Talk:Spiritus Christi community (Rochester, NY)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spiritus Christi community (Rochester, NY) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] old comments

Each sentence of this article reflects a clear anti-Spiritus Christi POV. The entire thing needs to be NPOV'ed. Rmhermen 17:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it bites, doesn't it? Wikipedians have been slandering by fabricating non-existent sects called "Holy Family" and "Militia Cristi", in an effort to demonize Traditionalist Catholics, but when we put up something factual about a sect that is more to your liking, you get pinched! Wow! The levels of hypocrisy! Lucio Mas
Then you should "NPOV dispute" Traditionalist articles. You shouldn't fight "our" bias with your own. It sounds like the facts would show they are schismatics and heretics, you don't need to beat us over the head with it.--T. Anthony 09:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I see no neutrality issues here. Removing cleanup and NPOV tags. Kerowyn 07:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
There are definite neutrality issues here. Calling this a "sect" is inflammatory and not ecumencial in any way shape or form. That's like putting the word "sect" next to the Anglican churches, Lutheran, Orthodox, or any other catholic organization/denomination. They are recognizes denominations just as the Old Catholics are recognized denominations.
I don't think I'd heard the word "sect" as negative until I came to Wikipedia. In fact the Wikipedia article on sect starts with "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group that has branched off from a larger established group." Well this is a small group that branched off from a larger one. Granted some add that implies tension with society, but it sounds like it'd be fair to say this is new enough to have tension with the religion it broke off from. Society of St. Pius X, Ahmadiyya, etc could also be sects as they broke off from a group and have tensions with said group.--T. Anthony 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even looking at the word "sect". This article is horrible, though. It only looks neutral if you're a conservative Catholic. I've never been to SC (although I know people who are members), but this article is way off base in its perspective. I'd go through and edit it, but I have a feeling it would be immediately reverted. Maybe a non-Catholic needs to go through the article and edit it. The bias is pretty obvious if you're not Catholic. It's not like these people are eating babies, as far as I know they just have a woman preaching and have blessed homosexual unions, which isn't uncommon in Protestant churches.Senatorpjt 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually as it stands it's an oddball mix of POV. I think when I commented in June it was moving toward something better than this. Anyway the following sentence is an example of both POV, "By 1977 the church community, like many other Catholic parishes, allowed women to preach, which is inconsistent with Catholic tradition, since only priest and deacons are permitted to preach." This sentence seems to be arguing with itself. At one point indicating it's bad then good then bad again. Then you have "They rightly believed the group had overstepped its authority by making these innovations," followed a few sentences later with "These right-wing complainers contacted Rome and worked with the then Cardinal Ratzinger to put pressure on Bishop Matthew Clark to have Father Callan removed from Corpus Christi Church and transferred to another parish." The effect being Callan is bad for being liberal and simultaneously a victim of right-wing cranks who are bad for not being liberal.
That stated your statement of, "X isn't uncommon in Protestant churches" is basically irrelevant here. If a Protestant minister recognized Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception I'd consider that unusual even if it's expected/required among Catholic priests. What's "not uncommon" in one religion can certainly make a minister very odd in another, if that were not so we'd all just be in one amalgamated religion.--T. Anthony 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I confused this with something else. I never said it was getting better in June I just assumed I did based on your response. I do seem to recall a version which was less weird than this.--T. Anthony 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite a solution

It started as an attack article so a recent editor made it more positive, but he or she overdid it I think. It now it reads like a praise piece. Statements like "The church embraces the challenge of the scriptures and celebrates the opportunity to follow Jesus’ radical message of unconditional love", "All were members of Corpus Christi Church on E. Main Street and had experienced extraordinary events in the past four months", "Bishop Matthew Clark, under pressure from Rome", "She did not want to send a message that women were not holy enough to approach the altar or deserving of equal participation in the church" "in the hopes of harvesting the vision for the future and deepening the values already held" etc are not NPOV either.--T. Anthony 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt at neutrality

I took the liberty of editing some sections to provide greater neutrality. Much of the page, in my opinion, still reads as too pro-Spiritus Christi to be considered truly neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjefferson (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC). This is not neutral. A good portion of it is ripped right off of the history section of the Spiritus web site, and is therefore biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drknowledge (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moved page

Since the term "sect" is inflammatory, I moved the page to a new more neutral title. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, but actually, I don't think "sect" is inflammatory, while "cult" is. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article has an informal, unencyclopedic tone and is unabashedly POV; furthermore it is incorrect to list the historical dates of any real or alleged achievements of Corpus Christi Parish here as the article is about the post 1999 faith community. Although there is certainly some personal continuity between individual members and staff from Corpus Christi Parish into the new faith community, the parish cannot be said to have 'continued' in any legal sense as the aforementioned faith community.--Isolani 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! The article is making future "predictions" of the movement (section Supporters and Critics), and disclaim its "legibility" (!!) "Few question the good intentions"... is just a foul and obviously malicious weasel-formulation. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Fix proposal: the article has a bad structure, especially the History section is a list, where it would better be a review of the development of the movement and the reasons for the schism from the Rome-Catholic house. Father James Callan, one of the founders (?), shouldn't suddenly name change to "Jim", the style must be consisten. The current state and workings of the movement, and current leaders might be a good section. If someone know about their theology, that would be a bonus: are they directed toward the "old" (rejecting papal infallacy) or "liberal" (theosophically minded) catholics, or do they move towards anglicanism? Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The majority of this article is taken straight from the Spiritus Christi website at http://www.spirituschristi.org/history.html, which can hardly be considered an NPOV source. This article should be completely overhauled -- there was plenty of media coverage during/after the split. T.r.duncan 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)