From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

2003

This is an archive page covering the year 2003. Click on the first link beneath the page title to view current discussion, or the second link for an overview of the archives.

October

Chinese Catholicism

I am wondering about the inclusion of info on "Chinese Catholicism." I've made edits to that but, not wanting to get into a "revert war," thought I'd explain why I think that that particular bit of information is out of place and hope the author of that paragraph might see my point - or argue me out of mine.

The official so-called "Catholic" Church in China -- i.e., the State- recognized Church -- isn't Catholic at all. They don't recognize the papacy, don't (as the editor affirms) recognize Vatican II as a Council convened by a legitimate Pope (not because of sedevacantism, but because they deny the papacy itself), etc. They are no more "Roman Catholic" than Falwell is Catholic.

In other words, saying "Not all groups which reject Vatican II are considered traditional Catholic" and then going on to talk about a State-sponsored, Communist, pro-abort "Church" that denies the papacy would be like saying, "Not all groups which reject Vatican II are considered traditional Catholic. Most notably, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Benny Hinn, reject all pronouncements by the Vatican." To me, it makes no sense to include that information because it's -- well, it's like, "No duh. Why wouldn't they? They're not Catholic, so what are they doing in an article about Catholics?" It only serves to obfuscate the issue at hand: traditional Catholicism.

The CCPA (the state-"church" in China) actively persecutes Roman Catholics, and any use of Roman Catholic liturgy by them is simply a means to get Catholics from the underground into the State "Church" where the State has control. Pope John Paul II has to name Cardinals in the real, underground Church there "in pectore" so they won't be imprisoned or killed.

For more information on the Chinese "Catholic" Patriotic Association and the real, underground Catholic Church in China, see this website: http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/ [USER: La Minturnesa | La Minturnesa]

Maybe you haven't grasped the fact that wiki operates on the principle of NPOV. All the paragraph states is that usage of pre-Vatican II liturgy does not automatically indicate adherence to what the article calls Traditional Catholicism but in the Chinese case means something different. It is 100% factual and 100% correct. You may regard the official state Catholic Church in China as a true branch of Catholicism, but that is simply your POV. The article does not express an opinion on the validity or otherwise of this institution, merely states it exists, it adheres to liturgy that could be identified as Traditional Catholic but it isn't part of that branch of Catholicism. Stop deleting a factual paragraph to push your agenda. Your attempts will simply be reverted every time. FearÉIREANN 20:59, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First, that's not what the paragraph says. It says that not all who "reject Vatican II" (whatever that means, exactly) are "traditional Catholics" (there are a lot of "conservative Catholics" who reject the Novus Ordo, while still claiming it is valid -- just as, say, the S.S.P.X. does -- while not "rejecting Vatican II" (again, whatever that means. How does one "reject" Vatican II? By believing it never took place? By not beleiving it to be a validly convened Council (the sedevacantist -- not necessarily "traditionalist" -- position)? By reading the Opening Address and determining it was a pastoral, non-dogmatic Council? By not going along with people who twist its documents to mean that Jews no longer need Jesus to be saved, unlike any other group of people? Etc.)

And I don't regard the state "Church" in China -- the "Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association" -- to be a part of the Universal Church; nor does Pope John Paul II, and that's the point. Read Pope Pius XII's "Ad Apostolorum Principis" and "Ad Sinarum Gentem"(both available at the Vatican's website). Because the state-sponsored "church" in China is NOT Catholic, I wonder why it is being mentioned in an article about traditional Catholicism (or any kind of Catholicism). The true Catholic Church in China (i.e., the Catholic Church that the Pope sees as "the Catholic Church," the Church he appoints Bishops to in pectore, the Church that doesn't deny the Petrine Ministry) is underground and persecuted by the state-sponsored "church" that denies the papacy, supports abortion, is pro-Communist, imprisons the Catholic Bishops appointed by the Pope, etc. It's not a matter of my "POV"; those are just the facts, and I maintain that that particular paragraph has as much place in this article as a paragraph detailing how Benny Hinn and Jerry Falwell "reject Vatican II" but aren't "traditional Catholics." La Minturnesa

And on the above note: China arrests a dozen Roman Catholic priests, seminarians; demolishes church La Minturnesa

Sorry, but your "facts" are actually opinions. We here respect your right to disagree with the Catholic Church; yet we are disappointed with your angry attacks on it. However, the point here is that you are continually violating Wikipedia NPOV policy by pushing a conservative fundamentalist anti-Catholic religious agenda as "fact". These opinions are not "facts", and you aren't fooling us. RK 21:48, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

You are expressing a POV. Whether it is the right POV or the wrong POV is immaterial. Wikipedia is based on NPOV. In China a religion exists which claims membership of catholicism but has broken with the pope. You may think that having broken with the papacy and having been set up by the state it is not a real Catholic Church, but that is your opinion. An encyclopædia based on NPOV cannot make that presumption. Please understand what NPOV is and how it works. If it has many of the trappings of catholicism (liturgy pre-Vatican II style, hierarchy, ordained celibate clergy, etc), calls itself catholicism but has some deviations (ie, the papacy and the reforms of Vatican II) wikipedia cannot simply sit in judgment and rule on whether or not it is catholic. That is based on a subjective judgment call, and while many others inside and outside Catholicism can make such a call, a neutral encyclopædia cannot, anymore than it can rule on whether the enthronement of the new Anglican bishop in New Hamsphire is valid or invalid, whether George Bush is a good or a bad president, etc etc. All it can do is report views of others who make judgments. In this article, it is simply pointed out that simple adherence to pre-Vatican II liturgy is in itself not evidence that a group belongs to the 'Traditional Catholic' category, one example being quoted being that of a state-organised group in China which calls itself Catholic but which has not implemented Vatican II. The article clearly and unambiguously states who this group is. Stop mis-representing the contents of the article, claiming it says things it clearly doesn't and demanding that wikipedia do something that it by definition cannot do, namely express a POV on the status of that group. (BTW I don't regard that organisation as a valid branch of Catholicism either, but I don't have the right, and nor do you, to demand that opinion be treated as fact when others hold contrary opinions they too believe to be facts.) FearÉIREANN 23:52, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)