Jump to content

Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Excommunication

If I were Pope I would excommunicate the lot. Chooserr 08:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is some evidence any member is automatically excommunicated. No matter, as we're attempting NPOV, but I agree with you completely. JG of Borg 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Most aren't Catholic to begin with, can't excommunicate non-Catholics. -- Jbamb 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Even those that are, are probably already excommunicated, per CCC 2272 [1] Dominick (TALK) 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I'm lately becoming a stickler for source citations. Can we get a source for the 'funded by Playboy' statement, please? --Elliskev 02:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If I had added it, I would give you one. I'll look for one in the mean-time, though. I have never heard that before, but didn't remove it because it sounds so ironic it could be true... j/k. JG of Borg 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Found one: http://dianedew.com/CFFC.htm JG of Borg 02:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The above-referenced site is very POV. While it asserts that "Catholics for a Free Choice of Washington DC" has received "thousands of dollars" from the Playboy Foundation, it does not provide any further evidence to support the assertion. Even if they have contributed to the group, it seems unfair to assert that the majority of the groups funding comes from such sources. The site does give detailed information on many of the group's major funders. Most of them appear to be reputable organizations like the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Not a pornographer or maker of contraceptives in the bunch that I could find. Therefore, I'm removing the statement from the article. TMS63112 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I cited a different source. --Elliskev 21:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide a link or specific citation here? The portion I removed referenced the St. Louis Review which I assume was for this article referenced at the bottom of the article. Again, it makes note of the other foundations being major contributors, but nothing on Playboy that I could find. TMS63112 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
End of paragraph 4. --Elliskev 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK - missed that. Essentially the same information as provided in the link above. Neither one really supports the assertion that the group is "funded primarily from the pornography industry, namely the Playboy Foundation, and other companies that make contraceptives." TMS63112 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
I've done some extensive searching and can only find secondary sources. Supposedly, the comment was made by Kissling on WRKO in Boston. It was an admission of receiving a donation from the Playboy foundation. It should probably stay out. --Elliskev 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

POV edits by 66.208.10.28

66.208.10.28 is making many POV edits... I'm just going to wait until they are done then attempt to merge them with some sort of sense of NPOV - though it's fun to sit and watch as they attempt to describe these people as "Catholic". JG of Borg 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All yours to deal with then... -- Jbamb 21:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Or rather, thank you for the reversion Jbamb. I'd like to leave it at that, but to protect from this sort of thing again, and make it longer, I'll try to take a stab later t making some sort of NPOV expansion based on those edits, though, unless they are from a copyrighted source or something. Sound good? JG of Borg 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There were a lot of "peacock words" and some POV reflected in the edits that were reverted, but also some new information that could be incorporated in a NPOV manner. Let's remember to assume good faith especially from new editors. Thanks! TMS63112 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm going to do - integrate constructively. JG of Borg 21:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See my note at User_talk:Cffc JG of Borg 22:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Advocating abortion rights and advocating abortion are two different things. I think it is important to watch that language to keep it neutral.

Vandalism

Reported on Vandalism in Progress Dominick (TALK) 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More edits by User:Cffc User talk:Cffc from domain catholicsforchoice.org (CFFC website) RV to Musical Linguist version. A lot of people saw this when I did. Dominick (TALK) 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this or isn't it copyvio? It's word-for-word from CFFC press releases. --Elliskev 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits blanking

When I reverted I added see talk because I felt the edits were made to twist a sympathetic PoV from a newly minted user. Didn't want to bite the newbie but I only thought one addition was really NPoV. I added the part I thought was important, and added a reference in criticisms to why many Catholics think this group is no longer individually or as a group Catholic. Hope this helps tell the tale a bit clearer. Dominick (TALK) 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias and POV

I find this whole page biased against the group in numerous obvious and subtle ways. Can folks attempt NPOV here? Unless Dominick recently has been named Pope, or works for the Vatican, the claims above are not just POV but deeply offensive.--Cberlet 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I added citation from Catholic journals, reliable mass media sources, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. These outline the Church's position, in many cases, the words were taken directly from the position statements of the CHurch officials. I did leave in CCC 2272 which applies. I think some of the citation requests you made helped improve the article, but some were redundant in the light of other addtions. I think you are served better by realizing we have the same goal to see this article inform the user the position of the CFFC, which the Church states is opposed to the official Church position which is stated in numerous and verifiable documents.
I don't have to be Pope, but I can repeat what the Pope makes clear. Please observe that making personal attacks is not a helpful exercise. Dominick (TALK) 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Since you are neither the Pope nor the Vatican, some of your claims on this page constitute original research, and as such do not belong in the text. You can add cites to where reputable published sources make some of these claims (and you have), but the remaining claims should be removed.--Cberlet 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope the USCCB have jurisdiction over this american activist organization and the Church's response. The Excommunication is by canon law, that is cited, and the rest of your original research citation can't be ued as an excuse to blank. These are not my claims, but are the Church's published opinion. This unique american group is entirely handled by local ordinaries in America or elsewhere. Claiming that I am saying I am the Pope is a personal attack. Cut it out. Dominick (TALK) 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, I assume you do not require me to prove my assertion that the Local Ordinary, the Bishops of Dioceses that have CFFC people operating in them fall under thier jurisdiction? It is pretty well known in canon law. Generally in north american affairs, the USCCB issues a guideline that the Bishops then certify locally. Dominick (TALK) 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You do not speak for the Catholic Church. Quote officials of the Catholic Church. Quote critics of the organization. That's OK. Your personal pronouncements, original research, and opinions have no place in this article. Cite to published material only. Your bias against this organization is palpable.--Cberlet 13:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I did, this isn't my personal view. You placed some {{fact}} tags in place. I cited and quoted official Church documents. My personal outlook can be characterized this way; if a Vegan came to me say to sell me insurance, over a breaksfast of steak and eggs, wearing a fur coat, I would wonder why he claimed was a vegan. The same thing goes here, a organization can't claim Catholicity, while supporting a outlook that carries the censure of excommunication.
Please add more "citation requests" to things you suspect are my fabrications and I can add more references. I would love to clear this up, without being called Pope anymore. Dominick (TALK) 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Add tags please

Please rather than revert, add tags where you suspct I made things up. I added some and rewrote some sections. Blanking is never a good idea. Dominick (TALK) 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite reputable published sources, and stop putting highly biased original research POV into the article, and we will clear it up quickly. Find a quote. Find a cite. That's the rules here. No cites, no quotes, I hit the delete key. One entire section I deleted was uncited original research.--Cberlet 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true, there were citations for documents and I added a few tags. The way it works here is that we work together as wikipedians, not adversarially. I asked you for citation tags, you added some before. I added a few more myself. You have the objections so I asked you to add tags. Dominick (TALK) 13:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of tags. I added more.--Cberlet 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Outstanding I will add source materials. Thank you. Dominick (TALK) 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It is getting much more accurate and NPOV. Thanks back at ya.--Cberlet 17:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thats our common goal. I need a few more documents, and I don't have a good online source for a couple. Perhaps I need to dust off the reference template... Dominick (TALK) 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Condom section

I agonized over language in that section. Often when writing about non technical topics, I worry I do not convey what I want. I think choice of words would be the major part of the problem here. Another problem I have when I am sourcing something like this is that there are few sources specific to this. Church responses address the complaint but often without mentioning the organization by name. An exception is Bishop Bruskewitz, who metioned the group in reference to the declaration that a latae sententiae excommunication is in effect. The only reason I mentioned the condom is the MSM coverage the posters got at World Youth Day. I was going to metion the claim Kissling made that "hundreds" of postcards were sent out, by the nearly 1 million participants in World Youth day. Dominick (TALK) 13:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Excommunicaton (2)

All of this additional excommunication text is nonsense. Stop inserting your biased original research exaggerations as if they are supported by cites. They are not. The claim about excommunication was already made once in the article. Repeating it a paragraph later in a different way is just bashing the organization. Try agonizing over valid cited claims backed by reputable published sources.--Cberlet 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, I even agree, the point is made once, some folk like to state things like that over and over - ad nauseum. I was trying to fix the anonymous editor's language. I agree we do not need to have every other sentence read: "the CFFC is excommunicated". There is one citation I neeed to fix, but, I have not gotten to it. The main points, IMHO, are:
  1. The CFFC supports these policies
  2. They claim to be Catholic but that is disputed
  3. They are run by Kissling
  4. They have some front/project groups
  5. The Church response to these claims
  6. They have incurred LS excommunication, which is confirmed by a Bishop. (That confirmation is universal unless reversed)
I think with your help we have citations for these important points. Dominick (TALK) 13:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

For the anomymous twister, the excommunication is declared valid by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, and unless countermanded, applied. Dominick (TALK) 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is such a thing as automatic excommunication for which no declaration by a church official is necessary. If a priest discloses what happens in confession, they are instantly excommunicated. Likewise, if a Catholic procures or helps to procure in ANY way an abortion, they are also excommunicated. (see wiki article on excommunication) So one could say that they have been excommunicated and there is no dispute about it. 208.188.113.180 (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Source of PoV twist edits

66.208.10.28 = [ router.catholicsforchoice.org ]

Dominick (TALK) 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dominick! Please stop venting your anger at this organization in your edits. It is disruptive and counterproductive.--Cberlet 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous harsh criticisms of CFFC on this entry. Adding sentences that repeat the same criticisms from the same group over and over and over must stop. This is POV warrioring. Edit constructively or do NOT edit.--Cberlet 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Citing to church doctrine and then making statements that are original research is not acceptable. The point about excommunication is already made. Please stop POV warrioring.--Cberlet 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, the same argument about excommunication does not need to be made three times on this page, and espescially not when the cites have No mention whatsoever of CFFC and are thus original research attempts to tie Catholic docrine to CFFC without actually citing a representative of the Catholic Church or a reputable third party making the claim. Totally bogus.--Cberlet 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Continued insertions of the same sentences higher up in the text is tiresome. Please read all of the text before restoring back old sentences that duplicate exisiting material.--Cberlet 14:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It is original research to claim that CFFC--a group--suffers automatic excommunication.--Cberlet 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the claim. If you can't WP:AGF maybe you should edit other articles. -- Jbamb 01:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments filed

This page is constantly being edited by highly biased and harsh critics of CFFC. It is unbalanced, POV, and contains original research. I have requested comments from outside editors.--Cberlet 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources on ipso facto excommunication for assistance with abortion: [2], [3] should be sufficient.

removing totally disputed tag without discussion violates Wikipedia--Cberlet 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't because the totallydisputed tag is totallyinnappropriate here. First off, you have made no assertion that anything is factually wrong, and I've shown that it is factually correct. You might be able to make a POV claim, but it doesn't say that CFFC is excommunicated like you assert. The question of someone being ipso facto excommunicated over abortion is relevant considering CFFC's reason to exist starts with abortion. Your reasons for claiming POV here are simply wrong. The assertions you say are being made aren't being made. If you want, you can put a pov-check tag instead, I think you're wrong, but at least it's the right tag for your dispute.-- Jbamb 14:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

<------This entire page is biased against the group, and I dispute the "facts" and the bias. Please stop removing the tag.--Cberlet 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"but the canonical penalty for procuring an abortion is automatic excommunication without a declaration." What evidence exists that the organization CFFC has ever procured an abortion for any individual. Published cites please, or it is just another biased attack on this group.--Cberlet 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Father Joseph O'Rourke, S.J., who was expelled from the Jesuits and the priesthood in 1974" This does not belong in the lead.--Cberlet 14:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"the organization has exported its opposition to Church teaching overseas" this is biased original research.--Cberlet 14:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections are much larger than description of the group and its activities.--Cberlet 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

External link to CFFC website is constantly being removed by editors hostile to CFFC.--Cberlet 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the "Mission" section is not cited to the group but to its critics.--Cberlet 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What evidence exist that ANYONE is saying that CFFC, as an organization, is automatically excommunicated? If you want to POV-check, fine, that is the right tag here. You are making no claims to facts being wrong. I'm about ready to move this straight to ArbCom to have you banned from this page because not only are you using every process you can find, violating WP:POINT, WP:AGF and misusing tags, you are attacking everyone who disagrees with you. The statement that assistance in procuring an abortion entails ipso facto excommunication is true. No other assertions have been made. -- Jbamb 15:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Facts are wrong, bias is evident. Please stop venting and engage in discussion of the points I am raising. For example, the organization is not a lobbying group, and was not founded in 1970. I corrected those totally false statements in the lead.--Cberlet 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You have just reverted the tag I placed for the fourth time, thus violating the 3RR rule. Shall I file the complaint or would you prefer to start actually discussing the factual errors and bias on this page? Your choice.--Cberlet 16:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert the page, I changed your tag. That isn't a revert, that was an attempt at compromise. By all means, file the 3RR and let someone explain it to you, and while they are at it, explain to you that you aren't succeeding in improving this article but are being disruptive. -- Jbamb 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What facts are wrong? Yes, assisting in abortion makes you excommunicated. That's fact. Do you have something else? -- Jbamb 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See above: "Facts are wrong, bias is evident. Please stop venting and engage in discussion of the points I am raising. For example, the organization is not a lobbying group, and was not founded in 1970. I corrected those totally false statements in the lead" --Cberlet 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You aren't raising points, you are making personal attacks. Those facts are corrected, is there something else? -- Jbamb 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC response

I find a number of problems with the article in the state I examined it ([4]).

  1. Names are not wikilinked. Frances Kissling, Joan Harriman and others should be at least red-links.
  2. The intro includes irrelevent information - "CFFC emerged from a lobbying group formed in the state of New York in 1970, originally named Catholics for the Elimination of All Restrictive Abortion & Contraceptive Laws.[citation needed] Critics point out that Kissling is a former administrator of several reproductive health clinics that provided abortion, and was co-founder and past executive director of the National Abortion Federation. CFFC's first president was Father Joseph O'Rourke, S.J., who was expelled from the Jesuits and the priesthood in 1974 and remained as president of CFFC until 1979.[1] The first public event held by the organization was the mock crowning of Patricia Fogarty McQuillan as "Pope Patricia" on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York to celebrate the first anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.[2]" is all body text.
  3. The link labled "16" in no way supports the pope or vatican ever writing "culture of death"
  4. The criticizm section engages in substantial OR, and does not cite sources. From the top:
    1. The organization is viewed by the USCCB as merely an arm of the abortion lobby.
    2. Critics respond to CFFC by stating that the organizations theological arguments directly contradict the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church "2270-2275" [24].
    3. source 25 is not an RS, and cannot be used. The entire paragraph requires sourcing. Diane Dew is some guy with a website.
    4. "Critics of CFFC argue that according to Roman Catholic Church policy, participation in any organization, such as CFFC, that promotes procured abortion, is not considered licit by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church." Needs cited source.
    5. No individual member of CFFC has been excommunicated by declaration; but the canonical penalty for procuring an abortion is automatic excommunication without a declaration. - Irrelevent.

In summary, this article is not descriptive of the organization, rather of the two POVs (that of the organization, and that of it's opposers). I suggest that people re-read WP:NOT - this is an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Write about the organization, and the disputes it is in. If your goal in writing this article is to make the society look worse (or better), perhapse you need to spend an hour or two on RC patrol? Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You presume that I have some personal investment in the way this article is written. I don't. I never said it wasn't POV, I was mostly attacking the assertions of factual incorrectness, which were wrong. If you look back, my contributions are minimal to this article. Mostly my position is that totallydisputed is the wrong tag to use, which is why I put pov-check. -- Jbamb 16:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I presume nothing. I state that "If your goal in writing this article is to make the society look worse (or better), perhapse you need to spend an hour or two on RC patrol?" Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You are presuming that I'm interested in writing this article, or have written this article, or have anything to do with the writing of this article. My sole presence here was removing the totallydisputed tag which was inappropriate in this case and defending a perhaps irrelevant but factually true statement from someone who insists it is untrue after being shown the facts. That's it. I'm not writing, I'm not rewriting, I'm simply ensuring process gets followed. And I've done my fair share of time on RC patrol, thankyouverymuch. -- Jbamb 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You presume that I am refering to you. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I presume that the recent rewrite by Hpuppet is a very good compromise, and all the factual errors are gone, and the criticism is now NPOV and balanced. Thanks.--Cberlet 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a source for this and it is in the article. What has happened is source citations are removed and a few days later the sentence is removed. That the CFFC members are excommunicated is important because as excommunicated persons, they can no longer be Catholic. If you are not Catholic, then why does the name contain the word Catholic. In addition, sources show that most of the funding for this organization is from the Unitarian Universalist Church. Dominick (TALK) 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Officially the statement on the CFFC from the American Bishops can be found as a source here: USCCB Press Office on the CFFC Dominick (TALK) 03:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It is still original research. There still needs to be a published source linking this to CFFC. I have combined the sentences. Please do not make the same criticism twice. Please find a source for this claim that mentions CFFC.--Cberlet 04:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The UCCB statement USCCB Press Office statement on the CFFC makes no mention of excommunication. It cannot be used to support the claim on excommunication.--Cberlet 04:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If the members were excommunicated, you should be able to find a quote saying that. Please do not interpret scripture on Wikipedia - that is prohibited by WP:NOR. Hpuppet - «Talk» 06:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


If excommunication by support of a abortion is without declaration, then how would one find a statement? The closest is Bp. Bruskewitz's declaration, in that case, his declaration will hold in other jurisdictions, as you can't escape an excommunication by changing jurisdictions. If one Bishop hold this serious charge and it is not over turned, it applies universally. A good details summary fo the canons and the CCC reading is listed on excommunication.net.

If one supports abortion then the penalty is applied without declaration, as it is a condition in Church law. If a man is a mafiosi, no declaration is needed to say he is not in good standing with the Church. This is not interpreting anyhting it is stating NPoV that those who advocate abortion are in conflict with CCC 2272, which points out the pently for this is excommunication latae sententiae. I am certainly not interpreting scripture if I say that abortion is a excommunicatable offense without a declaration needed. CCC 2272 makes it clear this is the nature of the offense.

Funding article is here Funding research and James Miller published some research in EWTN's library for funding for the CFFC. Dominick (TALK) 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside it would be correct to state early funding for the CFFC came from sources outside Catholic circles. Dominick (TALK) 14:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If making the statement requires you to interpret doctrine in a way that might be contested, it is both a violation of NOR and NPOV. Find someone important that said it, and quote them, as the article currently does. If no one other than you has ever said it, it's not notable. Your other two sources are on the border of WP:RS (specifically, "Partisan websites,") and must be treated with care. By the way - what is your goal in editing this article as opposed to Gentoo Foundation? IF your goal in editing this article is to make the organization look worse, please review WP:NOT. To your aside? Correct, but not fully informative. If you have a dispostive statement from a WP:RS, please include it. If your only source for early funding are two vocal opponents to the organization, consider that it may not be accurate or well-presented information. Hpuppet - «Talk» 14:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it original research if you read it right out of canon law? Yeah people dispute it, but people also dispute the legality of the income tax in the US, it doesn't make it OR to say pay your income tax or go to prison. -- Jbamb 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication. , this describes the Vatican's interpretation and since we are talking about excommunication it is the Vatican's explanation that is final and authotative. Where this comes in is the following canon,

Can. 1329 ß1 Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence, and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept, if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender, then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same or a lesser gravity.

ß2 In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties. .

Namely, no interpretation is required, canon law is quite clear and explicit, if you help someone procure an abortion, you are excommunicated. The Vatican's ruling on the matter makes this perfectly clear, and there can be no intelligent dispute. -- Jbamb 15:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What your saying then, is that all of the members of this organization have been excomunicated, and are regularly being denied sacriments, and no one has written about this in the news media, ever? Or you are saying that there is a segment of critics who BELIEVE that members of this organization have been excomunicated and should be denied sacriments, but they have never published anything saying this? If it's such a big deal, please find a source that dosen't require me to interpret scripture to believe you. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who assist someone in getting abortions are automatically excommunicated, and that applies to SOME of these members considering their backgrounds. I would assert that most aren't even Catholic. If you want news stories, look up John Kerry Eucharist in google, you'll find lots of discussion about implications of canon law and abortion. -- Jbamb 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not relevent to this page, which is about "Catholics for a Free Choice," a non-profit org that purports to serve as a "voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health." WP:NOT a debating society. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is, because membership in this organization would put membership in the Catholic Church into question. If the organization changed it's name to "ex-catholics for a free choice", the name would not be an issue. The Church has made this clear in Canon 2272, Bishop Bruskewitz made it more clear, there is nothing at all to contest. By the admission of the CFFC, it is in violation of CCC 2272.
Even though the force of canon law applies in his own diocese, as a Bishop, he still has teaching authority outside his ordinary. I am not debating the issue of the organization, but that the organization purporting to be Catholic, and the Church saying it is "an arm of the abortion lobby". Actually nobody checks membership at the Communion line, but if a Priest encoutners a person he knows is excommunicated, in either declared or undeclared, then he is required to deny them Communion. Dominick (TALK) 19:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But Dominick, that goes to the very heart of why what you are writing is original research. Your interpretation of this matter has no weight on this page. Neither does mine. We both have to cite other folks who have published text to back up what we are trying to claim in this entry. I know you are sincere, but you do not seem to understand the basic concept of how the phrase "original research" is used here on Wikipedia. I have tried to rephrase the text to include the point you are trying to make in an NPOV and NOR way, but I think it still is skating on thin ice. What is totally not OK is to keep claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has excommunicated CFFC members by default (unless you quote someone saying that).--Cberlet 20:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The point remains, the sentence did not say the Roman Catholic Church has excommunicated members of CFFC by default, this line of argumentation is little more than the construction of a straw man. I would argue MOST members aren't excommunicated for the simple reason that they aren't Catholic to begin with, nor are members in any way of the Catholic Church. Some are, because they have assisted in abortions. But fine, let's just say CFFC is the final authority in all things Catholic and have the Vatican page redirect here if we are going to be this absurd about it. -- Jbamb 22:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree that applying CCC2272 to a group whose purpose is to procure abortion would fall afoul of original research. It would be like saying those who go over 100MPH in a suburban neighborhood are not driving recklessly even though they are speeding. The CFFC as a purpose has the goal of assiting women in procuring abortion, therefore they are in violation of the CCL, and indeed are excommunicated. No citation is needed in this case because the admitted goal of the organization is diametrically opposed to a canon law, there is no interpretation, and no default state, per se. I am saying by adhering to the goals of the CFFC, you are excommunicated. Now I would agree if you are a member of the CFFC, and for some reason you do not support the stated goal of the organization then you are not excommunicated, but that is like saying you are in AA but still drink a cocktail after the meeting. Dominick (TALK) 01:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm also a bit puzzled about how it could be original research to say that certain people have incurred excommunication, when the Code of Canon Law lays down automatic excommunication. If we know, for example, that the Code of Canon Law lays down automatic excommunication for a priest who breaks the seal of confession, and we can cite the appropriate canon, and we know for a fact that a certain priest has broken the seal, then it's not original research to say that that priest has incurred excommunication. We don't need a special decree from the Vatican, in which that priest is mentioned by name. AnnH ♫ 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC response This debate turns on two points: one is the meaning of "accomplice" in cannon law and the other regards separation of church and state. In civil law, mere membership in an organization does not make someone an accomplice. If canon law is more expansive then the editors here should cite an expert in canon law, preferably in reference to this particular issue. Regarding the other point, there have been Catholics who agreed with the church's teachings on abortion yet - from a principled belief in the separation of church and state - opposed writing this into civil laws that would apply to people of different faiths. There are other ways to reduce abortions, such as helping single mothers complete their education and find jobs. So unless certain editors verify claims with better sources, the argument for automatic excommunication has to be disallowed as original research. Durova 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication issue

The edits by Cberlet look better. Nice Job. I think at least Cberlet understands the issue a little better and has helped make the NPoV. I think we ought to all assume this is the goal on all parts. What remains to be hashed out as far as excommunication? Dominick (TALK) 20:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering if the group could ever be liable for excommunication, for instance under Canon 915 and Canon 1398. We have seen cases in other countries where pro-abortion Catholics have been either self-excommunicated or excommunicated with the help of a bishop. The bishop of Lincoln, Monsignor Bruskewitz, indicated that groups like Planned Parenthood were under excommunication. Anyways, it seems that this unclear canonical situation is partly due to the lack of vigilance by US bishops, who have protected active homosexual priests and yet have not taken a clear position on this. ADM (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Frontpage

Articles from FrontPage represent a marginal right-wing POV and do not deserve the be in the lead--especially when the biased opinions are presented as facts.--Cberlet 03:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your radical re-edit. The language and content was both neutral and documented providing a valid lead in and explaining to the reader that this is a controversial organization. Jpetersen46321 06:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, I have noted the voluminous exchanges that you have had with other editors regarding what you consider "orginal research" documentation vs. authoritative research. Such documentation is valid and as an analogy please consider American common law doctrine which supports such conclusions when the facts are indisputable. If it works for US/Anglo courts, it should work here as well. Jpetersen46321 07:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Astroturfing" Comment Is POV

Accordingly, I will remove it.

User Calibanu 15.33, 10 December 2006

Latest round of POV edits

User:Jpetersen46321 has twice deleted the following sentence without any explanation. The result is that the article only shows one side of the story, and is thus POV.

However, its defenders argue that their opponents oppose meaningful religious freedom, given that many mainline Protestant denominations, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism uphold pro-choice ethical commitments when it comes to abortion and other issues of reproductive freedom.
I don't know about the motivations of Jpetersen, but it strikes me that this sentence, whether true or not, is irrelevant to the context. Right-wing Catholics argue that CFFC is basically a front for non-Catholic, pro-Choice organizations. The statement here has nothing whatsoever to do with that claim - it seems to be a counterattack on a different subject. It may very well be true (though, if so, a citation would be useful), but it has nothing to do with the claim being discussed in that paragraph. A germane counterargument would involve demonstrating either (i) that the claim is false - that CFFC has significant membership among, or that it receives significant funding from the general population of Catholics - or that (ii) this sort of thing is pretty typical for Catholic organizations, and so CFFC is wrong to be singled out. Whether or not opponents of CFFC support "meaningful religious freedom" has nothing to do with either of those. So I'm going to remove it again, pro tem. If this sentence is to be retained, it should be moved to a more appropriate section of the article. 66.31.47.139 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, given that the article even dignifies the Catholic League's opinion on CFFC, the extremely conservative nature of that organization needs to be drawn out. -- Cat Whisperer 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

sex and sin

does this group consider it a sin for a single Catholic to masturbate to adult movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask your parish Priest, and not the internet. Dominick (TALK) 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
because I want to know CFFC's position on the topic, not the Catholic Church's. No Priest I know (nor Catholic, for that matter) belongs to CFFC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Plumm (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CITI Ministries / Rent a Priest

There is another similar dissident group called CITI Ministries / Rent a Priest, which is an anti-celibacy and private clerical organization. I'm not sure what the group's status is, but I would be willing to bet that the group has a good chance of being already excommunicated latae sententiae. [5] ADM (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Membership

Is information available (from any non-controversial source) on this size of this particular organisation? If so, could someone add this to the article? CFC website is not forthcoming on this.--Bagration1944 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Catholicism tag from this page. CFC has incurred de facto excommunication, and is not a Catholic organisation, let alone a Class-B Catholicism subject.--Bagration1944 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether you agree with them or not, you can't reasonably argue that the subject is not related to Catholicism. See the title of this article, for example. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV again

Undoing moves by Mamalujo which seem aimed at spinning the identity of the orgnaization. DavidOaks (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, your edits were correct. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Repeated. Declarations by the RCC hierarchy are relevant to the status of the group, but do not belong in the lead, where they amount to POV. Maybe what's needed is a new category, "Organizations Officially Sanctioned by the RCC." Meanwhile, the membership is Catholic, and they're part of that larger discourse. DavidOaks (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The categorization is (in principle at least) meant to help navigation, etc., by readers, so even if the topic is CINO ("in name only"), the categories are reasonable. The placement of its extracatholic status is open to debate, however. I do not see a tersely noted mention of that in the lede as being undue weight, as that is quite intrinsic to getting an understanding of the organization and where they fit in to the scheme of things. That said, it is not worth edit warring over, especially as the currently disputed text is somewhat longer than a shorter note that was there in the past. Perhaps a shorter note would be best? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"catholic" organizations

An organization does not need USCCB approval to call itself Cathoiic. It has a Catholic identity if it says it does. Perhaps we need new cat, "officially approved" etc.DavidOaks (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support Mamalujo's position above and oppose intentional misue of categories. This organisation is officially condemed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. One doesn't just close your eyes, cross your fingers and wish yourself a "Roman Catholic organisation" when you are ostracisied to the point of automatic excommunication. The categories are only for Roman Catholic organisations. The Church, thank God, is not a democracy it is fundamentally based on hierarchy and submitting oneself to the defined dogma of the Church. It is not the same as Protestantism where people can just "invent" their own views and claim it is part of something—especially in this case with an organisation which is deemed illict by the Church. Your proposal of what makes something "Roman Catholic" is completely erroneous. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of cats is to cross-index information and make it accessible. The purpose of removing them is to frustrate that aim, for reasons which are clearly POV. The bishops' view of the organization is properly clarified in the article. Marking orthodoxy-boundaries is the purpose of a different sort of online community. DavidOaks (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not POV to state that this organisation is condemed by the Church and thus explicitly not part of it. This point is verified within the article. It is erroneous and misleading to add a tag which claims this is a "Roman Catholic organisation" when it is not at all. The category "Roman Catholic organisations" is to help the reader to navigate acoss articles which are Roman Catholic, this is absolutely, clearly defined as not one. The hieirarchy has defined it as anti-Catholic. There isn't need for a separate "officially sanctioned" category, because that is the only thing which is recognised as Roman Catholic to begin with. - Yorkshirian (talk)

(outdent) Agreed -- it's ESSENTIAL that the article make clear that this group is regarded as dissident by the hierarchy. The hierarchy rules within the Church. However, it does not rule language and ideas, or the connections people might want to make. It would be an abuse of cats to arrange them in such a way that Catholic dissidents become invisible to people searching Catholic topics. I do not agree that cats should be used to help people navigate exclusively orthodox organizations. For that, I re-iterate, you need to create a new cat -- "Organizations officially sanctioned by the RC." Otherwise we're working for the hierarchy, rather than for users of the WPDavidOaks (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way as an attempt at an analogy. A sports club (or the Church) has a set of players on its roster (organisations)—the only way we can define who is on the roster, is by who is officially accepted by the club. If somebody randomly turns up to training in the opposition teams colours, claiming to be a member of this club, despite the chairman telling them "get out of here, you do not represent us". Then we can't objectively list them as members of the club. Wikipedia wouldn't categorise such people as a member of a sports club for "convinence", neither should we in this case. I think "anti-Catholicism in the United States" covers it, while the "pro-life organisations" covers the position which they're supporting. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The analogy's interesting, but if there's a group of people who regard themselves as part of the real team, and significant numbers of people affirm it, and it gets national press, then it needs to be accessible via the category network. WP isn't here to settle controversies, but to illuminate them by gathering publically available info from reliable sources. These people think they're Catholic, and think what they're doing is within Catholic identity, though the article properly notes that the authorities see it differently. DavidOaks (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I recognize the concern here, but in the end agree that categorization is meant to help the reader navigate, not understand. I would support the disputed categorization, although would suggest a better additional category than an "official" one would be either a "dissenters" one or some permuation of "self called", although a good name for either escapes me now.
As a response to the sports analogy, if they called themselves that team, and others referred to them by that team name, even at the risk of confusion of some, then it might be plausible to use such a category here. Note we are not necessarily asserting anything by the categorization. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather to my surprise, I am not finding an official communication on this specific subject from the USCCB. Anybody? DavidOaks (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we have it from a reliable source and I've seen it in more than one source. I don't think we need to be second guessing an RS barring some reason for doing so. Mamalujo (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is that WP:RS? DavidOaks (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with David on this one, saying you are a Catholic organization does not make you one. I think the category is misleading more than it is helpful. - Schrandit (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The topic really concerns me. This organization sees itself as part of the Catholic spectrum. If we delete the catalogue, we are acting as orthodoxy enforcers, and for the very specific purpose of making the organization invisible. Not consistent with wikiprinciples...DavidOaks (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there needs to be another category or a subcategory for "Dissenting Catholic Organizations". Even this would be a stretch. Calling this group Catholic is particularly tough because the USCCB has said it is not Catholic (it is sourced to the USCCB site - they certainly are an RS for their own pronouncements) and when it is funded by Unitarians, a skin mag's foundation and the wealthy agnostic and former Christian (not former Catholic but Presbyterian) Warren Buffet. If it doesn't look like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck... it ain't a duck.Mamalujo (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As DavidOaks pointed out, it's not our call. The organization is named "Catholics for Choice", so we have to count it just as much as we would "Catholics Against Choice" and "Catholics For Random Murder". 69.121.221.174 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of an organization is just that -- a name. Any implicit assertion that the name represents a fair or accurate description is nothing more than a claim. And claims are not facts. If I am not a Freemason but *claim* to be, then the notion that Wiki must include me in a list of notable Masons as long as (i) I am notable and (ii) I *claim* to be a Mason is absurd. Whether I am in fact a Mason matters. Moreover, it may be true that an organization does not need USCCB approval to call itself Catholic, no more than I need Grand Lodge consent to call myself a Mason, but that is hardly dispositive of my claimed Mason status. CFC is not Catholic in any meaningful sense, even though they are free to call themselves whatever they wish -- just as I am free to claim I'm a Freemason to my heart's content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.36.205 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) outdent)

This example is what concerns me. If an organization declares itself concerned with freemasonry, and the larger organization rejects it, it remains part of the SUBJECT, perhaps all the more so because of its dissenting status. Not our job to police orthodoxy, but to make the connections among bodies of information accessible. DavidOaks (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be a fair point if the topic at issue was entitled "Organizations concerned with Catholicism," but if instead it is "Catholic Organizations," such inclusion is unacceptably misleading.

Beliefs of Contributors

I can't see how it's relevant to mention that the organization receives funding from a non-Catholic; do we inventory the affiliations of all contributors to all organizations? Seems like a spin attempt to me, and recommend deletion. DavidOaks (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the non-Catholic part is not particularly important, the idea that CfC may be a puppet of Buffet is. - Schrandit (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That's different. For that, we need a WP:RS that says "CfC is a buffit-puppit" -- not just a factoid likely to cause some to draw that inference -- that's arguing, rather than reporting facts. DavidOaks (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Anti-Catholicism category

Inclusion in the category does not necessarily mean that the article included is "Anti-Catholic", it merely means that the article discusses or refers to the subject. Mamalujo (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what it communicates; it's a passing reference by an interest group. Taking this as a policy, the proliferation of cats on virtually all articles where there is another POV would be unlimited. For example, does this cat belong on Vatican? Society of Jesus? Pope? Each article mentions anticatholic attitudes. This is a dissident organization; to put in the anti-Catholicism tag is to decide, editorially, the key question they raise (the limits within which an organization might consider itself Catholic). On this logic, Catholic League gets a pro-abortion cat. DavidOaks (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Founder

Schrandit & Mamalujo: including discussion of the founder of an organization is appropriate within wikipolicy if it is taken from existing WP:RS that already makes the connection between the character of the organization and the character of its founder. Otherwise, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and WP:COATRACK. And even if it meets the standards, it's probably not a good idea, since balance will require discussion of the character of critics -- ex: William Donahue's dismissal from his academic post and Fabian Bruskewitz' stance on the coverup of the sexual abuse of children by priests surely need to be taken into consideration when we try to determine their status as judges of other peoples' Catholic character. It's just not a direction WP needs to go. Here's the test -- is the includion of the information essentially enthymemetic, implying a syllogism, for which the reader must supply the ergo? If so, it doesn't go here. DavidOaks (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Balence? If Donahue has been dismissed from an academic post that should be mentioned on his page. Just as the status of the founders of the Catholics for Choice should be mentioned on the page Catholics for Choice. - Schrandit (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
With WP:RS (which we do not have here for the claims about the founder) it belongs on HIS page (as the info about Bruskewitz belongs on HIS page but not on the diocese page, as the info about Donahue belongs on HIS page but not on his organization's page). Here, it's WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. In other matters, you restored a good deal of other coatrack material without explanation. All of this stuff was discussed on this talkpage long ago, and even addressed by an administrator (see RFC, above). DavidOaks (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_1&oldid=1074598292"