Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Church Father

I don't mind including the points by Aristides and Theophilus but only once we've established whether that they've said is (i) important for this topic; (ii) and having influenced Church teaching. Aristides said in reference to the greek gods: "some transformed themselves into the likeness of animals to seduce the race of mortal women, and some polluted themselves by lying with males". How does this help our understanding of the topic if he's talking about the greek gods? It's a bit general isn't it? I accept he may have been a saint but to be frank we don't have to give weight to every word uttered by saints. St Peter Martyr and St Bernardino said some pretty foul things which the Church distances itself from today. Likewise I'm not convinced Theophilus is that significant in the west and clearly he didn't use the word "homosexuality" - so what was the original word in greek? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, there are two main issues here (since you deleted quite a bit of stuff):

1) The quotes from these two saints are relevant because they are examples of how the early Church viewed homosexual sex. Even the quote about Greek gods committing this type of sex is relevant because it's a condemnation of the sex acts themselves. As for the other quote: it isn't up to us to decide what the original Greek was and whether it should be translated as "homosexuality". We need to go by the translation in the cited source.

2) The quote from the Didache needs to be restored to "pederasty" since that's how it's usually translated, including in the original cited source. "Corrupting boys" is an ambiguous phrase which doesn't even mention sex. It doesn't make any difference whether that's the "literal meaning" because it isn't the actual usage as determined by most translators. If you were translating the English phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" into another language, you wouldn't translate it literally as if animals were literally falling from the sky, right? And if you did translate it that way, you'd utterly confuse anyone whose language doesn't use that figure of speech to mean "it's raining hard". We need to use the actual, widely accepted, meaning rather than a literal translation. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1) No, they tell us very little about how the early church viewed homosexual sex. There wasn't even a catholic church at that stage - it was a collection of Christian communities. That the individuals were later canonized doesn't demonstrate that they played a significant part in the formation of Catholic teaching or theology. Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome yes. Theophilus living in the patriarchate of Antioch? Highly doubtful. But if you can set out the argument that there is a clear link then I'm willing to accept it. The source quote makes no such claim. And clearly the use of the word "homosexuality" is anachronistic. A more accurate academic translation of the passage reads "But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish,and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men."

The quote from Aristides about the Greek gods is frankly laughable and highly tenuous. Presumably the argument for condemning "homosexuality" is the use of the word "polluted"? If you read the rest of that sources is says that the quote should not be seen as condemning same-sex sexual acts. Again, please provide some supporting evidence that Aristides was influential in shaping Catholic thought around homosexuality. And if it's strong enough then we'll put it in.

2) I'm a little confused about drawing a parallel with raining cats and dogs but let's put that to one side. Pederasty is not the "usual" translation of this words - there are lots of very different words in fact if you do the research. And if you look back through discussion on the talk page then you'll come to a fair few of them. We gain nothing from trying to over-simplify this to push a particular narrative or point of view. It's very highly nuanced. You also jumping to conclusions that the Didache meant sex when it speaks about "corrupting boys"! Don't view second century texts through the prism of the 21st century. You might be right, you might be wrong. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

[[User:CrispyFishnChips|CrispyFishnChips] - I've had a bit of a look into Aristides the Athenian. I'm afraid I can't find anything unequivocal that has him listed as one of the Church Fathers, thus indicating his influence. But there is a suggestion that his "Apology" was respected at the time and read by Justin Martyr and Jerome among others (before being lost). The reference to homosexual practice is short, but it looks to me that Aristides didn't particularly like it. He was on a hiding to nothing in presenting his work to the Emperor Hadrian and so the suggestion is that he toned it down a bit. I have therefore tweaked a little and put back in - let me know what you think. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the quote from Aristides of Athens.

Re: the passage from the Didache : if it has nothing to do with homosexual sex (as you seem to be alleging), then why is it included in an article about homosexual sex? It was included because the translation "pederasty" was used in the original cited source (until you changed it) and that has always been the common interpretation even if some recent revisionists think otherwise. What do you think "corrupting boys" would mean if it has nothing to do with pederasty? CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you must know it was originally put into the article by an editor who has subsequently been banned from future editing. I always thought at the time that it was verging on original research. He clearly wanted to demonstrate a link between modern Catholic church teaching and the early Christian church. I still don't think it has anything to do with homosexuality, as we understand the term today - relationships between two adults of the same sex based on love and respect. Rather the Didache seems to be condemning aspects of Greek culture which clash with traditional Jewish teaching and practice on sexuality. In the Greek cultural context, sex between two people of the same gender was pederastic - that is an older man initiating a much younger man. It's clearly a very specific type of homosexuality that's being condemned. At the end of the day if you think pederasty is better than "corrupting boys" then I can live with that - although most translations actually do use the latter. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really a necessity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mid-importance

I stand by my assessment that this qualifies as of mid-importance on the Wiki:Catholic project group (of which, incidentally, I remain a member). Its worth checking what other articles are assessed as mid-importance. They include Holy Face of Lucca and the Knights of Colombus. Fairly minor issues in the global scheme of things. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has assessed thousands of articles for the Catholic Wikiproject I know what a mid-importance article is versus one that isn't. First off and I quote the assessment page, "Since we may (naturally enough) not be the most objective assessors of one's own work, it might be an idea in these or other unclear cases to invite another party to give the assessment." You are to close to the topic to give a fair rating due to the number of edits you have made. Second the assessment is based on what the overall importance is in the understanding of Catholicism. This has no baring on the overall understanding of Catholicism as a whole. Is it possible those other articles are assessed improperly, probably. Doesn't change the fact that this isn't a mid-importance article.Marauder40 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Marauder40, can I also suggest that you may be too close to this article to likewise give an impartial assessment. Please begin the process to invite another party to give the assessment - I support that approach. A simple google search throws up 7.8 million hits for "homosexuality and catholic" and 23 million hits for "catholic and gay". But only 45,000 for the Holy Face of Lucca. I can appreciate that some members of the Catholic church wish the topic of homosexuality to remain marginal to Catholicism. But I'm inclined to let the facts speak for themselves. You could start off by clarifying what criteria defines "mid-importance". Contaldo80 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not an editor of this page. I only monitor the page. As far as I know I wasn't the person that gave it the original rating. A person heavily editing the article should not be changing the rating. I personally feel I am qualified to assess the page, if you have a problem you can always request another person assess it from the appropriate place within the Wikiproject. I have already lowered the importance of the Holy Face of Lucca page since you brought it up. As I said before the rating of another page has no barring on this page. You can look at the assessment page yourself and find out what qualifies as a mid level assessment. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Assessment#Importance_scale Just because an article is rated low importance doesn't mean anything about the article itself. There are 35 Featured Articles within the Catholic Wikiproject that are labeled Low importance. It just means that compared to the overall breath and teaching of Catholicism it has low importance in understanding Catholicism. MOST articles within the Catholic Wikiproject are rated low.Marauder40 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly not fit to assess the page. You have also made edits to the article - or are you denying that? Have you been given a special role to "monitor"? Yes please - let's have someone else to assess it. And we'll keep in place the mid-rating until that exercise is complete. By the way "Homosexuality and Knights of Columbus" gives us only 260,000 google hits. You should down-grade that one too. But I appreciate that will cause a problem as it's cited as an example of how other pages should be assessed as "mid". Such a conundrum for you. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You have no say on whether I am "fit to assess the page". I have not changed the importance rating on the page, you are. I am not in a conundrum on the Knights of Columbus page because I am not modifying the level on the Knights page and since I was the person that assisted in having that page be raised to a Good Article status I am not going to change the status. How does that also relate to hits on "Homosexuality and Knights of Columbus", if that is a page, I have never edited that page so I would be well within my rights to deal with that page. The ranking of Knights of Columbus doesn't depend on the number of hits of "Homosexuality and Knights of Columbus". You are making a mountain out of a molehill. You are free to request someone else review the page through the appropriate channels, but as a major editor of the article you aren't free to change the rating yourself. If you don't feel that I should have any say on the ranking then I will lower the class back to "start" class since I did upgrade that the other day. Since there is a problem with that reverting to version before the issue started. Feel free to request someone else.Marauder40 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The project page states: "Since we may (naturally enough) not be the most objective assessors of one's own work, it might be an idea in these or other unclear cases to invite another party to give the assessment." That does not mean that as a significant contributor to the article I cannot change the rating if I feel it appropriate. A low-importance article is described as "highly-specialised or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles)" while mid-importance is described as "more specialised (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarised in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding". To be honest I'm not even sure this is sufficient - I'm tempted to suggest a high rating. In any case the point is that I've made by assessment to mi-importance and I'm permitted to according to guidance. There is no reason to accept your revert unless you are able to present a compelling argument that the assessment is wrong (which you haven't actually done). I agree that it "might be an idea" to invite someone else to give the assessment. This - you will note - is not essential; but I'm happy to see someone do that I they're content to do the work. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If you think the number of edits I have made makes me unqualified to asses this article, you are much closer to the article then I am. The assessment page says that you should request a third party. Until you do that leave the existing rating. Not realizing that YOU shouldn't be changing the rating shows just how POV you can be in your edits. Go Through the proper channels to request a third party to make a nonPOV assessment. What are you afraid of? I have already given my reason for the rating. Among all the church teachings, event, etc. this article has a low bearing on understanding Catholicism. A person trying to understand Catholicism does not have to know anything about this topic to understand Catholicsm. The topic within Catholicism itself is a specialized topic that only those people interested in the topic itself would need to view. I agree with changing the class of the article but since anther editor doesn't agree with my assessment I will return my assessment to what it was before I changed it. The other editor should have the same respect.Marauder40 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you talk for your comments. As I have already made clear I am not excluded under current guidelines from changing the rating. The guidance states that it "might be an idea" to invite a third party assessment. Unless you can demonstrate that there is specific guidance elsewhere that prevents me from amending the rating then the rating stays. Should you change it again without clearly specifying that guidance has indeed been broken then I will have no alternative other than to view it as a deliberate example of edit warring. An understanding of teaching on human sexuality is fundamental to an appreciation of modern-day Catholicism. A person seeking baptism into the Catholic church would need to know that they are not permitted to have same-sex sexual relations or to marry someone of the same sex. That seems pretty core to me. I think you need to take a serious look at the articles currently classified as mid-importance and ask yourself whether the bulk of these are of anything other than of very minor interest. For example is it essential to an understanding of Catholicism to know about an encyclical published in 1890 condemning freemasonry in public affairs in Italy?! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A request was made for a third party to asses the article. Please leave the assessment as it was until it has been done by a third party.. As I said before, just the fact that you don't recognize that YOU shouldn't be assessing the article is an excellent indication of how POV your edits are. I have indicated my reasons for leaving the assessment you have indicated your reason. Let the system work. Marauder40 (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have actually set out any arguments at all as to why this article should be of low importance. What are they? I've made clear the large number of internet hits for "catholicism and homosexuality"/ "catholic and gay". There is widespread interest in news sources about how the Church is dealing with issues of human sexuality (including gay rights). One cannot become a Catholic without an awareness of the church's teaching on human sexuality and that one may not be a sexually active homosexual. In the absence of any counter arguments then I simply see this as an example of an editor being deliberately obstructive. I'm happy for a third party to review the assessment to sense-check it - but the assessment as it stands is mid-importance. Finally can you please state which of my edits are POV (as you claim above). If you cannot then I would ask for a retraction of that accusation - as you are accusing me of not acting in good faith.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

{od}I have given my reasons, you have given your reasons, let a neutral third party change it.Marauder40 (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You made the argument above that most Wikiproject: Catholicism article are categorised as low-importance. I note a series of edits that you made from 21 April onwards (when this discussion first began) assessing a number of Wikiproject: Catholicism articles as "low-importance". I note that your edits do not show a significant concentration of assessments before the 21 April. Coincidence?Contaldo80 (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look through my history. I have assessed over a thousand articles, how many have you assessed for the Wikiproject? Oh yeah 1 and an article you are a major editor on. I usually make rounds of the Wikiproject every so often just as one example look at around 18 March 2014, 2 October 2013, 25 September 2013, etc. I have returned the status to totally un-assessed, that should bring a third party reviewer to the article earlier. The fact that you can't leave the article assessment alone and let a third party reviewer review the article is very telling. Marauder40 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

On 21 April you put forward the argument that the majority of WikiProject:Catholicism articles are "low importance" to justify leaving this article as low importance. Aftewards, on the same day you "assessed" 65 articles for the WikiProject:Catholicism, marking the majority of them as low importance: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Marauder40&offset=&limit=250&target=Marauder40 There were more on the following day. This worries me somewhat, and I'm concerned that that you may have been altering the material to reinforce the earlier argument you had made. I would like this to be referred to an administrator's board to get a third opinion. I take it that's ok with you? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Again failing to AGF and continuing to make a mountain out of a molehill. Leave the assessment as assessed by a third party on the project Wiki page. As for taking it to an admin board for a third opinion, I think that is also making a mountain out of a molehill. It actually defeats the ideas of the Wikiprojects, just because someone is an admin (unless they are part of the Wikiproject) doesn't make them a valid person for rating article for the Wikiproject. But if you want to hear that from ANI, feel free. Marauder40 (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

straight forwarded to the point that the above mentioned that this section is all about the arguments and importance of the catholic-related homosexuality article (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable gay/bi Catholics

Just because someone wrote about homosexuality doesn't make the person a "notable gay/bi Catholic". Many of the people you added to this section, even the article about the person says the issues is debated on whether they are or aren't gay (i.e. Ludgwig II, Henry Benedict Stuart). Also the reliable sources you used at times only attested to why they were notable, not the fact that they definitely were gay/bi. If it isn't certain the person was gay/bi then they shouldn't be added to this article as if they definitely are gay/bi.Marauder40 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about 100% of these people, but a lot of them are not only verifiably but very famously gay or bi. Marauder40, are you sure the cited sources didn't support their inclusion? That seems very unlikely for a lot of these people. And Contaldo80, it should be easy to find sources that support inclusion if the others did not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I know SOME of the people he listed are verifiable, but to the the extreme number he added it was easier to revert the entire section. I went through and researched 5 different ones that he added and MOST of them had issues. If you even look at what he added, he just added what they were famous for, not that they were gay. Just look at the article on Henry Benedict Stuart, the article itself only talk about a possibility, not that he definitely was. Same with Ludwig II of Bavaria. At least two other people he added just wrote on the topic, nothing says they actually were. If he added just the ones that there was not contest on first that would make things a little easier. Marauder40 (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of Henry Benedict Stuart, but if you're referring to Proust and Boswell, they are very notably gay. It seems obvious to me that Contaldo wasn't suggesting "they wrote about gay things = they are gay", but rather "the only reason to include them in a section on gay and bi people is that they are gay or bi, need that be stated?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I will give you Boswell, I only looked at his WP page first and the RS provided, neither state that he WAS gay/bi only that he wrote on the topic. Nothing says that Proust was definitely gay. Even this link that I doubt could be used as a RS talks about that fact, http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/feb/20/how-lgbt-is-proust Stating people ARE gay/bi as if it is fact, when there is question about it is not what WP should be doing.Marauder40 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, Proust is very famously gay, it's in source after source. The source you cite quotes Proust's biographer on his sexuality; why are you citing it as a reason not to include him? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing the same reliable sources saying it was definite, some say possible. From the source used in the WP article to claim that at least one historian claims he is, "Gide was irritated that Proust never acknowledged his own homosexuality in print nor ever presented homosexual inclinations in an attractive light." I question even that article should be using it as source that he was a "Proust, considered a closeted homosexual by at least one historian". Please provide a reliable source that says it is definite, I haven't seen one yet.Marauder40 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at another one of the sources provided for Nijinsky, the source itself says "One suspicion about Nijinsky that the diary seems to confirm is that despite his early homosexual experience, he was primarily heterosexual by inclination. This point was made by Ostwald in 1991. All the homosexual liaisons that Nijinsky mentions, first with Lvov, then with the men to whom Lvov introduced him, including a Polish count and Diaghilev, were connected with material or professional rewards (though he says he loved Lvov)." To openly declare all of these people that didn't themselves call themselves gay/bi isn't easy. It is one thing to say Ricky Martin is gay, it is another thing to say historical people are definitely gay/bi without any disclaimers when there is doubt.Marauder40 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm really quite perplexed by the fact that "Proust and Nijinsky were straight" is a hill you're trying to die on here. Since we don't have self-identification for some of them, all we have to rely on is the obvious consensus in the historical and literary record. For some of these people it's probably harder to "prove" that they were Catholic than that they were gay or bisexual! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying they are straight, what I am saying is that you can't say in WP voice that they were gay/bi as if it is a statement of fact when the reliable sources don't even say that. You can't say with 100% certainty that they are. The sources seem to claim that Nikinsky just slept with guys to get ahead, similar to today's Hollywood casting couches, yet you want to claim with 100% certainty he is gay/bi. If there is any doubt at all that someone was gay/bi and Catholic it either shouldn't be included in this list or it should be included with the appropriate disclaimers saying things like "some historians believe" or other things like that depending on the case. An example of this are many older religious figures. Yes there were some gay religious figures in the past, but it was also a common tactic to "demonize" a person's status by claiming things that weren't true about the person to gain clout. Claiming they were gay and making up stories about them was one tactic. Even now some people are claiming that ex-Pope Benedict is gay, yet there is not one shred of valid proof towards it. No matter what, the RS provided as the cite needs to cite the fact itself, not just imply it or just cite that the person was famous.Marauder40 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The NYRB writer cites Ostwald, who literally states "Nijinsky was bisexual." Again, at some point you have to stop going "but what if they were straight? What if all the sources are wrong about their orientation? If there's even the slightest possibility, we shouldn't be making judgments" and just go with what reliable sources say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am looking through the document right now and at no point do I see anyone literally stating "Nijinsky was bisexual". Unless you are using the teen version of literally to mean figuratively ;) Maybe you can point to the line so I can see it in context. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1999/jan/14/secrets-of-nijinsky/ Maybe you are reading a different document. I am not saying what you imply. I am stating that we have to go with the best reliable sources. If you have 10 stating one way and one stating the other way, it depends on which is reliable and if both are reliable you can't discount the other. With many historic figures there is doubt since you rarely have the historic figuring saying "I am gay". If the doubt exists it needs to be expressed, you can't state it as fact unless a majority of the RS say so.Marauder40 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to Ostwald's biography, cited and quoted in the NYRB. "He was bisexual", p. 31. (I misquoted.) In context, that passage is not remotely attempting to claim he was straight, but rather attempting to contradict the idea that he was exclusively gay. So, which sources did you have in mind which say these guys were straight? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if you read it in context it says, "However, as his own frank (and I believe honest) notebooks show, sexual intimacy with men was acceptable when a reward ("fortune") was offered. In other words, Nikinky had sex with both men and women. He was bisexual." If you use this definition of bisexual, you would have to declare every "gay for pay" porn star out there bisexual. I doubt any reputable psychologist out there would agree with that definition. Is this one source valid for declaring that a fact without any disclaimer otherwise? Even his wife said he wasn't. I don't think so. But this is just one example, there are more blatant examples of situations where there is doubt, especially among the people that lived in earlier times. Marauder40 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And the following pages state, after considering the possibility that he may have been "pretending" to enjoy sex with men, that it seems likely that he enjoyed sex with both genders. You are cherry-picking in a desperate attempt to claim he was straight and to ignore his most famous relationship, and it's not working because the sources are stacked high against you. Ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

and yet the source that Contaldo used said he was "heterosexual by inclination". I am not cherry picking.Marauder40 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Has it crossed your mind that when the same source calls him "homosexual" and "heterosexual", they might mean, like the source they are directly citing, "bisexual"? Just a thought experiment: why don't you try using the same rhetorical tricks you're using now on any claim that he was interested in women? The source says homosexual - I guess he must not have had any interest in women at all, it's totally impossible that he was bi. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before I am not declaring him anything. I am just saying that if there is any ambiguity WP shouldn't be declaring it one way or another as fact. The appropriate disclaimers should be included. This is just one case, there are many more. I know BLP doesn't apply to non-living people but it is a good practice to say, would this pass BLP standards. Marauder40 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh, sure. Contaldo80, let me know if you're planning to take point on this or if you'd like to split up the list or something. I'm sure you'll be able to restore some of them with the sources you already used, but I may be able to help with others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Roscelese. To be honest I fear this is another disruptive (and tiring) attack by a partisan editor. While I'm quite happy to tweak the sources so that we get the right one, I do not like the basic approach which is to try and pretend that there are few if any notable Catholic people who were homosexual or bisexual. I'm sure it plays to a particular political position, but it's intellectually dishonest here. The individuals that I selected are the less controversial ones. To nit-pick seems rather petty. By all means Marauder40 state clearly which individuals you find most problematic, but please remember when doing so to ensure that your editing is based on neutrality and objectivity - and genuine constructive in the interests of the article. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo, that's uncalled-for. Since sources for all or most of these are easy to find, let's just add them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think someone is failing to AGF. Do you feel that YOU have ownership of this article and can make whatever changes you want without review? I have stated my problems with your original edits. Your first attempt that I reverted didn't have a SINGLE source, your second edits had poor sources. You have addressed a few of the issues I have had. When I have time I will look over your current attempt at providing RS. I actually applaud Roscelese for actually doing the right thing, discussing the issues without attacking and not doing wholesale reverts. Just a quick look I notice that Proust still doesn't even have a RS. Marauder40 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for you - why not try to help the work in improving the article by trying to find the best sources and then adding them to the text, if you think the ones that are there are weak. Better still, why not go so far as to add the names of some notable gay Catholics yourself to the section in order to make it more comprehensive - with good supporting sources cited - once and for all showing me that I am "failing to AGF". Contaldo80 (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

How about providing the sources in the first place? It is up to the person adding the information to the article to provide the sources. You don't just add information to the article without RS, especially when working on controversial articles, if you do and it is reverted for poor sources YOU are responsible for adding the appropriate sources. If you aren't following AGF you aren't following one of the primary principles of WP. Several people on this thread have called you out other then me for not following AGF. Just the tone of what you posted shows you aren't following AGF. Stop assuming battlefield mentality, instead work together to improve the article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If we all worked together to improve the article then I'd be a very happy man. Any suggestions Marauder40 for any other notable gay Catholics that we might include? Any names you'd like to contribute? Would certainly welcome your thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any that I would see added, but the section is now going against MOS. It has become a list instead of part of an article. Either it should go back to being prose or become as separate list type article linked to by this article. The See Also section has also become a link farm. It isn't supposed to link to every article that may include homosexuality and religion.Marauder40 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't have any that you would see added? Really - are you sure? Surely there must be the name of one notable gay or lesbian Roman Catholic that you personally could suggest and then we can include in the article - along with a nice robust source. I think it's always great when we pull together on articles such as these! On the issue of MOS could you please refer to exactly what the guidance says and then we can decide the best way forward. Regarding the "See Also" section I'm somewhat indifferent to whether we let stand or clean up. If you want to make suggestions how to improve then perhaps we could collectively reach a view. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The MOS standards on lists is located at WP:USEPROSE. There is no rule AGAINST embedded lists but it is suggested not to use them. MOST articles that obtain GA status or FA status don't have embedded lists, except for small ones. In my opinion the list needs to be separated out into its own article, especially if more are being added. Right now it is a horrible combination of prose and list that doesn't flow at all. As for suggestions on the SEEALSO section, anything that doesn't relate directly to Homosexuality AND Catholicism should be dropped.Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In the entries I added (some of the 19th and early 20th century writers), I generally tried to make clear how the person's religion and sexual orientation were relevant to each other. While this doesn't necessarily have to be the standard (not everyone experiences the two in the same way, after all), writing about the two aspects' relevance to each other and/or to the person's source of notability (eg. their work) could be one way of helping us write a better prose section. For instance, look at the bullet point about Renaissance artists: why not mention, as some sources have done when discussing the subjects' sexual orientation, the depiction of attractive young angels, saints, etc.? Or at least mention some of Poulenc's sacred or Catholicism-related works, which are some of his most famous? (Also possibly relevant for Poulenc: [1]) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Shall we maybe work together on this. I can do military leaders, perhaps you want to do writers, and Marauder40 can do musicians. And for each we can draw out the link between their homosexuality and their Catholicism. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: are you planning to pick this up again? Perhaps if we did it one or two at a time. Who would you like to start with? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Great suggestion, this pointed out the main point that I was wondered all around this article. This article points out how the person's religion and sexual identity were related, but for me, it seems it is not necessary to set the standard Anjamie59 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, While I respect the editors involved in creation of this section, and their efforts in improving the Encyclopedia, greatly, on review of the material contained it would seem to be WP:UNDUE to include this level of detail and this comprehensive a list in this article. Persons who are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual and also Catholic would be necessarily affected by the church's stance on sexuality, but a comprehensive list of such persons, however notable, does not seem germane to the topic itself.

In addition, a number of the persons listed here are only coincidentally Catholic, not notably so; and the sexuality of a number of the persons listed is presented as a matter of speculation in the articles on those persons. If we are to include persons in a list such as this they should be presented per the consensus at their main Article pages.

I suggest splitting this list to a separate, list-only Article. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering I suggested the same exact thing a month ago a few posts up, I agree. Marauder40 (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I could probably live with a separate list only article - although I would want to leave something in this article that did talk about some specific LGB Catholics so that we can show that it's not just an abstract thing but a reality. I'm a little uncomfortable though when we start to get into questions about who is "Catholic enough" to be notable. Usually baptism as a Catholic is sufficient to demonstrate that someone is a Catholic - it would be odd to start having different tiers. Who are we to judge about who is notably Catholic and who is not, and how "genuine" a Catholic they are? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that baptism is sufficient (and I think a list would be unhelpful; don't we have a category, or did it get deleted?). I think I proposed a standard something along the lines of, their sexuality and their religion are relevant to one another and/or to the reason they are notable. For some of the current items on the list, this would mean removing them, while for others, we would just need to write and source the appropriate prose explanation. This shouldn't be an exhaustive list of gay and bi Catholics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still express caution on this. We have to be careful ourselves that we don't end up designing a Catholic test to determine who is "Catholic enough". Baptism is the rite of admission into the Catholic church, which can only be rescinded via excommunication. But that said I have sympathy with the argument that there is little meaning in having an endless list of names that adds little value. I've always found it annoying when commentators say there are a billion Catholics in the world, when it fact many don't want to have anything to do with the organization. If we got down the route of a list, we could try and look to the List of American Catholics where it is described as " a list of notable US citizens who are, or in the case of the dead were, members of the Catholic Church. All additions should be sourced. Ideally their being Catholics should have some relevance to their image or notability." Although a look at the list of names still makes me wonder how their Catholicism is particularly relevant. But if we take this approach I wouldn't want to set the bar too high - after all it's not really for us to judge a person's relationship with their faith. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So many wrong things in the above statements. In the views of the Catholic church, Baptism itself cannot be rescinded. It leaves a permanent mark on the soul. The only way a Baptism can be invalid is either if the form was wrong or intent wasn't there. Membership in the Catholic church can go away for a number of reasons. If the person makes a formal declaration that they are no longer a Catholic, they are no longer a Catholic. Yes they can be excommunicated both officially by a decree or through their actions (i.e. participating in an abortion) but all that has to happen for them to not be a Catholic anymore is that they say they are no longer a Catholic. To return to the Church, depending on what they have done, usually all that is necessary is going to confession. If a person says I was baptized Catholic but now I am a x. They are no longer Catholic. On the same token, the fact that just because they attended Catholic school or had Catholic parents, or other thing that doesn't explicitly say they were Catholic doesn't automatically make them a Catholic.Marauder40 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This simply demonstrates that it would be futile therefore for us to determine in any list which individuals are/were Catholic and which were not, other than through the fact that they were baptised. Baptism must therefore remain the solitary criteria for inclusion - unless we have a source that suggests the individual participated in an abortion.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We should have a source or sources saying that they were Catholic, not simply that they were baptized as an infant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the point that if you are baptized then that makes you a Catholic; and it's only if you renounce the faith or are excommunicated that you stop being a Catholic (at least according to Marauder40). So presumably we'd need a source to say someone had renounced or been excommunicated in order to take them off the list of baptized Catholics? I think all this list does is show that there are many examples of people who have been gay and Catholic. Many in the Church authorities may not like it but they can't stop those that are gay being part of the church (although they can make it difficult). And this is supported by the rest of the article. To restrict the list to a handful of "good Catholics" I fear will get us into tricky territory.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo80, To be fair, I'm not seeing "baptism" as a useful gate for determining if a person is notably Catholic. There are millions, if not billions, of baptised Catholics, many of whom are also gay or bisexual; but the vast majority are neither notably nor "noteworthily" so.

I think we need to gate based on persons who are notably Catholic or noteworthy for their Catholicism. I think we're looking for "notable Catholics who are homosexual or bisexual", not "notable homosexuals or bisexuals who are Catholic". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're after a list of people who are notably catholic are we? We're looking for a list of people that are notable and are gay and Catholic. The notability is established by the fact that they have a Wikipedia entry. And I'm not sure we should include "notable Catholics who are homosexual or bisexual", but not "notable homosexuals or bisexuals who are Catholic". Why the distinction - is the latter group less Catholic? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo80, While I make no comment on how Catholic persons are, persons in the second set are demonstrably less notably Catholic. We make distinctions based on the notability and/or noteworthiness of persons on a regular basis.

There are simply too many people who would be included in such a set. If we are still considering a list for inclusion in this Article, then the set "notable persons who are gay/bi and (baptised) Catholic" is far larger than what would be due. If we are considering a separate list article, then the set "notable persons who are gay/bi and (baptised) Catholic" is still larger than would be due; and it would be better to rely solely on Categories.

Hope this helps. Please let me know if it's not clear. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But before we can move this forward we would need to agree criteria as to what would make an individual notably Catholic? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo80, I would consider that we already have an agreed criteria for the Wikipedia sense of notability. WP:GNG gives us a method for determining notability; if we extend this to include not only a mention of the person, but also significant mention (not merely passing mention) of their Catholicism, we have a method both well understood & easy to apply.
As an example, while I admire his photography greatly, Robert Mapplethorpe, is probably not notably Catholic enough for inclusion. Benedetta Carlini, however, likely is. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to look up Mapplethorpe, but some sources do note his Catholicism as significant[2][3][4] (footnote), in addition to the ones that lead with it without specifically calling it out as relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's why I thought it good to add in Mapplethorpe as his catholicism seems to have been important to him and his art. But I agree that I need to add a bit of detail to make that clearer. My plan is to systematically work through the list of names and add material if there is a strong catholic dimension. Take them off the list if there is not. Hope that sounds sensible.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliable sources > what users personally wish to be true

@Integrityandhonesty: the statement by the church that they oppose "unjust" discrimination cannot magically erase multiple instances of the Holy See, bishops' conferences, etc. campaigning against antidiscrimination laws and policies. We must reflect what reliable sources say and cannot remove information simply because a user wishes it wasn't true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Rosecelese, first, hello. The use of language here lends itself to the political in the context of Civil Law with words such as "campaigning" or "anti" and so on. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a quasi political op-ed page to promote any agenda, but rather, a publicly edited encyclopedia striving for neutrality. Politics - by its nature - is the opposite.

Like you - there is no desire for "magic or wishful thinking". What is being shared is what the RC as a body actually and officially holds to on the subject of same-sex attraction, relationships and marriage and why. With that, like any global institution, the RC has global sized challenges to contest with: multiple cultures, laws, languages and forms of civil governance. Like any global sized body you will find these influences manifest in multiple and varying ways. Not all of them genuinely reflect its theology, philosophy, etc.

Those who profess to be Catholic that fail in this [and agreed there are many] will suffer in the long run and will face the consequences in one form or another. Such as those who support capital punishment in this regard, or unjust discrimination, such as, being refused service at a private commercial enterprise, housing, health care, imposed social separation and so on. In some cases cited here we're dealing more with indigenous cultural mores that have been in place for over a thousand years in some instances than with Catholic theology and philosophy. To the extent these cultural mores are out of line is the extent to which they should be addressed and denounced.

This Article is titled: Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. The lead should reflect the actual official documents, catechism and pedagogy of the RC - not - selective quotes from a handful from an RS that are out of line with this - or support one political objective in favor of another. Clearly, many do not hold to what the RC does on this subject. And, many who see discrimination in this will never agree, such as, what is marriage, or what is moral and ethical in human sexual relations. What can be found in common is supporting the human dignity of all wether there is agreement or not. It is less than neutral to select a handful [sometimes sorely lacking context] and then apply it to the whole while strongly implying the whole supports discrimination in this. The placing of polemics of this kind in the lead in not a neutral stance. It taints the entire Article in a false light by separating it from the complexity of its context. Not that these points should not be addressed and pointed to - they should be - but to imply - because you do not agree - that what it [the RC] holds to regarding this is ipso facto discrimination is not fully a neutral stance. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide that some actions of official RCC bodies "genuinely reflect its theology" and others do not and should be omitted from encyclopedia articles on them. "Reliable sources" doesn't mean "only self-serving pronouncements" and "neutrality" doesn't mean "censor anything that might make the subject look bad." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, omission is not neutral - as stated - contributions should be contextual in an Article as controversial as this. And, it should address all issues - agreed. There is no challenge to verifiability of an RS. Not sure how this became the "issue". There was no editing out of the RS. Only a very specific POV interpretation of an RS. All experienced editors, historians and journalist are aware an RS can or is - more often than not - biased. Any given POV - within reason - will find verifiable RS's to back it up.

A verifiable RS does not of necessity mean object facts are presented free of bias. And, more directly, that an editors interpretation of the content of an RS is wholly objective. It simply means its verifiable and a reliable source of information. Nor, does an RS or an editor have an irrefutable claim as to what is truth, or their interpretation is the only valid position pre se, simply because its published in the mainstream, especially, on a topic such as this.

The original point is the lead sets the tone of an Article and should reflect its title. Since it's primarily addressing the philosophy and theology of Roman Catholicism with regard to same-sex attraction, relationships, etc. it should reflect fully its officially proclaimed understanding as a universal body first and foremost so what proceeds is seen in that light. As it stands, it's very superficial and very lacking being reduced to a handful of sentences.

In no manner can this be seen as proper protocol in any encyclopedia. If corrected, when someone speaks in contradiction to this it can be discerned as such regardless of a persons status in the Roman Catholic Church or others who desire, or are motivated, to present it through the prism of their POV, world view or bias backed by a string of verifiable RS's to support attempts at selective editing or offering a subjective interpretation of the content of an RS.

If we desire to offer critique of this position in detail? It is wiser to create a new section to the article such as: Criticism of . . . . or Opposition to . . . " To a large degree this exists already, but somewhat ad hoc.

In this way, when there are clear statements in contradiction to its universal publicly proclaimed theology and philosophy reflected in its official universal documents it will be clear enough. Or, when "spin slips in" in either direction it should be addressed to retain neutrality. When world views are divergent it's a challenge. In this there is no doubt and it's understood. This does not mean editors can not work together while offering one another due respect to improve an article.

It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia on such a controversial subject to imply in a lead the words and actions of a few reflect the whole, thereby, setting the tone of the whole Article in this way. This should be made clear. By the whole - in this instance - is to mean critically where the RCC stands universally and officially; this is particularly a concern when it's taken out of this proper context.

There is never going to be agreement on what is marriage between the RCC and others. This is more directly personally wishing what is to be true. Many see as discrimination in itself by the RCC as to where it stands on this topic; again, as ipso facto. This will never change. What is possible is to offer due respect to varying POV's and focus on what is possible to maintain neutrality and avoid political intrigue and/or simply offering a subjective personal opinion as an edit Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be arguing that we should be hiding sourced information because it doesn't coincide with the image of the church that you'd like to present. But that isn't how Wikipedia works; it's not our job to write a smooth narrative that contains no contradictions, it's our job to reflect reliable sources as best we can. For the same reason, I'm not going to tell you that we should remove all the statements about the RCC's opposition to "unjust" discrimination simply because they've actively campaigned against antidiscrimination policies on numerous occasions. Both are true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)

18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at all - actually. There is no desire to "paint a pretty picture"/image. It was stated many who proclaim to be Catholic either do not understand, are ignorant of, or are motivated by, power politics that distort what is actually held to in the universal proclamations for anyone to study and read. In some cases its literally intentional blindness for fear of the "cost" personally, politically or even financially. And, the cultural milieu of certain regions globally is a serious obstacle. This includes lay people, priests, nuns, religious, theologians and some bishops and cardinals. Where they fail ? They should be called to task as Pope Francis is attempting to make clear and will soon begin to have serious consequences - by all indications - in the coming year or two.

This Fall there will be an historical Synod on Family on par with Vatican II in its significance. Among the topics are same-sex attraction, marriage and so on. By all means injustice should be brought to light and addressed in the Article such as the positive inhumanity of capital punishment in this regard, or Civil Laws that attempt to relegate those with same-sex attraction to second class citizens and so on; or are tolerant of bigotry, hatred or violence towards those with same-sex attraction. Now, how this relates to marriage is complex. But, where there is ignorance and injustice in the RCC on this very important topic should be fully exposed.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The lead should reflect the actual official documents, catechism and pedagogy of the RC". Nope, that is your fundamental mistake. We reflect what reliable independent secondary sources say. We do not interpret primary sources in the article ourselves, see WP:OR. Second Quantization (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Second Quantization & Roscelese.

a) It would be a fundamental mistake - if - that is what I meant. By stating "the lead should reflect"? The intention was not in the sense of an editor's interpretation or "reflection" upon a primary source or sources, but rather, inclusion of actual text of a primary source. In this instance, the official universal documents, catechism, etc. of the RCC on this topic. So my words did not fully express clearly what was intended. And so, I understand the confusion.

On that point, what is being said - perhaps more clearly - is the source document(s) relevant to the topic of the Article should be quoted and cited in the lead as summarily as is reasonable in a manner concordant to the content of the body of the Article in a comprehensive way. This is what is being put forward.

As it stands, it [the lead] is so minimal as to directly quoting source documents of the RCC - literally a few sentences - the lead does not actually offer a comprehensive summary of the body as it relates to the RCC. This is the thrust of what is being said.

b) As to inclusion of a summary directly quoting the Compendium in the lead on marriage? It's difficult imagine a more concise summary than a compilation of the relevant portions of the Compendium on this topic, which is quoted directly, free of interpretation or reflection that ties the lead to the body. What was added were four short and concise sentences directly quoting the source document itself and no more. Further, they were added to the paragraph speaking to marriage because the quotes of the Compendium referenced discuss marriage as does the body.

Regarding the first portion. It speaks to marriage as the Church understands it, which the body does as well, and is wholly relevant to the Article itself.

Now, some may not agree what the document has to say on this - but this is a direct quote of an official document of the RCC on the topic and adds substance to comprehension of the body. Not agreeing with a source document is not sufficient reason or cause to omit it. No one is interested in a "little edit war". I will reinstate what was added. If we cannot come to a reasonable compromise or agree ? Then we should seek third party arbitration on the matter. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose addition of multi-sentence quote - the current lede is ~378 words and ~2627 characters, and the quote is 99 words and 607 characters and 4 out of the 15 sentences are in that quote. It's a quote for the article body, not verbatim for the lede.

See the articles Homosexuality and Anglicanism, Homosexuality and Methodism, Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. None of them include multi-sentence quotes, only sub-sentence quotes on specific issues. The article already includes multi-sentence quotes official of RCC sources in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia is written for the information needs of users, not political groups that claim to represent them - meaning that wikipedia should represent critical analysis from a perspective groups outside of the RCC, and not give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:PRIMARY sources that can be quoted in the body, but don't need to be given such extensive quotations in the lead section. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• As above, "We reflect what reliable independent secondary sources say." - see WP:SECONDARY -- Aronzak (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, most of the quote is literally not about homosexuality but rather about heterosexuality. The one sentence in it that's about homosexuality doesn't add anything to this article, we already cover the RCC's "we have many, many words to give you about homosexuality" position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"... but rather, inclusion of actual text of a primary source... the source document(s) relevant to the topic of the Article should be quoted and cited in the lead as summarily as is reasonable'". No. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article, not to quote primary sources. Ideally tertiary sources would be used, and some secondary sources. This is a basic aspect of how we write articles on wikipedia see (WP:LEAD and WP:TERTIARY). Second Quantization (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And that's not even to point out we already use primary sources in the lead for the Catholic church, so actually we have an overuse of primary sources in the lead. These should be rewritten using secondary and tertiary source summaries Second Quantization (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This is turning into a parlor game of words of infinite regression. This edit is fully legitimate. It is a concise summary of a topic fully relevant to this paragraph of the lead, thereby, the Article. This paragraph of the lead speaks to marriage. The edit is a concise direct quote of a primary document of the RCC speaking to marriage. What is taking place now is dangerously close to an attempt at censorship and suppression to steer and own the Article. Fully aware of the guidelines, which is why it is as it is. I suggest now this be escalated to arbitration and will restore the edit. The argument now is closer to justification of censorship and an attempt at ownership of the Article rather than legitimate concern for compliance to the guidelines. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Chill, dude. You're being reverted because your edit doesn't comply with policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I&h, I suggest you read the policy pages and guidelines I linked to, Second Quantization (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny - I was about to say the same. These hard core wholesale reverts and pushing is what needs chilling here. There is no violation of policy or guidelines in this edit. Please show us where in the guidelines of a lead it states an RS citation of a primary source can not be quoted in a concise manner relevant to a paragraph of the lead and Article. If there is a chill here it's the apparent calculation to censor and an intentional effort at omission rationalized under the guise of somewhat arbitrary and subjective application of guidelines to steer, dominate and own an Article. This is now becoming somewhat self-evident.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that edit other than - perhaps - what it states based on your POV bias, or legitimately, its scope and length. This too is becoming somewhat evident. Very sad and disturbing if true.

Through this entire dialogue there was not a single offer or hint at compromise regarding this edit, a suggestion of how this legitimate RS citation could be included and so on. This is what exposes the nature of what seems to be happening. If it continues ? It should rightly be brought to the attention of administrators. The edit will be modified per our discussion. Nevertheless, it has a legitimate place to be included in the lead at some level. It serves the reader well to offer comprehensive context in a concise fashion. Short of this? Something else other than legitimate editing is taking place and very saddening.

Censorship, steering, and ownership is not what should be taking place here consensus or not. Censorship, steering and owning by consensus is still censorship, steering and ownership. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This addition by Integrityandhonesty violates WP:LEAD because it introduces information in the lead section rather than summarizing information found in the article body. Furthermore, it is mostly off-topic, being mostly about hetersexuality. Finally, it is a primary source presented without analysis, when a WP:SECONDARY source is greatly preferable. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Once more. Many would see this as rationalization to justify censorship, ownership and - well - frankly babel to dance around the core issue. This is not "introduction of information" in the sense you subjectively imply. The topic of the paragraph is marriage prior to this edit. The RS citation references specifically - marriage. It is indeed a summation.

What you put forward is bordering on weaseling. General statements of no substance. Without analysis? You mean your interpretation seen through the prism of your POV bias? The edit is a direct quote free of "analysis". What could be more direct and objective , or do you prefer - what, exactly ? This is truly sad. It is wholly out the spirit of neutrality causing readers to be denied legitimate information from an legitimate RS in full compliance with guidelines. Not agreeing with an RS is not justification of omission. My question and challenge still stands. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The topic of the paragraph is marriage" read WP:LEAD - the goal of a lead section is to summarize the body of the article. New information belongs in the article body, and the lead section should summarize the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The legitimacy of portions of the Article is challenged/disputed.

The legitimacy of portions of the Article is now challenged, specifically, the second paragraph of the lead. There appears to be a handful of editors who are attempting to steer and own this paragraph, and perhaps the Article itself, and are engaging in a form of censorship bias by subjectively and arbitrarily applying policy and guidelines regarding a lead. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I see this as you over-reacting to a minor matter. I oppose your addition because you are insisting that it be in the lead section rather than the article body. However, the presentation of new information should always go in the article body. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of things found in the article body. If you were more flexible you would suggest working your quote into the article body. In that case, it should also be accompanied by analysis from WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Read WP:LEAD - the lead section is a summary of the article contents, not a place for four sentence verbatim quotes from primary sources. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Get Secondary - the edit was not Secondary. "Over-reaction" - perhaps, but closer to a calm outrage, actually. With all due respect ? We have personal opinion and a reference to read the guidelines. This throughly lacks substance. Been editing for several years. As for myself? I have read the guidelines numerous times over the years. So, really?

Attempts at censorship, steering and ownership is a serious matter. What is taking place in this instance is just very sad indeed. There is positively no violation of guidelines or policy in that edit - whatsoever - and wholly relevant and in compliance.

What we have here is an apparent attempt at "thought policing" by denying readers access to legitimate information using an RS and citation. Wholesale reverts while offering no suggestions at compromise or truly specific and substantive critique is what exposes this. So far the only legitimate offering was in reference to the first sentence of the original edit [which was removed] with the remainder added back; only to see the edit reverted again wholesale without explaining why.

Here in the United States we place a high value on free speech and fair play. What is happening here in this case falls woefully short of that. It has all the hallmarks of an attempt to censor a legitimate voice that is fully in compliance. It is being "called out". That's what is being said. It appears it will remain so. And, its a shame. At least it is on the record. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears IandH is becoming a little disruptive and displaying a degree of IDHT. We place high value on free speech and fair play here in the British Virgin Islands too. We also follow WP:PAG as explained to you here by other users. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 10:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And, this is good. So, I ask you join in defending it. That is, freedom of speech and fair play. Sometimes a touch of disruption is a positive. Not interested in destructive exchange or disrespect, but certainly a dialogue. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, disruption is against wikipedia policy. I think you should limit your posting here to discussion about improving the article in accord with WP:PAG and not for theological discussion. Do that elsewhere. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 11:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood in terms of editing. What is meant here as "disruptive" is in reference to discussion and dialogue - not editing. That's why we're in the Talk page. Anyway, only attempting to improve the neutrality and quality of information of the Article. Disruption in editing is actually what has happened here in the sense of repeated wholesale reverts with little objective justification. It appears some are not grasping the point I'm attempting to make. Perhaps some will - we'll see.

As for theology? The Article is about - in large measure but not wholly - the RCC and its doctrine as it relates to homosexuality. How do we separate a religious institution and its doctrine from theology? It is the very bedrock from which all things flow from it. It's akin to discussing the former Soviet Union separated from the theories of Marxism. It will make for an incomprehensible Article open to steering toward a bias, thereby, neutrality is lost. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Easy. We use reliable sources, and write what they say. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 12:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, and thank you. This is exactly what was added: a reliable source with a valid citation wholly relevant to the paragraph and the Article in a concise and summary fashion free of interpretation - and my point. There is no objective reason - as it relates to guidelines and policy - that the edit should have been reverted repeatedly. So, here we are. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

For the second time, please do not edit my posts. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 12:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read why your posts are not acceptable, in the replies you have received? -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 12:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If I had edited your post - it was unintentional. If I had - my apologies. It can be annoying to be sure. Yes, of course, all posts were read and discerned with due care. Are you listening to what I have put forward? Would love to chat a bit more but life and family calls. There is little else to add here on my part. The record will speak for itself on my behalf. It's now for others to discuss. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Integrityandhonesty - the material you added to the lead is wholly inappropriate there. It's a chunk of quotation that doesn't really say much more than what we already have in numerous places in the article. I might consider that it could go somewhere in the main body of the article, but suggest we trim the quote back first. Certainly not in the lead. talk is quite right. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80 - Thank you for your input. Not certain it is "wholly inappropriate". There is nothing in the guidelines that a direct quote of a primary source document can not be in the lead in a concise manner which is relevant to a paragraph and Article that offers comprehension. There are literally thousands of Articles that do so.

But, I accept the notion that what is currently in the lead on marriage is minimally sufficient. To simply say, however, the Catholic Church teaches marriage can only be between a man and a woman with no concise offering as to why this is so is not much different than saying it teaches a clear sky is blue with no offering why it says its blue. It is very lacking.

Three short sentences to offer meaningful insight and comprehension in its proper context from an RS with a valid citation is helpful and beneficial to readers. Beyond this, we're dealing with subjectivity and a conscience decision to omit valid information.

With that, when a topic in a lead is specifically put forward in the second paragraph it implies high importance and germane to the Article. It should then be addressed in the body. There is no section on marriage. And, from what I read, there is no discussion of it - at all - in a direct comprehensive sense. Why is this?

If so, then this portion of the paragraph should be removed [not that I advocate this] because its not directly discussed in the body comprehensively. Or, a section should be added. Its one or the other by objective Wikipedia guidelines. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No. It remains wholly inappropriate. Such a long quote repeats the points already made, and it tedious and boring to read. Nor did I say, what is currently in the lead on marriage is minimally sufficient. Why are you pointing words in my mouth? Don't please. There is plenty of detail in the main body of text that explains Catholic teaching as to why it believes marriage to be valid only between a man and a woman. Your proposed additions add no value - other than tautology. And why not register your wiki account if you want to make serious edits to this and other articles.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - there should be inclusion of the edit in the body of the Article.

Contaldo80 - As an aside, and to your points - all my edits are in my log-in username and signed. Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth - at least - that's not the intention. I said ," I accept the notion. ", which are clearly my own words. That is, the idea that what is there [ the 2nd paragraph of the lead] is minimally sufficient. I did not state you said this.

I'm accepting the boarder point made by you and others regarding the lead. Though I think what is there [the 2nd paragraph of the lead] is sorely lacking. So, I hope this addresses your concerns.

As stated, a few short concise sentences does not seem very long to me, and perhaps to others. It being "boring" is your take and you're entitled to see it that way of course. Beyond these ancillary points and the lead question is resolved for the moment - where in the body of the Article are we seeing a comprehensive addressing of the RCC as to marriage, as they specifically relate to homosexuality and marriage which specifically connects the content of the lead with the body. Please show us this.

There is an over-abundance about the politics of this topic [same-sex attraction & marriage]; support and opposition in the section titled "Campaign against same-sex marriage and civil unions", with a spattering, ad hoc and disjointed exhortation, etc. What about why the RCC sees same-sex marriage in a certain light beyond the hyper-simplistic "one man one woman" and "natural law" ?

There is more there than "theology" as one editor pointed out. A new section would address this well and its content in the lead requires it.

So, the point being made is: the lead introduces the topic in the second paragraph yet it does not cover it in the body directly and comprehensively i.e., marriage. Therefore, there should be a section covering this in a concise and comprehensive way connecting the content of the lead to the body.

If this is genuinely an Article about Roman Catholicism and Homosexuality? What the RCC holds to as to same-sex marriage should be expressed comprehensively and not abridged to the point of slogans and four word phrases condensed into literally two sentences in the entire Article. Unless of course the point of all this is to place the RCC in the most unfavorable light possible.

Since its given high priority in the lead? Does this not make sense and the very spirit of neutrality and the guidelines ? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you a priest? I hope not, as I've had enough of priests editing on this article. I also don't like the way you twist the discussion. Above you state "Agreed - there should be inclusion of the edit in the body of the Article." But I hadn't made the argument about the need to include text in the main body of the article in my last set of comments. Again you are putting words in my mouth. Nor have you yet created a proper user page for your own account which suggests permanency. The section on marriage has a lot of material setting out the Church's arguments against same sex marriage:

"On 3 June 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a document with the agreement of Pope John Paul II called "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons" opposing the very idea of same-sex marriage. This document made clear that "legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity". Catholic legislators were instructed that supporting such recognition would be "gravely immoral", and that they must do all they could do actively oppose it, bearing in mind that "the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil". The document said that allowing children to be adopted by people living in homosexual union would actually mean doing violence to them, and stated: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." On 9 March 2012, Pope Benedict XVI, denouncing "the powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage", currents that the Washington Post described as a "cultural shift toward gay marriage in U.S.", told a group of United States bishops on their ad limina visit to Rome that "the Church's conscientious effort to resist this pressure calls for a reasoned defense of marriage as a natural institution consisting of a specific communion of persons, essentially rooted in the complementarity of the sexes and oriented to procreation. Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage."

If you think there are points lacking then please state clearly what these are, and we can consider whether they would add value with their inclusion. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to make a couple of points here. Firstly, @Contaldo - Although I agree with you about your substantive point here, There is nothing in WP:PAG that suggests an editor has to make a userpage to suggest permanence, or indeed do anything at all to hisher userpage. Clearly heshe is a WP:SPA and very new here, and may not fully understand our policy and guidelines regarding editing and behaviour. I think it innappropriate to imply that being a priest disqualifies himher from editing here.

@IandH - Have you read our article on Marriage? I do agree with Contaldo that our coverage here need not be expanded further, particularly as we cover the area you appear concerned about rather well? Take a look at the section Contaldo has reproduced above. What specifically do you want to change? Being specific, instead of using generalities, will help us clarify what we might need to do. ... ... and are you a priest? ;) -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 08:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course Roxy the black and white dog™ you are right that editors are not required to create user-pages. Nor are priests disqualified from editing. However, I think you will appreciate that this is a very sensitive article - only recently a number of editors were permanently blocked because they were seen to be pushing a particular editorial line. I do not think it unreasonable, therefore, to seek reassurance that all editors are editing in good faith. Transparency of motivation would help - and thus a good user-page would have been helpful to me in indicating that an editor is genuinely interested in improving articles on Wikipedia, and not out to score political points etc (although I cannot compel it). If a editor is a priest then there is clearly a conflict of interest in editing this article as they are effectively an employee of the Catholic Church. That is not to say they may not contribute, but I think they should be transparent and upfront as possible, so that there are no risks of bias. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be singing from the same hymn-sheet. I just wanted IandH to know. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 09:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80 & Roxy - Hello again and thank you. I'm not an ordained priest of the RCC. Not that this should really matter. If one were to be an editor here and come forward? They should be welcomed as long as they operated within the policies and guidelines. That question and follow-up statement is - well - not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If I were an ordained priest in the RCC ? I'm not to participate or not "welcomed here"? Uhmmm. So, we move on and let it go.

Anyhow, we're here to discuss facts and to improve an Article. The Article content you point to Contaldo80 is not at all a comprehensive exhortation of the understanding of same-sex marriage and marriage as it relates to homosexuality as the RCC holds to. It's a pastoral response to legislation introduced in Civil Law regarding same-sex marriage to bishops. It contains portions as it relates to marriage. And, what is there in the Article of this document is "cherry picked". Worse - the document itself is not linked so readers can see for themselves what it says and in its proper context. This can be easily addressed as demonstrated here: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition of Unions Between Homosexual Persons.But, there is a whole lot of commentary and "interpretation" going on there. That can be okay - but it is what it is.

As an aside - those types of documents are not dogma or doctrine by the way. Catholics and its clergy are not bound by them outside dogma or doctrine. They are guidelines from one body of the RCC sharing what they understand is the proper course on a particular issue and why. Maybe you learned something today.

As to the marriage issue. Not suggesting a new section of so great detail and length that it would all but call for a separate Article. We have here sections on numerous topics. Why not one which straightforwardly explains how the RCC understands marriage?

The Article on Marriage that is suggested is very broad. It covers the full history of marriage as it relates to virtually every perspective from religious [of multiple faith traditions] to secular. There is no reference to it in this Article as well. Readers would have to "dig" to find the RCC understanding in that Article while being commingled with others. And, the vast majority of readers will not bother. Why would we place an obstacle in the way? A new section, a paragraph or two, and we're done. Simple.

This Article is very specific as to the RCC. It only stands to reason that its understanding of marriage be specifically addressed comprehensively.

This Article is about Homosexuality and the RCC - at least - ostensibly. The Article introduces marriage in the lead. Would it not benefit the reader to see what it holds to about marriage and same-sex marriage in a fully comprehensible fashion - not mere bullet-point sentences that offer very little insight that are dolled out in bits and pieces and peppered here and there outside the context of what it understands as marriage fully? Given the importance this Article stresses on marriage its compelled to do so. Short of this, context suffers greatly and neutrality is substantially compromised for lack of context and material omission. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I bring to your notice that there is an existing, and very detailed, wikipedia article entitled Marriage (Catholic Church)? If you were not aware then maybe you learned something today. My point above about transparency still stands. Gay men and women have been persecuted by the Catholic Church for 2000 years. It is crucial therefore that this article is a safe space for people to edit and improve their knowledge of the subject without fear of intimidation or discrimination. It is not in my power to bar Catholic clergy or religious from editing this article (provided they observe the relevant guidelines when editing). But there is pertinent guidance relating to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which require employees of an organisation to be transparent about their motives when editing articles relating specifically to that organisation. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And even though Integrityandhonesty has said repeated times he isn't a priest, you continue to badger them just like you did to a previous editor without any proof. If I came back and asserted you and other editors had a particular POV due to supposed affiliations as many times as you have done on this page I would have already been brought before ANI or other venue. It seems to me, you are trying to champion a particular group of editors not facing "intimidation", yet you do not extend the same courtesy to those that may disagree with your opinion. As I said before if you suspect a COI, stop talking about it on the article talk page and bring it before the proper channels. Start assuming good faith and work together with people on multiple "sides" of an issue. Marauder40 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll ensure I remain focused on the discussion in hand, and if I have concerns about COI at any stage I will take it to that forum. I apologise to honestyandintegrity if you feel that I was not treating your edits as being in good faith. Contaldo80 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80 & Marauder40 - A sincere thank you. Contaldo80 - To your valid and sincere points. Indeed, all editors should feel they will be treated with dignity and this is a safe place for candid dialogue while authentic sharing takes place and their voice is afforded due respect. Your words speak to the heart of your character in the best of light. We all - in a sense - are paying for, "the sins of our fathers", as the ancient prose reminds us. So, let us start correcting them here in our own small way as editors.

Marauder - thank you for reminding us why we are here and how we should interact as editors presuming good faith.

In spite of our wavering several very sound ideas and suggestions seemed to have emerged from a number of editors. Allow me offer some suggestions that may allow us to get past this impasse and please offer your feed back.

a) In the section "Campaign against same-sex marriage and civil unions" - we link the document "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition of Unions Between Homosexual Persons" to the source document so readers can access it to read and reference themselves.

b) In the second paragraph of the lead we can "wikilink" the Article Marriage (Catholic Church) into an agreed phrase, such as, "The Catholic Church holds marriage is [or only can be] . . . . wherein, the word marriage is linked to the Article Contaldo80 pointed to.

These improvements will allow readers to "go deep" in a manner that does not present an obstacle and to learn free of "interpretation", or bias commentary.

This may be the start of us coming to a consensus that offers a genuine compromise we'll all feel results in an improvement of the Article and make this effort worth the energy we have spent on this.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the proposal to wikilink Marriage (Catholic Church) is good. As for "Considerations Regarding...", we already link it from the ref tag (the citation number after the quotes from it). But Wikipedia's manual of style discourages external links in the article prose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese - Ah, I see your point in reference to the document, "Considerations Regarding . . . " you're spot on and this makes sense. I missed that. Thank you for your input. So we can say we agree on that. Perhaps others will agree on the wikilink in the 2nd paragraph in the lead and we can move forward.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly happy to wikilink to the Marriage (Catholic Church) article in the lead - seems sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As I've taken part in discussion here, I feel obliged to agree with Contaldo in that it does seems sensible to wikilink that Marriage (Catholic Church) article. That's a consensus of us here IMHO. Should I ask an admin, or should we settle the wording exactly here first? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is to leave the current wording as is and simply wikilink the word marriage in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And so . . . . ?Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to all the editors who took the time and effort to address this and bring it to a close. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 May 2015

The second main section is titled "History of the Catholic Church and Homosexuality". The word "homosexuality" should not be capitalized. I'd like whoever has permission to fix this. It should be completely uncontroversial. --V2Blast (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Newsyness

I think the Political Activity and Sackings section are getting newsy again. We should be summing this sort of thing up, not listing every incident with a quotation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, two times in a row I agree with Roscelese ;) This must be a record. In addition to it being newsy, just using the term "sack" doesn't seem very encyclopedic.Marauder40 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this new section is particularly "newsy". I'm fine with cutting out superfluous detail but I think we should have illustrative examples. It matters that there are examples of real people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods in actual cases of dismissal. Otherwise the article risks becoming a set of bland nothingness - too general to be of interest. In terms of the word "sack", that's fine - we can change that to dismissed from their jobs etc. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need illustrative examples. This is an encyclopedia. If individual examples made it past the news and into books, that might be one thing, but right now I don't think the sourcing justifies naming all the instances, as opposed to identifying a trend. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure but lets get the balance right. Identifying a trend without going into lots of detail is one thing, but we need some detail otherwise it becomes too broad. I had a similar concern a little while back when you significantly reduced sections of text I had created detailing how Catholic authorities had systematically campaigned against equal marriage in a number of countries. Instead we now have the general trend - which avoids "newsyness" but is going to be of limited use to someone wanting to carry our research on the progress towards LGBT rights around the world. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If something broadens our understanding of LGBT rights (or RCC/RC education) in a specific locale, then we have lots of location articles. But the addition of unencyclopedic detail here, in the main article, doesn't broaden a reader's understanding of the topic more than a simple summary does. What do you feel is added by the quotations, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok - if you think it's too detailed then happy to take your suggestion to return to the amended version you proposed. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: Again? Maybe you can try to condense all this? There's no encyclopedic value to these pull quotes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I happen to think these additions do add value to the article. I think I can say that I've done more than most to give this article a wide historical perspective - so that we're not just including recent developments. But it is perfectly relevant to an understanding of homosexuality and Catholicism to understand how the Catholic church affects treatment of gay people in different countries. The development of gay rights is a relatively recent phenomenon (especially gay marriage) and inevitably sections of the article will reflect this. If at a certain stage we decide that there is too much specific detail on an area we can either summarise or create a spin-off article. Otherwise I'm afraid I really don't see the problem. Encyclopaedias can provide up-to-date information. I'm also not familiar with the term "pull quote". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I see little encyclopedic benefit to identifying every country where this has happened in a separate paragraph and absolutely no value to including a homophobic quotation from every person involved. If the point of the section is that cardinals and bishops have opposed gay rights legislation in a bunch of countries, we should be able to sum it up without empty words. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Many/some Catholics believe..."

This is an extremely subjective phrase. And the sources represent a limited polling among a few countries, hardly representative of 1.2 billion Catholics. It is not in the interest of WP:NPOV to say "many" or "some" or "a few" or "a whole bunch" or "tons and tons", especially not with the sources we're currently looking at. My edit acknowledges the existence of the dissent, and for hard numbers, the reader only needs to look at the corresponding section in the same article. It is not far. Let's banish subjectivity from this prominent place it currently has, in the interest of neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We must be able to find a way around saying "many", "some", or (your suggestion) "existing". Maybe something like "In some locations, such as North America, Northern and Western Europe, support for LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage, or protection against discrimination) is stronger among Catholics than among the general population[cite], despite the official position of the Roman Catholic hierarchy on LGBT people"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Why "Roman" Catholic here? Otherwise it seems fine. Elizium23 (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I just c/ped and rearranged the text that's currently in the article - I have no position on "Roman." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We need to change "LGBT people" to "LGBT rights" at the end, because otherwise we've changed the argument in mid-stream. Elizium23 (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that. Any other suggestions? I can implement it, or you can. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. Although it is true that in the first world those raised Catholic who apostasised, agnostics, cafeteria Catholics, and a couple of regular attendees dissent from church teachings. This is in no way more numerous then the rest of the liberal population. The Netherlands was the first country to legalise gay marriage and it was traditionally Protestant and had become one of the most Atheist countries in the world. The Protestants there even bless same sex marriages. The Remonstrants being the first church to ever do so. England was also very early in the game with many Anglicans and Atheists supporting gay marriage. There was never any notable opposition, from agnostics or liberals. A great number of Anglicans who opposed gay marriage actually became Catholic.

In Sweden those Lutherans who opposed liberalism often became Catholic. Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, Norway, and Iceland all had little Catholics and legalized gay marriage with ease. In Belgium and Spain gay marriage was legalized by the socialist parties who are largely voted for by he irreligious. Ireland has only recently legalized gay marriage under outside pressure, with a lot of support coming from the youth, the Presbyterians and the Church of Ireland. 38 % voted against and about that many Irish regularly attend mass. Catholics are more devout in Northern Ireland where it is still not allowed. There is no Protestant or largely secular country in Europe where gay marriage was not legalized. Poland, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Lithaunia, Slovakia, all are yet to legalise it. Even Germany and Switzerland now have more Catholics then Protestants. 83.128.175.68 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be US-centrism strikes again, as well as one of those cases where a sentence that's originally well supported gets edited over time through good-faith contributions and doesn't work anymore. In the United States, where Protestants are very conservative, support is verifiably stronger among Catholics by a couple of percentage points than among the general population. Prompted by your concerns about other countries, I looked at the sources, which haven't been updated in a while - some of them actually, it turns out, don't mention Catholics, and at least one, the France source, indicates a level of support among Catholics that's below the national average. However, I also looked at some new sources, indicating majority or high levels of dissent among British Catholics, Mexican Catholics at one percentage point over the average, Argentina's enormous Catholic majorities and majority support for SSM, etc.

I think what must have happened (can't be bothered to look in the revision history) is that the sentence was originally something like "Many Catholics think X, and in some countries, like the US, show stronger support than the general population", and then later sources got added attesting Catholic support in other countries without thinking about whether or not they also attested more support than the general population. Nearly half of French Catholics, half of Mexican Catholics, two-thirds of British Catholics, etc., a majority or significant minority of Irish Catholics (just going by the math, since 85% of Ireland is Catholic) dissenting on something that's supposed to be crucial doctrine isn't something that isn't worth noting - we just need to fix the sentence so that "sources show support" and "sources show more support" don't get conflated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In the USA Unitarians have supported homosexuality for decades. Episcopalians bless gay marriages, so do various Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed Churches, all branches of Judaism except Orthodox Judaism. The strongest Protestant opposition comes from the full evangelicals. Also Atheists, agnostics, and liberals are even more supportive. Various Protestants became Catholic because they found their churches to liberal. This also happened in England with countless Anglicans converting, which also happened in Australia, and the USA itself.

Also Argentina is well known for being one of the more liberal countries in South America, and many Catholics aren`t committed. Only about 20 % is practicing. This is far different from Chile where the church has more influence in society and politics. Or Colombia where most people oppose it. Urugay and Brazil are the only other 2 countries to legalise gay marriage, and the former is the most Atheist of all Latin American countries and the latter has one of the largest Protestant majorities. Gay marriage has been completely rejected in Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguy, and Ecuador. The same applies to Dominica, Panama, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Honduras, and so on.

Also most Mexican states do not aknowledge gay marriage and it is far from being legalized there. Also these polls are often highly disputed, and often come from very anti-Catholic circles. In fact one of them mentions the church itself disputed the claims. 83.128.175.68 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of sourced text by IP.

An IP has started edit-warring to remove well sourced text because of biased anti catholic sources? (83.128.175.68). (I have warned them). Their edit summary refers to the discussion on Talk page, which doesn't exist, so here is an opportunity for the IP to explain why the UNHCR is an anti catholic source ... -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly anti-Catholic in hat I attempts to show that Catholics are less likely to agree with the church then non Catholics, in spite of the fact that many mainline Protestant churches have unconditionally embraced homosexuality and those who were opposed often became Catholic. This certainly applied to Anglicans. The church itself disputes the claims. They are also contradicted by various other sources cited on Wikipedia. Also just speaking of Northern and Western Europe is too vague. Also multiple sources don`t even support these claims. Far more Protestant and secular countries have legalized gay marriage then the traditionally Catholic ones. 83.128.175.68 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You have answered a question I didn't ask, so I'll ask again ... "Why is the UNHCR an anti catholic source?" -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been warned about edit warring. Please don't remove large amounts of content with many sources under the simplistic and wrong statement that they all have "bias" - PRRI and the UNHCR are non-partisan, claiming "bias" on all of the sources (esp. Gallup, PRRI, Pew) doesn't justify removal. -- Callinus (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I has been strongly accused of Liberal bias, and here are some things hat contradict these claims:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/if-we-dont-care-gay-marriage-will-pass

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/poll-shows-regular-mass-attendants-oppose-gay-marriage/

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/15b/Ireland-marriage-vote/result-analysis.html

This deserves to be heard also. 83.128.175.68 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note - refactored the above comment by moving it to the relevant section above without modification.

Reply - NCregister is from 2011 and is the opinion of a single bishop. The CNA ref is from a sample of less than 500 Catholics. Note that Gallup, PRRI and Pew have been around for many years and have polling questions that go back a decade. Specifically, the Gallup reference has figures with the same question and the same methodology going back to 1996 - Gallup is an established and leading pollster, and the trends are more important than individual poll results. massresistance is an activist group that doesn't warrant inclusion as it is self-published, and doesn't meet the reliability standard for publication of corrections.

Wikipedia is not mandated to give false balance, especially not in the lead section. A plurality of high quality, independent, established pollsters say that year upon year and generationally, there is a shift in attitudes of self-identified Catholics across the broad in Western countries - shown in figures going back to the 90s. Wikipedia does not need to give false balance to self-published activist groups, anecdotes from a single bishop, or small scale, unrepeated polls. -- Callinus (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Although 83.128.175.68 shouldn't have removed entire sections, nonetheless he/she makes some very good points on a number of issues which in turn bring up wider issues that need to be discussed. For example, I think 83... was objecting to these polls mainly because they can use the concept of "Catholic identity" in a very misleading manner and thereby include a lot of people who aren't practicing Catholics at all, thereby skewing the numbers. I've seen similar polls which find that "self-identified Catholics" who disagree with Church doctrine also say they don't believe in God and are therefore atheists, which leads me to believe that they view their "Catholic identity" only as an "ethnic" issue - i.e. they were born into a Catholic family - just as many secular Jews consider themselves ethnically Jewish even if they are atheists or converted to a different religion. This creates a problem for this article, because the article deals with the views of active religious Catholics rather than just people who happen to have been born into a Catholic family, otherwise it would have to include the views of atheists and converts to other religions. That's not what is implied in the title when it says "Roman Catholicism". So when these polls tell us that many "Catholics" reject Church doctrine on homosexual issues, aren't these people likely to be the same ones who have rejected Catholicism entirely, almost by definition? The ones who actually go to church and practice the religion overwhelmingly adhere to the traditional doctrine, I think it's fair to say. There are exceptions, but I think they are a small minority. But the bottom line is that these types of polls don't really tell us what the true numbers are because they don't differentiate between religious and non-religious (or "ethnic") Catholics.

Likewise for the historical people listed as both Catholic and homosexual. This section makes very little differentiation between people who were : A) raised Catholic but rejected it later on; B) felt they were practicing the Catholic religion while rejecting the Church's doctrine on this issue; or C) merely mentioned homosexuality in their writings and happen to have been raised Catholic, but may actually have been neither Catholic nor homosexual.

Blanking these sections isn't the answer, but nonetheless we do need to clear these issues up I think. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not our business to decide that someone isn't really a Catholic because they attend church once a month instead of once a week, or because they're gay. We must defer to reliable sources, instead of speculating that when the sources said Catholic they actually meant Irish, Italians and Poles, or that a historical figure who was gay and who even felt strongly enough about Catholicism that they converted from another religion only "felt like they were practicing" but weren't really Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese: I didn't say we should be determining how often someone has to go to Church to be considered Catholic, or anything else you claimed I said (when did I say that?) What I did try to address is the fact that this article has NPOV issues because right now the article uses raw poll numbers to claim that devout religious Catholics have increasingly rejected the Church's doctrine, although that's only one interpretation of the numbers and therefore one POV. Even the Gallup article by Frank Newport (cited in that section as a source) doesn't actually say that *religious* Catholics have a higher rate than other groups, because he doesn't define how he's using the word "Catholic"; and he only compares "Catholics" to "Protestants" rather than all other groups in society as Wikipedia's current text implies (right now the text reads: "stronger among Catholics than among the general population", which is not actually in the Gallup source. The only other cited article for that sentence is a UN article about the Philippines, which is a pretty small country to use for sweeping generalizations). But the Gallup article does say, interestingly enough, that those who don't attend church regularly have a lower degree of support for same-sex marriage, which would seem to underscore the likelihood that religious Catholics aren't the ones who are generally behind the increased support for SSM. So what basis does Wikipedia's article have for making such a claim while ignoring any alternative interpretation of the poll numbers? An example of one of the alternate interpretations would be as follows: the poll results may reflect the trend of increasing numbers of "cradle Catholics" rejecting their religion entirely in adulthood while still telling pollsters they identify as "Catholics" in an ethnic sense, meaning that the polls may not actually indicate a big shift in the doctrinal views of practicing Catholics but mainly the views of former or "lapsed" Catholics. This interpretation would need to be included for the sake of NPOV.

I could make similar comments about the historical figures. You accused me of making personal judgments about "gay Catholics" but I never said anything of the sort. I said the article makes no distinction whatsoever between atheists who were merely "cradle Catholics" versus people who said they were devout practicing Catholics. That's not a personal judgement about someone else, because I'm not suggesting we contradict their own self-description. But we do need to make a distinction based on whether they even claimed to believe in Catholicism or not. This isn't an article about atheists, nor about converts to Protestantism etc.

Also, there's an NPOV problem with that section because right now, most of the entries on historical figures only cite one book as if that's the only position, although you know perfectly well that historians have hotly debated such things. NPOV requires more than one viewpoint. If you think otherwise, then explain why.

Don't accuse me of making personal judgments, when in fact I'm just arguing for the NPOV principle to be applied. I don't think you addressed a single actual point that I made in my previous note. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, if the source doesn't say something (like "how many of these people are just cradle Catholics"), that's not your cue to speculate that it must have meant something else than what it does say. If we only have numbers on Catholics versus Protestants versus irreligious, we only have numbers on Catholics versus Protestants versus irreligious. If we only have numbers on once-a-week versus once-a-month, we only have numbers on once-a-week versus once-a-month. You're asking us to engage in original research about who really believes, but that's against policy; you're also coming close to asking us to label people's religion based on their political beliefs rather than on their religious identification, which is also against policy. In general, there are issues in that paragraph that need to be cleaned up, as well as in the notable people section, as I have noted in a number of other comments here - but "supports marriage? Definitely not a real Catholic!" isn't one of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese: You made the point that the Gallup aricle doesn't tell us "how many of these people are just cradle Catholics", but neither does it tell us how many of them are religious Catholics; and yet that source is currently being used to justify the claim that religious Catholics are more likely to support gay issues than the rest of the population. That conclusion cannot be inferred from the source. On the subject of historical figures: Contaldo recently added information about one of them (Pier Paolo Pasolini) which admits he said he was an atheist. But this article lists him as Catholic. Is he an Atheist-Catholic? That's certainly a novel concept. It seems to me it's common sense to draw the line - at minimum - in cases where the person said bluntly that they were an atheist. Or do you want to include every single cradle Catholic who later rejected the religion? That might be a long list, and a rather strange one. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"that source is currently being used to justify the claim that religious Catholics are more likely to support gay issues than the rest of the population" - That's not correct. As for Pasolini, my quick look at sources appears to indicate that he identified as both atheist and Catholic, disagreeing on some elements of the church's theology and role in the world but agreeing on others (eg. divinity of Christ). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact CrispyFishnChips you are using the similar logic to those catholics that like to insist that if someone is gay or supports gay rights then they aren't really catholic at all. This marginalization in the churches is one thing but won't wash on an article page dealing with a serious subject. In my experience I have scores of relatives and friends who attend mass in catholic church on a regular basis, say the rosary etc and yet will quite happily tell you that if a same-sex couple love each other then they should be allowed to be married. And indeed attend weddings. I know of none against. I think you underestimate how generous and wonderful catholic people can be. Anyway, as Roscelese says we can only make edits to the article based on what the sources say. The sources cited are clear on this point. If you have alternative sources then please bring them on. Re: Pasolini - he described himself as a Catholic but elsewhere as an atheist. At what point do we decide he isn't catholic enough for this article? Might he not, for example, have said a prayer to the virgin mary after he was bludgeoned to death on a beach outside Rome? Or did he realize at that point that there is no god? Let's stop trying to push a narrative that says that only those people who sign up to every doctrine and official teaching of the magisterium are true believers. You know full well that's not how it works. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is to both Roscelese and Contaldo: So you guys actually do want to include atheists as "Catholics". That's like including Republicans in a list of Democrats, or people who eat meat in a list of vegetarians. Do I need to point out that an atheist cannot, by definition, be a practicing member of any religion, since atheists reject religion? The only justification Contaldo has presented for including Pasolini is the purely speculative idea that he "might" have prayed to the Virgin Mary just before his death, which is nothing but speculation without any source. It's truly rather Orwellian for you two to redefine basic concepts like "atheist"; especially while simultaneusly accusing me of allegedly using my own personal subjective judgement to determine these matters. And you're using the same type of contradiction for the Gallup poll. You claim the article doesn't currently quote it out of context, but right now the article does in fact use it to strongly imply that it refers only to religious Catholics even though the Gallup source doesn't actually say it's referring only to religious Catholics (where does it say that? Tell me where.) Unless religious Catholics are the subject of the poll, the statement about "Catholics who disagree with the Church's position on homosexuality" would be just as senseless as claiming that "Democrats disagree with the party's positions" by using a poll that includes people who were merely raised in a Democrat-supporting family but have left the party completely (including current Republicans). Would that be honest or accurate? It amazes me that I have to keep arguing this point.

Contaldo has also claimed that I need to discuss the Didache translation if I want to restore the older version; but are you forgetting that we already discussed it from April 21st to 28th earlier this year, and you concluded by saying: 'At the end of the day if you think pederasty is better than "corrupting boys" then I can live with that'. You then left it as "pederasty" for several months until changing it suddenly a few days ago. Since we had already discussed it and decided to keep it as "pederasty", the burden of proof would fall on anyone wanting to change it. I would add that the only explanation you had previously given was the idea that the Didache is allegedly referring to Greek homosexuality which you claimed was always pederastic, although that isn't the case because there were many cases of adult men in homosexual relationships (including pairs of homosexual soldiers in the armies of some cities, such as Thebes). So even if the Didache is referring to Greek culture it wouldn't logically follow that it is only condemning pederasty, and it doesn't mention Greek culture anyway. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Crispy, I can't take your concerns seriously if they rely on your personal interpretations instead of reliable sources. We don't dismiss reliable sources simply because you personally speculate that a polling firm secretly polled a different group instead of the one that they named, or because you personally believe that criticizing the church hierarchy or being gay categorically makes someone not a Catholic when scholars disagree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The comment about Pasolini praying to the virgin mary was sarcasm. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Can an atheist get to heaven if they are a baptized Catholic? Interesting question. Why not write to your local diocese and see if you can get an answer. On the issue o the gallup poll if you don't like the response you're getting then perhaps take it to an administration board. I find it bizarre that you're arguing that the poll includes the views of catholics that don't go to church enough - as if you think you'd get a different response if you asked just those that were attending mass everyday. The presumption! On the point about the didache I think you need to do some more work to develop some arguments. I've become increasingly uncomfortable about using the word pederasty as it's wrong - that isn't what the translation is. It's like saying that Leviticus condemns homosexuality. They are anachronistic terms. Lets leave it at "corrupting boys" otherwise let's get rid of it completely. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo: Are you really arguing that there are no differences of opinion between devout Catholics versus those who have left the religion entirely? That's analogous to claiming there are no differences between staunch Democrats and former Democrats who are now Republicans, therefore it doesn't matter if a poll uses the latter to indicate the opinions of the former. Would that claim make any sense? Clearly it wouldn't.

The issue isn't whether the poll results reflect "people who go to church enough" nor whether "atheists can get to heaven", issues I have never raised, as you know perfectly well. The issue is whether atheists can be considered members of a religion, given that the definition of an "atheist" is someone who rejects religion. Your argument requires redefining the word.

On the issue of the Didache: you want to use a literal translation, but the reason most translators avoid literal translations is because they fail to convey the actual meaning. "Pederasty" conveys the meaning, whereas "corrupting boys" is hopelessly vague. How were they being corrupted? Spoiled with too much candy? Clearly the phrase deals with sex, right? So the proper term is "pederasty" or something similar. Or are you claiming it has nothing to do with sex?

To both Contaldo and Roscelese: both of you have thus far refused to show me the place in that Gallup source where it says whether the results reflect the views of religious Catholics or cradle Catholics who have left the religion entirely. You have implied it does specify that, but in fact it doesn't. If you want to use it to make these claims, it needs to actually present the point you're using it for. Don't accuse me of "speculation" when in fact it is the two of you who are speculating that this vague source proves your point. I'm just pointing out that similar polls sometimes indicate clearly that that isn't the case. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's important that we base our edits on robust sources, rather than our own thoughts and opinions. On the issue of opinion polls we have sources cited that say they have surveyed catholics and the responses show greater respect for gay rights than some other Christian groups. If you have a source that says these polls are flawed and do not properly reflect the views of the rights sort of catholic then please use it; alternatively if you have sources that suggest a different set of figures then you are completely free to use it. What you aren't free to do is speculate that some of the answers given in the poll should be dismissed because the people in questioned don't meet your own criteria. Quite bizarre. On the issue of the didache this section was originally inserted by an editor (Esoglou) who was subsequently banned. I suspect he was keen to demonstrate that the teaching of the catholic church has been consistent in always condemning homosexuality. The problem is that he hasn't done this very well. The issue in the didache refers to "corrupting boys" - I would say sexually, but we shouldn't forget that Socrates was accused of corrupting boys by teaching them about philosophy. What the didache doesn't do is condemn homosexuality more generally - ie adult men sleeping with adult men. My personal view is that the early Christians were keen to distance themselves from some of the prevailing greek cultural practices (which they associated with paganism). We shouldn't also discount the fact they were probably keen to stop children/ young people from sexual abuse. Pederasty was the most commonly understood form of homosexual greek practice at the time and it's likely the authors of the didache had this in mind. But nevertheless the wording does not condemn pederasty (and certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality per se). My suggestion would be to take the whole reference out for the time-being until we can confirm a better link between the point being made and the article itself. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of speculation, but you're speculating when you use a poll which doesn't actually define how it's using the term "Catholic". You believe it refers to religious Catholics rather than "ethnic" or "cradle" Catholics, but the source doesn't say that. So which one of us is engaging in personal speculation?

Likewise for the Didache issue. You argue that the passage refers to an attempt to distance Christians from Greek pagan practices or to condemn only sex with children rather than condemning homosexual acts, but that's your personal speculation. Many translations do use the word "pederasty", which is different than general pedophilia in the sense that it only refers to sex between men and boys rather than with children in general; and you yourself have pointed out that sex between men and boys was the most common form of homosexual sex in ancient Greece and therefore many people in that era probably viewed it as virtually synonymous with homosexual sex in general. So the term could probably serve as a stand-in for any form of homosexual sex in that time period. If the Didache was condemning pedophilia, why does it only refer to boys rather than both boys and girls? It almost certainly refers to one form of homosexual practice, which would make it relevant to an article about homosexuality even if it didn't refer to all homosexual sex in general. And I still think the term "pederasty" is going to be far more precise and understood than a vague phrase like "corrupting boys". CrispyFishnChips (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don`t think this article gets too judge who is Catholic and who isn`t. Neither do a couple of select sources. Also considering the widespread anti-Catholic anti-papal bias that influences these polls, they cannot just be repeated without question or without allowing the other side to be heard. There are also plenty of anti-Semitic sources but these usually get flagged a lot easier. This page should not celebrate dissent against the magisterium. Also one of these sources linked to an article which mentioned that the results were highly disputed including by the church. What is your definition of a reliable source? Why are Islamophobic sources quickly rejected but not anti-Catholic ones? Also anecdotal evidence has been used on various articles on religion in South and Middle America to show how liberal Catholics are and how Protestantism is on the rise, so there seems to be a double standard here. Also where do Wikipedia rules state more then 500 Catholics must be polled? Again anti-Catholic polls have succeeded with far less.

' Again there should be balance. The Catholic side is often silenced in the media the way Jews were in the thirties. So your standards put the Catholic faith at a disadvantage. John Cornwell published a bigoted book full of lies but he just got in the media more who repeated his falsehoods.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/13/figure-that-98-of-catholic-women-use-birth-control-debunked/

http://www.catholicvote.org/lgbt-funded-poll-claims-that-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/

83.128.175.68 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen you provide any reliable sources that show different results from these surveys or that show that these sources are unreliable. A survey finding that many Catholics don't agree with the church hierarchy's positions isn't "celebrating dissent", nor is it per se evidence that the source is unreliable. Reliable sources document what is the case, and we follow their lead. This doesn't seem like a productive line of discussion, and I'd recommend that we turn our thoughts back to how we can bring the section text in line with sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

General Social Survey

GSS data

• fivethirtyeight

Is this worthy of inclusion as a ref? -- Callinus (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC

Thanks, yes, I think there are elements that we should use. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Achieving GA status

I want to try and get this article up to Good Article status. But not sure how I need to go about it and who might help. Anyone any advice? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Note 65...

(to Cardinal Hume's letter) is a dead link!213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Great - thanks Roscelese. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong

While I'm a believer in keeping close to sources, I'm also a believer in ensuring we make articles clear to a reader. The Bishop of Hong Kong may have said in his letter that parishioners should "consider candidates' and their parties' stance on family and marriage issues" but what he means is voters should vote against candidates that promote LGBT issues such as gay marriage and discrimination provisions. As those are things that he has consistently opposed. And that position is cosnsistent with the wider points made in the source itself. He isn't saying that they should find pro-LGBT candidates and vote in favour of their policies is he? Let's say what is meant clearly and unambiguosly. Long-time followers of announcements and speeches from Catholic prelates on gay issues will be familiar with rhetoric that sounds like it is vague and woolly and means no harm to anyone, but does in fact contain a specific message. I want articles to be direct, transparent and open - rather than obfuscatory. This does no one any favours and is somewhat dishonest.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Contaldo80, I would suggest that the best way to do this, and to also remain compliant with WP:NPOV & WP:NOR (and WP:BLP), is to find a noteworthy commentator that makes that connection / interpretation / criticism, and cite them for their opinion. Doing so is even more important where we disagree with the stance taken by the by the subjects that we are documenting. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good suggestion. Will see what I can find. I think the article cited already actually partly does this, but will see what else is out there. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the direct quote is clear enough to any reader who has even a passing familiarity with the issues, whereas Contaldo's paraphrase makes it sound as if the cardinal wants to deny all human rights to homosexuals, which is not what he said nor is it the Church's position. Opposing gay marriage is not the same as denying all rights, so the paraphrase is misleading. Finding a similar paraphrase from an external source won't change much if the paraphrase is likewise misleading (I suspect the chosen source will be "The Advocate" or a similar LGBT publication). I think Wikipedia's usual policy is to use direct quotes rather than someone else's spin on the quote. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The direct quote is not helpful at all. The context is. The article sets the context. As we have a source we are able to use that to supplement the quote. If you think your approach might be better then it would help if you can set out here the rights that the cardinal does imply should be granted to LGBT people - and it might then reveal whether there is indeed an issue or not. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted Contaldo80's allegedly "closer to the source" edit as it introduced several things decidedly not found at all in the source. Elizium23 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

All the words you said weren't in the source actually were in there - which makes me question whether you actually read it properly. In any case to show good faith I have amended yet again to put the matter beyond doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't see where you are getting "employment" discrimination. The article says nothing about employment. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80: Your paraphrase claims that the cardinal opposes "protecting against discrimination in employment", although he never said that gays should be denied all employment opportunities, nor does the article claim that he did. The standard practice is to quote people instead of putting words in their mouth that they never said. CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"In his latest letter, Tong wrote: "In recent years, extreme liberalism, individualism, sexual liberation and gay rights movement [activists] … advocated that Hong Kong should introduce a sexual orientation discrimination ordinance and recognise same-sex marriage. This has shaken our society to its core." The SODO has been debated in Hong Kong for nearly twenty years and the proposal (rejected recently by lawmakers) is to introduce non-discrimination provisions related to employment/ services on the grounds of sexual orientation in order to bring this group into line with gender, ethnicity, and disability. The following links provide further information:

• http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1082499/lgbts-seek-ban-discriminating-against-them
• http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=358d3c48-aad6-4923-a615-0de98812c39f

It's also worth noting that the Catholic Church has consistently opposed the introduction of legidlation by governments on the grounds of sexual orientation (there is a section on this in the wikipedia article), and indeed continues to state that there are areas where such discrimination is legitimate (for example teaching). I appreciate some editors may be drawn towards a "damage limitation exercise" but this article really isn't the place for it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But that issue refers to the fact that the Catholic Church opposes forcing churches to hire people who violate, oppose, or seek to undermine the Church's teachings on morality, just as the Democratic Party isn't required to hire Republicans and an atheist club isn't required to hire Christians. That doesn't mean that either Tong or the Catholic Church support blocking gay people from other employment venues (e.g. a grocery store). If you really want to provide context, as you say, then you need to mention this crucial context. As for "edit warring" : you're doing that when you keep reverting the changes made by Elizium and myself, so don't accuse me (or him) of "edit warring". Why should your version be left in place while we debate this? CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Cardinal has stated his opposition to the SODO. The SODO aims at introducing non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the workplace (employment protections). The sources cited clarify what SODO is and what the Cardinal has says. That is perfectly sufficient to cover the text that has been proposed. Your arguments that SODO is forcing the Catholic Church to hire people that "undermine the Church's teachings on morality" is not supported by the sources and is conjecture. If you have a source then please put it forward, and we can consider how best to cover (without perhaps making this section much longer than it needs to be). The discussion about the Democrat party is off-topic, and I won't even begin to pretend to know what the "atheist club" is? You haven't given me any confidence in the arguments you've made for your reversion of the current text nor why there is a specific error/ failure to adhere to WP guidelines in that current text. In the absence of that there I see no reason why it should not remain in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

But your paraphrase makes it sound as if the cardinal wants to ban gays from holding any job. You really think he wants to keep gays out of McDonald's, Or is he worried that churches will be forced to hire people who violate the Church's rules on sexual activity? This is common sense, so I shouldn't need to prove the matter, nor should I need to keep arguing that a direct quote is preferable to someone's spin on it. If you think a direct quote won't provide "context", I would say that adequate context is provided by the two rebuttals given by his opponents which you included and I left in. One of these rebuttals is a direct quote from one of his opponents, so why isn't Tong's direct quote allowed? Should I put in a paraphrase of the rebuttal to replace the direct quote? Your only justification for paraphrasing Tong's quote is your personal view that his quote is "woolly" and misleading, which is your own subjective opinion. I think the rebuttals are badly misleading, but I haven't replaced them with my own spin on the matter. You need to allow consistent standards.

As a suggested compromise, I've left most of your version in, while changing only one phrase and adding a different direct quote which is more specific and therefore hopefully less "woolly". CrispyFishnChips (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090515135544/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/dreher/dreher052402.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher052402.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Donner60 - you reverted edits by Tiffanynicolina on the grounds of "Addition of negative unsourced content to a biographical article". The statement was sourced. But what annoys me is that you've described it as "negative". There is nothing negative about suggesting someone is gay. I personally agree that the statement is poorly sourced and speculative and violates BLP. But be clear to keep it out on those grounds without judgements on sexual orientation. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should assume good faith here. It would be negative, inasmuch as it would imply that the individual concerned was a thumping hypocrite, in most people's eyes. William Avery (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You can be a Catholic and homosexual and still not contravene any Church teachings. It only becomes an issue when you carry out sexual acts. So no, there wouldn't necessarily be hypocrisy, and I don't therefore know why I should assume good faith.Contaldo80 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive NPOV problem in intro

The following sentence is highly POV:

Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against same-sex marriage or have encouraged others to campaign against it, and have done likewise with regard to same-sex civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples, and other LGBT rights (including non-discrimination). (emphasis added)

This is clearly POV, coming specifically from the LGBTQA+ movement's perspective.

The final parenthesis is also problematic in light of paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

They [homosexual persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (emphasis added)

tl;dr: The above-quoted sentence from the intro needs to be revised so as not to be POV pro-LGBT movement. Crusadestudent (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you believe that the church hierarchy's pro-discrimination actions are at odds with its stated anti-discrimination position, perhaps you can take it up with them. The article will reflect reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese, even if I concede the parenthetical phrase, that doesn't change the fact that "LGBT rights" is massively POV in favor of the LGBT movement. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a non-starter as this is standard, neutral, encyclopedic language. I'd be interested in hearing what alternative you would suggest, but ultimately you're not going to get very far with that argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Then the purportedly neutral "standard encyclopedic language" is biased. Simple fix for that; journalists love it: "alleged LGBT rights"; opponents (i.e. the Catholic Church, the very subject of this article) would argue that all or most of the things the LGBT movement considers "LGBT rights" aren't rights at all. That's not a "fringe" opinion, it's just the position of the other side of the debate, and shouldn't be dismissed offhand. Other qualifiers that might get the point across might include "purported", "supposed", and "putative". I wouldn't jump to those, though, since they have pretty heavy skeptical connotations, whereas "alleged" is just a catchall neutrality-maker. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that this edit or one similar to it, depending on the grammatical context, would need to be made to other instances of "LGBT rights" to comply with WP:NPOV. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not going to work. Do you have any proposals that conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Otherwise, the tag will need to be removed - that kind of tag is intended to flag actual issues, not to serve as a permanent marker for when someone hasn't succeeded at imposing their POV change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So. what you're saying is: If liberals come up with a phrase, it's automatically NPOV, but if anyone challenges it, that makes it automatically POV? You don't seem to understand WP:NPOV very well:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

To use "LGBT rights" without a qualifier like "alleged", esp. in the context of this particular article where the subject (i.e. the Catholic Church) denies that these are such—and where this is not a fringe opinion—is most certainly "engaging in a dispute". The tone is decidedly partial towards the LGBT movement, and turns the article into a partisan commentary. It quite clearly "endorses the view" that "LGBT rights" are rights. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at your user page, @Roscelese, and I see that you identify as gay, according to one of your userboxes. I don't mean to insult, disparage, attack, or offend you by pointing this out, but it does reveal your own bias. Perhaps it is you who should stop pushing your own POV onto this article. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"LGBT rights" does not seem POV at all to me, and I support removing the POV tags. Sticking an "alleged" in front of it as you suggest would be POV. The Church's position on this topic is clearly described in the article. There is no need to use weaselly words such as "alleged" to hammer it home. LGBT rights do exist legally in many places, whether the Church agrees or not. Meters (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My talk page also reveals that I have been editing one hundred and twenty-six times as long as you. One more chance: Do you have any actionable, NPOV-compliant suggestions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some people who will say that habeas corpus, freedom from racial discrimination, etc are mere "alleged" rights. Such a position is now marginal, as it is also, from a global perspective, with respect to LGBT rights. William Avery (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

So now a majority viewpoint is the standard of "neutrality" on WP... gotcha... <rolls eyes> I give up arguing with you POV-pushers. Have it your way. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I get the sense rather that it's you pushing a particular POV here. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only thing "alleged" can do is remove POV; that's why journalists use it so ubiquitously. The users insisting on not using it, esp. in the context of an article about the debate over "alleged" LGBT rights, is the only POV-pushing happening here.

I'm done now. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I for one am relieved. And why do you keep saying odd things like "deus vult'? Puzzling. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, you just got here.  ;) "Deus vult!" is part of my WP signature. Fits in with the screen name. "Deal with it." (And here it comes again...) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Since a discussion of this type is going on over here, I figured it would be a good place to mention that there is a similar terminology discussion going on at the Courage International page in relationship to usage of the terms "gay" vs. "same-sex attraction" vs. other terms.Marauder40 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes I understand now. The cry used in the middle ages to defend the mass slaughter of foreigners and non-Christians. Inspiring stuff. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a very unsophisticated view of that era of history. Here's some free edjuhmuhcayshunal material for you. ;) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't blame me, blame my university history professors and their pesky historical evidence as opposed to religious bias. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)