Talk:Cultural Catholic

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Anupam in topic Merger

New Article edit

I started this article using a number of web sites as information sources. I started this page because I am a Protestant who figured that his wife's Catholic family wouldn't object to my very existence since they weren't devout - how wrong I was! That said, I've really tried to maintain NPOV in this article. I was unable to find an exact statistic about the percentage of Catholics who qualify as "Cultural Catholics." I can remember something I read in a book a while ago that said it was something like 50%, but I don't remember the exact book, so I've left the figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicBrit (talkcontribs) 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 18 July 2018 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Change venue. It would be sensible to hold a merge discussion on the subject of Cafeteria Catholicism. If there is no merge and the other article is not moved there instead, then there is clear consensus a move should be requested at WP:RM/TR or completed without asking as uncontroversially fixing a grammatical error. (non-admin closure)Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply



Cultural catholicCultural Catholic – Religious denomination adjective grammar. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Speedy support - could've and should've been a technical move. Red Slash 09:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Fixing grammatical error. Should be non-controversial. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Cultural Catholic was previously an article, but was moved and now exists at Cafeteria Catholicism. That article is more extensive than this one. Perhaps that should be the one moved, or this should be merged and redirected. Dekimasuよ! 21:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Cafeteria Catholicism edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Both articles cover the same topic. They should be merged into a single article located at Cultural Catholic with both pages retained as redirects. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Frayae: Merge to Lapsed Catholic. Many cafeteria Catholics are converts from other backgrounds with religious devotion, whereas cultural Catholics have Catholic backgrounds and no religious devotion. Lapsed Catholic is a better fit. Daask (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Daask: @Frayae: - I know this discussion is a bit stale at this point, but I was wondering whether a section on cultural Christianity may be more appropriate, linking Lapsed Catholic and Cafeteria Catholicism as hatnotes? I should point out this is not my expert area at all. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bangalamania: As it stands, Cultural Christians are defined in that article as non-theistic. I'm not sure if that's a fair definition for that article, but it's definitely not appropriate for Cultural Catholic. Besides, I think merging Cultural Catholic with Lapsed Catholic can bring balance to both articles, as they are essentially different perspectives on the same phenomenon. Daask (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not sure about that. However, we could indeed use a separate article Catholic culture, in any case. PPEMES (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Object. It seems that there are several distinct meanings here, but the topic is sufficiently large that it is reasonable to keep these as separate topics, linked through their see also sections. Regarding the original merge proposal it seem that Cultural Catholic differs from Cafeteria Catholicism on the grounds that the latter would personally assert a Catholic faith, while the former wouldn't. That's quite a dividing line. Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2 June 2019 edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: uncontroversially speedy-moved. Not only was there a consensus earlier, but it's a grammar error that should be fixed for the time being, even if the page gets merged later. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply



Cultural catholicCultural Catholic – Spelling. Religion - adherence. Above comments didn't result in anything. Might as well rename at least for the time being. PPEMES (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger edit

Per WP:BOLD, I went ahead and merged this largely unsourced stub article to Cultural Christian, which also specifies Christian denominations, e.g. "Cultural Catholic" and "Cultural Anglican". There is no need for this separate article when it can be discussed in the main article or else we would have many unnecessary articles, e.g. "Cultural Anglican", "Cultural Methodist", "Cultural Lutheran", etc. The largest section of this article, the "External links" section, has been smoothly transferred there, along with the one reference in this article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply