The result of the debate was delete and redirect title to Traditionalist Catholic. Angr ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The overriding reason this page should be deleted is because of its massive POV problem. I will argue that this problem is inherent to the topic, "Roman Catholic conservatism". The only purpose this article could possibly serve is to discredit people with whom the author disagrees. It is not a serious encyclopedia entry, and should therefore be deleted.
First, there is a consensus in Catholic circles that political terms like "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" are inappropriate and not germane to theological questions.
Second, the positions listed as examples of Catholic "conservatism" are very radical, to the point where somebody who believed most of these things probably would belong to a breakaway fringe "Catholic" group rather than subject himself to Rome.
Third, when people think of "conservative" Catholics, they often think of those who simply support the Church's teachings on issues like abortion, birth control, etc. If they came looking for more information to this article on "Roman Catholic conservatism", they would be led to think that those supporers of Church doctrine are much more extreme than they are.
Fourth, some of these are simply disingenuous misrepresentations. Nobody regards Jews as "faithless"; actually, that type of prejudice would be sinful under Catholic teaching! I suspect a lot of these items of "Roman Catholic conservative" ideology were listed and radicalized in order to discredit "Roman Catholic conservatives".
Fifth, equating these outrageously bigoted, non-Catholic, heterodox ideas with perfectly (theologically and morally) acceptable ones like saying the Mass in Latin, emphasizing devotion to Mary and the saints, "justification for war when absolutely necessary", and "abstinence from meat on Fridays", suggests a massive POV problem with this article, and bolsters my suggestion about the authors' motives in the previous point.
Sixth, the idea of "conservatism" implies a tendency to "conserve". In this case, that is precisely the opposite of what this article suggests "Roman Catholic conservatives" want. They supposedly "reject ecumenist policies", "totally avoid interfaith theological dialogue", "deny that Anglicans and Protestants are Christians", demonstrate "no respect for non-Catholics", believe "salvation is for Catholics only", emphasize Tradition over and against Scripture, "avoid handshaking and body prayer" (whatever that is), and believe that sex is for "reproduction only, not pleasure". These positions are contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. They can't be characterized as "conservative" in any meaningful sense.
If this article is about people so radical that they couldn't reasonably be called "Catholic" or "conservative", then I wonder what the purpose of this article is -- other than to discredit both Catholics and conservatives. This is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry, and I urge deletion. Hyphen5 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete and redirect title to Traditionalist Catholic. Angr ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete. The overriding reason this page should be deleted is because of its massive POV problem. I will argue that this problem is inherent to the topic, "Roman Catholic conservatism". The only purpose this article could possibly serve is to discredit people with whom the author disagrees. It is not a serious encyclopedia entry, and should therefore be deleted.
First, there is a consensus in Catholic circles that political terms like "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" are inappropriate and not germane to theological questions.
Second, the positions listed as examples of Catholic "conservatism" are very radical, to the point where somebody who believed most of these things probably would belong to a breakaway fringe "Catholic" group rather than subject himself to Rome.
Third, when people think of "conservative" Catholics, they often think of those who simply support the Church's teachings on issues like abortion, birth control, etc. If they came looking for more information to this article on "Roman Catholic conservatism", they would be led to think that those supporers of Church doctrine are much more extreme than they are.
Fourth, some of these are simply disingenuous misrepresentations. Nobody regards Jews as "faithless"; actually, that type of prejudice would be sinful under Catholic teaching! I suspect a lot of these items of "Roman Catholic conservative" ideology were listed and radicalized in order to discredit "Roman Catholic conservatives".
Fifth, equating these outrageously bigoted, non-Catholic, heterodox ideas with perfectly (theologically and morally) acceptable ones like saying the Mass in Latin, emphasizing devotion to Mary and the saints, "justification for war when absolutely necessary", and "abstinence from meat on Fridays", suggests a massive POV problem with this article, and bolsters my suggestion about the authors' motives in the previous point.
Sixth, the idea of "conservatism" implies a tendency to "conserve". In this case, that is precisely the opposite of what this article suggests "Roman Catholic conservatives" want. They supposedly "reject ecumenist policies", "totally avoid interfaith theological dialogue", "deny that Anglicans and Protestants are Christians", demonstrate "no respect for non-Catholics", believe "salvation is for Catholics only", emphasize Tradition over and against Scripture, "avoid handshaking and body prayer" (whatever that is), and believe that sex is for "reproduction only, not pleasure". These positions are contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. They can't be characterized as "conservative" in any meaningful sense.
If this article is about people so radical that they couldn't reasonably be called "Catholic" or "conservative", then I wonder what the purpose of this article is -- other than to discredit both Catholics and conservatives. This is a poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry, and I urge deletion. Hyphen5 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply