![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article was created on May 13th, 2006 with material moved from the article, Canon law which at this time will remain a general article on the subject.
As I am able to have time, it I will be filling out the additional sections listed here:
If you have any suggestions or thoughts for these articles, please let me know. -- Vaquero100 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Andrew c ( talk · contribs) unilaterally moved this page to a different name, giving as the reason The title used in wikipedia's main article is RCC. Unless that changes, these pages should reflect that consensus. It's not clear how that reason is relevant here. The article CC redirects to RCC, and as this was determined by a specific vote, it could be argued that it is the consensus view that CC and RCC are interchangeable. It's also not clear how the naming of this article relates to the so-called "main article." Furthermore, discussions at RCC have generally agreed that in the specific topic of "Catholic Church and Canon Law", "Catholic" is not ambiguous and does not need modification with "Roman." Therefore I ask that the move be reverted, ideally self-reverted by Andrew. Gimmetrow 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be at Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)
It also seems odd to maintain the disputed name during a dispute. Gimmetrow 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Short response - if it were up to me I would probably name this article "Canon law of the Catholic Church". The article at Canon law should discuss ecclesiastical law in general, esp. history. In the context of canon law, "Catholic Church" is not really ambiguous - and in a sense there is a consensus on this, as the point has been made multiple times in the CC/RCC naming discussion and nobody has objected as far as I can recall. Note that this article does cover the Eastern Catholic Churches, who may (in this context) not identify as Roman, and so "Roman" is arguably inappropriate. (I don't see what you are referring to in the Catholic encyclopedia article.) We really need some uses of Catholic Church without Roman to avoid the opposite form of POV pushing. Gimmetrow 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Another sign of blatant hostility is MGM's and Andrew's refusal to make intelligent edits rather than simply conveniently reverting material which might draw into question their very actions.
An example is this section:
Somehow I doubt that either AndrewC or MGM have any real familiarity with the subject of Canon Law in the Catholic Church. I have taken 3 graduate courses. It's not a degree, but I know enough to state the above. If there were any question about a source for this material, I would be glad to furnish it. Precisely how many canons of Catholic Canon Law have either of you two read???
Vaquero100 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
When I named this article originally, I used the brackets without realizing that it is not preferred by some WP editors. I am certainly not wedded to this format, although I have used it for several articles.
The origins of this format lie in the months long discussion of articles related to the Catholic Church. Some editors expressed concern that articles related to the Catholic Church should not simply be titled Catholic X, because that might be confused with the theological (or credal) concept of "Catholic" as used by some churches, Anglicans in particular. Articles which clearly refer to an aspect of the Catholic Church as an institution, it has been suggested, should reflect the institutional nature of the article to avoid confusion with the theological sense of the word.
My personal sense of this distinction is that it will make no difference to the average user. These are the kinds of hairsplitting distinctions that satisfy specialist editors (or at least mollify some of them to some degree). In the case of Canon Law as stated above by Gimmetrow, how can there be a "Catholic Canon Law" in the theological sense? Canon Law as product of institutions, cannot really refer to anything but the particular institutional and distinct and fairly unrelated systems of canon law in the various churches which call themselves Catholic in the sense of their proper name (Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholic Church, Catholic Church, etc.) and those who identify themselves as Catholic theologically (Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Churches, etc.) Such an article would be unwieldly and non productive. Even an article on Anglican Canon law can do little more than discuss the evolution of canon law in England and then note that each Anglican province has its own church law which is independent.
Anyway, if this article were named "Canon law of the Catholic Church," I would be fine with that. What is particularly objectionable in my view and from the point of view of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is the use of "Roman," for reasons stated above. If the current format is problematic, I would be glad to discuss other article naming ideas that anyone might have. We can discuss that here, but as I said, other articles should follow the same format agreed upon here, I would think anyway. Such articles include Eucmenism (Catholic Church), Consecrated life (Catholic Church, and others I will have to check on. So, this conversation might work well in a venue attached to the Catholic Church article or on the Wikipedia WikiProject Catholicism 101 in order to centralize it. Vaquero100 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be indeed grateful to Cat Whisperer, if he would give information in this article about the 1998 update to the Code of Canon Law. I presume there are others too who are as ignorant about it as I confess I am. Does the Latin text referenced have the update? Lima 14:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
THis material was removed for two reasons. First, it doesn't belong here. Second, it isn't true. There are lots of faculties of canon law, not just the Gregorian, and just as many, or more, canonists in the US (for instance) from CUA. The Angelicum is as widely known. Why the peroration on the fantasticality of the Greg. in the middle of this article is beyond me. There are also an awful lot of cardinals who have never earned a degree from the Greg. Finally, plenty of canonists practice in diocesan and metropolitan tribunals having never been "admitted to the bar" of the Signatura, which is a lawyer's court for disputes among Roman dicasteries -- the Rota is where the vast majority of cases wind up in any event. HarvardOxon 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, thanks for writing such great articles!!
That being said, I went back, edited and added footnotes, refs and citations, which do not seem to appear as footnotes in the article. The info is there when you click into edit the page, and the footnote number is there......but the ref/footnote itself didn't make it in.
HELP??? LOL Did the footnotes fall off the page?
DaveTroy 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The article Corpus Juris Canonici is in its subject a near duplicate of this article. I am somewhat surprised that it has not been identified until now. patsw 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem of similar contents of the articles Corpus Iuris Canonici and Catholic canon law. Perhaps this article should show the history of the Catholic canon law and contain a list of single laws as the Corpus Iuris Canonici, while special articles as Corpus Iuris Canonici should show the content of these laws, the sense of their regulations and the development of legal institutions, used by these laws. Thw1309 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The L in Canon law should be capitalized.
Canon Law is a legal situation. The Corpus Juris Canonici is a historical instantiation of it that is no longer operative but has been replaced. They are not the same thing. The articles should not be merged. Considering that there hasn't been any discussion since April, I'm pulling the suggestion. TMLutas ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because many current ecclesiastic controversies seem unjustified given the ignorance of the norms set forth by Canon law, I presume that it would be a good thing for Wiki-editors to make a thorough examination of some of the more complicated pieces of canonical jurisdiction. For instance, Canon 1398 excommunicates people that have procured an abortion ; it is considered controversial yet it is often misunderstood for various reasons. Another interesting canon is Canon 915, which has been invoked by Archbishop and Chief canonist Raymond Burke in order to oblige politicians who support Abortion to refrain from taking communion. For the election or even the possible resignation of a Roman Pontiff, the law is canon 332. ADM ( talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For the non-Catholic reader in particular some discussion is required of what the Church's legal framework (canon law plus any relevant executive functions) can do by way of sanction, discipline, or punishment. As I understand it, in earlier times this would include indefinite imprisonment and torture, but not spilling of blood or the death penalty (the Church and state worked together then; the Church would pass sentence of death, the state would automatically execute the sentence). This is particularly relevant to Catholic sex abuse cases: the Church has been very reluctant to involve or even inform the state, but what is done, and what can be done, under canon law? Are any penalties appropriate for very grave offences against the person available? Pol098 ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The hdr at the bottom of the infobox says: "Canonic Law of Vatican I". Is "Canonic" correct? Should it instead be "Canon Law"? Eagle4000 ( talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I presume that this template has been added because canon law controls the admission of testimony of religious revelation to individuals. This seems a bit arcane since it seems out of context. The article fails to mention this. Otherwise, it seems to me that the template is irrelevant and conveys, rather, the opposite impression; that canon law is construed by private revelation when it is just the reverse! Student7 ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is missing information on:
Unverified and fuzzy phrases: "fully developed legal system", "fully articulated legal code" Richiez ( talk) 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
why does no one initate thetaking of the lord in vane. I know knights who were outrite takers of the name of Jesus in vane--it has to be a mortal sin.why does the church put up with it? someone take the ball and carry it--how can one go to confession and not be absolved of this sin---the church turned its back on us but it is bigger than me to change it. bob bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.127.41 ( talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It lacks the coercive force present in most legal systems.
Doubt that. It has excommunication, and lesser penalties. They are meant to be coercive, and excepting the religiously indifferent, plus the very rare species of heretic who, in an approximation of Chesterton's words, rather excommunicates the Church that acknowledge it really is the Church that is excommunicating him, they are.--
93.135.42.249 (
talk)
20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs aditional information on the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. Alternatively, someone could create a separate article on Eastern Canon Law. I'd love to do it but don't know enough on the subject and don't have appropriate reference resources on hand. Majoreditor 03:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Cannot read a clear consensus for moves for now following this discussion. Some pages seem to be more discussed than others. Consider breaking this RM into pieces (like the first 3 or last 2 (mention other pages here for better context)?) if further discussion is warranted. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
– To introduce some WP:CONSISTENCY and improve PRECISION. This will (1) reconcile the inconsistency between Catholic canon law articles disambiguated imprecisely as (Catholic Church) with those disambiguated as (canon law), and (2) improve the precision of the (canon law) disambiguator by specifying that it is Catholic canon law in question. UPDATE: Per Randy Kryn's comments, I've amended the clerical celibacy entry. It did not deal primarily with canon law. The new nomination for that article's title addresses its WP:NATURAL issue. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC), amended 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article was created on May 13th, 2006 with material moved from the article, Canon law which at this time will remain a general article on the subject.
As I am able to have time, it I will be filling out the additional sections listed here:
If you have any suggestions or thoughts for these articles, please let me know. -- Vaquero100 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Andrew c ( talk · contribs) unilaterally moved this page to a different name, giving as the reason The title used in wikipedia's main article is RCC. Unless that changes, these pages should reflect that consensus. It's not clear how that reason is relevant here. The article CC redirects to RCC, and as this was determined by a specific vote, it could be argued that it is the consensus view that CC and RCC are interchangeable. It's also not clear how the naming of this article relates to the so-called "main article." Furthermore, discussions at RCC have generally agreed that in the specific topic of "Catholic Church and Canon Law", "Catholic" is not ambiguous and does not need modification with "Roman." Therefore I ask that the move be reverted, ideally self-reverted by Andrew. Gimmetrow 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be at Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)
It also seems odd to maintain the disputed name during a dispute. Gimmetrow 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Short response - if it were up to me I would probably name this article "Canon law of the Catholic Church". The article at Canon law should discuss ecclesiastical law in general, esp. history. In the context of canon law, "Catholic Church" is not really ambiguous - and in a sense there is a consensus on this, as the point has been made multiple times in the CC/RCC naming discussion and nobody has objected as far as I can recall. Note that this article does cover the Eastern Catholic Churches, who may (in this context) not identify as Roman, and so "Roman" is arguably inappropriate. (I don't see what you are referring to in the Catholic encyclopedia article.) We really need some uses of Catholic Church without Roman to avoid the opposite form of POV pushing. Gimmetrow 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Another sign of blatant hostility is MGM's and Andrew's refusal to make intelligent edits rather than simply conveniently reverting material which might draw into question their very actions.
An example is this section:
Somehow I doubt that either AndrewC or MGM have any real familiarity with the subject of Canon Law in the Catholic Church. I have taken 3 graduate courses. It's not a degree, but I know enough to state the above. If there were any question about a source for this material, I would be glad to furnish it. Precisely how many canons of Catholic Canon Law have either of you two read???
Vaquero100 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
When I named this article originally, I used the brackets without realizing that it is not preferred by some WP editors. I am certainly not wedded to this format, although I have used it for several articles.
The origins of this format lie in the months long discussion of articles related to the Catholic Church. Some editors expressed concern that articles related to the Catholic Church should not simply be titled Catholic X, because that might be confused with the theological (or credal) concept of "Catholic" as used by some churches, Anglicans in particular. Articles which clearly refer to an aspect of the Catholic Church as an institution, it has been suggested, should reflect the institutional nature of the article to avoid confusion with the theological sense of the word.
My personal sense of this distinction is that it will make no difference to the average user. These are the kinds of hairsplitting distinctions that satisfy specialist editors (or at least mollify some of them to some degree). In the case of Canon Law as stated above by Gimmetrow, how can there be a "Catholic Canon Law" in the theological sense? Canon Law as product of institutions, cannot really refer to anything but the particular institutional and distinct and fairly unrelated systems of canon law in the various churches which call themselves Catholic in the sense of their proper name (Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholic Church, Catholic Church, etc.) and those who identify themselves as Catholic theologically (Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Churches, etc.) Such an article would be unwieldly and non productive. Even an article on Anglican Canon law can do little more than discuss the evolution of canon law in England and then note that each Anglican province has its own church law which is independent.
Anyway, if this article were named "Canon law of the Catholic Church," I would be fine with that. What is particularly objectionable in my view and from the point of view of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church is the use of "Roman," for reasons stated above. If the current format is problematic, I would be glad to discuss other article naming ideas that anyone might have. We can discuss that here, but as I said, other articles should follow the same format agreed upon here, I would think anyway. Such articles include Eucmenism (Catholic Church), Consecrated life (Catholic Church, and others I will have to check on. So, this conversation might work well in a venue attached to the Catholic Church article or on the Wikipedia WikiProject Catholicism 101 in order to centralize it. Vaquero100 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be indeed grateful to Cat Whisperer, if he would give information in this article about the 1998 update to the Code of Canon Law. I presume there are others too who are as ignorant about it as I confess I am. Does the Latin text referenced have the update? Lima 14:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
THis material was removed for two reasons. First, it doesn't belong here. Second, it isn't true. There are lots of faculties of canon law, not just the Gregorian, and just as many, or more, canonists in the US (for instance) from CUA. The Angelicum is as widely known. Why the peroration on the fantasticality of the Greg. in the middle of this article is beyond me. There are also an awful lot of cardinals who have never earned a degree from the Greg. Finally, plenty of canonists practice in diocesan and metropolitan tribunals having never been "admitted to the bar" of the Signatura, which is a lawyer's court for disputes among Roman dicasteries -- the Rota is where the vast majority of cases wind up in any event. HarvardOxon 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey all, thanks for writing such great articles!!
That being said, I went back, edited and added footnotes, refs and citations, which do not seem to appear as footnotes in the article. The info is there when you click into edit the page, and the footnote number is there......but the ref/footnote itself didn't make it in.
HELP??? LOL Did the footnotes fall off the page?
DaveTroy 17:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The article Corpus Juris Canonici is in its subject a near duplicate of this article. I am somewhat surprised that it has not been identified until now. patsw 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem of similar contents of the articles Corpus Iuris Canonici and Catholic canon law. Perhaps this article should show the history of the Catholic canon law and contain a list of single laws as the Corpus Iuris Canonici, while special articles as Corpus Iuris Canonici should show the content of these laws, the sense of their regulations and the development of legal institutions, used by these laws. Thw1309 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The L in Canon law should be capitalized.
Canon Law is a legal situation. The Corpus Juris Canonici is a historical instantiation of it that is no longer operative but has been replaced. They are not the same thing. The articles should not be merged. Considering that there hasn't been any discussion since April, I'm pulling the suggestion. TMLutas ( talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Because many current ecclesiastic controversies seem unjustified given the ignorance of the norms set forth by Canon law, I presume that it would be a good thing for Wiki-editors to make a thorough examination of some of the more complicated pieces of canonical jurisdiction. For instance, Canon 1398 excommunicates people that have procured an abortion ; it is considered controversial yet it is often misunderstood for various reasons. Another interesting canon is Canon 915, which has been invoked by Archbishop and Chief canonist Raymond Burke in order to oblige politicians who support Abortion to refrain from taking communion. For the election or even the possible resignation of a Roman Pontiff, the law is canon 332. ADM ( talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For the non-Catholic reader in particular some discussion is required of what the Church's legal framework (canon law plus any relevant executive functions) can do by way of sanction, discipline, or punishment. As I understand it, in earlier times this would include indefinite imprisonment and torture, but not spilling of blood or the death penalty (the Church and state worked together then; the Church would pass sentence of death, the state would automatically execute the sentence). This is particularly relevant to Catholic sex abuse cases: the Church has been very reluctant to involve or even inform the state, but what is done, and what can be done, under canon law? Are any penalties appropriate for very grave offences against the person available? Pol098 ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The hdr at the bottom of the infobox says: "Canonic Law of Vatican I". Is "Canonic" correct? Should it instead be "Canon Law"? Eagle4000 ( talk) 02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I presume that this template has been added because canon law controls the admission of testimony of religious revelation to individuals. This seems a bit arcane since it seems out of context. The article fails to mention this. Otherwise, it seems to me that the template is irrelevant and conveys, rather, the opposite impression; that canon law is construed by private revelation when it is just the reverse! Student7 ( talk) 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is missing information on:
Unverified and fuzzy phrases: "fully developed legal system", "fully articulated legal code" Richiez ( talk) 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
why does no one initate thetaking of the lord in vane. I know knights who were outrite takers of the name of Jesus in vane--it has to be a mortal sin.why does the church put up with it? someone take the ball and carry it--how can one go to confession and not be absolved of this sin---the church turned its back on us but it is bigger than me to change it. bob bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.127.41 ( talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It lacks the coercive force present in most legal systems.
Doubt that. It has excommunication, and lesser penalties. They are meant to be coercive, and excepting the religiously indifferent, plus the very rare species of heretic who, in an approximation of Chesterton's words, rather excommunicates the Church that acknowledge it really is the Church that is excommunicating him, they are.--
93.135.42.249 (
talk)
20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This article needs aditional information on the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. Alternatively, someone could create a separate article on Eastern Canon Law. I'd love to do it but don't know enough on the subject and don't have appropriate reference resources on hand. Majoreditor 03:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Cannot read a clear consensus for moves for now following this discussion. Some pages seem to be more discussed than others. Consider breaking this RM into pieces (like the first 3 or last 2 (mention other pages here for better context)?) if further discussion is warranted. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
– To introduce some WP:CONSISTENCY and improve PRECISION. This will (1) reconcile the inconsistency between Catholic canon law articles disambiguated imprecisely as (Catholic Church) with those disambiguated as (canon law), and (2) improve the precision of the (canon law) disambiguator by specifying that it is Catholic canon law in question. UPDATE: Per Randy Kryn's comments, I've amended the clerical celibacy entry. It did not deal primarily with canon law. The new nomination for that article's title addresses its WP:NATURAL issue. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC), amended 20:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames ( talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)