Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Catholic organization

Instead of reverting good-faith edits, it would be a more constructive action to kindly specify the grounds for accusations of "POV pushing" (it would be sad if this only means disagreement with the reverter's own personal POV) and "OR" (all the statements in the reverted text are found in cited reliable sources that explicitly mention "Catholics for Choice").

If the reverter objects to some turn of phrase, such as perhaps "in spite of", it would be more constructive to indicate this, so that it can be modified by mutual consent, perhaps to something like "On the other hand". Esoglou (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since even after three days the reverting has not been defended, I am restoring the well-sourced information, rephrasing it in the hope of overcoming the reverter's unexplained antipathy. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The change is useless POV from the Catholic Church point of view, which is not what defines this group. The Vatican source you cited is general, not specific to CFC. Using it here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The post by Cathy Caridi goes against common usage; quoting her is undue emphasis on the black & white position taken by the church, against the way the rest of the world uses the word "Catholic". Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you'd made a post here, but I did comment on your talk page to warn you about your pattern of adding original synthesis in order to push your political views even after your several-month topic ban from the subject for that very behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The next topic ban will likely be longer, and soon if this behavior is an indication. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A humble request to the two guardian reverters: Discuss the edit, not the editor.

Cathy Caridi's article is the work of the holder of an academic degree in the canon law that binds members of the Catholic Church (whether they observe the law or not), as a country's civil law binds citizens of that country (whether they observe the law or not). The link to canon 216 of the Code of Canon Law, which accompanied the citation of Cathy Caridi's article, was given only with a "cf." and therefore not in support of any statement in the Wikipedia article - it makes no mention of "Catholics for Choice" - but just as an illustration to Cathy Caridi's article, which cites that very canon. Binksternet objects to the presence of that link. In collaborative fashion I am removing it.

Cathy Caridi's article explicitly states that, under canon law (which binds Catholics), "Catholics for Choice" cannot call itself a Catholic organization, while also explicitly stating that, under United States civil law, it can call itself a Catholic organization.

Binksternet objects to giving the Catholic Church's point of view ("useless POV from the Catholic Church point of view"). But surely the view of the Catholic Church on whether the organization in question really is of the Catholic Church is relevant. That view deserves at least a mention, even if Binksternet's idea of "the way the rest of the world uses the word 'Catholic'" were both specified and sourced.

Roscelese still has not specified the "original synthesis" that she claims to discern in the edit.

If I were as combative as the two guardian reverters, I would have proposed inserting into the article items such as a Washington newspaper's view of "Catholics for Choice" as a "small operation ... intended to look like a Catholic grass-roots organization. Yet it is funded largely by secular foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller and Playboy foundations. It is not, according to the Catholic bishops, a Catholic organization." I haven't. But I wonder if they would find that more acceptable than a calm statement that according to Roman Catholic canon law it is not a Catholic organization.

To take account of the observations made, I am now adjusting my proposal. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In brief: Caridi's degree is irrelevant if she can't get her thoughts published in a reliable source; as I've said, you're synthesizing sources to draw the conclusion that reliable sources call CFC Catholic in error and that there is a contradiction between their being Catholic and the bishops pursuing them; Washington Times is a fringe-y paper and the author of the column is a right-wing activist, so you're not really doing a good job of supporting your claim that there are totally reliable sources which say it isn't Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the AE discussion but I will repeat my points here:

I confess to not having read all the previous Talk discussion about the usage of the term "Catholic" in this article. However, I will point out that what Roscelese and Binksternet seem to be objecting to is the linkage of "The group is called Catholic" (sourced to Reuters) with "the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization" using the words "in spite of". It should be noted that neither Roscelese nor Binksternet seem to be arguing that the sourced opinion of the USCCB and CCCB should be removed from the article. Their reverts seem to be solely around the removal of the linking phrase "in spite of". Personally, I don't think Esoglou's edits are that POV but, even if they are, I don't see the need for Arbitration Enforcement here. It seems to be a case of "I'm tired of having to deal with the other POV, so I'm going to call the cops on this guy." If I were writing the sentence, I would say something more along the lines of "Despite the fact that the group's members are primarily Catholics, the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization citing the canon law which prohibits groups from claiming to be Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority." In summary, I oppose Arbitration Enforcement in this matter although I think a bit of copyediting could improve Esoglou's proposed text. At the end of the day, the point is the CFC claims to represent a number of Catholics but the Catholic Church objects to the use of the word "Catholic" in the organization's name because it does not represent the Catholic Church. This point can and should be made in an NPOV manner.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that CFC is a Catholic organization per Reuters: they said, "A Washington-based Catholic group yesterday accused Pope John Paul II and the Vatican of seeking to impose orthodox views..." Many of the highest quality sources (encyclopedias, scholarly books) call CFC a Catholic group without qualification. It is only the Catholic hierarchy that disputes the description. What I am seeking is that Esoglou stay away from the "Catholic" description sourced to Reuters and instead restrict himself to adding text based on reliable sources, not biased ones, and on sources that specifically name CFC. This kind of behavior in the past was what got Esoglou blocked. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also plenty of other sources which describe it as Catholic, rather than just Reuters; it's just that adding every single one is disruptive, even if it proves the point that reliable sources describe Catholic groups as Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a failure here to see that there are two uses of the word "Catholic" (and, no, I don't mean the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic"). What most people mean by "Catholic" when they say that the CFC is a "Catholic" organization is that it is made up primarily (or entirely) of Catholics. That, in common parlance, makes it a "Catholic" organization. However, the Catholic Church insists that only organizations sanctioned by an "appropriate ecclesiastical authority" can claim use of the word "Catholic". In essence, the Church is insisting that only it can decide what is an official "Catholic organization" and what is just a bunch of Catholics using the name "Catholic" without proper authorization. We also have to consider the distinction between civil law and canon law. Presumably, the Catholic Church cannot sue CFC for infringing on its "trademark" by using the name "Catholic" without its permission. Based on Canon 216, the church can, however, condemn the CFC for laying claim to the title "Catholic" without the "consent of competent ecclesiastical authority" and use whatever remedies are provided for by canon law. The best analogy I can come up with is the Microsoft Corporation going after a group claiming to be the "Microsoft Developer's Group" when it has no connection or authorization from Microsoft to use its name. So... IMO, Esoglou makes a fair point in insisting that we include the POV of the USCCB and CCCB as long as we do it in an NPOV way. If Roscelese or Binksternet want to argue that the "in spite of" wording should be changed, I'm OK with that. I just think we need to present both sides of this issue, precisely because the USCCB and CCCB think it's important. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider this... if a bunch of Catholics formed an organization and called it the "Catholic Man-Boy Love Association", would that be a Catholic group? By the standards of Reuters and many other reliable sources, it probably would be. However, the Church would protest mightily and rightly that such an organization in no way represented the position of the Church. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of policing anyone's religious identification. You get into serious BLP-vio territory there. The USCCB and other such interest groups are free to express their opinions all they like on their own websites; we give way more than enough weight to them here already, considering the lack of proper sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is the essence of NPOV. We should neither say whether they ARE a Catholic organization or ARE NOT a Catholic organization. We should clearly state what its name is ("Catholics for Choice") and who their membership is composed of (Catholics) and also state the Church's criticism of the organization WITHOUT taking a side on one side or the other. What the reader makes of this issue is up to him/her. Pro-choice Catholics will certainly see things differently from pro-life Catholics. It is not our role to slant the reader for or against CFC, simply to report the facts. And the fact is... the USCCB and CCCB criticize the CFC on a number of points, including the use of "Catholic" in their name. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Balance of views, on Wikipedia, does not mean treating all views as equal, but rather giving views weight in proportion to the weight they hold in reliable sources. (Similarly, we wouldn't write in the lead of Earth that "reliable sources say the earth is round - on the other hand, a guy with a website says it's flat.") Reliable sources refer to and discuss CFC as a Catholic organization, and given that all sources being put up on the other side are self-published, fringe, or otherwise poor, that's not likely to change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example to consider: Are Mormons Christians? They self-identify as Christian; they use "Jesus Christ" in the name of the church. And yet it would be highly unencyclopedic to take this self-identification at face value and dismiss any mention of the fact that many Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian. It would violate NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that Mormons ARE Christians AND it would also violate NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that they ARE NOT Christians. NPOV demands that we explain that Mormons consider themselves Christians (in fact, they consider themselves to be the only true Christians) AND it demands that we explain that many Trinitarian Christians consider Mormons to be something other than Christian because of their non-Trinitarian beliefs. A similar argument can be made for Jehovah's Witnesses. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good example. Mormons are Christian in Wikipedia, because of self-identification. Naturally, we also hear from those notables who say that Mormons are not Christian. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article on Mormonism...

According to Bruce McConkie, a general authority of the LDS Church, "Mormonism is indistinguishable from Christianity."[31] In many ways, however, the religion differs from orthodoxy as held by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. To those for whom Christianity is defined by that orthodoxy, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity altogether.[32][33]

Both sides of the issue are presented here. Wikipedia doesn't actually say that Mormonism is a Christian denomination. Wikipedia does NOT say that Mormons are Christian but neither does it say that they are NOT Christian. It says that Mormonism "was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. beginning in the 1820s as a form of Christian primitivism. During the 1830s and 1840s, Mormonism gradually distinguished itself from traditional Protestantism. Mormonism today represents the new, non-Protestant faith taught by Smith in the 1840s." Note that the wording very carefully avoids saying that Mormonism IS or IS NOT Christian. When put together with the above-quoted text, you can see how NPOV requires Wikipedia editors to stay completely neutral when there are two equally notable POVs. The same approach should be applied here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP does actually treat Mormonism as a branch of Christianity...the categorization structure reflects this, and it's referred to several times as a form of Christian primitivism in the lead. However, the analogy is not exact, since the balance of sourcing on Mormonism and Christianity is very different than in this article. Like I said, it's not about making sure all views are given equal weight; it's about making sure we reflect the weight in the body of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly good example except for the fact that Rome and the bishops are a competent legal authority who have real jurisdiction over Catholic organizations, and according to following the law (Canon law in this case, but it's really no different from a federal law or international treaty) if CFC is composed of Catholics, then they are not legally allowed to call themselves Catholic. I heard a news story the other day about a guy who contends that Google has not defended their trademark, allowing too many people to use "google" as a generic verb i.e. for web searching. Therefore he registered hundreds of domains containing the word "Google". If his organizations self-identify as Google companies, but are not allowed by US law to call themselves Google, how would a hypothetical Wikipedia page treat that controversy? Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we would go with sources, just as Binksternet and I are doing here. However, like I said, WP doesn't police religious identification; I don't think anyone religiously identifies as a google. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The CFC is specifically called Catholic in Feminism and Women's Rights Worldwide, page 136, ABC-CLIO. This is an academic book. CFC is given as an example of a feminist Catholic group. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many sources we find or how "academic" they are. The point is that there are two significant POVs (really, two different meanings of "Catholic organization"). Most sources probably use the meaning "an organization composed primarily of Catholics" whereas the USCCB and CCCB are using the meaning "an organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church". It's true that we are not required to give all POVs equal weight but the Catholic Church's position on what is a "Catholic organization" is surely a significant POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to reach consensus

I congratulate Binksternet on making an edit that was not a wholesale reverting, presumably as a contribution towards reaching agreement. Roscelese has undone that edit. "What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not" (cf. 1Co 11:22 KJV). Esoglou (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the real issue is here. I have to say that I don't understand what Esoglou is trying to accomplish or what Roscelese is objecting to. As far as I'm concerned, any text that presents the POV of the USCCB and CCCB is adequate and efforts to insert words such as "in spite of" or "On the other hand" are unnecessary to make the point. Binksternet's last edit removed the words "On the other hand". Previous edits have removed the words "in spite of". While I think I'd be OK with using those phrases, I don't feel they are necessary to communicate the point that the USCCB and CCCB have criticized the use of the word "Catholic" by the CFC. That point seems to have been in the article before the current kerfuffle and it seems to have been accepted by Binksternet and Roscelese (though perhaps grudgingly). While I don't agree with the sentiment in Binksternet's edit summary, I think we could settle on something close to the text resulting from that edit. Is there any problem with agreeing to use that text? This is the proposed revision [1]. Going back to that revision would involve reverting Roscelese's last edit. Is there any objection to doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs) 17:25, June 7, 2012‎

Yes, yes there is. It gives even more weight to self-published and poorly sourced criticism that, by its presence in the lead along with news- and academically-sourced material, is already grossly undue, it claims that CFC's positions are in opposition to Catholicism, and it (clearly intentionally) suggests that CFC should not be calling itself Catholic (and that only the US govt.'s failure to enforce canon law prevents it from being sued), which is not WP's place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify: while I do believe that the USCCB's self-published criticism does not belong in the lead, I recognize that, because both CFC and the USCCB are American organizations, it may be suitable for inclusion in the article even without a better source. I have strongly opposed, and continue to strongly oppose, the inclusion of the Canadian and Mexican bishops' comments anywhere in the article; they're clearly irrelevant to an American organization and are just included by users who want to push an anti-CFC POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, I was wondering about the inclusion of the CCCB's position. I assumed that CFC was active in Canada as well as the U.S. If this is not true, then I would agree that the CCCB's position is not relevant to this article. Likewise with the Mexican bishops (although I was not aware they were cited in this article).

I do want to draw attention to the fact that you seem to be misconstruing the phrase "self-published". "Self-published" really does not apply to major, notable organizations. All official statements by government officials (federal, state and municipal) are "self-published" but, if the source is notable, the issue of "self-publication" is really not relevant. A similar argument can be made of governing groups such as city councils. Again, the argument can be applied to official statements made by NGOs such as UNICEF, Red Cross, NAACP, etc. And again with the USCCB which is, after all, the governing body of the Catholic Church in the U.S. We should not be using the USCCB's opinion to determine whether or not the CFC is or is not a "Catholic organization". We should be simply reporting on the fact that the USCCB's position is that the CFC is not a "Catholic organization" and should not claim to be. It is up to the reader to decide whether they agree or disagree with the USCCB. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a separate Canadian organization, CFC Canada. We don't have an article on them. If we did, the CCCB's opinion might be relevant there.

In my opinion, the USCCB's activism against abortion means that they're not commenting here merely as a legal or scientific body (the way we might quote the AMA or the APA) but as an interest group. For such a group's opinion, one really should have reliable secondary sourcing. However, as I said, I'm willing to accept it in the article; I just don't think it belongs in the lead without better sourcing (on par with the sourcing for the rest of the article - reliable news and/or scholarly works, preferably the latter), and the foreign organizations don't belong at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to have the criticism by the Catholic hierarchy brought into the second paragraph of the lead section, not the first. Thus I prefer not to revert Roscelese. Basically, the group advocates legal abortion, and that should be the first thing the reader is told. First is pro, second is con. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now the ball is in Esoglou's court. Why is it so important for you to bring the Church's position into the first paragraph? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important because the other editors are hell-bent on calling it a "Catholic organization" in the first paragraph. I would be happy to place the criticism in the second paragraph if the Catholic claim were also moved there. It is inappropriate, based on WP:NPOV, to present the first paragraph as honest, settled truth and then to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube later on. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Hell-bent" is particularly grinworthy in this discussion. Thanks for the smile! Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We are "hell-bent" on following what reliable sources say and on adhering to WP's policies on identification. We are not going to make an exception for your personal religious beliefs, however deeply felt. As I said, WP:NPOV does not entail giving all views equal weight, but rather giving views weight proportional to their weight in reliable sources. Reliable sources agree that the organization is Catholic. The opposing views of anti-abortion organizations like the USCCB may be relevant to the article, but they do not refute reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources agree that the organization is Catholic --- No they do not.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any reliable sources (psst, click the link!) to the contrary, just saying so is not very convincing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

[ec]Richard the problem as I see is is that the first sentence said "Catholics for Choice (CFC), formerly Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), is a Catholic pro-choice organization based in Washington, D.C" is right now making a statement that it is a Catholic organization. In effect it gives the impression that the WP community agrees with CFC that they are Catholic. If other people want to have the statements about whether they are Catholic or not later in the lead, then "Catholic pro-choice organization" also doesn't belong early in the lead. It would be simple to just remove the word "Catholic" from "Catholic pro-choice organization" and you will remove much of the debate. Marauder40 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If the group claimed to be a "Methodist pro-life group" and the Methodist church said, "No they are not a Methodist group" the debate would be over. The Catholic Church explicitly declares that while the group uses the word "Catholic" in its name and claims to be a Catholic group, that it is not a catholic group. I have no problem with them identifying themselves as a voice for catholic or a group of Catholics, but when the governing body to which they claim membership explicitly says, "No they are not part of our group" then you have to give that position primary credit. It is not not the purvue of others to say, "The Methodist church says they are not methodist, but I know better." Nor can somebody claim to be a branch of hte US Government, when the government says otherwise. The authorities whose job it is to discern who/what are representatives of the group have explicitly spoken on this subject. Anything else is POV.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP community does agree with religious self-identification. That's how we work. We also do not put the question of (ex.) whether or not progressive or conservative Muslim organizations are "really" Muslim up for debate. It would not remove much of the debate to remove the word "Catholic" - have you been paying no attention at all? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am paying attention, are you? The word Catholic is already twice in that initial sentence, why put it in again, it isn't needed and is in fact pronouncing a judgement that the WP community views it as such. If it remains you need to put in the opposing/significant viewpoint. It it doesn't remain it can wait for a later paragraph. Marauder40 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said: the WP community does accept religious self-identification. It's not a debate. We treat criticism of its identification just like any other criticism: as potentially but not necessarily relevant, but certainly not as fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no governing body for the Islam that could speak on this subject. However, if a group claimed to be a specific brand of Islam, and the governing body explicitly said no, that's a different story. In this case we have an authoritative body, which regardless of what CFC wishes, has the authority to speak on this subject. The bishops and by extension the USCCB are the authorities in the US. We don't have to listen to claims, we have declarative statement from the governing body. It's pretty black and white.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP does not recognize religious authority and is not subject to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not about religious authority. It is about the authority of a governing body of a group(religious or secular) to state declare proper affiliation or distance themselves from such. If we put the word in the lead that the group is a "catholic organization" then we need to state in the lead that the group is condemned by the Catholic Church not to be one. Leave the word out and you can igonre the Churches position.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can argue that ignoring a body of reliable sources because they contradict what the bishops say is not an attempt to subject Wikipedia to religious authority. Additionally, we do already state that the USCCB has criticized its status as Catholic. Your claim that we need balance is rather shaky when you've tried to remove the sourced Catholic nature and preserved the poorly sourced "non-Catholic" claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is irrespective of whether or not the group is religious. When a governing body exists, wether it is religious or secular, and that governing body has authority to speak on a subject and to define inclusion/exclusion from a group---then guess what, self identication becomes secondary. As I pointed out with Ward Churchhill, he claims to be Cherokee Indian. Usually, self identification of racial identity is enough, but there is a governing body which says otherwise---and that governing body's ruling holds sway over his self-identification. Similarly, when the authorities on the subject of "Catholic" say something, their position is more valuable than some journalist from Reuters.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in editing the Ward Churchill article so I don't know how that went down. Is there a large body of reliable secondary sources (incl. scholarly) which agree he is Cherokee and a lack of similar-quality sources which say he is not? Otherwise, it's not a very good analogy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also be satisfied with adopting phraseology such as "CFC calls itself a Catholic organization" or "CFC is identified as a Catholic organization by <reporter in secondary source>" Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Again, it is not WP's place to undermine what sources say by attributing unnecessarily. We recognize that your personal feelings on the subject are strong, but we will not discard the views of reliable source upon reliable source for them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For me it is not important to bring the Church's position into the first paragraph. It is important to put it close to the claim that CFC is indeed a "Catholic organization", whether that claim is in the first paragraph or not. I agree in fact with an observation by Binksternet above: "Basically, the group advocates legal abortion, and that should be the first thing the reader is told." First place should not be given instead to whether and in what sense it is or is not a "Catholic organization". Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You see this as a debate (and thus belonging together), while we see it as an excellently sourced fact about the group (belonging up front) and some criticism (not so much belonging up front). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a sourced OPINION---not a fact. The sourced fact is that the group has been excommunicated from the organization they claim membership and has been condemned by the only authorities who actually have power to make such declarations---the Bishops of the Church to whom the group wants to identify.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We do not generally decide that material sourced to a dozen-plus mainstream and scholarly sources, and treated as fact in those sources, is an "opinion" simply because it contradicts our religious views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It is not a Catholic Organization. It is an organization of Catholics. A catholic organization would be supported by and recognized by the Catholic Church, instead the Church explicitly declared that it is not such. The CFC was excommunicate in Lincoln.[2][3] The Diocese of Venice declared, "'Catholics for Choice' is neither Catholic nor supportive of authentic human choice?" The Catholic League calls them Catholics for Choice, a notoriously anti-Catholic front group? Or how about A Brazilian Catholic bishop has filed a $328,000 lawsuit against “Catholics for the Right to Decide,” the Brazilian version of America’s “Catholics for Choice,” for moral damage due to the misleading use of the name “Catholic.” A group whose fundamental principles are condemned by the group to which it claims and the group to which it claims membership has decreed that such groups are not part of it... I think it's pretty clear. CFC is a group of Catholics; but it is not a Catholic Group. Like it or not, the Catholic Church gets to decide who/what are Catholic Organizations. To say otherwise simply defies logic and reason---regardless of what some non-authoritative source might say

The president of the CFC acknowledges that the group that is responsible for determining what is a catholic group, the USCCB/NCCB, stated: “On a number of occasions the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) has stated publicly that [the group] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.” The bodies whose compromise the leadership of the chuch in the US, the USCCB/NCCB issued an edict, which explicitly states, CFC "is not a Catholic organization" and "Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization"[4]. That is a primary source from the defining group. Any reporter/newspaper which says otherwise, is interjecting their POV/Bias/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge into the debate. It is a group of Catholics, but that does not make it a Catholic Group. Similarly, I could create a group tomorrow called "Republicans for Obama" or "Democrats for Romney"; my making such a group would not make the group a Republican or Democrat group---especially if the Republican/Democratic party explicitly states the group is not part of the group.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply at length to this, since you should just make the effort to read previous discussion on the subject about how WP doesn't accept, as reliable, denial of someone else's religious identification, how fringe sources like LifeNews and the Catholic League are not acceptable, how "we should ignore mainstream news and scholarly literature because reliable sources don't agree with me" is not going to win you any arguments on WP, etc. I'll just take a moment to laugh at your last comment, though, since there are groups called Republicans for Choice and Democrats for Life in spite of those positions being in opposition to the parties' platforms. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What Roscelese calls the excellently sourced "fact" about the group being "a Catholic organization" (in which sense?) is disputed. It is not just a matter of criticism of the organization. It is a questioning, in an excellently sourced manner, of the alleged "fact". Editors here disagree about the relative weight to give to the claim and the questioning. It seems that only B and R want the "fact" to be stated in isolation from the questioning. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again (how many times have I said this?) religious identification is not up for debate. Criticism of identification is, in fact, criticism, and, like other criticism, needs to be treated as opinion rather than fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the "religious identification" of the CFC members. The qualification of the organization as "Catholic" is a different matter. Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the same would not apply. WP does not police religion and is not subject to religious authority. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the organization which has the authority and responsibility for identifying groups which are part of the organization has spoken. This is not an abstract. The USCCB has the right, power, and responsibility to make these declarations. You don't. I don't. Reuters doesn't. CFC doesn't. Some professor somewhere else doesn't. The UCSSB does.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were an individual who was making a claim to being a certain religion made a claim, then you are 100% correct. We would not be debating it---unless the organization to which that individual claimed membership explicitly states otherwise. If I claimed to be member of the ABC Church; but the ABC church explicitly excommunicated me, then guess what, I would not be part of that church even if I claim membership. For Wikipedia to place priority on my claim, over that of the ABC Church would be a violation of policy and credibility. The same is true for any organization. If the governing body for the organization says, "No." Then that organizations stance has to be accepted as authoritative---especially if it is the authoritative body for the organization. E.g. if the Methodist Church makes a statement at its annual conference, that statement is binding because of the structure of the Methodist Church. If a Baptist Church makes a statement at its annual conference, that statement is only bindng on those baptist churches which acknowldge the conference because the Baptist Church does not have a singular ruling body. The Catholic Church does. We are NOT bound by personal interpretation/opinion, the group which has the responsibility AND authority in the US has made a statement. That statement is authoritative.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A similar statement can be made about race. We do not debate race here on WP, but will generally let the person self identify their own race. That is the general practice. But take a look at Ward_churchhill#Ethnicity. Ward Churchhill claims membership to a specific Cherokee tribe, but that tribe doesn't recognize it. If the tribe didn't have a governing body that had the authority to speak on the matter, we would accept Churchhills claim. But they do. As a result, we do not include his ethnicity in the lead. Similarly we should not make the declaration that CFC is a "Catholic organization" just because they claim it---especially when we have an authoritative body saying otherwise.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that's not actually how we work at all. Can we agree to discuss this issue based on what WP policy and practice actually are, and not what we wish they would be? 1. We absolutely do not allow excommunication to override someone's religious identification. Just look at the articles on excommunicated people. 2. WP does not recognize the bishops' authority. This is very unlikely to change. Sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's do:

• Emmanuel Milingo former Roman Catholic archbishop from Zambia.
• Bernard Fellay bishop and superior general of the Traditionalist Catholic Society of St. Pius X. (ask him and he's more of a true Roman Catholic than the Pope, but our article does not call him a Roman Catholic, but rather recognizes the SSPX.) Similar statements about Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson (bishop), and Alfonso de Galarreta. Their articles state immediately that they were excommunicated but disputed their excommunication.
• Dale Fushek Vicar General of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix.
• Community of the Lady of All Nations is a Marian sect founded by Marie-Paule Giguère
• Call To Action is an organization that advocates for a variety of liberal causes to change the Catholic Church.
• The only living person whom I can find an article on where we use the present tense and actually call them Catholic after their excommunications is Margaret McBride---but wait, McBride is no longer excommunicated, so using present tense is fully accurate.

So your premise is wrong in saying that people whom have been excommunicated are still referred to as Catholic.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And I could pull out the same number of articles, or more, which categorize the individuals as Catholic or, when relevant, refer to them as such in the lead. Why are you pretending there's some universal standard here? Again, we should at least be able to agree to discuss policy as it is rather than as we wish it would be. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Roscelese and Balloonman, but your premise about people is incorrect. Once a person is baptized into the Catholic Church, or received from a Protestant ecclesial community, that person is Catholic for eternity. The theology behind this is an ontological change in the soul, much like the spirit endowed at ordination. Excommunication is merely a medicinal penalty designed to bring the person back into the Church. There used to be a proviso in Canon Law that one could "formally defect" from the Church, but even this did not make a person not-Catholic. From the Church's point of view, there is no way in heaven or on earth to reverse a baptism, therefore even the excommunicated, the heretics and the apostates are still Catholic, and can use that term for themselves. The point of contention here is the right of organizations to use the term. That right is clearly outlined in Canon Law (see cann. 300ff). So after a fashion, Wikipedia is following Church law in permitting excommunicated people to self-identify as Catholic. :-) Elizium23 (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whose side are you on ;-) Ok, technically from an ontological/theological perspective, this is true... but from a human perspective, I'll quote Roscoelee... WP ain't governed by a religious belief ;-) I was simply showing that his claim about how we treat excommunicated Catholics was wrong.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, again, the theological side of this is interesting but ultimately irrelevant to how we discuss anyone's status in article space. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism is NOT the same as Catholic Church. Please read Catholicism article for a detailed explanation of the use by different churches. There you can find that Catholic Church is only one of the many denominations who consider themselves Catholic. Also note that term Catholic redirects to Catholicism article, and NOT Catholic Church article. So, to say that some organization is Catholic does not imply any connection with the Holy See. Catholic Church, of course, can determine who is a member of the Catholic Church, but has no monopoly to determine who is and who is not Catholic, because Catholicism is far broader term.--В и к и T 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Your argument might have weight if the group wasn't trying to identify itself with the Roman Catholic Church and presented itself as such.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

B and R would doubtless not at all agree that the article explain that in relation with CFC "Catholic" does not mean associated with the Catholic Church! Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Still, if they consider themselves Catholic, Roman Catholic Church bishops have no final authority to say otherwise. The relevant part of the sentence was “Catholics for Choice is a Catholic organization” not “Catholics for Choice is an organization of the Catholic Church”. Saying that organization is “Catholic” does not imply any connection with Holy See.--В и к и T 20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ACtually, it can. Therein lies the problem. A group calling itself a "Catholic organization" and identifies itself as a Roman Catholic organization, creates the impression that it is a recognized Roman Catholic group. Removing the single word does not fundamentally change the lead. With the use of the word "Catholic" four times in the lead sentence, there is a clear implication that the group is a "catholic organization" and use is not some "generic catholic" but "Roman Catholic." Removing the word, will not have anybody suddenly assuming that the group is not a Catholic group. Leaving it in there, however, may create an implication that the group is a catholic group recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Leaving it in there is at best sloppy writing and at worse misleading and POV. Remove the word and it doesn't change the implication that the group is 'catholic' with a lower case. I mean with the name "Catholic" in its title and uses "Catholic" twice in its mission statement---all in the lead sentence---the implication is clear. But leaving it in and citing Rueter pretending that Reuter's has the authority to speak on the matter, is a clear violation of POV and UNDUE.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How are you defining "recognized"? Again, the Catholic League is also not recognized; it's been personally endorsed by individual bishops, but it's not an association of the faithful or anything. Yet we still call it "Catholic" (even though it has "Catholic" its name and mission statement! Shock and horror!) Are we falsely implying that it is a recognized Roman Catholic group? This argument is very weak; no one reads "a Catholic organization" to mean "an organization officially founded or recognized by the RCC," and, as I said, any decision to use that standard would affect many more articles than this. And yes, Reuters (and Westview Press, ABC-CLIO, Temple U. Press, Taylor & Francis, &c., &c., &c.) do have the authority to speak on the matter, because Wikipedia is governed by WP:RS, not by canon law. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Endorsed by bishops is recognized. Even without a bishop's approval, if an organization hasn't been condemned, then they have tacit approval to operate as a "Catholic" organization. I don't know which bishops "personally endorsed" it, but if the ordinary of the see in which Catholic League is based has approved them, then that's quite an official stamp of approval. Even apparitions do not need approval from Rome to be "worthy of belief", they just need approval by a local bishop with authority and jurisdiction to make the judgement. And that is what this case is about, authority and jurisdiction, and NPOV. By way of another example, books and other written and recorded works can be given nihil obstat and imprimatur by regional authority, and then be published worldwide. The ordinary of a see carries quite a lot of authority in Catholicism, and it is authority and jurisdiction that counts in this case. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is the list of quotes here. Even the CL doesn't pretend that this constitutes official recognition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Really, did you read the page you linked to? Third paragraph, The Catholic League is listed in the Official Catholic Directory and has won the plaudits of many bishops. Sounds like official recognition to me? Is the CFC in the Official Catholic Directory? Has it ever been?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The directory is official in that the directory is recognized; it isn't published by the church and doesn't claim to confer official recognition on anything it includes. Incidentally, I've been unable to verify the claim that the CL is in the directory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why the big fuss

Ok I hafta ask, why do those who want to include a single word into the first sentence think it matters? The word is already used 4 times in the first sentence. There is a clear implication that the group is a "catholic group/organization" based upon its current and former name and based upon its mission statement. Removing it does not imply that it is not a Catholic organization---that is left for later during the criticism section as it should be. Adding it a fifth time is simply poor writing at best and misleading at worse. Remove that the connotation that CFC is a "Catholic group/organization" and you remove the contentious part without interjecting a POV. Without it, it is POV neutral as the 4 other uses in the first sentence carry the same message. Inclusion, however, does carry a POV and implies sanctioning/legitimacy as a Catholic organization. It implies that WP recognizes it as a Catholic organization, removal does not make the opposite stance (as Catholic is already used 4 times in the lead sentence.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in your talk page: I could say the same thing to you. Why do those who want to remove a single word from the first sentence think it matters? The word is already used 4 times in the first sentence. There is a clear implication that the group is a "Catholic group/organization" based upon its current and former name and based upon its mission statement. Removing it does not imply, as you are trying to imply or explicitly claim, that it is not a Catholic organization. Etc., etc.

Seriously though, you're going to have to provide better arguments for removing reliably sourced material than "my religion disagrees with it." This is not a debate, because we do not debate religious identification. This is a sourced fact and criticism of that fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I gave a few resons: 1) at best using the same word 5 times in the lead sentence is poor writing and 2) at worse it is misleading. The inclusion of the word does contian a POV because it has a contextual meaning that people will misinterpret; removal of the word does not imply the opposite. Remove the word and nobody suddenly gets the wrong opinion, "Oh this sentence that has the word catholic 4 times doesn't explicitly define the group as 'Catholic' there for it must not be." Removal leave the status of the group for the main article---which is where it should be. So quite simply, removal of one word is A) more accurate, B) less contentious, and C) NPOV. So again, I ask, why do you think it is necessary?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's really about repetition of words, which is a really transparent argument, I assume you'll have no quarrel with removing or paraphrasing the mission statement while preserving sourced material about the organization's religious identification. I, meanwhile, believe that it should be included because WP:WEIGHT requires us to include material proportional to its inclusion in reliable sources, which by and large name the group as Catholic, and also because all attempts to remove it have been based in personal religious and political beliefs rather than WP policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is based upon reality and WP policy. The UNDUE is to insist that we have to use "catholic organization" in the lead, when such a phrase is A) clearly controversial B) redundant C) misleading and D) confusing. If an article is written about ANY group with the name of its parent organization in the groups title, then there will be an automatic assumption that said group is affiliated with that organization. They will automatically assume that the group is such. That is a simple process of logic. So nobody who comes here and sees "Catholic for Free Choice" will assume, "Oh wait, the lead sentence doesn't say it is a 'catholic organization' therefore it must not be.' They will see "organization" and make the assumption that it is. Thus removing the word will not lead people to assume that it is not a catholic organization---to imply otherwise if faulty. Including the word, however, does lead to misunderstanding, because people will mistakenly interpret it to mean that it is affiliated with the Catholic Church.

As for the mission statement, sure go ahead and edit it; but it still doesn't change the poor wording of the lead.

As for reliable sources... we have reliable sources, that say otherwise. You just want to place absolute authority in Reuters---and lord knows newspapers/magazines never get it wrong. Despite authoritative sources saying otherwise.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Because "authoritative sources" never get it wrong...

If you want to claim undue weight, you're really going to have to provide real sources for the group's not being Catholic. Right now, you haven't even tried to provide real sources about the USCCB saying it isn't Catholic. WEIGHT isn't just a word that you can throw around when you feel that your personal beliefs aren't reflected in the article; it has to do with viewpoints represented in reliable secondary sources. I've already addressed the redundancy argument, the nonsense "it's just Reuters" argument, and the silly little claim that accurately representing sources is somehow misleading, so I won't repeat myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Official association with the Catholic Church

Once again, I repeat my assertion that the two sides to this debate seem to be talking past each other because they are not acknowledging and accepting that there are two different meanings to the phrase "Catholic organization", "an organization of Catholics" and an "organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church".

I recognize now that my use of Mormonism being or not being Christian was an imperfect analogy. The reason for this is that there is no central authority that establishes whether or not a church claiming to be Christian is or is not Christian. With the Catholic Church, there is such an organization (i.e. the Vatican operating through the national conferences of bishops).

As has been said by others, it is not for WP to pass judgment on whether or not members of the CFC are "true Catholics" or not. However, it IS important to communicate that the CFC is not an organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

Imagine an organization called "Berkeley Faculty for Aryan Power". UC Berkeley would certainly distance itself from such an organization and insist that it was not officially sanctioned by the university.

Imagine an organization called "Democratic Party for White Supremacy". The Democratic National Committee would certainly distance itself from such an organization and insist that it was in no way an organization sanctioned by the Democratic Party.

In each case, the members of these hypothetical organizations might well be UC Berkeley faculty or registered Democrats. However, the governing bodies of UC Berkeley and the Democratic party have the right to assert whether or not other organizations have any official affiliation with them or not.

This is what the USCCB and CCCB are doing. And it is perfectly understandable and legitimate. It is not just "self-published criticism".

I'm out of time. Real world obligations are calling. I'll come back later with a few more comments.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue that JorgePeixoto and I tried to deal with last year in terms of categories (the discussion was weakly attended so I've re-started it at CFD). No, CFC isn't officially affiliated with the RCC. However, neither are other lay organizations like the Catholic League. I don't think "Catholic" implies "affiliated with the governing body of the church," but if we decided it did, CFC would be far from the only article affected. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Richard, individual local bishops get to say who is called Catholic in their own dioceses. The USCCB doesn't have real authority here, as far as I know. And Rome is going to either uphold or overturn what is decreed locally. But to give a concrete example that was very much in the news, take the Catholic hospital in Phoenix which performed an abortion, St. Joseph's. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted stripped them of Catholic identity, which involves not being able to use the "Catholic" name in materials and advertising, withdrawing permission to reserve the Blessed Sacrament on site, and withdrawing permission to have Masses said on the premises. Plus the nun who authorized it had automatically excommunicated herself. So you see, the bishop didn't even have to issue a decree of excommunication, it was done before he got any word, and entirely of his own authority and jurisdiction, stripped the Catholic status of an organization operating in his diocese. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh... I accept your correction and I concede that what I wrote about the authority coming from "the Vatican operating through the national conferences of bishops" is sloppy and inaccurate. The gist of what I wrote remains nonetheless valid. The Church as a whole, operating through local bishops as guided by national conferences and ultimately the Pope, has the right to determine who can claim to be a "Catholic organization". Self-identification operates differently wrt to "Catholic" than it does wrt to "Christian". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Their "right to determine" does not extend to Wikipedia, which does not recognize religious authority and which goes with self-identification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Next thing you know, you'll be arguing that if somebody's citizenship is revoked; but they still claim to be a citizen of the place that revoked their citizenship, that their self identication outweighs the governing body? Which is essentially the argument you are making. "Wikipedia doesn't recognize political authority." It has nothing to do with it being a religious authority, but rather the authority over the body/organization in question.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, because Wikipedia would never say someone was of a certain nationality if their citizenship were revoked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic League is, however, endorsed by the body underwhose purvue Cathlic organizations exist. With the Catholic League, you have a group which claims to be a Catholic organization, where the people who have authority to speak on who/what is a Catholic organization have endorsed it as such. CFC, however, is explicitly declared not to be a catholic organization by the only entity which has the authority to make such a statement. Again, leaving the exact status of the organization for the main body of the article does not make any implications on the status of the group, but to declare it a "Catholic organization" in the first sentence without qualification makes a false implication. Removal of the word does not fundamentally change the lead except to remove a phrase which might be misinterpretted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether "groups endorsed" and "groups not endorsed" is a useful distinction. ("Not endorsed" would also apparently group FC with organizations like the National Organization for Decent Literature and Minuto de Dios.) I imagine that if the new categorization scheme were adopted, we would be able to create sub-cats for recognized organizations of the faithful and so on, but "some bishops put in a good word for them" is not strong enough to base any categorization (either Category: or in prose) on. "Hierarchical" and "lay" (or, as Jorge and I suggest, "RCC" and "organizations of Catholics") is a much more useful distinction, which also allows for subcats like "lay but officially recognized" and "dissenting." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, this is not WP:CFD. Let's focus on the facts: CFC is an organization of (some) Catholics with a mission targeted at Catholics. The Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. has criticized CFC as being incompatible with Church teaching. That's all we need to say. We don't need to get into complicated discussions about "groups endorsed" and "groups not endorsed". That's a discussion best left for WP:CFD. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm not the one who brought up the question of whether or not they're affiliated with the church hierarchy. Obviously they're not. But I don't think that affects whether or not we call them Catholic, because we call many unaffiliated groups Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And how many of those groups have been officially excommunicated and condemned by the USCCB?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Catholic" from "Catholic organization" is not enough

Apologies to Balloonman but the use of the word "Catholic" five times in the lead has the effect that removing one use of the word (i.e. from "Catholic organization") will not remove the implication that this is a "Catholic organization". And yes, it is an organization of Catholics but no, it is not authorized to claim to be Catholic. So, I see no alternative but to establish early on (i.e. in the lead, maybe even in the first paragraph of the lead) that CFC does not have the authorization of the Catholic Church to claim to be "Catholic". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is where I will disagree with you. The group CAN use the name, as Archbishop Listecki said shortly before being installed in Milwaukee, "While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like 'Young Catholics for Choice' in fact disown their Catholic heritage."[5] WP can't force them to change their name nor can we tell them to take catholic out of their mission statement. I think it is pretty clear from reading the article that this group stands in contrast to the Church and is not a Catholic organization despite what they claim. My contention is the one word which is piss poor writing and misleading. With the explicit declaration from the Church governing body in the US, leaving the term Catholic organization in the lead is a clear violation of POV as it is misleading in a lead that implies it already.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point and you will probably agree once you understand what I meant. Of course, they have the civil right to use the word "Catholic" since it is not trademarked. However, by canon law, they may not claim to be "Catholic" without the permission of the proper episcopal authority (paraphrased). That authority has been withheld and thus it is incumbent on Wikipedia to note that the CFC's use of the word "Catholic" contravenes the judgment of one or more episcopal authorities. It is the responsibility of the reader to make of that what he/she will. At the end of the day, the question is whether or not Catholics are free to believe differently from the teaching of the Church. That question transcends both the CFC in particular and abortion rights in general. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

While we could note that the USCCB has said they're not a Catholic org, we couldn't make any statement about the "right" to use the word Catholic without better sourcing than anyone has yet provided. I did a super-quick little google with canon 216 but couldn't find anything WP considers reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that "Catholic" and "pro-choice" are inherently contradictory, as you seem to be saying, then surely leaving the word in is enough of a compromise, since according to you, readers will just know that it's not Catholic. You also continue to misunderstand NPOV; it does not entail giving all views equal weight and it certainly does not entail giving the view of an interest group more weight than the views of reliable sources.

Pseudo-Richard: it's already in the lead in gross violation of WP:UNDUE (given the lack of real sourcing for it). Pretty much everything else in the article - the group's history, activities, NYT ad, UN campaign, even some of the criticism - has real sources. Mainstream non-agenda-based news, scholarly literature. I think that if you want to discuss the group's criticism by the USCCB in the lead, even with the current weight, you need to find reliable secondary sources. Certainly the current sourcing is pathetically inadequate to give it the additional weight you are suggesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: None of what I have written before or write below should be construed to make any inference as to my position on Catholic teaching regarding abortion rights. I am writing about how I perceive the world to be, not about what I personally believe the world should be.

I grant the "if" part (that "Catholic" and "pro-choice" are inherently incompatible) but not the "then part (that leaving the word in is enough of a compromise).

As to the "if" part, there was a famous public kerfuffle in 1984 between Geraldine Ferraro and John Cardinal O'Connor. A couple years prior, Ferraro signed the famous CFC letter and asserted that "the Catholic Church's position on abortion is not monolithic." After a several days of back-and-forth with Cardinal O'Connor, Ferraro finally conceded that, "the Catholic Church's position on abortion is monolithic" but she went on to say that "But I do believe that there are a lot of Catholics who do not share the view of the Catholic Church".[6]

Note the distinction that Ferraro drew between "Catholics" and the "Catholic Church". IMO, the CFC may be a "Catholic organization" in the sense that its members are Catholics but it is not a "Catholic Church organization" in the sense that it does not have the permission of the proper episcopal authority to lay claim to being "Catholic".

As to the "then" part, many Catholics have been taught that "pro-choice" and "Catholic teaching" are incompatible and irreconcilably opposed. However, many Wikipedia readers are not Catholic and thus we need to make clear that the Catholic Church challenges CFC's right under canon law to claim to be a Catholic organization.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand the argument that "Catholic" implies "officially affiliated with the Catholic Church" or even "has official permission to call itself Catholic." You could make a weeeeeeak case for that being true if this were a Catholic encyclopedia, but it's not; it's an encyclopedia for non-Catholic Christians, non-Christian religious people, and people of no religion at all, as well as Catholics. "Catholic" has its common meaning here, because, as I said, we are not under the jurisdiction of the RCC and are not subject to its canon law in the enforcement of our policies.

We do already make it clear that the RCC "challenges CFC's right under canon law to claim to be a Catholic organization." It's in the text of the article and is unlikely to go anywhere. What we cannot do is edit as though this changes the group's status or identification, since, again, WP is not subject to RCC authority. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing for USCCB

Given that part of the contention about the weight given to the USCCB statement rests on the fact that we don't have a real source for it, has anyone considered finding a reliable secondary source? Preferably a scholarly one, since a lot of the rest of the article is written with scholarly sources, but mainstream news would also help.

Additionally, does everyone agree that the Canadian and Mexican bishops' statements are unnecessary, given that CFC is an American organization and that there are separate organizations which operate in those countries? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We have adequate sources for the USCCB statement. The text of the statement itself is just as real and adequate as the source for the article's opening statement about what CFC was founded for. The USCCB statement is also quoted by the Canadian Bishops Conference. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the source might be inaccurate, but rather that, being self-published/primary, it falls far short of WP's guidelines for reliable sources. (WP generally admits primary/SPS exceptions for the subject of the article - see WP:ABOUTSELF - which here is CFC, not the bishops' conference.) Please find reliable secondary sources, so that we can make sure we are weighting things appropriately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First, I provided some sources above.

Second, the USCCB is speaking about itself and what it means to be Catholic... as they are the governing body in the US, they are uniquely qualified to speak on the subject of what is Catholic and what is not. It is under their purvue that gets to judge what is and is not Catholic---this is especially true if the group in question claims to be Catholic in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church uses the phrase. They are not claiming to use the phrase in the 'catholic' (lower case) tradition, but the "C"atholic traiditon---upper case. As the CFC makes that claim, the USCCB is EXPLICITLY capable of speaking on the subject and responding.

If the CFC were identifying itself as Old Catholics or SSPX Catholics, then we would use such a modifier---but they are not. Hey wait, I just came up with a perfect compromise! Rosemary Radford Ruether is a CFC board member! Let's use her language in the lead sentence! "The CFC is a schismatic Catholic organization!" We have a source for that from a CFC board member! Such language is perfectly in line with the USCCB! We can find plenty of other reliable sources that indicate that the group is not in harmony with the Catholic Church---whose traditions it claims to speak from. Perfect solution!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What, LifeNews and primary sources and such? I believe I asked for real sources.

"Schismatic," taken out of context, implies, in my view, that the schism is religious rather than political (à la the classic schisms). Other words could possibly be appropriate. I'm curious, however, in finding out that you believe that adding a word before "Catholic" mitigates it; would you be content to reverse "pro-choice" and "Catholic" (so that it would be a "pro-choice Catholic organization" rather than a "Catholic pro-choice organization")? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a religious dispute. The ecclesiastical authorities have determined that CFC holds a belief contrary to Church doctrine. It has nothing to do about political platforms, Republican vs. Democrat, voting for the wrong candidate. CFC violates doctrine, Canon Law, and Divine Law. The USCCB is not a political body but an ecclesiastical authority with power and jurisdiction to judge who has the right to be called "Catholic". CFC's belief and actions are schismatic just as Martin Luther or Marcel Lefebvre. Elizium23 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written for an audience of Catholics. To a general audience, "schism" is not going to suggest "they disagree with the church on a political position for which the bishops have campaigned on the opposing side," but a schism of a religious nature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not present both views together?

Whether CFC is or is not a "Catholic organization" is disputed, both within this Wikipedia discussion and publicly. Roscelese wants to present CFC as definitely a "Catholic organization" (despite, some might say, the Catholic Church's contrary view, but Roscelese dislikes "in spite of"). The majority of the active editors are arguing that CFC is definitely not a "Catholic organization" (while admitting that in a loose imprecise way CFC is called such). There seems to be no possibility of agreeing here that either view outweighs the other ("due weight"). Cannot we present both views side by side without opting for either and let the reader choose which to adopt? If this principle were admitted, we would cut out all the arguing for or against presenting either view as fact, and could work towards an agreed presentation of both views together. Can we agree on the principle? Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policy and practice is against presenting side-by-side objective reliably sourced material and criticism from opponents as if they were equivalent. We also do not let the reader "choose" whether or not Barack Obama is Muslim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has repeated her opinion that one view outweighs the other, while other editors hold that the other view outweighs the one she prefers. Already known and stated. Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see any argument placed forth from anybody that "catholic organization/group" makes for a better sentence in the lead. I have yet to see anybody dispute the fact that removing the term from the first sentence would lessen or create a misconception (while inclusion of the word does create a misconception.) So far Roscelese is a lone voice singing a lone mantra without rebutting any of the criticisms. The status of the CFC as a "Catholic organization" is POV when presented in the first sentence because it is disputed/controversial. Thus, should be removed from the lead. Discussion of their position is properly handled elsewhere.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether it makes a "better sentence" is irrelevant, because problems of phrasing tend to be easy to solve. Let's end the charade that this is about making a felicitous sentence. I wish to preserve the information because it is copiously supported by sources Wikipedia considers reliable, including a number of scholarly works, while you wish to remove it because it contradicts your religious beliefs as detailed in a statement from a body whose authority you recognize but others do not. Neither of us is arguing grammar. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Roscelese is not a "lone voice". Binksternet and Sarek of Vulcan support her POV. They are, at the moment, in the minority but Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, not by democracy. Let's seek to find consensus. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In view of the many-voiced controversy that clearly exists, both here and in "the real world", there are good grounds for taking seriously Balloonman's suggestion that the question of whether CFC is a "Catholic organization" should be handled outside the lead. At present, it is not only in the lead but, treated in a one-sided way, the leading item in the lead. Esoglou (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot that someone has removed it from the leading position. Perhaps a good occasion to insert it at least a little later, even if still in the lead. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't see anything Binksternet has said to argue that "catholic organization" needs to stay in the first sentence. Sarek has not contributed to the discussion, his contribution was to revert my edit wherein I removed the word in question.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if Binksternet has made no statement on the issue, she/he did make an edit that moved "Catholic organization" back to the opening words and he/she usually backs Roscelese. Sarek also has made no statement, but his/her actions of reverting your edit and blocking me (alone) before realizing that with 19(?) edits on this page she/he was not "sufficiently uninvolved" may perhaps be an indication of the view that Pseudo-Richard attributes to him/her. Formally, you, Balloonman, are correct; but in interpretation of intentions (which admittedly we should normally avoid), Pseudo-Richard may perhaps be right. Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. This quoted text is directly from WP:NPOV. Please allow us to conform the article to this policy, this pillar of Wikipedia. I am not attempting to push a POV, I am attempting to defend NPOV against your own POV. Elizium23 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what I'm trying to adhere to. Just as the policy says, we can't segregate statements about CFC's religious status as though it were a debate between proponents and opponents. It's not a debate. It's what's supported both by WP self-ID policy and by copious sourcing on the one hand, and criticism from political opponents on the other. By all means propose ways of integrating criticism into the broader article body (I'm certainly opposed to criticism ghettoes and have worked in other articles to integrate critical material), but keep in mind that the criticism does not affect the cited facts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Political opponents? The way you are framing this debate, you make it sound like 12 Republican soccer moms in Tampa, Florida issued a press release saying this group was naughty. You're trivializing the response of what is in reality the competent authority with legal jurisdiction over them. Also, you two have collaboratively added 15 references to support the objectionable word, which I view as a bit disruptive in itself. Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The addition of the references would not have been necessary if users advocating ignoring the references had not repeatedly claimed we were relying on only one reference; are you arguing that the USCCB's opposition to CFC has nothing to do with the USCCB's political positions on abortion and similar issues? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Segregate" - Roscelese, that is just what you are doing by presenting the description "Catholic organization" first as an unquestioned fact and only later mentioning the opposing view. There is no Wikipedia justification for this breach of its neutrality policy. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally, when one has a large body of reliable (incl. scholarly) sources that support a fact and an absence of similar sources that contradict it, it is unquestioned fact for purposes of Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability, not truth. Similarly, we do not juxtapose fringe scientific ideas with established fact for purposes of "balance." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The judgement of 272 active US bishops (plus Mexico and Canada) certainly isn't a fringe view. And the mainstream media has a clear political advantage in ignoring said judgement for the purpose of creating a controversy and selling newspapers (or whatever it is that newspapers sell these days). The mainstream media has a clear pro-abortion bias, but Wikipedia is not mainstream media. Wikipedia is governed by WP:NPOV which requires that we do not segregate viewpoints to make one appear like truth and one appear like fringe criticism by 12 Republican soccer moms. Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Writing that we can't trust reliable sources because they're all biased is not doing much to convince anyone that both sides here, rather than just one, is interested in following WP policy rather than promoting a personal point of view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me quote more of WP:NPOV here for posterity, as I have been reading it with alacrity since determining that it unequivocally supports my position. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. ... Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. I feel that the opinion expressed in the mainstream media about this group should be presented as opinion, together with the opinion of the USCCB, in order to comply with NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a small group of politically extreme people disagrees with the mainstream, reliably sourced view does not create a situation in which a fact becomes a "seriously contested assertion." Similarly, as I said, the fact that 10 to 20% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is Muslim (rather more people, I'd say, than the number of people in the USCCB, who we can't even guarantee released the statement unanimously) is not grounds to pretend there is a serious debate about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Self Identification

Roscolese, the CFC is not self-identifying itself as catholic organization with a lower case "c" or Catholic as a schismatic/independent group; it represents itself as Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense of the term. When they claim to be Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, then they open the door to having the authorities in the RCC speak. If the CFC were claiming ot be catholic with a lower case "c", then I would be on your side. I would agree, that using the term "catholic organization" is acceptable; but the CFC does not take that stance.

They do not use the term "Catholic" in the generic sense (body of ALL believers---Roman Catholic, Protestant, and others). If they did, then their publications would address issues pertinent to the larger 'catholic' community, not explicitly to the Roman Catholic community. Their mission statement would not appeal to the Catholic traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, but a more generic tradition. The CFC does not intend it's name to be read as 'catholic' in the sense of the body of all believers, but rather "Catholic" in the sense of Roman Catholic. The CFC explicitly uses catholic to equate to Roman Catholic. Similarly, when sources such as Rueters cite them as being Catholic, they are not doing so in the lower case/generic sense, but rather in the Roman Catholic sense of the word.

Since they and others identify them as Catholic in the Roman Catholic understanding, not a generic manner, then the views of the governing body of that organization (USCCB) do become relevant. The USCCB and bishops DO have the authority over which groups are Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense of the term---which is how Catholic is used here. It is not a matter of wikipedia accepting religious authority, it is about an independent group (the RCC) having the ability to self-regulate/govern itself. That group has explicilty rejected the claims of another group (the CFC). Since the CFC makes their identication as (Roman) Catholics, the USCCB does have the authority and power to respond and say "no".

Our saying that they are a "catholic organization" is not our saying they are a "catholic organization" in the generic sense of the term catholic; but rather in a Roman Catholic sense---because that is how the CFC uses the term in its name/mission. It is POV and improper for us to imply that the group is Roman Catholic, when the governing body says no. If the usage was generic or qualified to a specific catholic organization, then I would agree with you; but it is not.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Similarly, when sources such as Rueters cite them as being Catholic, they are not doing so in the lower case/generic sense, but rather in the Roman Catholic sense of the word." - lol, so Reuters is a reliable source right up until the point where you disagree with what it says? At any rate, whether it's lowercase-c catholic or uppercase-C Catholic is irrelevant, because it may identify as either without Wikipedia bowing to criticism from opposition groups on how it should do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reuters is a news source, it is not infallable. It does refer to CFC as a Catholic organization in the sense that it is making the implication that CFC is a Roman Catholic organization. Do you deny that? When news sources cite the CFC as a "catholic organization" are they doing so as a "Roman Catholic" organization? Yes. Thus, these secondary organizations attribute a specific meaning to the term Catholic---not a generic one. And guess what, they can be wrong---fathom that!

Let's make a simple analogy to show how absurd your stance is. Chris claims to be dating Lee. Lee says no. Reuters accepts Chris' claim to be dating Lee. Lee says no. According to you, since Chris is self identifying as dating Lee and Reuters accepts Chris' claim that makes it so. When others point to what Lee says, you say "No, we can't trust what Lee says because Lee is a primary source. And we can only accept primary sources insofar as they relate to themselves. Since we aren't talking about Lee, but rather about Chris, we can't accept Lee's statement unless another reliable source cites it... and even if you do, it doesn't matter because we have reliable sources saying Chris is dating Lee." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? And yet, that is the stance you are taking!

The CFC claims to be a Catholic in the ROMAN CATHOLIC tradition of the term. There is a specific governing body which defines that organizations usage---and organization that has been evolving for close to 2000 years. But you don't want to recognize that groups authority.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

With your Chris and Lee example...so, one party can't unilaterally make a claim about something fundamental related to another party, is that what you're saying? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? You think I'm going to say "yes"? Lee is fully capable of "unilaterally" making a statement that Chris' claim is false. Thus in fact I'm saying quite the opposite. Because the CFC makes a claim to a specific tradition and that specific tradition has a recognize voice/authority with which it speaks, then that voice can confirm/deny the relationship. It is explicitly because the CFC makes a claim to a specific tradition and Reuters accepts that claim, that the voice to which they claim does have value. They claim it is (Roman) Catholic; but the Roman Catholic tradition has recognized authorities who have the power to speak on its behalf.. Make it generic catholic or Old Catholic; then the USCCB's views are meaningless. But claim to be a RC group, then the USCCB's input is explictily relevant.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If "relevance" were what you were promoting here, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're not arguing that the USCCB's views are relevant; you're arguing that our WP:RS policy must be subordinated to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(Additionally, the analogy is at at bottom rather silly; the news agency would inevitably retract such a claim if it were contradicted by Lee, and they have not done so in this case, suggesting that criticism from bishops does not affect their identifying people or organizations as Catholic - just like Wikipedia.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Still talking past each other

It's amazing how impossible it seems to resolve this when the solution seems so clear to me. Either you guys are dense or I'm dense. Help me figure out which one of us it is.

Look, does anybody here think that CFC claims to be sanctioned by the Catholic Church? No, I can't imagine anybody does. Not even Binksternet and Roscelese.

Does anybody here think that the press (e.g. Reuters) thinks CFC is sanctioned by the Catholic Church? Can't imagine that either.

Does anybody here think that the members of CFC are not Catholics? Of course not. They are not Anglicans, Old Catholics or Orthodox masquerading as Roman Catholics. These are all people who self-identify as Catholics although some of them may have been excommunicated as a result of their membership in CFC.

CFC's claim is that it is possible for good Catholics to have diverse opinions on abortion rights. The Catholic Church insists otherwise. The most famous example of this was John Cardinal O'Connor's smackdown of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. At the end of several days of public back-and-forth debate, Ferraro conceded "the Catholic Church's position on abortion is monolithic" but she went on to say that "But I do believe that there are a lot of Catholics who do not share the view of the Catholic Church". The Catholics that Ferraro was speaking about are the kind of people that are members of CFC.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so hard to present in an NPOV manner? It doesn't matter whether you agree with CFC or with the Catholic Church. Wikipedia's mandate is to present the debate impartially while avoiding taking a side one way or the other.

Nobody, not Reuters, nobody is suggesting that CFC is a Catholic organization in the sense that it is an organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church. If anybody can speak authoritatively to that question, it is the USCCB and the USCCB's "press releases" in that regard are plenty reliable. Come on, really? Self-published source? Gimme a break. Even a press release is a reliable source to the extent that it represents the official position of the organization or entity issuing the press release. That is, a USCCB press release can be considered reliable to the extent that it says "The position of the USCCB is X".

Also, note that CFC's website nowhere asserts that it is a "Catholic organization". Yes, its mission statement mentions that its target audience consists of Catholics and that its objectives relate to Catholic teaching regarding abortion but nowhere does it claim to be sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

What Reuters clearly means is that the CFC is an organization composed of Catholics. I don't think anybody would dispute that assertion. If there is another meaning that others ascribe to Reuters and other reliable sources, perhaps someone would advise me what that other meaning is.

Can we get off this merry-go-round and write text that presents these points?

Sheesh, already.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with you, Richard, as I suppose do all involved editors except R&B (and possibly Sarek). But can you propose for insertion in the article a wording that reflects what you say and that has the slightest hope of getting past the blocking by R&B (and possibly Sarek)? Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any direction offered by your new post to this thread. CFC is still referred to as Catholic in most reliable sources. The world in general sees them as Catholic. The Catholic Church's hierarchy does not. Wikipedia in this case is the world in general. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, can you answer these questions for me?

1. What, in your opinion, is the definition of a "Catholic organization" as applied to CFC?
2. Do any of the media sources that you and Roscelese consider reliable actually provide a definition of the phrase "Catholic organization"?
3. If we cannot come up with a mutually-agreed upon definition of what the media sources mean when they say "Catholic organization", should we not be hesitant to use that phrase since we can't pin down what it means?
4. Does the CFC actually use that phrase to describe itself? I couldn't find it on the CFC website.
5. Would you agree that the issue is less of whether the media thinks CFC is sanctioned by the Catholic Church and more of a difference between the meaning of "Catholic organization" as "an organization composed of Catholic members" vs. as "an organization that is sanctioned by the Catholic Church"?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Binksternet, but my answers are:

1. it's an organization made of and for Catholics, and in whose formation and operation Catholicism and Catholic beliefs are the relevant factor
2. I don't believe so; they seem to be using the common meaning, rather than a religiously specific jargon meaning, since they, like us, are not writing for an audience of Catholics only.
3. We should use it in the way reliable sources use it.
4. I'm not sure. They obviously describe themselves frequently as an organization made up of Catholics and promoting Catholic values, however.
5. Yes. As I said, I don't think the media (or scholarly literature) uses it to mean "sanctioned." And we shouldn't be deciding that we know better than the reliable sources.

Binksternet, I agree with your comment above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard, I would answer your points but for two reasons. First, Roscelese already did a fine job of it. Second, I don't think the questions are the right direction we should be taking. The questions seem to me to be aimed at establishing Church definitions and attitudes as Wikipedia definitions and attitudes. That to me signals a serious breach in Wikipedia's neutrality and autonomy. I think our basic foundation should be the pattern set by reliable sources widely seen by many readers, secular and religious, rather than pronouncements made by official Catholic Church organs which are little seen in general. Such pronouncements are furniture and setting, not foundation. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, I think you've identified the issue although you have, IMO, drawn the wrong conclusion about it. There are, as I've said before, two meanings of the phrase "Catholic organization". There is the general, loose definition of "Catholic organization" as an organization made up of Catholics and the tighter, almost jargony definition of "Catholic organization" as one that has the sanction of the Catholic Church.

You and Roscelese dismiss the USCCB and CCCB's insistence on making clear this distinction as being unimportant or irrelevant to an encyclopedia. One possible analogy is to consider the International Brigades that operated during the Spanish Civil War. Consider a hypothetical situation where an entire brigade was composed of French volunteers and named itself the French Brigade. The government of France might wish to distance itself from this group and assert that these volunteers had no official status as soldiers or agents of the French Republic. This is, in essence, what the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is doing. The pronouncements are non "self-published" any more than any official announcement of an official arm of a notable organization is "self-published". Even if the pronouncements were considered "self-published", the pronouncements of an organization relating to itself are reliable. The USCCB is asserting that CFC is not affiliated or sanctioned by the Catholic Church and it is perfectly within its rights to make that assertion. CFC complains about the USCCB doing that and asserts that it is a "restriction of religious liberty" but never challenges its right to do it (AFAICT).

I think the best way to communicate this is to drop the insistence on using the phrase "Catholic organization" and focus on what is meant by the phrase when used in the media, to wit, "CFC is an organization which was founded 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." We could continue with "CFC opposes the powerful influence of the Catholic hierarchy in the formation of public policy that limits the availability of reproductive healthcare services worldwide arguing that the Catholic Church's ban on contraception and abortion has a "disastrous impact on women's lives". Once we've said all that, I don't see what is added by using the phrase "Catholic organization".

[NB: I recognize that copying that much directly from the CFC website borders on copyright infringement and that the text above would need to be written with quotes and citations so as to properly attribute the text to CFC.]

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you then suggesting that we should say that such a hypothetical brigade were not actually French? It's an interesting analogy, actually, because nationality, like religion, has more than one meaning and the meanings can get a bit fuzzy, partly depending on context. The International Brigades are generally known (I hope) not to be units of the national army in question, so there would actually be no problem in saying that the "Legion Proudhon" (I'm making this up) was a French brigade in the Spanish Civil War, etc. Because it is a brigade made up largely or entirely of French people. Catholics for Choice is in the same position - according to religion-specific jargon, "Catholic" has one particular meaning, but in common parlance among Wikipedia's sources and readers, it has another - one which can't be taken away by a decree.

But I digress - as I said, I'm happy to tweak the mission statement and so on, but I do not believe it is consistent with Wikipedia policy to remove a copiously sourced fact because the religious hierarchy disagrees with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese wrote: "Are you then suggesting that we should say that such a hypothetical brigade were not actually French?" Answer: No, what I was arguing is that, in this hypothetical situation, the French government could acknowledge that the volunteers in the French brigade were French citizens while, at the same time, insisting that these French civilians had no official connection to the French government and were in no way agents of the government.

I acknowledge that the hypothetical situation that I posed is not a perfect analogy because the CFC/Catholic Church conflict has religious content and the only way to create an analogous situation in our hypothetical situation would be if being French had a strong ideological component (e.g. if the French government were to declare that being "French" inherently entailed embracing a Fascist ideology and that failing to embrace this ideology meant you were rejecting and failing the standards of French citizenship. FWIW, the people who were doing that kind of thing at the time of the Spanish Civil War were the Nazis.) If the hypothetical French brigade was composed of socialists and communists and had their citizenship revoked as a result of their membership in the brigade, then you would have a situation more analogous to the CFC/Catholic Church conflict.

Roscelese wrote: "I do not believe it is consistent with Wikipedia policy to remove a copiously sourced fact because the religious hierarchy disagrees with it." I think the problem here is that you and Binksternet have extrapolated the description of CFC as a "Catholic organization" to be a "fact" that you feel cannot be negated by the opinion of the Catholic Church. This dispute is not about two different opinions of the same fact. The CFC is composed of a bunch of Catholics that object to the way the Catholic hierarchy is running the Church. A good analogy would be the counterculture movement of the 60s that was composed of Americans who objected to the way the U.S. government and corporate establishment were running the United States. With the exception of those who renounced their citizenship, those people remained Americans; they were just dissident Americans.

If you go back to my hypothetical example, you can see that someone can be "French" (born of French parents, speak French, brought up in French culture, etc.), be a French citizen and still not be an official agent of the French government. Moreover, it is possible to have one's French citizenship revoked and yet remain French. (Similarly, an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic. He/she simply loses certain rights to participate in the activities of the Catholic Church.) If you can grasp and accept these distinctions, I think we can go a long way to resolving this dispute.

When the press describes CFC as a "Catholic organization", they are focusing on the fact that the organization is composed of Catholics (as opposed to Protestants or atheists). Call that Fact #1. When the Catholic hierarchy says that the CFC is not a Catholic organization, they are not saying that the CFC's membership are not Catholics. What they are saying is that these Catholic members of the CFC are not following the teaching of the Catholic Church and should not mislead other Catholics into thinking that the CFC's pro-choice views are compatible with being a "good Catholic". Call that Fact #2. These are the "facts" as I see them. Both facts are true i.e. (1) CFC membership is composed of Catholics and (2) the Catholic hierarchy insists that CFC is not an agent of or sanctioned by the Catholic Church. If we could all see these as the relevant facts, we could more easily arrive at mutually agreeable text.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New analogy to consider: Take two more-or-less hypothetical organizations: the American Legion supports U.S. intervention in Vietnam, Americans for Peace supports U.S. withdrawal from Vietname (Disclaimer: I don't know if there ever was an actual antiwar organization called "American Veterans for Peace"). The House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC) declares that "American Veterans for Peace" are not only not spokesmen for the American military, they are not even "good Americans" and that the members of "Amerioan Veterans for Peace" should adopt an attitude of "America, love it or leave it". Thank God, we in the U.S. have moved beyond those days although the days after the invasion of Iraq were hauntingly reminiscent of that era. (but I digress, sorry) CFC argues that the Catholic hierarchy should allow Catholics the freedom of conscience to hold their own beliefs regarding abortion rights. The Catholic hierarchy, on the other hand, insists that it has the right to establish the standards of belief for the Catholic Church and that the CFC's beliefs are outside the acceptable range of discourse. Whether you agree with the CFC or with the Catholic hierarchy is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we accurately present who CFC is and what the Catholic hierarchy's objection to it is. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you've put into your recent comments, but I'm confused as to how they relate to the problem. As far as I know, no one is denying that we should include material on the USCCB's criticism of CFC's positions and identification as Catholic. That seems to be what you're saying we should include - am I right? We do include that. We also include the copiously sourced (and apparently unchallenged by reliable sources) fact that CFC is Catholic. We don't have to choose between including one set of facts and the other, as some users here seem to be arguing. We can present the facts about CFC's religion, and also the fact that they have been criticized on such and such grounds.

It feels like you and I are talking past each other when in reality we're arguing from all the same premises. I'm puzzled as to how you agree that these hypothetical organizations would still be American, etc., and that identification is not determined solely by pronouncements from an official body, yet are still advocating an exception in CFC's case. And that the mainstream definition of "Catholic" is different from the church hierarchy's definition of "Catholic," yet still want to use a definition that caters only to a minority of readers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence of article . . .

is encyclopedic monstrosity with its five "Catholic" references and its mission statement quotation more or less presented as fact rather than as a self-assessment. I would suggest a complete rewrite of the opening sentence in a neutral voice. The "Catholic . . organization" issue MIGHT then be resolved as a result. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Not in communion"

No problem with attributing the mission statement as a mission statement (or tweaking it/its inclusion further, perhaps by paraphrasing). I question your inclusion in the first sentence of the criticism of CFC's religious status - even besides the due weight issue, given that the criticism is not a significant feature of coverage of CFC, I'm unsure that "not in communion" is the best way to describe the group. The term seems to apply rather to churches, and I don't see it applied in reliable sources to CFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The "not in communion with the RC Church" bit is apparently a term of art among Catholics (of which I am not one). In any case, a List of Catholic organizations not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church is a Wikipedia category and Catholics for Choice is duly listed among its numbers. It seems to me that including this description in the opening sentence is a good idea because it lets the reader know from the outset that although this organization is Catholic in the sense that it calls itself Catholic and presumably has Catholic members, it is not recognized as being Catholic by the Church hierarchy. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unsourced in the list and probably shouldn't be there - I understand that it's a term of art, but it appears to be a term of art for something slightly different from what you're using it for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to experts on the RCC as to whether or not the " not in communion" phrasing is appropriate regarding CFC's status.Badmintonhist (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if "full/partial/not in communion" is appropriate for use except for ecclesial communities and Churches. I usually see it applied to Protestants or schismatic movements. Protestant "churches" are not referred to as churches by the Catholic Church, instead they are known as "ecclesial communities" because they do not have apostolic succession or the Eucharist. I think if reliable sources are not saying it, then we shouldn't use the term to describe them. It may not be much of a stretch, given the excommunications, but better safe than sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would join in questioning the use of the phrase "not in communion". Churches (or specifically, bishops) are in communion or not in communion with the Bishop of Rome). I expect that being excommunicated means that you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, my not-very-expert opinion is that individuals get excommunicated and organizations do not get excommunicated. Also, even before Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated those Catholics who were members of CFC, CFC's status as a "Catholic organization" could be called into question. An organization could be considered "unsanctioned by the Catholic Church" without necessarily instigating a decree of excommunication. In practice, the two conditions are likely to be closely associated. In theory, however, I suspect that it is possible for an organization to contradict Catholic teaching without immediately becoming the target of an episcopal decree of excommunication. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, Bruskewitz doesn't have the authority to excommunicate every CFC member or supporter...but yeah, I think we've agreed that "not in communion" is an inaccurate way to describe the organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Dissident Catholic organization"

I changed the lead to describe CFC as "a pro-choice organization of dissident Catholics". This is based on my Googling around a bit. It's true that the phrase "Catholic organization" is used a number of times to describe CFC. However, I also note that one of the sources described it as a "dissident Catholic organization". Yet another source characterized it as a "feminist organization". (I question whether being "pro-choice" is necessarily "feminist". Feminists are usually pro-choice but being pro-choice does not necessarily entail buying into other feminist causes.) I think a lot of the contentiousness on this question would be mollified by the introduction of the word "dissident" to clearly indicate CFC's status vis-a-vis the See of Rome. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be okay with some way of indicating the status, but not in such a way as to lessen the sources' statement that they are Catholic. What do you think of "a pro-choice Catholic organization that has come into conflict with the church hierarchy"? The bit about D.C. could of course be moved, or other elements of the first paragraph rearranged as necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Pseudo-Richard's formulation."Pro-choice Catholic organization that has come into conflict with the church" sounds as if CFC had a prior Catholic pedigree and came into conflict with the Church hierarchy sometime during its history when, in fact, it was created to come into conflict with that hierarchy. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is more POV (but in the other direction) than having the word "catholic organization" in the lead... but I've basically decided this whole debate is assinine. Removing the word "catholic" from the lead does not negatively impact the impression that the group is Catholic, but including it can be misconstrued. I see no valid reason for inclusion... except to obfuscate the groups identity. This whole debate reminds me of how assinine Wikipedia can be.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that "pro-choice group of dissident Catholics" describes the organization quite objectively. Obviously, support for legal abortion is a basic principle of the organization. That it consists of dissident Catholics is clear from its early history. Having their leader crowned "pope" is pretty dissident stuff.Badmintonhist (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We could solve the issue you raise by using a present tense instead of a past tense, eg. "a pro-choice Catholic organization that conflicts/comes into conflict with the church hierarchy." It's poor writing, but if it solves the dispute to everyone's satisfaction, there are worse things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's poor writing, but I don't agree that it solves the dispute. Why do you contest "group of dissident Catholics" when that is exactly what it is and can be sourced? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced, but it's not as well sourced as "Catholic organization." Allowing poor writing to solve a dispute is one thing, but ignoring a huge body of sources because users disagree with their conclusions is another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'm not quite sure why "organization of dissident Catholics" isn't acceptable to you but, in an attempt to improve your proposed text, I would suggest "an organization of dissident Catholics that vigorously opposes the Church's insistence on inflexibility with regards to its teaching on abortion". Seems to me that formulation really captures the essence of what CFC is. "inflexibility" does have a negative connotation so we may need to tweak the sentence by substituting a different word. The word that comes to mind is "dogmatic" but the meaning of that word in Catholic jargon is much more precise than it is in common parlance so we should probably avoid using it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've explained why I think it's necessary to go with what the sources say, so let's have future proposals include "Catholic organization." "A Catholic organization that dissents from the church with regard to abortion" seems simple - I can't figure out whether adding "pro-choice" would sound redundant or whether leaving it out presumes too much knowledge about RCC politics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend but that's both too wordy and too coy. Catholics for Choice don't simply want the RC Church to be more flexible on abortion; say, tolerating it in cases of rape or incest. They want the Church to be pro-choice. No, I much prefer your previous quite good formulation. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought of this one while mowing the lawn: "Catholic organization of pro-choice dissidents." It has a strong oxymoronic flavor but you can't really call CFC a "Catholic organization" without creating something of an oxymoron.Badmintonhist (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Again, the problem with Roscelese's latest proposal is that it creates the impression of some highly pedigreed Catholic organization that in modern times has evolved toward a pro-choice position. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Does adding "pro-choice" ("Catholic pro-choice organization" or "pro-choice Catholic organization that..."), as suggested, help with that impression in your view? It seems to be better writing anyway, as it is specific about the organization's activities. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that, on further thought, you would withdraw this proposal. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Recap

Here's where we stand (based on my understanding of what different people have said)

1. "(Ipro-choice) Catholic organization" - strongly supported by Roscelese, Binksternet et al, strongly opposed by Esoglou, Badmintonhist et al
2. "dissident Catholic organization" - weakly supported by Roscelese, possibly acceptable to Badmintonhist, Pseudo-Richard
3. "organization of Catholic (pro-choice) dissidents" - possibly acceptable to Roscelese, acceptable to Badmintonhist, Pseudo-Richard
4. "Catholic organization that blah, blah, blah" - supported by Roscelese, opposed by Badmintonhist et al

We haven't heard from many people on these recent options but, based on the discussion so far, I think the compromise solution is to go with "organization of Catholic dissidents". If we cannot converge on a resolution, we may need to issue an RFC or seek mediation but I personally think we've invested (wasted) enough time and energy into this (IMO) not very important issue. Let's find a compromise wording and move on already.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I support. Esoglou (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Since one side is arguing that the organization is not Catholic because the church says so and the other side is arguing that reliable sources say it is, I do not see how removing "Catholic organization" is either a compromise or in line with WP policy. Let's go with what reliable sources say, call it a Catholic organization per #1, #2, or #4, and continue to work out qualifying (eg. "dissident," "pro-choice") language here on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Either #2 or #3 above are okay with me. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to Roscelese

Please desist from trying to get Wikipedia to proclaim your interpretation of "Catholic organization" to be the one true interpretation, since it is clear that there are more interpretations than one of the phrase both on this discussion page and in "the real world" and there are more valuations than one of the relative weight of sources. Please. Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the talk pages are for... to debate the meaning and construct of an article. Rocelese is advocating a reasonable position (whether or no you agree with her stance isn't the point) so I'm not sure why you're trying to get her to shut down her talk. Your position is no more correct than any other. From an encyclopedic perspective, it seems as though the article should be written in a way that will objectively communicate the facts and be easily understood by the reader. If I were writing it, I'd absolutely reference CFC as a Catholic organization, simply because it's not a Protestant organization, a Buddhist organization or an organization pertaining to any other sect, religion, creed or group. It is, in fact Catholic - that's not an interpretation. I'd even suggest adding the word "Roman" to "Catholic" to be even more specific. The word "catholic" (lower case) means inclusive, all-embracing, accepting of many things. One might consider that if they're going to name a whole religion after it. But for those who don't feel quite so inclusionary, there is nothing preventing a disclaimer within the article stating that the group is not affiliated with, nor sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. Vertium (talk to me) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not proposing that any idea other than Roscelese's be presented as the one true interpretation of "Catholic organization". I am only begging that the fact of the divergence of interpretations be taken into account. Religious (Protestant, Buddhist, Catholic) organizations are not the only ones. In Buddhist countries there are many organizations that are not Buddhist organizations although the members are Buddhist. Esoglou (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly my "interpretation" of the phrase. Again:

1. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and personal disagreement with a source, despite your comments in this section, is not sufficient to dismiss it.
2. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and if a statement cannot be substantiated with reliable sources, it does not matter if it exists in the "real world."
3. Wikipedia does not exist exclusively for Catholics, and is not required to adopt a small-o orthodox Catholic point of view to the exclusion of other users.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, please do not try to stifle legitimate topic discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to stifle discussion nor, as I already said, to present a non-Roscelese view as the only one. On the contrary, I only appealed to her to leave room also for a view other than hers. She has rejected my appeal. And that's the end of my appeal. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You said "desist". That is the stifle. The point of view Roscelese defends is the one held by the general public. The one you hold is specific to the Catholic Church. Wikipedia represents the general public, not the Church. That's the kernel right there. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appeal to you, Binksternet, not to distort the request that I made to Roscelese, which was to allow mention of more views than one, to stifle none, to desist from presenting one view as the only one. If you reject this appeal that I make to you, that's the end of this appeal also. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bleah

Let me try again...

1. It is asserted that there are two meanings of "Catholic organization": (a) "an organization of Catholics" and (b) "an organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church to use the term 'Catholic'"
2. It's clear that CFC meets meaning (a) while failing to meet meaning (b)
3. It seems reasonable to assume that every reliable source that uses the phrase "Catholic organization" intends it to be read with meaning (a)
4. We have reliable sources to establish that the USCCB and CCCB as well as various bishops have asserted that CFC fails to meet meaning (b)
5. I have not found any evidence that any source asserts that CFC meets meaning (b)
6. I have not found any evidence that CFC claims to be a "Catholic organization" and thus "self-identification" is not quite applicable here (NB: It is the popular media that call CFC a "Catholic organization", NOT CFC itself.)

It seems to me that that much of this dispute would go away if we substitute the words "an organization of (dissident) (pro-choice) Catholics" in place of "Catholic organization". If you grant points (1), (2) and (3) above, this substitution should make no change in meaning and should provide clarity in place of ambiguity. If the so-called reliable sources use a term with ambiguity in its meaning, there is no reason why we should feel compelled to perpetuate that ambiguity rather than dispelling it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is "if all of Wikipedia's sources use 'Catholic' to mean A, why should Wikipedia use it to mean B?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As Richard says, all sources, even the bishops' conferences, accept that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense A, but while there is no source that claims that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B, there are several that explicitly deny that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has presented reliable sources which make this claim - only reports of other people making this claim. But I'll have to repeat my question: "if all of Wikipedia's sources use 'Catholic' to mean A, why should Wikipedia use it to mean B?" Now that you agree that CFC is Catholic, according to the sources, I see literally no argument that you're making other than "Wikipedia ought to conform to my personal religious beliefs." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been presented that directly deny that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B, and reliable sources have been presented that report the fact that others deny that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B. Either would be sufficient. So all of Wikipedia's sources do not use "Catholic" to mean sense A. CFC members may be Catholics (some of them, but certainly not all of them), but CFC is not Catholic (in sense B). For neutrality sake, both senses should be presented in Wikipedia unless you hold that Wikipedia ought to conform to your personal religious beliefs. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, a Facebook comment from a random user! That's a great source! Way to prove that you respect Wikipedia's RS guidelines, there!

And no, you have not provided, nor even tried to provide, reliable sources which deny that CFC is Catholic. Look at the sources provided to show that it is - scholarly literature and mainstream news - and then look at what you've dredged up - press releases from organizations, and opinion columns on agenda-based websites. Again (I wish I didn't have to keep repeating this, but it's evidently not getting through), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just Catholics. It does not privilege poor sources over real sources simply because they promote orthodox Catholic positions, it is not bound to give "equal weight" to a view that is not shared by reliable sources simply because that view is the orthodox Catholic one, and it does not use a religion-specific definition in preference to the mainstream English definition used by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, even Catholics, even anti-Catholics. The USCCB is an excellent source for the fact that the USCCB has declared CFC not to be a Catholic organization in sense B. Several other sources state that the USCCB has declared CFC not to be a Catholic organization in sense B. No source declares that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B. There is therefore far from "equal weight" on the question of CFC being a Catholic organization in sense B. As Richard has pointed out, your cited sources speak instead of CFC as a Catholic organization in the sense of being composed at least partially (largely?) of Catholics. (I have come across no CFC statement limiting membership to Catholics, but maybe you can produce one.) Esoglou (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(I realize that you won't be able to respond to this because of your topic ban; I'm answering the concerns you've raised for the benefit of the group.) The USCCB is a source (not an excellent one, because we need reliable secondary sources to ensure proper weight, but a source) for the fact that they have said something. But because Wikipedia does not obey Catholic authorities, it does not therefore follow that what they say is true. And again, why should a source have to declare that CFC is a Catholic organization in sense B? Sense B is not the sense used by reliable sources, and Wikipedia doesn't care about anything else. (And no, I do not need to produce a statement about membership being limited to Catholics, what absolute nonsense. If you want to say that there are non-Catholics in it, you need to find a source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When Ros says "all Wikipedia's sources" she is referring to all the sources that she and her allies on this issue have mustered. It is not as though all reliable news sources that have run articles on CFC have described it as a "Catholic organization" Moreover, I would contend that the vast majority of readers who see a group described as a Catholic organization assume that it is NOT at complete loggerheads with the RC Church. This one is. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you hiding a body of reliable sources up your sleeve that deny that CFC is Catholic? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting point, Badmintonhist. It occurs to me that it would be just as apt to describe CFC as an "anti-Catholic organization" although I suspect that any source that did that would be rejected by Roscelese et al as too POV. This really is the nut of the issue here. The Catholic hierarchy sees CFC as being effectively anti-Catholic in its challenge to the Church's authority to establish Church teaching and thus the hierarchy actively protests the characterization of CFC as a "Catholic organization". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I highly doubt that you could find a reliable source that described CFC as anti-Catholic. Secondly - wait, we care about sources now? If we care about sources, why aren't we going with what many more reliable sources say? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ya know what this is like, P-Rich? It's as if we had an article on "Republicans for Obama" and described it as a "Republican organization," or an article on "Democarats for Romney" and described it as a "Democratic organization." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Or like Democrats for Life and Republicans for Choice. Oh wait, those exist and we refer to them as Democratic and Republican organizations respectively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest not interrupting the flow of discourse by placing comments in between ones that have already been made. It causes more confusion than it alleviates. One can address multiple comments in one shot as I will do here. I did not say that reliable sources explicitly deny that CFC is A Catholic organization. I said that not all RS's describe it explicitly as a "Catholic organization." You are relying on the ones that do. As for the Democrats for Romney versus Democrats for Life (or Republicans for Obama versus Republicans for Choice) analogies; not to brag, but mine are the more apt. Democrats for Life, for example, does not rail against the leadership of the Democratic party from the position of estranged outsiders. Railing against the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church as estranged outsiders, on the other hand, is precisely what the Catholics for Choice does. They are at war with the Church hierarchy. Democrats for Life are not at war with the Democratic hierarchy. Moreover, as a matter of fact, Wikipedia DOES NOT, verbatim, describe Democrats for Life as a Democratic organization, or Republicans for Choice as a Republican organization. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's traditional to use extra indents, I believe, to make it clear which comment is being responded to without giving the impression that the later comment came first. Wrt the Democratic and Republican groups: a) check out the categories b) with few exceptions, we don't appear to describe "orthodox" Dem or GOP groups as "Democratic" or "Republican" organizations in the same way that we describe many "orthodox" Catholic organizations as "Catholic organizations," so the analogy is not apt. (If we could come up with, and justify, a standard by which no organization would be described as a "Catholic organization," I would be happy to drop the issue. My concern is, again, that we are treating CFC differently based on some users' personal biases, in contradiction to what is found in the sources.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

But isn't "orthodox" exactly it? As you say, Wikipedia describes many "orthodox" Roman Catholic groups, i.e. groups that are not openly defiant of the Church hierarchy, as "Catholic organizations." To then describe a highly "unorthodox" group of self-professed Catholics as a "Catholic group" is ipso facto misleading for Wikipedia's readers. The distinction between the "orthodox" Catholic groups that you refer to and CFC is not based on editors' personal biases. It is based on their respective histories. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not misleading because most Wikipedians (presumably including Catholic ones) do not come to Wikipedia assuming that it will use religion-specific Catholic jargon in preference to the language in reliable sources. "Catholic organization" is assumed to have its common meaning, which is the meaning used by reliable sources. Obviously the mainstream news and academic presses do not worry that they will "mislead" anyone by saying that an organization of Catholics is, in fact, Catholic. We follow their lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done so yet, but perhaps when I've got nothing better to do I'm going to count all the references to Catholics for Choice that don't specifically describe it as a "Catholic organization." As I've said before, Roscelese, you are relying on the ones that do. I happen to think that the designation "Catholic organization" for CFC is a VERY poor one and that Wikipedia editors should use their best judgment in choosing among any number of acceptable designations. As a non-Catholic brought up in the USA's most Catholic state, "Catholic organization" to me means something like the the Knights of Columbus not Catholics for Choice. In fact, Catholics for Choice is pretty much exactly what "Catholic organization" doesn't mean.Badmintonhist (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, which is why we assume that any source that doesn't specifically describe the world as round is evidence that it's flat. This is really what you're falling back on? Since you've been unable to produce reliable sources which deny it's Catholic... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It must have been my reference to the Knights of COLUMBUS that caused you to produce a "world is round" analogy, Ros. However, it's not a very good one. Actually, an earlier Roscelese finding a few Columbus era references to the world being flat and then using it in the Wikipedia of 1492 is more like it. You may be pleased to learn, however, that I have little real interest in further contending on this miniscule issue. One has to choose one's causes and this one isn't worth it. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ways forward

We seem to be stuck and have been for some time. Surely, there are better things to do than go round and round with this forever. Can we agree to leave the lead sentence with its current wording "CFC is a pro-choice organization of dissident Catholics"?

If not, we should probably look for other means for dispute resolution such as an RFC or mediation.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it can stay that way until CFC is no longer "a pro-choice organization of dissident Catholics." Badmintonhist (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we cannot agree on that wording for the same reasons discussed above. Did you not read them? As I already said, it is a violation of NPOV to flat-out ignore a large body of sources, including academic/scholarly sources, for the simple reason that the religious authorities disagree with the sources' conclusions. And as I said: Let's go with what reliable sources say ("Catholic organization") and continue to talk about possible qualifying language. I believe people said they would be okay with "dissenting" or so forth? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pro-choice dissenting Catholic organization

Roscelese changed the lead to describe CFC as a "pro-choice dissenting Catholic organization" with an edit summary that said "go to wording that seemed to content the most people on the talkpage". I do not have the sense that there is a consensus (not even a supermajority-type consensus) for this wording so I reverted her edit. We seem to be stuck between "organization of Catholic dissidents" and "dissenting Catholic organization". As Balloonman said before he left, "Wikipedia can be asinine" and so here we are, asses all of us. As I've said above, I think we may need to move to a more formal dispute resolution mechanism. I think an RFC won't yield any different result than we already have (that is, I doubt there will be any significant change in the proportion of editors who !vote for one wording or the other). So, I think we need to go to either the Mediation Cabal or to formal mediation via the Mediation Committee. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm fine with pretty much any source-able and sensible qualifier that other users might choose to suggest - "dissenting" etc. According to your recap, it seemed that that was fine with other users as well. I'm puzzled at what seems to be backpedaling. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty happy with the wording Roscelese supplied yesterday and I was surprised to see it reverted. Elizium23 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I too am fine with Roscelese's wording. So far, the only one not in agreement is Pseudo-Richard. I'd offer the observation that "consensus" does not mean that everyone's going to agree. It requires some give-and-take, and from my perspective, the back-and-forth is not productive and there are too many people saying that the only acceptable consensus is the one that agrees with their position. Roscelese has here said that "pretty much any source-able and sensible qualifier" would be satisfactory. Can we all live with what's out there now in the summary? Vertium (talk to me) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I can rest easy with Roz's wording. I reverted Richard to restore the wording that has the most support. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Excommunication WP:BRD

To conform to the recommended practice described at WP:BRD, let's talk about this at Talk:Catholics for Choice, rather than revert back and forth. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that every sentence of an article must include a reference to the subject?

I don't understand, it is a simple edit related to the subhead. What exactly is the issue?billdakelski (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a hard-and-fast requirement, but it is a good idea to have every reference discuss the topic. There's room for a little background info, of course, but if the background ties in with the topic then it supplies much more information. In any case, your addition was one-sided, giving the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. There are many theologians who have spoken about automatic excommunication to say that a woman who gets an abortion may not be automatically excommunicated. As well, the CFC has position papers about the topic, so their POV should be stated and attributed. The subject of latae sententiae is more complex than the simplistic rule you tell the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not a viewpoint, it is the definition of excommunication as written in the actual law, the Code of Canon Law is just that... the code, it is not an opinion. I did not intend to make a controversial point as to the interpretation of the law. If you like, then add that there are opinions of the law. Just as in U.S. law, a law is ajudicated, it is the same in Church law. The Church does not have an opinion of the law just as the congress and president do not have opinons of the laws that they write.billdakelski (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article is experiencing an edit war regarding how the topic of Canon 1398, latae sententiae (so-called "automatic" excommunication) is being treated. I think it is a problem of synthesis, connecting A + B to get Z. Billdakelski is repeatedly adding The code of canon law, in English translation, and http://everything2.com/title/Latae%2520Sententiae, neither of which mention Catholics for Choice. Bill and I discussed this issue at his talk page: User_talk:Billdakelski#WP:BRD. I expressed the concern that the sources did not represent CFC's relation to the canon code, and that sources exist which do connect them, but that he was not using them. Here is one source that discusses the connection, but it is from CFC themselves:

• Catholics for Choice: "Notes on Canon Law: No. 1". CFC position paper. They note that in canon law: "No one is punished unless the external violation of a law committed by the person seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or negligence." They analyze this as meaning "only someone who made a conscious, deliberate, free choice to violate the law should be punished", and they note that this excludes teenagers less than 17 years old, women ignorant of church teaching, and women who get abortions because of compulsion or "grave fear" of the consequences. CFC continues by arguing that most women who have abortions would not be subject to excommunication.

Here are other references that discuss abortion and canon law, questioning or refuting the "automatic" nature of excommunication:

• James T. Bretzke, S.J., S.T.D., Boston College, "Treatment of Canonical Penalties". Bretzke describes how Canon 1398 rarely applies. See pages 4 and 5.
• James A. Coriden is a prominent theologian who is expert in canon law. In 1986 he wrote "The Canonical Penalty for Abortion as Applicable to Administrators of Clinics and Hospitals". This paper argued against excommunication for politicians, medical clinic directors and administrators. See John P. Beal, New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pages 1602–1603.
• Coriden published a book in 1991, a new edition published in 2004: An Introduction to Canon Law. Coriden says, "Actually, latae sententiae penalties are very rarely incurred because of mitigating circumstances..." See page 186.

I would like to point out that only the CFC source in the above list is directly applicable to CFC. The other ones are good references for the articles about Canon 1398 and Latae sententiae. I think it is best that any text in this CFC article about excommunication must specifically mention CFC in the references. Such a practice will eliminate any problems of synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not here expressing an opinion one way or the other about whether the provisions of canon law may be mentioned in this article. I just think that some statements above call for comment. The Code of Canon Law expresses the limitations of applicability of censures such as automatic excommunication. See Code of Canon Law, canons 1321-1330. It is a distortion to suggest that in practice there is no such thing. Even if the principal subject is exempt from the law, for instance because of being under 18 years of age, "accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed". For those to whom it applies, the excommunication is automatic, and that character of the excommunication is not in fact "questioned" or "refuted". Just a comment. Esoglou (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The CFC position is that latae sententiae "doesn't really mean automatic, in the sense that we normally use it to explain something that happens independently and instantly. In canon law, it is used to describe the way a person receives punishment without an investigation or trial by another person or people."[7] The CFC continues by saying that the persons who commit the act must judge themselves guilty or the punishment is not incurred. The CFC says "within the parameters outlined in canon law the penalty is hardly as 'automatic' as popularly believed." Finally, if a woman who had an abortion judges herself guilty of breaking the canon law, but assesses the situation as one in which she could not reveal to her family or society that she had an abortion, then she is not liable to suffer the punishment for it. You say latae sententiae is automatic "for those to whom it applies", but the point I'm making is that "those" are very few, that it is not applied as widely as is believed, or Coriden would not have observed that it was rare. The word "automatic" is a stumbling block to proper understanding. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I contend that a document published by CFC regarding their own excommunications is not usable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It is self-published, and it fails the following criterion: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; - I would say that its claims about Canon Law are both self-serving and exceptional. Furthermore, CFC are not canon lawyers (they are not even Catholic!) and not qualified for scholarly commentary on Canon Law. The only acceptable commentary on Canon Law is going to be from an independent party with the proper credentials. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I realize that the CFC position paper is published by CFC. The only place where we could use it is if there was a question about the CFC position. The paper is undeniably a reliable source for CFC's own position.

If we entertain text which describes canon law relative to abortion, using references that have no mention of CFC, in the article about CFC, then we can certainly use the CFC paper to tell the reader what the CFC position is on the canon law. As well, we can quote Coriden and Bretzke to say that the canon law rarely applies. The other choice is to remove the synthesis about canon law which is about abortion but not about CFC. Which direction would you like to go? More text but with synthesis problems, or less text and no synthesis? Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If the wording is somehow incorrect or unrelated then please edit it instead of debating it ad nausaum. But to say the the term latae sententiae cannot be mentioned in this article because it is not related to CFC is just obfuscation. Why do we not want the reader to know of the existence and therefore reference to the law on which the discussion in the article is centered? billdakelski (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you're evidently not a n00b but I'll still try to put this in simple terms: Admitting material that the sources don't connect to the topic, simply because a user personally believes it to be relevant, opens the floodgates to all sorts of unproductive material. You might add an unrelated paragraph about how people who have abortions become excommunicated - I might counter with an equally well-sourced or better-sourced, but still unrelated, paragraph about the maternal deaths caused by Catholic hostility to therapeutic abortions, or with one about statistics on Catholic support for reproductive rights. Eventually we'd just end up duplicating other articles by bringing in all sorts of material that isn't related to the actual article topic. This is why "the sources show that it's related to the article topic" is a baseline for inclusion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Catholics for Choice. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20141205014502/http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=350153 to http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=350153
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://kanda-db1.ggasoftware.com/Summary/Commonweal/V101I12P3-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928184044/http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/inthenews/After25YearsaCatholicWarriorStepsAside.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/inthenews/After25YearsaCatholicWarriorStepsAside.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721145513/https://catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/ourwork/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323023421/http://www.catholicsforchoice.org:80/conscience/default.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/default.asp

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) 11:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Article title in italics

Article titles about an organization generally shouldn't be italicized. Can someone move this page sans the italics? matieszyn (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Matieszyn: It's not a page-location issue, so moving wouldn't do anything, but I can't actually figure out what's causing it. Hmmm. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It was {{Infobox journal}}. I've fixed it with the parameter "italic title=no". Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Aha! I was just looking at the infobox organization at the top. Nice going. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholics for Choice. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20111113050709/http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2000/00-123.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2000/00-123.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121050051/https://catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2000autumn_mantraofanticatholicism.asp to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archives/c2000autumn_mantraofanticatholicism.asp

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) 08:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Concern over merging Joseph O'Rourke article into Catholics for Choice article

This is w/r/t the proposal to merge this article into the Catholics for Choice article.

It may be true that "Mr. O'Rourke" (as I knew him in the late '60's) is most well known for his role in CfC, but I didn't know of it. I was very glad to learn of it for the first time by finding this article, and wonder if others like me might not find him if the article was merged. I was a student of his at McQuaid Jesuit High School in Rochester NY.

This is my first talk page contribution; if I'm breaking some rule, apologies in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManchWonk (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable Wording

The lead sentence in the article describes CFC as "a Catholic organization." Yet lower down in the article there are multiple citations of the official hierarchy of the Catholic Church denying that the CFC is "Catholic." It's presumable that the public assumes "Catholic" to mean "joined to the Roman Catholic Church." If the hierarchy denies the affiliation, then it should be accepted that the organization is not "Catholic" in this sense. It therefore causes confusion when the Wikipedia article identifies the CFC as "a Catholic organization." For purposes of clarity, I am changing the wording of the lead sentence to reflect that the leaders of the organization claim to be Catholic, but that this is disputed by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

In logic, we're taught to replace terms so as to test an argument. Here, I will replace the term "Catholic" with "Coca Cola," in hopes that it will illustrate my argument above.

The lead sentence in the article describes "Coca Cola Employees for Pepsi Cola" as "a subsidiary of Coca Cola, Inc." Yet lower down in the article there are multiple citations of the official leadership of the Coca Cola company denying that the "Coca Cola Employees for Pepsi Cola" is a subsidiary of the Coca Cola company.KiAnCaFleur (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert: "claims to be"

I've reverted "claims to be a dissenting Catholic advocacy group" back to "dissenting Catholic advocacy group." Wikipedia a) does not regard purported conflicts with a group's stated mission as contradicting group affiliation (eg. an anti-abortion Democratic Party group is still a Democratic Party group), b) regards Catholicism as a religion, rather than a corporation - otherwise, no Catholics would be able to edit on Catholic subjects without falling foul of WP:COI, and c) has standards for POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If a) a group is a recognized member of the claimed affiliation, that means the governing body recognizes them as members, so "Catholics for Choice" is not analogous to "Pro-Life Democrats;" b) religion is treated as a special case in which no religious body is considered to have the right or authority to determine who are members, then Wiki editors have claimed that authority, and that's illogical; and c) standards for POV means being neutral, which allows for the wording "claims to be."

Since this group, "Catholics for Choice," claims a religious affiliation that is denied by those who govern the religion, then at best any description can say they "claim" it, but no honest description can say they "are" it. The article even includes sources that point to evidence that the affiliation is not recognized by the religious body's governing authorities, which brings into question the credibility of the Wiki claim that "Catholics for Choice" is, in fact, Catholic.

My interest here is in guarding Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy source of information. Your preferred wording doesn't do that.KiAnCaFleur (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@KiAnCaFleur: It's actually standard practice on Wikipedia to describe and categorize people by their religious belief, even if the governing body doesn't approve of them - it appears that we treat religion as a person's beliefs, not as a special club that you need to be a member of, or as a corporation. I understand if you disagree, but implementing that kind of sweeping change would need a much broader community consensus. I hope that clarifies things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Peacock terms removed

I have read citations 1 and 9 and they do not describe the Catholics as "prominent" nor the theologians as "leading", so this is non-neutral phrasing that is not supported by the sources and I have removed it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Dissenting Catholic"

Previous discussion: Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 3#Catholic organization Elizium23 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems the opening line should link to Cafeteria Catholicism, as it describes exactly what "dissenting Catholic" means here. My edits to that end are being reverted and characterized as vandalism, however, pretty clearly due to the previous controversy and those who wish to have the opening line link to the Catholic Church wiki page instead (perhaps as a sneaky way of presenting this organization as authentically Catholic despite the addition of "dissenting" in the intro). natemup (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's purely your own analysis. Convince me by showing WP:SECONDARY sources describing CfC as cafeteria Catholic. Not "dissenting Catholic" but specifically "cafeteria". (Even if you brought such a source, you would have to show that the usage is neutral rather than disparaging.) Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As stated, the two terms are synonymous. natemup (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)