Talk:Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities/Archive(1)

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

Start

This is a fascinating topic. Now, is anyone going to actually write it? Or is this really just about Rome under Mussolini and collaborations with fascism?

To be sane, start in the Roman Empire when the Roman Catholic church emerged, and divide into these periods: A bref note on Early history when the church was persecuted, then under the Christian Roman Emperors, Before the Sack of Rome, 410 AD, then the consolidation of power, leading to the early Councils where the Pope finally gained authority, the Renaissance, the conflict with Elizabeth I, etc.. By the time you are done this stuff on fascism will be a side note. Oh by the way, a lot of people think Silvio Berlusconi is a fascist too. Is it really going to be possible to NPOV this and treat history fairly with such a long span of history? -- User:142.177.103.33

Possibly not NPOV-able under its current title, as Anglicans at least would maintain there's nothing quintessentially "Roman" Catholic about the Catholic church for most of the history outlined<G>. -- Someone else 01:29, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Actually the opposite. They specifically would not want us to say Catholic least anyone think it was them we were talking about.
I believe their position is that they are historically continuous with the institution we are talking about. -- Someone else 02:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
But I think I've actually just fed a troll. Oops! I still am curious though: what term would Anglicans use to describe the Church prior to its separation from the Church of England that they would not use in reference to the Church of England? -- Someone else 02:25, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Title of the article

There's also something a bit askew in implying that "democracy" and "dictatorship" exhaust the possibilities of government. Perhaps a title such as "Catholicism's relationship to civil governance"? -- Someone else 01:33, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't. But 'civil governance's is wrong as many of the governments could hardly be called 'civil'. For centuries, RC's relationship with conceptions of popular participation in government has been the big issue for centuries; from its attitude towards the French Revolution to Pius X's nutty behaviour towards French democracy, the 'd' word is the key. And dictatorship simply means in the title systems of governance not based on democracy but on the rule of a powerful individual or elite. You have to say RC to make it clear you are talking exclusively about the Church of Rome and not he broad catholic family, democracy was the issue for RCism for centuries and shaped its vision of the world, so you have to use democracy, and if you stopped there you'd be accused of silencing mention or playing down mention of the Church's association with Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, etc. So the title was chosen to answer the 'who' and 'what' questions in a way that did not produce a totally obscure name few people but the experts understood. People will look up links between 'Catholicism' and 'democracy' or 'Catholicism' and 'dictatorships'. This title will bring them here, so it was carefully chosen for its ease of understanding and its relevance for search engines. FearÉIREANN 02:00, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes. But I was pointing out that it also implies a non-neutral point of view. -- Someone else 02:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've attempted to supply a beginning here. Most of what I added was actually taken from an old BBS post of mine which I had saved, from away back in the nineties. I toned it down just a bit and Wikified it --- though it seems I did not bother to scotch one particularly bad mixed metaphor. What I had written covers mostly from the French Revolution forward. -- IHCOYC 01:48, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What about Roman Catholicism and the State? -- Error 02:07, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The state is only a relatively modern phenomenon, certainly modern in the history of the Church. Pre-modern societies didn't have states, they had territories that a monarch came to rule through force and past conquest. France wasn't a state for most of its history; it was a collection of feudal lands French kings put together through marriage, conquest, etc. (eg, people talk about the Avignon papacy as being based in France. Avignon was not part of France at the time, it was in lands owned by the pope and only became part of France centuries later). Ireland was not a a state until 1922. Germany only became a state in 1871, Italy until 1870. Furthermore one of the central issues is Roman Catholicism's attitudes towards democracy and popular sovereignty and that has nothing to do with any state or even the state, it is a broad theoretical issue that has its roots long before there was any concept of "the state".

RC and the structures of power, RC and government, RC and rule. Better? -- Error

Roman Catholic Church and politics or Political role of the Roman Catholic Church? --Ann O'nyme 02:36, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As we push this back into Roman and medieval times, "democracy and dictatorships" becomes anachronistic. We need a new title. I'd suggest "Roman Catholicism and state authority". Other ideas? -- Jmabel 03:31, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've renamed it to "Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities" which seems the most accurate and neutral. --Joy [shallot] 13:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, and I'm not too happy that having made my suggestion and tried to see if we have consensus, you've preempted by doing something else. "Authorities" suggest individuals, rather than the more abstract "authority".

Um, no, it does not? "Political authorities" merely suggests that there has been more than one political authority that RC has been linked with. --Joy [shallot] 21:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The title you've given this invites turning this article into a dumping ground for disputes over abortion, nuclear weapons, anything where the Church has a view at variance with some secular governments. I think this should remain on the level of sources and nature of authority, touching on specific issues only insofar as they are illustrative. -- Jmabel 18:26, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea why you would think that this would invite such things any more than it has before now. Just look at how the article looked in the past, it was much more about specific issues than an essay on how it dealt with authority. --Joy [shallot] 21:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of a paragraph

I removed the following:

Some critics havethat the Roman Catholic Church has tainted itself with the guilt of too cozy a relationship with Fascism and Nazism. Since the end of World War II, these accusations have been hurled at the Roman Church in various degrees of plausibility and quality, by works ranging from Rolf Hochhuth's play The Deputy to John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope. Pope Pius XII is usually cast as the villain in this view of history, which Roman Catholic apologists typically seek to discredit. To understand the background of these allegations, it is necessary to go back in time at least to the French Revolution.

The article is not about Catholicism and fascism, any more than an article about George W. Bush is about the war in Iraq. The issue of RCism and fascism is one section on a broader topic. Putting in that paragraph up front completely misrepresents what the article is about, as well as using incredibly unacademic POV-implicit language. BTW I'm not saying the author was expressing a POV. But poor choice of language can be seen by readers as implying a POV, however unintentionally. Encyclopædia articles must never be polemics. That is a cardinal rule in NPOV. Language must be clinically NPOV. Terms like too cozy, hurled , cast as the villain, apologists etc are called emotional editorialisations, ie they generate emotion and suggest a path of analysis. NPOV means the exact opposite of that. FearÉIREANN 04:05, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Removal of sections

I removed the following:

The Vatican and the United States

Traditional attitudes towards Roman Catholicism

Maria Monk, Awful Disclosures of the Hotel-Dieu Nunnery

Censorship, Boycott, and the Legion of Decency

Legion of Decency

Marriage, Divorce, Birth Control, and Abortion

American Freedom and Catholic Power

Paul Blanshard

These are policy issues, the article is about a specific issue of RCism's relationship with and perspectives on, authoritarian vs popularist governmental systems. America's complete legal separation of church and state, the fact that RCism is a small faith in the US and that the US has always existed as a standard democracy not a dictatorship, unlike 'nominally' catholic states like France, Italy, Southern Germany, Chile, Phillippines, etc means that it is of minor relevance here. Of the 200+ states, if one was to list them in terms of relevance to this article, it would probably feature around 150. Its inclusion could only be justified if you had already covered all of Europe, much of Africa, all of South America, etc. Otherwise its inclusion where it is of minor importance to the topic would come across as Americocentric, ie., we can't leave out America because it is America, not because it is of major relevance.

By all means we could have an article on RCism and the US. But it is too semi-detached a topic to warrant an inclusion in this article. Ditto with the rest of the list, which by all means could be useful elsewhere but are off topic here. FearÉIREANN 17:42, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

First of all, Roman Catholicism is not a 'faith'; it is more properly a ritual ecclesial community - all Catholic ritual churches share the same faith. Secondly, Roman Catholocism can hardly be seen as minor in the United States. 24% of the population of the United States considers itself Roman Catholic [1]. In conjunction with the fact that citizens of the United States enjoy practically universal sufferage, Roman Catholicism brings to bear significant influence in the governmental system of the United States. Furthermore, the United States has one of the largest Catholic populations in the world, I think second only to Brazil. The United States is certainly an influential nation in world affairs. Therefore, the United States is a noteworthy venue of Catholic political influence.

Communism

I'm going to suggest removing all the sections about communism, since they are neither democracy nor dictatorships. DJ Clayworth 21:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like the text should stay and the article be renamed instead. --Joy [shallot] 23:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Catholic Popular Party" ?

There is a reference to the "Catholic Popular Party" in Italy in 1924. I have never heard of this party. What is its Italian name? Do we have an article on it somewhere (apparently not at this name). -- Jmabel 21:41, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Antichrist?

"Resolutions such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, passed by the National Constituent Assembly, seemed to some in the church to mark the appearance of the antichrist." This seems an awfully strong statement, in particularly the part about the "appearance of the antichrist". Unless someone has a citation for the reference to the antichrist, it should be removed. -- Jmabel 20:46, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cut sentence

I cut the following sentence from the section on Fascism: "To understand the background of these allegations, it is necessary to go back in time at least to the French Revolution." I suspect it made sense there under some earlier flow of the article, but now it seems out of place to say, in effect, "you have to go back to what we've been talking about." -- Jmabel 21:19, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Spain

The section on Spain has swung back and forth between being scornful of the Church's ties to Franco and apologist for them. It's a complicated case, and deserves a somewhat longer, evenhanded treatment (which also should mention the importance of priests in starting the Mondragon cooperatives, probably the least fascistic institution to arise in Spain during Franco's rule). There's a long, complicated story here. I don't have time to write that right now, but thought I would point that out in case anyone wants to follow up. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Expansion tag

Added a section

I added the section on Roman Emperors and deleted the previous brief work on it. I'm new here and by no means an expert on Christianity so feel free to correct my mistakes. IndieJones