Talk:Sign of contradiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism. See also the Catholicism Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Article is short on references, has almost no content other than examples. GRBerry 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The section on Opus Dei appears not to be written from a NPOV.

This topic is about Catholic theology. It entails a certain discipline and knowledge to contribute here. This article should respect the NPOV policy which states that NPOV means reporting on the views of the credible experts on the field in proportion to what is said by these experts.

Expertise here then on the shoulders of those who know Catholic theology. And not anybody who has his own opinion on the subject.

Sign of contradiction implies a double-movement: (1) the downfall of those who reject Christ, and (2) the rise of those who who accept him.

This should be presented in its entirety throughout all the instances when there is a supposed sign of contradiction as seen by Catholic theology. If the two movements are not presented in their entirety then the article becomes inaccurate.

If the article is not proportionate to what the credible experts say (Catholic theologians) then it is not neutral. Marax 11:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholic theologians are not the only experts in Catholic theology.

Contents 1 Removed clean up and neutrality tag 2 The opening sentence 3 Dangling pronoun 4 Jesuits 5 Original research, no references 6 How widely accepted is this belief? 7 Yet more POV or accuracy problems 8 Hmmm 9 article needs more focus, less POV

[edit] Removed clean up and neutrality tag

There are now attributions for statements which can be deemed pov. With this they are now facts and npov. Also cleaned up misspellings, etc. Marax 08:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The opening sentence

There are problems of grammar and usage with the opening sentence of the article:

"Sign of contradiction refers to the idea that certain persons or entities who are thought to manifest holiness have, at the same time, or consequently, subject to extreme opposition."

The main verb of the sentence appears to be "have subject". It's not at all clear what this is intended to mean. ("have been subject"?). Moreover the word "consequently" is used here as if it means "afterwards", which it doesn't; "consequently" means "therefore" or "as a result". Is the author looking for "subsequently"? At any rate, the article needs tidying up by someone with the appropriate knowledge of the subject and the appropriate writing skills. C0pernicus 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangling pronoun

In last sentence of the 4th parag. of "Black Legends" he states is not attributed. Is it Keppler, the Pope, or who that is making this statement?Elburts 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesuits

Jesuits are hardly representative of today's Catholic ideology contrasts with I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.

i think it is better to explain this phrase or move it to jesuits --Riccardov 08:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Society of Jesus brought Western science all over the world, though Jesuits are hardly representative of today's Catholic ideology." I am going to remove the second clause of this sentence, as it has nothing to do with the article as a whole, is certainly POV, and in any case, doesn't even fit with the section it is in.Zerobot 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research, no references

This article makes many statements which are not supported by any references, much of it appears to be the article author's own writing, violating Wikipedia's no original research policy. I am attempting to tag this article as such, but Curps seems to be reverting the edits without comment. 216.209.114.132 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I just added a section on references, although throughout the article they are referred to. Marax 08:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How widely accepted is this belief?

I had to mention this belief as an example of fideism within the Roman Catholic Church. The apparent acceptance of this belief among high levels of the RCC hierarchy seems to me to be at least partially in conflict with the traditional Thomism of RC theology, and specifically the rejection of fideism within official RC teachings, such as the encyclical Fides et Ratio.

Are there Roman Catholic theologians who contest the concept? It seems problematic that a belief is considered confirmed by the fact that other people disagree with it. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is problematic. In theology it is called a paradox, a problem that is only resolved in the supernatural level, i.e. from the point of view of God. As the laying down of the life of God, the deicide, the greatest evil can produce the greatest good--salvation. Hope this helps! :-) Marax 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more POV or accuracy problems

The article currently states, . . .(B)lack legends he discusses are the opposition of the Church to the free-market economy. . .

The whole section seems to be POV, and this sentence is just an example. Of course, the very concept of a "black legend" is POV-pushing, and especially so outside the context of the Spanish Inquisition. AFAIK there was no general "opposition of the Church" to a "free market economy;" there was moral condemnation of certain economic activities, such as speculation and usury. The teachings of moral theologians such as Aquinas and his predecessors is a matter of record, see just price. (Some months ago I had to clean up a lot of POV in the just price article that seemed to assume that the very idea was a relic of the past.)

In my experience, people who call attention to these things now in my experience are not telling a "black legend," whose point is to call attention to alleged moral failings in the Roman church. Most contemporary references to such things praise these historical teachings, and use them as one moral basis to justify condemnation of free-market ideologies.

Of course, if this is the claim the source makes, so it goes. It strikes me that the source is somewhat confused, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

"The Shroud of Turin, an image viewed by some Christians as a miraculous imprinting of the image of Jesus on the cloth, together with the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, are disputed as authentic supernatural depictions. For this reason, Catholics consider them to be signs of contradictions."
"If you dispute my claim, that means I'm right."

Clever. --131.111.8.104 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept itself is ludicrous. Someone needs to find a reference somewhere of someone in their right mind stating what you said, and add a section to the page.  Madler  03:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

True, a claim being disputed does not prove it true, that is absurd. That, however is not the proper meaning of "Sign of Contradiction." The proper way to understand this is that if something is true, but it is disputed, then perhaps that true thing is of greater value. It does not affect the veracity of thing, only the value of a thing. Cowmansr 08:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article needs more focus, less POV

This is a fascinating description of the phenomenon, but still too much like a list of examples. I would like to know: is this still part of official doctrine, is it widely accepted? How do Catholic and non-Catholic commentators view it? Does any credible writer think there are logical problems with this paradox? (I don't want that debate here or in the article, but if it has happened it should be documented.)

Stating that Many Catholic Church Fathers were also signs of contradiction seems rather POV, since the very concept is not universally accepted. It would be better throughout to say "were seen as signs of", if they were.

Basically I don't think it is reasonable for this article to assume "signs of contradiction" objectively exist, only that people believe in them. I would not like to read in WP that "Another example of alien abduction is the disappearance of Harold Holt." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion

The current section on Black legends is bizarre, having no apparent connection to the article. Enumerating Catholic victims of tragic genocide is also not to the point of this article. It would be enough for this article to explain the doctrine, its history, any criticisms or defenses, and give a few examples. -- Subsolar 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at this again, it (still) has many many problems with weasely POV language. "Throughout history...", "widely known as", "seen by many as", "according to some."

The question this article ought to answer is "when Catholics say 'sign of contradiction', what do they mean?" That can be illustrated by some examples, but it does not need so much tangential discussion as is present here.

POV: I was surprised by the evident bias of this article when I read it through a link on Holy Fools. It is poorly written. Can't someone summarize Roman Catholic theology without preaching to the reader. 75Janice (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)January 10, 2008.