Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Numbers

This article says: "Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people". Does that include or exclude Eastern Catholics? How do we know that now? Any ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It includes Eastern catholics. We recently had a long discussion on this subject. Please look in the last archive. Xandar 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how that conclusion about the number was arrived at? The reference for that number was a Vatican report that used numbers that "catalog the Church's presence in each diocese". Since Eastern churches do not have diocese, that number probably refers to those churches that are part of some diocese. Or am I missing something about the number or the lack of diocese for Eastern churches? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Various reference sources are quoted in the archived discussion I pointed you too. Some of these go into great detail as to their sources for the estimates. Xandar 23:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will look in the archive again. I can not see it now. But a google search on the number "1.147 billion" just showed that Vatican report and no other. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures are derived from the Church itself. Reliable sources agree that this includes some people who no longer regard themselves as Church members but haven't told the Church this. I don't know of any source that estimates a figure for this category. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter: yes and yes, but..... Those numbers come from the Church itself for sure, and there is a question as to their including people who no longer consider themselves members (or may have died yesterday). But the point I have is that the numbers the Church presents ONLY seem to apply to the unmentionable Catholics... excuse me, I meant the Roman Catholics. I say that because I did look into the archives (which are longer than the Long Island Expressway) and still see no other supporting references except those that suggest the Church obtains this number by adding up the numbers from the diocese it has, e.g. via Annuario Pontificio. Hence that number is not for "all Catholics" but only for those Catholics that go to a church that is part of a diocese. As to what one calls those Catholics, that can be debated.... In the real world they are often called Roman Catholics. Anyway, unless other references are found to show that those numbers are for Catholics that also go to "non-diocese" churches, it has to be modified or qualified in a day or two. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History, I think what you are missing here is that Eastern Catholics do have dioceses, but we call them eparchies. If you look in the Pontificio Annuario, you will find eparchies listed separately, but they are listed. My church is a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Chicago, for instance. In short, yes, we ARE Catholics. We count. And no, we are not Roman Catholics. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. But the source said that they counted the diocese, not the eparchies. Hence the number is off by several percent. If you add the eparchies the number will be higher. Why do I care about this: because it is a solid example of a predicate asserted about a specific node within an ontology failing as we move upwards within the Ontology structure. It clearly illustrates the problem of suddenly changing labels on nodes of an ontology, as I showed with an example on the project page. The number used to be there when the article was called Roman Catholic Church. And when the title changed the number became inaccurate. So as you change title, content become inaccurate. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But History, wasn't the "number" that you claim was only correct with the previous article name (RC) referring to BOTH Latin-rite and Eastern-Rite Catholics, even at that time? The article title was RC, but it clearly stated, even then, that it included all those churches, Latin and Eastern, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If the article had been titled Latin-Rite Catholic Church and gave a membership number, then I would agree with you that changing the title to Catholic Church would render that number inaccurate. But if the RC title still specified that it was referred to both rites, Western and Eastern, how is it that the membership number is no longer accurate? The article seems to have always referred to both. I suppose your argument about how do we know if those numbers are accurate is a valid question. I just don't think that it's correct to ask how do we know if those numbers are accurate "now", as if the title change somehow expanded the scope to include Eastern-rite Catholics. Eastern-rite Catholics are as much a part of the Catholic Church as Latin/Western-rite Catholics, and it seems that the number includes both, as it did under the prior title. --anietor (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the source was that they only counted the diocese. But do I care if the number is off by 2%? No. Do I want to show that if one blindly changes title on articles one gets inaccurate results? Yes. Have I made my point? Yes. Now, do we all agree that "blind title changes will get inaccurate results"? You tell me.... History2007 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that "blind title changes will get inaccurate results". It's a general enough concept that all will agree. But if you then go on and on using a very specific example (as you did here), which is based on incorrect information, you need to expect to be corrected, since silence is often interpreted as acquiescence. But in the end, if you are only trying to get people to agree not to blindly change titles, then you're probably preaching to the choir in here. Fringe editors aside, most of the editors in here are responsible and intellectually honest enough to call people on any inappropriate edits, without regard to which theological "camp" they're in and feeling a need to support them regardless of WP policy violations. --anietor (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter also said on the project page that such sudden changes were very unlikely. So I pointed out the page Roman Catholic Mariology which is on the brink of an edit war since every instance of the term Roman was removed with a few keystrokes on August 11, 2009, rendering much content as incorrect. And the justification was the "consensus from this page". Similar name changes have been proposed for several other pages, based on the "consensus from this page". I am not saying that there is a search and destroy mission against the term "Roman" by any specific editors, for that would be against policy to say. But you draw your own conclusions. Hence the need to show the inaccuracies created with a few keystrokes as names change.... History2007 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

The current article states (wrt Mit Brennender Sorge) : "Nazi reprisals against the Church in Germany followed thereafter, including "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity".[378] When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded with harsher measures[377] rounding up 92 converts including Edith Stein who were then deported and murdered.[379]" however looking at the main article on the encyclical it appears that contemporary Catholic scholars do not share the view that the persecutions increased and that in the case of Edith Stein (acknowledging the bravery of the Dutch Bishops) it is accepted that she wrote to to the Pope in the early 30's asking for a prophetic voice to speak out against the Nazi's but the Pope never replied to her. I would like to delete this or alternatively give other scholarly views on the matter. Taam (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the material is well referenced. Views that persecution did not increase after MBS are a distinct minority I think. And a letter Edith Stein allegedly wrote in the 1930s has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. With regard to this section, Nancy has had most to do with its present format, so I think we should wait for her comments on this, since she hopefully should be back on WP regularly soon. Xandar 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving one scholars opinion in the article, even if its not his specialist area, but equally if there are other scholars who are experts in this field, and who were much closer to the events, then they should be included as well. As for the "alleged" letter of Edith Stein, could you give a scholarly reference that disputes she sent the letter? I have never encountered this argument before. I only bring up Edith Stein because the article does so, if she is notable for her death she is also notable for that letter imploring the Pope to do something, maybe in the hope that her own and many other deaths would have been averted if the Pope condemned Nazism in 1933. Taam (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This is off-topic. Edith Stein is mentioned as a victim of Nazism following protests during the war. Any letter she wrote in 1933 is unrelated to the fact of her martyrdom a decade later. That is a spurious linkage. Xandar 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but if the death of one person out of several million is considered worthy of mention in the article then is it not noteworthy that the very letter she sent to avert such deaths is mentioned as well ? I don't follow your logic. Taam (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough. The article discusses the Nazi reprisals of the 1940s in which Edith Stein was a prominent victim. She was not a victim because of the letter she apparently wrote in 1933, but because of the action of the Dutch bishops. The letter she wrote in 1933 and whether or not she got a papal reply has no direct link and only the most tenuous indirect link with later events. IF the Pope had seen her letter. IF the Pope had replied. IF he had then at that early date decided to denounce the NSDAP as uniquely evil. IF this had had ANY effect at all on the rise of said party. If that effect had (against all similar cases of papal political intervention) changed anything at all. IF that had, again improbably, led to the Nazis saying, "Lets not persecute Jews any more... is a mere chain of tenuous speculation and what-ifs. There is no causal link. It's like arguing the 9/11 article should state the twin towers would never have happened if only the government had acted on my letter ten years before calling for reductions in air travel! Xandar 01:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Pope did see the letter, no she never got a reply, though her Abbot received an acknowledgment of the letter. Edith Stein is used in this section to "prove" that the Pope couldn't have been more outspoken because it would have resulted in more deaths - that's how it reads to me. She is notable enough to be named in the article but if this is so then I think she can be also mentioned elsewhere when she called on the Pope to speak out very early in the rise of Nazi Germany to prevent what finally emerged in the Holocaust. Please understand I'm no Pius basher or promoter, I would just rather see a sober presentation without contentious apologetic material trying to prove this or that. Taam (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be wanting the article to ASSUME that the Pope was somehow derelict in not responding to her 1933 letter by foreseeing the holocaust and then stridently denouncing a newly elected German minority government that at the time appeared little different to a dozen other inter-war right-wing regimes, in such terms that, what....? It was overthrown by Catholic militia...(highly unlikely) The Nazis changed their ways... (even more unlikely) There was an anti-Catholic reaction a la Kulturkampf... (quite likely). You also therefore want the article to ASSUME that the Popes different action would have prevented the holocaust... Which is an assumption that goes right off the scale. We can't make such unwarranted and unlikely assumptions. The section merely states the facts that over 90 jewish converts were killed. Edith Stein is simply the most notable, and has a WP article, which is linked. Or are you saying all the others wrote to the Pope in 1933? Xandar 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noted that you have introduced more of the same, i.e trying to "prove" Pius is blameless with this edit[1]. The point is Pius was not the most significant originator of the encyclical, why not mention who was?, nor is there any explicit mention of the Nazi leadership in MSB. Once again I have no hangup in including this so long as we can include other scholarly sources who refute it, imo it was better to take it out rather then indulge in poor apologetics. Taam (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources say he was involved. This is a significant fact. All positive facts about a person are not "apologetics". It's called balance. Xandar 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK keep a mention of Pius contribution but we should clearly state who it was who actually drafted it. How it reads to me is an attempt to prove Pius was this or that instead of cool detached summary of the facts, and that's what I meant by apologetics - an article shouldn't try to prove anything. I repeat once more I am no Pius basher or promoter. Also if you are truly interested in balance then we can add sources that give their view on how little anti-nazi was the encyclical. My opinion is to take it all out and leave it as it was before you added your own thoughts to the piece. Any objections? Taam (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality"? If I remember right, the Pope himself closed down the Westphalian branch of the Franciscans, apparently accepting a lot of truth in the charges. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There really is a lot of unsourced OR and claims being made here. I think the general view on MBS historically and at the time, is that it was anti-nazi. You may find odd rogue sources that say otherwise, but these cannot be given undue weight. There is also a problem of people wanting more and more detail and cavills included, which takes the section outside its size range. There needs to be an over-all balance in covering this and other issues, especially since there is intended to be a Peer review of the article shortly. Xandar 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jacksons contribution is unsourced but the rest of this thread is not, indeed Falconi, who is one of the proponents about the MSB not being anti-nazi (there are many other catholic sources for this) is used by yourself, via Father Bokentotter, as reliable source. Taam (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I may well be able to find a source if it seems important enough. Is it? Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Question

The article states: "In addition, the Church has played a significant role in the Westernization of many other nations through its missionary efforts, often associated with the colonial era. By spreading Catholic Christianity it has battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy, within evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire." When I last brought up the issue of human sacrifice in the Roman Empire I was met with a wall of "catholic" obstinacy so much so I quit Wikikepedia for a few months. At present it still misrepresents the issue of human sacrifice wrt to the Roman Empire and also marriage. With the latter St Augustine said that they had followed Roman practice, i.e monogamy, whereas the article indicates otherwise. I would like to either delete this section or give alternate scholarly opinions. Taam (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is factually correct. It states that the Church's influence was "beginning with the Roman Empire", not that all of these practices existed in the Roman Empire. However the fact that over history the church has helped eliminate these practices in various societies is undoubted. PS. You might get less tetchy conversations if you got rid of all the "catholic obstinacy" attitudes. Xandar 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A reader with little knowledge will take it that human sacrifice was prevalent under Roman rule. When I brought this up before it was established that the cited source did not actually say this, it was the wiki editors interpolation and they were not for budging. The simple solution would be to take out the "starting with the Roman empire". There also has to be more balance with regard to the Church "battling" against slavery part for the obvious reason that the Church's position with regard to slavery is much more complex than this section suggests. As for your suggestion about "catholic obstinacy attitudes" I think the solution is to be more open to editors who genuinely want to improve the article using scholarly sources and cut out the "anti-catholic" "chip on your shoulder" and wiki legalism talk to anyone who dares to question the accuracy of the material. Taam (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the wording can do with a little tweaking to make the Roman Empire issue clearer, however the main issues here are attested. The position on slavery was indeed quite complex and has been brushed upon elsewhere in the article. It was recognised as legally valid, but was disapproved and the enslavement of native peoples was several times forbidden. Xandar 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is slavery of indigenous peoples was approved at different times (multiple scholarly sources can be cited) so I suggest taking out the Roman Empire and slavery parts. If no objection I will do so. Taam (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would also add that the following section is problematic: "Historians note that Catholic missionaries, Popes, and religious, were among the leaders in campaigns against slavery." because it fails to cover the overt sanctioning of slavery at other times. My suggestion is to take this out but if anyone objects I can add balance with other scholarly sources who don't see this issue in such black and white terms. Taam (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The influence of the Church historically has been anti-slavery, and this needs mention. Charges of overt sanctioning of slavery tend to boil down to specific incidences connected with reprisals and warfare. Xandar 01:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No this is not so, the Church gave mandates to go and conquer countries, and if nesc enslave the native populations, who they had never been at war with. If you want to include the above then I think we have to give the other scholarly point of view. My opinion is to simply to take it out of this section. Taam (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing different things, including wartime mandates for reprisals. We'll see what you come up with. Xandar 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I'm in the process of putting together all the material I can find (pro & anti-slavery) due to the promptings of another editor on Wikipedia. If you look through my contribution history for 13 August 2009 it will give some idea of the papal bulls for and against and there is more I will be adding, hopefully over the next few days. Taam (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bethencourt (2007) in reviewing a collection of scholarly essays writes of "the zigzag policies of the Popes from Martin V to Paul III" regarding slavery, with successive bulls prohibiting the African slave trade (1425) and black slavery (1462), then allowing the trade with captive people (1455, 1456, 1493), and finally condemning the enslavement of native American people (1537), while the citizens of Rome were authorized to hold slaves (1548).[2] However even this is not so straightforward because others do not see the "anti-slavery" ones in 1425 and 1462 in quite the same light - see articles for Martin V and Pius II. I haven't gone beyond Paul III in the material collected and added to articles on the 13 August and today, since the initial research was prompted by a question raised about the Renaissance Popes and slavery. But I think there is enough already to see that it's not so clean cut as the article asserts Taam (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Church itself owned slaves until 1863, I think. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The general stance editors of this article is that there is a difference between what the Vatican (as the head of the global church) says and does and what the members of the clergy and laity do, either as individuals or even in groups. As a general principle, this is valid. The Church cannot be held responsible for the crimes of its members if it has not sanctioned them.

Taam's research suggests that the Papacy did a bit of a zigzag in the 15th and 16th centuries and the article should reflect that. There might even be enough material for a separate article on the issue.

There is also difficulty in defining what "the Church" is. Presumably the Vatican (i.e. the Pope and the Curia) did not own slaves in the 19th century. 1863 strikes me as the year of the Emancipation Proclamation and so it sounds as if Peter jackson is talking about the antebellum Church in the United States. If this is so, it is true that the American Catholic Church has a less than stellar record with regard to the slavery issue in the antebellum years.

The Catholic Church in the United States was very late to take a stance against slavery. In fact, I don't think it did so officially until after it had been abolished. The reason for this is that Catholicism was stronger in the South than in the North (being especially strong in Maryland, a slaveholding state). This didn't change until after the Civil War with the waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy and Poland. In fact, there was some debate about abolition within the Church in the decades before the Civil War between the Irish Catholics in the North and the Catholics in the South. However, the southern Catholics won the debate and the American bishops took no stance on slavery prior to the Civil War.

The problem is that the average reader does not draw a distinction between what the Pope sanctions and what individual bishops or groups of bishops sanction. We can say that the Church (i.e. the Vatican) opposed slavery but that doesn't ring true for someone who knows the antebellum history of the American Church. We should not simply assert "Well, but that doesn't count because those were the American bishops, not the Vatican". I think it would be fair to say something like "Despite the Vatican's opposition to slavery, bishops in some countries such as the United States were less vocal in their opposition. In some of these countries, the silence of the bishops amounted to a tacit approval. Some bishops and religious orders in the United States even owned slaves up until the Civil War." --Richard (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting points from Richard, however there are again a lot of unattributed claims being made here and elsewhere on the page. People are also (as in the Nazi discussion above) wanting more detailed information, cavills and other arguments added to a section that can only be of limited size. Dealing with the Church position on slavery could ideally be expanded to reasoning behind reluctant acceptance of the existing practice as a legal fact, but pressure to eliminate it and to forbid enslavement of free native peoples. Similarly, if certain people want to add that some local Church bodies may have come into the ownership of slaves (presumably through receiving donations or grants of land), we then perhaps need to add more about the system whereby the Church in the Americas (except for orders like the Jesuits and Franciscans) was largely outside of Vatican control. Another relevant topic might be the influence of the Church in ensuring that slave codes in Catholic states protected the slaves personhood and right to marriage and family life, and encouraged free black participation in society - in contrast to the comparable slave laws in protestant areas. Changing the article therefore involves complex considerations. Sources need to be found, weighted and evaluated. I certainly wouldn't accept some of the points in Richard's proposed wording above. Overall this may be something that is best considered as a whole during the forthcoming peer review. Xandar 20:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, what claims are "unattributed"? All the edits I have made to the relevant articles have been cited. On the contrary the assertions you make are uncited in particular "forbid enslavement of free native peoples". Indeed the one shining example that I thought to be true of this in the period in question, i.e the bulls issued by Paul III, turns out to have been anulled by the Pope the next year, contrary to what appears in pop history. Its been a long day, goodnight. Taam (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement I gave above was from something I read a very long time ago in a book called The Misery of Christianity, by Joachim Kahl. Obviously an anti-Christian book, & maybe doesn't count as a reliable source in itself, but my impression was that it was reasonably historical, & its statements could probably be sourced, indeed perhaps already were (as I said, it's a very long time ago). My memory says it was a reference to the Dominicans in the West Indies.

As an aside, I might mention that the Emancipation Proclamation has become largely mythical. It didn't abolish slavery in the USA. All it said was that the Union would deem slaves in rebel territory to be free. This meant they wouldn't be returned if they escaped, which often happened already, in violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, & that the rest would be freed if & when the Union won. It didn't apply to those slave states who'd remined loyal to the Union, & slavery wasn't abolished in the last of these until the 13th Amendment in 1865. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to naming

Richard, If I can take up one point you raise (the issue of slavery is too complex to set out here in detail) and that is "There is also difficulty in defining what "the Church" is.". When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" it was clear to me that this referred to those who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome and therefore I could take the beliefs section on spec. This Church seems sensitive to such naming issues and uses "Roman Catholic" in ecumenical documents - is not Wikipedia an example? What seems to have happened with the renaming of this article, is an insensitive name change has been imposed (contrary to the practice of their own Church) in an "ecumenical environment" to assert that "we are the Catholic Church" and no others . As I said in an earlier post they shot themselves in the foot because if a learned editor appeared now and was not put off by the intransigence of the sectarians they could legitimately now alter radically the beliefs section. In my opinion the name change was a big mistake and you must now allow other additions from those who consider themselves part of the "Catholic Church" but are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.Taam (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The naming issue has been dealt with. "Roman Catholic" is not the name of the Church, however much you might prefer it to be. Nor is it clear, since it is used in many different ways by different groups. The name of the organisation is the Catholic Church and if "intransigent sectarians" like Taam could concentrate on something other than trying to rename it in accordance with their prejudices, we would make more progress. Xandar 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Xander, I'm not a Christian so I don't have any sectarian interests to defend. When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" I knew clearly what was being talked about but now this is not so for the reasons given above. IMO your Church shows more wisdom in this matter than the editors of this article. Taam (talk)

Tram, you talk about the article as if the article is about a different entity now that it is titled Catholic Church. It's the same church being addressed. The title has changed to reflect the more appropriate name of that church (see lengthy discussion for basis). We are all aware of your personal views on the topic, as well as your apparent confusion between Catholic Church and catholic churches/catholicity. If you are truly confused by all this, I suggest you do some follow-up research. I assume, however, that your faux complaints about not knowing what church is being discussed is a tool to make a point. In case it is a true confusion, just remember that it is the communion of Latin-rite and Eastern-rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And to address a specific point...Wikipedia is not an "ecumenical environment", since that would require a degree of creative word-usage and subtle concessions in the interest of diplomacy and other theological or jurisdiction considerations that have no place in an encyclopedia. --anietor (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam Your personal difficulties with understanding the name of the Church (which seem to be based on various misapprehensions), have nothing to do with WP naming policies or the Church's own decision on what to call itself. People incapable of reading the first line of this article are unlikely to benefit from the rest. Nor do I see you raising the same objections on the Church of England page or those of the Orthodox Church or Apostolic Church or others, all of which are capable of readings other than that which strictly defines the group that adopts these respective names. Harping on here, and the continuous hurling of epithets, therefore suggests a specific agenda. Xandar 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have personal difficulty in naming, I never suggested otherwise, because I have the Catechism and know that when the Church uses this name its very clear she is speaking from an insiders perspective and assumes many things like communion with Peter and his successors. Equally she doesn't heavily handed impose this on other Churches who consider themselves Catholic in inter-Christian dialogue and uses "Roman Catholic". The editors of this article have ignored the sensitivety of the Church imo in imposing the new name change. I don't have any agenda Xandar, as best I know I am more in communion with your Church than you are in these matters. Taam (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

These arguments were gone through in detail for fully twelve months. A conclusion has been reached. The alleged "sensitivities" of other groups are not part of WP naming policy. And in your terms only seem to apply to "Catholic" and not to "orthodox", "apostolic", "church of England" "Baptist", "Church of Ireland" etc. etc. All these names, by your argument, "impose things on other churches" in that they make exclusive claims to qualities also claimed by other churches, and "arouse sensitivities", yet you only harp on about "Catholic". This is inconsistent and POV. That is why such arguments are rejected. Xandar 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue of naming of other articles is not what I'm on about (I have never even read them) but the "harp on" angle you mention I don't understand. I try to meet all people on common ground (as your Church teaches) so I am left with the conclusion that perhaps you are indeed a section of the Catholic Church that does not follow the practice of those in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is not a problem for me but if you let me know it does help dialogue in that I can take account of your opinions in my responses, regards. Taam (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of scholarly sources support Mit Brennender Sorge section of the article

Excerpts that support article text that Taam wants me to delete

Opposing FAC reviewer Taam, in this edit [3] has asked me to remove article text relating to Mit Brenneder Sorge and comments by Pius XI to pilgrims. I am placing quotes from my most scholarly sources to support my article text. The fact that both of these issues figure prominently in the history of the Church, and that they are listed in these top sources should be enough to prove their notability and worthiness of inclusion.

• From Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press, pages 342-343 in the paperback version ISBN 9780300115970 (I used the hardcover for the article and I think the page numbers may be different)

  "In January 1937 key figures from the German hierarchy came to Rome on their ad limina visit. They told the Pope that the time for caution had passed, and Pius XI decided to act. Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, was commissioned to produce a draft encyclical, which was tidied up by Pacelli, and signed by the Pope. In a triumphant security operation, the encyclical was smuggled into Germany, locally printed, and read from the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday 1937. Mit Brennender Sorge(With Burning Anxiety) denounced both specific government actions against the Church in breach of the concordat and Nazi racial theory more generally. There was a striking and deliberate emphasis on the permanent validity of the Jewish scriptures, and the Pope denounced the 'idolatrous cult' which replaced belief in the true God with a 'national religion' and the 'myth of race and blood'. He contrasted this perverted ideology with the teaching of the Church in which there was a home 'for all peoples and all nations'. The impact of the encyclical was immense, and it dispelled at once all suspicion of a Fascist Pope. While the world was still reacting, however, Pius issued five days later another encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, denouncing Communism, declaring its principles "intrinsically hostile to religion in any form whatever', detailing the attacks on the Church which had followed the establishment of Communist regimes in Russia, Mexico and Spain, and calling for the implementation of Catholic social teaching to offset both Communism and 'amoral liberalism'.... His speeches and conversations were blunt, filled with phrases like 'stupid racialism', 'barbaric Hitlerism'. In May 1938 Hitler visited Rome. The Pope left for Castel Gandolfo, and explained to pilgrims there that he could not bear 'to see raised in Rome another cross which is not the cross of Christ'. In September he told another group that the Canon of the Mass spoke of Abraham as 'our father in faith'. No Christian, therefore, could be anti-Semitic, for 'spiritualy, we are all Semites'.

• From John Vidmar's The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages, Paulist Press, Page 327 ISBN 0809142341

  "Pius XI's greatest coup was in writing the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Desire") in 1936, and having it distributed secretly and ingenuiously by an army of motorcyclists, and read from every pulpit on Palm Sunday before the Nazi's obtained a single copy. It stated (in German and not in the traditional Latin) that the Concordat with the Nazis was agreed to despite serious misgivings about Nazi integrity. It then went on to condemn the persecution of the church, the neopaganism of the Naxi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority-and Hitler himself, calling him "a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance." But perhaps Pius XI's most memorable protest against anti-Semitism came just before his death, when he told a group of pilgrims in 1938: 'Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are all spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spritiually, we are all Semites.' The Nazi's promptly called him "the Chief Rabbi of the Christian World."

• From Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, page 389

  "And when Hitler showed his increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism" and "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican."2 Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It exposed the fallacy and denounced the Nazi myth of blood and soil; it decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a "mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance."3 The Nazi's were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of the Catholic clergy. At Koblenz, 170 Franciscans were arrested and prosecuted for the corruption of youth and for turning their monastery into a 'male brothel,' A Hitler Youth film was circulated that showed priests dancing in a bordello."

  Bokenkotter is quoting from two scholars in this quote, the first is from C. Falconi, The Popes of the Twentieth Century(Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 117. The second is from A. Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973), p. 205

This book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete.

Other scholarly sources that claim Mit Brenneder Sorge described Hitler as a "mad prophet" are

• Spritual Semites: Catholics and Jews During World War II by Paul Martin - page 16
• Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II by Nicolas Cheetham - Page 284
• Baltimore Iconoclast by William C. Hughes - Page 215

Sources that quote Pius XI's address to pilgrims that "spiritually we are all Semites"

• Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy by Susan Zuccotti - Page 45
• The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII by Joseph Bottum, David G. Dalin- Page 114
• The Papacy: An Encyclopedia by Philippe Levillain, John W. O'Malley - Page 1209
• The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis by David G. Dalin - Page 66
• Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas Lapide - Page 113
• Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell - Page 190
• The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 by Nora Levin - Page 689
• A Short History of Christianity by Stephen Tomkins - Page 227

And there are dozens more which I do not have the time to place on this page. Clearly this quote from Pius XI is notable and worthy of inclusion in this article if hundreds of authors have reproduced it in their works, including the most scholarly.

The Bokenkotter book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long. Per WP:reliable source examples it meets the qualifications of a top source and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete. As you can see, Taam's request is unreasonable and would make the article factually incomplete. NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mit Brenneder Sorge article text referenced to Bokenkotter, Taam has also stated that the quotes listed in the Bokenkotter book are incorrect. I purchased the two books that Bokenkotter is quoting that supports our article text and am placing the actual quotes here so we can all see that Bokenkotter is not misquoting anyone. In addition, Bokenkotter's book, as a decades old university textbook with three reprintings and scholarly reviews, has been seriously vetted by the scholarly community so we shouldnt have to go check his work but I am doing it anyway to prove that he is correct in his cites. One is from Anthony Rhodes The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945), a scholarly source used by university students per its own reviews in the New Statesman, Times Literary Supplement, and The Month. It is referred to in these reviews as "a balanced survey of the relations between Pius XI and Pius XII, and the dictators, notably Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin." and "A scholarly and balanced analysis of Vatican diplomacy...", "Mr. Rhode's book is one which no serious student of the history of the 20th century can afford to neglect." The other source is from The Popes in the Twentieth Century by Carlo Falconi which, along with Rhodes is often cited by other scholarly works like the one we used in the article - Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church.

From Carlo Falconi's The Popes in the Twentieth Century (1967) Library of Congress catalog number 68-14744 page 230. "Nevertheless, even with these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world."

From Anthony Rhode's The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators 1922-1945 (1973) ISBN 0030077362 page 205, "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written..... (goes on to list criticisms of Nazi practices like neo-paganism, theory of blood and soil, spiritual oppression in Germany, oppression of education, the Nazi war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith, cult of idols)...The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ';'a mad prophet possessed of repuslive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)". ..."The true extent of the Nazi fury at this encyclical was shown by the immediate measures taken in Germany to counter further propagation of the document. Not a word of it was printed in the newspapers, and the following day the Secret Police visited the diocesan offices and confiscated every copy they could lay their hands on. All presses which had printed it were closed and sealed. The bishops diocesan magazines (Amtsblatter) were proscribed; a paper for church pamphlets or secretarial work was severely restricted. ...The encyclical was well received abroad. ...(names several countries reactions)... From Chile the German Ambassador reported that the encyclical 'has had great effect in turning the people against Germany'. The most important effect however was in the United States. On the 24th of December, 1937, The German Ambassador in Washington reported that thanks to the anti-Catholic campaign, Germany was losing the support, which had hitherto been very active when the National Socialist anti-Communist policy was announced, of twenty five million Catholics who 'stand united and determined behind their Church'. From these representative samples of world opinion, it might be supposed that the Nazis would have learnt the old lesson, Qui mange du Pape en meurt. But so obsessed were they with the vast military machine they had built over the last four years that they only became more overweening, determined to teach the Papacy a lesson."

The above was copied from the discussion page of the last FAC, Taam's request could not be processed because he is asking us to ignore scholarly consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply. It might not be clear in the link you gave above the objections raised to a little segment of the article, so for clarity I copy them here with numbers added before them so we can all follow the thread:

"1) Regarding the “mad prophet” claim in the article. I have checked and can find no other scholarly works that could support this view as a consensus or even minority view so I ask once again that it be deleted. 2) This combined with the omission of the “Belgian Pilgrims” qualification , 3) the erroneous claim that Mit Brennender Sorge condemned anti-Semitism, 4) the erroneous attribution to that encyclical of words spoken informally to visiting pilgrims, 5) and all having the effect of exaggerating the Church and Popes response to the Nazis , and all in one little segment of the article, is a real concern over the use of sourcing generally.

• point 1) the article no longer presents as incontrovertible fact that the encyclical "described Adolf Hitler" as an insane and arrogant prophet", good.
• Point 2) was indeed actioned and the article no longer misleads, good.
• Point 3) was actioned and the article no longer states the encyclical condemned anti-semitism, good.
• point 4) was actioned and the article no longer propagates an error, good.
• point 5) remains outstanding imo

The long passages you quote are taken from:

• Father John Vidmar Roman Catholic priest and theologian
• Father Thomas Bokenkotter Roman Catholic priest and historian
• Anthony Rhodes made a Knight Commander of St Gregory by Pope Paul IV for his services to the Catholic Church and this was before he formally entered Roman Catholicism
• Eamon Duffy historian who describes himself as a "cradle catholic"

Of course there is no objection on my part of using sources such as this simply because they may be perceived as writing from an insiders point of view, so to speak, in the history section of the article. My normal practice when using such sources is to clearly state who says what and their status so that reader can be fully informed of the perspective involved, and for balance show it also from another scholarly perspective, wherever this is possible, leaving it to the reader to form a balanced view. In all these areas there are many pov's and I don't think that it's right to depend too heavily on Roman Catholic or other Christian authors to write an impartial wikipedia article on history. The classic example of this concern was the articles use of Father Bokenkotters redaction of the Falconi quote in which Falconi is cut off in mid sentence i.e the part mentioning the "limitations" of MSB in very robust terms: "so little anti-Nazi is it...".. "concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights and privileges".."even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany". As I said earlier I'm not impugning Fathers honesty - I strongly suspect he read it clipped from a secondary source without having the book physically in front of him. Taam (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, we chose our sources due to the way they are respected in the academic community, we did not do a religion check first to see what the personal beliefs of the authors were. If the scholarly community uses these books as the most reliable and respected sources on Catholic history, that is what Wikipedia WP:RS, and WP:reliable source examples requires - and that is what the article reflects. You can not ask us to omit facts reflected by numerous scholars in these most respected sources. Someone changed the wording of the sentences to make you happy without omitting the facts. However, these changes specifically omitted actual quotes from these sources to "tame" them to suit your personal taste. This is not accurate reporting - this is introducing POV language to suit one Wikipedia editor who has no reliable source to support his objection. NancyHeise ^talk 18:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat that if you introduce material that says one thing but it is contradicted by other reliable academic sources who are specialists in this field then we present both sets of view. I don't know if people have deliberately chosen sources to prove a point but the end result is unbalance and it read as if the article was indeed trying to prove this or that which it must not do. In contentious issues I indicate who is saying what and their background and certainly not to pass of as fact what is opinion. As I pointed out in the list given above there was serious errors in a tiny section of the article that according to your reliable sources was accurate.Taam (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, you took offense with the fact that our most respected scholarly source, Bokenkotter, says that Mit Brennender Sorge calls Hitler "an insane and arrogant prophet". These were Bokenkotter's exact words that he himself repeated from another scholar. That's two scholars saying the same thing! You wanted that quote eliminated because you disagreed with these scholars analysis. Who are you? A Wikipedia editor! Show me where any respectable scholar says Bokenkotter is wrong? No one says anything but wonderful things about Bokenkotter's book. We can't just toss things because some Wikipedia editors are doing their own WP:OR and don't like what scholars are saying. We just put the scholar's research on the page and show Reader the facts as presented by consensus of modern scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is the article stated as incontrovertible fact what was only opinion originating with Anthony Rhodes (see my comments above) Hitler isn't mentioned by name in the document but the article would have had it that he was. Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)". Phayer, Michael (2000). The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21471-8.Taam (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide the page number for your quote in that book? I can only find one mention of Mit Brennender Sorge in that book here [4] and it does not say what you have listed in quotation marks above. Also, we are supposed to use scholarly sources, not pop history written by Michael Phayer who's work has been officially discredited my a major academic journal of history [5]. Wikipedia does not allow us to rely on such sources but rather suggests using sources that have good reviews from such academic journals. NancyHeise ^talk 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll up to page 2 of the link you have for Michael Phayer book you will see the quotation. The subject is his specialist area and in this case it's obvious that what he says is correct - look at the encyclical (it was written for ordinary people) and you will not find a reference to Hitler - it was Rhodes opinion. The main article for the encyclical continues to give Rhodes opinion but for balance gives alternate views like Falconi (used by yourself as a reliable source) who says "so little anti-nazi is it {i.e the encyclical}...even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany...the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence". In the main article we made it clear this was Falconi's opinion and it was only inserted to balance out the out of context quote from Father Bokenkotter of Falconi whereas this article just presented the latter. The link you give to Michael Phayer is not working but if there is criticism of any of his viewpoints then I'm not surprised since this whole area is an apologetics war ground. Indiana University Press give some short reviews of the book in question.[6] One review says "Phayer’s book, particularly strong on German source material, is at pains to list Pius’s strong points his piety, his loathing of Hitler, the instances of personal warmth, the occasions when he criticized Nazism." so he doesn't fit the stereotypical image of a Pius basher. You should inform the academic press that Michael Phayer is not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia, I would like to hear how you get on! Clips from reviews of his latest book are here[7].

I seem to have another problem with a passage from Father Bokenkotter (I think Rhodes is once again the source) that doesn't check out against scholarly works but thats for another day, goodnight. Taam (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, we can't use books with bad reviews in academic journals, period. There is too much history inventiveness out there and it just makes our article incorrect - we use the consensus of historians. This consensus has said that Mit Brennender Sorge called Hitler or the Furer a "mad and arrogant prophet". Some say it condemned Nazi leadership. Whichever source you choose the bottom line is that consensus agrees the Church condemned the Nazi leadership - that is what the article says. The fact that the Church pointed out to the Nazi's a way toward better relations does not negate the fact that they condemned the Nazi leadership and their ideology - and they did so from every pulpit in Germany before the start of WWII. How can we be asked to eliminate this major fact? NancyHeise ^talk 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, I can't get the link to Cambridge's Journal of Ecclesiastical History to work again either, perhaps because it is a PDF file, not sure. However, here is the New Oxford Review's official book review of Michael Phayer's The Church and the Holocaust and they say the same things.[8] Please do not allow yourself to be misled by pop history, it hurts relations between Catholics and Jews, not a good thing for anyone. NancyHeise ^talk 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article stated as fact that Hitler was called a "mad prophet" whereas any reader can quickly check on-line that this ain't so, it was Anthony Rhodes opinion. Indeed using one of your own reliable sources the encyclical is not described as anti-nazi. My opinion is that if Hitler as "mad prophet" stayed in then it should be clearly marked as opinion/interpretation and not presented as incontrovertible fact then also include Falconi assertion that (in his opinion) it offers an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Church. Now getting onto Michael Phayer. He only repeats what is obvious to the reader of the encyclical and what Falconi confirms as well. There is no intention in my part of using Phayer or any other of the current crop of scholars who are embroiled in the Pius wars and their opinions of what Pius was or wasn't- that's best left to detailed articles. As I warned you above this whole area is a war-field of polemics. Jospeh Bottom in First Things magazines[9] calls it the Pius Wars being battled out in article reviews. The link you give to a review certainly imo comes under this heading. As the First Things article calls the situation: " “Whack the Mole,” with dozens of reviewers ready to smash their mallets down on the next author to stick up his head...Relatively mild efforts to praise the Pope (such as José Sánchez’s Pius XII and the Holocaust in 2002), like relatively mild criticism (such as Martin Rhonheimer’s November 2003 essay in [First Things->www.firstthings.com]), are as clueless about the situation in which they appear as the proverbial visitors from Mars. Indeed, there is something willful and maddening in their tone of Olympian detachment. In a world of imbalance, what but pressure on the other side can restore the balance that a true scholar is supposed to love?" All this is off topic since the article should not be presenting any of these theories imo and it has nothing to do with the point raised. Now getting back to the article and the point I alluded to in the previous post. The article states that after MSB was published "Nazi reprisals against the Church in Germany followed thereafter, including "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity". Now the extract you post above gives more details by saying it relates the Koblenz Franciscan trial. All the scholarly sources I can find say that the Koblenz trial took place in 1936 i.e before MSB was issued (some think the encyclical contains a mild allusion to it) and whilst it's inclusion in the article seems to add dramatic effect relating to the Nazi response to the encyclical it seems out of step with other sources (including near contemporary catholic scholarly treatments). I think you said you had Rhodes book which Father Thomas might be using, could you confirm what Rhodes says and if he gives more details to avoid having to put in an alternative point of view. Also is it possible that a separate page could be set up to put all your useful excerpts from books so we can refer thus making these threads more readable? Taam (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

Does the following part of the history section strike anyone else as pro-CC POV?

By spreading Catholic Christianity it has battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy, within evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire.

The tone could be summed up as 'the Catholic Church, aren't we great!' :-)

There are also a number of more specific problems:

1. why is it necessary to add the word Catholic to Christianity to describe the Church's mission?

2. 'battled' implies the things listed are intrinsically 'evil' rather than facts of history shaped by social and economic forces. It is POV to imply for e.g. that polygamy is something to be 'battled'. Similarly, human sacrifice in many pre-Christian religions was seen as necessary, including by its 'victims'.

3. 'in certain cases eventually ended' seems deliberately vague, unreferenced and unhistorical. The fusion of the Church with the Roman state in the fourth century certainly did not lead to the end of slavery whatever the later record of the Church. Wikipedia should reflect this mixed picture rather than present a one-sided one.

Haldraper (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. This appears to be promoting a POV. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is written from the pov of how the Roman Catholic Church sees itself. This is to be expected on apologetics sites but not in wikipedia. In my experience its very difficult to get this point over to editors who are overtly Catholic and think they have a mission to enforce their version of truth on all others. If you see my trail of comments on the Slavery talk page you might understand the nature of the problem. Taam (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is the juxtaposition of three ideas in a causal relationship in a way that pmits some of the nuances. The three ideas are: "The Church spread Catholicism", "it opposed evil practices" and "those evil practices ended in part due to the influence of Christianity".

First of all, the idea being presented here is common to all Christian mission efforts, not just Catholic ones and the sentence does not reflect that. Secondly, even if the sentence did reflect this, it would suggest that Buddhism and Islam did not have similar salutary effects as they spread. Also, the sentence emphasizes positive aspects of the Church while ignoring negative ones such as its failure to oppose serfdom in Europe and slavery in the United States.

While it is true that the Church opposed these "evil practices" everywhere that it conducted missionary efforts, it was not their primary mission to accomplish the end of these "evil practices". The primary objective was to spread the faith, ending the "evil practices" was an ancillary objective and result. The use of "by spreading Christianity...it battled" conjunction suggests this and so we should seek ways to weaken the suggestion.

It's also inaccurate to say that "(the Church) ended them". In general, it was not "the Church" that ended the practice but rather the civil authority which was influenced by the views of the Church. This may seem like a picky point but the sentence as written suggests that the Church actually did something official to end the practices.

It would be reasonable to say "As the Church spread Christianity through its missionary efforts, it opposed practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, etc. and in some cases helped to bring an end to them."

--Richard (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your version is more temperate, i.e lacking the crusading language used presently in the article. However the points Haldraper raised still need to be attended to. There is no R.C scholar that I am aware of (who is a specialist in this area) has ever taught that slavery was considered an intrinsic evil because it goes right against Church teaching and a number of Papal bulls that explicitly state otherwise. The article seriously misleads in this respect. Another point Haldraper brought up regarding human sacrifice is also important. He is, perhaps unwittingly, echoing Bartolomé de las Casas, the famous priest who defended Indian rights against the invaders from his own country. Las Casas pointed out the hypocrisy of those who condemned these human sacrifices as a great intrinsic evil, that robbed those who had practised it in the past of any future human rights, by pointing out to the Spanish and Romans their own cultural background in this area -- they were in no position to condemn anyone as evil. Indeed he pointed out that those who had made such sacrifices, thinking it was pleasing to God, did not do evil, and as Haldraper also points out we also have records of missionaries describing how Indians went joyfully as a sacrifice for their people and with the expectation of being with God. Taam (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "battled" does not imply "intrinsic evil". If Party A and Party B fight against each other, you can say that Party A battled Party B or Party B battled Party A, without even knowing the cause. Whether "battle" fits within the context of the article at the discussed section is one thing, but you're reading more into a word than is there. It would be appropriate to say that the Church fought against X (polygamy, human sacrifice, infanticide or whatever the issue is), and you can just as easily say battled, especially in the context of certain causes that did, in fact, involve actual armed conflict. This discussion is also smacking of relativism. I'm going out on a limb here and will say that things like infanticide and human sacrifice, generally speaking, are not good things. But that debate is not even necessary, frankly, since the article doesn't say "ended the evil practices of...". It says "battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as...". That is not POV. Some editors seem to be confusing the term by essentially arguing: Hey, saying the Church had a hand in the end to infanticide implies something positive, so it's POV. Please read what WP:POV is before using the term in a context beyond what it actually means.--anietor (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because the article doesn't qualify "battled" slavery so the detached reader assumes that slavery has never been condoned, i.e intrinsically evil in all circumstances. Also your bring up "relativism" seems to be another example of R.C editors who cannot seem to understand this is not the New Advent web site, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia", nor "Catholic Answers". Whatever your beliefs are they should be kept out of Wikipedia save those pages that are there to explain the R.C point of view. Taam (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I actually had in mind the bodies of sacrificed Bronze and Iron Age people that have been found preserved in peat throughout Northern Europe. However your point about South America is equally valid.

Anietor, your comment is pedantic: 'battled' in a sentence on the Church's contribution to culture does put a positive spin on the Church's actions. You also take a suprahistorical view of human sacrifice that ignores the fact that its 'victims' accepted the necessity of such rituals (as well as ignoring the human sacrifice central to your religion). Equally, infanticide has not been viewed in the same way throughout all cultures in history: as I said, there are also economic and social factors to take into account. The POV is not as you suggest because the Church's actions are positive but that you assume they are because of your Catholic POV. Neither do you answer either of my points about the basic historial inaccuracy of implying that the Church opposed slavery in the late Roman Empire or why it is necessary to put the word 'Catholic' in front of 'Christianity'.Haldraper (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence being questioned and framed as POV is actually not POV. It is what the represented scholars are saying about the Church - not what individual Wikipedia editors are saying. We just placed this information into the article because it reflects modern scholarship. We can't omit it because some people dont like what is said. NancyHeise ^talk 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, A Jesuit scholar quotes an instruction from Pius IX issued 20 June 1866:

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

Pius IX, J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307..quoted by Michael Stogre in his book "That the world may believe: the development of Papal social thought on aboriginal rights", p. 124, ISBN 2890395499 Taam (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you are taking out of context, magnifying and distorting a discussion. This [10] is what Pius was discussing, he was not advocating slavery. NancyHeise ^talk 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I made no mention of advocacy. What is it you feel I'm taking out of context? I'm simply quoting directly from a source. Looking at the article you link to there is no mention that I can see of the Pius quotation. I am aware of the Church's attitude towards slavery that's why I thought the article grossly misrepresented its view. There has never been an blanket condemnation by a Pope (without getting involved in the internecine disputes about JP2 comments in more recent years) of all forms of slavery for the very good reason that it was sanctioned in various forms and times by the Popes in the past. If by chance you are alluding to editing the "Cultural Influences" section to present a more nuanced view of what the Church has taught and practiced then I'm with you on that, that's the point we have been trying to get over. Taam (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to charges of WP:NPOV violation in cultural influences section

Because the discussion immediately above questions the cultural influences section, I thought it might be helpful to copy and paste the answer to this very same question at the last FAC.

• Most significant was its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands. Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture. Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

This quote comes from the Cultural Influence section of the article. It is referenced to seven scholarly works. Listed below.

• Kohl, Infanticide and the Value of Life (1978), p. 61, Contribution entitled Infanticide: an anthropological analysis by L Williamson, quote: "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
• Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church university textbook for decades here's one [11], another [12], another [13] another [14] another [15] p. 56 "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed. Divorce was consistently condemned by the Church, in keeping with its absolute prohibition by Jesus."
• Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
• Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
• Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis University of North Carolina Press (book review from The Journal of American History here [16] p. 137 "Cochins main concern however was to present a detailed defense of the Catholic Church as working throughout the centuries to apply 'abolute principles' of Scripture that defined "the equality of men before God, the lawfulness of wages, the unity and the brotherhood of the human race," the duties of mutual love to neighbors and the Golden Rule. Cochin put into the present tense what he claimed the leaders of the Catholic Church had always done: "Occupied moreover, before everything the enfranchisement of souls, they seek to make of the master and the slave, two brethren on earth, and of these brethren, two saints in heaven. To those who suffer they say 'Wait!' to those who inflict suffering, 'Tremble!'"
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experimenthas numerous authors who are profiled here [17] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [18] p. 446, "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer." "
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here [19] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [20] p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."
• Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once."

It is difficult for me to understand why some editors want to eliminate representation of these serious facts regarding cultural influences of the Catholic Church. It is nice to note that other religions and denominations have also had cultural influences but the article is not about those other religions and denominations, it is about the Catholic Church. What is POV about this? The article never passes judgement saying any practice was bad or good, it just notes the practice that scholars say was changed by the influence of the Church. Obviously, a great many sources make note of this significant fact and we should not be asked to hide it. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add some more info from the last FAC that supports this cultural influences section: "Some excerpts from Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church which has been a university textbook for decades. Regarding the Church impact upon Medieval culture and society he writes:

"Bishops, priests, monks, friars, nuns, they were by and large the most educated, the most cultivated, and the most respected members of medieval society during the period of the Church's ascendency, and they constituted a much larger percentage of the population than they do today. Their large numbers enabled the Church to dedicate itself to a wide range of social services, constituting a kind of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Church's care for the unfortunates was concentrated in its hospitals, which at the time were not restricted to care for the sick but ministered to all kinds of needy persons."

"In comparison with the Eastern Christians, whose stand against war was generally consistent, Western Christendom appears much less enlightened. The barbarian invasions and the conditions of feudal society made war a constant fact of life; ecclesiastics tried to channel this bellicose energy for the Church's own purposes. Holy war in the service of the Church was regarded as permissible and even desirable. Popes even led armies into battle and ranked the victims of a holy war as martyrs....A series of Church councils followed in France, which prescribed oaths to be taken by the nobility to limit their war-making propensities."

"There is no doubt, however, that the Crusades contributed much to the developements of the time: the rise of commerce and towns, the growing sense of nationality, the expansion of intellectual horizons, and the increase in the prestige of the papacy. But in none of these instances was the influence decisive. The taste for Eastern spices, silk, and metalware, for instance, was already stimulated by a trade that was growing independently of the Crusades; the crusaders' effect on the rise of commerce was not as crucial as is sometimes supported. Probably their most important effect was to retard the Turkish advance into the Balkans for three hundred years."

"As we can see from this brief survey, the Church's impact on medieval society was profound. In every department of life one found the Church present. Under the leadership of the Popes, the priests, monks, friars, and nuns who were the spiritual elite of medieval society labored steadily to instill faith in the illiterate masses, to give them at least a glimpse of truth and goodness beyond the grim facts of their narrowly circumscribed lives. ....And one can agree with the conclusion of a recent study by Francis Oakley, '...For whatever its barbarisms, its corruptions, its malformations, whatever its evasions and dishonesties, in the medieval church men and women still contrived, it would seem, to encounter the Gospel."

In that last paragraph, Bokenkotter is quoting Francis Oakley from his book The Medieval Experience, Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity published by University of Toronto Press. The actual quote and book are here [21] as you can see, the full statement Francis Oakley is making is that the Medieval Experience profoundly shaped our modern Western culture and the Church was the main driving force. NancyHeise ^talk 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no objection in principle from me in having a "Cultural Influence" section, it is the content and presentation that is of concern. I do however lean towards integrating much of the material into the main article text in an historical context, e.g the patronage of music and art set within it's socio-political period - what was in the air so to speak. Now all the material you have copied here I think gets to the heart of the matter: synthesis, interpolation and lack of balance. Please note that the text pasted at the beginning of this section is from the time when the article was a featured candidate, and the differences to the current text. Unless I'm missing something none of these sources indicate, the way the article now does, that the Church was always against slavery - it's much more complex. According to Saint Augustine the Church followed the Roman way in marriage, i.e monogamy, whereas the article suggests otherwise. Also the issue of human sacrifice is dealt with too simplistically and to the average reader seems to demonize people without giving the context of such deeds and how they relate to the concept of human sacrifice in, for example, Christianity. Also little things added like "Roman Empire" suggests that Romans in the Christian era condoned such a thing. Taam (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The most significant and notable facts are included per the Church and slavery in the history section. The cultural influences section is accurate and not misleading, it never says that the church was always against slavery, it says what the scholars say, that popes, religiuos and laymen were leaders in the campaigns against slavery and that church influence was a key ingredient that eventually ended the practice. I have difficulty working with you because you are asking us to omit these facts and insert minutia. Also please provide a link to the source supporting your assertion that the Church followed the Roman way in marriage. I have already provided the sources that say otherwise above. NancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed mention Dum Diversas but what you have to remember is that in a very long article such as this people read sections and one of the problems of having a "Cultural Influence" set apart from the rest of the text is that it is prone to loading one way or other pov. In this case such a summary section has to be subject to very careful editing when it's trying to give an overview. At present it doesn't succeed. Just another point to note on balance. The article states the following:

"When some Europeans questioned whether the Indians were truly human and worthy of baptism, Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus confirmed that "their souls were as immortal as those of Europeans" and they should neither be robbed nor turned into slaves."

Now if you go to that articles page Sublimis Deus you will see how the executing brief for the bull was withdrawn the next year by the Pope and this is not a trivial omission. Paul III also repealed laws that allowed slaves to go free, see his article. Popes also owned slaves, see articles for the 15th century Popes: Pope Martin V, Innocent VIII. I suggest we delete the synthesis and interpolated material at the beginning and make it into distinct sentences or paragraphs that are good approximations of what the individual source says so that we can add wherever needed any required counterview. So I'm not suggesting deleting good solid info that is supported by scholarly work but only to clearly identify the source, the issue, and if needs be add alternate scholarly opinion. Taam (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed one of your points regarding monogamy and the Church following the Roman way. On doing a quick google search Augustine is quoted by a R.C scholar[22] as follows:"Now indeed in our time and in keeping with Roman custom," says Augustine, "it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife". Unfortunately its only a snippet view at this link.[23] If you want to check out monogamy then I suggest doing a google book search for the term along with "Ancient Rome" and hopefully that should give you plenty of scholarly refs.Taam (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your approach to slavery is unacademic. I say this because the scholars do not treat it that way, our aritcle emulates information by the prominence it receives from the scholarly sources. None of them note the information you are taking from Wikipedia pages that have not been checked for sources. The fact that popes may have owned slaves is irrelevent to the paragraph in the article on the history of the New World. If you want to insert a fact stating the some popes may have owned slaves, you may want to insert the fact that slavery was practiced everywhere and by everyone except Christian Europe, a Europe that was Christianized by the Catholic Church, a Christian Europe which was the driving force in eventually eliminating the practice worldwide. That would be representative information but you want us to magnify unsourced statements from Wikipedia pages or from sources that have been denounced in the academic community as unreliable. None of the sources we have used in the article have received bad reviews by any academic journal, please do not ask me to use such sources as they invite charges of WP:NPOV violations. Please also note that the Catholic historians you have objected to are those whose books have zero bad reviews and are the most oft cited on google scholar and/or most often used by universities as textbooks - meeting the highest standards suggested by WP:reliable source examplesNancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the executive brief of "Sublimus Dei" being annulled the following year please see this link to a Jesuit scholar work[24] (p. 86 & 91) basically it removed the penalties for those who did not follow the teaching that this article states regarding "Sublimus Dei". For a ref to Pope Innocent VIII owning slaves see Rodney Stark book (who you already use as a top notch academic source) "For the glory of God", p. 330, Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 0691114366. Incidentally it's extremely odd that Stark lists the anti-slavery papal texts and criticizes Protestant historians for not highlighting in the past Sublimus Dei yet he then goes on to ignore the pro-slavery texts as well as omitting to mention the doubts raised by other scholars over SD's status. As for Pope Martin owning slaves you can try google books but using the cite in the article it traces to V. B Thompson[25] and his book "The Making of the African Diaspora in the Americas 1440-1900", Longmans, p. 78, ISBN 0582642388. The point of the Pope owning slaves and also the mention of bulls relating to slavery was for your benefit to show that what was in the cultural influence section was too simplistic-idealistic and encouragement to revise it. Taam (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Slavery question

I just want to add this quote from Professor Edward Norman's The Roman Catholic Church regarding slavery which we have omitted from the article as yet. I am not sure I want it omitted. From page 67 "Today, a markedly uncritical attitude to Moorish Spain seems prevalent. It derives, however, almost wholly from artistic and cultural judgement. The political and social arrangements of the Moors are generally ignored by the modern enthusiasts, for Moorish Spain comprised a series of autocracies which completely failed to develop anything like the representative institutions, the judicial system, or the concepts of individual liberty that evolved in medieval Europe. It was, additionally, a slave society, with a slave economy. All those placid courtyards and sparkling fountains, that poetry and art, rested upon the existence of one of the largest slave populations the world has ever seen. In the absence of any doctrine of individual rights, the slaves of the Moors were also subject to infelicitous indignities: at the court of Cordova in the tenth century, at the very height of that great city's most astonishing artistic accomplishments, the Emir maintained a palace harem of 6000 women and 13,000 young boys. It is not surprising that Spanish Christians found Moorish moral standards defective, nor that they should have sought what is now termed as regime change."

As per the quote above, I think what makes the article currently anti-Catholic POV is the omission of what life was like for people before the Church came along. The Cultural influences section devotes a couple of sentences to offset that omission in the most mundane and humble way. I am not going to be in favor of eliminating this completely as it will make the article represent a completely anti-Catholic POV. WP:NPOV invites us to list both accomplishments and failures. These are currently both represented, please do not ask us to eliminate the accomplishments. NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, anyone who wants to improve the article is now "anti-catholic", with every respect I cannot begin to imagine how you could in truth assert this looking at the current state of the article. If you want to really extend this section to give a broad and balanced survey of cultural influence then we can cover also the burning of heretics, the suppression of paganism etc. which I think should be treated.Taam (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not call anyone anti Catholic, I called the article semi anti-Catholic POV because it condenses, I think too much, the accomplishments of the Church in Cultural Influences section. Burning of heretics and suppression of paganism are covered. See Inquisitions section which is also wikilinked with a main link to Criticism of the Catholic Church. Suppression of paganism is not called suppression because scholars do not call it that either, that is what anti-Catholic propaganda calls it. We would have used the term too if scholars had done so. NancyHeise ^talk 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The anti-catholic or anti-christian talk has cropped up before and it seems to be like a hint to editors to keep away who are only seeking accuracy and balance. For suppression of paganism see "Decline and fall of the Roman city", John Hugo Wolfgang, Gideon Liebeschuetz, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 143, ISBN 0199261091. Ramsay MacMullen in "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries" Yale University Press, ISBN 0300080778 - the whole book treats this subject from the opening chapter "Persecution" through to "assimilation". The Jesuit scholar Cardinal Avery Dulles also uses the term.[26] There are other books I can give you that describe how that which could not be suppressed was "assimilated". If you are interested in the interplay between the Church and the State then "Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance", H. A Drake, John Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-7104-2. I don't understand how you can say such material is anti-catholic. It seems the definition you apply is "if does not conform to my perfect ideal of the Church" it's anti-catholic propaganda. Maybe my eyes are too weary but could you paste here the passage that you feel deals with "suppression of paganism" when the Church came to power and also the section dealing with the suppression of non-conforming Church's. Taam (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A sort of related point is the apparent desire to exculpate the Church from the excesses of the Inquisition by asserting that the Church executed very few people because it was, in fact, the civil authorities who performed the executions after the Church had turned over the accused to them. There seems to be a desire in this article to attribute to the Church the positive actions that it has been associated with while attributing to the civil authorities and others not representing the Church proper those negative actions that some might wish to blame it for. It is certainly not black-and-white. The Church is not guilty of all that it has been blamed for but neither is it completely innocent. The Church has accomplished good things but with some qualification. I would like to see a more balanced treatment that neither vilifies nor glorifies the Church. --Richard (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Church (Popes & ecumenical councils) authorized the execution of heretics by burning at the stake & the torture of people to get them to confess, & its procedures presumed people guilty until proven innocent. I can give you citations from the New Catholic Encyclopedia for all this if you wnt. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, you sum up succinctly my own thoughts. Peter, please bring forth such material so we can introduce balance to the article. Taam (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. Your idea of "balance" seems to be skewed. Nancy was saying that this article could be considered anti-catholic if it did not portray a fully balanced viewpoint. Yet Taam and some others object to certain historians and views as "pro-Catholic", and hence unreliable. However they simultaneously object to other editors stating that certain historians can be demonstrably anti-Catholic in their outlook. This is an illogical position to hold. It is almost as if I were to say that we cannot trust any history of the USA written by an American citizen, and that the only reliable sources for US history are those written by non-Americans, including Soviet and Arab fundamentalist sources.

I don't know how you could reach this conclusion if you had carefully read what has been written. It seems more like an attempted provocation in the absence of reasoned discourse. The section is/was highly misleading through synthesis, interpolation and lack of balance - this is a hazard when creating a section in which contrary views have to be shown. As another editor hinted, it seemed to be an idealization of the Church battling and triumphing over all these evil people. My concerns remain, i.e the section should be broken up into distinct fragments with the scholarly source cited with each clip so that if there is an alternative scholarly opinion it can be inserted to provide balance. Taam (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, the article doesn't actually use the inquisition "defence" that you suggest it does. The argument that the Church executed no-one because the convicted were handed over to the secular authorities, (who executed them under civil law,) is sometimes made, but doesn't actually appear in this article. This article does state, however, that organisations like the Spanish Inquisition were not run by the Church but set up and controlled by secular rulers, who used them to impose their own policies. This is acknowledged fact, and needs to appear in any discussion of the "inquisitions".

Peter jackson, your statement above presents certain facts and claims, but presents them crudely and in the lack of their proper context. Making bald statements like that is therefore a negative form of POV. "Guilty until proven innocent" is to my mind a serious twisting of the forms of inquisitorial justice developed in both civil and religious cases in the 12th-13th century. These forms replaced trial by ordeal, and developed to form the basis of most European judicial systems today. Talk of torture and burning again spreads more heat than light unless the context and detail of these things are presented. It is a bit like saying the Allies attacked Normandy in 1944 killing huge numbers of people, without explaining what led up to it. In the case of execution of persistent and radical heretics, most states (Catholic, non-Catholic and non-Christian) considered it a necessity to prevent civil strife and foreign intervention. These are all facts that need to be included to present a proper rather than a caricatured or propagandistic picture. Xandar 11:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

‘Talk of torture and burning again spreads more heat than light’. And not just' the talk, various witches and heretics may well have noted. Still, a joke’s a joke and a rare and a good thing on this page. Thank you for making my day brighter. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask Richard, Peter Jackson and Taam to include statements from reliable scholarly sources that support the assertions they want to see in the article. It has happened in the past that we are charged with POV for simply relaying information as presented by scholars. People read it and are surprised because it doesnt fit their personal view of the Church, a view which may have been formed by "pop" history books by authors denounced by the major academic journals. I have had to provide from time to time, links to these reviews in order to vet out the pop history and stick to the actual academic history. The statments made about the inquisitions in the article are from actual academic sources. The sources also make mention of excessive Protestant propaganda that for hundreds of years exaggerated the abuses of the inquisitions in order to demonize the Catholic Church. Please be careful when you request information to be included and check your sources to make sure they are not pop history. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me first make clear that I'm not saying anything about what I "want to see in the article". I don't edit articles or directly advocate or oppose edits. I merely make comments, which may of course tend to support or oppose edits that others have made or suggested, or may even make suggestions myself, without actually advocating them. If there's any sort of vote, I won't take part. Now, to respond to Taam's request, I'll give the citations from NCE. Note that there's an old, common-sense rule of evidence that admissions people make against themselves are particularly worthy of credence. Thus admissions against the Church in Catholic sources are ipso facto reliable. The excuses offered in the same sources would look better if backed up by non-Catholic sources. The quotations here are from the 2nd edition.

vol 14, page 118: "In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture ...

He was not ... presumed innocent until convicted. ... on the contrary, a credible accusation established a presumption of guilt.""

vol 3, page 86: "In 1184 Pope Lucius III issued the decretal Ad abolendam ... that opened the way for the use of capital punishment as the standard remedy for dealing with realcitrant heretics ..."

page 87: "... Canon 3 of the Fourth LATERAN COUNCIL in 1215, endorsing as official policy henceforth that heretics were to be handed over to the secular power for punishment ... Sixteen years later, Pope Gregory IX in his constitution, Excommunicamus (1231) incorporated into canon law the 1224 imperial constitution of Frederick II, including burning at the stake by the secular arm as the appropriate punishment for a recalcitrant heretic.

vol 7, page 487: 2nd Lateran Council required secular rulers to prosecute heresy

page 488: Ad extirpanda authorized secular courts in Italy to torture people into confessing to heresy

Those snippets and part-sentences are of no practical use, since there is no context whatsoever. This is going back to "...the allies invaded Normandy in 1944, killing many tens of thousands of innocent people..." WIthout the context such a snippet is useless as a source. Xandar 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that policy is to understand things in context. Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the statements themselves. Most of them are straightforward factual statements about Church documents & can be easily verified. I'll leave it to others to argue amongst themselves about how to contextualize this in the article itself. I might also ask how much context has been quoted for anything else said in the article.

Now, having responded to Taam's request for citations, I'll return to the official topic of the section, slavery.

Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery, 1998, volume 1, page 190: "... in Spain in 1823, the authorities had put on the Index a theological handbook for confessors that condemned slavery.

page 191: "... Leo XIII, became the first pontiff to publicly condemn not only slave trading but the institution itself, in his encyclical Catholica Ecclesia (1890)."

A Historical Guide to World Slavery, ed Seymour Drescher & Stanlet L. Engerman, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 152: "The Roman Catholic church's influence served to ameliorate the treatment of those African slaves, although apparently not as much as historians once believed."

Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add the observation of the Jesuit scholar Avery Dulles "No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources."[27] The second sentence seems reasonable to me in that if a Pope did issue a blanket condemnation of slavery, because it was intrinsically evil, then it means contradicting the words of other Popes. The third sentence is more problematic because of the 15th century Papal bulls which sanction the overthrow and enslavement of peoples and these are not mentioned in the article. Taam (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)