Talk:Dignitatis Humanae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Controversy

Perhaps something of the history of the document's controversy ought to be added?

I will be posting a variety of notes on this document derived from research I did on a recent paper so it will be under construction for a while. Claude Muncey

[23 April 2005]

I have corrected some minor slips and such, made some useful identifications and links such as Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which was only identified as "Unity" and introducing useful Main article:... headings to some sections for further support and depth. The introduction needed adjusting to bring it better into line with the history of ideas, but I made no changes that aren't mainstream. --Wetman 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

I realise that putting an NPOV heading appears quite aggressive, and I want to make sure that no one feels that this is the case. I feel that there are a number of assumptions in this article that need to be dealt with:

  • While it deals with the liberal view in quite a lot of detail the traditionalist view, especially the traditionalist criticisms during and after the council, is given less room.
  • The Conservative Catholic (as opposed to Trad) view that Dignitatis was not a substantial change in Catholic teaching is not dealt with
  • John Courtney Murray is treated as the central figure giving a perritus centric view

I'm not saying that the bias is deliberate, and for that reason I was rather unwilling to put on the tag, but as I will hopefully be editing this article in some depth it is best that the motives for the edits are telegraphed in advance and that misunderstandings are avoided. JASpencer 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there have been no substantial changes to the article in the year it's been tagged for POV, and that there has been no further discussion of the issue. Since the tagger has failed to make any changes to address the issue and no other supporters have stepped forward, I suggest the POV tag be removed. Phyesalis 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree ClaudeMuncey 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag.--Alabamaboy 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)