![]() | 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 | Archive 2 |
In the heading, what St Augustine are we refering to? Great article, congratulations. -- Againme ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the POV tag today (sorry!). The article reads way too much from the RCC perspective, and in fact often comes across as very preachy. It's also written in a manner that presumes that what is written in the Bible actually happened (which many people don't believe). We should be striving for a neutral examination of how the RCC views the commandments without any hint of proselytizing. The article needs to be quite accessible for people of all (or no) faith(s). Karanacs ( talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've done some reorganization and copyediting of the first few sections (through the section Second Commandment). I'd appreciate some other eyes on that text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently distort anything or lose important meanings. Any other feedback on these changes is also welcome. I'd like to make similar adjustments throughout the rest of the article, but I only have time to do a few pieces at a time. Karanacs ( talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that until relatively recently, the Church prohibited cremation of remains. I assume that this was under the 5th commandment. One or two sentences on this, to place the section in a proper historical context, might be useful. Karanacs ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted Karanac's rewrite of the third, fourth and fifth commandments because I did not think it was an improvement to the page. It jumbled the issues into a mass of ideas devoid of the structure offered by the scholars whose books we are using to present the RC view of the Commandments. While I always appreciate Karanacs very good reviews and comments, I hope she is not upset that I reverted her, my intention was not to upset. There does not seem to be any dispute over content and sources, just personal differences in structure in the way that information is presented. NancyHeise talk 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
More comments
Peter Kreeft may be renowned in our time but it is too early (and IMO unlikely) to determine if he is in the same league as Augustine. It would be OK to say that Augustine's comment is echoed by Thomas Aquinas but saying that it is echoed by Kreeft is a bit jarring. Put the mention of Kreeft in a reference, not in the sentence itself.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence. The scripture John 8:58 says "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
The problem that caused the Jews to stone Jesus is not that Jesus spoke the name of God although that would certainly have been a problem. The real problem is that the Jews considered Jesus to have blasphemed by asserting that he was God.
Does Kreeft use this passage to support his discussion of the Second Commandment? If so, I have doubts about the soundness of his understanding of the passage.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Does Pope Benedict really say that the sabbath "constituted the core of Jewish social order"? I am a bit skeptical of this assertion as it is worded in the article. Observation of the sabbath is clearly a central focus of observant Jewish faith but to say that it is "the core of Jewish social order" seems a bit of an overreach. I would like to see a citation that makes this assertion. Observance of the commandments as set forth in the Torah and as interpreted in the Talmud would seem to be "the core of Jewish social order". Clearly observation of the sabbath is one specific and important part of the general observance of the commandments.
Also, there is something a bit anachronistic about the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews."
It's not terribly wrong but it is a bit imprecise due to the summarization. The Scriptures don't say that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. They say that he rose on "the first day of the week" which is "dies solis" in Latin or the "day of the sun". There is also the distinction between Sunday, the Lord's day on the first day of the week and the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.
It would be useful to refer to this section in the Wikipedia article on Sabbath in Christianity. That section quotes from the Catechism.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have some questions about the sourcing of this sentence "Murder, especially of family members is considered "gravely sinful"."
Now, the statement seems unobjectionable but I'm curious... are we asserting that violating the fifth commandment via commission of murder is more "gravely sinful" than violating any of the other nine commandments? Are violations of the other nine just sinful and violation of the fifth "gravely sinful"? What precisely is being asserted here? And is it supported by the citation to Kreeft, p. 232?
Along the same lines, what is the support for the assertion that murder of family members is especially considered "gravely sinful"? Is killing a sibling or a child more sinful than killing a neighbor or a stranger? Where is the support for that? Is it Kreeft, p. 232?
I understand that popular opinion would agree with the sentence in question. I am not an expert in theology, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but my gut feeling is that there are some theological concerns with making such an assertion. I would really want to know where it is written in Scripture or in the Catechism that the fifth commandment is somehow more special than the other nine. I would also want to know where it is written that killing a family member is considered especially sinful.
Are we sure that this is not pro-life polemic? It seems adequate to me to assert that murder, especially of an innocent such as a child or unborn fetus, is a mortal sin. Anything beyond that suggests hyperbole and polemic.
Also, as long as we are on the topic, isn't the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment on the same grounds of sancitity of human life? Why is this position omitted from this section?
-- Richard ( talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If you will excuse my bluntness, the following is a horrid sentence that combines three ideas that are only tangentially related.
The section should start by saying something like "Respect for human life is considered to require respect for one's own body, for the bodies of those deceased and for the healthy living conditions of all people." Then it should continue by saying "Respect for one's own body precludes abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs and other unhealthy behaviours. Respect for the bodies of those deceased requires proper burial of the dead. The requirement to provide healthy living conditions for all people imposes a moral obligation on society."
-- Richard ( talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This topic is discussed in the section on "Violations against personal health". Either merge the two sections or remove it from the section on "Violations against personal health". -- Richard ( talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Does Kreeft really say that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"? That's what is implied by the sentence "Pornography ranks yet higher on the scale in gravity of sinfulness because it is considered a perversion of the sexual act which is intended for distribution to third parties for viewing." I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps I understand Catholic theology less than I thought I did. Even if Kreeft said it, are we sure that this is Catholic teaching? And, please don't throw Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat at me. We've already discussed elsewhere that these don't mean that everything in the book is gospel truth, just that what's in the book is within the bounds of acceptable Catholic teaching.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, you seem to be missing my point. I think part of the problem is that, when I started this line of discussion, I wasn't quite sure what the point was and it didn't become clear until I looked at what Kreeft and other sources had to say.
Let me go through the sources you provided one by one and hopefully you will understand what I'm getting at.
So what can we take away from this? Kreeft's list matches that of the Catechism but he adds that the list is "in increasing order of gravity". The other two sources really just muddy the waters by providing lists with different elements in different orders.
At the very least, I think we need to take adultery out of the list in this article. The alternative is to present two lists: one list of the "sins against chastity" AND one list of the "sins against the dignity of marriage" and to label each list accordingly.
Also, we need to separate the attribution of the list(s) (which should be cited to the Catechism) from the attribution of the rank order in increasing gravity (which should be cited to Kreeft).
I would prefer to drop the "increasing order of gravity" altogether as it raises some questions about pornography vs. fornication and prostitution vs. pornography but, if you insist on keeping the phrase, then we really should make sure to attribute the ordering to Kreeft since the order is not mentioned in the CAtechism.
I think the Woolf/Donaghue and Taylor citations are not useful because they are discussing medieval views of these sins and thus have less relevance to the Church's current teaching. Their lists and ordering just confuse the issue by introducing more differences.
Hope this helps.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical of this sentence...
Does Schreck really suggest that the precept that "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment" falls under the seventh commandment? Seems to be an overreach to me. There are other ways to justify abuse of animals and respect for the environment but "Thou shalt not steal" does not seem to be the most straightforward argument.
Once again ...
Does Kreeft rally suggest that the foundation for social justice is based on the seventh commandment. I can see the argument but I think it is a stretch to try and cram all of Catholic teaching into one of the ten commandments. Do Kreeft and the Catechism really try to do this? Or is this Nancy Heise speaking?
Strike the above... that's what the Catechism says.
Here's another horrid sentence...
The above sentence combines two ideas that result in a non-sequitur. First, private property is a "natural need and a natural right". But how does the natural need and natural right "compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment"? We need to separate the subject "natural need and natural right" from the verb "compel". It is neither "private property" nor the "natural need and natural right" that are compelling the owner to...." but something else. What is it?
Does Kreeft really liken the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman? Seems like a really contrived analogy to me. Is this Kreeft talking or Nancy Heise talking? In either case, I think the analogy to the complementarity of man and woman does not add to the thrust of the argument and is distracting because it could cause some readers (like me) to wonder about the aptness of the analogy.
-- Richard ( talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, you addressed the second point about comparing the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman. However, you have not addressed my point about the following sentence:
When I look at the Catechism, I cannot find this sentence in it. Does it come from Kreeft?
Note that I am not challenging the underlying meaning of the sentence. I am challenging the specific wording which leads to a meaning that makes no sense. The key point here is that we need to pay attention to the linkage between the subject ("private property"), the predicate "a natural need and a natural right" and the verb in the subordinate clause "compels".
Here's the problem... How does private property compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment? Neither "private property" nor "a natural need and a natural right" can compel anyone to do anything.
Private property is inanimate and cannot compel anybody to do anything. Even God does not compel us to use private property for more than private enjoyment. He commands us to do so but he does not compel us to do so. Our free will allows us to disobey the commandment.
The basic problem is that you are trying to make one sentence express two ideas and you have worded the sentence in a way that makes an inappropriate linkage between the two ideas. Once you focus on the inappropriate linkage between the subject "private property" and the verb "compel", I am sure that you can come up with a better formulation. For example, we could say something like "Private property carries with it a moral obligation to use it for private enjoyment, etc. etc."
-- Richard ( talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The revised paragraph is a definite improvement. The non sequitur is gone and that was an important item to deal with.
Now that I have read the passage from Kreeft that you cited, I think it worth pointing out that your paragraph puts the relationships of private property and common good in the reverse order from Kreeft. Kreeft actually starts by saying citing the Catechism "the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race" (i.e. he starts talking about the common good) and "the right to private property does not do away with the original gift of the earth to mankind". Only then does he move on to say "the promotion of the common good requires respect for private property". This echoes the order in the Catechism. It is a more Christian approach and, from an American capitalist's point of view, a somewhat more socialistic approach.
Your treatment in the article is a bit more American and capitalist because it doesn't emphasize the "destined for the whole human race" bit as early or as strongly as Kreeft and the Catechism do. I didn't notice this until now perhaps because, like you, I am American and the way you wrote it sounds natural to an American. But, if you go back to the Catechism and to Kreeft, I think you will see that the emphasis is on the whole human race and the common good first and private property second.
The difference is subtle. You do mention both common good and private property and the complementarity of the two. I just get the feeling that the emphasis of your text is on private property with obligations to use it for the common good whereas Kreeft and the Catechism seem to emphasize that property is to be used for common good while maintaining a respect for private property.
As I said, it's a subtle shift in emphasis. It's not a big deal (at least not to me). And I doubt anybody would comment on this at FAR. However, I just point this out because I noticed it and I figured I'd share the observation with you and let you ponder whether to do anything about it.
I will comment that treatment given by Kreeft and the Catechism make a much stronger theological point: i.e. all creation was destined by God for the good of all manking, private property is just an accomodation "to assure the security of [men's] lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence". The implication is that "in the absence of poverty and violence, private property would be unnecessary". Whew!! Sounds like Marxist utopianism to me. There are, after all, those who say Marxism is a Christian heresy.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I confess that some of my comments above were based on my own personal biases and speculation as to Catholic theology. Some of them I stand by but others were easily proven to be wrong once I consulted the CCC which I should have done last night had I not been too lazy. I should have been more respectful of Nancy's diligent work and refrained from casting aspersions on her thoroughness in capturing what Kreeft and the CCC said. I claim the late hour (1AM) as my flimsy excuse. -- Richard ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
You appeal to Nihil obstat and Imprimatur quite frequently but I wonder if you understand what these are saying.
From Nihil obstat...
From Imprimatur...
The point here is that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur only assure you that the content within the publication is not heretical and that you won't get excommunicated for preaching or teaching it. It doesn't mean that it's right and that every Catholic must agree with every word in the publication.
In brief, they don't say "This stuff is true". They say "This stuff is not obviously wrong."
-- Richard ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The article uses three different ways to reference the Catechism:
There is no need to reference Catechism paragraphs directly in the text. Most readers will not take the time to look up the Catechism text and those that wish to can use the footnotes to find the relative paragraphs. It would be acceptable to provide links to the relevant Catechism section in the footnotes to facilitate the reader jumping directly from the footnote to the relevant Catechism section.
-- Richard ( talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if anyone can think of a better name for this article. User:SandyGeorgia does not like the name and wants us to eliminate "The" at the very least. I suggest "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" Does anyone else have a better name to suggest or comments on the above proposal either for or against? NancyHeise talk 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Article needs:
Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.
Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?
The following is also copied from the withdrawn FAC:
NancyHeise talk 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on keeping the sabbath holy ends with this one-sentence paragraph "The papal encyclical Dies Domini offers guidance to Catholics on keeping this commandment." It just dangles there, leaving the reader hanging. It should either be removed or the paragraph should be expanded to provide a concise summary of what Dies Domini says. -- Richard ( talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems clear to me from the amount of questions arising that we need to quote the author or Catechism in many of the references to avoid the charge of WP:OR. I think that we should also include links to the actual bible quotes in addition to referencing the scholar quoting them. Three people have expressed disbelief so far after reading the article that the Catechism or scholars actually say what is expressed here and all were surprised to find out that it is indeed what is being said. This may help prevent this reaction by others in the future. I will be working on this over time as it is going to be a time consuming endeavor. NancyHeise talk 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
bronze serpent is redlinked.
-- Richard ( talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The section titled "Jesus' expansion" lists eight "duties of citizens and nations" and the text attributes them to being specified by the Catechism. However, the citation is to Kreeft. When I look at the Catechism, I do not find this specific list of eight duties although I am certain that I can find each of them in the text. Thus, it appears that the list is Kreeft's summary of the Fourth Commandment section in the Catechism. There is nothing wrong with this except that our text doesn't quite present it that way. The text should say something like "Kreeft summarizes the duties of citizens and nations specified in the Catechism as: (and then provide the list and leave the citation to Kreeft as is)". Alternatively, "The Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations" which Kreeft summarizes as..."
-- Richard ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Quality of life ethic is a redlink. Either unlink it or create an article.
Also, does Kreeft specifically mention "quality of life ethic" as "a philosophy introduced by a book entitled Life unworthy of life" and as "first embraced by Nazi Germany"? This is not a showstopper but it seems inappropriate to link "quality of life ethic" to Nazi Germany. This is maligning an ideology by association. The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy does not mean that it is bad to have trains run on time. -- Richard ( talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This section consists of nothing but a single quote from the Catechism. As a general comment, we need to avoid over using quotation as a substitute for brilliant, scintillating prose. This section is a particularly extreme example of a quote farm but the whole article should be reviewed with an eye towards identifying and remedying this issue wherever it may occur. -- Richard ( talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above quote is not from the Bible and so it must be someone's paraphrasing or interpretation of the Bible. Whose? A citation is needed here. There is a citation to Kreeft at the third sentence in the paragraph. Are the first three sentences all attributable to Kreeft? If so, the text needs to be reworded to make that clear. Alternatively, you could cite the Bible passage directly and then attribute the second and third sentences to Kreeft. -- Richard ( talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, this section makes no mention of Just War theory and it would be important to do so, starting with the first treatment of it by St. Augustine.
The big difficulty here is that all these citations to Kreeft make this article seem like "The Catechism according to Kreeft" with a few sops thrown to Schreck for good measure. Once again, the Catechism does not list the criteria listed in the article. Whose criteria are these? Kreeft's? Then we should say so. I am not disputing Kreeft's list but it would be possible for a different Catholic author to come up with a different list or different exposition of the items in the list and still get Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Thus, we cannot simply say "this is the Catholic Church's teaching". We must indicate that this is Kreeft's exposition of the Church's teaching (leaving open the possibility that a different author would present the Church's teaching differently).
-- Richard ( talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have improved this sentence but it feels incomplete. Here's the problem:
To achieve parallel construction, there should be a counter point to "considers ... as morally acceptable" which runs along the lines of "rejects ... as counter to the purpose of the sexual act".
Also, consider these two sentences:
Taken together, these two sentences form a non sequitur. There is the sense of something missing, some linking ideas that make it all hang together. Expound on this topic a bit more so as to lead the reader along. The brevity of the current text requires the reader to know too much about the topic.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again, whose list is this? It's not an exact match to the Catechism. Is it Kreeft's list, Schreck's list or a synthesis of both their lists? Both Kreeft and Schreck are cited for specific items on the list but it's not clear whose list this is.
Note that boasting and mocking are included in the article text but not mentioned by the Catechism. Conversely, irony is mentioned by the Catechism but not in the article text. Now, compared to the inclusion of adultery in the list of sins against chastity that we discussed earlier, this is a lesser concern. However, I raise the issue any way just for completeness. It looks like synthesis but that might be cured by being more clear as to where the list comes from.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Whose list is this? It doesn't parallel the Catechism exactly. The Catechism says:
The article text says:
The fourth item is cited to Schreck. Is this Schreck's list? Does he say that these four things help a person maintain purity?
How does Kreeft address this topic? Does he provide the same list as the Catechism or the same list as Schreck?
Once again, this issue is not as big as the adultery mixed in with sins of chastity issue but it is a bit of a concern because the article text rewords the Catechism in a way such that one must think carefully as to whether the meaning of the Catechism has been preserved or changed and, if changed, in what way. It would be a whole lot simpler and more defensible to simply quote the list in the Catechism verbatim and sidestep this problem.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard, Kreeft and Schreck use more than just the Catechism to discuss official Church teaching on the Ten Commandments. There is a very large list of Vatican documents that discuss the teachings in detail and the scholarly sources cite not just the Catechism but also these many other official sources that were all used to create the Catechism in the first place. The Catechism was created by the Church so lay people like me didn't have to spend years in Seminary getting a PhD in Theology to understand what the Church teaches. But the creation of the Catechism did not supersede the official documents used to create it and there is more about the "spirit of the law" in the official documents that these scholars are experts in bringing out in their books. I think it is too narrow to confine the article to just the Catechism when these Nihil obstat Imprimatur books clearly make use of more. NancyHeise talk 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have ordered the United States Catholic Catechism For Adults published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to supplement the sources used in this article. This source is more authoritative than the nihil obstat imprimatur scholarly sources presently used to create the page because it is created by and published by the Church. Here's the description of the book found on the USCCB website [10] NancyHeise talk 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
Does Bayertz also assert that the "quality of life ethic" originated in Nazi Germany? Please provide a quote.
This is the crux of the question. I don't dispute that "Life unworthy of life" advocates some sort of "quality of life ethic". The problem here is that Kreeft is using association with Nazism as part of his polemic against the "quality of life ethic". Are you ready to provide sources to prove that this is a majority view? I see this association as polemic rather than as fact. I don't think it belongs in the article at all and it is unnecessary to make the point about the Church's teaching.
I think you need to take Kreeft off the pedestal that you have put him on and stop treating everything he says as "gospel". If you do a Google search on "quality of life ethic" and "sanctity of life ethic", you will find plenty of people who argue for sanctity-of-life over quality-of-life. The association with Nazism is unnecessary polemic.
-- Richard ( talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a few sources for you to consider:
Now, let me make my position clear. It's obvious from even a cursory Google search that there is a strong polemic among the "sanctity of life ethic" supporters against the "quality of life ethic". And yes, some people do use the Nazi analogy as a rhetorical device to attack the "quality of life ethic". That the above two articles have felt it necessary to argue against this rhetorical device shows that this is not used only by the fringe but among the mainstream of those who advocate a "sanctity of life ethic".
I am not disputing the existence of these opposing views or the fact that some people use the Nazi analogy to attack the "quality of life ethic".
What I am trying to establish is that the linkage to Nazi medical practices is highly POV. That the Nazis had a warped view of "valuable life" is undeniable fact. However, it is highly polemical and, IMO, illegitimate to characterize "quality of life ethic" as originating in Nazism as Kreeft did and as others do as if the linkage is damning because of the despicability of Nazism.
It's as if one were to malign the argument for a strong military because Nazism built up a strong military force. Well, they did and it was bad. But that doesn't automatically mean that having a strong military is bad. And yes, some people do make this kind of argument about having a strong military but that doesn't make the argument encyclopedic.
-- Richard ( talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I dislike "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" simply because it implies that the Catholic Church has a different set of Ten Commandments to other groups. If we're not supposed to have a "The" at the start. Why not
Xan dar 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I dislike "theology" because this article is more about "teaching" than about "theology". Theology being somewhat loftier, philosophical and abstruse. Teaching being more down-to-earth and practical instruction for the laity about how to live our everyday lives. So, how about Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Ten Commandments? -- Richard ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I received this book this week and have been reading it. It will supplement our other sources nicely in some places. I was wondering if anyone would want to see me insert some examples used by the US bishops to illustrate each commandment. They begin each commandment with a story of some saint who exemplified Church teaching. What do you think? Would this be appropriate for an encyclopedia article? NancyHeise talk 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
I don't have time to write a long message so I will refer you to WP:MOVE for the detailed explanation of how to do this right the next time.
In a nutshell, we are required to keep edit histories for copyright reasons so cut-and-paste is frowned upon unless you provide in the edit history where the text came from. You could have more easily used the "Move" tab to move the article yourself if the new title doesn't already exist. If it does, you need an admin to delete the new title first so that the old article can be moved there.
Everything should now be as you wanted it in the first place but done according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Happy editing.
-- Richard ( talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I spotted this nasty sentence on the page in the section, "War and self defense". Since its up for FAC again, I thought I'd better point it out here. It needs splitting somehow.
Xan dar 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I changed it, the text used to read "According to Catholic numbering, the first commandment instructs people to..."
The problem here is understanding what "According to Catholic numbering" refers to. I understand that Nancy meant that this is the first commandment using the Catholic system of numbering the commandments. However, technically, that's not what the sentence says.
I think the best way to explain it is that "according to Catholic numbering" modifies the entire sentence or, at least, the primary verb "instructs". That is, if the sentence is read according to proper English grammar, it is the "instruction of the commandment" that is "according to Catholic numbering". Of course, this leads to a sentence that doesn't mean what we want it to mean.
The way to fix it is to move the "according to Catholic numbering" to a different spot in the sentence. We could say "The commandment, which is first according to Catholic numbering, instructs....". However, that sentence, while providing the meaning we want, is stilted and sounds awkward.
My suggestion is to either (1) make two separate sentences or (2) drop the point about Catholic numbering altogether since we've already made the point about numbering and this is just a reminder. I have implemented the second approach. Feel free to use a different approach to fix the problem.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the navigation template per a FAC comment by user:Ealdgyth because it takes up too much space on the page. If anyone has a problem with this please post your comments here and lets discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While I know I sound petty for talking about a minor triviality like this, I think we should make it unambiguous as to which style of dash should be used for independent clauses etc. I've seen WP:ENDASH and see that "spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article." So it's a cosmetic decision.
Tangent: it's a matter of function. To whoever is writing, it is all done in a plain text box anyway, so why should the look matter? 118.90.41.39 ( talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
I have a problem with this sentence: "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I don't have any problem with the underlying meaning of the sentence but technically "transmission of life" cannot "require couples to ..." unless we mean something like "respect for the sanctity of the transmission of life". To me, "transmission of life" sounds like a fairly mechanical, biological process that requires certain physical and biological preconditions but, as a physical and biological process, "transmission of life" cannot require humans to "be open to....".
I see that the U.S. Catechism is referenced. Can you provide a quote for us to consider? Or a reference to the Catholic Catechism? I'm sure we can reword this sentence to say what we want it to mean but I hesitate to attempt a fix until I know what the Catechism says. I would prefer to use wording close to what the Catechism says than to attempt a fix based on hunches.
-- Richard ( talk) 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
NancyHeise talk 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)"The bond between husband and wife is both conjugal and procreative. Conjugal mutual love and fidelity is the unitive aspect of marriage. The procreative aspect of marriage concerns the conception, birth, and education of children. The bond between the unitive and procreative may not be broken. The unitive aspect of marriage involves the full personhood of the spouses, a love that encompasses the minds, hearts, emotions, bodies, souls, and aspirations of husband and wife. They are called to grow continually in unitive love and fidelity so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Their mutual self-giving is strengthened and blessed by Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Matrimony. God seals the consent that the bride and groom give to each other in this Sacrament. 'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. (CCC, no 2362, citing GS, no. 49)' Acceptance of a spouse's faults and failures as well as of one's own is a recognition that the call to holiness in marriage is a lifelong process of conversion and growth. God calls the married couple to be open to children, remembering always that having a child is not a right, but rather a gift from God (cf. CCC, no 2378). In this way, they share the creative power and fatherhood of God. In giving birth to children and educating and forming them, they cooperate with the love of God as Creator. Marital love by nature is fruitful. The marriage act, while deepening spousal love, is meant to overflow into new life. Families are images of the ever-creative power and life of the Holy Trinity and the fruitfulness of the relationship between Christ and his Church. ....."(and so on)
I have rewritten the section on "Fecundity of marriage". In the process, I wound up dropping this sentence "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I think this idea is actually presented in a slightly different phrasing in the current text. I still have problems with the idea that "transmission of life requires..." but I think the problem is obviated by the current text. Let me know what you think. -- Richard ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting a little tired of posts I've seen in all sorts of talk pages now accusing the FAC delegates of only counting supports and opposes (usually accompanied by a note that there was 1 oppose and 1 support for this article, indicating the nominator believes that to be most important). I'll note for the record that three editors posted on the 2nd FAC page for this article that they would like to see more historical context for the article to be comprehensive (two of them were not listed as official opposes, but as comments). On the FAC page, the nominator said this information wasn't available in the sources consulted. Since this is not my area of expertise and I didn't know one way or the other, I actually did a few Google books searches to see if there could be information out there to satisfy those objections. I found a few books that looked promising, and only then did I close the nomination. I spent an hour today trying different search terms on Google books, and I found quite a few references that may be useful. I have not read any of these books (mostly just skimmed a page or two or looked at the table of contents), so I cannot say whether they will be useful. I am also not advocating that these sources necessarily be used in the article, although I did try to make sure that most of them are from university professors and/or other respected authors. That said, the sources may give tips on other books that might be useful. I also encourage you to begin a dialogue with the three editors who complained about non-comprehensiveness. They probably know more about this topic than me and may have some good ideas on potential searches that you can do to find additional sources. However, it is definitely possible that on a full read none of the sources will have any useful information whatsoever and you'll still have no new tips on how to find that information. That is actually not a bad thing - at any potential future FA nominations for this topic you could then categorically state that "I've consulted this list of books and couldn't find anything; I don't believe the information is available." That is really helpful to delegates, and to reviewers. So, ending the long rant, here are the sources I found that might be useful:
There are also a lot of books on Google from the 19th century that discuss the commandments. If there are differences between that discussion and the modern books you have read, that may help you to find search terms to see if any scholars have discussed those changes. Karanacs ( talk) 19:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nancy, I think you are oversimplifying the case here.
You wrote "the history of the ten commandments in RCC is not a controversial subject with a long history. The Ten Commandments are straightforward easy to understand precepts. The Church teaching on them has not changed other than what has already been included in the article."
This is mostly true but the elaboration of the Church's teaching has gone through some evolution. One can argue that the basic teaching has not changed but the teaching has had to be elaborated to address changes in society and technology. For example, the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae addressed changes in contraceptive technology. This was a major historical event, recognized by Benedict XVI as such. The reverberations of that encyclical can still be felt today. The church's teaching on contraception and abortion are apparently ignored by the majority of U.S. Catholics. That suggests that the church's teaching on these issues is controversial at least in the United States.
Whether you want to include the controversy in the U.S. in the scope of this article is a separate question that we could debate. However, to fail to mention Humanae Vitae is a major omission.
I am not currently aware of any other key encyclicals that should be mentioned in this article but I will start looking to see if I can find any.
-- Richard ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The topic of this article is the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. However, some people want to turn it into a history of developement on Roman Catholic thinking about issues that are not one of the ten commandments. I want to make clear that any historical event that affected official Church teaching on any of the commandments is already included in the article. What we have correctly omitted are:
Scholarly experts teaching the subject of the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism do not include these as part of the history of the Ten Commandments, in fact there is very little to report since interpretations of adultery, murder, stealing, lying, etc have always been the same since even before the Church came into being. Our article lays out official Catholic Church interpretation of these commandments as well as any significant historical event directly affecting Church interpretation. NancyHeise talk 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is from www.americancatholic.org
The Bible is often mentioned in debates about the death penalty. Supporters quote the Exodus passage, eye for eye, while opponents appeal to Ezekiel (33:11): "As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live." In fact, such use of the Bible (finding a "proof text" to affirm one's point of view) is inappropriate.
Scripture scholars teach us to understand the Bible (and its individual books) in historical context: when it was written and why. Thus considered, there is an ambivalence about capital punishment in the Scriptures.
Clearly, the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the death penalty (for a much longer list of offenses than our society would be comfortable with—for example, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, idolatry). Yet, as we see in Ezekiel and many other passages, there is also an attempt to limit violence and to stress mercy. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus' life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus' death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty.
Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: "If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person" (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops' opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.
A Google search on "Ten Commandments Catholic theology" came up with this as one of the first few results:
http://www.blessed-sacrament.org/twoparadigms.htm
I think it sheds an important perspective on the role of the Ten Commandments in Catholic formation. This is not to minimize the Ten Commandments in Catholic education but it's clear that memorizing the catechism has been de-emphasized and there is a temptation to teach "follow your own conscience".
I think it behooves us to determine whether this piece Blankenhorn accurately describes the evolution of Catholic education and whether his prescription is in the mainstream of Catholic thought regarding Catholic education.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[ Evolution of Roman Catholic positions on abortion]
-- Richard ( talk) 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think we're done with this topic yet.
[Moved here from my Talk Page
Richard, can you add a reference for your groupnote addition to Murder and Abortion section of Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism? Thanks for taking the time to round out the article with these items. If you could just paste the source on my talk page I would be glad to put it in the article for you. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the current text covers the controversy adequately for the scope of this article. A fuller discussion belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Richard ( talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the historical background needs to be expanded that much, but given the recent comments on the FAC, the following sources might be helpful:
Perhaps as important as the cultic service rendered by the Old Testament to the concrete life of the church was the ethical service provided by the commandments of the Old Testament, especially by the Decalogue. For despite the strictures on the Jewish law that became a stock argument of anti-Jewish polemics, the Decalogue, as summarized and reinterpreted by the ethical teachings of Jesus, was accorded a special place in the church. Irenaeus said that "the words of the Decalogue ... remain in force among us"; and even the Gnostic Ptolemy, a follower of Valentinus, distinguished in his Letter to Flora between the Decalogue and all the rest of the law of Moses, seeing the former as fulfilled in Christ and the latter as either abolished or spiritualized. It is not clear what role the Decalogue played in Christian worship (although there is some indication that it was recited at certain services) or in Christian education (although certain passages in Augustine give the impression that it was used as a basis for instruction in ethics); but it is clear that the Decalogue was highly valued as a summary of the law of God, both natural and revealed.
The first part you already touch on, although I think including some of the specifics would place it in a clearer historical context. The part relating to education might also be worthwhile including, despite its uncertainty.
I have added more history to the article per the last FAC's comments. I think the problem is that some people think church teaching has changed on certain issues when it has not. Where before, I wrote about only official Church teaching, because of this confusion, I have brought out more of this history in the article, please see:
These new additions are referenced to two newly added university press sources and an online source. I welcome your comments. I would like to take this article to FAC again soon. If you feel it is not ready, please be kind and state your reservations now. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the Reformation, often applied to ‘the Lord's day’, i.e. the first day of the week (Sunday) observed by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. This use was originally connected with the opinion that the sabbatic law of the Decalogue remains in force under the Christian dispensation, the date of the ‘Sabbath’ having by Divine appointment been changed from Saturday to Sunday; but it occasionally appears in writers who did not hold this view. In Scotland it is still very common. (Phrases as in 1a.) The notion that the Lord's day is a ‘Christian Sabbath’, or, more commonly (as in quot. 1340 under a) a substitute for the Sabbath, occurs in theological writings from the 4th c. onwards, but was not popularly current before the Reformation. In English, Sabbath as a synonym for ‘Sunday’ did not become common till the 17th century.
Yesterday, I changed the sentence in question to read "Although Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the last day of the week (Saturday), Catholics, along with most Christians, celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week (Sunday) which is the Lord's Day." This sentence hints that there are Christians (Sabbatarians like the Seventh Day Adventists) who observe the Sabbath on Saturday. The sentence does not go into the history of the shift from Saturday to Sunday. The first point that might be made is that, according to the CE, it was mostly Jewish Christians who observed the Sabbath on Saturday. Presumably, they also observed the Lord's Day on Sunday. It was the Gentile Christians who dropped observation of the Sabbath on Saturday, combining it with the observance of the Lord's Day on Sunday. I think we could have one sentence that states this point and then a hint that there continued to be some debate as to how much of the law of the Jewish Sabbath should be observed on Sunday. Much of the law around the Jewish Sabbath seems to have been dropped at the same time and in much the same way that the rest of the Jewish law from the Old Testament was dropped. -- Richard ( talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says "According to the Catechism, they "have occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith ever since the time of Saint Augustine,[3] are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth, and serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching"
The sentence says "According to the Catechism" but cites the first part to Schreck. This should either cite the Catechism or say "According to Schreck". Also why is the first part cited to Schreck and not citation is given for the other two parts?
Also, I have found some sources who provide a different perspective regarding the first part and so it would be useful to have the exact wording of the cited text from Schreck.
-- Richard ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This comment focuses on the sentence in the lead that states "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)"
The central question is: What is meant by "a predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine"?
A very simplistic reading of this statement would suggest that the Ten Commandments have had the predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine. I wager that most readers would read it that way. However, if they do read it that way, the lead might be considered to be presenting an inaccurate and overly simplified characterization of the history of the Ten Commandments as used to teach moral theology.
In Moral Wisdom, James Keenan asserts that the history of moral theology was almost exclusively dominated by the desire to assist priests in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Keenan traces this history from the "penitentials" of medieval times to the "confessional manuals" of high Scholasticism to the "moral manuals" of modern times. [1]
The key "take away" here is that some scholars argue that from the introduction of the Seven Deadly Sins by Pope Gregory I in 590AD until well past the Reformation, Catholic moral teaching was based on the Seven Deadly Sins and not the Ten Commandments. Now, we can argue that the Seven Deadly Sins are related to the Ten Commandments but the connection is a bit tenuous.
NB: We must also distinguish between moral teaching to the common layperson and the writings of Christian scholars. See this lecture for a discussion of how Christian scholars treated the Ten Commandments over the centuries.
There seems to be some difference of opinion here. The above source suggests that the Ten Commandments is used in various lay catechisms. However, in Commandments of Compassion, Keenan and Keenan assert that the "pentitentials" and "confessional manuals" were organized according to the Seven Deadly Sins.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Keenan and Keenan assert that fifteenth-century theologians such as Jean Gerson attempted to "provide a more positive Scripture-based formation to Christians and to overcome the minimalist claims of simply avoiding sin".
Keenan and Keenan write that "During the Reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin and then the Council of Trent also sought out the Ten Commandments as the basis of moral instruction in the context of catechetical instruction. Their appeal to the decalogue became a strong repudiation of the primacy accorded to the seven deadly sins."
Harrington and Keenan elaborate on this theme in Jesus and virtue ethics. [2]
One of Martin Luther's criticisms of the Church was its use of the
Seven Deadly Sins as the focus of Catholic moral teaching.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
In the The Christian Way of Living, Klaus Bochmuehl writes: "A popular myth in Protestant circles says that the Reformation alone restored the Ten Commandments. But this is not true historically. A recovery began in the thirteenth century." [3]
In conclusion, contrary to the impression given by the statement in the Catechism, the Ten Commandments has not always had the predominant place in teaching faith since Saint Augustine. Now, we can quibble with words and argue about the difference between "a predominant place" vs. "the predominant place". We could also note that the Catechism does not actually say "always held a predominant place" thus allowing for the possibility of interruptions between Augustine and the present-day. However, the gap between 590 and the Council of Trent is over 800 years and so this kind of careful parsing winds up being sophistry.
As much as we wish to honor the assertions of the Catechism as representative of Catholic teaching, the most generous conclusion we can come to is that there are a number of religious historians (not necessarily Catholics) who would portray a different story than the one implied by the statement in the Catechism. NPOV requires us to present this "different story" somewhere in the article. Perhaps in a Note to the statement "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)".
-- Richard ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering why Categories Roman Catholic Church and Christianity were removed from the bottom of this article by user:Carlaude. Why can't this article be part of all those categories? Is there a policy page I should read on categorization of articles? Can some very nice knowledgable editor provide a link? Thanks in advance. NancyHeise talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (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 | Archive 2 |
In the heading, what St Augustine are we refering to? Great article, congratulations. -- Againme ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the POV tag today (sorry!). The article reads way too much from the RCC perspective, and in fact often comes across as very preachy. It's also written in a manner that presumes that what is written in the Bible actually happened (which many people don't believe). We should be striving for a neutral examination of how the RCC views the commandments without any hint of proselytizing. The article needs to be quite accessible for people of all (or no) faith(s). Karanacs ( talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I've done some reorganization and copyediting of the first few sections (through the section Second Commandment). I'd appreciate some other eyes on that text to make sure that I didn't inadvertently distort anything or lose important meanings. Any other feedback on these changes is also welcome. I'd like to make similar adjustments throughout the rest of the article, but I only have time to do a few pieces at a time. Karanacs ( talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that until relatively recently, the Church prohibited cremation of remains. I assume that this was under the 5th commandment. One or two sentences on this, to place the section in a proper historical context, might be useful. Karanacs ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted Karanac's rewrite of the third, fourth and fifth commandments because I did not think it was an improvement to the page. It jumbled the issues into a mass of ideas devoid of the structure offered by the scholars whose books we are using to present the RC view of the Commandments. While I always appreciate Karanacs very good reviews and comments, I hope she is not upset that I reverted her, my intention was not to upset. There does not seem to be any dispute over content and sources, just personal differences in structure in the way that information is presented. NancyHeise talk 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
More comments
Peter Kreeft may be renowned in our time but it is too early (and IMO unlikely) to determine if he is in the same league as Augustine. It would be OK to say that Augustine's comment is echoed by Thomas Aquinas but saying that it is echoed by Kreeft is a bit jarring. Put the mention of Kreeft in a reference, not in the sentence itself.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with this sentence. The scripture John 8:58 says "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
The problem that caused the Jews to stone Jesus is not that Jesus spoke the name of God although that would certainly have been a problem. The real problem is that the Jews considered Jesus to have blasphemed by asserting that he was God.
Does Kreeft use this passage to support his discussion of the Second Commandment? If so, I have doubts about the soundness of his understanding of the passage.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Does Pope Benedict really say that the sabbath "constituted the core of Jewish social order"? I am a bit skeptical of this assertion as it is worded in the article. Observation of the sabbath is clearly a central focus of observant Jewish faith but to say that it is "the core of Jewish social order" seems a bit of an overreach. I would like to see a citation that makes this assertion. Observance of the commandments as set forth in the Torah and as interpreted in the Talmud would seem to be "the core of Jewish social order". Clearly observation of the sabbath is one specific and important part of the general observance of the commandments.
Also, there is something a bit anachronistic about the sentence "Because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, the sabbath was observed by Christians on Sunday instead of Saturday, as observed by Jews."
It's not terribly wrong but it is a bit imprecise due to the summarization. The Scriptures don't say that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday. They say that he rose on "the first day of the week" which is "dies solis" in Latin or the "day of the sun". There is also the distinction between Sunday, the Lord's day on the first day of the week and the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week.
It would be useful to refer to this section in the Wikipedia article on Sabbath in Christianity. That section quotes from the Catechism.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have some questions about the sourcing of this sentence "Murder, especially of family members is considered "gravely sinful"."
Now, the statement seems unobjectionable but I'm curious... are we asserting that violating the fifth commandment via commission of murder is more "gravely sinful" than violating any of the other nine commandments? Are violations of the other nine just sinful and violation of the fifth "gravely sinful"? What precisely is being asserted here? And is it supported by the citation to Kreeft, p. 232?
Along the same lines, what is the support for the assertion that murder of family members is especially considered "gravely sinful"? Is killing a sibling or a child more sinful than killing a neighbor or a stranger? Where is the support for that? Is it Kreeft, p. 232?
I understand that popular opinion would agree with the sentence in question. I am not an expert in theology, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but my gut feeling is that there are some theological concerns with making such an assertion. I would really want to know where it is written in Scripture or in the Catechism that the fifth commandment is somehow more special than the other nine. I would also want to know where it is written that killing a family member is considered especially sinful.
Are we sure that this is not pro-life polemic? It seems adequate to me to assert that murder, especially of an innocent such as a child or unborn fetus, is a mortal sin. Anything beyond that suggests hyperbole and polemic.
Also, as long as we are on the topic, isn't the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment on the same grounds of sancitity of human life? Why is this position omitted from this section?
-- Richard ( talk) 06:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If you will excuse my bluntness, the following is a horrid sentence that combines three ideas that are only tangentially related.
The section should start by saying something like "Respect for human life is considered to require respect for one's own body, for the bodies of those deceased and for the healthy living conditions of all people." Then it should continue by saying "Respect for one's own body precludes abuse of food, alcohol, medicines, illegal drugs and other unhealthy behaviours. Respect for the bodies of those deceased requires proper burial of the dead. The requirement to provide healthy living conditions for all people imposes a moral obligation on society."
-- Richard ( talk) 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This topic is discussed in the section on "Violations against personal health". Either merge the two sections or remove it from the section on "Violations against personal health". -- Richard ( talk) 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Does Kreeft really say that "pornography is more sinful than fornication or adultery"? That's what is implied by the sentence "Pornography ranks yet higher on the scale in gravity of sinfulness because it is considered a perversion of the sexual act which is intended for distribution to third parties for viewing." I find that difficult to accept. Perhaps I understand Catholic theology less than I thought I did. Even if Kreeft said it, are we sure that this is Catholic teaching? And, please don't throw Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat at me. We've already discussed elsewhere that these don't mean that everything in the book is gospel truth, just that what's in the book is within the bounds of acceptable Catholic teaching.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, you seem to be missing my point. I think part of the problem is that, when I started this line of discussion, I wasn't quite sure what the point was and it didn't become clear until I looked at what Kreeft and other sources had to say.
Let me go through the sources you provided one by one and hopefully you will understand what I'm getting at.
So what can we take away from this? Kreeft's list matches that of the Catechism but he adds that the list is "in increasing order of gravity". The other two sources really just muddy the waters by providing lists with different elements in different orders.
At the very least, I think we need to take adultery out of the list in this article. The alternative is to present two lists: one list of the "sins against chastity" AND one list of the "sins against the dignity of marriage" and to label each list accordingly.
Also, we need to separate the attribution of the list(s) (which should be cited to the Catechism) from the attribution of the rank order in increasing gravity (which should be cited to Kreeft).
I would prefer to drop the "increasing order of gravity" altogether as it raises some questions about pornography vs. fornication and prostitution vs. pornography but, if you insist on keeping the phrase, then we really should make sure to attribute the ordering to Kreeft since the order is not mentioned in the CAtechism.
I think the Woolf/Donaghue and Taylor citations are not useful because they are discussing medieval views of these sins and thus have less relevance to the Church's current teaching. Their lists and ordering just confuse the issue by introducing more differences.
Hope this helps.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical of this sentence...
Does Schreck really suggest that the precept that "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment" falls under the seventh commandment? Seems to be an overreach to me. There are other ways to justify abuse of animals and respect for the environment but "Thou shalt not steal" does not seem to be the most straightforward argument.
Once again ...
Does Kreeft rally suggest that the foundation for social justice is based on the seventh commandment. I can see the argument but I think it is a stretch to try and cram all of Catholic teaching into one of the ten commandments. Do Kreeft and the Catechism really try to do this? Or is this Nancy Heise speaking?
Strike the above... that's what the Catechism says.
Here's another horrid sentence...
The above sentence combines two ideas that result in a non-sequitur. First, private property is a "natural need and a natural right". But how does the natural need and natural right "compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment"? We need to separate the subject "natural need and natural right" from the verb "compel". It is neither "private property" nor the "natural need and natural right" that are compelling the owner to...." but something else. What is it?
Does Kreeft really liken the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman? Seems like a really contrived analogy to me. Is this Kreeft talking or Nancy Heise talking? In either case, I think the analogy to the complementarity of man and woman does not add to the thrust of the argument and is distracting because it could cause some readers (like me) to wonder about the aptness of the analogy.
-- Richard ( talk) 07:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, you addressed the second point about comparing the complementarity of private property and common good to the complementarity of man and woman. However, you have not addressed my point about the following sentence:
When I look at the Catechism, I cannot find this sentence in it. Does it come from Kreeft?
Note that I am not challenging the underlying meaning of the sentence. I am challenging the specific wording which leads to a meaning that makes no sense. The key point here is that we need to pay attention to the linkage between the subject ("private property"), the predicate "a natural need and a natural right" and the verb in the subordinate clause "compels".
Here's the problem... How does private property compel the owner to use it for more than private enjoyment? Neither "private property" nor "a natural need and a natural right" can compel anyone to do anything.
Private property is inanimate and cannot compel anybody to do anything. Even God does not compel us to use private property for more than private enjoyment. He commands us to do so but he does not compel us to do so. Our free will allows us to disobey the commandment.
The basic problem is that you are trying to make one sentence express two ideas and you have worded the sentence in a way that makes an inappropriate linkage between the two ideas. Once you focus on the inappropriate linkage between the subject "private property" and the verb "compel", I am sure that you can come up with a better formulation. For example, we could say something like "Private property carries with it a moral obligation to use it for private enjoyment, etc. etc."
-- Richard ( talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The revised paragraph is a definite improvement. The non sequitur is gone and that was an important item to deal with.
Now that I have read the passage from Kreeft that you cited, I think it worth pointing out that your paragraph puts the relationships of private property and common good in the reverse order from Kreeft. Kreeft actually starts by saying citing the Catechism "the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race" (i.e. he starts talking about the common good) and "the right to private property does not do away with the original gift of the earth to mankind". Only then does he move on to say "the promotion of the common good requires respect for private property". This echoes the order in the Catechism. It is a more Christian approach and, from an American capitalist's point of view, a somewhat more socialistic approach.
Your treatment in the article is a bit more American and capitalist because it doesn't emphasize the "destined for the whole human race" bit as early or as strongly as Kreeft and the Catechism do. I didn't notice this until now perhaps because, like you, I am American and the way you wrote it sounds natural to an American. But, if you go back to the Catechism and to Kreeft, I think you will see that the emphasis is on the whole human race and the common good first and private property second.
The difference is subtle. You do mention both common good and private property and the complementarity of the two. I just get the feeling that the emphasis of your text is on private property with obligations to use it for the common good whereas Kreeft and the Catechism seem to emphasize that property is to be used for common good while maintaining a respect for private property.
As I said, it's a subtle shift in emphasis. It's not a big deal (at least not to me). And I doubt anybody would comment on this at FAR. However, I just point this out because I noticed it and I figured I'd share the observation with you and let you ponder whether to do anything about it.
I will comment that treatment given by Kreeft and the Catechism make a much stronger theological point: i.e. all creation was destined by God for the good of all manking, private property is just an accomodation "to assure the security of [men's] lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence". The implication is that "in the absence of poverty and violence, private property would be unnecessary". Whew!! Sounds like Marxist utopianism to me. There are, after all, those who say Marxism is a Christian heresy.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I confess that some of my comments above were based on my own personal biases and speculation as to Catholic theology. Some of them I stand by but others were easily proven to be wrong once I consulted the CCC which I should have done last night had I not been too lazy. I should have been more respectful of Nancy's diligent work and refrained from casting aspersions on her thoroughness in capturing what Kreeft and the CCC said. I claim the late hour (1AM) as my flimsy excuse. -- Richard ( talk) 20:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
You appeal to Nihil obstat and Imprimatur quite frequently but I wonder if you understand what these are saying.
From Nihil obstat...
From Imprimatur...
The point here is that Nihil obstat and Imprimatur only assure you that the content within the publication is not heretical and that you won't get excommunicated for preaching or teaching it. It doesn't mean that it's right and that every Catholic must agree with every word in the publication.
In brief, they don't say "This stuff is true". They say "This stuff is not obviously wrong."
-- Richard ( talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The article uses three different ways to reference the Catechism:
There is no need to reference Catechism paragraphs directly in the text. Most readers will not take the time to look up the Catechism text and those that wish to can use the footnotes to find the relative paragraphs. It would be acceptable to provide links to the relevant Catechism section in the footnotes to facilitate the reader jumping directly from the footnote to the relevant Catechism section.
-- Richard ( talk) 16:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if anyone can think of a better name for this article. User:SandyGeorgia does not like the name and wants us to eliminate "The" at the very least. I suggest "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" Does anyone else have a better name to suggest or comments on the above proposal either for or against? NancyHeise talk 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Article needs:
Source 65 is Schreck and source 66 is Kreeft, yet the text attributes the statement to Jesus Christ (surely the editors of this article understand that not all Christian faiths hold this belief, and that the catechism is only one interpretation of Jesus's words). The text should be thoroughly vetted to make sure statements are attributed correctly: a given church's or theology's interpretation of what Jesus said is one issue (and certainly not all agree), and there will be those who may argue that we can't be certain the scriptures are Jesus's words anyway.
Some Christian faiths are very clear that continuing to participate in communion while harboring sin is a cause for damnation. Where does the catechism stand on Catholics who confess and receive communion each week, while repeating the same sins during the week? Is that part of the catechism and should it be addressed here?
The following is also copied from the withdrawn FAC:
NancyHeise talk 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The section on keeping the sabbath holy ends with this one-sentence paragraph "The papal encyclical Dies Domini offers guidance to Catholics on keeping this commandment." It just dangles there, leaving the reader hanging. It should either be removed or the paragraph should be expanded to provide a concise summary of what Dies Domini says. -- Richard ( talk) 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems clear to me from the amount of questions arising that we need to quote the author or Catechism in many of the references to avoid the charge of WP:OR. I think that we should also include links to the actual bible quotes in addition to referencing the scholar quoting them. Three people have expressed disbelief so far after reading the article that the Catechism or scholars actually say what is expressed here and all were surprised to find out that it is indeed what is being said. This may help prevent this reaction by others in the future. I will be working on this over time as it is going to be a time consuming endeavor. NancyHeise talk 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
bronze serpent is redlinked.
-- Richard ( talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The section titled "Jesus' expansion" lists eight "duties of citizens and nations" and the text attributes them to being specified by the Catechism. However, the citation is to Kreeft. When I look at the Catechism, I do not find this specific list of eight duties although I am certain that I can find each of them in the text. Thus, it appears that the list is Kreeft's summary of the Fourth Commandment section in the Catechism. There is nothing wrong with this except that our text doesn't quite present it that way. The text should say something like "Kreeft summarizes the duties of citizens and nations specified in the Catechism as: (and then provide the list and leave the citation to Kreeft as is)". Alternatively, "The Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations" which Kreeft summarizes as..."
-- Richard ( talk) 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Quality of life ethic is a redlink. Either unlink it or create an article.
Also, does Kreeft specifically mention "quality of life ethic" as "a philosophy introduced by a book entitled Life unworthy of life" and as "first embraced by Nazi Germany"? This is not a showstopper but it seems inappropriate to link "quality of life ethic" to Nazi Germany. This is maligning an ideology by association. The fact that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy does not mean that it is bad to have trains run on time. -- Richard ( talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This section consists of nothing but a single quote from the Catechism. As a general comment, we need to avoid over using quotation as a substitute for brilliant, scintillating prose. This section is a particularly extreme example of a quote farm but the whole article should be reviewed with an eye towards identifying and remedying this issue wherever it may occur. -- Richard ( talk) 04:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The above quote is not from the Bible and so it must be someone's paraphrasing or interpretation of the Bible. Whose? A citation is needed here. There is a citation to Kreeft at the third sentence in the paragraph. Are the first three sentences all attributable to Kreeft? If so, the text needs to be reworded to make that clear. Alternatively, you could cite the Bible passage directly and then attribute the second and third sentences to Kreeft. -- Richard ( talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, this section makes no mention of Just War theory and it would be important to do so, starting with the first treatment of it by St. Augustine.
The big difficulty here is that all these citations to Kreeft make this article seem like "The Catechism according to Kreeft" with a few sops thrown to Schreck for good measure. Once again, the Catechism does not list the criteria listed in the article. Whose criteria are these? Kreeft's? Then we should say so. I am not disputing Kreeft's list but it would be possible for a different Catholic author to come up with a different list or different exposition of the items in the list and still get Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. Thus, we cannot simply say "this is the Catholic Church's teaching". We must indicate that this is Kreeft's exposition of the Church's teaching (leaving open the possibility that a different author would present the Church's teaching differently).
-- Richard ( talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have improved this sentence but it feels incomplete. Here's the problem:
To achieve parallel construction, there should be a counter point to "considers ... as morally acceptable" which runs along the lines of "rejects ... as counter to the purpose of the sexual act".
Also, consider these two sentences:
Taken together, these two sentences form a non sequitur. There is the sense of something missing, some linking ideas that make it all hang together. Expound on this topic a bit more so as to lead the reader along. The brevity of the current text requires the reader to know too much about the topic.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Once again, whose list is this? It's not an exact match to the Catechism. Is it Kreeft's list, Schreck's list or a synthesis of both their lists? Both Kreeft and Schreck are cited for specific items on the list but it's not clear whose list this is.
Note that boasting and mocking are included in the article text but not mentioned by the Catechism. Conversely, irony is mentioned by the Catechism but not in the article text. Now, compared to the inclusion of adultery in the list of sins against chastity that we discussed earlier, this is a lesser concern. However, I raise the issue any way just for completeness. It looks like synthesis but that might be cured by being more clear as to where the list comes from.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Whose list is this? It doesn't parallel the Catechism exactly. The Catechism says:
The article text says:
The fourth item is cited to Schreck. Is this Schreck's list? Does he say that these four things help a person maintain purity?
How does Kreeft address this topic? Does he provide the same list as the Catechism or the same list as Schreck?
Once again, this issue is not as big as the adultery mixed in with sins of chastity issue but it is a bit of a concern because the article text rewords the Catechism in a way such that one must think carefully as to whether the meaning of the Catechism has been preserved or changed and, if changed, in what way. It would be a whole lot simpler and more defensible to simply quote the list in the Catechism verbatim and sidestep this problem.
-- Richard ( talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Richard, Kreeft and Schreck use more than just the Catechism to discuss official Church teaching on the Ten Commandments. There is a very large list of Vatican documents that discuss the teachings in detail and the scholarly sources cite not just the Catechism but also these many other official sources that were all used to create the Catechism in the first place. The Catechism was created by the Church so lay people like me didn't have to spend years in Seminary getting a PhD in Theology to understand what the Church teaches. But the creation of the Catechism did not supersede the official documents used to create it and there is more about the "spirit of the law" in the official documents that these scholars are experts in bringing out in their books. I think it is too narrow to confine the article to just the Catechism when these Nihil obstat Imprimatur books clearly make use of more. NancyHeise talk 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have ordered the United States Catholic Catechism For Adults published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in order to supplement the sources used in this article. This source is more authoritative than the nihil obstat imprimatur scholarly sources presently used to create the page because it is created by and published by the Church. Here's the description of the book found on the USCCB website [10] NancyHeise talk 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
Does Bayertz also assert that the "quality of life ethic" originated in Nazi Germany? Please provide a quote.
This is the crux of the question. I don't dispute that "Life unworthy of life" advocates some sort of "quality of life ethic". The problem here is that Kreeft is using association with Nazism as part of his polemic against the "quality of life ethic". Are you ready to provide sources to prove that this is a majority view? I see this association as polemic rather than as fact. I don't think it belongs in the article at all and it is unnecessary to make the point about the Church's teaching.
I think you need to take Kreeft off the pedestal that you have put him on and stop treating everything he says as "gospel". If you do a Google search on "quality of life ethic" and "sanctity of life ethic", you will find plenty of people who argue for sanctity-of-life over quality-of-life. The association with Nazism is unnecessary polemic.
-- Richard ( talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a few sources for you to consider:
Now, let me make my position clear. It's obvious from even a cursory Google search that there is a strong polemic among the "sanctity of life ethic" supporters against the "quality of life ethic". And yes, some people do use the Nazi analogy as a rhetorical device to attack the "quality of life ethic". That the above two articles have felt it necessary to argue against this rhetorical device shows that this is not used only by the fringe but among the mainstream of those who advocate a "sanctity of life ethic".
I am not disputing the existence of these opposing views or the fact that some people use the Nazi analogy to attack the "quality of life ethic".
What I am trying to establish is that the linkage to Nazi medical practices is highly POV. That the Nazis had a warped view of "valuable life" is undeniable fact. However, it is highly polemical and, IMO, illegitimate to characterize "quality of life ethic" as originating in Nazism as Kreeft did and as others do as if the linkage is damning because of the despicability of Nazism.
It's as if one were to malign the argument for a strong military because Nazism built up a strong military force. Well, they did and it was bad. But that doesn't automatically mean that having a strong military is bad. And yes, some people do make this kind of argument about having a strong military but that doesn't make the argument encyclopedic.
-- Richard ( talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I dislike "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" simply because it implies that the Catholic Church has a different set of Ten Commandments to other groups. If we're not supposed to have a "The" at the start. Why not
Xan dar 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I dislike "theology" because this article is more about "teaching" than about "theology". Theology being somewhat loftier, philosophical and abstruse. Teaching being more down-to-earth and practical instruction for the laity about how to live our everyday lives. So, how about Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Ten Commandments? -- Richard ( talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I received this book this week and have been reading it. It will supplement our other sources nicely in some places. I was wondering if anyone would want to see me insert some examples used by the US bishops to illustrate each commandment. They begin each commandment with a story of some saint who exemplified Church teaching. What do you think? Would this be appropriate for an encyclopedia article? NancyHeise talk 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
I don't have time to write a long message so I will refer you to WP:MOVE for the detailed explanation of how to do this right the next time.
In a nutshell, we are required to keep edit histories for copyright reasons so cut-and-paste is frowned upon unless you provide in the edit history where the text came from. You could have more easily used the "Move" tab to move the article yourself if the new title doesn't already exist. If it does, you need an admin to delete the new title first so that the old article can be moved there.
Everything should now be as you wanted it in the first place but done according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Happy editing.
-- Richard ( talk) 19:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I spotted this nasty sentence on the page in the section, "War and self defense". Since its up for FAC again, I thought I'd better point it out here. It needs splitting somehow.
Xan dar 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I changed it, the text used to read "According to Catholic numbering, the first commandment instructs people to..."
The problem here is understanding what "According to Catholic numbering" refers to. I understand that Nancy meant that this is the first commandment using the Catholic system of numbering the commandments. However, technically, that's not what the sentence says.
I think the best way to explain it is that "according to Catholic numbering" modifies the entire sentence or, at least, the primary verb "instructs". That is, if the sentence is read according to proper English grammar, it is the "instruction of the commandment" that is "according to Catholic numbering". Of course, this leads to a sentence that doesn't mean what we want it to mean.
The way to fix it is to move the "according to Catholic numbering" to a different spot in the sentence. We could say "The commandment, which is first according to Catholic numbering, instructs....". However, that sentence, while providing the meaning we want, is stilted and sounds awkward.
My suggestion is to either (1) make two separate sentences or (2) drop the point about Catholic numbering altogether since we've already made the point about numbering and this is just a reminder. I have implemented the second approach. Feel free to use a different approach to fix the problem.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the navigation template per a FAC comment by user:Ealdgyth because it takes up too much space on the page. If anyone has a problem with this please post your comments here and lets discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 02:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
While I know I sound petty for talking about a minor triviality like this, I think we should make it unambiguous as to which style of dash should be used for independent clauses etc. I've seen WP:ENDASH and see that "spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes. One style should be used consistently in an article." So it's a cosmetic decision.
Tangent: it's a matter of function. To whoever is writing, it is all done in a plain text box anyway, so why should the look matter? 118.90.41.39 ( talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Nancy,
I have a problem with this sentence: "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I don't have any problem with the underlying meaning of the sentence but technically "transmission of life" cannot "require couples to ..." unless we mean something like "respect for the sanctity of the transmission of life". To me, "transmission of life" sounds like a fairly mechanical, biological process that requires certain physical and biological preconditions but, as a physical and biological process, "transmission of life" cannot require humans to "be open to....".
I see that the U.S. Catechism is referenced. Can you provide a quote for us to consider? Or a reference to the Catholic Catechism? I'm sure we can reword this sentence to say what we want it to mean but I hesitate to attempt a fix until I know what the Catechism says. I would prefer to use wording close to what the Catechism says than to attempt a fix based on hunches.
-- Richard ( talk) 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
NancyHeise talk 01:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)"The bond between husband and wife is both conjugal and procreative. Conjugal mutual love and fidelity is the unitive aspect of marriage. The procreative aspect of marriage concerns the conception, birth, and education of children. The bond between the unitive and procreative may not be broken. The unitive aspect of marriage involves the full personhood of the spouses, a love that encompasses the minds, hearts, emotions, bodies, souls, and aspirations of husband and wife. They are called to grow continually in unitive love and fidelity so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Their mutual self-giving is strengthened and blessed by Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Matrimony. God seals the consent that the bride and groom give to each other in this Sacrament. 'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. (CCC, no 2362, citing GS, no. 49)' Acceptance of a spouse's faults and failures as well as of one's own is a recognition that the call to holiness in marriage is a lifelong process of conversion and growth. God calls the married couple to be open to children, remembering always that having a child is not a right, but rather a gift from God (cf. CCC, no 2378). In this way, they share the creative power and fatherhood of God. In giving birth to children and educating and forming them, they cooperate with the love of God as Creator. Marital love by nature is fruitful. The marriage act, while deepening spousal love, is meant to overflow into new life. Families are images of the ever-creative power and life of the Holy Trinity and the fruitfulness of the relationship between Christ and his Church. ....."(and so on)
I have rewritten the section on "Fecundity of marriage". In the process, I wound up dropping this sentence "Transmission of life requires couples to be open to possibility of having children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I think this idea is actually presented in a slightly different phrasing in the current text. I still have problems with the idea that "transmission of life requires..." but I think the problem is obviated by the current text. Let me know what you think. -- Richard ( talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting a little tired of posts I've seen in all sorts of talk pages now accusing the FAC delegates of only counting supports and opposes (usually accompanied by a note that there was 1 oppose and 1 support for this article, indicating the nominator believes that to be most important). I'll note for the record that three editors posted on the 2nd FAC page for this article that they would like to see more historical context for the article to be comprehensive (two of them were not listed as official opposes, but as comments). On the FAC page, the nominator said this information wasn't available in the sources consulted. Since this is not my area of expertise and I didn't know one way or the other, I actually did a few Google books searches to see if there could be information out there to satisfy those objections. I found a few books that looked promising, and only then did I close the nomination. I spent an hour today trying different search terms on Google books, and I found quite a few references that may be useful. I have not read any of these books (mostly just skimmed a page or two or looked at the table of contents), so I cannot say whether they will be useful. I am also not advocating that these sources necessarily be used in the article, although I did try to make sure that most of them are from university professors and/or other respected authors. That said, the sources may give tips on other books that might be useful. I also encourage you to begin a dialogue with the three editors who complained about non-comprehensiveness. They probably know more about this topic than me and may have some good ideas on potential searches that you can do to find additional sources. However, it is definitely possible that on a full read none of the sources will have any useful information whatsoever and you'll still have no new tips on how to find that information. That is actually not a bad thing - at any potential future FA nominations for this topic you could then categorically state that "I've consulted this list of books and couldn't find anything; I don't believe the information is available." That is really helpful to delegates, and to reviewers. So, ending the long rant, here are the sources I found that might be useful:
There are also a lot of books on Google from the 19th century that discuss the commandments. If there are differences between that discussion and the modern books you have read, that may help you to find search terms to see if any scholars have discussed those changes. Karanacs ( talk) 19:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nancy, I think you are oversimplifying the case here.
You wrote "the history of the ten commandments in RCC is not a controversial subject with a long history. The Ten Commandments are straightforward easy to understand precepts. The Church teaching on them has not changed other than what has already been included in the article."
This is mostly true but the elaboration of the Church's teaching has gone through some evolution. One can argue that the basic teaching has not changed but the teaching has had to be elaborated to address changes in society and technology. For example, the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae addressed changes in contraceptive technology. This was a major historical event, recognized by Benedict XVI as such. The reverberations of that encyclical can still be felt today. The church's teaching on contraception and abortion are apparently ignored by the majority of U.S. Catholics. That suggests that the church's teaching on these issues is controversial at least in the United States.
Whether you want to include the controversy in the U.S. in the scope of this article is a separate question that we could debate. However, to fail to mention Humanae Vitae is a major omission.
I am not currently aware of any other key encyclicals that should be mentioned in this article but I will start looking to see if I can find any.
-- Richard ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The topic of this article is the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. However, some people want to turn it into a history of developement on Roman Catholic thinking about issues that are not one of the ten commandments. I want to make clear that any historical event that affected official Church teaching on any of the commandments is already included in the article. What we have correctly omitted are:
Scholarly experts teaching the subject of the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism do not include these as part of the history of the Ten Commandments, in fact there is very little to report since interpretations of adultery, murder, stealing, lying, etc have always been the same since even before the Church came into being. Our article lays out official Catholic Church interpretation of these commandments as well as any significant historical event directly affecting Church interpretation. NancyHeise talk 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is from www.americancatholic.org
The Bible is often mentioned in debates about the death penalty. Supporters quote the Exodus passage, eye for eye, while opponents appeal to Ezekiel (33:11): "As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live." In fact, such use of the Bible (finding a "proof text" to affirm one's point of view) is inappropriate.
Scripture scholars teach us to understand the Bible (and its individual books) in historical context: when it was written and why. Thus considered, there is an ambivalence about capital punishment in the Scriptures.
Clearly, the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the death penalty (for a much longer list of offenses than our society would be comfortable with—for example, striking or cursing a parent, adultery, idolatry). Yet, as we see in Ezekiel and many other passages, there is also an attempt to limit violence and to stress mercy. In the Christian Scriptures, Jesus' life and teachings (see the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:1-7:29) focus on mercy, reconciliation and redemption. (It may also be instructive to recall that Jesus' death was itself an application of the death penalty.) The basic thrust of the Gospels supports opposition to the death penalty.
Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: "If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person" (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops' opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching.
A Google search on "Ten Commandments Catholic theology" came up with this as one of the first few results:
http://www.blessed-sacrament.org/twoparadigms.htm
I think it sheds an important perspective on the role of the Ten Commandments in Catholic formation. This is not to minimize the Ten Commandments in Catholic education but it's clear that memorizing the catechism has been de-emphasized and there is a temptation to teach "follow your own conscience".
I think it behooves us to determine whether this piece Blankenhorn accurately describes the evolution of Catholic education and whether his prescription is in the mainstream of Catholic thought regarding Catholic education.
-- Richard ( talk) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[ Evolution of Roman Catholic positions on abortion]
-- Richard ( talk) 07:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think we're done with this topic yet.
[Moved here from my Talk Page
Richard, can you add a reference for your groupnote addition to Murder and Abortion section of Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism? Thanks for taking the time to round out the article with these items. If you could just paste the source on my talk page I would be glad to put it in the article for you. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 16:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the current text covers the controversy adequately for the scope of this article. A fuller discussion belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Richard ( talk) 04:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the historical background needs to be expanded that much, but given the recent comments on the FAC, the following sources might be helpful:
Perhaps as important as the cultic service rendered by the Old Testament to the concrete life of the church was the ethical service provided by the commandments of the Old Testament, especially by the Decalogue. For despite the strictures on the Jewish law that became a stock argument of anti-Jewish polemics, the Decalogue, as summarized and reinterpreted by the ethical teachings of Jesus, was accorded a special place in the church. Irenaeus said that "the words of the Decalogue ... remain in force among us"; and even the Gnostic Ptolemy, a follower of Valentinus, distinguished in his Letter to Flora between the Decalogue and all the rest of the law of Moses, seeing the former as fulfilled in Christ and the latter as either abolished or spiritualized. It is not clear what role the Decalogue played in Christian worship (although there is some indication that it was recited at certain services) or in Christian education (although certain passages in Augustine give the impression that it was used as a basis for instruction in ethics); but it is clear that the Decalogue was highly valued as a summary of the law of God, both natural and revealed.
The first part you already touch on, although I think including some of the specifics would place it in a clearer historical context. The part relating to education might also be worthwhile including, despite its uncertainty.
I have added more history to the article per the last FAC's comments. I think the problem is that some people think church teaching has changed on certain issues when it has not. Where before, I wrote about only official Church teaching, because of this confusion, I have brought out more of this history in the article, please see:
These new additions are referenced to two newly added university press sources and an online source. I welcome your comments. I would like to take this article to FAC again soon. If you feel it is not ready, please be kind and state your reservations now. Thanks, NancyHeise talk 05:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the Reformation, often applied to ‘the Lord's day’, i.e. the first day of the week (Sunday) observed by Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. This use was originally connected with the opinion that the sabbatic law of the Decalogue remains in force under the Christian dispensation, the date of the ‘Sabbath’ having by Divine appointment been changed from Saturday to Sunday; but it occasionally appears in writers who did not hold this view. In Scotland it is still very common. (Phrases as in 1a.) The notion that the Lord's day is a ‘Christian Sabbath’, or, more commonly (as in quot. 1340 under a) a substitute for the Sabbath, occurs in theological writings from the 4th c. onwards, but was not popularly current before the Reformation. In English, Sabbath as a synonym for ‘Sunday’ did not become common till the 17th century.
Yesterday, I changed the sentence in question to read "Although Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the last day of the week (Saturday), Catholics, along with most Christians, celebrate the Sabbath on the first day of the week (Sunday) which is the Lord's Day." This sentence hints that there are Christians (Sabbatarians like the Seventh Day Adventists) who observe the Sabbath on Saturday. The sentence does not go into the history of the shift from Saturday to Sunday. The first point that might be made is that, according to the CE, it was mostly Jewish Christians who observed the Sabbath on Saturday. Presumably, they also observed the Lord's Day on Sunday. It was the Gentile Christians who dropped observation of the Sabbath on Saturday, combining it with the observance of the Lord's Day on Sunday. I think we could have one sentence that states this point and then a hint that there continued to be some debate as to how much of the law of the Jewish Sabbath should be observed on Sunday. Much of the law around the Jewish Sabbath seems to have been dropped at the same time and in much the same way that the rest of the Jewish law from the Old Testament was dropped. -- Richard ( talk) 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The lead paragraph says "According to the Catechism, they "have occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith ever since the time of Saint Augustine,[3] are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth, and serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching"
The sentence says "According to the Catechism" but cites the first part to Schreck. This should either cite the Catechism or say "According to Schreck". Also why is the first part cited to Schreck and not citation is given for the other two parts?
Also, I have found some sources who provide a different perspective regarding the first part and so it would be useful to have the exact wording of the cited text from Schreck.
-- Richard ( talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This comment focuses on the sentence in the lead that states "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)"
The central question is: What is meant by "a predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine"?
A very simplistic reading of this statement would suggest that the Ten Commandments have had the predominant place in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine. I wager that most readers would read it that way. However, if they do read it that way, the lead might be considered to be presenting an inaccurate and overly simplified characterization of the history of the Ten Commandments as used to teach moral theology.
In Moral Wisdom, James Keenan asserts that the history of moral theology was almost exclusively dominated by the desire to assist priests in the administration of the sacrament of penance. Keenan traces this history from the "penitentials" of medieval times to the "confessional manuals" of high Scholasticism to the "moral manuals" of modern times. [1]
The key "take away" here is that some scholars argue that from the introduction of the Seven Deadly Sins by Pope Gregory I in 590AD until well past the Reformation, Catholic moral teaching was based on the Seven Deadly Sins and not the Ten Commandments. Now, we can argue that the Seven Deadly Sins are related to the Ten Commandments but the connection is a bit tenuous.
NB: We must also distinguish between moral teaching to the common layperson and the writings of Christian scholars. See this lecture for a discussion of how Christian scholars treated the Ten Commandments over the centuries.
There seems to be some difference of opinion here. The above source suggests that the Ten Commandments is used in various lay catechisms. However, in Commandments of Compassion, Keenan and Keenan assert that the "pentitentials" and "confessional manuals" were organized according to the Seven Deadly Sins.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Keenan and Keenan assert that fifteenth-century theologians such as Jean Gerson attempted to "provide a more positive Scripture-based formation to Christians and to overcome the minimalist claims of simply avoiding sin".
Keenan and Keenan write that "During the Reformation, Martin Luther, John Calvin and then the Council of Trent also sought out the Ten Commandments as the basis of moral instruction in the context of catechetical instruction. Their appeal to the decalogue became a strong repudiation of the primacy accorded to the seven deadly sins."
Harrington and Keenan elaborate on this theme in Jesus and virtue ethics. [2]
One of Martin Luther's criticisms of the Church was its use of the
Seven Deadly Sins as the focus of Catholic moral teaching.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
In the The Christian Way of Living, Klaus Bochmuehl writes: "A popular myth in Protestant circles says that the Reformation alone restored the Ten Commandments. But this is not true historically. A recovery began in the thirteenth century." [3]
In conclusion, contrary to the impression given by the statement in the Catechism, the Ten Commandments has not always had the predominant place in teaching faith since Saint Augustine. Now, we can quibble with words and argue about the difference between "a predominant place" vs. "the predominant place". We could also note that the Catechism does not actually say "always held a predominant place" thus allowing for the possibility of interruptions between Augustine and the present-day. However, the gap between 590 and the Council of Trent is over 800 years and so this kind of careful parsing winds up being sophistry.
As much as we wish to honor the assertions of the Catechism as representative of Catholic teaching, the most generous conclusion we can come to is that there are a number of religious historians (not necessarily Catholics) who would portray a different story than the one implied by the statement in the Catechism. NPOV requires us to present this "different story" somewhere in the article. Perhaps in a Note to the statement "The Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Roman Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—devotes a section to explain each of the commandments. According to the Catechism, they have "occupied a predominant place" in teaching the faith since the time of Saint Augustine (A.D 354–430)".
-- Richard ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering why Categories Roman Catholic Church and Christianity were removed from the bottom of this article by user:Carlaude. Why can't this article be part of all those categories? Is there a policy page I should read on categorization of articles? Can some very nice knowledgable editor provide a link? Thanks in advance. NancyHeise talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)