Talk:Call to Action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lincoln, Nebraska excommunications

Vatican confirms excommunication for US dissident group.... http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=48072 only valid in Lincoln Nebraska diocese apparently... for now 69.212.211.63 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The group's standing in the Church is a very important point, one that merits inclusion, and so I have added it to the history. Incidentally, the excommunication has implications for any of this group's members. Cardinal Re's report didn't say "Being a member of this group in Lincoln, Nebraska is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic Faith" KriZe 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I clarified the jurisdictional issues involved. The Congregation for Bishops was primarily issuing a statement that Bruskewitz was acting properly as a bishop. Bishops have a lot of power, and the Vatican might be quite satisfied to let Bruskewitz determine who is a heretic and who is not a heretic in his diocese without making a statement for the universal church.
However, as KriZe points out, there is the very interesting other paragraph in Re's letter which says that CtA is incompatible with the Catholic faith. As of today, this doesn't actually affect Catholics outside of the Dioces of Lincoln, because it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the Congregation for Bishops, which is in charge of determining matters of doctrine. But Re's statement said this was "the judgment of the Holy See." Does that mean that the CDF or the pope has expressed an opinion on this matter? If so, we may hear more about this in the near future! — Lawrence King (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the latest update of this article goes too far, treading away from NPOV and into PR damage-control "spin" territory. The rewrite of the facts pertaining to the excommunication and the impact of the Vatican reaction on the whole hit the mark. But at the same time the article now looks as though it is going out of its way to downplay the importance of the excommunication, which in fact is a very serious point. It can be slimmed down to "the excommunication does not have any jurisdictional impact outside of Lincoln."
In addition, listing Gaillot, Gumbleton and Küng under the heading "reactions from the hierarchy" is misleading, and while not strictly a breach of NPOV, consider that a reader is presented with nameless, faceless "leaders" on one side and Bishops A & B and Author C on the other. I'm not here to start an edit war, but one should take note that these guys are all reform advocates, and not people in an any position to make any change. KriZe 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you to some extent on the "spin-control" aspect, but note that there are names on the other side: Bishop Bruskewitz and Cardinal Re. The "excommunication does not have any jurisdictional impact outside of Lincoln" rewrite seems balanced to me. Note, however, that an excommunicated CtA member who moves out of the Lincoln diocese remains excommunicated. -- Cat Whisperer 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't intend to compare nameless, faceless folks to actual bishops. This is one reason it's good to have multiple eyes look at a page: when I see the names "Gumbleton" and "Küng" I am quite aware of the fact that these folks represent the "left wing" of the Catholic Church.
But to fully describe the canonical meaning of Re's statement, we would have to analyze the relative authority of the local ordinary versus the head of a Vatican congregation. But this issue is itself contentious, and would probably be off-topic in this article. [As an example of how this issue is currently contentious: A few weeks ago the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a statement that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist ("lay Eucharistic ministers") could not purify the vessels used for communion. Cardinal Mahony told the priests in his diocese that he and his auxiliary bishops would soon "discuss the new recommendations" [1]. Is Mahony disobeying a Vatican rule? Or did the congregation overstep its bounds? Or is everything 'kosher' because Mahony correctly understands that rulings from Vatican congregations are never binding on local ordinaries unless they are approved in forma specifica by the Pope?] This is an issue that would need to be solved before we could really know how to write a neutral Wikipedia article on these excommunications. Is this something that Wikipedia articles should settle? I think it isn't. That would, at the very minimum, involve analyzing the powers of a local ordinary in canon law, which would violate WP:NOR.
I have made some minor edits to the text, but if they don't look right to you, definitely you should see if you can alter them. I tend to be an inclusionist, so I would rather have more information than less.... — Lawrence King (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Matters

The article says C2A wants to change the Church's teachings on a variety of sexual matters. Does this group consider it a sin for a single Catholic to masturbate to adult movies? What is C2A's view on porn and masturbation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Calls To Action Are Religious?

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=call+to+action http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=define%3Acall+to+action This article seems to imply that "call to action" is purely and always something of a religious matter. I don't have a lot to contribute but I was surprised by this. As you can see, google doesn't really seem to care for the organization you guys are discussing. Nice high ranking but only one result. I think that an article by this name might warrant a mention from the marketing world et al. It's just a thought though. This isn't criticism, I don't even have any content to contribute and this entity does seem noteworthy indeed. I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with the article, I'm just wondering aloud if there is more to "call to action" than what we have represented here to date :-). Maybe not.125.236.211.165 (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)