Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.128.227.246 (talk) at 17:34, 20 February 2014 (concordat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on the
WikiProject Catholicism
General information
Main templates
Convention proposals
Essays
Related
icon Catholic Church portal (Talk)

This page contains discussion on how best to improve articles, lists, categories, and other items relating to this WikiProject. Please join in and help, or add items needing work to this page.

To do

Bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Please have a look at this article about a catholic bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige users deleted sources and tried to force their anti-catholic POV on it. They banned many people that tried to add sources. They didnt block me or Eastmain, but they deleted our sources we gave too. It appears that they don't like this catholic bishop.

Best version until now with 13 sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=343039227&oldid=343037941

And after deleting the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&action=historysubmit&diff=343481960&oldid=343039227

(At first they had planned on deleting the whole article but it didnt work)

Check out at the information on these other wikipedia articles about Seiwert Fleige and compare them to the info that is on there now. You will notice that its quite the oposite:

Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục

Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Sedevacantism

Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez --Michelle cannon (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sedevacantist, Traditionalist, and Schismatic Clergy

So I have started flagging these pages to come under this project, because I can't see any other place for them. I think we need to come up with a clear policy for what constitutes notability for clergy who have been illicitly ordained, since a lot of them, to be frank, aren't. I've prodded a few of the stubs, for not asserting notability. A lot of these pages also need POV cleanup, which I have been working on. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Shall I start a page to discuss policy on this? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a very interesting topic. Since Consecration is valid but illicit (ordination is not recognized) they are all parts of roman catholic church. Most of them are excommunicated but some are in union again like the bishops of Society of St. Pius X. We should work on good articles in this topic. --Templeknight (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You people should really prioritize moving the "Roman Catholic Church" page to just "Catholic Church"

For the following reasons:

  1. I hate to tell to you this but Eastern Catholics, esp. Byzantine Catholics and Middle Eastern Catholics bristle at being called Roman. They are Catholics, yes, and obey the Pope (Benedict XVI), yes, but by golly they're not Roman. It's bad enough they're persecuted silently in predominantly Orthodox or non-Christian or Muslim countries, but its worse to suffer the indignity of being called Roman from fellow Catholics and ignored that they are also Catholics.
  2. I find it intellectually perverse that when you search for Catholic Church you are redirected to Roman. Everybody in the world practically knows what you refer to when you refer to the Catholic Church. Another annoying thing is that I noticed that the Catholic Church article is being defined from the point of view of Anglicans - simply absurd. An honest encyclopedic article should be rendered from the point of view of the subject first and foremost, beginning what it means according to itself, according to its own definition of itself. Only then do you branch out the multiple uses of the term as they are used by lesser known or lesser popular entities.
  3. Having been educated at a de facto communist university and a proud source of communist party members, assassins, radicals, malcontents and supporters in decades past, surrounded by atheist and socialist friends, I can proudly say that I can be a very objective editor. An atheist can spit at your God or any god for that matter and get away with it. An objective atheist editor may not believe in your religion (the opium of the masses) but he should bloody hell respect it and treat it from their point of view first and foremost.
  4. A point of view is necessary; the point of view of the religion in question — otherwise you lose context. Only after setting and writing about the subject from the subject's point of view, only then can you write the counter-point. Only science can be written about with a neutral point of view. Religion is a belief system, ergo, it is dogmatic. It is practically the antithesis of science; there can never be a NPOV - the idea is misleading, dishonest, and stupid. The humanities will always be subject to a point of view simply because it is not science.
  5. The historicity of a religion can be objective simply because it is a series of events founded on facts or at least it can be treated similarly as a science, an object of history. Where it is based on tradition, it should be noted. When no counter example can be found, the tradition should hold - in order to preserve context.
  6. I have problems with the terminology and a lot of articles related to the Catholic Church. I have looked at the official sites of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lutherans, Armenian Orthodox, etc. - and they call themselves that - they don't call themselves as "Catholic", they don't refer to themselves as "Catholic". You define yourself by what you call yourself, otherwise you fall prey to being defined by what others call you - you're at the receiving end of childish name calling: nigger, fat-ass, shorty, fag, homo, loser - you get the point. You should concede that as far as these religions are concerned, they or some of them profess that they are part of the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" but that is as far as they go. I have tried to ask some of my Orthodox acquaintances if they are Catholic and the reactions are pretty blunt. The same goes to the protestants. They treat the word "catholic" like the plague. In an intellectual symposium, you may discuss it in detail ad nauseam - but don't do this in an encyclopedia.
  7. These articles related to the Catholic Church should be reviewed and edited correctly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should be understood by an 8th to 12th grader. Some editors make it overly complex in terms of minutiae - which is better suited to a specialist's journal. The writing should be elegant and concise and where there is minute detail - it should be left to the footnotes for the reader to open.
  8. I found the reasons of Vaquero100 to be very logical. Very intelligently thought-out reasoning. It is only my opinion, but his inputs are worth doing. The wikipedia articles regarding the Catholic Church should be written properly since, unfortunately, wikipedia is becoming more and more as a "trustworthy" source of information to today's students.
  9. My interest in wikipedia is simply as an intellectual outlet. Maybe I should have stuck to ancient Roman religion - but hey, where's the fun? There's just something in-your-face about the Catholic Church - huh, but what do I know.

Dr mindbender 07:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think before you speak. You have an issue with the Catholic Church, and you are disruptive to NPOV. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the Catholic Church, and the differences between the Eastern Catholic Churches compared to the Roman Catholic Church are titular only. Stop your whinging, and accept that the title of the greater Catholic Church is Roman. You claim to be an objective editor, only after claiming pride on association with Communist/Socialist and Atheist friends, and that you have a source of information regarding a plethora of Left Wing issues. So what? Any decent university has access to left wing people's biographies. Even if you have access, you still need to cite sources so your statement is irrelevant. I can very well say I can go to the library and tell you all about Jamie Hunter Cartwright, for example, and therefore my word on the issue does not need citing. Nor does it make me any more of an expert on Catholicism! Oh, and just so you know, the phrase is "Opiate of the Masses". Eedo Bee 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that user Eedo Bee has been blocked indefinitely. If the previous tirade is any indication of his approach to editing then I understand why. Majoreditor 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the word "Roman Catholic" is not meant to imply that the followers of the religion are Roman in descent; rather it refers to the fact that the church was first legally established in Rome, and that Vatican City, the physical location of the leadership of the "Roman Catholic Church" is located within Rome. In addition, it is used to differentiate the church from other churches which identify themselves as "Catholic" (a word which means "universal", and is not inseparably bound to one religion or another). The use of the word Roman does not refer to the Roman race, and certainly not to the ancient Roman system of deities. Hey jude, don't let me down 15:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ROMAN Does not belong as an antecedent to Catholic Church

1. You will find that the Church's own official documents never refer to the Church as the Roman Catholic Church.

2. As best as I can learn, the "Roman" antecedant was first used by Anglicans and perpetuated by Protestants in general to "localize" the See of Peter as just the "Roman church" which "papists" wrongly give allegiance -- when in fact, they claim, any other national church (the Anglican or French, for example) is allegedly equal to the Roman church.

3. I would love it if the bishops would start insisting that (a) the yellow pages list all Catholic Churches under Catholic, or at least Catholic - Latin Rite and (b) send out routine corrections to all the media when Roman Catholic is used.


The problem: it is a church without a name. The church in question calls itself 'The Church' (but there is more than one 'church' - denomination) or the 'Holy Roman Church' (which does not make clear that the Eastern Rite has separate patriarchs & overlooks the use of 'Roman Rite'). People call it the 'Catholic Church' (but other churches use this name) or the 'Roman Catholic Church' (but it is not all of the Roman Rite). It needs a distinctive name! MH au 06:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • There is only one catholic church but many parts of this catholic church and the ROMAN Catholic Church is one of the parts with the claim to be the head of all the parts and the goal to unite them all. So the ROMAN is needet to express reality. After complete union it might become unnecessary, but not before --Templeknight (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is NPOV to say that the Catholic Church contains various rites (eg. Roman, Eastern, Anglican), but as a whole it is one church. I do believe, therefore, that the suggestion holds great merit. In fact, I believe accuracy demands it. -- Alvincura (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Catholic church is Roman, because its center is Rome. If Rome is destroyed, it shall be rebuilt, for God has made a covenant with the Roman Pontiff. It is unseperable. Now if we wish to speak about churches with the little c, then of course , the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is further organized into the "Latin Church" or "Roman" and a several "Oriental" churches. A Melkite Rite catholic is still very Roman, because the union is with the Roman Pontiff and it is universal. Sure his customs may be different, beautiful and a symbol of the "catholic" aspect of the Church. It is not only to one race or nation, but the whole Universe. But its unity is in Rome. Cursed who despises the title of being Roman, because it deep inside a consequence of pride and egalitarianism. Be I of Syro, Urkrainian, or Latin rite, I am still a son of the Holy Father, Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff, Pastor of the Church. KNIGHT 746 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick review of the Orientalium Ecclesiarum Decreewhich makes clear the difference between the individual Churches or Rites (Eastern or Western) and the Holly Catholic Church (note there is no Roman anywhere in there). Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church states I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, again, no Roman anywhere in the creed itself. The authority of the Roman Pontiff over the Holly Catholic Church as a whole and the fact that his Apostolic See is actually Rome, is something different. So I concur with the merit of the suggestion and that it is in favour of the NPOV. BTW no need to curse anyone for posing suggestions on how to make articles more accurate. --Sacalvo (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioritizing this will adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. The common adjective commonly used used is "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic" because the latter is longer. The word "Catholic" already implies any individual or entity in communion with Rome. --Anime (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future articles for consideration

A scheme of articles which could be tied to the Catholic Church main page. Months of discussion on the Catholic Church page have gone into a plan to move as much detail off of the page as possible while connecting readers to a wide variety of articles. Much of the work has been done to move excessive content off to other pages. However, there is a need to put introductory material for many articles onto the main page to give readers an idea of the scope of material available.

I applaud the current effort to evaluate where we stand in developing WP articles, and am looking forward to digging into the project myself, I am concerned though that the present plan isn't as vision oriented as I would hope. I am re-presenting in link-fashion a working list of articles that has been in discussion for several months. Some of the articles have been developed since that conversation began, many have not.

There are few topics as complex and extensive as the Catholic Church, perhaps none. What other institution could produce a 28 volume Encyclopedia about itself--twice? This list below is partial and in my view represents a rather modest horizon.

While it is great to have the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia available online[www.newadvent.com] is has a tendency perhaps to limit our thinking by almost a century in many cases. There are many obvious articles to be developed (such as "Catholic devotions") which are the subject of hundreds--even thousands--of websites already. This is the easy work. However, there are many articles that I believe should appear here (and frankly I would love to read myself) which have not even begun to be touched and will have to be "researched" with more intensity and precision. Vatican Diplomatic Corps, for example, would be a fantastic read, could cover or at least introduce such topics as the role of the Church in the fall of the Soviet Union, the Church's influence in third world debt relief, the development of the Just War theory (in the Cold War and the War on Terror) etc. Also, it should be noted that while there are many topics the Catholic Church has in common with other Churches, such as "bishop" and "sacraments," there are perhaps many, many, many more that can be written only about the Catholic Church as it is the only institution which maintains a comprehensive body of teaching on every aspect of human endeavor.

I would hope that the articles listed below which have not yet been started, could at least begin in stub form and become part of the evaluation process. This list may stimulate your thoughts on other topics, please feel free to add topics you feel are missing.

... and whatever else may be missing... I am looking forward to good discussions with you all on the Talk page. Vaquero100 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needed

Article needed? Ecclesiastical base communities

So far, I see different articles on Central American topics that mention the CEB movement, but no article as such.
  • (1) Am I missing something? Is this part of a larger topic to which those mentions need to be directed?
  • (2) If not — if I'm right that the topic needs its own article — is there someone here who can do it? I last studied the topic in any depth five years ago, and then as part of Latin American anthropology. I couldn't begin to do the topic justice, yet the CEBs are a major part of Latin American, or at least Central American, 20th-century history. Lawikitejana 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just moved this from the Talk page for the current page to this current page. If it fit better on the Talk, let me know on my Talk page and I'll move it. I really couldn't figure out the right place for it.Lawikitejana 07:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for the "Truth about the Catholic Church" heading we could put together a section about "Common Misunderstandings about the Catholic Church"--Smak 84 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul Category

The Roman Catholic Church category is a total mess. I am prepared to put in significant effort to do a major reorganization. First, let's agree to a category tree structure. This is my initial proposal. Let's talk it out. Articles that don't fit nicely into subcategories will go into the overarching category. For instance, "History of monasticism" may go into "Roman Catholic Church History and Politics," since it doesn't fall neatly into any of the subcategories.MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Tree

Not all are done. Significant work remains in South America and in Africa/Asia. North America is complete, and Europe is almost finished. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is theology and doctrine underneath Roman Catholic worship? It surely deserves to be seperate. JASpencer 19:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my thought as well. Amicuspublilius 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganisation of the category is a good idea but where do the dioceses go? MH au 07:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my proposal, and what I've been working on for the last while.


Catholic Saint Update

I've added some more on stigmata, but there really is a whole lot more to be done here. Anyway, take a look at what I've got so far. We also need more citations, and better referencing in this article. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Theology

Please double check this, it has been edited by myself and others. The general article needs revising, but insofar as Catholic dogma is concerned, I find it to be adaquate at this point. Am I wrong?Amicuspublilius 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks adequate to me, as far as the Catholic position goes. Anybody else? Cheyinka 08:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclicals

There is a List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II, List of Encyclicals of Pope John XXIII, List of Encyclicals of Pope Paul VI, and List of Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI. Theres also a List of Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI but he's only written one, and it's fairly well covered.

Below are the JPII ones that need work / need to be started. Most of the ones that exist are only stubs, and all can use significant work.

Catholic People

Has been done - Paluzzo Paluzzi Altieri degli Albertoni. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

I just created the stub - it still needs lots of work, though. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this as well, I restructured and placed a TO-DO in the discussion. The main point is to find a way to deal with the group of Catholic "hits" on Freemasons in a balanced manner. In any case I gave it a massive overhaul. Amicuspublilius 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but may need more.Robotforaday 18:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christianese - there's an interesting section about "the Roman church", presumably us. It needs work, but I'm struggling for how to reword the section. It might be interesting to give some examples within that section - Tradition vs tradition, others if someone thinks of them
I went to town on the article, since it was insidiously anti-Catholic. It is still partisan, but I'll leave Protestant sectarian POV to be rooted out by competing Protestant sectarians. For the Catholic Church, I placed Catholic addenda. Feel free to review and add/edit. Amicuspublilius 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Just completed the redirect, posted the article a week or so ago. -Pax85 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregorian mass Could someone please proof read or add more to this page, thanks.
I have done this but this article is severely lacking and it requires a lot more research for expansion.-- S Masters (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Narration

Need any narrations?Go ahead and add any article!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Encyclopedia

I think we should jump in on the effort to copy all Catholic Encyclopedia articles to Wikipedia. MamaGeek  TALK  CONTRIB  12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not verbatim of course. It almost always contains a distinct POV and is frequently out of date. See Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics for more guidelines about how to convert Catholic articles into Wikipedia ones. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popes

Especially for some of the earlier Popes we have a lot of stubs and poorly organized articles. We have public domain Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 Britannica to be working with on these—I doubt things have changed much. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added WikiProject:Catholicism banners to the talk pages of all the Popes which didn't have one, which was the vast majority. Many of the articles are very poorly written; I made some changes to a few pages and will continue editing, but it's really a large task. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished expanding the Pope Urban I page as much as I could with the little information I had. I would like a member of the project to go over and provide some feedback on it. As as didnt do it with any reference to the Project. oops... Gavin Scott 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church Main-Page Project

There has been a great deal of discussion on Talk:Catholic Church about re-organiaing the page. Most recently this began with a proposal by Dominick to merge the Catholic, Criticisms of the Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church pages. There is a lot of merit in this approach and with some gradual persuasion of opponents we may eventually make progress toward having an article or two under the Catholic Church's name. I believe some real progross has been made recently on the Roman Catholic Church/Name page.

In the meantime, there is a great deal of cleaning up to do on the CC (RCC) mainpage. I have begun an initial clean up by moving excessive content to other articles and referencing them under their section headings on the CC page. In some cases I have created new articles by drawing together material from disparate locations and reorganizing it into a more coherent single article.

When we have cleared up the naming issue, which as I mentioned above is in the works, I believe that Cathlicism on WP could have its own portal as Eastern Christianity has done recently to good effect.

The topic of Catholicism as you all know is vast, perhaps meriting its own Wikipedia (as it already has its own encyclopedia in two editions) one day. Here are some topics I have thought of that could be organized an referenced on the CC page and eventually on a Catholicism portal. Many already exist under different titles or in stub form. The idea is to get them all tied into the main page for ease of reference for the user. Please feel free to add to the list or make modifications to reference articles already in existence or that you have created.

  • Sacraments (Catholic Church)
  • CC and Scripture
  • Tradition in the CC
  • Eastern Rite Catholic Churches
  • CC and pro-life issues
  • CC and Church-State relations
  • CC and Reformation theology
  • CC and diplomatic relations
  • CC and the UN
  • Vatican City
  • CC government (ecclesiology)
  • CC and the theology of priesthood
  • CC and education
  • CC and higher education
  • CC and the medical profession (industry)
  • CC and biomedical ethics
  • CC and the legal profession
  • The Catholic parish
  • The priestless Catholic parish
  • CC and the arts
  • Faith and Reason in the CC
  • CC and Catholic politicians
  • CC and Evolution
  • CC and the Sciences
  • CC and the "Anglican Use"
  • Catholic teachings on sexual morality
  • Spiritualities and prayer forms of the CC
  • CC and Vocational discernment
  • CC and business ethics
  • Government of the CC
  • The Papacy in scripture, tradition, and history
  • Early Christian Church
  • Medieval Church History
  • CC perspectives on the Reformation
  • CC and Modern History
  • Pacifism and the Just War theory in the CC
  • CC and the wars of religion
  • Historically Catholic nations
  • Saints in the CC
  • Marian doctrines of the CC
  • CC and the Evanglical Christian movements
  • Catholic apologetics
  • Liturgy in the CC
  • Catholic Church and ecumenism
  • History of Religious Life in the CC
  • RCIA in the CC
  • The Reforms of Vatican II
  • CC and Society of Pius X
  • CC and History of celibacy
  • Lay movements in the CC
  • CC and relations with other catholic churches
  • The Vatican II era in the CC(1961-1978)
  • The John Paul II era in the CC(1978-2005)
  • Mysticism and the CC
  • Canon law (Catholic Church)

User:Vaquero100

Vespers and Phos Hilaron

If someone could visit Phos Hilaron and add material on Western Catholic use of the hymn (ancient and modern), I would appreciate it. Mangoe 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octogesima Adveniens

I'm new at this and I just created the article on Octogesima Adveniens, an Apostolic Letter by Paul VI and I would really appreciate help expanding it. I just put a skeleton up there. Thanks! JelloSheriffBob 8 January 2007

P.S. I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place to put this request, so someone please move it if this request shouldn't be here!

Preces (Opus Dei)

If there's anyone well-versed in Latin-- this article is on a prayer, but I've only been able to find a Latin version. It'd be nice to have an English translation for our readers. --Alecmconroy 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Enraght

This could be a quality article but it is in need of a dedicated and experienced editor. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Urban I

Could someone have a wander over, review my work and maybe give the page a rating. I dont think it qualifies as a stub anymore either. Gavin Scott 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, almost a year has passed since my request for an article review- perhaps I put it in the wrong place (I wasn't very familier with the Project and indeed, im still not). Anyway, just an update Saint Urban's article has been given quite a makeover by myself- and some others- over the last year. Indeed I discovered that much of what I presented back in May 2007 was all untrue- the Pope was never martyred as I originally believed, ofcourse these difficulties exist when writing about the early Popes. Any feedback is still wanted. Gavin Scott (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign of the Cross

Could someone check out that article. I believe that article is relevant to the Catholic Church, but it seems that this article becomes very Eastern Orthodox oriented and leaving out all details related to the Western Christianity. Olentz 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the edit war has stop, the article neutrality is acceptable now. However, I still think that this article is far from done. And I am sure that the sign of the cross is very familiar to most of us, Catholic. Olentz 05:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now it is looking fairly decent. Should this section be pulled off of To-do? TMLutas (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

There is a lively discussion/debate on criticism of Mother Teresa if anyone wishes to weigh in. Majoreditor 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Publishing House

I have created a stub for this. Anyone care to expand? Phil Bridger 10:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do it. I can probably find a good amount of info on it. freenaulij 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism article needs clean up

Catholicism needs a proper lead section (see WP:Lead) and possibly reorganization as well. It certainly would benefit from some work from an editor with knowledge of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another for cleanup Giovanni Minzoni Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being Stonewalled

I wanted to add in a line to show where Naturalism's core believe lays but it seems the some of them object to clearly stating their beliefs. What I wrote was discribed as an "invention of enemies of naturalism" and they are trying to stonewall my addition based not on truth but now on consensus building...where they refuse to give any sources of why what I wrote shouldn't be included. So to show more "Census building" I plead for other Catholics to help advance truth. Please visit the talk page of "Naturalism (philosophy)" Theology10101 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being 'stonewalled' for a reason; Please read WP:CANVASS before posting around for yes-men in the future. Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok to do Neutral Canvassing. I was neutral with my comments here...the only thing I asked was to advance truth. I didn't say what the truth was...but please stop following me around and make comments after every single edit I make in order to aggravate me and to discourage editing. Please see wiki's policy on trolling (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F#Types_of_trolling) I'm not accusing you of it but behaviors might look similar. Theology10101 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the full canvassing details; a neutral message is not canvassing, but a neutral message to a select group of people who are perceived to have a particular stake in the subject under discussion is. I am not trolling (and I find it offensive that you say I am); I am posting here because your edit here is in direct relation to the discussion we are having on the Naturalism talkpage. It is not to frustrate you or to make editing difficult for you. 'I didn't say what truth it was', well surely you can only have one 'truth' at a time. You don't believe that there is only one true god and also that there are a thousand different gods, say. We do not deal with 'truths' on Wikipedia, we deal with hard, verifiable facts. Ours is not to judge, but to provide reliable references documenting all points of view on a particular topic. Describing something as 'truth' is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. And please don't use my 'documenting all points of view' bit to say that your point about Naturalism should be included in the article, that is a different matter entirely since that is dealing with the separation of information, not the removal of it. I invite all the people here to comment on the Naturalism (philosophy) talkpage, since I know that in this case you are in the wrong, not in terms of what is and is not 'naturalism' but where this information should be included. Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies, I didn't realize that Naturalism is a Religion. Thank you for allowing people who adhere to religion to comment on what is a simple logic of Naturalism that is cited by many sources and fits well into the Philosophy of Naturalism. Theology10101 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? Naturalism is not a religion, I never claimed it was. I assume you're being sarcastic; regardless, you've been told what is and is not meant to be covered by the Naturalism (philosophy) article and that is a discussion for there, not for here. Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a total nonsense. Theology10101 is attempting to insert material which has nothing what so ever to do with the naturalising approaches to philosophy. S/he has been pointed to the disambiguation page on "naturalising" but refuses to respond. S/he has indulged in edit wars on the article in question and two others and has been banned for a period as a result. His/her user page was subject to admin sanction for some of the comments about other editors (you will have to look at the edit history as Theology deletes anything unfavourable). The statement by Theology10101 above bears no relation to the arguments that have been presented to him/her. The sources s/he quotes are from web sites of dubious authority. The behaviour of this editor is now becoming more and more akin to being a troll and far too much time is being wasted. I am a catholic, and I have a training in philosophy and I see no conflict between adopting a naturalising approach to ontology or epistemology and faith (this is not really relevant but it makes a point) --Snowded TALK 00:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturalism is not a religion it seems that ironholds thinks that Catholics can't be neutral for something that is a philosophy. Snowded, please Don't lie, I've never been banned, my citations are good....Please don't try to use this area for personal attacks and slander Theology10101 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair now I've checked you weren't banned just teetered on the edge (you were reverting so fast on three different articles it was difficult to keep up). The interesting edit on your talk page however is this deletion]. I think the problem is that you simply don't understand the replies that you are receiving from many editors, or the need for citations to be something other than a web site with no official status. --Snowded TALK 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For fairness sake, I dropped all attention to other articles to defend one at a time. What I wrote in any article isn't wrong and am willing to defend. It was you also, who reverted every edit I've ever made in the past month all at one shot, even the revert of vandalism. I am able to clean up my own talk page. I'm planning on removing the rest as soon as all this slander is over with. But this is not the place for this...nor attacks. Please, please quit following me around every place I make an edit. Theology10101 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an example of the difference between a neutral point of view and a Catholic point of view. For the latter (which is basically my own point of view), a Catholic wiki is more appropriate. --Hugetim (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Armagh

In the article on Ecclesiastical province#Catholic Church (4th paragraph) is the following: "In Ireland the province of Armagh and several dioceses including Armagh itself straddle the internal border." Should that be "international"? Should it include "between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"? Eagle4000 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenism Orthodox

I think this piece should be rewritten because it depicts a wrong image of those relations (negative), because of the big progress made with the Russian Orthodox church and the other Eastern Richardprins (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Punishment

Could somone look at this page I think it is incorrect in stating the Catholic Church's views on the Death Penalty. Thank You
AMDG
Etineskid (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman Catholicism in the Philippines

This is my first attempt to create a Template about Catholicism in a sovereign nation. This is very exhaustive and has lots of topics. As much as possible, I would adhere to WP:COMMONNAME to make the Template more readable. I just want to get some feedback from you guys especially for those who are not Filipinos? How would this Template appeal to you? Thanks! --Anime (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priest shortage in the Roman Catholic Church

This article is of very low quality, on a number of levels. (And whether it should exist as an independent article at all is debateable.) Because its title is a common search query it is bound to frequently be visited from search engine users who will presume that it has been subject to the normal Wikipedia standards of quality. Any help to improve the article would be welcome. --145.226.30.45 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concordat

Could we get some eyes on this article? Looking at the talk page, I really don't have the energy I think is probably needed to sort this out. I gather at one point it had a large "criticism" section sourced almost entirely to blatantly anti-Catholic websites, then it became essentially a list page. Currently, it has no "criticism" section but has an "Examples of Concordats" section whose tone is exemplified by this sentence: "Another way to keep Church income untaxed is to keep it secret."

It's a shame, because I'd really hoped it would have a more extensive list of countries that the Vatican currently has treaties or concordats with. 86.128.227.246 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/To-do_list&oldid=596365216"