Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/summary5

History

Roman Catholic Church as it appeared before:

Previous FACs:

User:Marskell/RCC

Supports

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) (COI)
Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs)
Ceoil (talk · contribs)
Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
Domiy (talk · contribs)
Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Dincher (talk · contribs)
Caulde (talk · contribs) (subsequently blocked for abusing multiple accounts)
Ling.Nut (talk · contribs)
Bmrbarre (talk · contribs) (see contribs, returned to Wiki to comment on FAC after months' absence)
Student7 (talk · contribs)
Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs)
Marauder40 (talk · contribs) see userpage
Majoreditor (talk · contribs)
Kensplanet (talk · contribs)
Grahame (talk · contribs)
Mike Searson (talk · contribs)
AdjustShift (talk · contribs)
Rocksanddirt (talk · contribs)
Intothewoods29 (talk · contribs)
Victory's Spear (talk · contribs) (new account-- subsequently blocked for abusing multiple accounts, Yorkshirian)
Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)
Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
Dweller (talk · contribs)

Opposes

A summary of unstruck opposes:

Vassyana

Oppose capped by Vassyana, oppose restated below. Vassyana (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

Oppose. While the prose and sourcing have had dramatic improvements over the past months, this article still has unresolved issues that have been raised continually since the first FAC. Relating to FA criteria, the article specifically fails 1b, 1c and 1d. The article muddles early Christian history with the history of the Roman Catholic church. It only presents the Catholic point of view, while almost completely ignoring other dominant scholarly views. Only a single small bone is tossed to the opposition in the form of: "Eamon Duffy acknowledges the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" there,[27] but is not certain that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the concept of apostolic succession.[28]" As an example of the serious problems in this regard, one of the earliest mentions of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome occurs in the 4th century through the First Council of Nicaea. Even then, the Roman Catholic Pope (Bishop of Rome) was not the sole authority, as the Bishop of Alexandria was granted similar authority. To elaborate further, the article completely ignores the significant portion of scholars positing that early Christianity was a very diverse creature with orthodox (small o) Christianity only becoming firmly established and forming a coherent single church at a later time. It is held by a very diverse and broad swath of scholars, such as (listing only relatively few prominent examples) Delbert Burkett, Bart Ehrman, Philip Esler, Harry Maier, Elaine Pagels, Jaroslav Pelikan, Jeffery Siker, James Tabor, Carsten Peter Thiede, and Joseph Tyson. Several other issues regarding coverage and neutrality also affect the article, but this is one of the most glaring examples of the problem. Vassyana (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vassyana, for your comments here. WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples give us guidance on which sources are considered the "most scholarly works". Since there are over 50,000 books written about the Roman Catholic Church, it was necessary to decipher which works were considered the "most scholarly" - Wikipedia says they are those most often cited by others, used as university textbooks, authored by professors and published by either university presses or reputable commercial presses. The Origin and Mission section which you have discussed in your oppose, cites the most oft cited scholary works for each POV offered. We took great care to avoid inserting scholar opinions into the article but only facts. The Origin and Mission section required us to use both and we decided that was the best place to show the disagreement among different scholary points of view on the subject of Church origins as Wikipedia policy requires (WP:NPOV). There are no scholars, even yours listed, who assert that the Church of Rome did not exist from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. Eamon Duffy, whose book Saints and Sinners was used to present the opposing POV is a more scholary work and more oft cited reference than any of the others you have suggested here, that is why he was chosen, he states there was a pope at least as early as the year 150. Regarding your comment about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and your comment that he was not the sole authority, the article never asserts that the Bishop of Rome was or is the sole authority. The article does state "Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, there was broad doctrinal unity within the mainstream churches." and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning.[9][11] Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches." The text does not say that it is the "sole authority" but that it was "a Christian doctrinal authority" as opposed to "the only Christian doctrinal authority". I would like to summarize the sources used in the Origin and Mission section to support current text:

Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners a History of the Popes Yale University Press cited by 39 authors per GoogleScholar including one of the first and most primary works in the Encyclopedia Brittanica's extensive recommended readings section of their Roman Catholic Church article. The university textbook used for decades on the history of the Catholic Church, A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter (also one of our main works used in the history section) has a bibliography that is 43 pages long, Saints and Sinners is the first cited book. Duffy was used to support the non-Catholic POV and is the most oft cited reference in the article's list of references.
Henry Chadwick The Early Church is cited by 141 authors - This sentence in Origin and Mission is referenced to him "Henry Chadwick cites a letter from Pope Clement I to the church in Corinth (c. 95) as evidence of a presiding Roman cleric who exercised authority over other churches"
Derrett Duncan, Law and Society in Jesus' World is part of the extremely respected scholary works series Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, it is an encycopedia of scholary works edited by more scholars. GoogleScholar says it is cited by 7 authors, not sure if that is just English language or includes other languages - the Aufstieg is written in various European languages. This work, and Edward Norman's The Roman Catholic Church, an Illustrated History were used to show that some historians agree with the Church's POV as the text states "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and that the historical record confirms that it was considered a Christian doctrinal authority from its beginning"

Vassyana, I do not feel that I can reasonably act on this oppose because you do not reveal any ommision of fact nor inclusion of incorrect data. Your statement "the article completely ignores the significant portion of scholars positing that early Christianity was a very diverse creature with orthodox (small o) Christianity only becoming firmly established and forming a coherent single church at a later time." incorrectly states that we have omitted this fact - when the Roman Empire section clearly states " "Although competing forms of Christianity emerged early and persisted into the fifth century, there was broad doctrinal unity within the mainstream churches." You also ignore the most oft cited work on the Early Church, Henry Chadwick who clearly supports our text. We have represented scholary opinion according to the weight given by other scholars. I would also like to point out that two of those scholars you suggest we include have been accused of scholarly malpractice for their work with the Gospel of Judas [1] and [2]. There are a lot of authors that we have to be careful to avoid in creating an encyclopedia article - if someone has been proven to fabricate history, it is hard to be able to trust any of their other works, it just shows a lack of due care and honesty. NancyHeise ^talk 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles ignores conflicting historical information and almost completely neglects a broad swath of scholarship. Your response does nothing to negate the failing. I can also add several more names of scholars to the list, but the list was only intended to be representative of the broad swath of scholarship that holds the opinion. To illustrate this breadth, Jaroslav Pelikan & Carsten Peter Thiede are more likely to disagree than agree with the general thoughts and historical models of Elaine Pagels & James Tabor, yet they generally agree on the point that I am raising. I simply provided one of the most obvious and egregious problems that prevent this article from fulfilling the FA criteria. I can give further examples of other flaws in the coverage and balance of the article. The Roman Curia is only passingly mentioned, with little explanation of their bodies, organization or purposes. This ties in to the insufficient coverage of the Inquisitions, notably their evolution during the early modern era. For example, there is no mention that in the 1500s Pope Paul III established the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, nor that it continues to the current day as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There is little to no discussion of the evolution and establishment of Roman papal primacy nor of papal infallibility. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome and papal infallibility are certainly notable topics for the Roman Catholic Church and literature about these aspects of the Church is quite extensive. These are but a few further examples of the coverage and balance issues that plague this article. Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyanna, this is an analysis of your comments:

1)"The articles ignores conflicting historical information and almost completely neglects a broad swath of scholarship."

Nancy's answer: The Bibliography of Roman Catholic Church contains 79 books - all more scholarly per WP:reliable source examples than those she has proposed. The largest FA on Wikipedia is an article called Society of the Song Dynasty which has a bibliography that is 48 books long. I would like to refer the Reader of this rebuttal to my previous response to Vassyana which refutes (with a section of the article's text) her claim that we have ignored any conflicting historical information.

2)"The Roman Curia is only passingly mentioned, with little explanation of their bodies, organization or purposes."

Answer: There is an introductory section that is three paragraphs long that introduces a huge section called Church Organization and Community. That introductory section has 15 wikilinks including Vatican City, College of Cardinals, bishop, Roman Curia, Code of Canon Law, Latin, Eastern Catholic, autonomous particular churches, diocese, sees, eparchies, patriarch, eparch, parish and others. WP:Summary style and WP:Article size and WP:consensus required us to keep this introductory section to its present size. Consensus of editors wanted to leave further explanation of Roman Curia to the wikilinked page. This article states all necessary facts to give reader a view of Church administration. Each wikilink allows reader to go learn more in accordance with WP:summary style.

3)"This ties in to the insufficient coverage of the Inquisitions, notably their evolution during the early modern era. For example, there is no mention that in the 1500s Pope Paul III established the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, nor that it continues to the current day as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

Answer: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is covered under the Roman Curia article link - in keeping with WP:Summary style. Its establishment belongs in that article - I might add that this is not a notable fact or controversy required to be included in this article which is evidenced by complete lack of mention in scholarly works. I did find this in a Harvard University press book that seems to refute your claims here. [3]

4)"There is little to no discussion of the evolution and establishment of Roman papal primacy nor of papal infallibility."

Per article text "From as early as the first century, the Church of Rome was recognized as a doctrinal authority because it was believed that the Apostles Peter and Paul had led the Church there.[11][202][26]" and "In 1870, the First Vatican Council affirmed the doctrine of papal infallibility when exercised in certain specifically defined pronouncements.[316][317] Reaction to this resulted in a small breakaway movement called the Old Catholic Church.[318]" Papal infallibility is also wikilinked and discussed in the Teaching Authority section under Beliefs. We had more discussion on the evolution of the primacy of Rome but it was cut by consensus in one of the three article trims that took place since the last FAC. What you see here is all that consensus felt should be left. I have placed the previously removed section on papal primacy on the talk page of this FAC if other editors want to consider adding it back into the article but otherwise, per these facts, I can not act on your oppose. NancyHeise ^talk 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The quantity of sources does not preclude the existance of prominent competing viewpoints. A similar number of sources (compared to the bibliography) that present a model of early Christian history that contradicts the exclusive viewpoint put forth in the article could be provided with a fair amount of research. There is an amazingly vast amount of literature about the Catholic Church and an even larger amount of literature about the history of Christianity as a whole. Regardless, the article most certainly ignores multiple critical points. The statement in the article does little more than essentially repeat the Catholic viewpoint that there were many dissenting views to the mainstream. That is certainly not the only prominent view. NPOV and RS are not an excuse to present a single viewpoint alone when there are other prominent viewpoints about the subject. NPOV demands quite the contrary.

2) Summary style does not demand that we rely on wikilinks for information subtopics of a subject. It recommends that we split articles and leave summary sections with a {{main}} link when they grow too long. The Curia are an essential and functional part of the Church. The Swiss Guard and the Congregations have been extensively written about, for example. The Curia also served a vital civil role during era of the Papal States.

3) See comments about about summary style. An outdated reference from 1895, especially when the state and general consensus of historical and religious studies have drastically changed, is hardly counterproof to my concerns.

4) A couple of passing references without qualifying or opposing viewpoints (especially in relation to the first quote) is "little to none", "hardly any". These are both critical points that are extensively discussed in reliable sources. Passing mentions are nowhere near sufficient.

I appreciate the concerns about length, but article size limitations should not be used as justification for excluding opposing viewpoints or giving short shrift to central portions of the topic. Vassyana (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Vassyana

1)I refer you to my previous replies. Vassyana, I can not implement your comment without some specifics. What opposing viewpoint is not covered?

2)The article text states "The pope is assisted in the Church's administration by the Roman Curia, or civil service. The Church community is governed according to formal regulations set out in the Code of Canon Law. The official language of the Church is Latin, although Italian is the working language of the Vatican administration.[126]" On the Roman Curia page, there are 38 separate Vatican administrations wikilinked. Which ones of these 38 do you suggest we elaborate upon? How long do you think the article size should ultimately be and if others disagree with you are you going to continue to oppose even if consensus is against your position?

3)What is outdated? You do not specify what reference or what issue you are concerned about here.

4)Passing mentions - of what? What opposing viewpoints have we omitted? Please provide specifics so we can then address. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've provided some specific points. To avoid clogging this FAC further, see User:Vassyana/RCCFAC for further elaboration.

2) Even the basics of the Roman Curia are not covered. There is no mention of their origin. There is no mention of their central civil role during the era of the Papal States. There is little explanation of their continuing purpose and central role in the functioning of the church. I'm not demanding that all bodies of the Curia are covered in depth, but the coverage is certainly insufficient when even these basic points are not covered.

3) I was clearly responding to your point 3 and the reference you provide there.

4) Read my comments. I was responding to a specific point and I have clearly stated the problem.

I am unlikely to continue this back and forth or be drawn into debate. This FAC is already getting bogged down. These are the same coverage issues remaining from the time of the first FAC and your attempts to wave off the issues continue to be disheartening. Other editors have noted the NPOV issues and problems with your responses.[4][5][6] In addition, I am discouraged from responding further by the evolution from defensive waving off of criticisms to points are being ignored or "missed" as above. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that all of those comments are from Feb 2008 when editors like you just could not believe many of the facts I added to the page. Facts I have had to continually defend only from you and have included in the article with actual references to top sources. I hope that this FAC will not once again be vandalized by those who just can not accept the facts on the page as referenced to the multitude of scholarly sources. I urge you to go read Encyclopedia Brittanica' article on Roman Catholic Church. It would fail FAC here in an instant because of their facts that people like you would consider POV - its not POV if it is what the consensus of scholars agree with. None of your suggestions regarding fringe alternative views of church origins is even mentioned. Our article here has more mention of alternative views than theirs. This same scenario plays out in each of the scholarly books including university textbooks that I search. Wikipedia policy does not require us to include every single possible POV. If something is such a minority view that it can not be found in scholarly works, we don't have to include it. Your authors are those who wrtoe Gospel of Judas and Da Vinci Code books - that is not scholarly works, that is popular history something WP:Reliable source examples specifically warns against. It disheartens my ability to work with you when you have persistently failed to accept that your position is unfounded, unsourced and against consensus of editors. NancyHeise ^talk 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

To keep things focused, here is a specific list of points that if addressed would change my opposition to neutrality or support:

Some mention that not all scholars agree with the version of history presented. This need not take up more than a couple of statements in the article, simply noting the existence of opposing views and citing a couple of prominent examples (such as Bauer, et al's model of extreme diversity and Ehrman, et al's "proto-orthodox" model).
A few relevant points about the existance of other sees with exceptional authority besides Rome. I would prefer to see a specific mention of the similar authority of the Bishop of Alexandria (as affirmed by the First Council of Nicaea) and the later similar authority of the Bishop of Constantinople.
Related to the above, I would like to see a clearer picture of how and when the Bishop of Rome established more exclusive primacy and how it relates to the schism between the (modern) Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Some information related to this point is present in the article, but the picture is rather muddled/incomplete.
A better examination of papal infallibility and the doctrine of infallibility in general (the Pope is not the only source of infallible teachings and doctrine, which is contrary to much of the public perception of Catholicism).
In general and overall, a little more representation of the Protestant, Orthodox and secularist views. It is not necessary to bog down the article with counterpoints galore or to add such outside views willy-nilly. Instead, I am simply looking for indications to the reader that other views exist on points where there exists alternate prominent views, such as with the point about the history presented.

I hope this helps clarify my opposition and presents my concerns in a more addressable and less confrontational manner. If I can provide further clarification or there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vb

Oppose This is a very naive opposition: I am not a scholar expert in this intricated domain. Here are however my feeling after reading the lead and the first section. The lead does not read well. It is IMHO no brilliant prose but the result of many edit wars and strange compromises: For example, "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest human and visible authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance.[5]" seems to have been written to avoid to say that the highest authority of the Church a level below God is the Pope. Is God not human? Is God not visible? Moreover it seems the authors wanted to list all the powers of the Pope in order to say that the Pope has a limited authority. Which matters are relevant for the Church except "faith, morality and Church governance"? Could one say this in a simpler way: "The Church looks to the pope, currently Benedict XVI, as its highest authority after God." The first section is written in the catholic POV only. According to this article, the Church "traces its foundation to Jesus and the Twelve Apostles" and "Some scholars agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus". Does this mean that the other scholars don't agree? If so, who are they and which are their arguments? Why are both topic "Origin" and "Mission" mixed in one section only? The question of the orgins is a question of faith and a question of historical fact which has nothing to do with the mission of the church - except if one adopt the purely naive catholic POV and declares that the mission was "founded upon Jesus' command" as if Jesus would have been able to predict the future and was therefore defined from the origin on. Vb (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued oppose I don't have access to the reference you are citing (Schreck and Barry) but I have some doubts about the section "Final judgment and afterlife". While the "final judgement" is a corner stone of the catholic belief based on the evangiles, the question of the "particular judgement" is less clear (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm). The distinct level of both dogmas should also be mirrored in the article. Vb 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued oppose Let me add those two sentences from the lead which show why the article makes to me a POVed impression:

1)"It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils, following the example set by the first Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.[12]"

The Council of Jerusalem is treated here as an historical fact. Of course there are proofs which support Church's belief in this event but are they enough solid to present this event as a fact. Better would be "It has defined its doctrines through various ecumenical councils; the first one being believed (supposed?) to be the Council of Jerusalem."

2)"On the basis of promises that Jesus made to his apostles, it believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit and so protected from falling into doctrinal error.[13][14][15]"

"On the basis of the evangiles (citation), it believes that..." One should not forget that Jesus isn't either proven to have existed at all.

I hope it helps! Vb (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taam

Oppose but the article is promosing if the following major issues could be reviewed:

After apparently dismissing any charges the article continues “Even so, in 2000 Pope John Paul II on behalf of all people, apologized to Jews by inserting a prayer at the Western Wall that read "We're deeply saddened by the behavior of those in the course of history who have caused the children of God to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” which makes the Pope seemly apologise for things that never happened. Compare this to what the Church says: ““Despite the Christian preaching of love for all, even for one's enemies, the prevailing mentality down the centuries penalized minorities and those who were in any way "different". Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. In a large part of the "Christian" world, until the end of the 18th century, those who were not Christian did not always enjoy a fully guaranteed juridical status. Despite that fact, Jews throughout Christendom held on to their religious traditions and communal customs. They were therefore looked upon with a certain suspicion and mistrust. In times of crisis such as famine, war, pestilence or social tensions, the Jewish minority was sometimes taken as a scapegoat and became the victim of violence, looting, even massacres.”[7]. The whole section seems a gloss over, no mention of the “perfidious Jews” that formed part of the Good Friday liturgy up until the late 1950's, nothing about how Jews were made to dress differently - [8] and so on...

The article says of Mit brennender Sorge “it described Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet” . The encyclical doesn't mention Hitler in particular and this assertion seems way over the top in its zeal to exonerate the Church. Common sense says that a Pope has to be very careful of every word spoken, think what happened a couple of years ago in the immediate aftermath of comments spoken by Pope Benedict. In “We Remember the Shoa” it simply states “Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his Encyclical Letter Mit brennender Sorge,”[9]

In the section “Catholic institutions, personnel and demographics” it mentions the substantial increase in world wide Church membership but this seems to be misleading. The world population has risen by 69% during the period mentioned in the article whereas the Church membership has increased by 72.78% . There is also the lack of balance, typical for the article as a whole outside the beliefs section, in that there is no mention of the substantial decline in the West, by way of example UK and USA.[10]. This is a significant and should be included in the article. Would I be correct in saying that the membership figures claimed in the article count so called “cultural catholics” I.e ones who do not practice the faith but hang on to the description as an expression of group identity? I think the article would be enhanced if we know exactly what counts as a Catholic.

As for the “Cultural influence” section all I can hope for is that a Catholic scholar will appear here that you will listen to and this will will lead to its deletion or a complete rewrite, for this section detracts from the rest of the article by its broad brushstroke and exaggerated tone that is hopelessly unbalanced. The appalling use of images is particularly noteworthy. A common tactic in Catholic apologetics circles is to justify what happened to the native population of the America when Columbus arrived by referring to the human sacrifice of the Aztecs as if two wrongs make a right. But read what Columbus says of the Tainos on his first arrival. “They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing.” This use of such powerful imagery without proper context attempts to cast a slur over all the indigenous population of the America's whilst glossing over the cultural carnage that took place with the arrival of Columbus. I also note that it is the Catholic Church herself who keeps alive the idea that human sacrifice, I.e Calvary, is pleasing to God. You have no right to look down your noses at people who shared the same basic idea as you do now. You are using pictures and images the same way as the Nazis to demonize whole races and peoples. Imagine if someone added to this article a picture of St Faustina ,who was recently canonised, showing her vision of the reality of the Eucharist, I.e baby Jesus being ripped apart and eaten alive? How about adding a picture of Jew with the special dress they were made to wear by the Church and put it side by side with an image of the Nazis using the same technique? When the following quotation of Pope John Paul was added in order to try and balance the over the top claims made it with regard to women , culture and the rights of other peoples it was deleted: “In March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness for sins committed by Christians with regard to the rights of peoples, cultures and religions as well as sins against the dignity of women and the unity of the human race.”

The article mentions the persecution of the Church but fails to mention the persecution of paganism etc. In the past she has been accused of behaving inconsistently, claiming toleration and liberty for herself, but being intolerant of other religions. This was denied on the basis that they worshipped the one true God and it could not be considered persecution when acts were taken to suppress other religious traditions since "error has no rights".[11][12] I think the article must deal with this issue in order to be NPOV

Otherwise I think the article has the making of featured status, but at present I could not treat it even as good article no matter how superficially it conforms outwardly to wiki standards. Taam (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannes Pragensis

Oppose. Because of my limited time, I have seen only the first part of the article, and even if it is better than in the previous FAC (thanks to NancyHeise and other editors!), it contains too many small problems to vote otherwise:

"(Tridentine Rite) reaffirms that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief" - is it really the single most important thing on the Tridentine Rite?
There is a well-developed anthropologic and sociologic literature about the folk R-C spirituality (pilgrimages, cult of Mary, prayers...) and its historical development, should be cited and considered.
"or those never baptized may be received by participating in a formation program" - those never baptized may be received only by being baptized (of course after a formation program in most cases)
The paragraph starting with "Major lawsuits emerged in 2001..." looks too lenghty and too US-centric
The part starting with "On his 2008 visit to the United States..." - the same problem

Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, not added to main page due to length

Further comments (mostly taken from the foreign-language Wikipedias):

Either drop the Tridentine rite or include other "minor" possibilities (John Chrysostomus and Basilius liturgies probably are both more widespread in the Catholic church today than the Tridentine rite; and Tridentine rite does not establish its own branch in the lineage of the liturgy, it is simply the previous version of the current Roman liturgy.)
Either drop/trim the US-centric passages, or decide to expand the history of Catholicism in the English speaking countries (it should then be more balanced and include also more info about UK/Ireland)
NPOV - it is hard to define, but still I have not the feeling of academic, neutral text when I read it.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savidan comments

Comment - I continue to have the same concerns that I have expressed in previous FACs and on the article's talk page before the current push for FA status. (1) the temporal and geographic variation in Catholic beliefs, practices, and influence is largely elided and overlooked; (2) the history section of the article is severely lacking in terms of key trends such as (a) the centralization of papal authority and the development of the church as a global institution rather than an Italian or European one, or (b) the growth and development of the church hierarchy, in particular the College of Cardinals, and the various economic and political drivers associated with it, and (3) the article is still largely written from the perspective of a Catholic looking out on the world, hence the overemphasis of doctrine and social teaching, and the neglect of the vast economic, political, cultural influence of the church. In this area, the article has doubtlessly improved since the first FAC, but is still far off the mark. Where such issues are not neglected, they are treated from a comically one-sided perspective. For example, the article cherry-picks in attributing the elimination of human sacrifice and other practices to the church rather than delivering any meaningful or nuanced analysis of the church's complicated role in colonization, the development of European identity, or relations with other religions. Finally, with relation to the modern church, it is clear that the article gives undo emphasis both to points of view and to subject matter. The discussion of PPXII and the image in particular (which I agree does not meet the fair use policies) is essentially a rebuttal to one specific criticism of Pope Pius XII rather than a true top-level summary of his significance as a pontiff. Again I believe that this article has improved, and that the content and effort that has gone into it could have spawned a dozen featured articles on Catholicism, but I am unready at this point to support this article, believing that the standard should be higher for more important topics. My concerns about summary style in previous nominations have been remedied in many respects, but I believe that the use of summary style would need further improvement if the current content were written from a more balanced perspective with reference to point-of-view, global coverage, and intertemporal variation. Savidan 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the inaction (and frankly, hostility) towards my earlier comments, I am going to have to formally oppose this nomination. The article is both un-comprehensive and lopsided in its coverage. As Nancy says above, "we were careful to include all facts relating to that criticism [of Pope Pius XII]" (her emphasis). That comment explains a lot about how this article was constructed; it gives undo emphasis to certain subtopics (2 paragraphs plus a picture just to defend Pius XII's record during the Holocaust) rather than establishing a top-down, summary style organization, evenly distributing emphasis. For example, the following words are never mentioned: Papal States, Usury, Antipope. These three topics are an order of magnitude more historically significant than these specific rebuttals of a specific criticism of a specific pope. In fact, antisemitism itself is only discussed in the article as it relates to Pius XII. The article's strength is supposed to be theology, but it mentions neither Scholasticism or Thomism. I'll give a few more examples to illustrate this same problem. Several encyclicals are covered in depth (if I may dare a guess, chosen because certain editors had axes to grind), but the article never discusses encyclicals in general, or even the types of papal writings (encyclicals, apostolic constitutions, etc.) and their varying levels of importance. Similarly, several papal elections are detailed (chosen at random this time, I believe, rather than by any bias), but never the development or process of the conclave as a means of papal succession (dare I mention Papal appointment, which was more or less the norm for 1000 years). Several sentences about the nuances of regulations relating to homosexuals in the priesthood are included (even a sentence presenting the church's stated rationale, that the ban was a response to child abuse, as a fact!) but nothing is said about catholic social teaching about heterosexuality as a whole; there is also excessive treatment of the topic of women in the priesthood but nothing about the overall relationship of the church to gender roles (Periculoso, etc., etc.). I've already mentioned how the article attributes to the RCC a causal role in eliminating infanticide and human sacrifice, but says nothing about the real topic that these are a subset of: colonization and forced conversion.
Short version: this article's exceptional referencing and prose are deceptive because its text is more often than not a minute detail of a sub-topic. This article needs to be rethought in terms of summary style. It should not be a collection of all facts relating to a few select issues but rather a meta-level summary of the RCC as a whole. Savidan 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy

Oppose Wow, I hope that this embarrassment of an article will not be featured. An article on the Roman Catholic Church might, one presumes, include some criticism of the role that this church played in history and still plays now? If that is a reasonable presumption, and I think it is per WP:NPOV, then the current article does not make the grade. The lead contains no criticism whatsoever, despite being way too long. In the rest of the article, the only critical section I found was

The Church has frequently been criticized for the house arrest of Galileo, and also for the execution of Giordano Bruno. However historians of science, including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[192] A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg,[193] and Thomas Goldstein,[194] have argued that the Church had a significant, positive influence on the development of civilization. In contrast to scholars such as Ramsay MacMullen, who take a negative view with respect to the loss of ancient literature with the rise of Christianity,[195] they hold that not only did monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions of Europe, but the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of universities and Catholic schools throughout the world. Presently, the Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.[196]

which is effectively a whitewash. The whole structure of the piece contradicts WP:WTA. There are many more embarrassments in the structure of the article, and I for one do not want Wikipedia to be embarrassed. Geometry guy 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've recovered from the shock when I first saw this candidate, and will hopefully be less grumpy about it! So far the cited paragraph has not been fixed. I've updated it, color coded the viewpoints and highlighted structural (WP:WTA) issues in red. I would note that the embarrassment here only concerns Wikipedia's core WP:NPOV policy. The article is very impressive in other ways, and my comments were not intended to denigrate the immense work that has gone into the article, or any editors involved. Geometry guy 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of non-neutral structure and prose follow. Same color scheme.

Eamon Duffy for instance, acknowledges the existence of a Christian community in Rome and that Peter and Paul "lived, preached and died" there, but is not certain that there was a ruling bishop in the Roman church in the first century, and questions the concept of apostolic succession.

Although Catholic doctrine accepts the possibility that God's creation occurred in a way consistent with the Theory of Evolution, it rejects any use of the theory to deny supernatural divine design, considering that to be outside the scope of science.

Although the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, as an earthly organization its spiritual head and leader is the pope.

The Church in Asia is a significant minority among other religions comprising only 3% of all Asians, yet its vibrance is evidenced by the large proportion of religious sisters, priests and parishes to total Catholic population.

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

Because early Christians refused to offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to defer to Roman rulers as gods, they were frequently subject to persecution. This began under Nero in the first century and culminated in the great persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which was seen as a final attempt to wipe out Christianity.

Twelfth century France witnessed the emergence of Catharism, a belief which stated that matter was evil, accepted suicide, and denied the value of Church sacraments. After a papal legate was murdered by the Cathars in 1208, Pope Innocent III declared the Albigensian Crusade. Abuses committed during the crusade prompted Innocent III to informally institute the first papal inquisition to prevent future abuses and to root out the remaining Cathars. Formalized under Gregory IX, this Medieval inquisition executed an average of three people per year for heresy at its height.

Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers. Over all, one percent of those tried by the inquisitions received death penalties, leading many scholars to consider them rather lenient when compared to the secular courts of the period.

In December 1511, Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican friar, openly rebuked the Spanish rulers of Hispaniola for their "cruelty and tyranny" in dealing with the American natives. King Ferdinand enacted the Laws of Burgos and Valladolid in response. However enforcement was lax, and some historians blame the Church for not doing enough to liberate the Indians; others point to the Church as the only voice raised on behalf of indigenous peoples.

In 1509, the most famous scholar of the age, Erasmus

Source quality. I randomly checked some sources. Dennet seems to be a scholarly neutral source. Norman, Wilken, Morris are all illustrated books for general readers. Armstrong is a school text book. Collins and Vidmar are not neutral:

Collins: ""Catholic Christianity, which began in Jerusalem with the resurrection of the crucified Jesus (most likely before April AD 30) and the coming of the Holy Spirit, emerged from Judaism"

Vidmar: "This is not to say that these miracles did not happen, but rather that they must be understood as explaining Christ's message. Christ can heal the sick, but such physical healing (as he points out) is nothing compared to his ability to heal the sinner."

Women

One of the issues which raised my NPOV antennae is the relation of the RCC with women. The article contains (I believe) only the following passages on this subject.

Efforts to lead the Church to consider the ordination of women led Pope John Paul II to issue the 1988 encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem, which declared that women had a different, yet equally important role in the Church.

Since the twelve apostles chosen by Jesus were all male, only men may be ordained in the Catholic Church.[148] While some consider this to be evidence of a discriminatory attitude toward women,[149] the Church believes that Jesus called women to different yet equally important vocations in Church ministry.[150] Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Christifideles Laici, states that women have specific vocations reserved only for the female sex, and are equally called to be disciples of Jesus.[151] This belief in different and complementary roles between men and women is exemplified in Pope Paul VI's statement "If the witness of the Apostles founds the Church, the witness of women contributes greatly towards nourishing the faith of Christian communities".

Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

I have already taken issue with the last of these. It is not that I believe it is false (even if I did, so what?). No, the point of Wikipedia is not to present The Truth^TM but to describe human knowledge and beliefs, as documented by reliable sources. It is a quite common view that the church has repressed women, and there are surely reliable sources which document this. Their views are not represented in this article.

One example concerns midwives. Now, I am no expert on sources here, but I did a simple search and found this reference by scholarly authors, containing a view which is not represented in this article. Geometry guy 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science

The article suggests a positive role that the church has played in the development of science. Yet, no mention is made of the dark ages and the role of the church there. This is partly about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but there are multiple viewpoints about the role of the church in this too. A related aspect is the elimination of "heresy" (a point of view term). This is not just about the elimination of "heretics" (Cathars and midwives being among those labelled as such), but the elimination of heretical literature. There is nothing in the article about the affect this had on the development of science and knowledge. Scholars widely credit medieval Islamic society with at least maintaining and passing on the knowledge of the Greeks while Christendom was in turmoil. This is certainly true in mathematics, and my observations on this have already been referred to on the FAC page.

Why did Western civilization not recover from the fall of the Roman Empire until the Reformation? Multiple points of view surely exist. I have again done a simple search for a strident source on the destruction of libraries and literature: here is one. This is just to show that the issue is discussed, not to suggest that this is the best source. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of the church vs. persecution by the church

These are handled rather differently by the article. Concerning persecution by the church, criticism is either absent, or is itself criticised as exaggeration (see the quote "Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature exaggerated the horrors of the inquisitions in an effort to associate the entire Catholic Church with crimes most often committed by secular rulers."). Concerning persecution of the church, we have (literally) graphic details, and absolutely no suggestion that these might be exaggerations, despite the fact that there are sources which question many details, such as the Tacitus passage. Random source: [13]. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insider vs. outsider view

By and large this article presents the Roman Catholic Church from an inside perspective (that's a gross exaggeration, I admit). There isn't much on how the Church is viewed from the outside in sociological or other analysis, for example. Here's a random text with a completely different analysis, which may or may not be a good representative of outside points of view: [14]. Geometry guy 21:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soidi

Oppose. The phrase with which, as a result of further changes by Nancy, the article now begins is inappropriate as an opening, and is criticized by several editors on the Talk page. Soidi (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Nancy has rightly made yet more changes, recognizing the controversial character of the text on which I commented above, controversy still attaches to the view that remains expressed in a note within the lead (see the article's Talk page). Soidi (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nancy has rightly made yet more changes, recognizing the controversial character of the text on which I commented. But, as well as suggesting by the use of the phrase "the Church" that the Eastern bishop Ignatius thought only the Western Church was catholic, a note within the lead attributes to a particular writer, as the only source for its statement, an idea that he explicitly rejected, it presents as fact a questioned unsourced statement that is contradicted by reliable sources, and it suggests, against the evidence of the documents themselves, that there is only one name by which this Church refers to itself in important documents. Soidi (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell

Oppose. I haven't read this in its entirety and will try at some point. But browsing through I paused at Cultural influence and my jaw dropped. The POV is totally pervasive. "Aztecs were practicing human sacrifice, which ended with the spread of Christianity to the region by Catholic missionaries." Isn't that nice. Might we also add: "In order to achieve this milestone in human betterment, Aztec society was ruthlessly conquered and much of its population obliterated by warfare and diseases such as smallpox." We're told that Catholics took a lead in opposing slavery and Dum Diversas gets nary a mention. We're told that denying a right to divorce is an improvement in the lives of women. The second paragraph, meanwhile, is classic "yes, but" strawman-ing. I mean really. Marskell (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007

Reluctant Oppose. This is an extremely well-written article, and it is obvious that a tremendous amount of work has been put into it. Unfortunately, I agree with some of the above comments that the article violates NPOV because the article is clearly biased. The main problems lie in the cultural influence and history sections. While the Catholic Church has done many great and wonderful things over the years, it has also done a number of very bad and destructive things over its 2000 year history. The good is heavily emphasized and the bad is very much downplayed, or left out entirely. You're either going to have to chop out much of the positive spin, or add in more of the negative points about the Church's history in order to eliminate the bias. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]