Talk:Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History

I think that this article may be improved by adding information about the History of the Catholicism and Abortion.Naraht (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good start, but there's a dearth of explanation. What happened that caused the Church to make this rather sudden turnaround in the 19th century? Why did they choose to reject the teachings of respected church fathers like St. Augustine and St. Anselm, and what did the conflicting early sources have to say about the subject? (The Didache, Athenagoras of Athens, and Tertullian are mentioned, but it doesn't say what they said about abortion, only that they were against it. It's interesting that none of these authors are saints, in contrast to those who were more tolerant of abortion; today these saints would likely be excommunicated for openly defending abortion.) On what basis did the Church decide that the soul enters the body at the point of conception? 174.111.242.35 (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of this information is discussed at length in History of early Christian thought on abortion and in Ensoulment. I think it's a good idea to keep the material here as specific to Catholicism as we can, given that the very early folks influenced all branches of Christianity and not just Catholicism. If there is more information you think belongs in this article, can you propose specific material you'd like to add? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Specious reasons for blanking "controversy" section

Haymaker, if you have a problem with the lack of a "support" section, write one. If you think twenty-first century incidents are not enough, find more. Alternately, you could integrate these incidents into the article if you want to avoid a criticism ghetto. The listed incidents were extremely widely discussed and, considering the amount of opposition to RCC policy, are not undue; your comment doesn't even attempt to disguise your motive. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Roscelese, please try to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Abortion has been a topic of discussion inside that Church for 2,000 years, the incidents you listed were but a drop of water in the sea of discussion and history of this topic. To devote and entire section to a hand full of one-sided American-centric happenings from the last decade is highly undue. - Haymaker (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think the section is US-centric, I encourage you to read it before blanking it. I know reading things might seem like a novel idea, but it's really worth a try. (I'm just going to assume you haven't read it, since to claim that it is US-centric reflects either a failure to read it or a malicious desire to misrepresent the content.) I refer you to my previous comment, which addressed your objections. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Have no fear, I did indeed read it as I have read your above comment. A one-sided American-centric section of incidents from the past decade would be undue. - Haymaker (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing that that's a description of an imaginary section that exists only in your mind, rather than of the section you deleted. Since you don't appear to have any actual arguments, I'll ask you to please restore the section. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I appear to have failed to mention it before, you mention the alleged lack of balance resulting from the inclusion of just a few of the many reasons for which RCC policy on abortion has been condemned. Did you just not realize that the article as it stands is essentially a "support" section with no counterpoint, or is it that you think that Federico Lombardi is the person we should be striving to emulate here? I'm assuming the former, so I hope this comment is enlightening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep a civil tone. There is nothing wrong with Fr. Lombardi. The text you are trying to insert in this article is recentist, unbalanced, unrepresentative of a global Church and undue. - Haymaker (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's nobody's business but your own if you want to emulate Lombardi in your personal life, but Wikipedia is not the Vatican press office. It isn't our responsibility to make sure that this page stays pro-RCC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is that man's name being used as an insult? - Haymaker (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because the Vatican Press Office's job is to promote the Vatican, and Wikipedia's job is not. Mixing the two up is a bad idea. If it helps, Wikipedia is the one with the globe in the upper left (at least in the skin I'm using, go figure). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, there is no need to deride the man. - Haymaker (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is derisive about saying that he would have a massive conflict of interest if he were to grace us with his presence as an editor here at Wikipedia. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should Catholicism and abortion include a brief section listing some notable controversies stemming from the Roman Catholic Church's position on abortion, including that nine-year-old in Brazil, the excommunication of Margaret McBride, and Pope Benedict's comments about excommunicating pro-choice politicians after Mexico liberalized their abortion laws?

Haymaker believes that this section (which one can view in the page history) is US-centric and undue, and that the article lacks a corresponding "support" section. I argue that it's not US-centric as, out of four bullet points, two are from outside the United States; that it is not undue as the incidents are but a few of the most widely discussed ones, which appear in histories and encyclopedias as well as news coverage; and that the article is a corresponding "support" section if no criticism is to be allowed.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is largely correct. I do not buy the argument that the article is a "support" section. To date the article states the position of the Church and the history of how it got that way with no particular commentary how people feel about it. The proposed text is one-sided, recentist (this is a 2,000 year old policy, these are cherry-picked incidents from the last decade), non-reflective of the global nature of that Church (none from outside the Americas, half from the United States), unnecessary and undue. - Haymaker (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also. Editors might also be interested in commenting on the use of Facts of Life by Brian Clowes to claim that the RCC has supposedly been consistent on abortion for over two millennia. Bypassing the fact that the RCC hadn't yet existed for two millennia when the book was published, here's some of what I said on it earlier:

Clowes's PhD is in civil engineering and systems science, not in religion, history, sociology, or philosophy; Facts of Life is published by Human Life International, not by a reputable and neutral scholarly publishing house; and Clowes himself appears never to have published anything on this subject in a peer-reviewed publication. In contrast, Kristin Luker, a decorated sociologist, writes in a book nominated for a Pulitzer that early Christian thought on abortion varied. I erred on the side of keeping Clowes, even though he's neither notable nor authoritative, by prefacing the statement with "Some pro-life supporters believe," but this was reverted.

You're also welcome, of course, to comment on whether or not Clowes should be included at all, but he has no qualifications and certainly should not be cited for anything other than his own opinion (or civil engineering, his field of expertise, but that's not at issue here).

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • I cannot see how you can have an article with this title without including notable instances. Although I must say that the article is doomed to always be a lightning rod. 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the section, adding CFFC's 1984 NYT ad. I also found a lot of information on the controversy around the banning of abortion in Poland at the behest of the Church, but I wasn't sure I should include it as it can also be interpreted as a church-state separation conflict that happens to have abortion as its central issue, rather than a controversy about RCC abortion policy per se. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There deserves to be mentions of these notable instances, but they also deserve to be integrated into a narrative whole. Why were these abortions events news stories in this century rather than past ones? Why are there so few of them, and why did they get so much coverage? I understand Haymaker's objection to merely making a list. If we are to include this "recentism" it should be part of a paragraph that explains its context and not a context-free bulleted list. Shii (tock) 04:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe these as "few" - it's not like the list that's currently there exhausts the possibilities. That aside, can you recommend any sources to start with, besides the ones cited? I'm wary that we'd be speculating on the causes, or synthesizing.

Also, what do you think would be relevant? A couple of the (cited) sources relating to communion/American politicians talk about the Catholic voting bloc, whether it still is a voting bloc, and which candidate wins it, for example; the Repubblica sources brings up a number of issues. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's turn the "controversy" section into a well-described "history" section. Can you access this book? [1] How about this one? [2] Here's a quote from another one: "Until the mid-nineteenth century, the Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment. Not until 1869, at about the same time abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895, it condemned therapeutic abortion." p.16 "A study of working-class women in New York in the 1930s found almost identical abortion rates among Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant women." p.137 Shii (tock) 05:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I can't get at either of those books, alas. Your point about 1869 is a good one; it's already in at least one article on Christian thought on abortion (because I put it there; I can't remember which one, though), but it definitely belongs here. The last book you linked could also be very useful although it would probably be easy to get off-topic with it.

As a side note, the last book makes me realize that it might be a good idea to include statistics as to Catholic opinion on the issues discussed. What do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I suggest working on the proposed history section here in the talkpage, and leaving up the existing section until it is finished. Such a section (because of its possible extreme range, what to include, what not to include) has a lot of potential to get out of hand, and maybe it should reach some stable version out of article space first. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of these suggestions. Also, there's a lot more information about this on Google, including a pro-life response I wasn't able to access (I'm not living in America); I think any reliable data from these publications should be integrated into the article Shii (tock) 05:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a line about polling, then. Here also is an article on Catholic voting in case you or I or anyone else wants to write about that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

oppose inclusion This article could spend all day listing every situation where Catholic rule limited some one's choice to abort that was mentioned by a WP:RS. This is an encyclopedia article aggregate of recent news or controversy. The current article does the topic justice with out Getting bogged down in every time the rule has adversely affect some one. Even if we did how would it be decided what would be included this rule affect Millions of catholics (are they a billion not sure off the top of my head) which would we include? There are number of cases we could include but where would we draw the line on which were important enough to be mentioned? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you noticed, but Shii rewrote it into a history section that also includes more recent evolution of the RCC's position, and the importance of Catholic condemnation of abortion from a historical perspective. Does that work for you? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. thats how we should be working The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Are there other things you think could be added to that section? (Shii mentioned using statistics as to the Catholic women who had abortions, which can be found in When abortion was a crime, linked above - anything else you think is particularly important?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

could you be more specific? I am unclear what you are referring to The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if you had any suggestions for ways to further improve the section. Are there important aspects of the history of Catholicism and abortion that the current article leaves out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the article in it's current form has problems

I think the current lead of the article has too much information. Without looking at the history of the talk page, it seems like the way it is currently written is the result of truce between people trying to push opposing POV in the lead of the article. I think it should have a just a few facts about the origins of the stance and perhaps the places where Church's stance is most in the news. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tottally agree Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) explains it quite clearly. The lead is not an introduction its a summary of everything below it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Which parts would you suggest removing, and what would you suggest adding, so that the lead is a better summary of the article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed this sentence :" The Church's opposition to abortion is also based on the Scriptural assertion that baptism is necessary for salvation; as those who are aborted cannot be baptized, an abortion has the potential result of depriving a soul of eternal salvation. " This sstatement is irrelevant in the abortion debate because this theory has been abandoned by the church a long time ago. In the high middle age already, it was admitted that the babies born without baptism were automatically saved, provided that their parents were christians. And now, the Church has even made it clear that all children born without baptism could be saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.28.178 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it was true, it was not cited, so you were right to take it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Didache

I have (perhaps temporarily) reverted the edit which added material from the Didache. The main reason is WP:RS/WP:NOR: Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. We need be citing secondary sources here which can add commentary and proper contextualization. Furthermore, it isn't clear how this text relates to Catholicism. It isn't in the New Testament, and was lost for thousands of years. Is is it canonical and still used by the church. Is it authoritative? How exactly does it related to Catholicism and how is it used by the that denomination? -Andrew c [[User talk:Andre w c|^[talk]]] 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Original research? The article on Didache has dozens of references. It is ridiculously obviously related to Catholicism - just look at its name - "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Also, a simple google search for "didache site:vatican.va" will answer your question "how it is used". The very first link is DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION. Also see http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2a1.htm. These two texts, among many others, reference the Didache

Please don't delete sourced text so gratuitously in the future. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Issues with sourcing aside, I see the main issue here as the one Andrew c points out: the Didache long predates Catholicism. Everything in the history section postdates the Great Schism and almost everything postdates the Protestant Reformation, so it's specific to Catholicism. Information on the Didache, unless it can be found to have an especially significant role in Catholicism (ie. more significant than other early texts), belongs in History of early Christian thought on abortion, where indeed its condemnation of abortion is mentioned several times. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Catholicism started in 33 AD. Why do you want to restrict it to the period after the Great Schism? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I said, we already have an article on abortion in early Christianity. Most of that is technically Catholicism too, but there's no reason to duplicate the information unless we have evidence, which you have not produced, that the Didache has been particularly important in Catholicism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do I need to provide evidence that the Didache is "particularly" important to Catholicism? To be included in the section, it needs simply to be relevant to the history of Catholicism and abortion, which it is. Given that it is simply one sentence, and very important to the history (as it contrasts a document from the Magisterium with theological opinions from saints), it is irrelevant that it is duplicated in another article. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many things that are "relevant to the history of Catholicism and abortion." Should we also include that early church councils punished abortion as a sexual crime rather than as homicide? Should we add the dozens of early Catholic thinkers who believed that the embryo had no soul? Or should we leave those in the articles where they belong and keep material here that is specific to Catholicism? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic thinkers who theorized about ensoulment are _already_ in the article (and I think it is deceptive, because it confuses a theoretical debate about ensoulment with the morality of abortion, which doesn't depend on "ensoulment"). Anyway, the point about the Didache is that it is very relevant, because it is very early, from a time when even even the Protestants agree it was the Christian Church. Also, the Didache speaks precisely about the subject matter, without going into tangents about "ensoulment". It is plainly clearly worthy of being in this article. How can I ask third-party review? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an RfC process for requesting comment on articles. As for the medieval thinkers, you make a good point - would you support removing the pre-Reformation material here to Ensoulment and adding a "see also" to that article and to History of early Christian thought on abortion at the top of the history section? That way, we wouldn't be giving undue weight to any position on early and medieval Catholic beliefs, whether it was that they condemned abortion as murder or that they thought the embryo had no soul and abortion was not murder. The history section would then begin with Alphonsus Liguori, unless material was found that was earlier but post-Reformation, and readers would be able to get a more complete background by reading the other two articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense to remove those theological theorizations and putting a "see also". Please do that. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel the source linked to should have been used in lieu of directly citing the ancient text. That declaration cites the Didache, among others. It shows how the Catholic church is using the text. I think the real info here is the 1974 declaration, and I feel a paragraph could be devoted to that. I have added a sentence which makes reference to the Didache, because it seems like a good compromise to keep that in the article for the time being. But I really feel with a bit of research, we could write a better summary of the whole document.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of doing it. What do you think, JP? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like; the Didache belongs in the beginning of the section, as one of the earliest direct condemnations of abortion. Therefore I propose this phrasing:

The didache, dated to the late first or early 2nd century, taught "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion".

We can include the sources I put below, plus the wikilink for the main article with its many sources. And you cannot complain that we are using "primary sources", because we are not only quoting the original document, but that quotation is also present in the secondary sources such as the Vatican document. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need that many sources, just one, if it is within guidelines. That sentence is unacceptable because it doesn't explain what the Didache is to the uninitiated, and doesn't explain how it related to Catholicism. I'm thinking a sentence more like "The Didache, an early Christian treatise which was a lost text rediscovered in 1873 and originally dated to the late first or early 2nd century, is cited by modern Catholics, for example in the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, as evidence of early Christian opposition to abortion due to a section which stated "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion"." Without qualifiers, it won't be clear to our readers what on earth the Didache is, and how it relates to Catholicism. I'm not suggestion that exact sentence, due to it being quite verbose. I strongly feel your proposed sentence cannot stand alone. While the Didache article is quite sourced, it has nor sources that I know of which relate it to the topic of Catholicism and Abortion. It would be nice if I had access to the fulltext of "Abortion, the development of the Roman Catholic perspective", or at least pages 36,37. But it sounds like you do, so perhaps you can use that source to come up with something along these lines.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please put the Didache back

That deletion is clearly absurd; but I am presently unable to put it back because, since two users deleted it, if I restored it I would hit the rule of 1RR Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what you should restore:

The first century Didache or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" taught "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion".

First, I want to thank you for self reverting, and acknowledging 1RR. It takes a strong editor to do that. That sentence is under dispute above, and it lacks consensus for inclusion currently, so I don't think it is a pressing matter to reinstate your exact preferred version. I'm sure we can reach a compromise, but I do not support your version as is, as described above. I inserted text which mentioned the Didache as to not completely blank material during a dispute as a sign of good faith. I know it wasn't perfect, but it was something. I apologize it wasn't adequate. We can keep working on a text that we both agree on, I'm sure of it. Also, there is no need for that many sources. How many of them are redundant with each other? 3 links containing excerpts or full text with no commentary? Not necessary. I know you feel the text is well sourced, with your attempts to augment the references. I do not dispute that English translations of the Didache contain that text. That is not what the dispute is about. The Didache itself does not explain how it relates to the topic of this article: Catholicism and abortion, and we need a good secondary source to do that. I think John R. Connery could be a good source, but then as I wrote above, we need a better sentence to contextualize the Didache, and relate it to the topic of Catholicism and abortion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

References

The wikipedia article on the didache has dozens of other sources. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive text devoted to "Catholics for choice"

I think that the three paragraphs devoted to "Catholics for choice" are excessive. Also, the whole paragraph about what they believe is pretty much redundant (it is a longer copy of ideas in the paragraph above). Can I remove it?

(Also, you will note I have made other changes in that section. I believe those changes are not controversial, so I made them before discussing here. I provided good edit summaries). Jorge Peixoto (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

By "the whole paragraph about what they believe" do you mean the blockquote? I think a little of it would need to be paraphrased and incorporated into the paragraph above, but otherwise, it's fine with me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Daniel Dombrowski Catholic?

What is the source for saying that Daniel Dombrowski is Catholic? In the absence of sources, I have changed the article text. Now, however, the info about Dombrowski doesn't belong in a section named "Dissent among Catholics". It should either be removed or the section's name should be changed. And in fact, is there evidence that his book is notable? The only evidence we have is his use by the CFC, but then it would be redundant to include both it and the CFC. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dombrowski states in his book that he is Catholic. Thanks for calling my attention to the fact that it wasn't mentioned in his article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And I forgot to reply to your question about the notability of the book. I did a quick look round and found enough reviews and so on to support an article, so yeah, it's notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Morality and legality

Roscelese, I'm sorry that I have had to revert your addition to the lead, in which you said: "Many, or in some countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position promulgated by the Church." The Catholic Church's position, as outlined in the lead, is that procuring abortion is immoral. The sources you cited speak only of legality of procured abortion, not of its morality. Some indeed speak not so much of legality as of whether legality of procured abortion should be the main issue in judging a political programme. Many judge adultery to be immoral, but not many today (unless they are of Islamic tradition) judge that it should be classified as a criminal offence. Esoglou (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary - for two reasons! One, several of the sources discuss morality as well as legality. Two, the Houston Chronicle source which is already cited points out that the church hierarchy opposes the legality of abortion, and secondary coverage of some of the primary-source polls I've cited (eg. [3]) does likewise and could be added if you believe it is necessary. Please read the sources before removing material cited to them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you will agree at least that what the sources give prominence to is legality, and that, to present them as opposed to the Church's position you must first show that the Church does have a position on civil law as absolute as on the morality question. Esoglou (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that since the sources make a point of saying that this opinion of the Catholic population is in opposition to the official RCC position, we should say so as well, rather than engaging in original research about what the poll really meant to say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And I think the original research and synthesis is in placing statements about opposition to the RCC position (on what?) immediately after an exposition of the RCC position on the morality of direct abortion. Esoglou (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it does seem silly that the article gives little or no mention to the RCC's political campaigns against abortion. Rather than removing relevant and sourced information because you personally feel that it is misleading, why don't you add context that, in your view, would make it less misleading? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start. More research would be needed to expand it. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the start you've made on it, but now you've added some of the polling on its morality into the section on its legality. I think it would be better to include a small amount of text on specific actions the RCC hierarchy has taken against the legalization/legality/legal access to abortion as a subsection of "Official position" or whatever I named that section, and leave the polling section as it was (rather than artificially splitting that section, since some of the polls cited specifically ask about both aspects, or putting anything in the wrong place). What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is a minor point with regard to the section heading, but we should avoid using jargon like "direct abortion" when we're not specifically talking about the belief that such a thing as "direct abortion" exists (as elsewhere in the article). It's POV to treat this belief as truth, and it sure isn't the terminology our sources use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to look at Wikipedia sooner and I can't stay very long even this time. You are right and I was wrong about putting the polling section under legality. The section seems to be chiefly about legality and even (some of) the questions about morality may have been understood by the respondents to the polls as referring to the morality of prohibitive legislation, not of abortion in itself. But I should not have given the impression that it is certainly about nothing else but the legalization of direct/procured/voluntary/chosen/... abortion.

What terminology do you suggest for distinguishing that form of abortion from an abortion that is accidental, resulting from brucellosis, or due to something else other than a human decision to abort? The distinction is objective, not a POV matter. There is no dispute whatever about the morality or legality of such involuntary happenings. So what should we call the form of abortion about which there is dispute, the form that the Catholic Church condemns? I used "direct" simply because I thought you might dislike "procured". As far as I am concerned, any term that does distinguish this form from the other is fine. I am now replacing the word "direct" with "voluntary" in the heading and "procured" where there is a reference to Catholic canon law. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think readers will generally recognize that we're not referring to a miscarriage. It would be strange to talk about the morality or legality of miscarriages, the recent ballot initiative in Mississippi notwithstanding. I assumed that when you used "direct abortion," you were using the term in the way that it is commonly used, ie. as distinct from hysterectomy, rather than as distinct from spontaneous abortion/miscarriage. It isn't necessary to use any qualifiers; readers know what abortion is.

Good call on moving the Catechism quote into the section on legality - that makes a lot of sense. I'm iffy on splitting polling and dissent into two separate sections, since a lot of the polling reveals dissent. What do you think of keeping dissent as a subsection of opinion, with the former heading restored?

Now that we have some material on legality in the body, I think we can add a sentence or two about it to the lead, along with the material you removed. Do you agree? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means put in the lead a summary of what is said in the body. I don't feel up to making an effort myself this evening.

I think the distinction between procured and involuntary abortion is important when talking about the position of the Church, which explicitly makes that distinction. Omitting it would not reflect the Church's position properly. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, certainly when talking about the church's position! I'm referring to your adding "direct" ("voluntary," etc.) to the header of the section on polling/opinion, when the sources do not indicate that any distinction was made. And OK, I'll add something on legality in the lead and restore the opinion thing later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you notice that "direct", "voluntary", etc. does not now refer to the opinion polls. In fact, that (sub)section never did refer to voluntariness, but the higher-hierarchy heading under which the (sub)section was previously placed (by me, wrongly) did, I admit, imply it. Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know what Alphonsus Liguori actually said

I think I read on Daily Kos that Liguori was pro-abortion and I included this quote from the general "world religions" book in support of that. However, the second citation contradicting it appears to be a more accurate statement of his views. I don't think it will do to have two conflicting statements in the article, and if the "world religions" book is false we should remove it or replace it with a shorter reference to this misconception. I'm guessing the Liguori claim is widely circulated amongst liberals but false. Shii (tock) 13:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there other sources you're looking at? Because the first source is from a reliable mainstream publisher and the second is from a vanity press. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also looking at the original text, here. Shii (tock) 03:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha, super. I knew it was a translation, but I can't translate into Latin so I had no idea what to search on. However, neither can I translate from Latin to English. Is the self-published translation anything like accurate? Giving it a once-over, I see that there are a lot of question marks in the Latin that aren't in the English, and (going by my knowledge of Romance languages) I don't see in the Latin the discussion present in the English of whether the fetus is a separate entity. Ideally, we would cite the Latin, but failing that, we at least need to make sure that the English version is a translation rather than an interpretation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. I looked very hard for the original text, and this is all that I found, but it doesn't seem to match the quotation of either of the books cited. Shii (tock) 04:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellently done, Shii. It seems that the idea that Liguori approved (deliberate/direct/...) abortion of a non-animated foetus may have been a good-faith misinterpretation (into which I myself fell for a moment) of a phrase in the page you linked to: "R. si foetus sit inanimis, certe licet matri, vitam suam procurare" (Reply: If the foetus is inanimate, certainly the mother may ensure her own life). But the phrase continues: "licet inde praeter mentem suam sequatur foetus expulsio" (even though, unintentionally on her part, expulsion of the foetus results). The reply is to the question whether a pregnant woman may take a medicine absolutely required to save her life but which may lead to expulsion of the foetus. And in the last words on the page immediately before Liguori had already stated just as clearly: "Certum est non licere Matri etiam cum mortis periculo, sumere potionem ad expellendum directe foetum" (It is certain that a mother may not, even when in danger of death, take a medicine for the purpose of directly expelling a foetus). Liguori continues by saying, not that it is certain, but that it is generally held that a mother may take a medicine whose direct purpose is to save her life when nothing else will save it, even if the foetus that becomes involved is animated. And he ends by adding that it never permissible to take medicines that of themselves lead to killing the foetus. Later today, I hope to insert this information into the article.

Can Roscelese suggest any word better than "directly", the word Liguori uses, to express the distinction involved? Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't the language, it's the sourcing. The English version is clearly not a direct translation of the Latin. Are you saying that you are fluent enough in Latin to confirm that this is what Liguori said? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Utique, Domina Roscelese, latine loquor - and not only that: I have actually translated it, so that you can read it for yourself. Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts by Roscelese

I have much respect for Roscelese, and so I have been greatly surprised by her recent wide-ranging revert of edits that to me seem well-reasoned. I am undoing her actions with full confidence that on reflection she will either accept those edits or else give good reasons for reverting them.

1. R. insists on saying that the RCC position has been the subject of controversy on "numerous" rather than "recent" occasions. Isn't "numerous" one of the terms that can be called peacock terms? Unless I am mistaken, the number of worldwide occasions mentioned is 8, not enough, I think, to justify the description "numerous". There is no disputing that all 8 were "recent" (within the last couple of decades).
2. R. insists on saying that Raymond Burke "expressed the wish to" deny communion to Giuliani. Burke said nothing whatever on the lines of "I'd love to do that." What he said was: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion." Surely what R. reverted reflects this much better: "Burke also said that Rudy Giuliani should not approach to receive communion".
3. R. insists on saying "Excommunication continues to be used as a punishment", and gives as example-proof a case in which excommunication was not in fact inflicted. "Continues to be used as a punishment" surely evokes the image of someone issuing a decree of excommunication against an individual or a group. The reality is that automatic excommunication (under the usual conditions of minimum age, freedom of choice, knowledge of the sanction, etc.) is still envisaged in canon law, not as "punishment" - the Code of Canon Law says - but as an incentive to repent, what canon law calls "a remedial measure". Instead of making that accusation of vindictiveness, is it not better in NPOV Wikipedia to report objectively, without suggesting motivation of one kind or the other: "Automatic excommunication for procuring abortion continues in force"?
4. R. claims: "Pope Benedict XVI stated that pro-choice politicians were excommunicated". He did not. He only said he supported the Mexican bishops who threatened but did not impose excommunication on those who voted for legalizing abortion in Mexico City. This was indicated by the source cited by R. herself and also by the other sources that R. for no express reason eliminated from the article.
5. R. removed a statement of the motivation of Archbishop Olmsted's action, saying: "rmv Olmsted soundbite; there's a whole article on the incident, so there's no reason to give only one side a platform in a broader article"; but she kept the motivation given for the other side. (In undoing this, I intend to omit the quotation of Olmsted's actual words but, for the sake of balance, I will not fail to mention his motivation as well as the motivation given for what he condemned.) Esoglou (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only suppose that R. made these changes without really adverting to their content. If I am wrong, I am sure she will enlighten me. Esoglou (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1. 8 is numerous enough. How about a compromise - "numerous occasions in the past few decades"?
2. Try reading the source: "Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis, was asked by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament....'yes I would,' the paper quoted the archbishop as responding." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
3. I'm sure you believe very strongly that these excommunications are justified, but you cannot allow that belief to prevent you from adhering to policies like NOR. If a source says a bishop has excommunicated someone and describes it as punishment (such as some of the sources on the McBride case, and a great many other sources that it is easy to find with a search), we can't decide of our own accord to launch into a sermon on how they were actually excommunicated automatically for the good of their soul. This is similar to what I was talking about with your rewriting sections to talk about "direct abortion" when it didn't appear in the sources. If you're Catholic, good for you, but Wikipedia is for everyone, so we can't assume a reader shares our religious views and agrees that the bishops didn't actually excommunicate anyone, when reliable sources say otherwise.
4. Again, source. "Benedict left little room for interpretation: pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church...'Yes, that they are excommunicated isn't something arbitrary.'" There is no possible way for you to claim that this is ambiguous. I also don't see what you hope to gain by making such easily disproved claims about my supposedly removing sources without even saying why oh no! I removed LifeNews because, as I stated, it's not a reliable source, the community has rejected it over and over again because its commitment is to its agenda rather than to facts.
5. Just as I said in the edit summary, there's no need to go into the back and forth since there is an entire article on the case. Olmsted's position as a representative of the RCC hierarchy is obvious and we go into an immense amount of detail about the position of that hierarchy. This article is meant to provide information about Catholicism and abortion, not to be a propaganda page for the views of bishops on abortion. That's what they have official media for. It's not "balance" to include yet another official pronouncement about how terrible abortion is. The threat to the woman's life is a basic and necessary fact of the case. Olmsted being quotable is not.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, your addition is very interesting, but it doesn't belong in the lead. You could definitely move it into "Catholic opinion," but the lead should be a summary of the body. This is particularly an issue because you're trying to create the impression that most Catholics are morally opposed to abortion but some support its legality, when this is not indicated by the surveys in our sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The first part of your response made me think you weren't serious, but later on, when I got to the language you were using with regard to me personally, I saw you were. I'm sorry for anything I wrote that seemed to be a personal offence against you. I only meant to talk about the text, not about whatever motives may have been behind its writing.

1. You think 8 times in some decades is "frequent" for controversies the worldwide Catholic Church is involved in. I think that, if the worldwide Catholic Church isn't involved in 8 controversies a day, it isn't doing its job. Neither of our opinions are admissible in Wikipedia, unless supported by a reliable published source.
2. If someone said she would slap her child if the child was very naughty, do you seriously think her statement would be accurately represented as "She expressed a wish to slap her child"? Besides, Burke's "yes, I would" was expressed as a reply to a generic question, which you have represented here only as "..."
3. In the paragraph in question there was no mention of any actual excommunication. The text you changed referred neutrally to the excommunication that canon law imposes automatically. It did not defend it in any way, as you perhaps seem to suggest was the intention, nor did it suggest that it was being used arbitrarily.
4. There was no ambiguity in the text you changed. Nor was there ambiguity in your text: "Pope Benedict XVI stated that pro-choice politicians were excommunicated." But Pope Benedict did not state that pro-choice politicians were excommunicated. He did not even say that the particular politicians who voted for legalizing abortion in Mexico City were excommunicated. I don't believe that CWNews (the source you deleted) is also called LifeNews and is banned from this article. I apologize for mistakenly writing "sources" (plural) in reference to it. I cannot tell whether my mistake was a slip of the keyboard or of the mind - both are possible.
5. The text you changed indicated the reasons advanced both to justify the abortion ("to save the life of a mother of four suffering from pulmonary hypertension") and to justify the related excommunication (Olmsted's words). You removed the latter, but kept the former. That was not balance.

Enough for now. Esoglou (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If neither of our opinions are admissible, why are you repeatedly adding yours? Propose a different solution - that's what I did when we disagreed.
2. Burke was asked if he would deny communion to Giuliani. He said yes. That's what the Post-Dispatch asked him, that's what he responded, and that's how reliable sources conveyed his answer to the public. Your personal interpretation that he suddenly and randomly decided to speak about a hypothetical politician instead of answering the question does not hold more weight and is, frankly, a rather silly interpretation.
3. You're joking, right? The paragraph doesn't mention excommunication? But moving on from that, which I'll have to assume for your sake was a slip, it's original synthesis to bring in this document that makes no mention of recent events, and this claim that "automatic excommunication continues in force" has nothing to do with anything written in our sources. Original research is a persistent issue with you on abortion-related articles, and I'm really disappointed to see that previous discussions on the subject have not led to you reading the policy or attempting to change your editing habits at all. I do not care if you believe the people were excommunicated automatically for the good of their soul. The source says that the bishops excommunicated them, and referred to it as punishment or penalty.
4. Ah - the "LifeNews" source was elsewhere in the paragraph. But no, catholicculture.org is also not reliable, for the same reason - their purpose is to promote conservative Catholic views, not to be an objective news source. At any rate, again: "Benedict left little room for interpretation: pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church...'Yes, that they are excommunicated isn't something arbitrary.'" "Pope Benedict XVI...[agreed] with bishops who said Catholic politicians in Mexico had excommunicated themselves by legalizing abortion..." Is it that you're allowing yourself to be influenced by Fisichella's response after the fact? Because we do and should include that, but it doesn't change what the pope actually said to begin with, which is quite clear from sources.

By "enough for now" do you mean you will remove the original research and undue weight material in question, or will I have to do it for you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is regrettable that the discussion has grown so heated.

1. Where do you see expressed in the article my opinion about an eight-times-a-day frequency? Or are you referring to the adjective "recent" which you changed to the by me queried "frequent"? If you do want to query "recent", I will willingly remove it.
2. As you now correctly state, Burke said he'd deny Rudy Giuliani communion. Can we agree on that? He did not "express the wish" to do so, which is what you were making the article say.
3. I am willingly removing the phrase "Automatic excommunication for procuring abortion continues in force", since you object to it. Will you agree to omit "Excommunication continues to be used as a punishment", which seems to be an unsourced interpretation of its purpose?
4. LifeNews was cited elsewhere, not in the paragraph, but yes in the section. As is evident, I did not contest your deletion of it. I firmly disagree with your negative assessment of CWNews as a source of reliable information about Catholicism and abortion. I am leaving it in, but am not basing on it any part of the text, which is amply supported by the other cited sources. Surely it is enough to quote the words of the Pope without adding interpretations of any kind, in particular your extrapolation of what he said about a move he was given to understand had been made by the bishops of Mexico (a country he was not on his way to) in a particular case to a perhaps unintentionally generic-sounding "stated that pro-choice Catholic politicians were excommunicated and should be denied communion". I agree that this phrase can be interpreted as referring only to some particular "pro-choice Catholic politicians", but it can at least as easily be taken to mean any and all "pro-choice Catholic politicians" in every place and in every circumstances.

It is acceptable on Wikipedia to quote a supporting source for the words of someone it supports. Even the Vatican website would be an acceptable source here. Shii (tock) 23:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I think "...subject of controversy on recent occasions" implies a lack of controversy in the past which is not indicated by our sources. The header "recent events" does not suggest the same lack of controversy (and including "numerous" with "recent" seems to offset the problem a little, but go figure). New idea: omit "occasions" and end the sentence at "controversy"?
2. "Expressed the wish to" doesn't seem to imply anything other than that he, y'know, wanted to deny Giuliani communion, but your phrasing is just fine. However, we've got to reflect the position/weight of our sources: the idea that Giuliani should know better than to seek communion needs to be removed or subordinated to the idea that the bishop would not give it to him, which is the main theme of the sources.
3. "Punishment," as I've stated, appears in many sources, some cited and others not yet cited. The paragraph should have a topic sentence, so I'm not yet ready to agree to the removal of the one I wrote, but is there another one you would suggest that isn't synthesis like your previous one was?
4. Yeah, I got confused as to which source you were complaining about. However, if you're not citing anything to CWNews, what is the purpose of including it in the paragraph? And no, you're 100% wrong about it being enough to quote the Pope without adding any other material. That is a textbook violation of WP:PRIMARY. If a source says that the pope talked about excommunicating pro-choice politicians, we cannot decide of our own accord that he definitely meant only some specific Mexican lawmakers. The Time article goes into significant detail about the implications of this statement for Catholic politicians in the USA and elsewhere. Our text must reflect the views of reliable secondary sources.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. We're making progress.

1. Of course I have no difficulty about omitting the three words "on recent occasions" that you dislike.
2. Burke did not say he wanted to deny Giuliani communion, any more than a mother says she wants to smack her child, when she says she would do so if she thought it necessary. Burke did say that Giuliani should not seek communion. Why suppress this part of what he said?
3. The only topic in the paragraph is what the Pope said when a journalist asked him about an action by Mexican bishops. If you want to introduce another topic, give it a separate paragraph.
4. I include the CWNews report on principle in order to show that I do not accept your invalid objection to it and also as an additional source that supports what the other sources say. I disagree that citing the Associated Press report of what the Pope said is a violation of any Wikipedia rule. I agree that "we cannot decide of our own accord" either that the Pope "definitely meant only some specific Mexican lawmakers" or that the Pope definitely meant all lawmakers everywhere. Nor should you make a completely invalid synthesis between what he said in 2007, when asked about the Mexican case, with what he wrote in 2004 about a United States case that had nothing to do with excommunication, for the sake of advancing an interpretation that he was saying all "pro-choice politicians" everywhere are excommunicated! Just report what the reliable sources say that he actually said and, if you want to add an interpretation, attribute it to a reliable source that explicitly (not just by your super-interpretation) expresses that interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Because reliable sources don't care, so why should we?

3. Do you know what a topic sentence is?

4. Okay, I've got to conclude here that you just never bothered to read the Time article. Which is sad, since I even pointed it out to you in my last comment. If you're not going to read the sources, you cannot expect your views to be given any weight. I will once again be restoring the previous text, which reflects the sources rather than Esoglou's personal feelings about abortion, as well as removing the CWNews source (because we are enjoined not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point).

5. Oh, and I see I forgot to respond to this. The idea that the woman's health condition is a partisan claim is absolute nonsense. As is the suggestion that Olmsted is so stifled and oppressed because his views can only take up 95% of the article instead of 96%. Our goal should be presenting facts, not a duel of opinions. It would be possible, and indeed create a lot more balance, to include the view that Catholicism holds these positions on abortion because the celibate male hierarchy fears and hates female sexuality, but I happen to think it's a lot more important to actually provide encyclopedic material rather than soundbites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

1. This seems to be agreed on.
2. I accept that reliable sources don't care, but we should respect them.
3. I believe I do.
4. If you think the TIME article has some more information about what the Pope and Lombardi said, add it, with attribution. If you think the TIME article has information about other matters, add it, with attribution, in the appropriate place. Rather than waste time while you insist on making a WP:POINT about the CWNews citation, I am removing it, together with the TIME and Guardian citations. If you think any of these sources contain important information not already given, indicate what that information is and cite the source. You are surely aware that, since yours is the only voice objecting to the CWNews citation, and two editors have said that it can be used in this context, it can be restored at any time.
5. I don't understand the mathematics that led to your conclusion that Olmsted's views take up 95% (or is it 96%?) of this article. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Respect whom? The sources? Certainly. This is why we should give things the same weight the sources give them, and either remove or subordinate the idea that Giuliani shouldn't seek communion, since sources focus on the idea that the bishop wouldn't give it to him.

3. Then why did you flat-out ignore my request for a suggestion of a topic sentence, and instead tell me that I should start a new paragraph if I wanted to introduce a new topic? I'll ask you again: if you don't like the sourced and non-synthetic topic sentence I wrote, please suggest a new one to which those same adjectives apply.

4. Dude, removing Time and the Guardian because you're bitter about your advocacy website not being a reliable source is the

definition of WP:POINT. I will be restoring them, along with the text cited to them about pro-choice Catholic politicians.

5. Olmsted's comment is boilerplate of the RCC position, which takes up the majority of the article.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Burke on Giuliani: "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would," the paper quoted the archbishop as responding. Burke has said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion." Don't censure censor what Burke expressly said about Giuliani.

Pope Benedict's 2007 remark: What he said is the topic of the paragraph. If you want to put in an introductory sentence about a broader topic, first broaden the content of the paragraph, citing what some source (TIME?) says about the broader topic, and don't suggest by synthesis that the Pope was talking about that broader topic, just keep the account of what he did say objective. (And please stop imputing personal motives here.)

Olmsted's excommunication: If you want to mention what Olmsted did, don't censure censor his explanation of why he did it. Esoglou (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohmygod, it's such oppressive censureship [sic] for Wikipedia to differentiate itself from L'Osservatore. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to version by Esoglou. I agree with his points on items like saying "excommunication is used as a punishment" is not only wrong, but unsourced. The tired statements by Roscelese that Catholic news sources are biased just because they speak from a Catholic viewpoint do not hold up either.Marauder40 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Marauder40 is perhaps right, though I myself would have left almost all of her edits in, but would have added fuller information. The fuller information would be information that she censored out and that is important for objectivity. One thing that I would have removed without hesitation was her attribution to Father Lombardi of the expression "pro-choice politicians"! In the past her discussions were more objective. I am sorry that this discussion has led her to attribute motives of bitterness and resort to phrases like her last one above. Is the use of "Dude" another sign of the strain it has put on her? Not being American, I don't know. Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with a couple of her changes but since they were all put in at once and I disagreed with the majority, it was cleaner to just do the revert. As for the use of "Dude", I have to use AGF and discuss content and not the editors but that in conjunction with edit summaries like "oh noez" isn't usually a good sign.Marauder40 (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to complain about my use of slang, go to WQA. If you want to discuss content, I'm still waiting right here. Esoglou, no one said or implied that Lombardi used the phrase "pro-choice politicians"; we can't copy the source word-for-word because that's a copyright violation. And again, cry moar for the poor censored Roman Catholic Church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, I believe your changes are against consensus and the facts at this point, unless if there is evidence otherwise that you have not yet presented. Shii (tock) 01:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus, no, facts, certainly not. Esoglou and Marauder40 have repeatedly removed sourced content (Time exemplifies WP:RS) for no other reason than that they disagree with the source's conclusions, repeatedly given disproportionate weight (relative to reliable sources) to non-neutral material, and their talk page comments have likewise repeatedly demonstrated an understanding of Wikipedia policy that is the exact opposite of that policy's meaning. Do you have a position on the content? If so, please share it. Otherwise, article talk pages are not the place for complaints about user conduct. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is funny I am getting lumped in with "repeatedly removed sourced content" and "their talk page comments have likewise repeatedly ..." yet I have made a grand total of ONE revert/removal on this page and I am not discussing this on my talk page. Perfect example of stretching the truth and discussing editors instead of discussing edits. Marauder40 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the proper place to talk about the fact that you are now imposing changes that have been opposed by three different and unrelated people. As for the discussion of what trustworthy information should be included, I believe Esoglou's comment at 19:43, 21 November represents the most recent development in that discussion, and you did not respond to it except for childish name calling. Shii (tock) 03:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou had already made the same misguided comments (viz. that we should give whatever weight to things he felt like giving them, rather than observing WP:WEIGHT and using the assessment of reliable sources; that we should provide primary material along with our own interpretations, rather than observing WP:PRIMARY and using the interpretations of secondary sources like Time; and that I was trying to censor the RCC position which in actual fact takes up most of the article) earlier, and I had responded to them with more seriousness than they deserved. Repetition of such comments is not helpful to the discussion. I'd also appreciate an explanation (from you, Esoglou, or Marauder40) of which edits you agreed with, and maybe even the minimal effort required to restore them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The only edit I totally agree with is the removal of "American" from the "American church hierarchy" sentence. I can't put it back in because it is still within the 24 hour window, another editor has made a change to the page, and I am sure some nitpicker would call it at revert and try to get me 1RR. The rest I do not agree with because they either are totally incorrect (i.e. excommunication is a punishment) or only show a certain side of the picture. Marauder40 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) In an article about the history of Catholicism, I think the "RCC position" should be the only one we are aiming to outline, unless if there is something that actually happened in history which the Church does not acknowledge. This should be a neutral article about the history of a Catholic dogma and not a battlefield that pits that Catholic dogma against other people's dogmas. The opinions of random other people like Time magazine writers don't seem especially relevant to me, especially when they try to put words into the mouth of Church spokespeople. Shii (tock) 09:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Catholicism =/= the RCC hierarchy. We can and should include the views of the laity. But that isn't really the point here. Our guidelines on what sources are reliable don't magically change because the subject is Catholicism. I find your implication that sources can only be used if they promote a conservative Catholic point of view bizarre and wrongheaded. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is in regards to the Time article. Even the Time article itself says, "Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi was quick to clarify that the Pope wasn't excommunicating anyone, and that he did not mean to contradict a recent Vatican document that left it to the conscience of individual politicians to leave the Church on their own if they vote against its teachings." This makes it pretty clear that the Pope did not in fact excommunicate anyone as the sentence you keep wanting insert says. The sentence earlier in the same article is a misunderstanding of what the Pope did say and is clarified later in the article. No matter how reliable a source is, if it is later found out to be wrong it doesn't call for inclusion. This sounds like you are cherry-picking quotes. The article as stands is a better statement of what actually happened. Not someone's interpretation of what happened. Which is a better source, an Associated Press article that relays the actual quotes, or a Time magazine article that lists a persons opinion of what was said. Considering that opinion didn't hold up to later clarification, I think the AP article is much better.Marauder40 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, we can't let our perceptions of the incident be colored by comments made after the fact. If the end result was all that mattered, then we wouldn't have, for example, any articles on criminal cases where the suspect was found to be innocent, or any articles on political candidacies when the candidate did not win. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pure and simple, someone makes a statement, some people misunderstand that statement. It doesn't make the original statement wrong, incorrect, or anything else. There is no reason the misunderstanding warrants being included in this article unless it was an article about the plane trip itself. Right now I question if this entire things should be included at all for weight reasons or at least shrunk down to something like, "The Pope confirmed that he agreed with ..." No more then a sentence or two. Nothing stating that the Pope excommunicated anyone or anything like that.Marauder40 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The title of the Time article is "Pope Rejects Pro-Choice Politicians" and the issue of whether such politicians may be allowed to remain communicant members of the church is undoubtedly very relevant to the Recent events section of an article discussing 'Catholicism and abortion'. I see no suggestion anywhere in the text that the Pope excommunicated anyone - so I cannot see what grounds Marauder40 has to suggest that - but it is abundantly clear from Benedict's own words that he would agree with the excommunication of the Mexican politicians. That position statement is surely significant enough to be reported in this article. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, IF it warrants mention based on weight reasons it doesn't warrant more then a sentence or two at max. Something similar to "The Pope confirmed that he agreed with the Mexican bishops..." The format that was added by Roscolese has issues with POV and the other format has weight issues. Either it needs to be shrunk or left as is so that all sides can be explained. Also please note that your wholesale revert, reverted many more issues then just the Time article issue. As you can see two other editors other then me had multiple issues with that version. Marauder40 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you're the last one who should be talking about blind mass reverts. Unless you'd like to restore the material you supposedly agreed with that you nonetheless reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dude" I said I had multiple issues with your changes. That means a wholesale revert. IF RexxS issues were solely with the Times article issue, then much more was reverted then the Times issue. If he truly went through every issue and agreed with it, then fine. But only the Times issue was addressed on the talk page.Marauder40 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are now edit warring against two other editors to enforce your POV. Each of us could revert back-and-forth until a bright line was crossed and you would cross that line first. However, that is not how we work at Wikipedia and you need to learn to bring your concerns to talk and accept a consensus even if you do not like it. Your continued removal of the text reporting the TIME article which is reliably sourced and given due weight is disruptive. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with reporting TIME magazine's interpretation as what it was: an interpretation? Someone cited above, as if were a practically unquestionable source, the heading of the article, authored by an editor of the magazine, not by the correspondent. That editor's interpretation may be taken as the magazine's interpretation, but it should not be treated as endowed with an infallibility that even the Pope's remark obviously lacked. Agreed? Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rexxs can you tell me how two reverts over a three day period with only two edits ever on the same page is an edit war? It sounds like you are failing to AGF. As I said before your edit reverted much more then just the NYT stuff. This entire section addresses that there are many more issues then just the NYT with the version you are reverting to. It sounds like you are totally forgetting the collaborative model of editing. If you feel what I have done is against the rules feel free to write me up. Edits similar to YOUR second edit on this page have previously been interpreted on other abortion articles as a 2nd revert with a 24 hour period which would violate sanctions on all abortion related articles. But I am not a nitpicker like the people that would report that, but I am sure if I had made the same exact edit I would be up for sanctions right now. Marauder40 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

@Marauder40: You are edit warring by twice reverting an article to your preferred version against the edits of two different editors. You removed the TIME article text despite the clear consensus at RSN that it was a reliable source and that is not acceptable. Your stance is "I said I had multiple issues with your changes. That means a wholesale revert." Well, if it's good enough for you twice, it's good enough for me once. Why should you have the right to mass revert, but nobody else? I've no interest in playing games here, so I've told you as plainly as I can where your actions fall short of collaborative editing. I maintain a strict policy of 1RR other than for indisputable vandalism and I'll recommend it to you. My second edit will compare favourably with your second revert anytime, but I was hoping that we could actually move forward, rather than make veiled threats of discretionary sanctions. I'm sure you will agree that it is not a route you want to go down.

@Esoglou: Have a look at WP:ASF and see if you can see why "According to <a reliable source>'s interpretation," is different from "<A reliable source> reported that" and different again from a simple statement. Attribution is generally reserved for situations where two reliable sources disagree and we employ it to convert a contested claim into two statements of fact. Unnecessarily labelling as 'interpretation' weakens one of the claims and inserts a subtle POV. I note that you are not arguing to write "According to the interpretation of unnamed church officials, it was not a declaration ..." or "According to Lombardi's interpretation, lawmakers ... exclude themselves ..." or even "According to Associated Press' interpretation, Lombardi implied that lawmakers ...". You seem able to accept that each of the latter views should in fact be written as simple statements, and so it should be for reporting what was in the TIME article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you can have thought that I was insisting on the word "interpretation" being put into the article. It is quite OK to say: "TIME said ...", "Associated Press said ...", "Lombardi said ..." etc. It is not OK to turn Lombardi's statement or any of the others as statements of clear fact that Wikipedia guarantees. Esoglou (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In this diff Shii changed "Time magazine reported that ..." (the neutral wording you that contributed) into "According to Time magazine's interpretation, this support amounted to ...". Five comments above, you asked "What's wrong with reporting TIME magazine's interpretation as what it was: an interpretation?" and I explained to you as carefully as I could what was wrong with it. I never thought that you were insisting on Shii's wording, and I apologise if I was not clear enough. I'm sure if you re-read my explanation, you'll see that I'm arguing for neutral attribution here, in just the sort of form that you give above. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that we agree and I apologize for my part in letting it appear that disagreement existed. Esoglou (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be Catholic Church and abortion?

Sorry to raise an issue that has been a sore point for many editors for so many years but "catholicism" doesn't just mean "Roman Catholicism". It could also mean the "catholic church" which would include the Orthodox Church and many Anglicans as well. (I'm weaseling on the Anglicans because it's unclear to me if they all consider themselves "catholic" or if some are more Protestant than Catholic). In any event, this article appears to be about the Roman Catholic Church and abortion and so the article should communicate this scope. Some possible article titles are Roman Catholicism and abortion, Roman Catholic Church and abortion or Catholic Church and abortion. I favor the last of these personally because the main article is at Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church points there. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal of "Catholic Church and abortion" as title. Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indifferent as to necessity of change, but if change is to happen, support "Roman Catholicism and abortion" per Christianity and abortion, Judaism and abortion, Islam and abortion, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Catholic Church", a direct link, has the advantage of clarity. "Roman Catholicism", which redirects to "Catholic Church" is less clear. Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication as punishment

Esoglou has been objecting to using the word "punished" in conjunction with the word "excommunication" arguing that it is not so much punishment as something else. Roscelese has felt that Esoglou's objection is not substantive enough to warrant avoiding the word "punished". I understand Esoglou's POV. The Canon Law distinguishes between excommunication as a "medicinal penalty" and other measures as "expiative penalties". Without getting into a detailed discussion which Roscelese will no doubt consider overly technical anyway, I will note that the general point Esoglou is trying to make is that the Church is trying to bring the errant member back into the fold, not to "punish" him/her per se.

That said, the very fact that Canon Law uses the word "penalty" suggests that punishment is involved. The Latin root after all has to do with punishment. (penal, penalize, penalty, etc.)

That said, there are nuances of meaning and connotations that Esoglou dislikes about the word "punishment" but I wonder if he would object to using the word "penalty" which is, after all, the word used in Canon Law. Hopefully, he will not insist on using the phrase "medicinal penalty" which IMHO will serve more to confuse the reader than to enlighten him.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Punishment" is supported by sources (both those cited and others not currently cited), but my main issue is that I think a paragraph with a lot of detail needs a topic sentence for readability, and Esoglou's proposed replacement was synthetic. I have no objection to "penalty." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went through the "punishment" of reading the more recent talk page discussion between you and Esoglou but No, I can't remember what the topic sentence proposed by Esoglou was and I really don't want to have to slog through the Talk Page again to find it. Can you remind me of what it was? Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article history - "Automatic excommunication for procuring abortion (canon 1398) continues in force." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, you can at any time put in your statement that the Church uses excommunication as a punishment, if you accompany it with a citation of a reliable source. I objected to it when it was merely followed by the claim about Pope Benedict XVI and excommunication of all "pro-choice politicians". There are surely abundant writers who explicitly speak of excommunication as Church punishment for abortion. And don't use your personal interpretation of the Code of Canon Law. Esoglou (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Catholicism and abortion → Catholic Church and abortion – As stated above, the page is not about the views on abortion of the various groups that claim to be included under the term "Catholicism". The article concerns only the Catholic Church and abortion. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move. If you think there is too much information on the official RCC position in this article, you might consider splitting it into a sub-article with the title you suggest, but it is inappropriate to advocate removing from the encyclopedia information about pro-choice Catholics simply because you do not personally believe they are Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell Esoglou is not talking about people that say they are Catholic but some people would say they aren't Catholic like Catholics for Choice. He is talking about groups that claim to be Catholic but don't answer to the Pope (i.e. Anglican, Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)Marauder40 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that seriously an issue that requires disambiguation? Reliable sources use "Catholic" to mean RC, not Anglican. And if that's your argument, why is "Catholic Church" any more disambiguating than "Catholicism"? Surely the Anglican Church also claims to be a catholic church. Also see my response below to Pseudo-Richard. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This page is primarily about what the Catholic Church believes not what other groups that claim to fall under the banner of Catholicism believe.Marauder40 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The article on Catholicism states that the term "Catholicism" includes "the churches of the Anglican Communion, Continuing Anglicanism, the Old Catholics, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Apostolic Catholic Church (ACC), the Aglipayans (Philippine Independent Church), the African Orthodox Church, the Polish National Catholic Church of America, and many [[Independent Catholic Churches]". This article rightly makes no attempt to inform about the various teachings of all of these, and in fact deals with that of the Catholic Church and no other churches. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • see my response to Pseudo-Richard below –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my original comment above and the other supports from Esoglou and Marauder40. This change in article title should NOT be construed to "advocate removing from the encyclopedia information about pro-choice Catholics". This is about limiting the scope of the article to those within the Roman Catholic Church regardless of whether they agree or disagree with the Vatican on the issue of abortion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Then what's wrong with my proposal of "Roman Catholicism and abortion"? It disambiguates just as much as, or more than, the proposed new title, without implying that the article is meant to contain only the official position of the RCC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Catholic church page is called Catholic and not "Roman Catholic".Marauder40 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But as I said, the ambiguity is the same. The other churches in question also call themselves catholic churches; Catholic Church is at its current location instead of being a DAB page because that's how sources refer to RC/RCC. Can you explain why you believe that "Catholic Church" is unambiguous and "Catholicism" is ambiguous? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, only those who have been involved in the lengthy, contentious and sometimes downright nasty disputes on this can truly appreciate why it is wiser to just leave things as the current consensus has been established. There are very strong opinions on both sides. There are those who insist that the proper name of the Church headed by the Pope is the "Catholic Church". There are others (mostly Anglicans) who insist that they are also "Catholic" and that the only NPOV approach is to title the church headed by the Pope "the Roman Catholic Church". Both the title of the article Catholic Church and the lead have been the subject of multiple long disputes (including one mediation) over at least several years. Trust me, unless you personally have a strong opinion on this (and even if you do), the best course of action is to let sleeping dogs lie and not stir up the hornets nest all over again. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion on what the various churches should or should not be called. I have, however, worked hard towards including the views of lay Catholics in this article, and I do not want to see a title change that will inevitably be used as justification for undoing my work and furthering an agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I promise you that I will work mightily to prevent that from happening. I think the other supporters of the proposed move would also oppose such a development. The proposed title change is more about the much wider question of church names (mostly Catholic vs. Anglican) and not at all about pro-life/pro-choice debate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons already cited by others. Plus, "Catholicism" isn't really a very clear word to begin with. When I read it, I always presume it refers narrowly to the "doctrine or claim of universality". And often see it used in other unrelated contexts (e.g. the "catholicism of a gourmet chef"). "Catholic Church" is more precise. Walrasiad (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits by Esoglou

Come on, dude. You ought to know better than to repeatedly restore POV rubbish like "On this long-standing phenomenon of Catholics not accepting the Catholic Church's clear teaching on moral questions such as induced abortion" or anything cited to non-RS like LifeSiteNews or American Life League. I'm also sad to see that when called out on your addition of original synthesis, your response is to add more synthesis - here, your little essay on canon 915, which completely lacks any reliable and relevant sources - as if you can build up your wall of synthesis so high that no policies will touch you anymore. Likewise, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you continue adding more and more primary-sourced quotes from RCC officials. Wikipedia is not a press release service for the Catholic hierarchy; if reliable sources don't cover these comments, there's no reason to include them at all and even less reason to include them at length. WP:BRD, man - your bold additions of propagandic blather have been reverted, now act like an adult and discuss. Or better yet, stop wasting people's time and edit at an encyclopedia that doesn't care about reliable sources, NOR, or NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why, Roscelese, do you treat dissent from the Catholic Church's teaching as NPOV and consider the comment by the Pope POV? Both are, by definition, POV, and are rightly included in a Wikipedia article, to balance each other. It is hard to see for what purpose an editor can keep one and remove the other, unless it is to make the article present one POV only.

The American Life League is a reliable source for the existence of the opinion that canon 915 obliges ministers of Holy Communion to refuse it to politicians who promote legalization of abortion, and Catholic canon law and its interpretation are highly relevant to the topic of the Catholic Church and abortion, is it not? It is not a reliable source for the correctness of that opinion, and is clearly not presented as such. However, since there are so many other sources that uphold that view of the demands of Catholic canon law, I will not insist on keeping the for you distressing information about the existence of Catholic organizations who do not dissent from the Church's teaching on induced abortion.

It was not I who raised in the article the topic of the rulings by some very few American bishops that such politicians should be excluded from Holy Communion. It may even have been you. It was certainly you who put in the mention of one bishop's negative statement about Biden. And you still want to include the mention of that one bishop's statement about Biden being excluded from Holy Communion, while at the same time you high-handedly delete all mention of the fact that Biden's own bishop on the contrary does not prevent him from actually receive Holy Communion!

Your removal of mention of the canonical grounds advanced by those who hold people like Biden should be excluded from Holy Communion could give the impression that your aim is to present expressions of that view as arbitrary attempts to apply ecclesiastical penalties against what you call "pro-choice" Catholic politicians. I refuse to make such an accusation against you and instead presume your good faith. Still, deleting the grounds they advance for their view does result in an impression of arbitrariness.

It would be good if you would kindly refrain from using seemingly POV expressions such as "pro-choice", as other editors are refraining from using seemingly POV expressions such as "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" (as if someone were to say that Wikipedia is not a forum reserved for pro-abortion advocates).

I refuse to respond in kind to your language about "propagandic" blather, acting like an adult, wasting people's time, editing in a non-neutral ambience. Instead, I presume your good faith. Esoglou (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Find reliable sources for these things (the pope's quote, Biden's bishop's quote, the American Life League's little campaign), and then we can consider including them. Wikipedia is written based on secondary sources. We do not reprint primary sources at length because we are an encyclopedia, not a press release service. And take your essay about the canonical grounds to WP:NORN, I'm sure they'd love it. Not going to waste my time responding to the silly claim about other users not using loaded language; you're presumably a rational being and know that that's false, so I'll leave you to work out your own personal conflicts with truth by yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On Biden's bishop, are these enough for you: this and this and this and this and this? I already said that, to please you, I would not insist on including the information about the American Life League's idea. Another reason is that you might want to present that false idea as true. As for your amazing demand for a reliable source for "the Pope's quote", since you reject the Holy See's website, I must post a request on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to ask whether, after all, you are right and I am wrong. Esoglou (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC, yes. The RS issue with the pope's quote isn't that he might not have said it, it's (as I have reiterated multiple times) that, since we are not the Vatican press office, it is not our job to make sure every word the pope says about abortion is reprinted in our article. Our article should reflect what is covered in reliable secondary sources. Another user might have been less lenient and removed the entire quote, since it was cited only to a primary source, but I limited myself to trimming it to the parts that are relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)