the reason there is a POV tag in the article? Thiose who want to keep the tag should explain why they want to keep it. I see the article is well-sourced and will suggest removal of the tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic"

I see your point about "Roman Catholic" but you can't put quotes around Roman Catholic since the church doesn't refer to itself that way. The "Roman Catholic" has to come outside the quotes since that is your interpretation and not a true quote. Student7 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here I would agree, but the article already says...

• Protestants have rejected the pope's statement that Jesus established "only one church" (Roman Catholic Church.)

There are no quotes around "Roman Catholic" so do not see your issuse with it.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

While subjecting crypto-converts to Christianity to the3 Inquisition is perceived today by Jewish people to be "anti-semitic" (and the church is indeed vulnerable on other grounds), the Inquisition itself was not aimed at Jewish people per se as we have discussed many times. Yes, they probably would have been asked to leave Spain if they ahd stuck to Judaism, but they wouldn't have been burnt, a fate reserved for "heretical" Christians, not Jews. I think the info on Spanish Jewish-Christians should be moved to its own section or deleted. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the Spanish Inquisition was a culmination of anti-Jewish measures from which people of Jewish descent often found it impossible to escape. I will make the text of the article clearer to reflect this. Yozzer66 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a (potentally open) point of theology if they were "really" still Jewish or not.

If Jewish converts to Christianity were really something different-- then it was not the culmination of anti-Jewish measures, but the culmination of anti-heretical measures.

All the "Jewish" articles on Wikipedia, etc., go out of there way to say that (to Jews) you cannot be Jewish and Christian-- Jewish converts to Christianity-- are no longer Jews. Only relutantly do I sometimes see statements of these people called "people of Jewish descent." Of course the RCC (at that time, if not today) also considered them "not just Jewish."

Not that I agree with all of this myself-- but I think it would be good to put this in a separate but related and nearby section. --Carlaude ^(talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to reflect this discussion, I've created two new sub-sections: (1) Anti-semitism in Spain & the presecution of conversos; (2) Anti-semitism elsewhere in Europe. Yozzer66 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A new section says that it was unsurprising that Christians began persecuting Jews once the state had become Christian. However, the Jewish community participated with fervor in the persecution of Christians before Christianity became legal. This might have had something to do with it! Student7 (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kill'n dem Protestants

I have placed the items of the history section in chronological order again.

There is a section on "Persecution and killing of Protestants" and "Post-Reformation European wars of religion," but these talk about some of the same events. They should be either combined or rewriten to be more different from each other. --Carlaude ^(talk) 12:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• In my view, that particular section is much better organised thematically rather than attempting date order. When organised in this way, it is clearer why the sub-sections "Persecution and killing of Protestants" and "Post-Reformation European wars of religion" are different. The former is largely 'human rights violations' (to use a modern phrase) against individuals and social groups. The later is about wars between regions/cannons, princedoms/kingdoms, nation-states or nation-states in the making. What makes them religious wars is that the sides are closely identified with either Catholicism or Protestantism, and the Roman Catholic Church was intimately involved in providing the Catholic justification for war. Yozzer66 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

They cover some of the same events and treeting them "thematically" hides the fact that that they had-- in part-- the same cause: people considered hersey worth killing over. If the goverment does this in its own "nation-state" it is a "human rights violations" but if it does it in another "nation-state" it only "war." --Carlaude ^(talk) 10:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your point. The section looks better, reads better and makes better sense organised into themes. Regardless of what you consider to be the ultimate cause, (and, for the record, wars usually have multiple causes) persecution/internal repression is easily distinguishable from full-scale, open warfare. Yozzer66 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do not even understand my point, then you cannot claim that it reads better "organized into themes."

It does not read better if it obscures basic and important related facts. --Carlaude ^(talk) 07:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When we lack consensus

Changes on Wikipedia are done via consensus. Stop making a change without consensus. .--Carlaude ^(talk) 07:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• On the 3rd and 4th August I added a substantial amount of new material to the section in question. You re-arranged it without seeking consensus. Indeed, your recent contributions to this discussion page have not been easy to decifier and have not received support. Yozzer66 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My point, among others, is that you changed the order of the history section from (chronological to thematic) by creating a subsection on Kill'n dem Protestants with "wars" -- this would be fine without consensus in advance-- unless other editors object.

Since I object but since neither of us have a consensus-- we leave it as that "status quo" until we there is a new consensus, and we leave it as that "status quo" if no consensus emerges.

I would consider the "status quo" to be "Post-Reformation European wars of religion" right next to "Persecution and killing of Protestants or having no "Post-Reformation European wars of religion" subsection at all-- if you prefer.

Since you did not seem to care for (or understand) putting them side by side-- I made a good faith edit to combine these two into one subsection-- expecting you would see it as better. You are right I did make that set of edits "without seeking consensus" -- and this would be fine-- unless other editors object. As you do object to that set of edits, keeping them separate is fine, BUT you cannot undo all my edits just because you do not care for my last good-fair effort for a compromise.--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yawn-n-n-n... Is it really THAT important. Stylistically, I think you are mistaken. (Indeed, I would suspect that the vast majority of influential, modern works by historians are arranged thematically rather than chronologically. It usually allows for a more vigorous analysis. Chronological historical works can appear old fashioned; favouring detail over analysis). However, the content of the section is FAR more important. Personally, I'd rather concentrate my efforts on that. Thus, for the time being at least, your stylistic preference may prevail. Yozzer66 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion here, but I did want to make a comment germane to the pre-changed article. I cannot do this with you guys slugging it out, so I wish you (each) would quit and talk things over. This is obviously a big deal to both of you, and one of you sneering at the other is not helpful to relieving the situation IMO. He is, after all, trying to communicate with you. Student7 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1. This is not really a historical work... it is an article section on historical events.

2. Historical works are never totally thematic and almost never totally chronological, but somewhere on a spectrume.

3. You can write more thematiclly when you are able to write at a higher level-- something not normally done in an encyclopedia (vs. a book on the subject) and never done on a wiki with many writers and editors.--Carlaude ^(talk) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, no opinion on the actual changes, but the material must be presented in a way that is not structured in an WP:OR (original research) manner not just the material itself. We use the term "Reformation" because it was invented by historians. We can't use the term (and article subtitle) "Catholic Revolution of the 21st century" because no scholar has yet used it. That may not stop us from grouping material with a less dramatic heading however. Student7 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Church

I agree that there was one "great church" before the 12th or whatever century. But I find the phrase "Great Church Orthodox and Catholic" confusing. I have never heard the phrase "great church" before. Since it preceded the term "Orthodox", I thought it was some appellation unique to them. My suggestion would be something that calls the church "Christian" which can be understood by anyone, followed by a phrase that links the two divisions of the Christian church at the time. So I guess I did understand the phrase eventually and tried to change it. If you could modify the phrase to something that is clearer, I would appreciate it.Student7 (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, but this whole passage needs rewriting - the C12 is the one after the Great Schism, is it here for the Cathars? If so that should be spelled out & linked. "During this time in history" - is that before or after the C12? Knowing a bit I presume after, but if I was new to the subject, the text would suggest before. Generally this article, apart from its other problems, is terribly underlinked. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• the Christian Church would seem to include (to some) the non-Chalcedons
• the Great Christian Church (does not include the non-Chalcedons)
• the Great Church (this is ok but not so good)
• the Great Church East & West
• I cannot think of any other options, but think the Great Christian Church is best.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox church" perhaps, with a link on schism? Or "pre-schism Catholic and Orthodox church" I can certainly see what it (GC) means, but I don't think it's a standard term, & will confuse many. Or just rephrase to avoid the issue - the churches operated pretty separately on most issues for centuries before the schism anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the "Great Church" used from time to time -- but more importantly-- it is a self evident term.

"pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox church" is not standard term

"pre-schism Catholic-Orthodox church" makes it seem like they were always separate (but not yet in schism).

The church in the east was larger and earlier and there is no reason to place the term "Orthodox" after the term "Catholic"--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly self-evident if you know the history, but very puzzling if you don't. It's not really worth debating this any more as, a) there must be a standard term not yet cited, and b) the whole passage needs rewriting from scratch. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I had to puzzle it out and I read a lot. I did eventually arrive at the correct conclusion but it took awhile. I think a term that is a little more self-evident (more "user-friendly") needs to be used. Since it is the Christian church we are talking about, that shouldn't be too hard. I'm not sure why you don't want to use that term, but something that evident should be substituted IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't I want to use the "Christian Church"?

Let say that I hold that non-Chalcedons-- like the Oriental Orthodox-- are real Christians with just wrong/different doctrine (or that I consider the Chalcedon/non-Chalcedon doctrine not worth a fight on Wikipedia or on this page).

Then in this case-- non-Chalcedons are part of a small couple or few very small churchs-- but all Chalcedon Christians are part of the same great (meaning large) church.

But in this case, non-Chalcedons are still part of the whole Christian Chruch on earth-- since they are Christians.

Is this clear?--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see we have a Greater Churches Group! Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have more info than I. I am not suggesting imprecision. How about "most Christians" or "Western Christians and Orthodox" or "Christians {text footnote establishing Chalcedons not involved)"?

• To say something like "most Christians" makes it seem like it is the "rank & file" Christians were doing the finding and persicuting of heritics, not the leaders and thinkers.
• "Most" also makes it sound like we more that 50% Christians were doing the finding and persicuting of heritics (not the case) and makes it seem like we cannot say anything about which Christians did it (not true).
• "Western and Orthodox Christians" makes it seem like the the two groups were always separate (but not yet in schism).
• "Western and Orthodox Christians" also makes it seem like it is the "rank & file" Christians were doing the finding and persicuting of heritics.
• "Western and Orthodox Christians" includes or seems to include the (non-Chalcedons) Oriental Orthodox. (The term "Orthodox Christians" is always a term to avoid because it is always unclear IMO-- say Eastern Orthodox.)
• By the way, the Chalcedons were involved-- the non-Chalcedons were not.
• If I have obviously more info than you, why not belive me that "the Great Church" is a used term.
• How about we say "the Great Church" and use a footnote to explain it as much as you think is needed.--Carlaude ^(talk) 23:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not any more enthused about footnoting "Great Church" than you are so it must be a good compromise! After reading the above, I will be greatly interested in reading the footnote!  :)Student7 (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've heard the term "Great Church" was in reference to the "Great Church of Christ", meaning the Patriarchal cathedral in Constantinople, which in the past was called the "Magna Ecclesia", before the Ottomans renamed it Hagia Sophia. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Joint Lutheran-Catholic agreement on faith vs good works

I assume that everyone is familiar with this:"Pope and Lutheran World Federation cosigned a document entitled 'Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification' (JDDJ) agreeing on the role of faith in salvation." This happened several years ago. Cannot right now find anything other than an indirect reference to it and certainly not the text. (Has to be around somewhere). Some of the material still seems to support contention on this issue. Student7 (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Didn't look hard enough. Here it is Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.Student7 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, most of the Protestant churches which strongly affirm the Five Solas(including Sola Scriptura, Bible as the sole authority), hardly take this RC-LWF statement serious. 219.79.253.123 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Article is not diverse enough

The article is too centered on historical protestant criticisms of the Church, however they are now only a minority of criticisms, when you take into account muslim criticisms (about the Trinity), jewish criticisms (about the identity of the Messiah), buddhist criticisms (about the necesity of dogmas), hindu criticisms (about missionaries), secular critcisms (about the political role of bishops), and many other types of sociological and scientific criticisms. ADM (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

Generally, this article ought to be about specific criticisms of the Catholic Church. Since criticisms of the trinity, or of the identity of the messiah are pretty much Christian-universal, they get stuck in the criticism of Christianity article. Farsight001 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A sound policy. -- Secisek (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Farsight001 but I point out that there are secular criticisms that could be discussed in this article (e.g. political role of bishops). This is part of the general topic Separation of church and state but there are specific issues regarding the political interaction of the Catholic Church that should be mentioned. --Richard (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)