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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism →
Homosexuality in the Catholic Church – A more
WP:PRECISE description of what the article is about than the "and" version, and avoids perceptions of bias on this touchy article per
WP:AND. Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 03:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.
Jujutsuan (
talk |
contribs) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved with unanimous consensus; neither Roscelese nor Contaldo80 ever casted a vote to support or oppose. The comments Contaldo did make were clearly POV-pushing. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this article has nothing to say on gender identity other than being referenced in LGBT unabbrieviated. I understand that gender identity is not sexual orientation but LGB people work with transgender people for eachothers' equality and noticed the absence of transgender people from this article. I wish I could help, but I am not qualified to write on this topic (I'm United Methodist). Is anyone willing to contribute to this article on gender identity in the Roman Catholic Church? I understand this could be a painful discussion for trans Catholics considering some of the Pope's statements, but I think it's an important dialogue to be had to raise awareness in the Catholic Church. I want any such contributions to be well-researched, comprehensively with positive and negative nuances to humanize the relationship between the trans community with the Roman Catholic Church as well as perspectives (including theological perspectives) directly from trans Catholics and what the climate is like for trans people in the Roman Catholic Church. Some positive and negative things I can think of offhand are when His Holiness, Pope Francis visited with transgender prisoners and another time when the Pope compared trans people to nuclear weapons.
If anyone with knowledge on this subject could contribute, that would be greatly appreciated!!!
Blessings and peace, TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention! I already have some ideas to improve it. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CIRBC%2C%2CPHL%2C4562d8cf2%2C440ed74ba%2C0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rainbowsashmovement.com/New_Web_Site_12_18_04/Stories/Chicago_Responds.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved: no objections made to move. The move creates consistency with most other Catholic Church articles and adequately deals with the concerns raised in a prior move request in 2016.( non-admin closure) Ebonelm ( talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism →
Homosexuality and the Catholic Church – Per
WP:Consistency in accordance with
Catholic Church,
Category:Catholic Church,
Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 18:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although, there was a minor viewpoint to move it back to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it did not represent the majority. The original closer, on being contacted by another editor here, also raised serious objections to reverting the original move. There is also some opposition against any further title change. I know this close could also be contentious. I however think that rather than opening a new move request immediately after the last closure, contacting the original closer or going to move review would have been more helpful. I believe a move review regarding the last move could still be opened. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Homosexuality and the Catholic Church → ? – Queried move: see Contaldo80's message above. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CIRBC%2C%2CPHL%2C4562d8cf2%2C440ed74ba%2C0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500678.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806042.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fr-online.de/frankfurt_und_hessen/nachrichten/hessen/?em_cnt=1579558{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/messaggero/pagina_stampa.asp?R=&ID=173When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs more about Pope Francis' position and the June 2017 "gay pilgrimage" in Newark, NJ and other churches. It made the national news. Parkwells ( talk) 14:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyone know how we get this article independently assessed to determine what class it is - and what needs to be done to reach GA status? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: it is normal to have an overview sentence or two in a long section, especially one with many subsections. You also haven't explained your change from "Campaign against", the language supported by the sources, to "Public stance." Their stance is covered elsewhere in the article; this section covers their political activity. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There has been some dissent expressed in recent years by senior and notable figures in the Catholic Church on whether support should be given for homosexual civil unions: it doesn't define what recent years means (some of our readers might not have been born in 2004), doesn't define what senior is (is an auxilary bishop senior? a cardinal who is a metropolitan archbishop but not in the Roman curia?) Dissent from whom? It is typically better to just let the sources speak for themselves and to summarize them rather than summarize the summary of the sources.
In recent years, the Catholic Church has intervened in national political discourse to resist legislative efforts by secular governments to give equal rights to gay men and women through the establishment of either civil unions or same-sex marriagelargely the same issues as above, doesn't define what the Catholic Church means (was it the Vatican, local dioceses and archdiocese, lay groups?)Re: the heading change, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one centrally located effort by the Catholic Church to undermine same-sex marriage and civil unions in countries across the world. Yes, the Catholic Church oppose them and there has been public opposition, but campaign implies a coordinated effort and is a somewhat loaded word. Public stance is more accurate, conveys the clear meaning, and is more in line with NPOV.I don't really have strong views on any of these, I was just trying to help get the article in shape for GA review per the question above. They would likely be questioned by a GA reviewer, and I thought removing them helped improve the article. Like I said, I don't really like working in modern Catholic topics, and only had this page on my watchlist because of the RM. These were just generalist observations, not observations as someone who actively edits in historical Catholicism. I have no issue with any critiques or reporting here, I just thought these might help out with the process of getting it to GA :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Nitpicking at sentence level details is what happens when you are getting an article ready for GA review. The issues with these sentences are that they are vague and leading, and largely unneeded because the text speaks for itself: people also should be free to determine if a random diocesan bishop is senior (i don't think they are) and most people reading this will know that a cardinal is important. It's also unclear that Martini actually dissented, he never received papal censure on the topic so presenting his actions in that light rather than letting the reader draw their own conclusions is problematic. This is true for the other cardinals cited as well: I don't believe any of them would consider their views as dissent, but rather discussion of the topic within the college of bishops. While others might view it as dissent, it doesn't have to be viewed that way. This is why the vagueness of the topic sentence becomes an NPOV issue. I'll ping GorillaWarfare because I trust her to tell me if I am completely off my rocker. I don't have any desire to white wash anything: I just made what to me were pretty clear improvements by removing vague summary sentences in an article that needed to be trimmed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that we've added Milo Yiannopoulos. I have no objection to that but do think we need to add something that clarifies his relationship to catholicism - as we've done for the other people we've mentioned. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the number of homosexuals killed between 1570 and 1630 in the text and the accompanying image of Thomas de Torquemada in the same section. The text references 800 or nearly one thousand while the image caption states that 150 were burned during the same period. While I am not a scholar and am disinclined to research the correct number, I feel this discrepancy is sufficiently significant to warrant further research and investigation to determine the correct number and the origin of the edit creating the discrepancy.
The text referenced is "Within Aragon and its dependent territories, the number of individuals that the Spanish Inquisition tried for sodomy,[92][93] between 1570 and 1630 was over 800[110] or nearly a thousand.[92] "
The image caption referenced can be found at : /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_and_the_Catholic_Church#/media/File:Torquemada.jpg\
69.115.133.13 (
talk) 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Yohannes
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,PHL,4562d8cf2,440ed74ba,0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/10/09/former-catholic-priests-come-out-in-favour-of-gay-marriage/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has 117k of readable prose which is WP:TOOLONG. The longest sections are, in order, Political Activity, History, Differences from Church Teaching, and Notable Gay Catholics. I propose that we WP:SPLIT this article into several smaller articles, leaving summaries here. I think the list of gay Catholics should be the easiest to do.
Incidentally, I would like to call attention to the fact that the differences section has 60k of text, but the defenders only has 6k. I haven't reviewed it in great depth, but belive this could be an WP:UNDUE weight issue. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Roscelese has reverted my edit spinning off a section of this article into List of LGBT Catholics. I admit I am not an expert in this, and if the split and summary could be done better by someone else then I would welcome the help. Do you think you could do it, Roscelese, rather than simply reverting the edit so now that all of the information is in two places? Also, as it stands now, the article is 102k of readable prose, which is much too long. The biggest section here is on political activity. Much of what is in there is not "political," so I think trimming that down and spinning it out would be advisable. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has said that "These are not former clergy so take this to talk before you" change the section title from "Clergy" to "Former clergy." However, the text of the section makes clear that they are not currently clerics: "Bernard Lynch... was subsequently expelled from his religious order." Also, "a group of sixty-three former Catholic priests..." Thirdly, "Wendelin Bucheli... was removed from his diocese. Finally, "James Alison... formerly a member of the Dominican Order..." It is clear that this section is about men who are no longer in active ministry. I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I am going to remove, again, a few sentences where clerics made very unkind, very regrettable remarks. I did this once before, but Contaldo reverted. My reasoning is simple: they are not notable. At best, we could have a sentence in here that states that some reprehensible comments have been made about gay people before with several citations. There have been plenty of gay activists who have uttered very unkind things about the Catholic Church and individual members, but they are not listed here, nor should they be. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statements, and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Also, as this is WP:NOTADIARY, "even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." Just because someone was said by a senior churchman does not mean it should be included here. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked for clarification with this edit. I object to the title "Discrimination against gay men and women" for two reasons. For one, it simply does not accurately describe what is contained in the section. For example, I'm not sure how either of the following statements could be considered "discrimination "In October 2016, Robert McElroy the Bishop of San Diego held a diocesan synod on the family that called for improved ministry toward gay and lesbian Catholics. In 2017 the diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri said it would permit transgender students in its Catholic schools." or "In June 2017 Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark in the USA, held a "Pilgrimage" Mass specifically for LGBT Catholics from around New York and the five dioceses in New Jersey at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart. Many of the attendees were married to same-sex spouses, and participated in the Sacrament of Holy Communion." Secondly, the word "discrimination" is pejorative. At a minimum we need to rename the section, but it propbably needs a good editing and reorganization as well. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent changes that did nothing but add cruft. Wikipedia isn't a free content host for the RCC, which has plenty of web space of its own.
First, in regards to myself, I don’t edit current Catholicism topics in general beyond the naming dispute: I edit early modern Catholic history which is a field that many secular historians who are non-Catholic publish in as a part of academia. I’ve never revealed my religion or lack thereof or employment status on Wikipedia and I have zero intent of ever doing so. It’s quite frankly none of your business.
As to your general question: continued pressure to out oneself (by revealing persinally identifiable information) is a form of harassment because we do not require editors to reveal any personal identifiable information except in rare circumstances (PAID being one of them). Note that simply being an employee is not enough to require disclosure under PAID, and simple membership in an organization is not enough to trigger a COI under the COI guidelines (ex. being a volunteer adult leader in the Girl Scouts does not trigger a COI with the Girl Scouts). Please stop questioning Briancua about this. He has made it clear that he does not intend to reveal persinally identifiable information about himself, and continuing to push for it from him (and now me) without any actual evidence of a COI is against our behavioral policies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo, I've pointed out to you in the past that a list of news incidents about homophobic remarks (or tolerant remarks, for that matter) adds very little to the article. Have you considered looking at scholarship to see which incidents anyone's talking about more than a couple of months later? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Briancua: I'd keep the Notre Dame material in some form as it's mentioned in scholarship, not just as a news event. Perhaps the relevant aspect is that the trustees opposed anti-discrimination measures, while the faculty and students supported them. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've restored it with the additional book source. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
At 62kb of readable prose, this article is growing WP:TOOBIG. I think it is time that we WP:SPINOFF another sub article. With 38kb of readable prose, the section on differences is by far the largest section here, and thus the best candidate for a new article. Additionally, since it makes up half of all readable prose (it was 60% before I expanded another section), we also have an WP:UNDUE weight issue. I'm going to get going on creating the new article with a summary here, and would appreciate any help. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The lede section seems to have a number of issues that I hope we can address. The WP: LEAD is supposed to provide a "concise overview of the article's topic." Additionally, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Because of this, the MOS:INTRO says "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." It adds that in the lede we should "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology" and that "The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."
That does not happen in this lede. The lede is pretty long, and I don't believe that most readers will understand terms like "affective and sexual complementarity," "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," or "objective disorder." Additionally, the MOS says we should try to "avoid redundant citations" in the lede. Multiple sentences in this lede have five citations. Finally, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I don't believe that happens in the current lede either. We should strive to make the lede more balanced.
Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the contentious editing that sometimes takes place here, I am going to place a draft of a new lede below. I hope we can work on it here, gain consensus, and then move it to the main.
The Catholic Church and homosexuality describes the relationship between the Christian denomination and the sexual orientation. The Christian tradition has generally proscribed any sexual activity between members of the same sex, and the Catholic Church maintains this teaching today. The Church also holds that LGBT people must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church has provided pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unoffial channels. In the late 20th and 21st centuries, there has been a call from some popes, bishops, and other church leaders to improve the amount and quality of pastoral care this population receives.
Some scholars and church leaders have dissented from the Church's teaching on homosexual activity, while others have supported it. The Church has been described as sending "mixed signals" regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It opposes gay marriage and civil unions for same sex couples, and also teaches that LGBT people should not be unjustly discriminated against. In many parts of the world, it is active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community. The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy.
There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay, including some priests and bishops. Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugger O'Toole ( talk • contribs) 19:35, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
To keep in line with the other recent revisions to this article I have spun this off into a separate article. Otherwise would look add giving this particular aspect weight while others are not - and arguably more significant. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
One editor has disputed the following text: "Over recent decades a number of gay rights activists and supporters have protested inside and outside of Catholic church buildings to highlight the discrimination by the Catholic hierarchy against gay men and women, particularly in the area of civil rights." Can they clarify what they think the protests were therefore about? Protests have to be about something. Contaldo80 ( talk) 07:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am glad that Contaldo finally accepts that information about protests belongs in this article even though the main part of it has been spun off into a daughter article. However, he is now worried that if we say too much here that we will be duplicating information between the two. That's a valid concern. However, a WP:CORRECTSPLIT sys that "a good summary" is "usually a couple of paragraphs" long. Additionally, WP:SS says that this should be done "even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles." For this reason, I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The rainbow flag is a symbol of gay rights. This article is about homosexuality and gay rights. I find it odd that we have pictures of churches and priests to represent/ illustrate catholicismbut editors are removing images relating to homosexuality/ gay rights. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Chicbyaccident you added a tag to suggest this be merged into Homosexuality and Catholicism. Personally I have no objection to this proposal provided the material is transferred in full. However, you should be aware of the discussion on the talkpage of the main article where another editor felt the article as it existed was too long and stylistically therefore it made sense to spin-out sections into separate articles. I'll leave that editor to make the case as I wouldn't want to presume to talk for them. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Meters you recently removed the double quotes around the word "acts" in the sentence: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral." I'm not sure whether their removal is appropriate as it could distort the meaning of the sentence. At the moment having the double quotes suggests there is an interpretation of "acts" which the Church uses to apply its teaching. Without the quotes it looks like there is a common understanding of homosexual "acts". In my mind "acts" could include sexual penetration, and sexual activity but homosexual "acts" could include kissing someone you love or baking them a cake. Church teaching only really applies to genital activity and I think we should avoid giving the impression that the boundaries for what constitutes an act are far and wide. Happy to get your thoughts. I certainly don't think. however, that using the word "scare-quote" is helpful. Contaldo80 ( talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I must confess that I missed the fact that quotation marks had been added by an editor around "people". I agree this is not appropriate"[2] So which is it? Inappropriate, or something that you still want to see on this article? Meters ( talk) 04:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Quotes should not be used for emphasis, sarcasm, or otherwise changing the common meaning of the text. They should only be used to indicate that the words are directly attributable to a source, i.e. they are a quote. In this case they are not meant as a direct quote, so putting quotes here would be poor grammar, in my opinion. Brad v 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC) |
The NY Times talks about an act of desecration but it doesn't actually say the eucharist was "desecrated". Can we clarify please or otherwise take out. What actually happened that could be regarded as desecration by some? Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
So now we have a whole sentence in the lead concerning the vastness of the issue of the Catholic Church and the the issue of homosexuality where it says "Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist." Despite the fact that we have one instance - just one - where someone is said to have thrown a communion wafer to the floor. To be frank is this not UNDUE? There is so much information we have not included in the lead but we include this?! Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked me to explain one of my edits, and I am glad to do so. Using words like "lackluster" and "exclusionary" is very POV. We show, not tell, what happened. Readers can decide for themselves if a response was lackluster, or a policy was exclusionary. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Slugger you removed the sentence "Historically, the Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those that have transgressed". This material is included in the article (and related articles). In fact in 2000 years of history the bit about "sensitivity and compassion" applies for around the last 30 to 40 years and the remaining 1900 years has been pretty brutal - working with civil society to marginalize or execute people that are gay. Can you clarify your concerns with the sentence please and we can try and work towards a compromise. Contaldo80 ( talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Rosclese changed the lede to read that "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically against LGBT rights." I don't believe this is the best phrasing, and when the talk of "rights" is introduced we get into NPOV concerns. I have reverted to "... active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community." Issues like sex education and contraception are issues of importance to this community, but not just to this community. They are also not "against LGBT rights." Additionally, as the daughter article shows, there have been times when the Church has "sound[ed] the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals" and criticized anti-sodomy laws. These examples are also not "against LGBT rights." Perhaps a better way of phrasing can be found, but I don't believe this to be it.-- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Slugger O'Toole: why are you so insistent on sticking "The Church also teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect and not unjustly discriminated against" into the lede of every article you can find? It's clear that this does not comply with WP:LEDE as a summary of the article body. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to make sure that the lede presents "both sides" equally, it's our job to make sure that we reflect the available material, which does not support the verifiability and certainly not the prominence of the idea that the RCC opposes discrimination. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise but, as I said before, I think it is at a pretty good length as it is. I don't want to add words just to make it longer. Do you want to take a crack at adding material? You seem to have a clearer vision of what you want than I do. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 00:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be going in circles here. You have asked me to edit the article to improve it. I have responded several times that I think it is OK as it is, but have welcomed any additions you would like to make. You respond by demanding that I make the edits you want. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this line of discussion. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been a good deal of discussion about the lede recently, but not much progress has been made. I'd like to reset the discussion and hopefully put us on a better track by using hard data that we can all agree on. As it stands today, the article has 13 sections, listed below, of which the first eight are substantive.
I have also diagrammed the lede as it stands currently, to see just where the emphasis lies objectively. Each sentence below is preceded by the number of the section it represents.
(lead) The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality. (1) The Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex. (2)This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers. (2)Historically, the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed. (1)Today, the Church teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect.
(3)While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church also provides pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unofficial channels. (7)In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people. (4)The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy. (8)(6)There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay or bisexual, including priests and bishops. (5)(4)There are groups, individuals, and ministries who support the Church's teaching, although LGBT activists and supporters around the world have protested against Church policy.
The first sentence sets the stage, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The chart below shows how many sentences discuss each section:
1 - 2
2 - 2
3 - 1
4 - 2
5 - 1
6 - 1
7 - 1
8 - 1
As you can see, all eight have at least once summary sentence in the lede. Three of them, 1, 2, and 4, have two sentences. According to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I would argue that the most important section of this article is the first, on Church teaching. Without knowing that, you don't understand what people are supporting, dissenting from, or what they are engaging politically about.
The daughter articles for the history, dissent, and pastoral care are all about 30k of prose long. We can use this as an indication that they are all about equal importance. The defense section has no daughter article, and the others are smaller (except the notable gay Catholics, which is a list). I would propose, then, that the history, dissent, and pastoral care sections be given equal prominence in the lede, greater than the defense, gay clergy, notable Catholics, and political activity sections. How do others feel? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the entire context of this dispute, but I saw some blatant pov-pushing in the lede and I reverted it. Now I see it's been restored, with the reasoning that Slugger O'Toole asked for objections and none have been forthcoming. That's not how WP:NPOV works — Slugger, please provide an explanation for your proposed edits here and gain consensus first. Bradv 🍁 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality"and
"on issues of importance to LGBT people"I don't see how either of these statements improve the article, but I'm open to hearing an explanation. Bradv 🍁 16:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A weight new tome has recently published called "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy" and written by the French author Frédéric Martel. There is a lot of material in this book covering the issue of the catholic church and homosexuality. I just want to give a heads-up then when I've finished reading it I will put forward suggestions for additional material for this and related articles. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism →
Homosexuality in the Catholic Church – A more
WP:PRECISE description of what the article is about than the "and" version, and avoids perceptions of bias on this touchy article per
WP:AND. Deus vult (aliquid)!
Crusadestudent (
talk) 03:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.
Jujutsuan (
talk |
contribs) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved with unanimous consensus; neither Roscelese nor Contaldo80 ever casted a vote to support or oppose. The comments Contaldo did make were clearly POV-pushing. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this article has nothing to say on gender identity other than being referenced in LGBT unabbrieviated. I understand that gender identity is not sexual orientation but LGB people work with transgender people for eachothers' equality and noticed the absence of transgender people from this article. I wish I could help, but I am not qualified to write on this topic (I'm United Methodist). Is anyone willing to contribute to this article on gender identity in the Roman Catholic Church? I understand this could be a painful discussion for trans Catholics considering some of the Pope's statements, but I think it's an important dialogue to be had to raise awareness in the Catholic Church. I want any such contributions to be well-researched, comprehensively with positive and negative nuances to humanize the relationship between the trans community with the Roman Catholic Church as well as perspectives (including theological perspectives) directly from trans Catholics and what the climate is like for trans people in the Roman Catholic Church. Some positive and negative things I can think of offhand are when His Holiness, Pope Francis visited with transgender prisoners and another time when the Pope compared trans people to nuclear weapons.
If anyone with knowledge on this subject could contribute, that would be greatly appreciated!!!
Blessings and peace, TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this article to my attention! I already have some ideas to improve it. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CIRBC%2C%2CPHL%2C4562d8cf2%2C440ed74ba%2C0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rainbowsashmovement.com/New_Web_Site_12_18_04/Stories/Chicago_Responds.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved: no objections made to move. The move creates consistency with most other Catholic Church articles and adequately deals with the concerns raised in a prior move request in 2016.( non-admin closure) Ebonelm ( talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism →
Homosexuality and the Catholic Church – Per
WP:Consistency in accordance with
Catholic Church,
Category:Catholic Church,
Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 18:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although, there was a minor viewpoint to move it back to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it did not represent the majority. The original closer, on being contacted by another editor here, also raised serious objections to reverting the original move. There is also some opposition against any further title change. I know this close could also be contentious. I however think that rather than opening a new move request immediately after the last closure, contacting the original closer or going to move review would have been more helpful. I believe a move review regarding the last move could still be opened. ( non-admin closure) Yashovardhan ( talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Homosexuality and the Catholic Church → ? – Queried move: see Contaldo80's message above. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CIRBC%2C%2CPHL%2C4562d8cf2%2C440ed74ba%2C0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400916.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500678.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0806042.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fr-online.de/frankfurt_und_hessen/nachrichten/hessen/?em_cnt=1579558{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/messaggero/pagina_stampa.asp?R=&ID=173When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Needs more about Pope Francis' position and the June 2017 "gay pilgrimage" in Newark, NJ and other churches. It made the national news. Parkwells ( talk) 14:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyone know how we get this article independently assessed to determine what class it is - and what needs to be done to reach GA status? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ TonyBallioni: it is normal to have an overview sentence or two in a long section, especially one with many subsections. You also haven't explained your change from "Campaign against", the language supported by the sources, to "Public stance." Their stance is covered elsewhere in the article; this section covers their political activity. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There has been some dissent expressed in recent years by senior and notable figures in the Catholic Church on whether support should be given for homosexual civil unions: it doesn't define what recent years means (some of our readers might not have been born in 2004), doesn't define what senior is (is an auxilary bishop senior? a cardinal who is a metropolitan archbishop but not in the Roman curia?) Dissent from whom? It is typically better to just let the sources speak for themselves and to summarize them rather than summarize the summary of the sources.
In recent years, the Catholic Church has intervened in national political discourse to resist legislative efforts by secular governments to give equal rights to gay men and women through the establishment of either civil unions or same-sex marriagelargely the same issues as above, doesn't define what the Catholic Church means (was it the Vatican, local dioceses and archdiocese, lay groups?)Re: the heading change, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one centrally located effort by the Catholic Church to undermine same-sex marriage and civil unions in countries across the world. Yes, the Catholic Church oppose them and there has been public opposition, but campaign implies a coordinated effort and is a somewhat loaded word. Public stance is more accurate, conveys the clear meaning, and is more in line with NPOV.I don't really have strong views on any of these, I was just trying to help get the article in shape for GA review per the question above. They would likely be questioned by a GA reviewer, and I thought removing them helped improve the article. Like I said, I don't really like working in modern Catholic topics, and only had this page on my watchlist because of the RM. These were just generalist observations, not observations as someone who actively edits in historical Catholicism. I have no issue with any critiques or reporting here, I just thought these might help out with the process of getting it to GA :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Nitpicking at sentence level details is what happens when you are getting an article ready for GA review. The issues with these sentences are that they are vague and leading, and largely unneeded because the text speaks for itself: people also should be free to determine if a random diocesan bishop is senior (i don't think they are) and most people reading this will know that a cardinal is important. It's also unclear that Martini actually dissented, he never received papal censure on the topic so presenting his actions in that light rather than letting the reader draw their own conclusions is problematic. This is true for the other cardinals cited as well: I don't believe any of them would consider their views as dissent, but rather discussion of the topic within the college of bishops. While others might view it as dissent, it doesn't have to be viewed that way. This is why the vagueness of the topic sentence becomes an NPOV issue. I'll ping GorillaWarfare because I trust her to tell me if I am completely off my rocker. I don't have any desire to white wash anything: I just made what to me were pretty clear improvements by removing vague summary sentences in an article that needed to be trimmed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that we've added Milo Yiannopoulos. I have no objection to that but do think we need to add something that clarifies his relationship to catholicism - as we've done for the other people we've mentioned. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a discrepancy between the number of homosexuals killed between 1570 and 1630 in the text and the accompanying image of Thomas de Torquemada in the same section. The text references 800 or nearly one thousand while the image caption states that 150 were burned during the same period. While I am not a scholar and am disinclined to research the correct number, I feel this discrepancy is sufficiently significant to warrant further research and investigation to determine the correct number and the origin of the edit creating the discrepancy.
The text referenced is "Within Aragon and its dependent territories, the number of individuals that the Spanish Inquisition tried for sodomy,[92][93] between 1570 and 1630 was over 800[110] or nearly a thousand.[92] "
The image caption referenced can be found at : /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_and_the_Catholic_Church#/media/File:Torquemada.jpg\
69.115.133.13 (
talk) 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Daniel Yohannes
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,PHL,4562d8cf2,440ed74ba,0.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/10/09/former-catholic-priests-come-out-in-favour-of-gay-marriage/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This article has 117k of readable prose which is WP:TOOLONG. The longest sections are, in order, Political Activity, History, Differences from Church Teaching, and Notable Gay Catholics. I propose that we WP:SPLIT this article into several smaller articles, leaving summaries here. I think the list of gay Catholics should be the easiest to do.
Incidentally, I would like to call attention to the fact that the differences section has 60k of text, but the defenders only has 6k. I haven't reviewed it in great depth, but belive this could be an WP:UNDUE weight issue. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Roscelese has reverted my edit spinning off a section of this article into List of LGBT Catholics. I admit I am not an expert in this, and if the split and summary could be done better by someone else then I would welcome the help. Do you think you could do it, Roscelese, rather than simply reverting the edit so now that all of the information is in two places? Also, as it stands now, the article is 102k of readable prose, which is much too long. The biggest section here is on political activity. Much of what is in there is not "political," so I think trimming that down and spinning it out would be advisable. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has said that "These are not former clergy so take this to talk before you" change the section title from "Clergy" to "Former clergy." However, the text of the section makes clear that they are not currently clerics: "Bernard Lynch... was subsequently expelled from his religious order." Also, "a group of sixty-three former Catholic priests..." Thirdly, "Wendelin Bucheli... was removed from his diocese. Finally, "James Alison... formerly a member of the Dominican Order..." It is clear that this section is about men who are no longer in active ministry. I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I am going to remove, again, a few sentences where clerics made very unkind, very regrettable remarks. I did this once before, but Contaldo reverted. My reasoning is simple: they are not notable. At best, we could have a sentence in here that states that some reprehensible comments have been made about gay people before with several citations. There have been plenty of gay activists who have uttered very unkind things about the Catholic Church and individual members, but they are not listed here, nor should they be. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statements, and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Also, as this is WP:NOTADIARY, "even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." Just because someone was said by a senior churchman does not mean it should be included here. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 17:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked for clarification with this edit. I object to the title "Discrimination against gay men and women" for two reasons. For one, it simply does not accurately describe what is contained in the section. For example, I'm not sure how either of the following statements could be considered "discrimination "In October 2016, Robert McElroy the Bishop of San Diego held a diocesan synod on the family that called for improved ministry toward gay and lesbian Catholics. In 2017 the diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri said it would permit transgender students in its Catholic schools." or "In June 2017 Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark in the USA, held a "Pilgrimage" Mass specifically for LGBT Catholics from around New York and the five dioceses in New Jersey at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart. Many of the attendees were married to same-sex spouses, and participated in the Sacrament of Holy Communion." Secondly, the word "discrimination" is pejorative. At a minimum we need to rename the section, but it propbably needs a good editing and reorganization as well. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent changes that did nothing but add cruft. Wikipedia isn't a free content host for the RCC, which has plenty of web space of its own.
First, in regards to myself, I don’t edit current Catholicism topics in general beyond the naming dispute: I edit early modern Catholic history which is a field that many secular historians who are non-Catholic publish in as a part of academia. I’ve never revealed my religion or lack thereof or employment status on Wikipedia and I have zero intent of ever doing so. It’s quite frankly none of your business.
As to your general question: continued pressure to out oneself (by revealing persinally identifiable information) is a form of harassment because we do not require editors to reveal any personal identifiable information except in rare circumstances (PAID being one of them). Note that simply being an employee is not enough to require disclosure under PAID, and simple membership in an organization is not enough to trigger a COI under the COI guidelines (ex. being a volunteer adult leader in the Girl Scouts does not trigger a COI with the Girl Scouts). Please stop questioning Briancua about this. He has made it clear that he does not intend to reveal persinally identifiable information about himself, and continuing to push for it from him (and now me) without any actual evidence of a COI is against our behavioral policies. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo, I've pointed out to you in the past that a list of news incidents about homophobic remarks (or tolerant remarks, for that matter) adds very little to the article. Have you considered looking at scholarship to see which incidents anyone's talking about more than a couple of months later? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Briancua: I'd keep the Notre Dame material in some form as it's mentioned in scholarship, not just as a news event. Perhaps the relevant aspect is that the trustees opposed anti-discrimination measures, while the faculty and students supported them. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've restored it with the additional book source. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
At 62kb of readable prose, this article is growing WP:TOOBIG. I think it is time that we WP:SPINOFF another sub article. With 38kb of readable prose, the section on differences is by far the largest section here, and thus the best candidate for a new article. Additionally, since it makes up half of all readable prose (it was 60% before I expanded another section), we also have an WP:UNDUE weight issue. I'm going to get going on creating the new article with a summary here, and would appreciate any help. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The lede section seems to have a number of issues that I hope we can address. The WP: LEAD is supposed to provide a "concise overview of the article's topic." Additionally, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Because of this, the MOS:INTRO says "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." It adds that in the lede we should "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology" and that "The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."
That does not happen in this lede. The lede is pretty long, and I don't believe that most readers will understand terms like "affective and sexual complementarity," "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," or "objective disorder." Additionally, the MOS says we should try to "avoid redundant citations" in the lede. Multiple sentences in this lede have five citations. Finally, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I don't believe that happens in the current lede either. We should strive to make the lede more balanced.
Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the contentious editing that sometimes takes place here, I am going to place a draft of a new lede below. I hope we can work on it here, gain consensus, and then move it to the main.
The Catholic Church and homosexuality describes the relationship between the Christian denomination and the sexual orientation. The Christian tradition has generally proscribed any sexual activity between members of the same sex, and the Catholic Church maintains this teaching today. The Church also holds that LGBT people must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church has provided pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unoffial channels. In the late 20th and 21st centuries, there has been a call from some popes, bishops, and other church leaders to improve the amount and quality of pastoral care this population receives.
Some scholars and church leaders have dissented from the Church's teaching on homosexual activity, while others have supported it. The Church has been described as sending "mixed signals" regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It opposes gay marriage and civil unions for same sex couples, and also teaches that LGBT people should not be unjustly discriminated against. In many parts of the world, it is active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community. The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy.
There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay, including some priests and bishops. Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugger O'Toole ( talk • contribs) 19:35, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
To keep in line with the other recent revisions to this article I have spun this off into a separate article. Otherwise would look add giving this particular aspect weight while others are not - and arguably more significant. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
One editor has disputed the following text: "Over recent decades a number of gay rights activists and supporters have protested inside and outside of Catholic church buildings to highlight the discrimination by the Catholic hierarchy against gay men and women, particularly in the area of civil rights." Can they clarify what they think the protests were therefore about? Protests have to be about something. Contaldo80 ( talk) 07:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am glad that Contaldo finally accepts that information about protests belongs in this article even though the main part of it has been spun off into a daughter article. However, he is now worried that if we say too much here that we will be duplicating information between the two. That's a valid concern. However, a WP:CORRECTSPLIT sys that "a good summary" is "usually a couple of paragraphs" long. Additionally, WP:SS says that this should be done "even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles." For this reason, I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The rainbow flag is a symbol of gay rights. This article is about homosexuality and gay rights. I find it odd that we have pictures of churches and priests to represent/ illustrate catholicismbut editors are removing images relating to homosexuality/ gay rights. Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Chicbyaccident you added a tag to suggest this be merged into Homosexuality and Catholicism. Personally I have no objection to this proposal provided the material is transferred in full. However, you should be aware of the discussion on the talkpage of the main article where another editor felt the article as it existed was too long and stylistically therefore it made sense to spin-out sections into separate articles. I'll leave that editor to make the case as I wouldn't want to presume to talk for them. Regards. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Meters you recently removed the double quotes around the word "acts" in the sentence: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral." I'm not sure whether their removal is appropriate as it could distort the meaning of the sentence. At the moment having the double quotes suggests there is an interpretation of "acts" which the Church uses to apply its teaching. Without the quotes it looks like there is a common understanding of homosexual "acts". In my mind "acts" could include sexual penetration, and sexual activity but homosexual "acts" could include kissing someone you love or baking them a cake. Church teaching only really applies to genital activity and I think we should avoid giving the impression that the boundaries for what constitutes an act are far and wide. Happy to get your thoughts. I certainly don't think. however, that using the word "scare-quote" is helpful. Contaldo80 ( talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I must confess that I missed the fact that quotation marks had been added by an editor around "people". I agree this is not appropriate"[2] So which is it? Inappropriate, or something that you still want to see on this article? Meters ( talk) 04:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Quotes should not be used for emphasis, sarcasm, or otherwise changing the common meaning of the text. They should only be used to indicate that the words are directly attributable to a source, i.e. they are a quote. In this case they are not meant as a direct quote, so putting quotes here would be poor grammar, in my opinion. Brad v 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC) |
The NY Times talks about an act of desecration but it doesn't actually say the eucharist was "desecrated". Can we clarify please or otherwise take out. What actually happened that could be regarded as desecration by some? Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
So now we have a whole sentence in the lead concerning the vastness of the issue of the Catholic Church and the the issue of homosexuality where it says "Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist." Despite the fact that we have one instance - just one - where someone is said to have thrown a communion wafer to the floor. To be frank is this not UNDUE? There is so much information we have not included in the lead but we include this?! Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked me to explain one of my edits, and I am glad to do so. Using words like "lackluster" and "exclusionary" is very POV. We show, not tell, what happened. Readers can decide for themselves if a response was lackluster, or a policy was exclusionary. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Slugger you removed the sentence "Historically, the Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those that have transgressed". This material is included in the article (and related articles). In fact in 2000 years of history the bit about "sensitivity and compassion" applies for around the last 30 to 40 years and the remaining 1900 years has been pretty brutal - working with civil society to marginalize or execute people that are gay. Can you clarify your concerns with the sentence please and we can try and work towards a compromise. Contaldo80 ( talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Rosclese changed the lede to read that "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically against LGBT rights." I don't believe this is the best phrasing, and when the talk of "rights" is introduced we get into NPOV concerns. I have reverted to "... active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community." Issues like sex education and contraception are issues of importance to this community, but not just to this community. They are also not "against LGBT rights." Additionally, as the daughter article shows, there have been times when the Church has "sound[ed] the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals" and criticized anti-sodomy laws. These examples are also not "against LGBT rights." Perhaps a better way of phrasing can be found, but I don't believe this to be it.-- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Slugger O'Toole: why are you so insistent on sticking "The Church also teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect and not unjustly discriminated against" into the lede of every article you can find? It's clear that this does not comply with WP:LEDE as a summary of the article body. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to make sure that the lede presents "both sides" equally, it's our job to make sure that we reflect the available material, which does not support the verifiability and certainly not the prominence of the idea that the RCC opposes discrimination. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to compromise but, as I said before, I think it is at a pretty good length as it is. I don't want to add words just to make it longer. Do you want to take a crack at adding material? You seem to have a clearer vision of what you want than I do. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 00:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be going in circles here. You have asked me to edit the article to improve it. I have responded several times that I think it is OK as it is, but have welcomed any additions you would like to make. You respond by demanding that I make the edits you want. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this line of discussion. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
There has been a good deal of discussion about the lede recently, but not much progress has been made. I'd like to reset the discussion and hopefully put us on a better track by using hard data that we can all agree on. As it stands today, the article has 13 sections, listed below, of which the first eight are substantive.
I have also diagrammed the lede as it stands currently, to see just where the emphasis lies objectively. Each sentence below is preceded by the number of the section it represents.
(lead) The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality. (1) The Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex. (2)This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers. (2)Historically, the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed. (1)Today, the Church teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect.
(3)While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church also provides pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unofficial channels. (7)In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people. (4)The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy. (8)(6)There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay or bisexual, including priests and bishops. (5)(4)There are groups, individuals, and ministries who support the Church's teaching, although LGBT activists and supporters around the world have protested against Church policy.
The first sentence sets the stage, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The chart below shows how many sentences discuss each section:
1 - 2
2 - 2
3 - 1
4 - 2
5 - 1
6 - 1
7 - 1
8 - 1
As you can see, all eight have at least once summary sentence in the lede. Three of them, 1, 2, and 4, have two sentences. According to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I would argue that the most important section of this article is the first, on Church teaching. Without knowing that, you don't understand what people are supporting, dissenting from, or what they are engaging politically about.
The daughter articles for the history, dissent, and pastoral care are all about 30k of prose long. We can use this as an indication that they are all about equal importance. The defense section has no daughter article, and the others are smaller (except the notable gay Catholics, which is a list). I would propose, then, that the history, dissent, and pastoral care sections be given equal prominence in the lede, greater than the defense, gay clergy, notable Catholics, and political activity sections. How do others feel? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the entire context of this dispute, but I saw some blatant pov-pushing in the lede and I reverted it. Now I see it's been restored, with the reasoning that Slugger O'Toole asked for objections and none have been forthcoming. That's not how WP:NPOV works — Slugger, please provide an explanation for your proposed edits here and gain consensus first. Bradv 🍁 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality"and
"on issues of importance to LGBT people"I don't see how either of these statements improve the article, but I'm open to hearing an explanation. Bradv 🍁 16:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
A weight new tome has recently published called "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy" and written by the French author Frédéric Martel. There is a lot of material in this book covering the issue of the catholic church and homosexuality. I just want to give a heads-up then when I've finished reading it I will put forward suggestions for additional material for this and related articles. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)