Talk:Immortale Dei

Christianity: Theology / Texts / Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Low-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

I have no problem with Roman Catholic dogma being given expression within Wikipedia, providing that the heading and the opening sentence/paragraph indicates that it is a secular theory (even if shared by millions). I do have a problem with an article that gives no indication of its basis in religious theory either heading or opening paragraph. Insofar that the opening paragraph does not reflect the contents (and especially the Catholic bias) I think it is disingenuous or even deceitful. I think the heading should be changed to "Civil Allegiance (Roman Catholic teachings)" or similar. ps. Anyone upset by my use of the term "dogma" now know how I, a non-religious person, felt when I started reading this article. LessHeard vanU 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt modern Catholic teaching would use the same words. One important event since 1913 was the Lateran treaty. Many non-Catholic Christians could start with "Render unto Caesar ..., and unto God ..." Secularists would use much wider thoughts such those supporting and opposing Hobbes's social contract. I doubt whether this article is salvageable. --Audiovideo 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re NPOV tag

I don't think the neutrality of the article is disputed at all; it is early 20th Century Catholic dogma. Perhaps it has its place as a record of historical importance, but that wasn't how it was presented when I first came across it. If the heading were altered, and the opening paragraph rewritten to indicate that this is a (discredited?) position of the RC religion of 100 years ago then the main body need not be changed. LessHeard vanU 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the article is not presenting a neutral point of view but presents the (old) Catholic view alone: it is not because this is done in a very open way that it means that it is neutral or balanced. I don't know if "Civil Allegiance" has been discussed by any other people or sources (what did the communists, socialists, liberals or anarchists think of the concept? The philosophers and sociologists? What does the Catholic Church think post Vatican II?), but the article is now giving undue weight to one opinion, one not neutral source. Fram 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were slightly altered in the opening paragraph explaining that this is a historical position of the RC Church then the remaining paragraphs can stay much as they are. The expansion you suggest would create a fantastic article, but are there the editors who would take on such a task over a creed that is now largely redundant?

As for the necessity of having contemporary counterviews, it isn't as if the views of the serfs or freemen (or indeed the merchant classes) regarding Magna Carta are part of that article. It falls outside the ambit of describing the document. I think this could be argued for this article, too.LessHeard vanU 11:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]