Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Church and Environmentalism

Has anyone thought about compiling the Church's stance on environmental stewardship (Protecting Eden)? I think this might be a good discussion to compile for the page and perhaps something that could eventually worked into a full page of its own. Thoughts please! Safesler (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pope vs Bishop of Rome

I changed the link to the Bishop of Rome to a link to the Pope. Where the link is, it suggests that whatever the content of the link, is the supreme, earthly ruler of the Church. While the Pope and Bishop of Rome are the same person, Catholics do not revere him because he is the Bishop of Rome, he is chosen for the Papacy and in turn becomes Bishop of Rome. I just wanted to clarify the change for anyone who may be concerned. Eab969 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this change may be okay, I'd like to emphasize that according to Roman-Catholic tradition it is the Bishop of (the Church of) Rome who as such (!) is the Roman Pontiff, i.e. the head of the College of Bishops, Pastor of the universal Church etc., while “Pope” originally is just a honorary title. Can. 331 CIC clearly states: “The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth.” - The articles Bishop of Rome and Pope are clear enough in this respect; but there is too much duplicate contents in them. I think that they could be united, making the first a link to the second one.

84.153.3.230 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"guaranteed salvation"

I was shocked when i read the last paragraph that was in the Salvation section:

According to doctrine, a devout Catholic will certainly be saved. However, the church does not claim that those outside of the church will necessarily be condemned. In fact, the claim that only Catholics will be saved is considered heretical and is known as Feenyism, after Father Feeney, who was excommunicated from the church for this belief. Catholics believe that God will not deny the help necessary for salvation to those outside of the Church. However, only devout and moral Catholics are guaranteed Salvation.

I've been a traditional Catholic all my life, and never have i heard any Catholic ever say anyone was guaranteed salvation. That is one of the main things that distinguishes us from most Protestant sects, who often declare themselves saved and confident that they will go to Heaven.

Aside from this, i found the paragraph was just repeating what had already been said above it in the section (especially if the objectionable text was changed or removed), so i deleted it. 2nd Piston Honda 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What that paragraph is saying is that if a person is practicing the Catholic faith the way they should, they will go to heaven. That includes at the least weekly Mass, frequent confessions, etc. If a catholic is devout unto death, than they will go to heaven; whether purgatory is involved cannot be known. Clearly this is true, because if someone can devoutly follow all of the RCC's teachings and still warrant the pains of hell, then their would be no reason to be devoutly Catholic. Not only that, the paragraph is clearly referenced to a reliable source, the Second Vatican Council documentLumen Gentium. I am restoring the paragraph, with some mild changes including but not limited to the removal of the last sentence "However, only devout and moral Catholics are guarenteed Salvation" to prevent confusion like we see here. Guldenat 20:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it is a matter that the Sacraments will save every Catholic. I think that is something all of us agree upon. That doesn't meant that the Catholic won't go to Purgatory. I should not that its just Catholics, Orthodox as well. Nevertheless, it does mean that salvation is essentially guaranteed whilst I think the general belief is that no protestant/evangelical/restorationist/[insert chrisitian cult] will go to heaven for the reason of rejecting God's Truth in the Catholic Church. Safesler (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Who gives a fuck what you think whilst or otherwise. This is theology not fucking opinion time. Why are prods involved in attempting to redefine Catholicism, hasn't there been enough of that bullshit already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.228 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that is one way to express yourself; I find that it undermines your position completely, but it takes all kinds to make the world go round. There is no guarantee of going to heaven for the vast majority of Catholics; we hope to go to heaven and we express that hope through observance of the sacraments of the church and maintaining a penitent heart. I think the wording was misguided and could be improved upon. When in doubt, go to the catechism and quote from it in the article and to clarify doctrine. --Voire Dei (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Death Penalty

Perhaps the Catholic Teaching on Life issues should have its own article, or at least stub. When describing the total structure of the Catholic Church it seems odd to break into specifics on only the Death Penalty, and none of the other issues.Mjtanton 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree, at least as to the disproportionate space dedicated to the death penalty. It's a level of detail that really does not need to be there, given the breadth of the article in general. As to whether a separate article/stub should be created, I'm pretty neutral on that. There is a death penalty article with a subsection on the Catholic Church's position. Perhaps that subsection can be expanded, with a link to it from this RCC article? --Anietor 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Mjtanton's position is that there should be a Catholic life teaching article, where the Church's pro-life teachings on abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, just war, etc., can be expanded upon. This would parallel the existing Catholic social teaching and Catholic teachings on sexual morality articles that already exist. The long death penalty section could then become a short summary of the sub article, consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style. I think it is a good idea. Gentgeen 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rating

In order for an article to be A-class, it must first pass the Good article nomination process. As this article has failed twice, it is clearly not A-class. If you want to get the article back to A-class, run it through GAC again. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Murder, Torture, Genocide, Kidnapping cases

There has been a number of catholic church officials sentenced for extremely violent acts. Most well known are cases of Argentinian priest Christian von Wernich sentenced for 7 murders, 42 kidnappings, and 32 instances of torture. Not less frighting are cases of Theophister Mukakibibi, Maria Kisito and Sister Gertrude Rwandan nuns sentenced for helping to kill hundreds of Tutsi during Rwandan genocide, as well as Wenceslas Munyeshyaka [1] and Athanase Seromba [2]. Not less bizzare is a case of US priest Gerald Robinson[3] sentenced for killing a nun during Satanic ritual.

Some are not yet sentenced but are awaitng genocide trial like Belgium priest Guy Theunis[4]. Other like Bishop Augustin Misago, were charged but later freed.

Vatican condemned the Rwanda genocide arrest of a bishop Misago[5], as well as conviction of nuns in genocide case[6]

I think that this is final version, adn I want it to be posted on wiki. This is not Defamation

This is plain truth it is known by thw whole world and was made public. I Dnt want to start another problem like one with gerry Adams page where Vatican computers sistematicaly removed material from website [7]

Wikipedia is a free public tool not a tool in Vatican hands

I suggest that this should stay on roman catholic church main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipernar (talk • contribs)

For any organisation the size of the RCC, it is inevitable that you can find a few such instances. For it to have any relevance to the article as a whole you need to be able to show (with sources) that the hierarchy of the Church had something to do with - that's why the information about sexual abuse is there, the hierarchy had a hand in (not) dealing with it. I'm not going to revert you again, because I'm sure someone else will. Also, please try to put new comments at the end of talkpages, and sign them by writing ~~~~ at the end so it is easy to see who said what. David Underdown 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The actions, however horrid, of a few rogues do not merit mention in an article covering 2,000 years of history, practice and doctrine. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do think of myself as a serious editor. Put this info in the individual's personal biographical pages, not here. -- SECisek 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but there were noumerous horrific pedophile cases, on news i always hear its just few rouges. This is neutral and independent media. Its not Vatican media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipernar (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the child abuse aspect is already covered in the article. Actually there may just be grounds for including some criticism of the Church over the involvement of Clergy and Religious in the Rwandan Genocide, and the lack of any Church investigation into this, but it would need to be far more neutrally expressed. As I've pointed out on your talkpage, Secisek and I are the last people who could be accused of being tools of the Vatican, since we are both members of churches of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all covered in The Church and the Rwandan Genocide‎ already. -- SECisek 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not the best title for that article it has to be said. David Underdown 10:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my article. --SECisek 22:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Some bigots sure do love wikipedia as a place to attack the Catholic Church. The article is not the place for a personal crusade against Catholicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.228.133 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

None of the abuse is the Roman Catholic Church is or about. The people in the church made some pretty bad mistakes. If these actions are to be written about, they should be related to the individuals not the Roman Catholic Church, which by my guess would never condone those actions. Freenaulij 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The Church would never condone such actions and so those actions should not be discussed in the article about Catholicism but instead in articles about the people who committed these atrocities. --PaladinWriter (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree compeletely. The objective of this artcile is to present the Catholic Church in a factual basis; the focus is the church as a whole and not the actions of individual members or even of individual members of the clergy or religious. I see a clear distinction; to paint them as one entity is to misunderstand the topic or to broaden it to the point of meaninglessness. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic church has helped many criminals avoid prosicution by moving them to the vatican city (or another country) or by using its influence force people to drop charges. Many pedophiles where just moved around once there activities became known about, and these activities where NEVER reported to authorities by the Church. Its part of the Holy See's view that it is above secular laws. (Hypnosadist) 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like someone just wants to defame the Church to me. --PaladinWriter (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Look there are over a billion Catholics, I don't think we need to examine every individual fault or sin. EZC195 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church "the" Christian Church(?)

this claim can not be proven or disproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderpet (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Wonderpet 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are addressing the introduction's first sentence. It does not state that the Catholic Church is "the" Christian church, but that the Catholic church is the Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The emphasis is on communion with the Bishop of Rome. Does that make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely the article is saying that it is one of many Christian churches, and this particular Church is defined by its relationship with the Pope. David Underdown 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had though of that, however it still looks like someone is making the claim that the Catholic Church is the true Christian congregation. Wonderpet 17:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence needs to clarify the Catholic Church is Christian and in full communion with the Bishop of Rome; can you think of a better way to say it? I tried and alternatives seem more clumsy or longer. One could be changing the "the" to "a", but we may be straining on gnats. I am speaking as a LDS so please understand that I would be just as sensitive to those types of inferences, but I don't think this is one of them. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
How about changing "the" to "that"? as in "The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (see terminology below) is that Christian church that is in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI..." --SigPig |SEND - OVER 20:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Or '"that" church which is in...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderpet (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems good as it is. And to the comment "it still looks like someone is making the claim that the Catholic Church is the true Christian congregation," don't all Christian churches result from a split or break from the Catholic Church? EZC195 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No NPOV

Hello! I'm here because seems to me that this article clearly do not have a NPOV. Let's have a look at this point: "Even though modern science confirms that two of the four scientific theses steadfastly advanced by Galileo were in fact wrong".

That's right, but what is this doing here? Appears to me that there is just a justification of the Galileos case, in fact, they say this and say nothing about the home prison of Galileo imposed by the church.

And that's irrelevant, if we wanna talk here about where the church is wrong in the scientific matters the article will be all about that.

The inquisition part say nothing. And don't even have a link to the main article.

What I'm saying here is that I will edit a good part of the article and get my own words in it.

And I don't wanna see catholics editing my edits.

Sorry my bad English.

Hugs! --V3n0w 06:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but you can't make statements like "I don't wanna see catholics editing my edits."-Wafulz 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the article more closely, it's pretty lousy.
  • There are historical events cited to the Bible.
  • Belief is often stated as fact. Phrases like "we can either accept the gift God gives through faith in Jesus Christ" should not be in this article.
  • The article is written in a generally pro-Catholic point of view
    • Example: "Catholics are obliged to endeavour to be true disciples of Jesus. They seek forgiveness of their sins and follow the example and teaching of Jesus. They believe that Jesus has provided seven sacraments which give Grace from God to the believer."
    • Example "The Church is the People of God, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ. It is fundamentally a communion of members, and a communion of communions, with each other and with God."
    • This reads like a pamphlet you would pick up on Sunday morning
  • Entire sections, like the role in civilization, are written in a very Catholic-sympathetic manner-Wafulz 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That is what I'm talking about, thanks for the support Wafulz. -V3n0w 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


  • The article is FACTUAL, it is not just for people to post negative views about the Catholic Church. Xandar (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been gone over again and again. I guess it's time for this debate to be recycled. The article is written from what the Catholic Church believes. It is a fact that the church believes "we can either accept the gift God gives through faith in Jesus Christ", same with everything else in the article. It is assumed the reader is astute enough to pick up that this article is relaying the teaching of the Catholic Church, not endorsing it. If you are suggesting inserting weasel words like "The Church believes..." in front of every sentence, I think that is bad form and will degrade the quality of the article. Guldenat (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that just a search and replace substitution wouldn't be the best approach; but Walufz is right about the general issue. The article should be written from an external point of view, not from the church's point of view; in particular, the manual of style is clear that first- and second-person pronouns are generally inappropriate for encyclopedic writing. TSP (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An article about the Catholic Church needs to explain what the church teaches...its doctrines, teachings, etc. As noted by Guldenat, relaying the message is not the same as endorsing it. Is there seriously a concern that a reader will read the article and think that he is being told what to believe, as opposed to being informed of what the church itself believes and teaches? Seems kind of silly to me. The article is written in the third person, and does not require some sort of disclaimer phrase in front of every sentence such as "The Church teaches" or "The Church's view is", etc. This article is written from a NPOV as it is. --Anietor (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

first among equals

I tweaked the understanding of papal primacy with regards to the Orthodox and got reverted. I reverted back because there's plenty of evidence out there for what I'm saying and instead of reverting, the more normal request for citation would have been in order. Coincidentally, Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical talks just reached an accord on this subject largely along the lines I outlined. The sticking points were also as I outlined, what does primacy mean. That remains unsettled. Now I'd be perfectly happy to use the term protos or "first among the patriarchs" to improve the text or to leave it be as I wrote it. Any thoughts? TMLutas 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian art

The Church and Christianity in general have truly inspired many great works. To just think of Michelangelo's sculptures, Raphael's paintings, Haydn's and Mozart's masses... But to link these artists to catholicism is just naive. Mozart was composing because he was payed good money, same with Haydn and all the other artists. Ironically, thanks go to the popes who commissioned works from various artists. Haydn yes, but Mozart was certainly not a devout catholic.. And to just think of Shakespeare and the passions in his plays and homoerotic nature of half of his sonnets... The same is true for science. Many scientists are officially catholic (being baptised) but have no explicit links with the church (myself for example). To show off great figures in history of art and saying that they were catholic and perhaps alluding that their work was heavily influenced by Church is, in my opinion, misleading.

Otherwise the article is indeed pro-catholic, but I like it anyway. I do not want to criticise the article in general but maybe the part on art should be a bit rephrased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidaest (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To deny Christian Art is a product of and founded in the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church is indeed eccentric. As far as scientists are concerned, the same argument could be used of Jewish and Muslim scientists - what were their explicit links with their religious heirarchies? Apart from this, a number of catholic scientists, eg. Bacon, Copernicus, Mendel were members of religious orders. Xandar (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You misinterpret me. Christian art is founded in beliefs of Christianity it's just not a product of the Catholic Church.

Consider, I am the pope, I hire Verdi, paying him, to write the requiem and then I say that the the Church has produced such masterpiece. The Florentine school of arts produced some of the most famous works during the Renaissance (Botticelli's primavera, da Vinci, Michelangelo,...). The Sistine Chapel was painted by orders of Sixus, true, but many masterpieces were sponsored by Lorenzo de Medici; should we call such art 'de Medici art'? I think not. You mix christian motives with institutional Church which do not relate, at least not when art is concerned. I am not trying to dismantle your arguments, I'm just saying they're oversimplifying the fact.

There are people who hold it that revolution produced such masterpieces as Prokofiev's Cinderella and Romeo&Juliet...
And another thing - this is my personal opinion of course - after reading Bacon's Majus Opus, I'm convinced that the theological-oriented way (enforced by the Church) of Bacon's thinking severly hindered his capabilities to act as a true scientist.
I believe he was a truly great spirit, much like Augustine, but handicapped by the doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.8.230.4 (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Medicis, at the time they indeed wanted and intended for such works of art to be known as Medici art and it is sometimes grouped that way by museums and the media so I'm not quite sure why it would be inappropriate to do the same for the Church. If it's good enough for PBS, why isn't it good enough for Wikipedia? TMLutas (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I suppose such classification is good enough for Church.

Terminology

This section is getting far too long again. It could be one third the size and far more useful. Much of this is already covered in the catholic article. Xandar (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins and History

I have reworked part of this section, hopefully clarifying the language, and redoing the headings, with a slight re-ordering, so that they all consistently represent time periods in chronological order. Xandar (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Barbarism of the Church

In order for this article to be complete there must be some discussion of the historical genocide by the church of women, ethnic groups in europe deemed "pagan" by the church, Arabs and Muslims during the crusades... In fact, there are many people in the world that hold the view that the Catholic Church has been one of the most destructive forces in human history. This POV certainly deserves consideration. Neutrality is accomplished when all points of view are represented, and if the writers of this article wish to simply outline the teachings of the church, the article should be titled "The teaching of the Catholic Church", so that readers won't confuse the subject with a neutral investigation of the Catholic Church as a whole concept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.108.25 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Where to begin...the article is not an "investigation of the Catholic Church", although your choice of words (along with "barbarism" and "most destructive forces in human history) does reveal your own POV. Also, you are incorrect that neutrality is accomplished when all points of view are represented. This is an encyclopedic resource; not a blog, not a forum. Neutrality doesn't mean taking 10 positive things, 10 negative things and throwing them together in equal proportions. That approach ignores the importance of relevance, sourcing, substantiation, consensus, etc. If you wish to create a web page or blog and open it up to input from any fringe group or unsourced guest, feel free. This isn't the right forum for that, though. --Anietor (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't see how you could read what I wrote and respond this way. It's ludicrous that emy choice of words reveals my own POV. I very clearly state that many people in the world hold views ciritical of the Church, never do I reveal my own opinion with regard to the church. The only opinion that I express is that this article can not be complete or accurate without addressing views critical of the church. In fact more people hold views critical of the Church than there are members of the church considering the protestant world, the feminist movement, the arab world, the native people's of North and South America, much of the Asian world, and much of the European continent. The sheer number of people holding critical views makes relevancy and neutrality impossible without adressing these views. Furthermore I never recomended throwing together 10 positive and 10 negative things, nor anything unsupported by the facts of history, and you mention consensus? How can you have consensus on a subject when only one view is represented? Lest readers be confused by your logical fallacies and misdirection, let me state clearly that the only thing I am advocating is a section that deals with widely held and factually solid critical views of the Church's role through history, no slander, no biggotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N88819 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of logical fallacies...the simple fact that someone might be a member of "the protestant world, the feminist movement, the arab world, the native people's of North and South America" etc doesn't mean that person holds views critical of the Catholic Church. You have no evidence at all to support your claim that "more people hold views critical of the Church than there are members of the church" other than your personal assumption that any non-member of the Church must hold critical views of the Church. IrishGuy talk 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a member, I am critical of the Roman Catholic Church, and I think the article does a pretty fair job of being NPOV as is. Ignore this crank. -- SECisek (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

With Secisek, I am also not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. To speak only about the broad generalization made about my fellow Protestants, a number of Lutherans have said (with the same thought being echoed by many in the Anglican Communion), that every Lutheran should ask themselves why they are not in communion with Rome, and express a deep admiration for the Roman Church. That said, you may want to look at Criticism of the Catholic Church, which addresses some of your concerns. Overall, I would say this article is pretty neutral, given the scope of the subject. At most I would like to see something about the Inquisition of the 15th-17th centuries, but perhaps that is too in-depth for the overview here presents. Pastordavid (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a crank? That's a fantastic logical fallacy known as argument ad hominum or attacking the man. I have not attacked any of the people here personally, please give me the same respect. There is also an inference within these last comments that I have stated that all protestants, all feminists, all europeans etc. are critical of the church. I have not stated that, I have simply stated that much critisism exists within these groups. I can cite numerous authors, etc. all with large followings. I have also not stated that members of these groups, such as my Lutheran responder above, are completely critical of the church, simply that critisisms exist. To the person who tried to misdirect my logical fallacy statement, you created another logical fallacy, known as the red herring. You altered my original statements and attacked the alteration, because my original statments were harder to attack. Why not try making an argument based on the accepted principles of the philosophy of history as to why this article should not contain critisism? A way to deal with these critisisms would be to have a short summary with a link to the greater article, for example in the article about Henry Kissinger, there is a summary about operation condor with a similar link to the main article. At the very least there could be links in the "see also" section to articles about the inquisition, crusades, witch burnings, destruction of pagan culture, etc. It seems that the best way for an article which adresses a topic as broad as this to be relevant is to act as a hub or outline for more detailed articles.
"you created another logical fallacy, known as the red herring. You altered my original statements and attacked the alteration, because my original statments were harder to attack." That is known as a straw man fallacy, not a red herring. Guldenat (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The straw man fallacy is part of a group of fallacies labeled red herring fallacies. The two terms are often used interchangably in the discussion of logic. Please look at the list of fallacies for verification. Have you considered researching a term before trying to define it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N88819 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"N8819" You have made numerous wild and extreme accusations against the Catholic church, including "genocide" of women, European ethnic groups, Arabs and Muslims! No specifics are mentioned, or references given. I would suggest that before you launch into such attacks, you read up on some genuine scholarly histories of the western world and of the church. The type of scattergun accusations you make I have found too often come from people who have based their arguments on extremely poor and dubious sources, such as popular legend, anti-catholic polemecists and popular novels such as the Da Vinci Code. Remember Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Xandar (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a crank because you have not read the article. The Inquisition and the Crusades are both already treated and linked to in this article. Opposition to witches was not unique to the Roman Catholic Church and the burnings were carried out by the state, not the church. What more do you want? -- SECisek (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is still not appropriate to call me a crank, I think you, Secisek, should take a look at this article on internet manners: Netiquette. I haven't suggested that oppostion to witches was unique to the church. I also haven't made any, repeat, any accusations about the catholic church at all! Could you guys please try and respond to what I'm actually saying? It's exceptionally bad form to invent statements and then attribute them to a contributor, especially when anyone can read above that I never personally accused the church of anything. I'm simply saying that these critisisms exist, and should be dealt with. Furthermore, the mention of the inquisition, advocation of witch burning, and other issues around critisism of the Church are not prominantly covered, and they do not have their own sections. Almost every article covering a major subject on Wikipedia has sections specifically dedicated to criticisms or alternative points of view. Again, I am not personally accusing the church of wrongdoing, my points are related only to the construction of the article. Can anyone who is responding to me please carefully read what I've said above, and respond politely? Thank you. I'm always surprised and disappointed when adults resort to name calling to make their points. -- n88819 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Name calling? Your exact words above are "At the very least there could be links in the "see also" section to articles about the inquisition, crusades, witch burnings..." You are wasting our time because you have not read the article. The Inquisition and the Crusades are both already treated and linked to in this article. Read before you complain. The talk page should be a forum to improve the article, not a platform to gripe about the article's subject. The "improvements" you propose were already implimented when you posited them. So everybody should be happy, right? -- SECisek (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is calling me "crank" not name calling? You couldn't rely on the strength of your argument alone, you had to bring that in. By the way, I have been arguing that the page is incomplete. I have been arguing about the quality of the article in all of my posts. I am not griping about the subject itself, I am criticizing the completeness of the coverage of that subject. It is not your place to decide who can and cannot contribute to the talk page and to falsely use the rules as a method of exclusion. If you don't appreciate or agree with my contribution, please either respond politely or ignore me. Thank you.--N88819 (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-read the section at the end of high middle ages, not exactly npov. No mention of the casualty numbers caused by either the Inquisition or the Crusades. (Hypnosadist) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is after all very much an overview article, it seems to me that they is very little hard data on casualty figures (unsurprising given the time that has passed), which makes it very diffcult to treat the subject in this article without going into a great deal of detail, which would not be appropriate. David Underdown (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like unsigned just wants to spread hatred toward the page. The pages on that information have already been established. Get over it. Safesler (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't read the see also section. There isn't however, a properly organized stub section to meet any of these controversial issues. I'm very sorry that you think I want to spread hatred towards the page. Let me say that I think the history of the Catholic Church is far too dense and diffuse to simply sum up the entire church as either "evil" or "good", just as it would be similarly difficult to make that claim about the greek orthodox, baptist, unitarian, or Sunni faiths. Though I have not stated my personal views so far, let me do so now. I think that the church has produced some unbelievably generous, kind, and caring leaders in history. At the same time period that the inquisition was happening in Spain, there were priests who were secretly hiding Jews and helping them to escape to America. At the same time the Spanish conquistadors were raping and pillaging the Americas, many Spanish priests rejected this colonialism and tried to help and protect the Indigenous. Some of the most accurate descriptions we have of the cruelties towards the carribean Indigenous populatios were written by Spanish priests. So you see, by not better covering these controversial areas, you cheapen the richness of the article and rob your readers of some positive things about the church, though those positives may come against the backdrop of negatives that the church may be responsible for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N88819 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 12 December 2007

The subjects you brought up are not burried in the See also section, they were and still are mentioned, described, and linked in the article itself. I have to ask one more time did you read the article before you posted? Inquistion, Crusades, sex abuse - its in there. I am not defending the Roman Catholic Church, but I am defending the article. When an unregistered IP comes to a talk page and complains about the lack coverage of subjects that are treated in the article the IP does come off as a "crank", you have my apologies if you are not, but a quick look through the archives will show you how many posts like yours this article sees from "crank" IPs. In fact, look right below this thread. -- SECisek (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I think one of the reasons you've had a couple people comment on this is because the issues I'm mentioning do not have a section or headers. I'm not saying you're lying or asking you to show me where they are in the article. They may be there, but I scrolled through the article for the 10th time and the coverage still didn't jump out at me. It's not contained in the overview. This is what I've been trying to say. The controversies of the church that are widely recognized by historians should be given their own section and sub-sections, so that if I'm coming to the article for the first time and I look at the contents, I can easily link directly to that section if I wish. The contents do show sex abuse as a link, but that is all.--N88819 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.108.25 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Section of the Inquisition?

Surely this is a part of the Church's history no self-reflecting and responsible Catholic would omit. Where is that section? It is suspiciously absent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.102.110 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2007

Did you read the article? It's mentioned in several sections, including links to specific articles just about the various inquisitions. --Anietor 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section Roman Catholic Church#Catholic life, please link the word "fasting" to Fasting and abstinence in the Roman Catholic Church. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. David Underdown (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing how...

...there isn't any banner on the top of the article. I thought such a topic like this was prone to the most vandalism. ZtObOr 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated discussion

I've added the template {{RecurringThemes}} to the top of this talk page. If someone wants to include a brief synopsis and archive links after each "|" in the template - the template parameters - then there will be a convenient top of page link to debate archives per repeating topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Im not catholic im Jewish and to me i understand about this and salvation, but all i wanted to know was roman catholic not the church —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.36.14 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Section on Eucharistic Miracles

I think we should have a section on Eucharistic miracles that links to the Wikipedia article on Eucharistic miracles. --PaladinWriter (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus and spread by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.

This statement sounds like the Roman Catholic Church is founded by Christ. I would like to clarify this. If possible, include this in the article or maybe rewrite it in a way that it wouldn't mislead the readers to believing that Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, I am in no way attacking anyone through this post. I am posting this because I want this to be corrected. You can verify all of the information below.

In the first century, there is no Roman Catholic Church. So, it can't be the one true church nor a church founded by Jesus Christ. It is true that the Roman Catholic Church believes in Jesus Christ, but it wasn't founded by Christ. At the same time, it does not profess the faith of the apostles. Most of the teachings (and traditions) of the Roman Catholic Church is not Biblical ("Biblical" means based from the Bible -- which is the Word of God). See also bottom of this post for an article about the Roman Catholic Church admitting that it does not believe the whole Bible. Most of the beliefs and practices by the Roman Catholic Church are based on Vatican's sole discretion, whether it is Biblical or not.

The Roman Catholic Church says that Christ founded it 2000 years ago. It also says that nothing is changed in its dogmatic teachings (See The Church-Ecclesiology in the article), that their Bishops are successors of the apostles. If the Roman Catholic Church never changed its dogmatic teachings, how come we can't find in the New Testament the following:

  • Priests offering sacrifices for sins
  • Indulgences remitting punishment for sins
  • Prayers for souls in purgatory
  • Church leaders forbidden to marry
  • Infallible men or people we should refer to as "Father" in a Spiritual sense (that is indeed blasphemous according to the Bible.)
  • Salvation dispensed through sacraments
  • Rosaries, scapulars, holy water, crucifixes & statues
  • That priests should be considered as a mediator. With regards to confession, the Bible states that you should confess your sins to God and He will forgive you. It seems that the Roman Catholic church teaches that you will only be forgiven for a mortal sin if you confess to a priest.


At the bottom of the Roman Catholic Church Article, one of the sources include Matthew 16:18. In the New King James Version, it says "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." It was clearly stated there that Christ will build His church and not the Roman Catholic Church. We should also not forget that followers of Christ were not called "Catholics" nor "Roman Catholics", but "Churches of Christ".

At the same time, please take a look at the article below http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html (Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible -- making it Unbiblical)

The article below also tells us that Pope John Paul II believes in Evolutionism which is totally contradicting to the Bible. http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1034.html


You can verify this information if you wish.. and correct me if I'm wrong.


Mv3 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are partisan Protestant, simple as that. If you want to see what a partisan Roman Catholic view of Protestants is like, place the Protestantism page on your watchlist. Soon, you'll discover complaints and views from the other side of the fence appearing. Some of your comments Martin Luther himself nailed on the door in Wittenberg:see The Ninety-Five Theses. As for your comment that evolution is 'totally contradicting to the Bible': well, you'll find a lot of Protestants who disagree with you there, as well as Catholics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
His comments are entirely valid and logically formed, unlike your response. You offer no evidence that his argument is false, only equivication. This is not scholarly debate. If you can't find any reason why his comments would not improve the article, why not work to include it? Wikipedia is supposed to be a scholarly enterprise which catalogs major consensus and debate around various subjects. All debate and controversy has been largely eliminated here. You can't assign my view to my faith, ideas, and attack on the church or any other logical fallacy. You can only contradict me with evidence to the contrary, so please refrain from any other tactic against me or the other posters.--N88819 (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Be bold. I'm making no argument at all. I'm simply pointing out that the statements above are - more or less - the Protestant statements of faith. However, this article is about the 'Roman Catholic Church'. Considering how poorly the article Protestantism is, why not be even more bold and build that article up to FA status. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for debate - even scholarly debate. Encyclopedia articles are 'descriptive' in nature. They answer the question: "What is the 'Roman Catholic Church?" Merry Christmas. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that wikipedia is a forum for scholarly debate, what I clearly said above is that wikipedia is intended to cover both MAJOR consensus and debate, meaning that if there is a long standing widely recognized disagreement on a subject among scholars and historians, than it is an injustice to the history to not "describe" that and instead pretend that everyone is in agreement. Also, the talk page of wikipedia is most certainly for debate on the quality and completeness of the article, which is what the gentleman above is doing. Furthermore it is in the worst taste to redirect the attention from this article on to another article on the talk page for THIS article. THIS article is one of the more poorly constructed articles on a major subject that I have read. The creators are rude and overly defensive to suggestions of improvement. Maybe you and they need a reminder that Wikpedia is not a forum for religious ministry, but a forum for fair and equal coverage of issues.--N88819 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It's absurd to think that nobody in the Church has ever responded to these criticisms before. If you're after a scholarly refutation, the entirety of the Catechism of the Catholic Church forms a useful starting point.
Briefly:
  • There is abundant scriptural authority that describes the structure of the early Church - based on tradition, handed down from the episkopoi (bishops), received from the Apostles, who were taught by Christ himself. Cf 1 Corinthians 11:12; Luke 10:16 The traditions of the Church were in existence even before the Gospels were written down.
  • It's true that rosaries and crucifixes are not mentioned in the Bible. Neither are church buildings or pews, or the cross or fish used as symbols of Christianity. Movies and photographs are not mentioned in the Bible either. Are we prohibited from using these in prayer?
  • Authorities for clerical celibacy: Matthew 19 11-12. And Paul; and Christ himself.
  • I note specifically that there is no "in a spiritual sense" in Matthew 23:9. Thus the passage must be interpreted literally (your suggestion?) or there must be some attempt to discern the meaning behind Jesus' words. See also 1 Corinthians 4:14-15.

I could go on but there's little point. In conclusion, nobody is being rude, except those who assume that everyone who has contributed to this article is oblivious to Protestant criticisms of Catholicism. Keeping in mind that this article's primary purpose is to describe the Catholic Church as an entity, not to offer a Protestant critique of the same, constructive suggestions for improvement of the article are welcome. Slac speak up! 00:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly the first time this has come up, "it traces its history..." tells us that it is the Church itself doing the tracing - so by implication not everyone would agree with that version of events. We don't say "The Church can trace its history..." which would have the implication that it was a proven fact. David Underdown (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

adding catagory "The Church in the News"

I am adding the catagory with external links about the church as reported both good and otherwise. Wonderpet (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess such section might be considered to be inappropriate. There are lots of links that could be added to it, and, as Wikipedia:External links notes: "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.". It might be a better idea to link to the relevant Portal or Category in Wikinews, although there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
True, it could eventually lead to a longer list of links, but it still seems like a good idea Wonderpet (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of it...there are literally hundreds of news articles every day that are related to the RCC. This would just turn into a list...or a daily debate about which articles are important. Anyone could just go to google and get a list. It's not encyclopedic. --Anietor (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I reject this type of addition. I causes an academic approach to knowledge to evolve into the mundane and common. What is commonly reported in "the news" today is not legitimate or proven; it is simply the daily efforts of the media to sensationalize the most recent sighting of Elvis (Yes, I know I am exaggerating, but I am trying to make a point.). If there is something appropriate and if someone wants to make one of those infernal lists that populates wikipedia; maybe it can be broken off into a separate article. However, I believe it would be impossible to manage. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You know... I have to agree with you Stormrider and Anietor Wonderpet (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Church

Please capitalize "church" in first paragraph of Terminology section and any subsequent instances. Gratiam habeo! IgorBlucher (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

whitewashed mess

What about the Reichskonkordat? Not mentioned once in this article. Nothing about the churchs failures towards humanity in condoning Third Reich crimes. Great stuff. I don't even bother trying to add it, because whoever left it out will definitely not hesitate to POV edit war and I don't have the time or nerve to try and edit for NPOV on this high profile article. An utter shame, but Catholic business as usual I guess. Dorfklatsch 12:25, January 6, 2008

What about including it in Criticism of the Catholic Church, if it's not already there? Or even including a brief mention in the article? Were you aware that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia? fishhead64 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee

This article is very accurate and well written with proper references. It is encyclopedic and factually based. There is no reason it could not become a Featured Article. What I have read on this page as criticism of the article is actually people's personal criticisms of the Catholic Church which do not appear on the page and have no place except in another article on the subject. To prevent this article from becoming a useful Wikipedia page because of some people's personal affronts to the Catholic Faith would be a shame and does not help Wikipedia. Please stop using this page as your personal gripe page for the Catholic Church and either contribute useful encyclopedic information or contribute to the page for Catholic critics please. NancyHeise (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I did a little rearranging and cleaning up. The references need to be cleaned up and put in-line. Maybe some of you nice editors could help with that? NancyHeise (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The quality of writing and organization varies greatly throughout the article. It needs a solid reorganization and rewrite.
2. Factually accurate?: Large portions of the article need referencing.
3. Broad in coverage?: While it touches on a lot of details, it fails to cover a lot of important topics. For example, it does not really explain or talk about religious orders or the Roman Curia. As another example, the article does not convey the heavy influence of the Church throughout European history. ("Role of the Church in civilization" reads more like an apologetic than a section neutrally detailing the church's importance in history.)See NPOV below for further examples.
4. Neutral point of view?: The Inquisition is barely mentioned in the article. The sex scandals are given a lot of space and attention at the end (and the attention given to them is a case of recentism). However, mention of other criticisms are largely lacking.
5. Article stability? The article seems relatively stable.
6. Images?: Decent use of images.

This article needs a significant amount of work to reach GA standards.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Vassyana (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit critic. I will try to address some of these issues and make the article better over time as I am able. I have a comment about your insistence of mentioning the Inquisition and other criticisms. There is a separate article on Criticisms of the Catholic Church and another separate article on History of the Catholic Church. These articles address in detail those issues you have asked to have placed in this article. This artile references those other articles. Do you think we should put everything into this one article and eliminate the other articles? Also, I have been looking at the FA article on Islam as a guide to make this article better. I do not see criticisms of Islam or any mentions of terrorism or the like in that article. It is just a factual article telling us what Islam is. I wanted to make an article here telling us what the Roman Catholic Church is - same thing. I think it would be inconsistent for Wikipedia to require the things you have asked to put in this article especially when the issues already have their own articles. I will expand the article using Islam as a guide and ask you to please take a look at that article too before you reveiw my work again. Many thanks for your time and effort here. NancyHeise (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think Islam is a good example. Besides simply lacking criticism, it completely fails to address the tenuous/heretical social position of Sufi in many Islamic countries and sects. It also completely fails to address the Salafi and Wahhabi, which are sects that have a huge impact on the modern Muslim world (particularly the latter since it reigns in Saudi Arabia). Regarding this article, a summary section could be created with a {{main}} link to Criticism of the Catholic Church for critical views, or the most prominent critical views could simply be integrated into the article in appropriate places. The Inquisition had a massive impact on Europe and is one of the most (in)famous and broadly discussed periods of the Church. Certainly, the history of the church should be handled with a summary here (again with a main article link), but just as certainly the article should present the widely discussed and covered issues. My requests are not contrary to Wikipedia, but rather adhering to the fundamental policy of NPOV. Remember that NPOV isn't about creating an objectively neutral article, it's about reflecting (in proportion) what reliable references state about the topic. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I should also mention that claiming Saint Peter or Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic faith is pure POV. The article should indeed mention that the Church sees Peter as their founder through the authority of Jesus. However, it should also mention the dominant scholarly view that the Roman Catholic Church arose later as the descendant of but one of many early Christian sects. For example, the first establishment of the Bishop of Rome as superior in authority dates to the First Council of Nicaea in the 4th century. Even then, the Bishop of Rome was not the exclusive authority, as the Bishop of Alexandria was granted the same authority over his region. Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think I can reasonably address your comments if you think a Featured Article (Islam) is not a good example. The Roman Catholic Church has a huge history, not always bad and including the significant effect it had on the downfall of Communism in Europe. This article is an encyclopedia article defining what the church is. I think you think differently based on your comments but I need an example to follow. I thought Islam was a good example since it is a Featured Article and provides a good definition of what it is without clouding the subject with all the many different points of view a person could put in there. If you want Roman Catholic Church to be something complicated and cluttered with those different points of view beyond a definition, maybe there is someone else who can spend their time on this page. Sorry I could not help you here. Thanks for you comments. Cheers! NancyHeise (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding FAs, I have little faith in their quality or adherence to policy. Many FAs are a complete travesty (though Islam is not nearly so bad). An example article isn't required to get the drift of what an article should be. Content policy (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), good article standards and the Manual of Style provide plenty of guidance when combined with a bit of common sense. There's also plentiful sound advice throughout the wiki about crafting a solid article. Regardless, you are focusing overmuch on one aspect of my critique. Even if we put aside the issues of lack of critical content and failure to address the Inquisition in any reasonable detail, numerous issues remain. The sex scandal section is an example of criticism poorly integrated as a oversized section with a bias towards recentism. I will again point out the complete lack of attention to the Catholic religious orders and Roman Curia, both of which are vital components of the Catholic Church and the perception of her. The lack of criticism is a meager concern when the basic and familiar structures of the Church are not even addressed. Vassyana (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I am willing to spend my time to make this article a Featured Article but I need someone who does not hold such severe POV to critique my work. Your comments about Jesus not being the founder of the church really shows a severe POV and it is not a true definition of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can trace its Pope's back to Saint Peter's consecration by Jesus. There is an actual list of these Popes in every Catholic bible. The Inquisition is already mentioned in this article under the history section. Inquisition is not a huge part of Catholic Church 2000 years of history. It lasted a short time (and only in some European countries for that matter) and as such, it is included here where it belongs with wikilinks to an entire Wikipedia articles on the subjects for those who wish to know more. Religious orders have an entire paragraph in the section on community and the heirarchy is explained in the same section. I am hesitant to spend any time on this if I have a reviewer who thinks that FA's are poor quality and dont adhere to policy. I need someone to work with me, and give me a list of things to make this article better without coming from a POV position. Maybe you could step back and really help me by seeking out a reviewer who does want to make this an FA with me. I thank you for your time and attention but I don't think we can work together on this one. Peace. NancyHeise (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the founder of the Catholic Church are not POV, but rather rational feedback based on the body of reliable sources. It is certainly the Catholic POV that Peter (by the authority of Christ) established the Church. However, modern scholarship places the definitive formation of Catholic Church that we know today much later. Regardless, I will admit I am a strict reviewer demanding a significant level of quality. I understand if you would like other outside opinions. I would recommend asking for feedback from Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, where you may find interested and knowledgeable editors. It may also be helpful if you list the article for peer review, which is intended for the purpose. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review: January 2008

As suggested above, I've set up a peer review request, found here; Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: remove infobox

I'd like to propose that the infobox should go. I don't think that this sort of simplification of information works well for churches. Let's look at the content of the infobox:

Roman Catholic Church

An unnecessary repeat of the article title.

(Image: St. Peter's Square)

An image could be in this location without the infobox being present; and having to pick a single image to go in the infobox may give this image an implied special significance.

Classification     Roman Catholic

I'm not sure what this means. At best, it adds no information because it repeats the article title.

Orientation        Catholic

Again, I'm not sure what this means.

Polity     Episcopal

Vaguely useful, though brushes over the distinctive papal aspects of the Church's governance.

Founder    Jesus[1]
Origin  c. 30 AD
Jerusalem

Controversial. Formerly this read 'Peter, c. 50 AD, Rome'. If one church is going to list itself as founded by Jesus, it's probably POV unless they all do.

Separations        All basal Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Calvinist, Church of England)

Also at least a little controversial; and a bit odd - why is the Eastern Orthodox church not listed here? I suppose because listing it either under "separated from" or "separations" would be too controversial.

Geographical Area  Worldwide

Vaguely useful, but actually goes for most churches.

Members    1,114,966,000

A slightly controversial number - at least in some cases, this number includes all those who have been baptised, even if they now have nothing to do with the church. It's given a better context in the text.

I don't think that this infobox adds to the article, and the rigidness forced by its classifications is causing controversy (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Founder.3F). I think the article would be better without it. Thoughts? TSP (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is well thought out. I don't have answers right off. I do think that it ought to be discussed in at least two other places: WikiProject Christianity (and maybe Wikiproject Religion later) and in the infobox itself. I think that there should be some commonality in presentation where possible.
For lack of info, not all entries have been filled in that might have been. A bit easier in smaller churches. Take a look at Seventh Day Adventists to see how well this box might look. The box is supposed to supply a "thumbnail sketch" of the church. As User:TSP has pointed out, useful info may be lacking.
In partial defense, I offer one link List of churches. On one hand, I wouldn't use that reference in an article. On the other, the site does purport to be "unbiased" with people of no faith, atheists, etc. Student7 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
On that matter, asserting that your church is the one founded by Jesus is ultimately a religious proposition. I don't think that any church asserts itself to have been created one day out of whole cloth - all trace a shared history up to a point. For example, the Old Catholics would say that the Roman Catholic Church diverged from them when they asserted the doctrine of papal infallibility, rather than vice versa. The Church of England website's "History" section certainly doesn't start in 1534 - it starts when Christianity first came to Britain in the second or third centuries, and of course the Church of England links this back to the institution of the church by Jesus. The current Church of England infobox, however, lists 1534 as its institutional beginnings as a distinct entity. If we are going to say that the question must be answered in a religious sense, then all churches should list "Jesus, 30AD" - in which case there's not much point asking the question. If we're going to say it should be answered in an institutional or historical sense, then Peter, 50AD seems perfectly generous (given that the historical evidence giving Peter as the first pope is at best controversial). TSP (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think what this analysis has done is reveal inadequacies in the manner in which we have filled out the info box. Quite possibly the entries are not adequate either. I have the feeling that in some language other than English (German?) that we would be able to distinguish between an inspirational genius (like Ghandi to India in a political sense) and the actual first leader (Pandit Nehru, to carry on the political analogy). "Founder" doesn't quite cover it. But yes, all Christians IMO should claim that they were founded/inspired by Jesus. I don't have a problem with that. There are many non-Christian religions that won't claim Him.
Their first actual hands on organizational leader might be Martin Luther.
After some thought, I don't think (now) that the info box should go. It should be filled out more thoroughly. Inadequacies that would distinguish between founding genius and hands on leader, should be addressed.
What should be removed (in other high level articles) is pesky vertical nav boxes that clutter up the article and crowd the writing. They tell you how to get to some other article but reveal nothing about the current one!
And where may an editor find a "model" article on religion such as exists for cities, states, and the like? Maybe this sort of thing has, or should be, addressed there. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO this infobox is yet another example of how "denominationalist" analysis is in radical conflict with the Church's self-definition, and, ultimately, of limited utility in understanding or describing the Church. Slac speak up! 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This infobox had similar controversy when added to certain Anglican articles (see Talk:Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America/Archive_3. I'm just not sure that infoboxes are a good fit for religions; or this one isn't, anyway. ECUSA now has an infobox which purely relates to its position within the Anglican Communion (largely administrative matters - members, primate, mother church, geographical area) rather than covering its place in the broader Christian sphere, which would require it to cover more nebulous things like "Orientation", "Polity" and "Founder" which we are having such difficulty with here. TSP (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

InfoBox

I think the infobox should stay and it should have a picture of Saint Peter's Basilica since that is where the Pope holds his audiences and it is the center of Roman Catholicism for the entire world. The papal emblem can go underneath the info box. I have serious issues with people who think that Jesus was not the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. No other Christian church can trace its leadership by consecration back to Peter's consecration by Jesus. Only the Roman Catholic Church. This is a documented fact complete with an actual list of Popes through the ages all the way back to Peter. To omit this fact would make this article absolutely a POV problem page. NancyHeise (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the FA Islam for ideas on what to include here. They have a section on Demographics and Calendar which are good ideas. Another interesting feature is that the article is simple. It just tells the reader what Islam is with criticisms included in a paragraph near the end. These criticisms are not dwelt upon in depth but are mentioned with wikilinks to other articles that discuss the issues in depth. Lets consider using this approach to this page and stop these in-depth arguments about things like who is the founder of this church. The Catholic Church teaches and believes as well as documents the actual list of popes all the way back to Peter's consecration by Jesus. This is an historical fact. The other views are real stretches of logic and speculation that can appear here in a section on criticisms near the end just like the Islam article. If we are to do otherwise, we will just be making a mess. NancyHeise (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article renomination

There has been significant revision and attention to this article since the last GA failure so I am renominating it. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Christianity in Europe cat

Is it right to just put this one? Since Catholicism is, as its name suggests, universal.. for example its THE religion of South America too, the Euro cat makes it seem just like its a European thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree but I don't know how to change it.NancyHeise (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox contains gross violation of NPOV

Alright, I've seen some controversy on this discussion page over calling Jesus the "founder" of the RCC but nothing that has yielded any consensus. Calling Jesus the "founder" is a gross violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Citing the Roman Catholic Catechism does not neutrality make. The idea of "Jesus as Founder" is disputed or denied by secular historians and by almost every other church organization that exists. It is based on the organization's tradition and history (neither of which are regarded as authoritative by any other organization). As such, stating it as fact (and citing the Roman Catholic Catechism) shows a very narrow point of view.

It would be nearly as big of a problem to say that Peter founded the Roman Catholic Church because this is equally (though less vehemently so) disputed. Accordingly I have changed the date of origin and the founder to "Disputed" since this is factual and NPOV. standonbible(Talk)Assume good faith and stay neutral! 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue, as a non-Catholic, does not strike me as unacceptable, but I certainly can understand the perceptions of others. There are a multitude of Christian churches that trace their origins back to Jesus Christ...I would think all of them do. Does anyone know of one that says Jesus is not the focus or founder of their Christian church. It would be better to delete founder from the info box and put NPOV language in the article, if it is not already there, that states Catolics believe that Jesus Christ is the founder of their church, etc. Is that acceptable to both sides? --Storm Rider (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Storm Rider. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying something like 'Catholics consider Jesus to be the founder of the Church', because Catholics do consider him to be the founder of the Church. Of course, this is quite a bit different than saying 'the Church was founded by Jesus'. Taking it out of the infobox and adding it to the article in NPOV language would have my support. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is my problem with infoboxes - they are not the place for anything about which subtleties exist. They're OK for people - things like name, date of birth, place of birth, profession are all usually fairly uncontroversial; they're OK for cities - country, co-ordinates, seal, population, mayor; they're OK for bands - members, style, albums. Religions, I'm far less convinced; almost everything is a matter of more subtlety than an infobox can really convey. The infobox had exactly the same controversies when added to various Anglican articles.
You haven't seen the struggles over genre in musician infoboxes, or over birthdates in some people infoboxes? Sometimes the solution is to remove the infobox. Gimmetrow 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this detail should be moved to the article text; but then I think that goes for most of the stuff in the infobox. TSP (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Every christian denomination should get Founder=jesus 30ad or none of them. You could have Denomination founded by insted that might work? (Hypnosadist) 11:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not calling Jesus the Founder of the largest, oldest, Christian Church is serious POV

As the HISTORICAL DOCUMENT (see references below this paragraph) cited as the reference for naming Jesus the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, The Gospel of Matthew 16 clearly states that Jesus founded a church and named Peter as the actual foundation. This Gospel passage is not in dispute amongst any Christian group. Peter is the undisputed first leader of all Christianity who consecrated following leaders that are documented in the Apostolic Succession documentation. The disputed (refering to the East-West Schism since there is no dipute before then) Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession is listed in the body of the article, not in the infobox. There is no human being historically claimed to be the founder of the Roman Catholic Church like Henry VIII or Martin Luther or Calvin, etc. Saying that the Roman Catholic Church is a separation from the original Christian Church is serious POV that lacks clear and undeniable reference to reliable source. Saying that Jesus did not found the church is not only serious POV, it lacks any reference to back up this claim. Thus, since no one can show me a better source than the Gospel of Matthew, an undisputed historical document, I am replacing Jesus as the founder of the church in the info box just as the Greek Orthodox page has Jesus as their founder - to which I am not in dispute.

Nancy, we all appreciate your zeal and firm commitment to your faith and your position. However, Wikipedia can not be put in the position of appearing to support the Roman Catholic position that it is "the" church founded by Jesus Christ; that violates our policies. It is not acceptable to use a primary source as evidence; you need to quote a Catholic theologian (reputable source) that interprets the text to support your position.
There are many Christians that feel there was an apostasy, that the Catholic church lost its way, and it does not represent the church founded by Jesus Christ. I hope you see that we are talking about "beliefs" and not "facts". There is no empirical evidence to say which church upon the earth today is "the" church founded by Jesus Christ. That is solely an issue of faith. BTW, the references above support the statement that the Bible is a historical document, not that the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I read your comment and I added a reference to the infobox. I am really amazed at your argument since it completely ignores the references I have provided to find in favor of an argument for which no one has provided a reliable reference. Please understand that it is really difficult for someone to clearly demonstrate that Jesus is not the founder of both Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. When someone on the talk page provides reliable sources to show that this accepted fact by all of Christianity is somehow false, then we should eliminate Jesus name from the infobox. Right now, no one on the talk page has provided anything that will pass WP:RS except me. NancyHeise (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I have removed these disputed aspects from the infobox because three different editors have shown some degree of concern. We should clearly, by all means, explain the Catholic POV in prose. But we should never state a religious POV as a fact, if it is disputed (especially by other denominations). I'm also not keen on saying the Gospel of Matthew is an undisputed historical document. Catholic historians like Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier have no problem pointing out aspects in the Gospel of Matthew that they do not consider to be historical. We cannot cite such an old primary source/religious document without considering critical scholarship or at least a reliable secondary source. Maybe one solution would be instead of saying flat out in the infobox that Jesus is the founder, we could say "traditionally believed to be Jesus"? Here is an interesting page from a Messianic Judaism perspective: Despite its claims to the contrary, Roman Catholicism did not even come into existence until around 325-400 C.E. I only point to that to illustrate that some of the claims being made are disputed and it is not neutral to present them as facts. -Andrew c [talk] 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Calling the roman catholic church "christian" is seriously POV Wonderpet (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipolicies are being violated by bowing to unreferenced POV controlling the infobox in this article

WP:Reliable Source WP:RS requires a reliable source. I have given you six reliable sources. Two in the actual article and four in the talk page. What you have responded to me with is a .com which is not considered to be a reliable source. Not only is your response a .com but it is from a barely known religious sect that represents an obscure minority. I have followed Wikipedia rules inserting my referenced material that you have deleted without providing a reliable source to back up your action. Please do not delete properly sourced material. NancyHeise (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please DO NOT edit war. It is fine to make a bold edit. But if that edit gets reverted in good faith, it is NEVER appropriate to re-insert controversial material. Especially when 4 editors have shown concern of your edits on the talk page. One of the most fundamental aspects of wikipedia is that we are community that works together through consensus. You are editing in bad faith by not waiting for the talk page discussion to pan out and for us to all reach an agreement (possibly a compromise). Please remove the disputed content as a sign of good faith, and we can work this out. Baring that, I cannot work with an editor who wants to provocate edit wars and otherwise edits disruptively. I'm sorry if this is a bit dramatic, but seriously, there is no reason for you to re-insert controversial content that is in the process of being discussed on the talk page. -Andrew c [talk] 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Major third party reference used to back up Jesus as Founder - should not be deleted without some major third party reference that says otherwise

I have added a book commissioned and published by the National Geographic Society that clearly shows Jesus as founder of Roman Catholic Church with Peter consecrated as first Pope. (See reference number one after Jesus' name as founder in the infobox.) The book authors even state that this was the consensus of historians for centuries. What new evidence can anyone on this page offer as a reason to eliminate my sourced entry? My edit should not be deleted without WP:RS being met by the person doing the removing. I am not edit warring, I am improving the references for an important part of this article. The person removing my sourced entries is not only edit warring, it is also sometimes called vandalism. NancyHeise (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nancy. The first step to proclaiming Jesus the founder of the Catholic Church would be to prove that He actually existed. Unfortunately, this has not been accomplished. An encyclopedic article on any religion should be based on factual evidence, not the mythology or faith of its followers. As it currently stands, I'm afraid the most we can say is that Catholics "believe" Jesus was the founder of the Church. As others have pointed out, this is more easily accomplished with prose. AlphaEta 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am just wondering if you have any reliable third party references that you can use to back up your claim that Jesus did not exist? I have provided several that says he does and is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. Your personal opinion will not make your claim that Jesus is a myth work on this page about the Roman Catholic Church. It might work on the page about Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church if you can provide reliable third party references in accord with WP:RS. NancyHeise (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I will use the same source as you! DID JESUS OF NAZARETH ACTUALLY EXIST? As you can see, there is considerable doubt regarding the existance of the biblical Jesus (i.e. the Man who healed the sick, turned over tables at the Temple, raised after three days of death, etc...). Also, you don't know my personal opinion, because I never stated it! Such assumptions are quite rude. AlphaEta 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for offending you. If you would prefer to eliminate my edit that is backed up with six reliable sources to replace it with yours that has a .org for a source and no others, then I would say you are not following WP:RS in removing my edit. No offense intended, I am trying to follow established Wikipedia policy unlike those who have removed my edit without reliable sources that say Jesus was not the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.NancyHeise (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of eliminating your edit. My goal is to reach consensus on the talk page. The fact of the matter is that the essay on religioustolerance.org has 23 references (including one which lists six individual books), most of which present the opinions of authors who don't believe the biblical account of Jesus. With time and effort, many of these could match the verifiablity and reliablity of your own citations. Noting that Jesus was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church in the infobox makes it difficult for other editors to add alternate or minority points of view. Using prose does not preclude you from making the case that Jesus was the founder of the Catholic church, but it allows more opportunities for other opinions to be stated. Regards, AlphaEta 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added another reference (number 7) to the Jesus in the infobox to address Jesus myth theory. This reference shows that Jesus myth theory is considered by most historians whether Christian or not is beyond reason. In other words, this reference confirms that the consensus of historians believe Jesus was a real person and not a myth. NancyHeise (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How many references are enough?

- I added another reference (reliable third party) that goes to a link where you can online versions of ancient religious and non-religious historical texts that prove the existence of Jesus. Is it enough for me to have eight references showing clearly that Jesus, existed and is the founder? Does anyone have something more than what I have? I have a consensus of historians, the actual Gospel (eyewitness accounts ), National Geographic Society book with ISBN number and quotes, Catechism, and four other references clearly showing Jesus is founder. Maybe those who want to eliminate this properly referenced edit will want to place their views in a section on various opinions and criticism somewhere in the body of the article instead of insisting on deleting it in the infobox. However, right now, there is an actual article called Criticisms of the Catholic Church that is already referenced in this article. I have remade this article following the example of the FA on Islam which just gives the reader the plain facts without messing the article up with all the many different minority opinions held by critics and others. I would appreciate your help. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the commentary added to each historical account of Jesus in this reference (currently [8]), it actually appears they are trying to refute the case that Jesus "existed". AlphaEta 03:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
They are not trying to refute he existed, they are responding with the Jewish criticism of his message, which confirms his existence. see especially this [[8]] I would like to suggest that information and opinions currently held by a severe minority disputing the existence of Jesus be included in an article on Christianity in a section on Criticism? It is not the widely held belief by scholars and historians that Jesus did not exist, it is a belief that is held in disrepute by almost all.[reference] I don't see why such an argument with so little support would dominate this Wikipedia article's infobox. I think that it is Wikipedia custom to provide a space for criticisms at the bottom of pages and not allow it to mucky up a subject, at least from what I can see of other good articles and Featured articles.NancyHeise (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the references: 1. I do not have access to this book, but I have a strong feeling that the quoted material is taken out of context. That said, this is the strongest reference so far. 2. Only proves a Catholic belief 3. Doesn't mention "Roman Catholic Church" 4. Doesn't mention "Catholic" anywhere, could you quote the material that says Jesus founded the Catholic church in 30 AD in Jerusalem? I couldn't find it anywhere 5. Clearly says that Paul founded Christianity, and that the Catholic church was formed in the 5th century 6. Doesn't mention Catholic until 1054 7. Doesn't say anything about the Catholic church 8. Doesn't mention Catholic

It seems like, instead of trying to dialog with AlphaEta regarding the concerns that were raised, NancyHeise simply kept adding citation after irrelevant citation to a live article. There is no reason why we need 8 citations attached to a single word (especially when 5 of them say nothing about Jesus founding the Catholic Church). One reliable source should be enough. But then again, source #5 is the reason why we can't say "Jesus founded the Catholic Church", but instead we can only say "Catholics believe that Jesus founded their church". And this is exactly what everyone was saying 5 topics up. There is no consensus for this stuff in the infobox. -Andrew c [talk] 04:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this even still an issue? The admin who reviewed this article less than ten days ago for GA status said: I should also mention that claiming Saint Peter or Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic faith is pure POV. The article should indeed mention that the Church sees Peter as their founder through the authority of Jesus. However, it should also mention the dominant scholarly view that the Roman Catholic Church arose later as the descendant of but one of many early Christian sects. Then we have all the comments from everyone earlier today. -Andrew c [talk] 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious issue because you are trying to make the page a POV when the clear tradition in Wikipedia is to put that minority POV in a separate section at the bottom, not the infobox. I am following policy and other GA and FA articles and you are not.

References for Jesus as founder

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE LISTS REFERENCES FOR AN EDIT LISTING JESUS AS FOUNDER OF THE CHURCH IN THE INFOBOX OF THIS ARTICLE. THESE REFERENCES AND THAT EDIT WERE REMOVED by Andrew c WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THE POV THAT JESUS WAS NOT THE FOUNDER OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE CAN BE VIEWED here

ANSWERS "TO ISSUES WITH REFERENCES" LISTED IN SAME ORDER AS REFERENCES

  • REFERENCE NUMBER 1:The National Geographic Book is referenced with and ISBN number [isbn=0-7922-7313-3] attached so you can check to see if I have taken out of context (thanks for assuming good faith). This is the quote from this reliable third party source on page 281 ""Some (Christian communities) had been founded by Peter, the disciple Jesus designated as the founder of his church."...Once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and recognized Peter as the first pope of the Christian church in Rome."
  • Catechism of the Catholic ChurchREFERENCE NUMBER 2:This is an article about Catholic Belief, I need to include that reference to prove it is Catholic belief.
  • [Gospel of Matthew 16]REFERENCE NUMBER 3:Proves Jesus founded a church by consecrating Peter who is proven in reference number one to be the first pope by centuries of historians
  • [9] REFERENCE NUMBER 4:Is included to prove that the Gospel of Matthew is not just a religious but also an HISTORICAL DOCUMENT. It is an eyewitness account as discussed by this scholar in this reference.
  • [10] REFERENCE NUMBER 5: Is included to show both sides of the issue (I am being fair) yet even with both sides taken into consideration, this organization still lists Jesus as the founder of the Roman Catholic Church with a footnote leading the reader to an opposing opinion in the last part of the paragraph (exactly what I have proposed to do here)
  • [11]REFERENCE NUMBER 6:States "Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, dies" Not sure what is unclear about "Bishop of Rome" being Catholic. He's still in Rome to this day and he is still Catholic
  • [12]REFERENCE NUMBER 7:I included this reference because someone on this discussion page was saying Jesus was a myth and I felt that including this reference could help them see that the Jesus myth argument is held in disrepute by the consensus of historians
  • [13]REFERENCE NUMBER 8:I included this reference for the same reason as number 7, as additional evidence that Jesus is not a myth but an historical figure for which we have historical evidence beyond the Gospel accounts.

I think it is clear that I have dialogued. What I have not done is taken as "Gospel" two other editors unreference opinions on this talk page who want to make the infobox representative of a minority and POV view. I have contributed to this conversation by clearly supplying valid references in sensitive response to the issues raised by these editors. They have not supplied valid references to support their views. NancyHeise (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your train of thought may make sense to you, but I don't see how anyone can follow that logic. If I see a claim that Jesus is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, I don't expect to see a link to some argument about the Jesus myth. You said it yourself I felt that including this reference could help them see that the Jesus myth argument is held in disrepute by the consensus of historians. You need to make those arguments here on the talk page. There is no reason for that material to go into a live article. I have no idea where you get the idea that wikipedia hides various point of views in footnotes or in the bottom. The fact of the matter is, a large number of editors have had issues with simplistically listing Jesus as the founder in the infobox. Almost everyone has agreed that it is completely fine to say the Catholic view in prose form. We need to remove this disputed content for the time being. Perhaps we can work on a wording that will be more suitable to all, or some other compromise. In fact, I'm sure we can work something out. But there is no reason for one editor to be rash and try to force new edits into the article. -Andrew c [talk] 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material in favor of personal POV arguments that do not have any reliable references to back up those arguments goes against Wikipedia policy and is referred to as "Vandalism". I will be happy to work with you in accordance with Wikipedia policy which you don't seem to be following in this instance. NancyHeise (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over this conflict. NH, you're right in the abstract - if you have cited text, and someone removes it without justification, you're welcome to restore it. You could, if you really wanted, insist that reliable sources be provided to demonstrate that there actually is a dispute. But you probably know that there are historians somewhere disputing the Catholic position; it's just a matter of finding them. Once they're found, you can't really summarize it all in one line in an infobox. Andrew may be jumping ahead a few steps, but ultimately, it will take prose to cover this point. (One other minor thing; note [7] in the header link uses a google cache but the page can be accessed directly.) Gimmetrow 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I should approach this. It seems like even though one of NancyHeise's own sources point out the POV, she is still not convinced it exists? Should I try to gather sources from religious groups that dispute this claim or from historians that dispute the claim? Starting with the latter, from The Acts of Jesus in reference to Matthew 16: "Peter may well have been the first to confess that Jesus was the Anointed, most probably after the Easter event. But the stories that provide a narrative frame for that confession are the product, in all likelihood, of the Christian imagination." p. 218. This contradicts the claim that the text of Matthew 16 can be used uncritically as a historical source. I'd be glad to do more research in whatever area you'd like, but I think it's been established that wikipedia cannot say, due to NPOV, that "Jesus found the Roman Catholic Church", but instead say something about Catholic tradition and belief. I think we should work on a compromise. It seems odd to be using the Christian denomination infobox for the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church often denies that it is simply a denominations... that said, if we are to use this infobox, perhaps we could say "Founded: Tradition holds Jesus as appointing Peter as the first pope" or something along those lines? As multiple editors have pointed out, it is not neutral to says "Founded: Jesus", so surely there is some phrasing that will satisfy NPOV. Perhaps "Founded: Catholics believe Jesus founded their church". Any other ideas? My personal preference would be not to use an infobox (and restore the navbox instead), and to just make sure the key points are covered in the lead, which they basically already are. -Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My efforts here are to make this article an FA. What I have offered to do is to include the dispute in a separate paragraph at the bottom of the page. I am using the FA Islam as an example as well as other GA's and FA's. From what I have seen from other FA's you present the view that has the best sourced reference, the commonly held view, in the infobox and then you provide space for the minorty and more poorly sourced view at the bottom. That way you don't mucky up an encyclopedia subject with all the many criticisms, (no matter how wild or far fetched) that exist. You never put the minority, poorly (non)sourced view up front and reject outright the commonly held and validly sourced view as has been done here. Since I have provided multiple sources of both historical documents, consensus of historians, and the National Geographic Society book also naming Jesus as the Founder who consecrated Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (another name for the Roman Catholic Pope) and we have centuries of clear understanding that Jesus is the founder, I find it difficult for Andrew to come along and blow all these references away with neo-logic that comes directly from people's personal opinions quoted on .orgs and .coms and books written by non-historians and non- or radical theologians (or non the National Geographic Society). When he can provide sources that are based on reputable historical documents quoted in reputable third party sources (like National Geographic Society) that clearly show Jesus is not the founder, then we should consider not putting his name in the infobox as founder. Until then, Andrew's postition remains a poorly sourced minority-held view that should not be allowed to dominate this article. Thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And those efforts are good and well appreciated. Is there a problem with putting a "see below" in this field in the infobox? (And Islam doesn't even have an infobox.) Gimmetrow 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you honestly think pushing this POV is going to lead to GA and FA status. What did the reviewer say regarding this topic the last time this article was up for GA? I quoted it above. By trying to force this issue, you are ignoring the advice from the GA reviewer. I don't see how this article will ever be GA if we ignore the issues raised in the last GA review. That said, I have made an edit, as proposed above, which helps to neutralize the content, while also (hopefully) addressing NancyHeise's concerns. I believe that this is a working compromise with which we can all live. I've inserted "traditionally held to be Jesus".-Andrew c [talk] 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a "see below" would be the correct way to deal with this issue. Maybe Islam could be improved with an infobox showing the most holy shrine, the number of adherents, the founder, breakaways or denominations, etc. I don't think an infobox makes an article less informative, it gives the reader a short simple overview of the subject and includes a pretty picture and makes the article even more professional looking. NancyHeise (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So you're ok with putting "See below" in the infobox field and explaining things in prose later in the article. I must be missing something, because I think Andrew would be fine with that too. So what's the problem? Gimmetrow 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello Nancy. Do you have a source that says Jesus proclaimed Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome? My Bible and copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to lack this information. It is my understanding that Church authority wasn't centralized until Leo The Great asserted the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over other bishops. Only then did the Bishop of Rome become synonymous with the Pope. Perhaps I am mistaken. Thanks, AlphaEta 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, yes, the first reference after Jesus' name in the infobox is to a book by National Geographic Society called "Geography of Religion" that my dad just happened to give me for Christmas. Please see that the actual quote from this book states exactly what you are looking for. Also, the historical document, Gospel of Matthew(see reference number 3), a document widely believed by historians to be an eyewitness account of Jesus life (see reference number 4 ) in chapter 16 clearly states that Jesus designates Peter as the foundation of his church giving him authority to make decisions that will be bound in Heaven and on Earth. The Catechism (reference number 2 ) paragraph number 765 will help supplement the fact that Peter is believed by the Catholic Church to be the first pope based on Gospel of Matthew 16. Your reference provided above does not say that church authority wasn't centralized until Leo the Great. What is does say is this:" He persuaded Emperor Valentinian to recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in an edict in 445". Leo the great persuaded an emporer to recognize what Christians already recognized. Thanks for your inquiry. NancyHeise (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Jesus did not designate Peter alone as the foundation of the church, he designated him as rock, not a rock, simply as "rock" the building material.that is why he called him peter which is rock. certainly if Jesus meant to establish anyone other than himsels as the foundation of the christian congregation there would be much more proof than an ambiguous reference to rock.Wonderpet (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Multiple editors have provided feedback on this issue. Please consider those comments. Additionally, your description of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is inaccurate. The First Council of Nicaea established the primacy of both the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Alexandria over their respective regions in the early 4th century, for example. The centralization of the Church and the supremacy of Rome only arose with the efforts of Leo and Gelasius. Vassyana (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh? "Widely believed by historians"? That's not what Gospel of Matthew#Authorship says.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No editor has provided a reference that is more reliable and more third partyish than National Geographic Society reference that says Jesus is the founder who consecrated Peter the first bishop of Rome. Please do not mucky up this article with all the many different minority viewpoints that exist. There will be a paragraph at the bottom of the page to address that issue. You are welcome to begin that paragraph providing reliable third party references in accordance to WP:RS. Proper reference format will be much appreciated. I am OK with the new additions of Andrew c in the infobox. NancyHeise (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I reformatted the section title; it is just too annoying to see that much yelling every time some edits this section. In the future please NEVER make section titles so long and/or put it all in CAPS. It is considered highly rude and overly obnoxious.
Now, to your references. You are touting the National Geographic article which stated, "Once the position was institutionalized". When was it institutionalized? Not one references above proves that the Roman Catholic church today is the same church instituted by Jesus Christ. What is evident by the references is that it is "Tradition", that it is belief, that Peter is the first pope and leader of the Roman Catholic Church. However, this position is not tenable from a historic position i.e. it is not supported by historical fact, but only by faith. Some references to demonstrate this and that there were a number of different Christian churches after Jesus Christ (all of them pointed to Jesus as the founder) please see: Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 99-112 or From Jesus to Christianity L. Michael White, p. 117-122. If this needs to go further I can provide many more, but these are the first two I picked from the bookcase.
Nancy, you seem to overlook the value or importance of Tradition and confuse it with fact. The Encarta reference you gave does not begin to support the position you have said it does; it points clearly to Tradition holding that point and not historical fact.
In some respects I see this as insignificant because readers should understand that the article is about a religious topic and is therefore presented from that perspective (the Catholic Church in this instance). Every other church can say the same thing and point to Jesus as their founder. On the other hand, to allow something so POV to be accepted because a single individual seeks to cram it down the throats of Wikipedia rubs me the wrong way. Your zeal as a convert clouds your rational thought and you are synthesizing fact from disparate statements. Although many have commented (has anyone supported your position?), I would like to see other long time article editors comment; I fear you have become too entrenched in your position to see, read, or hear any other position but your own. I apologize in advance because I know this will offend you, but being less direct has not been helpful. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I am generally sympathetic to Nancy's argument, and I don't think that saying simply "Founder: Jesus" (appropriately footnoted) will be misunderstood by many readers, nor does it strike me as terribly POV, nor something that is merely a faith claim. The fact that other groups may claim Jesus as a founder does not mean that (a) the Catholic Church does not claim Jesus as founder or (b) Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. There is no other figure plausibly suggested as the founder, and the complicated question of what it means to found a church ought to be discussed within the text of the article, not the infobox (did Luther found the Lutherans? or was it Jesus?). For the purposes of the infobox (which I like), the current "Traditionally held to be Jesus" is fine, in my opinion, but more nuanced than necessary. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Storm Rider, I was not yelling, I just did not want the important information to get lost in endless conversation with people who have not been providing any references to back up their POV opinions. I have added sourced information that represents the traditionally held view, the majority view. Yes, I am touting the National Geographic reference because that organization is a respectable reliable third party source that consulted with a huge list of reputeable historians listed in the back of the book cited as the reference. When someone else can provide a source with equal or greater reliability that proves that Jesus is not the founder then we can eliminate that from the infobox. Right now, some NPOV language has been inserted into the infobox that says that Jesus is traditionally held to be the founder. Are you not OK with that? Do you have another reference that is better than National Geographic? Then please provide one. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that Jesus did not found the Church

First five compiled by Andrew c [talk]

  • The Catholic Church: A Short History by Hans Küng: "No, according to all the evidence Jesus did not found a church in his lifetime." p.4

I wonder if he thinks Jesus founded a church after his lifetime? NancyHeise (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Church: Community for the Kingdom by John Fuellenbach, summarizing the position of Gerhard Lohfink: "Jesus never intended to instituate a new religion or a new religious grouping or a church" p.30 "the church is based on a whole string of elements out of which it gradually emerged. It is not possible to fix one particular event and regard it as the decisive act that created the church." p.33
  • Religious Inventions: Four Essays by Max Charlesworth "Stephen Sykes, has said: Jesus did not found Christianity: it 'was founded by Jesus' earliest followers on the foundation of his transformation of Judaism'." p.94
  • Tomorrow's Christian: A New Framework for Christian Living by Adrian B. Smith: "Jesus did not found a Church, certainly not the Church as we experience it today. He left us no direction about the organization or structure of the community of his followers/ The Church as we know it owes more to the mission of St Paul than to the apostles who remained in Jerusalem." p.75
  • Pope or Christ: giving plain, undisputable facts to prove many of Rome's doctrines and practices to be unchristian, contrary to the Bible and to the early Apostolic church by Rex E. Doyl "Jesus Christ did not found the Roman Catholic Church in 33 A.D., as the Cardinal would have you believe, from his tabular statement on page 68. The Roman Catholic Church was not known or even heard of then and was not a separate Church for centuries after Christ's time. And again, Roman Catholic writers themselves trace their lineage in seven ways back to St. Peter and these ways are all contrary to each other. " p.38 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew c (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I think this is a superb list of references to use for the paragraph at the end of the article that will discuss the minority, untraditionally held viewpoint. I don't think any of these authors will trump the historical document that a consensus of historians say is an eyewitness account of Jesus life, Gospel of Matthew 16 nor the National Geographic Society book that lists the reputable historians in the back that formed the basis of their conclusions on page 281 that Jesus founded a church by consecrating Peter the first bishop of Rome (their words). NancyHeise (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another suggestion to use for the minority view paragraph that will balance the POV could be "By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition" by Mark P. Shea. This book compiles a very good list of reasons to refute those authors and speakers compiled by Andrew c above. I am hoping that the editors of this page are in agreement that this article is an encyclopedia article on what the Roman Catholic Church is. It is not an advertisement, it is not a opinion page for anti-catholicism, it is simply a definition. The minority view paragraph is to give the reader the full perspective of information. It should be concise, properly forming the concensus of minority views. It should not be a huge collection of far flung ideas that takes up a huge part of the article. NancyHeise (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you read Church: Community for the Kingdom where it said "The most commonly held views in Catholic theology today are expressed by authors like Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, and Gerhard Lohfink." p.28 Where on are you getting the idea that this is only a minority view? Who is to say that your view isn't a minority? We can't basis this on sheer speculation. Everything on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. I cited a source that says some of the views I cited are "the most commonly held views in Catholic theology today". Do you have a source that contradicts this or says that these views are minority (or alternatively, that your view is majority?) And if we are to have a section on the origin of the Catholic Church, all POVs need to be expressed in the same place. We are not allowed to throw views that you don't like to the bottom of the article. It only makes sense to discuss all views in the same place (i.e. a section on the origin/early history of the Church).-Andrew c [talk] 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some sort of opinion survey that asked all worldwide Catholics what are their views? Unless you can provide a reliable third party source that actually asked all Catholics which view they support, I don't think you can reasonable conclude that "The most commonly held views in Catholic theology today are expressed by authors like Hans Küng, Karl Rahner, and Gerhard Lohfink." That is one person' opinion. My justification that it is a minority view is the fact that more than half of the world's Christians are Catholic. They are baptized into and go to a Catholic Church as their choice place of worship - no one is killing them if they don't go (in China and many other countries the kill them if they do to church). Choice membership would be a clear indication of a person's views since there are other choices like the Church of England that could satisfy the worship needs of those who do not agree with Roman Catholicism. Hans Kung is considered to be the king radical of all Catholic Theologians whose license to teach Catholic Theology was revoked by Pope John Paul II. He does not represent majority view of the Catholic people. He made significant contributions to Vatican II and is respected for those efforts. Recently, Pope Benedict met with him and the two agreed on a number of matters and agreed to disagree on others. They are two men who used to both teach at a University together. see [14] To me, his action of remaining to be a priest in the Catholic Church speaks louder than his words.NancyHeise (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did we just switch from stating "What the Church actually teaches" to stating "eh, whatever the most people believe"??? When did THAT become the standard for Wikipedia? Everyone is getting WAY off task here. Save your theological arguments for a blog or something. The point of this article is to discuss what the Roman Catholic Church claims and believes and teaches, etc. Regardless of whether those beliefs are commonly held, or whether they are true or false, has NO bearing on what our reporting of them should be.
As such, the RCC teaches (or claims or what have you) that Jesus is the foundation of their Church. Passed down from Jesus to Peter and the other Apostles, down to the Apostolic Fathers, and on to the Church Fathers. Also important to note would be that of course the RCC wasn't officially founded until later, when it encountered theological problems with other Christians. The RCC believes that their Church was passed down "through Apostolic succession", without an "officially recognized Church" (probably b/c it was illegal). And it doesn't matter if some editor/s on here think the Church's beliefs are incorrect (in fact, they're welcome to think that). But OUR job as editors is to present what the RCC teaches in an NPOV fashion, with the appropriate amount of criticism. Stanselmdoc (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stanselmdoc, I think the discussion arises from whether to say "Founder: Jesus" or "Founder: Believed by Catholics to be Jesus." Is simply saying "Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church" NPOV or no? Is the article about RCC beliefs, or about facts? I think it's about facts, and I think it is generally accepted and not generally controversial or POV to say that "Jesus founded the Catholic Church" (see the references I have provided to this effect). The.helping.people.tick (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the caliber of conversation that I feared would result when a single editor pushes a belief as fact. Stan, it is not surprising in your comments above that you stated, "the RCC teaches..." and "The RCC believes that...". No one wants this article to be anything other than what the RCC believes; just as we want the same standard to be held for every other article on a given religion. If you enforce your standard of what one believes and teaches, you will have not only observed wikipedia polices, but also supported the objectives of this article. Nothing that I have said or, I suspect, what Andrew said should be interpreted any other way than how you have stated it above. What is not acceptable on any topic of religion is to present beliefs, teachings, or doctrines as historic fact. Historic facts cannot be denied by readers whereas beliefs, teachings or doctrine can be. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Storm -- I think you meant, "What is not acceptable on any topic of religion is to present beliefs, teachings, or doctrine as historic fact." Doesn't it seem, however, that doctrine and historic fact are sometimes the same? E.g., "Jesus existed" is a matter of both doctrine and history (granted a small minority dissents). Likewise, "Jesus founded the Church" is a matter of both doctrine and history. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I understand what you're saying, Storm Rider. I am happy that you sneaked in your edit before mine so I didn't waste space. I must have gotten the wrong impression from the arguments above. But what I don't understand, however, is why the argument with "Sources that Jesus did not found the Church"/"Sources that Jesus founded the Church" even began in the first place. It's not really important though - what's important is that you and I agree and I now understand where you and Andrewc are coming from. I will be happy to assist in defending the page from people pushing belief as fact. (My previous edit was going to include a statement on how a great many faith teachings can't even be factually proven, as they are based in faith, theology, and philosophy, which are not concrete) Thanks! Stanselmdoc (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a rather interesting topic, but I think it's come to the point where if I continued I would just be arguing for or against an opinion, and I realize that talk pages are not discussion forums. Therefore, I am sufficiently satisfied with the state of the article (although my preference would still be to use a navbox or two instead of the denomination infobox). Regardless what the scholars say on the topic, or what the majority of adherents believe, it's not clear that anyone is actually making any proposals for the article. So I'm content to simply move on and say congratulations all around on the working compromise. -Andrew c [talk] 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
ditto, AndrewThe.helping.people.tick (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Nancy, I do hope you realize that we value your beliefs and your zeal in promoting them. None of us on wikipedia seek to harm or undermine those beliefs; however, we strive to present topics from a neutral manner without putting wikipedia in the position of identifying truth; we simply report what others say facts are. Peace to you. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that Jesus did and did not found the Church

Dynamic Catholicism: A Historical Catechism by Thomas Bokenkotter "Did Jesus, then, establish the Church? We can see that, according to Luke, the answer is no if we mean an organized society existing alongside Israel. "But if by 'Church' we mean a gathered Israel, then we may speak of a Church founded through Jesus." (quoting Lohfink) In other words, Jesus' role was decisive in the process which led to the Church." p. 85 The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that Jesus did found the Church

A History of the Church Vol. 1 by Philip Hughes "The new religion whose early history is the subject of this book, has for its origin the attested fact of the birth, at Bethlehem, an unimportant town of the Roman province of Judea, of Jesus Christ." ... "The New Testament can thus in no sense be regarded as a systematic exposition of the religion taught by Jesus Christ. It provides, none the less, a wealth of information about this new religion and its Founder sufficient for the historian's purpose..." pg 30-31. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The History of the Primitive Church Vol 1 by Lebreton and Zeiller "All historians share this assurance: the life and death of Jesus, the beginnings of the Church at Jerusalem, the travels and preaching of St. Paul--all this is clear in the full light of history... From the short life of Jesus the Church was born." p. 83. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Theology of the Church by Charles Cardinal Journet "Jesus himself (Mt 16:18; 18:17) and afterward, St. Paul, St. James, and the Acts of the Apostles give the title "Church" (assembly/convocation) to the new people of God." p. 4 The.helping.people.tick (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting fact to note here is that almost all of Christian churches except Unitarians and a couple of small churches ( less than 5%? of Christians in the world) use the Nicene Creed in their liturgy. In other words, they all believe essentially the same major thing, there are just differences in organization and interpretations on some issues. The Catholic Church believes that Jesus can work outside of the Catholic Church. People who are not Catholics, who do not receive the sacraments are considered to be able to be Christians. Catholics acknowledge that Jesus is bigger than the Catholic Church and is able to do things outside of the Church. That is the reason why there is such an ecumenical movement within the Catholic Church. The pope recently made a statement that ecumenism is prime importance right now. Jesus established a church through consecration of Saint Peter, first Bishop of Rome according to consensus of historians throughout history compiled by National Geographic in their book listed as a reference in this article. No one is saying that Jesus' church is only the Catholic Church. I have not eliminated Jesus listed as founder in the Eastern Orthodox church wikipedia page because I believe they are part of the church Jesus founded, so does the Pope, that is why he is trying so hard to reconcile with them. Jesus did not mean for us to be separate but "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" (part of the Nicene Creed). Why any editor of this page would want to eliminate Jesus as founder of the Roman Catholic Church in this article is beyond my capability to understand. It is not logical, it is not held up to be the actual fact based on a consensus of historians and I think I have provided the proper references to keep him listed as founder - those opposing his being listed as founder have not provided references that can trump National Geographic or the historical document Gospel of Matthew. Thus, we can only reasonably place those minority viewpoints in a paragraph at the end. NancyHeise (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is frustrating and has turned into silliness. I am not sure that further conversation is of any value. You have so much information that is being ignored with the flippant "I" don't think they measure up to National Geographic (would some one tell me when they became the arbitor of religious issues and not a scientific magazine?) or the primary document in Matthew. You put yourself in a position where none of us wants to be by attacking faith, which none of us find appropriate. This whole topic is one of faith, which should be respected. Nancy, you need to step back, read [WP:NPOV|our policies] and think about the importance and value of neutrality on a public encyclopedia. You may want to consider writing your own blog rather than attempt to force wikipedia where it should not go. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

re "the whole topic is one of faith", I think that the sociological phenomenon of the Roman Catholic Church is not merely a matter of faith, but a historical reality that calls for some explanation. The widely-accepted historical explanation is that Jesus did something that resulted in the existence of the Catholic Church. That is a question of history. There may be elements of "faith" involved in history, but it is not religious faith. Rather, it is the normal faith that most people have that yesterday (and the rest of history) happened (given that it is not something that can be reproduced in a laboratory setting, some might doubt that yesterday happened, but most people believe that it did, and I don't think that belief violates NPOV  :) ). While theologians and historians discuss the fine points of what it means to found a church (see Andrew c's list above), an encyclopedia entry on the Catholic Church that suggests that Jesus did not found the Catholic Church would be idiosyncratic to say the least. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I have provide reliable third party references to back up my position that are scientific (National Geographic and their list of historians) I am not the one ignoring important information. NancyHeise (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK here is some perspective. Please go to the Jesus article and start a topic on the talk page asking editors if it would be ok to state "Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church." If it is not OK to say that on Jesus' article, then it isn't ok to say it here. Seems simple enough. Neutrality should transcend articles, so taking the statement out of the context of this article should give us all some perspective. -Andrew c [talk] 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I went to the Jesus page and here's a direct quote from that page: "In his life Jesus proclaimed the "good news" (Middle English: gospel; Greek: euangelion) that the coming Kingdom of Heaven was at hand,[76] and established the Christian Church, which is the seed of the kingdom, into which Jesus calls the poor in spirit.[77]". Looks to me like he did found the Christian Church, Roman Catholic is a Christian Church. So how is it in any way POV problem to list Jesus as the founder of this church or any other church that can trace its origins to Jesus' consecration of Peter? Please see the infobox for Eastern Orthodox Church. Also please see my comments in the 5th paragraph above this one and the comments of the editor following this paragraph. NancyHeise (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this editors statement here that I have copied from the forest of comments above and am putting here so it doesn't get lost

For the record, I am generally sympathetic to Nancy's argument, and I don't think that saying simply "Founder: Jesus" (appropriately footnoted) will be misunderstood by many readers, nor does it strike me as terribly POV, nor something that is merely a faith claim. The fact that other groups may claim Jesus as a founder does not mean that (a) the Catholic Church does not claim Jesus as founder or (b) Jesus did not found the Catholic Church. There is no other figure plausibly suggested as the founder, and the complicated question of what it means to found a church ought to be discussed within the text of the article, not the infobox (did Luther found the Lutherans? or was it Jesus?). For the purposes of the infobox (which I like), the current "Traditionally held to be Jesus" is fine, in my opinion, but more nuanced than necessary. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I know a lot of people harp on the history section of the article, so I’m going to do it too. My comment is not necessarily about the content, but rather about the way the content is organized. Mostly, it is cursory, skipping vast sections of history. Other portions of the article read like a fact list or timeline rather than an encyclopedia article (for example, the reference to Pope Leo dissuading Attila the Hun from sacking Rome is devoid of significance historically or ecclesiologically). Often times, the article jumps back and forwards between time periods, to the point that events are described out of order. Other time periods are described rather minimally, especially considering that some sections don’t have links to fuller articles. On the whole, I think the entire section needs a rewrite. The other parts of the article could stand some polish, but are not as bad off as the history.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    I don’t think there are any “edit wars” going on at present, but from looking at the edit summaries and the talk pages, there still seems to be some conflict over portions of the article.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I would suggest that the images and tables be reworked at the top of the page to make them more aesthetically pleasing (it might even be a good idea to eliminate some of them). The top of the page looks rather disjointed and broken.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Because I think the rewrites needed to the history section are substantial and because there is still conflict in the article editing, I don’t think the article should be promoted at this time. However, it is my expectation that the problems can be fixed and the editing can be stabilized and then it can be promoted. -- jackturner3 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Greetings. I just commented at the peer review page. If that discussion is closed, would you mind marking it? If my comments are still relevant and you have any follow questions, feel free to contact me at my Talk page. Best wishes, HG | Talk 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello HG, until you provided a wikilink to the peer review comment page, I didn't know how to find it an thought there were no other comments except on this talk page. I just saw your comments and I will address them as my time allows. Thank you for taking the time to comment. NancyHeise (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm impressed by your responsiveness and non-defensiveness. I commented there again, feel free to copy it here as you wish. Main pts: try to address the teaching authority (magisterium) & enforcement relative to hierarchy, moral theologians (dissidents?), laity; weave significant controversies into historical sections. Keep up the good work.
Not sure if I should step into this dispute about Jesus as Founder. On the one hand, I don't see such claims in boxes for Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. The infobox is a mix of an factual encyclopedic voice (e.g., polity) and doctrinal claims (origin, founder). If you want to keep the mix, maybe have a section that says core beliefs and list them (cp. Judaism). On other hand, as an editor says above, I'd guess that most readers realize that it's a traditional claim, not indisputable historical fact. So maybe even "Traditionally" isn't needed. (Tho' some esp younger readers are uninformed.) Anyway, sorry if my view bothers you. Also, for the traditional/doctrinal view, I think it may be best to cite a vatican doc like Gaudium et Spes. Cheers. HG | Talk 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments HG. I have included in the history section the main points of church history that have actually affected the church. I have added facts to the Modernity section of the article which addresses these disputed issues. Again, I just gave the simple facts without any personal elaboration one way or the other in an attempt keep the article encyclopedic. Regarding the infobox - this has been discussed at length already and the current format passed the GA review as being NPOV. I don't think it is productive to discuss that issue anymore especially when the information is referenced to very reliable and very third party sources and includes neutralizing language. I think infoboxes help younger readers and since this is not about a religion like Islam or Christianity but is actually about a church organization, the infobox is consistent with the treatment of other churches - please see FA Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami.NancyHeise (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Small changes/Images

Hello! I just made some small changes, but I do have a comment: MoS specifically asks that pictures are not placed directly under subheadings, as it separates the subheadings from the text. WP:MOS#images Has this been brought up on this page? Would there be a consensus to try to adjust the placement of some pictures to eliminate the cutoffs? Stanselmdoc (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not very good at pictures and would appreciate someone addressing this issue so the article can pass GA next time. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK after saying that I would not do this, I went ahead and did it. Please take a look at the page again and let me know if you like the picture changes I made. Do I need to do any more changing? I think it looks good and there are no more cutoffs. I eliminated a couple of poor pictures, made descriptions more concise and rearranged a couple of photos. NancyHeise (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the edits, but I have gone even further. By just moving the images that interrupt the subheadings above the subheading, the subheading gets pushed next to the text. I would also suggest these changes:
  • Remove some of the images that bear no real importance to the article, and are cluttering the article. For instance, the image of Pope Benedict XVI should be removed, and the image of the Papal Emblem at the bottom of the article (where it is interrupting the footnotes) should be moved up to that section. This frees up the footnotes and the emblem encompasses a broader topic. If anything, there should be one sentence in the Papacy saying, "The current pope is Pope Benedict XVI".
  • The image of the Gutenberg Bible should be moved to the Church History section, where the picture of St. Francis receiving the stigmata should be removed. If ANY image should be used in the High Middle Ages, it should be a picture of one of the universities.
  • The image of the door on which Luther nailed his 95 theses is not nearly as important as Luther himself. If any image should be used under Reformation, it should be a picture of Luther.
  • The image of Padre Pio is not super important to the Modernity of the Catholic Church, lest he be mentioned in the section. Can anyone think of a better image though? I'm willing to leave it in in lieu of not having a better image. Stanselmdoc (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that you will go ahead and make these changes, I think they are good ideas. However, I would like to have a picture of a bible or something in the church section of Beliefs. Maybe there is another generic bible picture you could use there if you are going to move the guttenberg bible picture to the history section. I have ordered a book on Roman Catholic Church History to supplement my present sources and will be rewriting that section to meet the GA review comments above. I appreciate your efforts with the pictures. NancyHeise (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes, and included the Gutenberg Bible in the Beliefs section like you asked. I agree it works there. Instead, I just placed a picture of Luther in the Renaissance section. I also kept the Padre Pio image in for now. Stanselmdoc (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just saw the whole page and I like the changes you made. Thanks for the great clean-up job! NancyHeise (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA Review

Thanks for the review, it is difficult to bring an article up to standard without a good NPOV list of what needs to be done. I think this is a very good review and I will be addressing the concerns as my time allows. I hope that the other editors of this page can all work together to eventually bring it up to FA status. NancyHeise (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Catholics not Christians?

I occasionally encounter people who claim that Catholicism is not part of Chistianity, or a variation thereof. Could someone enlighten me as to why this is so? Is this a common idea?

That Catholics are Christians is already in the article, but if this misconception is reasonably widespread, does it warrant a specific rebuttal here, or possibly in Anti-Catholiciam?129.137.157.8 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a position held by some Evangelical Christians, but it is not wide spread. You can google the two (Catholic, nonChristian) and you will get almost 80,000 hits. I personally detest these kinds of assertions, but it may have a place for in the article; however, I would never add it. It may fit more appropriately in the anti-Catholic article. You could put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself does the assertion have a place on other church articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? If it is appropriate on those pages then it would be appropriate on this page. If it is not appropriate there, then it is not appropriate here. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)