Talk:Catholic theology of sexuality

Outline

I got the idea for this page here. I sketched an outline with headings so that the topic could be treated somewhat systematically and comprehensively, and have slowly been filling it in when I have time. That is to say, the headings with no body are not a list but a work-in-progress, and an invitation to edit. The.helping.people.tick 05:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

List of removed, empty sections

I removed these empty sections because... they were empty! Here is a list of the removed sections. If someone wants to expand this article, these could be used as suggestions.

• Marriage
  • Fidelity
• Adultery
  • Polygamy
• Prostitution
• Rape
• Homosexuality
  • Homosexuality and marriage
• Contraception (though this already has a section in Christian views on contraception)
• Approaches to Catholic teaching on sexual morality
  • Thomism
  • Personalism
  • Revisionism
  • Proportionalism/Consequentialism
• Criticism of the Catholic teaching
  • By Catholics
  • By non-Catholics

-- Photouploaded (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine for now. I had grand plans for filling this out quickly, but real life happens. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Photouploaded (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Condom use:

I have significantly added the discussion of condom use and a number of references, but it would be helpful if someone could find some better references than I have on the 'culture of life' discussions and how it relates to condom use vs birth control. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The last 2 lines of my comment : "Along the same lines is the consideration that condoms, as opposed to many forms of birth control, prevent conception. Conception, being a potential human life, can be viewed differently than devices such as IUD or the morning after pill that prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum." This doesn't tie in well with the rest of the paragraph above, but someone might be able to make use of it by tying it better and referencing it better. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, the Church is NOT reviewing in stance on condoms, which amount at adultery according to the CODE. Also, even exceptional sex within marriage is accordingly contrary to natural law and procreation, per Casti Connubi. ADM (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference between types of contraception

There are two articles, here, and the related christian views on contraception that have space for an analysis of the exact differences between types of contraception. Would this article or the other one be a better place for that, do you think? HatlessAtless (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which differences you are referring to. In this article, I think it needs a section distinguishing natural family planning from contraception (NFP is birth control/family planning, but not contraception). In the general article on Christian views, is this section the kind of thing you had in mind? Lyrl^Talk _C 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted text

There are a number of quotations here from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition" ISBN-13: 978-0385508193, which is a copyrighted work. I have added some of the references, other editors preceded that with quotes from that source. After reviewing the Wikipedia policy on copyrighted material and fair use it is my personal opinion that these quotations are very small in the context of the Catechism, and each used to illustrate a specific and necessary point. No one of those citations is, in my opinion, an excessively long excerpt. More to the point, the Copyright law in the United States (the jurisdiction applicable to Wikipedia) specifically, by law, allows use of copyrighted material within fair use restrictions. These quotes do fall within the scope of that fair use.

Quoting Copyrighted Material

"Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." U.S. Copyright Office

I assert that these quotes are for the purpose of commentary, criticism, and scholarly use within the Encyclopedia called Wikipedia. Wikipedia is considered to be a scholarly pursuit.

My four factor analysis of this use follows:

1) Purpose and character of the use:

• • "Statutory uses, criticism, comment, and/or news reporting"
  • Non-Commerial use, not for profit.
  • Author is properly attributed.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work

• • The copyrighted work is published, and is factual in nature. It is non-consumable.

3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used

• • Small excerpt, extract or clip.
  • only a small portion needed for favored purpose, not the entire work, nor the portion used as the "heart of the work".

4) Effect on the potential market for or value of the work

• • "Use stimulates market for original work, no impact on market"
  • "No licensing/permission mechanism in place"
  • Does not impair the market for the original work.

Based on these criteria, It is my opinion that use in this article within Wikipedia in the limited scope it has been used is within fair use of the U.S. copyright law.

Atom (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect your view, although I think you may be vulnerable. I faced a similar problem, when I wrote about papal encycliclas, which is not possible without looking at papal encyclicals. With the writings of Pius XII, I had no copyright problems, because they and earlier ones are exempted from Vatican policy under the 50 year rule. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is far from the kind of long blocks of quoting that would be suspect as non-fair use. Also, in this particular case the publisher has chosen to make the entire copyrighted work freely available on the internet. Because there is no issue of readers reading something here they would otherwise pay for, as long as it is attributed properly, I can't imagine any claim of copyright infringement even with much more extensive quoting. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Condoms

The text said:

Unlike drugs and surgical procedures, however, the current consensus is that any use of a condom is morally contraceptive and thus a sin.

This is obviously false, because none of the many alternative uses named in Condom#Other_uses could be considered "contraceptive". So I've adjusted the wording to indicate that it's sexual uses of condoms, not these odd uses, that are at issue -- and now I wonder:

Do we have a source that says that using a condom during an inherently sterile sexual act is "morally contraceptive"? Surely there are no sources that assert that using a condom in anal intercourse between two men is immoral because the condom prevents the men from getting pregnant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that, in the view of the Church, considerations of propriety and decorum would suggest using something else for "odd" non-prophylactic purposes. Issues of "scandal", or drawing others into the snares of sin, might be presented (CCC 2284), although I'm not aware of any written teaching speaking to this specific matter. As for your last point, the Church teaches that any sexual activity not consecrated through the sacrament of marriage is immoral. They consider only heterosexual marriages to be valid, considerations of civil law notwithstanding. Fornication or adultery is an issue of such grave importance to them that it takes on considerably larger dimensions than whether a prophylactic device is employed in the act. Teachings regarding the prohibition of contraception apply primarily to heterosexual married couples, because it is only in the marital context that they would even countenance the possibility of sexual activity being morally acceptable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To explain this a bit further, the Church claims that sexuality should have procreative possibilities. This is necessarily incompatible with any deliberately sterile acts, whether the sterility arises from the gender of the partners, pharmaceutical contraception, or a physical device. Any of these would be considered unnatural. Family size can certainly be controlled, but should involve voluntary chastity and self-restraint by the spouses, in order to prove the wholesomeness of their intentions. The Church is particularly concerned that marriage involve an actual human relationship, commitment, and love; that the institution should not devolve into a form of long-term, legalized prostitution. The Church also sees married heterosexual partners claiming an unlimited right to sexual indulgence, while denying this pleasure to masturbators, fornicators and LGBT individuals as inherently untenable. They will not preach a self-control and self-restraint that they refuse to practice. One justification for the celibate priesthood would be so the priest will have moral authority when he needs to recommend complete abstinence in particular cases, since he himself practices the same chastity. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Frivolous tagging (moved here from personal talk page)

Please stop your frivolous tagging of sentences that already have citations. We could be improving the article, but instead we're cleaning up after you because you can't see something that's right in front of you. I've told you this before: if you lack basic competence, don't edit articles on contentious subjects. Quit it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is, of course, not at all frivolous to delete the tag with an edit summary, "it's not like there's a citation right there in the sentence or anything". The only citation within the sentence, an earlier part, is from a book of 1976, which may be a good source for the immediate effect of a book published just four years before, but it is questionable whether it is a reliable source for the view of "most modern Catholic theologians" now. I think this requires a better source. Courteous Roscelese thinks it does not. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Two questions: Have you heard of sarcasm? Do you know what the word "modern" means? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the courteous Roscelese (sarcasm, of course) maintains that a 1976 book proves that, ever since a "revolutionary" 1972 study, most modern Catholic theologians have adopted a certain attitude. How could an "incompetent" person like me (sarcasm, of course) possibly gainsay her? Esoglou (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

After a pause that seemed advisable in view of the ridiculousness of the above, the incompetent person has looked again at this article and begs leave to ask how can a study commissioned in 1972 and published (according to the article) in 1976 (but in 1977 according to reliable sources) be itself reasonably cited as a reliable source concerning the effects of that same study on the views of "most modern Catholic theologians". Here is a list of references to the study as published in 1977. Perhaps Roscelese will find among them some more reasonable source for her claim about the effect of that study on "most modern Catholic theologians". Esoglou (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about the study's effects? I ask again: do you know what the word "modern" means? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind quibbles about "since" and "effects" or what the incompetent person knows or does not know. Just cite some valid reliable source - any one - for your claim that "since" publication of the 1977 study most modern Catholic theologians hold that an act of masturbation should be judged within its life context (whatever this phrase means). It should be obvious to someone who is not herself an incompetent person that the 1977 study says nothing about what has happened since its publication! Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply read the statement as indicating the content of the report, which was edited by a committee of theologians, not its effects. The user who added the material is still active, so I will ask her. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am confident that the other editor does not imagine that a 1977 publication is a reliable source for a statement about the situation since 1977. Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you say that you mistook the questioned claim about the post-1977 situation for a statement about the content of the 1977 book, may the unsourced claim about the situation since that book was published now be deleted? The other editor, though minimally active, has chosen not to answer your query about a matter somewhat different from finding a reliable source to support the claim. Esoglou (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment begs the question - you haven't exactly proven (or tried to prove) that it's a claim about the situation after 1977. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems that we must get back to basic understanding of the English language that we are using. Would you please be so good as to explain how "since a revolutionary study commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1972 and published in 1976" (1976 is a mistake for 1977) can be taken to mean something other than "since 1976 (recte 1977)" - i.e. in the period from then until now? You are aware, aren't you, that the questioned claim is that "since a revolutionary study commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America in 1972 and published in 1976, most modern Catholic theologians hold that an act of masturbation should be judged within its life context"? This sourceless claim (which seems to clash with what Charles E. Curran says about the time period following publication of the study, but I leave that aside) states neither that the view it attributes to most modern Catholic theologians since then is a break with the past nor that it is more or less identical with the previous prevailing view: it only speaks of the situation since then. Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TLDR. Ignoring your concerns over the grammar, I went looking at more sources on the study, since we can't actually access that source and find out if it does say that the study showed that most Catholic theologians thought such and such a thing. From what I've found, it seems as though the meaning was indeed that the study showed that [American] theologians thought it (cf. [[1] this source], re: the influence and widespread nature of dissent - and Curran in this source pointing out that most theologians were in this camp [2]). From the same sources, it also looks as though it would be better not to confine the mention of the study to one section, but rather to mention it in a broader context. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone of your intelligence should surely be able to distinguish grammar from meaning, and to understand that the disputed claim in the article is not about what most Catholic theologians "thought" in 1977 (and/or before 1977), but what most of them think "since" 1977, i.e. the period beginning in 1977 and continuing to the present day. Because you produce no reliable source to support the claim about the 1977-2013 period, I will remove the claim. With thanks for the amusement provided since 29 May.

Indeed, as you yourself seem to agree that the mention of the much more wide-ranging Kosnik book does not belong under "masturbation" alone, I will delete the whole paragraph about it. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catholic teachings on sexual morality. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catholic theology of sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905223156/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html to http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/contraception-early-church-teaching.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xI2Wz6n5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpaul_vi%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven

@Alanzain: I can't view the source, but "according to her, those texts does not indicate that conceiving children is excluded in marriage" sounds super questionable to me. Why would she be expected to say that conceiving children was excluded in marriage? Were people at this time expecting marriages to be childless? It just sounds like it could be original research to me, extrapolating from things she didn't say rather than from things she said. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Alanzain and Roscelese: The whole section based on Ranke-Heinemann's book seems deeply problematic in this article. For one, the author is not Catholic; or at least is heterodox in regards to core tenets of Church teaching, per her WP article; why would a heterodox author be cited at all in an article that only seeks to explain (not defend) orthodox Church teaching? Here are some of the specific problems with this section:

• "Although all three principal discussions of marriage in the New Testament omit any mention of generating children..." There are several problems here:

1. "all three principal discussions" is a judgment call and an arbitrary division. The New Testament certainly speaks supportively of having children, and it speaks of children as coming from marriage: Titus 2:4, 1 Timothy 5:14, for example.
2. "New Testament" is also an arbitrary division. Catholics do not regard the NT as throwing out or trampling on the OT, but as completing the OT. I trust I don't need to dig up chapter-and-verse OT citations that speak of children as coming from marriage.
3. Finally, the statement simply isn't true except with an extremely narrow reading. Within the three chapters mentioned, we find Matthew 19:5 "the two shall become one flesh" (some theologians read that 'one flesh' as the child that results from sex); we also find 1 Corinthians 7:14 "otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy"—given the context, St. Paul is clearly assuming that children naturally flow forth from marriage.

• "later Catholic moral doctrine consistently emphasized that the only proper purpose of sexual relations was to conceive children" — This is simply not true. The modern formulation of dual "unitive and procreative" ends of marriage (and therefore of the marital act) has evolved slowly over the centuries; it's not a modern innovation. St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, doesn't exactly use these words, but the idea seems basically there from reading his discussions of marriage, divorce, chastity, etc.

• The long discussion of periodic abstinence during times of fasting, menstruating, breastfeeding, etc. is historically interesting and seems like good content, but given the prior points I hope it's abundantly clear that Ranke-Heinemann is not a credible source for factual claims about Church history. For instance, in the claim that "Pope Gregory I decreed abstinence should continue until a baby was weaned." In 30 minutes researching, I've been unable to find a source for that in any of Gregory's writings. Even assuming it's true, it's much more likely that what he meant was that people "should" remain abstinent during a period of infertility in the same way that Paul mentioned virgins "should" never marry: not that it's morally binding, but that abstinence and celibacy are considered higher callings. There's a big, big difference in Catholic teaching between an exhortation and a Law. Catholic things (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're prioritizing your personal interpretation of primary sources over reliable secondary scholarship. Do you have sources of similar quality that critique Ranke-Heinemann (who, incidentally, is in fact a Catholic), or is this just your personal opinion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any orthodox Catholic scholars who have dignified Ranke-Heinemann's invented Church history with a detailed response. I'll keep looking. Meanwhile, there are plenty of better secondary sources—I'll dig some up—and in some places the Bible is so clear that no secondary source is needed. For instance, Ranke-Heinemann says that 1 Corinthians 7 "omits any mention of generating children" while 1 Corinthian 7:14 in fact says "otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." It takes no other secondary scholar to see that Ranke-Heinemann is simply wrong on that point. This is not original research; it's just plain reading. That said, I'll spend some time compiling better secondary sources that represent the majority interpretation and add those here later. Catholic things (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Need citations for recent changes

@Tjpolega: I've rolled back your recent changes because you did not cite sources - please add reliable sources that make the points that you are trying to add if you re-add the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thia roll back is utterly unwarranted. Your complaint is about a lack of citations and yet you revised massive parts that absolutely did have citations. Please refrain from retracting cited material and address the talk section prior to massive changes if you disagree on the points Tjpolega (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have complaints about specific sections please reach a consensus about what specific sections you have a problem withTjpolega (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not force me to report you as I do not wish to do that. I prefer we work out any legitimate issues together. After all that is the spirit of wiki.Tjpolega (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Chill, yo. Most of your content was completely uncited, and the Guttmacher paragraph was irrelevant to the article, which is specifically about the church's teachings on sexuality, not on Catholics and abortion more generally. I do not think you would have much success if you attempted to "report" me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Guttmacher report is very relevant to Church teaching and is cited. If you have specific issues with any statements please let me know. Tjpolega (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I recommend especially on such an under developed page like this if you feel there exists counter factuals and or content that is lacking to add information to the page and not delete information. I personally would appreciate more information on this page as it needs a great deal of work. Tjpolega (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lastly if you feel uncited statements are inaccurate please use cited information that indicates they are false. Tjpolega (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You must cite reliable sources and refrain from original research. You are incorrect in thinking that people must proactively prove your uncited claims wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know what specifically you have an issue with and we can discuss them and if I need additional citations I am glad to provide them. Tjpolega (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tjpolega: You must add reliable sources relevant to the topic for all of your recent additions. This is the answer to your question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I can appreciate this concern and will make sure all new additions have them. My most recent edits have been highly sourced and appreciate you not reverting them because of that. I am always happy to work with other editors to make wiki better. Tjpolega (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Your most recent edits are among the edits that have this problem. You are not listening. It is not the case that anyone else must prove your additions false in order to remove them. You must add sources that comply with Wikipedia policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

curprev 18:26, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ m 54,536 bytes +1‎ →‎Scripture undo

curprev 18:26, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 54,535 bytes +462‎ →‎Scripture undo

curprev 18:13, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 54,073 bytes +399‎ No edit summaryundo

curprev 17:38, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 53,674 bytes +79‎ →‎Magisterium since 1930 undo

curprev 17:36, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 53,595 bytes +802‎ →‎Early modern theology undo

curprev 16:57, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 52,793 bytes +4,698‎ Reversed edit with full citations undo

curprev 16:31, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ m 51,928 bytes +3,833‎ →‎Sins undo Tag: Reverted

curprev 16:11, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 48,095 bytes +454‎ No edit summaryundo

curprev 16:08, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 47,641 bytes +322‎ →‎Marriage undo

curprev 16:04, 21 May 2022‎ Tjpolega talk contribs‎ 47,319 bytes +2,487‎ →‎Dissent undo

Could you be specific on which of these you are talking about?

As Hiddsig has reverted all of my edits since May 19th in his mass deletion. These are the only existing edits on the page.

Catholic theology of sexuality‎ 15:30 −8,834‎ ‎Hiddsig talk contribs‎ (you must get agreement for your disputed changes) Tag: Manual revert Tjpolega (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletions are not warranted on an underdeveloped wiki page unless explicitly false Tjpolega (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent mass deletions

Hiddsig Your recent mass deletions are both totally unexplained and completely unwarranted. This is especially true as all your deletions are highly biased and inappropriate especially for such and undeveloped page like this. If you have specific issues with any of these sections you have deleted please state and explain them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpolega (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Roscelese already gave reasons for removing your additions. I happen to agree with them. Hiddsig (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If your concern is about a lack of certain citations you feel are needed please be specific on each statement. Likewise many of your deletions were well cited and therefore where unwarranted. Tjpolega (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Bogus claim on contraception usage

The article seems to reproduce the Guttmacher Institute's claim that 98% of Catholic women who are sexually active have used a form of contraception other than Natural Family Planning in the US. However, this claim was already debunked by The Washington Post in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-98-percent-of-catholic-women-use-contraception-a-media-foul/2012/02/16/gIQAkPeqIR_blog.html

I think we should be carefull when we reproduce such claims from a politicaly biased source such as Guttmacher, and include The Washington Post's article as a counterpoint for that claim.--Potatín5 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced additions have been removed

@Tjpolega's additions from May have been removed. They were poorly-sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources such as Catechism and Sacred Scripture, which are not appropriate for an article requiring analysis and solid WP:SECONDARY sources. Passages citing only a Bible verse are, more or less, original research. We can do better than that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are specific objections to any additions please state them and address you particular concerns prior to making mass deletions on wiki. I will report this behavior if you continue. Tjpolega (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese had some keenly described objections; let's start there because it involves exactly the same material. Since you've chosen to restore it en masse, I've tagged the article appropriately. Elizium23 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have addressed all of Roscelese's issues. Unless you have some of your own you need to remove the flag from the article Tjpolega (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As I've already outlined, my specific objections are to your use of WP:PRIMARY sources, which include the Catechism, papal encyclicals, USCCB publications, and Bible verses directly cited with no analysis. You can't use these sources like that in the article. Furthermore, I am not sure what "behavior" you intend to "report" but much like @Roscelese, I feel like I am not doing anything wrong except pointing out deficiencies in your proposed additions to the article. If you so choose to report such behavior, then have at it already. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not specific. Again please point to the exact words, sentences, paragraphs, and primary sources you object to. I will happily address and issues you have and fix anything that is in need of updating Tjpolega (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)