Talk:Catholic Church

Moved History

Per the discussion in "Communion of Churches", I moved the history to the end. What I hope this produces will be to introduce the organization of the Catholic Church as it exists today, followed up by styles of worship, then doctrine, then the history of the organization. Within the leading "Organization..." section, I combined the "Communion of Churches" section, with a better description of how these fit within the larger Church, per worries that the previous phrases might overly distort one's impression of the Church.

Comments, Objections, Other ideas? --Zfish118 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation name

The "confirmation name" custom is unknown in many Catholic countries, perhaps most. So does the cited reliable source, Schreck's Essential Catholic Catechism, to which I don't have access, really say that, "to be properly confirmed" (whatever that means), one must have "selected a saint to be their patron and intercessor"? Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If Schreck made that statement, it certainly is a misguided interpretation of the difference between a custom and a canonical requirement. Unless someone can justify this statement with another reliable source, I suggest that the statement should be removed. Cresix (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit adding the statement was made by NancyHeise (talk · contribs) and sourced later, possibly as an afterthought. It makes me wonder if the information actually is in Schreck. Cresix (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Choosing a confirmation name is a custom depending on your country of origin, not a canonical requirement. It's not mentioned in the catechism nor is it in the liturgical book for the rite of Confirmation, so I would say that quote is erroneous.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole line about spiritual preparation is rather spurious, as the very next line says that infants can be confirmed. Preparation is important, but it is merely a custom, not a requirement --Zfish118 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation in infancy only occurs in Eastern Rites, as stated in the article. To my knowledge in the Western Church, there is always some preparation for confirmands. Cresix (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the West the canonical age for confirmation is the age of discretion (about 7), and the episcopal conference can set a later age as normal. (A much later age in the United States, except in Arizona.) However, if the child is in danger of death, the child is to be confirmed even before reaching the age of discretion. The parish priest/pastor has the faculty of confirming in those cases, without having to call on the bishop. Esoglou (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Latin Rite requires preparation for confirmation except in the case mentioned above (per the Catechism).  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

CCC 1307 (see it in the link you provided) states explicitly: "For centuries, Latin custom has indicated 'the age of discretion' as the reference point for receiving Confirmation. But in danger of death children should be confirmed even if they have not yet attained the age of discretion." The preparation that CCC 1309 refers to can of course be done with children who have reached "the age of discretion", without their having to be 17 years old or thereabouts. The requirements indicated in CCC 1310-1311 of course do not include taking a "confirmation name". Esoglou (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we have enough to remove the comment in the article about "confirmation name". I'll remove it. If anyone can provide reasonable evidence otherwise feel free to restore it. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've spent the last month or so working on organizing and better presenting the existing content on this page. In the past, I've worked on several other Catholic related articles.

In this article, I particularly focused on the doctrine section, which seemed more of a long list of ideas, rather than narrative. Mostly I focused on existing content, but did work to fill a few holes, and helped integrate some new sections. I'd like to open it up to the Wikipedia "peer review" process to shed some light on areas of further improvement. Any help with getting the peer review process underway would be greatly appreciated!

Link to the peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Catholic_Church/archive1

--Zfish118 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

English

What sort of English should this be written in? British or American? Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick use of the find tool on google chrome revealed seven instances of the word "organization" and 2 of the word "organisation" I will change the words "organisation" to "organization" for continuity until this subject can be discussed further. A check of the Manual of Style reveals that both are acceptable in the UK and Canada. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As a point of reference, this has been discussed recently (and probably more than once): Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_51#British_English. Cresix (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was actually about to post that link myself. I think it would be a good idea to establish a firm consensus and maintain it somewhere (preferably a non-archiving talk page post) as suggested in Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_51#Typo. That way we don't have this happen every few months.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like no consensus to me. Although I am an American, I don't have a true preference as to which way this is written, but I would like to see a "Use British English" or "Use American English" line at the top of the page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus we established is that most of us didn't care which we used as long as it was used consistently. Cresix posted it because we had this discussion fairly recently and wanted you to be able to see what we had discussed. The next relevant edit revised the article to include a majority of British English.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus was that no one really cared one way or the other, I've gone ahead and changed most of the article to American spellings. Much of the history section was already written using American spellings, and there were only about 25 words using British spellings in the rest of the article (excluding organisation, which has already been converted to organization). --Zfish118 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected, the history had a few British words tucked in, my spell check just didn't catch up! I believe I've corrected all the obvious ones, though a few may have escaped.--Zfish118 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If no one strongly objects, there is an "American English" template available at Template:American_English--Zfish118 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I do strongly object. The article was originally written in British English and unless you can show a valid reason to change from that WP policy is to stick with it. Haldraper (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While this article may have been written in British English long ago, it seems that it has evolved into an article with mostly American English spelling. And according to MOS:RETAIN,"When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety." I think that if early on the Wikipedia community had chosen British English it should have stayed that way, but now it should follow American English. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, not only was it first written in British English but it has continued using it until very recently. Articles about British or American institutions should conform to British or American English but that is clearly not the case here. I think people who want to change from British English to American English should put forward clear reasons why they think it necessary. Haldraper (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Through an analysis of 17 different words that can be spelled differently using British or American English before I made my first edit on the subject I found these results: 24 individual words containing British English spellings, 21 words containing American English spellings. In addition, 5 words containing American English spellings were contained in references, one word containing American English spelling was contained in the footnotes section. Through this I think we can say that the article is written in British English. I will be tagging to avoid edit warring and I will make the spelling consistent throughout. Discussion can still continue on here, but if the issue is not definitively chosen to be American English, it should be British for now. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be an acceptable compromise to adopt the practice used in United Nations documents? That is, to follow non-American rules, but with the Greek-derived endings -ize, and -ization, rather than the French-derived -ise and -isation. This, the Oxford University practice, is fully accepted in Britain and other countries, though not, I think, in Australia. See en-GB-oed. Personally, I think that this should be the practice throughout an international project such as Wikipedia, but I think any proposal to make it a rule for Wikipedia would arouse too much opposition. However, it can surely be adopted for this article. Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed; however, before we make the change I would like more people to comment, specifically Haldraper. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit for the record that was using a bold-revert-discuss tactic ;-). I think it should be in American English mostly because I'm an American, and my spell-check lights up like crazy editing this article, haha. I can accept though that British English is used world-wide and would be more familiar to possibly a majority of the world. I would consider that a good reason to use British English for the Catholic Church article, as it is a worldwide organization. Merely using it because this article was originally written in such a language I don't think is a good enough reason. This article has been edited so heavily, that it barely resembles its original form. New pieces are added in both American and British English and are only intermittently copy edited to British spellings, so I think that the language choice should be based on what is most easily maintained personally. However, I will defer to worldwide readability if that is the consensus. Right now, British English seems to have the most support, but are there enough Brit's out there to correct our American misspellings? :P--Zfish118 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "reaching a compromise" or what suits an editor's spellchecker but of following WP policy. Even if Zfish thinks that "using it [British English] because this article was originally written in such a language I don't think is a good enough reason", Wikipedia does: MOS:RETAIN states "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."

This article was originally written in British English and has used it since. There are no national ties to the topic so no basis for any change. Haldraper (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to the Oxford University practice, as the Catholic Church is an international organization. The question is, can this be maintained successfully? We would need to be very direct in advertising its use and very vigilant in maintaining it, as the natural instinct of most Wikipedians is to edit in their native idiom, and this is neither wholly American nor wholly British.

I think the assertion that the article has used British English (unless you mean intermittently) since its inception is weak. And again, by the logic of that very same section of MOS:RETAIN, one can easily argue that it's not clear which variety of English it employs as at various points it has been British, American, and (the horror) a hybrid of both. Additionally, Wikipedia clearly favors editing via consensus over strict adherence to policy (within reason, we're not going all BLP-crazy here), so I would say it is most definitely a question of "reaching a compromise" at this point.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 20:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with Esoglou's proposed compromise - British English with -ize preferred to -ise - is that I think it would be confusing for new editors who would not unreasonably conclude that the page was written in American English and write text accordingly. No one as far as I can see has made a compelling case for switching from British to American English. Haldraper (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The choice of British or American English is such a trivial matter (although consistency is much more important). Therefore, as an American, I will hereafter push for adoption of British English in the hope that at least a small consensus will emerge to settle this once and for all. I would recommend to anyone interested in my opinion to support British English, not because it is a better choice, but just to end this. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Haldraper, which British English? There is more than one. Esoglou (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

American English isn't always consistent either. The reasonably common American use of "theatre" instead of "theater" is one example - and "catalogue" instead of "catalog" is another. Anglicanus (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two distinct authoritative British spellings with regard to -ize/-ise, one backed by Oxford University, and used in particular in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary, the other by Cambridge University. It isn't just a matter of common usage. The choice is between a British spelling that has the backing of the United Nations, and a British spelling that has the backing of the Commonwealth agencies. Haldraper prefers the latter, so as to mark the choice of spelling as more evidently non-American. In this article, Haldraper's choice is in possession, and not enough opposition to it has emerged to justify making a change. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bold Edit - History section

Due to the huge length of this article, and comments in the Peer Review, I used summary style to dramatically condense the history section (mostly based off of the lead section in the History of the Catholic Church article). I did a quick comparison and found old history section and the history article to be largely equivalent, although the history article appears to still be in development. This may free up space to cover more contemporary issues, or other improvements to the article

I preserved the old history section here: Talk:Catholic Church/Old history section (June 2011)

--Zfish118 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Final sentence of lede may need a comma.

The final sentence of the lede seems to read awkwardly. "Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her life." Either a comma after sin or addition of the word 'her' before the word 'bodily' may clean it up. I'm going to be bold, but please revert if my grammar is wrong.I also added the word 'mortal' so that it now reads, ""Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception without the stain of original sin and her bodily Assumption into heaven at the end of her mortal life." Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Catholic Church teaches that Mary still lives spiritually.--Canadiandy talk 05:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church teaches that everyone still lives spiritually, so you are correct. Your edit looks good.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the bit about the paedo priests?

Just wondering, because searching for "paedophile" in the article, it seemed to be oddly absent...