Talk:Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Baudoin

I'm not sure how this is relevant. It's basically "Some Catholic politicians place their religious beliefs over their government duties," but that doesn't seem like anything that merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on Catholicism and abortion (as opposed to on Baudoin of Belgium, where it definitely belongs, because they are his own religious beliefs). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This comes under the heading "Recent events". It was a significant event regarding abortion politics. More so than some of the other items given under that heading. Surely, on reflection, you can't seriously think that the interpretation that you here gave ("politicians placing their religious beliefs over their government duties") was an impartial objective statement. Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The gist of the Espresso source is "Some Catholic politicians place their religious beliefs over their government duties," however, so are there other sources you can provide that say that it was important? It's mentioned in a couple of Google Books sources, but rarely in such a way as to suggest that it was significant to Catholicism (ie. to the topic of this article) as opposed to the question of temporary abdication or refusal of royal assent in the Belgian government, or to Baudoin in a biography. You say it's "a significant event regarding abortion politics," and that's absolutely true, but "abortion politics" are not the topic of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If "abortion politics" and its relation to the Catholic Church's teaching, which is what King Baudoin's action was about is to be excluded, that will lighten the article considerably by removing all the stuff about "abortion politics" dissenting from the teaching. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cute, but abortion politics and Catholicism are not technically synonymous, as much as some politicians make out that they are. If the predominant view of the sources is that this incident isn't really relevant to the RCC, we don't substitute our view for theirs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to see on what objective grounds you would limit the article to political actions taken contrary to Catholic teaching on abortion, to the exclusion of political actions taken in faithfulness to Catholic teaching on abortion. Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the section on RCC responses to pro-choice politicians; we don't, in fact, cover individual Catholic politicians voting for abortion rights (except Rutelli, whom you added). The answer is, rather obviously, that the predominant view of reliable sources is that these incidents are relevant to Catholicism and to the church in public life. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

... and Kerry and Kennedy and Giuliani and Biden. Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect; we cover the RCC's response to these guys. We don't cover, to choose an example at random, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean we cover negative responses by some bishops (not the Catholic Church as such) to "these guys", as we note the freedom the Church allowed to Baudoin and the non-negative response of one bishop (the Bishop of Rome, in fact) to Rutelli.

Do you really want more American examples like Moynihan and Pelosi and ... to be added? And more non-American examples from Italy and France and ...? Esoglou (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do any sources, other than the passing mention in L'Espresso, treat it as an issue relevant to the church? (I wouldn't object to removing Rutelli; the case seems only to have been brought up in the context of the American politicians.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think I've made it perfectly clear in this entire thread that how individuals choose to act on their beliefs is a matter for their articles. IIRC Pelosi's thing was that she stated an intent to take communion after generalized comments from bishops about pro-choice politicians not doing so, as opposed to the cases we discuss where the bishops singled out individuals, but I could be misremembering. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

On the same grounds, the reactions of those extremely few bishops, a small minority even in the United States, "is a matter for their articles". Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not according to reliable sources, a concept with which you might do well to familiarize yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What reliable sources? (I take note of, but in practice ignore, your insult.) Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I trust that the sources that I have found saying that the reactions are only of an extremely few bishops and that I have now inserted in the article will measure up to whatever reliable sources you can find that say the contrary. Esoglou (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to go ahead and look at the changes in detail when I have more time, but the first thing I notice is that you just restored your old text, BLP-noncompliant sources and all. I'll say it again: If you don't care about Wikipedia policy, edit elsewhere. The other thing is that I wonder if it might be worth spinning "pro-choice Catholic politicians and refusal of communion/excommunication" (but with a snappy title) into a separate article, because this is getting quite long and it's certainly not the sum of what there is to say about Catholicism and abortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, who wants to include information on demands that certain people be excluded from receiving Communion? Who presents these demands by just a very few American bishops unsupported by the majority of the bishops even in the United States alone as examples of "the use of ecclesiastical penalties, such as ... denial of communion, against pro-choice Catholics", when none of the people concerned has in fact ever been turned away on presenting themselves for communion? And who is confusing refusal of Communion with excommunication? Shall we just omit the information? It is very far from "the sum of what there is to say about the Catholic Church and abortion" and will not be sorely missed. Esoglou (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I take it this edit encapsulates this dispute. I am of the opinion that this edit is inappropriate for this article. The article is about what the Catholic Church and its individual agents do and say in — at least as relevant to this dispute — reference to individuals in governmental or leadership positions. It is not about how such individuals have reacted or responded to those acts and statements. Even if it was, the source for this edit and, indeed, the edit itself specifically says that King Baudouin took the actions as "an entirely personal gesture: no one in the Church's hierarchy had asked him to do so." (Quoting from the source cited in that diff.) The source is reliable only for what it says: this was a personal act not made at the request of the church. It could be that the King reacted due to what the Church had previously said about the issue (as opposed to a specific request made by an agent of the church), but to put such a speculation in the article or to use the quote in such a way as to imply that reasoning would clearly be prohibited original research. As a purely personal act not in response to a Church request or (so far as can be determined from the source) prior ruling, his act is entirely irrelevant to this article.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I will express no objection to the view you have given, and will immediately adjust the text to meet your view, by adding information on "what the Catholic Church and its individual agents do and say in reference to (the particular individual) in a governmental or leadership position" who is in question, namely, King Baudouin of Belgium. I hope that removes the grounds for complaint. Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church approval of King Baudouin

Roscelese tells me: "dude. you are the only one who wants to include this. unless one of the other editors changes their mind, stop trying to put it in. if you're not content with the current consensus" and she deletes the information about the Catholic Church's approval of the action of King Baudouin. As far as I know, she is the only one who wants to exclude information about the Catholic Church's reaction to this recent event involving a prominent Catholic actor in the field of legislation on abortion. So what is the "consensus" of which she speaks? And what are the grounds advanced for saying that it should be excluded?

(By the way, since "dude" is not part of my vocabulary, I am puzzled about its meaning. Is it applicable to her too? Perhaps it is only for males. In that case, she has no grounds for using it of me either. If it happens to be a derogatory term, it should also not be used by any Wikipedia editor of another. Any more than the accusations of bad faith made against other editors.) Esoglou (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with mentioning that Baudouin made a personal choice to abdicate temporarily rather than give approval to the legislation in question. This should, however, be written in a manner that does not make any sort of value judgment on his decision — the previously cited sources should be usable, but without quoting the portions about "heroism", "strong moral conscience", etc. — Richwales (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the article speaks of the Catholic Church's negative reaction (condemnation) of what legislators did in favour of legalizing abortion, why should it not mention the Catholic Church's positive reaction (praise) of what the king's stand against legalizing abortion?  ::You will find above that another editor, who intervened once only, objected to the mention only of Baudouin's personal choice with no mention of any posterior reaction by the Church. He wrote: "The article is about what the Catholic Church and its individual agents do and say in — at least as relevant to this dispute — reference to individuals in governmental or leadership positions." I changed to the present text precisely to conform to that view, which seems to be the direct contrary of what you have now expressed. By "present text" I mean the one that Roscelese has deleted, just as she deleted the text with which I earlier tried to correspond to that other editor's opinion by including the Church's reaction, while still keeping the fuller account of the king's action. That's three versions (in fact somewhat more) that she has insisted on deleting, not wishing any mention whatever to be made of Baudouin. Esoglou (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've explained why - sources don't treat it as an important incident in the history of the RCC and abortion. You will recall that that is the subject of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Vatican-approved action that, on the basis of Catholic teaching about the sinfulness of abortion and at the cost of being declared "unable to govern", King Baudouin took against legalizing abortion in Belgium for the first time ever is an incomparably more important incident in the history and subject matter of "the Catholic Church and abortion" than was the action of one pro-choice/pro-abortion organization (CFFC) in taking out a single newspaper advertisement in October 1984 that resulted in initiation of disciplinary action against some of the few nuns involved (the source does not even say disciplinary action was enforced). And you can't seriously maintain that it was also less important than the other "recent event" that you inserted into the article: a single nun's approval for a single abortion and her consequent excommunication! This seems obvious, but since you disagree, I must indeed do as you insist: "dude ... go to RfC." Esoglou (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. Unfortunately, reliable sources disagree with you (as the source you yourself linked proves - it's a book about European politics, not about religion) as to which was important to the Catholic Church, and we work based on reliable sources, not on editors' political and religious opinions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

King Baudouin, Catholic Church and abortion

Was King Baudouin's refusal on grounds of Catholic teaching to legalize abortion in Belgium, at the cost to him of being declared "unable to govern" and only later being reinstated, a less important matter for this article than the posting of an advertisement in a newspaper and the excommunication of a nun for approving an abortion, so as to justify excluding from the article any mention of the king's action, while including the other two items? Esoglou (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion above before responding. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please ignore the question above. The matter at hand is not in fact any iteration of whether or not we should remove the information about the 1984 New York Times ad or about Sister Margaret McBride, which Esoglou is suggesting removing to make a WP:POINT about how he believes his political position is not sufficiently promoted on Wikipedia, still less when deliberately phrased in a manner contrary to RFC guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion section

I reverted most of the sectioning because, while dividing a long section into subsections is helpful in the abstract, it doesn't help the reader if it's divided semi-arbitrarily rather than according to what the content dictates. For example, in the section as divided before, we had an "Opinion polls" subsection even though there were also opinion polls in two other subsections, and a "Reasons for dissent" subsection that included things which were not reasons for dissent. I think it's possible that the section could be divided, but this particular was of doing so wasn't productive - are there other suggestions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted renaming of section: "political debate over legalization" is way too specific. A lot of what's in the section is specifically about morality - whether A) abortion is morally acceptable, and B) whether one is a good Catholic if one believes A. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Organization of this article (or lack thereof)

I'm sorry to be harsh but the organization of this article has recently been a mess. This harsh judgment should be tempered by the realization that it is often hard to organize an article that can be discussed along multiple dimensions (in this case, chronological, geographical and topical). One particular problem has been the fact that there is a significant amount of U.S.-specific information in the article thus imbalancing the article towards the U.S. while ignoring Europe, Latin America, Canada and the nearly 1 billion Catholics who live outside the U.S. I have tried to bring the U.S.-specific material together into a new subsidiary article titled Catholic Church and abortion in the United States. Over time, I hope that this article can be expanded to cover relevant material from the "rest of the world" while relegating some of the U.S.-specific details to be covered in the subsidiary article.

Another problem is the mixing of historical and contemporary material in a less-than-desirable way. There may be value in having an article that focuses on the history of the Church's doctrine so as not to distract the reader with historical details of doctrinal development that is not very relevant to the current situation. Such an article might be titled History of Catholic Church doctrine on abortion.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you think should be moved into a section on historical development? There's already a lot of stuff at History of early Christian thought on abortion and Ensoulment, and I think it's important to keep, say, the 1869 bull here because that's the year from which the current position (life at conception) dates; probably the late-19th-century stuff about therapeutic abortion as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I didn't know about History of early Christian thought on abortion. I don't understand why the scope of that article is limited to "early Christian thought". It is such a short article and it could cover so much more if it were entitled History of Christian doctrine on abortion. It seems to me that we should develop that article first and then consider whether there is justification for a separate article on History of Catholic doctrine on abortion. I doubt that there will be justification for a separate article because I suspect that there is not enough that happened between the Reformation and modern times that is specific to the Catholic Church. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressing your specific question, I would have to review the article again but in general we should focus less on history and more on what the Church's teaching is on abortion. The specific date and declaration that established the teaching is not so important in this context and tends to distract the reader with unimportant historical detail. The whole bit about ensoulment, quickening, etc. is history. It is important historically but is only marginally relevant to the current debate and so it should be omitted or at least de-emphasized. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to include at least some major parts of the history in the main article - for example, we don't have to go into all the back and forth over ensoulment, but we should include the idea that the modern position (ensoulment at conception) was not always held in the RCC and that they used to think it occurred later. Maybe we should go through the material piece by piece and decide what to include here. (I agree that the "early Christianity" page is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're on the same sheet of music here. Let's work to improve the article as outlined above. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and the politics of abortion

That article was created due to a split of material from this one. I am not sure if such an article is justified, they both seem to cover the same topic. Seems like WP:CONTENTFORK. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The current content of that article is stuff that easily fit in this one, but there's a lot more that could be added on the national, subnational, and supranational level - the UN, the USA healthcare bill, etc. I think that a detailed summary would be a good idea in this article, because so much of the intersection of the RCC and abortion is political and we don't want to downplay it because of WP:WEIGHT, but I don't think the scopes are fundamentally the same. (Am not the article creator.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I am the creator of Catholic Church and the politics of abortion. I do think that there is overlap between Catholic Church and abortion, Catholic Church and the politics of abortion and Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. Personally, I think Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication should be merged into Catholic Church and the politics of abortion. However, Roscelese disagrees so I figured we could let the two articles run in parallel for a while and we could see how things develop. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that this discussion continue at Talk:Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

CFC source for 22%

Surely this is redundant? We already state 16 to 22% think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances and we cite it to the surveys that found these numbers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed reference to 1930s as this in not correct

It was quoted on this page that the Catholic Church opposed birth control starting in the 1930s. This is, however, not correct. There are many sources to back this statement up, look to the following link to be pointed in their direction:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It was cited to a reliable source, while your source is an anti-contraception advocacy website. Nice try, but no. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that this belongs on this page for two reasons. The first reason is that this page is about the Catholic Church and abortion. This alleged statistic, while interesting, has nothing to do with abortion, and therefore I don't see it making any contribution to the advancement of the reader's knowledge of the Catholic Church and abortion. The second issue I take with this alleged statistic, as I stated above, is that it is incorrect. I'm sure you would like to debate the validity of Catholic Answers but at the bottom of the page at the link I provided, you will clearly see the Nihil Obstat of the Censor Librorum. This means that document is free from both doctrinal and moral error in the eyes of the Catholic Church. While you might personally not agree with the site and label it 'anti-contraception' we're interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Given that, I think an article that contains a Nihil Obstat is vastly more qualified to be a source about Church doctrine than a news company that makes a historical assertion without any source.

For the initial issue of this alleged statistic not belonging here in the first place, and the second issue of a better source disagreeing, I suggest that we revert back to my original edit. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source that you may find useful. It is written by a priest and cites many early documents that support my point. I am providing sources that cite actual documents that anybody can look up. While I respect news organizations, they shouldn't be looked to for historical facts, particularly when they don't cite any sources to back up their controversial claims. Here is that source: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another source you might find useful. This one states that while the Anglicans started teaching in the 1930's that contraception was morally permissible within marriage, that this was a break from much of Christian history (including Catholic Tradition). Perhaps it was this reference to the 1930's and contraception that the original author of your source was confused. Campbell, Flann (Nov., 1960). "Birth Control and the Christian Churches". Population Studies (Population Investigation Committee) 14 (2): 131–147. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You've tried the nihil obstat argument before, and you were told the same thing I'm telling you now: that the nihil obstat doesn't mean it's historically accurate, but rather that it "contains nothing damaging to faith or morals." That's not only insufficient to prove its accuracy, it suggests that it may be inaccurate because accuracy might damage people's faith in a consistent teaching. TheRealPresence is similarly not a reliable source, but I'll try and access the Campbell piece later. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the 'Nihil Obstat' not being proof of historical accuracy, and I don't claim it does. I do think that it (and I think many would agree) that, generally speaking, an article written about the Catholic Church and that was given the 'nihil obstat' is a more reliable source than passage from a news organization. Suggesting that a nihil obstat may be given to something inaccurate to prevent damaging people's faith is absurd. The Church doesn't lie to people to propagate the faith. What is meant by that is that they don't want incorrect information to damage people faith. Why do you feel the realpresence source isn't reliable? Just because a source supports the Catholic Church doesn't instantly mean it loses any sort of historical credibility. As it stands, I have provided multiple, more credible sources (even if you only acknowledge one) that refute yours. Therefore, I will revert back to my original edit. After having read the Campbell source if you still have questions, we can talk them out here. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All sourcing issues aside, I still don't see how this alleged fact has anything to do with abortion and the Catholic Church, yet another reason why I wish to remove it. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

While you and perhaps others will want to so more secular sources, and I will, of course welcome them, here is a statement from the Vatcian stating that "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception..." Furthermore, by precedent set on numinous other pages on Wikipeida pages, therealpressense, Catholic Answers, and EWTN have all been used and viewed as acceptable as a source of Catholic history. All of this aside though, this debated fact really doesn't have a place on this page. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, we cannot prefer partisan sources to neutral, historical sources. It's possible that the cited source was mistaken, but you're not going to convince anyone of anything by citing sources with an anti-contraception agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, most of these sources that I have used have been used successfully on various other pages on Wikipedia. Secondly, I don't think there is a big WP:RS issue here. There is a difference between stating an organization's (or in the case, the Church's) opinion on something and having it be an agenda. I understand that you want to see a 100 percent secular source (as you have been given with Campbell) but I think it is also useful to understand that when it comes to early Church history most primary sources that the scholars work with are religious and most scholarly interest in the Church comes from the religious. Just because an article is written by a priest, or what have you, doesn't make it biased, et cetera. Priest are held to the same accountability standards as everybody.

While I'm obviously not presenting this as a good scholarly source (it's the BBC), and don't agree with it completely, it should give you a quick idea, from a secular source, of the mainstream and accepted opinion on this matter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_1.shtml#h2 --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, I've undone the edit (so the bit about contraception is currently in the article) because you're not supposed to edit this article more than once a day and that was my second time. I wish you hadn't reported me, if you had simply told me about this rule I would have reverted right a way (and if you have in the past I must have forgotten as it's been quite some time since I've been on here). I'm sorry if you think that I'm trying to push an agenda, I'm not, I just know a fair amount about this stuff and feel frustrated when I believe something to be wrong on Wikipedia. When I see this, I try to fix it. You and I sometimes disagree on sources and that's what this page is for, right? I thought we had made some headway when I found Campbell and recently the BBC for you. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note for the record: the references to both contraception and the 1930s have been removed by other editors. For further information on this refer to the 'edit summary' on the actual edit. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC regarding proposed title change of History of early Christian thought on abortion

There is a proposal to change the title of History of early Christian thought on abortion to History of Christian teaching on abortion. Please express your opinion on this proposal at Talk:History of early Christian thought on abortion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

La Repubblica as a source

I'm no expert on the Italian paper La Repubblica but as I understand it, it has a center-left bias. The paper's wikipedia page confirms this, though I'm not sure if it's sourced there. Given this, when citing polls from it do you think we should note (so as to let the reader know) of the paper's bias? It would seem to me that this would make sense and I just wanted to gain the input of others. I generally think that it is important to inform people of the source (and any biases of that source) of a statistic generate by a pole in the article (unless the pole comes from an agency generally regarded as completely unbiased like Gallup). This is because (I think at least) people would clearly have more respect for a Gallop poll than say a poll conducted by a local TV station, so it makes since to let them know. It could be argued that all one has to do is look to the citation but I think this is going beyond what the average reader would do, thusly creating a situation in which the average reader is ignorant as to the professed (or scholarly deduced) bias of the agency or news paper at which the pole was conducted. Just something to think about. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a survey by Eurispes, an Italian polling organization (like Gallup); Repubblica is just reporting the results. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, that is useful to know. The article wasn't linked to so I didn't actually read it, just the name of the paper caught my eye. That aside, do you (and editors in general) think it would be useful to tell people inline with the statistic where it comes from? For example "According to Eurispes, between 18.6% and 83.2% of Italian Catholic women...." There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer, just thought it might be beneficial to discuss. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've added it to the text. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh, did I not put the link in the citation template? I am so dumb. I'll do that.

As for the question of attributing to Eurispes - It needs to be a question of attributing all survey results or none, unless we have strong cause to suspect a particular one (like a USCCB poll or a CFC one, though I'd oppose including those anyway). Otherwise, we give the impression that some are more reliable than others when that isn't the case. Because we cite so many different polling organizations, I think it would clutter the article to attribute them all, so I think all should be omitted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you start out by saying, but would continue along that line of thought and simply say that we should either attribute all or nothing. Otherwise it will give rise to individual sources having to be litigated as to their merits which, I suspect, would be highly time consuming. I guess right now at least I see more reasons to attribute everything than nothing. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you comment on which other sources you feel need attribution? It seems to me that if the need for attribution of a potentially questionable source is so strong that it drags all the other sources along with it, it should be strong enough to deviate from the default not-attributing and just attribute the questionable source. Re your edit summary, again, La Repubblica is for all intents and purposes not cited in the article, it's just passing on Eurispes's data. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, right, I agree La Repubblica is for all intents and purposes not cited. My point in my last comment was just that every time a statistic is answered we attribute it, inline, to the polling organization (or whoever is so responsible for it). We won't make a distinction between questionable sources and non-questionable ones because that just leads to painful, illogical (per basic Socratic standards) debates. Yes, I may still be a little agitated over my WP:RSN debate. But you see what I'm saying? It seems like while we can clearly say that while Gallop is solid and 'generic local news station' is more questionable, we should just label all of them as opposed to entering into debate on some of the less than obvious ones. Again, I don't feel that strongly about this, just thought I'd put it out there. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just think it would be tedious for editors and more difficult for readers, particularly in statements where we collapse 2+ sources into one statistic (like the "16 to 22% of American Catholics believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances" - it's from three different polls that give 22%, 16%, and 21%). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be too cluttered if we cite every survey in-line. We should only cite the survey in-line if the title provides information that is immediately useful to the reader. However, just citing USA Today or La Repubblica doesn't provide enough information and asking the reader to click on the footnote number and then the link to the online source is asking too much of him/her. We should cite the survey as well as the secondary source in the reference. Thus, a reference might read something like "results of 2006-2008 Gallup Values and Beliefs survey as cited in USA Today, August xx, 2009" with a link to the online version of the USA Today article. That way the reader knows what the survey is as well as which secondary source reported on it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. (My objection to the attribution is, as I've said, aesthetic and not moral, so putting things in the footnotes is fine with me.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church and contraception

Catholic Church and contraception does not currently exist. There seems to have been an implicit decision that, given this article's current title, that the subject is off-topic here. Should we perhaps create an article on this topic? Or should we expand this topic (e.g. to Catholic Church and reproduction, so that it can also cover related subjects like IVF)? Would it be appropriate to expand this issue into a WP:RFC? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to make a new page. Abortion and contraception are two entirely different issues so I don't think it would be logical to combine them. Also, this page is already quite long. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

New page would be super but would probably require a lot of research in reliable sources, which I'm doubtful people have the time or the ability to do at the moment. Consider working on Christian views on contraception and/or Catholic teachings on sexual morality in the meantime so that it can be split out later, I'd say - although the IVF thing would be interesting too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would disagree that they "are two entirely different issues" : (i) they both relate to human reproduction and preventing pregnancy, and (ii) the middle ground between them is rather blurry, particularly given 'emergency contraception'/'the morning after pill'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "CC and reproduction" page but think it would have to be a summary or navigation page for fully fleshed-out sub-articles on abortion, contraception, and possibly IVF. Also re: emergency contraception - This should definitely be covered in a contraception article, not an abortion article. WP is required to adhere to a neutral point of view based on reliable sources - we can and should say that the RCC believes that fertilization = person and that prevention of implantation = abortion, but we can't take it as true in our article organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there is overlap, but there is easily enough content on each to warrant their own pages. It's not as if the general abortion and general contraception articles are the same page, so I don't see why these should be either. I agree though, it would be a major undertaking about a very focus issue on which there is already some information out there on WP, so we should probably just expand those first. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

King Baudouin of Belgium temporarily abdicated rather than sign a law legalizing abortion because he was opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith. Should this incident be mentioned in Catholic Church and abortion? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC) (I have no interest/opinion whatsoever, I'm just doing this myself to make the two people on different sides of the issue be quiet and discuss rather than revert each other)

• Yes In this incident of more than national importance, with the king's decision praised by church leaders even in other countries and by the Vatican itself, fidelity to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the sinfulness of procured abortion led to a king's power being suspended by a government (the king remained king and so, strictly speaking, did not abdicate) until the full parliament voted to restore it to him. This incident is undoubtedly far more significant than others in the article, in particular the publishing of an advertisement in a newspaper, as a result of which church proceeding were initiated against some out of a few nuns associated with the advertisement, and the excommunication of one American nun who gave approval for one abortion. Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have no particularly strong opinion on whether the Baudouin information should be included. However, I will make one observation. As far as I can tell, opposition to the inclusion of Badouin rests partly on the premise that this article is about the Catholic hierarchy's official teaching on abortion and its official actions on the basis of this teaching, not about individual Catholics' personal gestures in favor of or against the teaching. This premise would also seem to count against the inclusion of the second paragraph in the lead, which says that "many, or in some countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position promulgated by the Church". It seems to me that either both Baudouin and the lead's second paragraph should be included or both should be excluded. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why I didn't want the article to be renamed - because I knew that within a month or so, people would be coming in to try to hide from readers the fact that many/most Catholics disagree with the teachings presented here. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that Catholics do not make up the Catholic Church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Assent has as much right as dissent to be in an article called either "Catholicism and abortion" or "Catholic Church and abortion". "Catholicism" is just a broader term. Whatever the title of the article, Phatius's position is decidedly logical. Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, sources don't treat it as important to the Catholic Church and abortion, ie. the subject of this article. They treat it as important in Belgian politics and in Baudouin's life, but that's not what this article is about; one is free to discuss it in articles where it is relevant. Esoglou's argument is that Baudouin was a heroic Catholic pro-lifer, but at Wikipedia we work based on what reliable sources say about an event, not about how an editor feeeeels about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The cited sources indicate on the contrary that the incident had, precisely in connection with Church teaching on abortion, echoes throughout the Catholic world. Only a vision limited to the United States alone would think that the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride was greater. Esoglou (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • And which sources would these be? Any that discuss the incident in any detail talk about its significance to things other than the topic of the article. "Important event" =/= "needs to be discussed in every Wikipedia article." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Why, the sources cited in the edit that you insistently deleted, of course! And what cited sources do you refer to as having treated what happened as insignificant for the Catholic Church and abortion? Esoglou (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Uh-huh, self-serving comments and self-published press releases. Those sure demonstrate importance to the topic of the church and abortion. Now check out the scholarly sources that discuss it as a political or legal event, not a religious one: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], etc., etc. Even reliable sources about religion treat it as a political event: [11] [12] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I set about examining the sources you have indicated here but gave up before ending them when I failed to find any that even remotely suggested that the action by the "staunch Catholic" who "could not in good conscience" sign into law the bill that introduced legalized abortion into Belgium was without significance for the relationship between the Catholic Church and abortion. If there is one, please let the rest of us know which one it is. Political actions can be related to the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion: you yourself have created a Wikipedia article about such actions! How can you rationally dismiss as "self-serving comments and self-published press releases" all three sources cited in the text you deleted? What makes you imagine that the Associated Press statement that Baudouin's action "won him high praise from the Vatican, which hailed the decision as a 'noble and courageous choice' dictated by his 'very strong moral conscience'", was a mere "self-serving comment and self-published press release"? The source that gives the actual words of an American archbishop addressing a group in Ireland is surely reliable for the linking of the event by a high official of the Catholic Church to its teaching on abortion in a context wider than that of Belgium alone. And even you yourself have several times cited Sandro Magister's article "Obama's Pick for Vice President Is Catholic. But the Bishops Deny Him Communion" as a reliable source on the Catholic Church and abortion! If you continue to claim that none of these is, in the precise Wikipedia sense of the term, a reliable source for what is attributed to it, I shall have to raise the question on the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
            • That threat might have some effect if anyone was claiming that the sources were unreliable, but I'm afraid that's a strawman. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Well then, if they are not unreliable sources, can we now agree that Baudouin's action was in fact related to the Catholic Church and abortion, in the absence of any evidence that it was unrelated? Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Try looking at the sources I cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • I have looked at every source you cited except for the ones that only provided snippet views or no view at all. Almost all of them mention Baudouin's Catholicism and his personal opposition to the legalization of abortion. I don't see how it can be argued that the incident was purely political. Baudouin's religious beliefs were the crux of the issue that had to be resolved by suspending him for 44 hours. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • • I'm not denying that the sources mention that he opposed abortion or was Catholic - I'm just not sure that the way in which individuals act on religious beliefs is appropriate in an article on their church unless sources treat it as an event that had an effect on the church, on how the church was perceived, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • "Try looking at the sources I cited," Roscelese said. I had already told her I had looked and had failed to find any that said the event was unrelated to the Catholic Church and abortion. Phatius and Pseudo-Richard have also failed. If there is something, would Roscelese quote it? Esoglou (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                      • I'm not asking that sources claim it was unrelated, so you shouldn't pretend that's what I'm looking for and you shouldn't waste your own time looking for such claims. I'm asking that the sources demonstrate that Baudouin was relevant to the church, not just that the church was relevant to Baudouin. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                        • It was indeed a waste of all our time for you to list so many sources that turn out to be irrelevant You have admitted the reliability of the sources that relate the event to the Catholic Church and abortion, with Church leaders lauding the king's stand in line with the Church's teaching. You have now admitted that you can produce no reliable source that denies that his stand was connected with the Catholic Church and abortion. In Wikipedia, that is enough. Esoglou (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Roscelese: you have complained and continue to complain that the new article title runs the risk of suggesting that the scope of the article is limited to official Church positions and not to the opinions of those who are outside the official Church hierarchy. Baudoin is an example of someone outside the official Church hierarchy. The fact that he supported the official Church position rather than opposed it doesn't make his views and actions any less relevant than the views and actions of those who oppose the Church.
• @everybody working on this page: A little bit of consensus-building give-and-take would go a long way here. One of the principles of consensus building is to not dig in your heels on things that are not that important. From my point of view, the Baudoin incident is an interesting but not terribly important episode. It was, if anything, more an exercise in collegiality and collaboration between two sides with opposing POVs. We could use more of that at Wikipedia in general and at this article in particular. As I see it, Esoglou, myself et al. could let this point go and the article would not suffer. Equally, Roscelese could let the incident be inserted and the article would not suffer, either. Too many articles in Wikipedia suffer from the kitchen sink effect where everybody wants to put in their pet little example thus leading to a junk heap of examples rather than a lucid exposition of the underlying principles. Let's stop wasting time on this petty issue and move on to improving the article. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For exactly the reason you say (that I think lay views are also important), I'd be happy to include Baudouin if sources treated the incident as relevant to the church. But for exactly the reason you say (that it's a pile of tangentially related examples rather than a tight article on a topic), I think it should be excluded unless such sources are found. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes - What is the point of the incident? In brief, a constitutional monarch did not want to personally sign a law that offended his conscience, so a way was found for the law to be enacted without his personal involvement. It was a temporary legal fig leaf that allowed the monarch to make a political statement without having any direct impact on the political process of his nation. Considering the debates over whether JFK might have been beholden to the Vatican, I think it is very relevant that a Catholic monarch found a way to state his personal beliefs without imposing them on the political process of the country that he ruled. This incident is certainly as important as some of the other U.S. incidents mentioned in this article. As to Roscelese's assertion that the incident was "political" rather than "religious" in nature, I find this line of argument unconvincing because I find it difficult to see how the two can be distinguished in this context. Much of this article is about the interaction of religion and politics; specifically, we must discuss the Catholic Church's attempt to influence individual attitudes and actions of Catholics as well as the political process regarding the legalization of abortion. If we are to discuss the treatment of pro-choice politicians, then we should also discuss the stances and actions of pro-life politicians and statesmen. As a more general comment, I note that this article doesn't adequately cover the role of the Catholic Church in the abortion debate in the U.S. The Church's stance has made it a fellow-traveler with pro-life evangelicals and a target of criticism by pro-choice activists. The article kind of covers this but it doesn't really come right out and say it and it should do so. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed re: covering activist church (either here or in sub-article). This book could be useful (got it from citation list in Catholic Church and politics in the United States). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, this is an event of significant historical importance within Belgium and the Church. There is a lot of weight given to Margaret McBride and Brazil cases, and they are certainly no more significant than this. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes: Although the king isn't an official of the Catholic Church as such, he was a Catholic monarch, so I'd see it as at least tangentially relevant. I'd see this as a brief mention, though, and the issue should be presented as an aspect of Baudoin's devout Roman Catholic conviction.--Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes: Tangentially relevant as the actions of a Catholic Monarch. Agree with the reasons for brief mention given by Dailycare above. Whiteguru (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes: This is related to the article for it provides insight into how Catholic Doctrine helped to shape the reign of a monarch. I also agree with the point that was made by Dailycare. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - It seems to be significant enough to be mentioned. The amount of WP:WEIGHT to give it, and any other similar events where individuals have elected not to endorse or support legal abortion, is another, probably more problematic, matter. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Per all the reasoning given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Roscelese calls the source cited for the statement that American Archbishop Charles J. Chaput cited the King Baudouin's action as an example of heroism in doing what one knows to be right "self-serving self-published material". Surely the Archdiocese of Denver is a supremely reliable source for a statement by its former archbishop? Esoglou (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my lack of geographical understanding, but I was not aware that Belgium was within the Archdiocese of Denver. What exactly is the relevance of an archbishop on the other side of the world? And if this opinion was of such monumental prominence, why wasn't it published in The Denver Post or even the international press? WP:WEIGHT anybody? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Belgium event was not just of local importance and of no concern to non-Belgians, as might seem suggested here. It was of sufficient - even if not "monumental" (!) - importance to the Catholic Church even outside Belgium for an American Catholic prelate to talk about it in Ireland - without of course implying that Belgium was within the Archdiocese of Denver or Ireland! - and for the Vatican to comment on it - without of course implying that Belgium was within Vatican City! This article is about the Catholic Church and abortion, not about Denver and abortion. I note that you have not actually claimed that the Archdiocese of Denver's publication is not a reliable source for what its former archbishop said. Esoglou (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No one's saying it's not a reliable source for what he said, but we are both saying that we don't care what he posts on his own website unless a real source picks it up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My first point was that the Catholic Church has a largely geographically-based hierarchy, where each archbishop represents the church within his own archdiocese (with the Vatican representing the church as a whole). Therefore the Archbishop of Denver does not speak for the church in matters relating to Belgium. My second point has been fairly well summarised by Roscelese. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And given that we've got the opinion of the Vatican (which does have jurisdiction over Belgium) on the matter, why are we also including that of Denver (which doesn't)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh... I think what you wrote shows some misperceptions of the role of bishops in the Church. It's hard to get exactly right so what I write here may not be exactly right but I will explain it as far as I understand it. The ultimate power in the Church resides with the bishops but they all agree that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the head of the bishops acting in a properly invoked council. The critical point here is that, unlike the Orthodox view of ecclesiology, a council of the bishops does not trump the power of the Pope. (this last bit is getting off-topic but I don't want to overstate the power of the bishops in council)

While it is true that it would be bad form for one bishop to meddle in the affairs of another bishop's diocese, it is not the case that bishops only speak for the church in matters relating to their own diocese. Bishops, especially archbishops (who are simply bishops of major dioceses, called archdioceses), have a very public role and do speak for the church at least within the nation that their diocese is located in. It is perhaps a little less common for the statements of the archbishop of Denver to be reported in the national press but the archbishops of Baltimore, New York, Boston and Chicago have had very prominent roles in the public arena througout the history of the U.S. and their statements are frequently reported in the national press.

In summary, the Vatican is not the only source of teaching for the Church. Bishops in the U.S. help guide American Catholics by interpreting for them events around the world. The archbishop of Denver does not speak for Belgium but he is responsible for guiding his flock (i.e. the archdiocese of Denver) in understanding Church doctrine and how Baudoin's "heroic" deposition fits into the picture. His statements are also likely to be used to guide Catholics in other American dioceses.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see valid points on both sides of this discussion and some invalid ones as well.

The website of the archdiocese of Denver is clearly a reliable source and it is not the self-published "own website" of the archbishop of Denver any more than the official websites of the United Nations, NAACP or the United Way are the "self-published own websites" of the heads of those organizations. The Archbishop of Denver is a notable figure with standing at least equivalent to the mayor of a major metropolis. That said, the pronouncements of the mayor of Denver are not necessarily worthy of inclusion and so it is worth asking whether Baudoin's actions were commented on and reported on widely by the press. If the story was not picked up by the Catholic press and if there were not a number of positive comments along the lines of that of the archbishop of Denver, then perhaps Hrafn and Roscelese are right. I personally think it unlikely that the archbishop of Denver was the only Catholic prelate to comment on Baudoin's action. I also suspect that other Catholic journalists and pundits also reported on the incident. It's just a matter of finding them.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I largely agree with Pseudo-Richard- obviously, the archdiocesan website is clearly reliable, as are the quotations of the archbishop (excellent analogy, btw) and also that there are surly other sources out there mentioning the incident. Though perhaps not as many as you might think as this event occurred in the early days of the world wide web; meaning that it's fairly likely that not many of them out there have been digitized. That all being said, it would be my position that since we can affirm the authority, and reliability of this source, we should use it for now. When more sources are discovered they may, of course, be used to reenforce this source's point, but since we know this source to be accurate I don't see a problem with it's immediate use just because there may be 'better' affirming sources out there. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

King Baudouin's suspension

Cited reliable sources say it was the Belgian government that declared King Baudouin unable to reign. Article 93 of the constitution also says that judgement on inability to reign is made by "les ministres" (French version - "après avoir fait constater cette impossibilité"), "de ministers" (Dutch version - "na deze onmogelijkheid te hebben laten vaststellen"), "die Minister" (German version - "nachdem sie diese Unmöglichkeit haben feststellen lassen"). The judgement of the government had of course to be confirmed by the parliament, and one source does speak of the parliament declaring the king unable to reign, but there seems to be no good reason for "correcting" the constitution (and nearly all the reliable sources) by insisting on changing the mention of the government to a mention of the parliament.

Roscelese has complained about "material removed from Belgium para(graph)". Clearly, she was not referring to her own removal of the material about Archbishop Chaput's statement. I presume she was referring to the mention that she reinserted of a book that she called "A Throne in Belgium", for which she gave a link to the Google Books information on the book "A Throne in Brussels", which is already mentioned in the paragraph on Belgium. That book states that King Baudouin told Prime Minister Martens that the government had to find a legal solution, and that Baudouin "wrote to Martens" (the head of the government) to confirm his agreement with the solution.

For these reasons, I am restoring the original text, and removing the duplication (with a mistaken title) of the mention of Belien's book. Esoglou (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The material I restored was the material that stated that the reinstatement was worked out beforehand. It's lovely for you that you believe Baudouin's action was really heroic, but we will not pretend, contrary to sources, that he risked anything for this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese, you are inserting your own strong opinions here by interpreting Baudoin's actions as "non-heroic". You don't know what he might have ultimately risked or how he would have behaved if the Parliament had been intransigent and forced the issue rather than seek an accomodation. Baudoin may or may not have worked things out beforehand when he sent the letter on March 30 saying that he could not sign. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you think he was a hero or not (it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to make such judgments). The fact of the matter is that he is viewed as such and revered as such by pro-life Catholics. That fact is what we should report. The fact that he didn't risk that much is something we could also report on if you could find a reliable source who put forth such a view. Trying to impose your view by belittling the importance of his action is right on the edge of unacceptable POV pushing. (I admit there's a fine line between editorial judgment and POV-pushing.) Let me suggest an analogy for you to consider: Was John Brown a heroic abolitionist, a subversive rabble-rouser or a dangerous fanatic? Clearly, it depends on your POV. Brown did something "heroic"; Baudoin didn't risk what Brown did but it's not your place as a Wikipedian to put yourself in judgment over what other people (i.e. the Pope and other Catholic archbishops) think of his actions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Buh? That came out of nowhere, didn't it? I'm objecting to the removal of sourced information about the fact that the plan was decided on before Baudouin abdicated, which Esoglou is removing because he seems to think Baudouin was some great hero. He's within his rights to believe that, but we will not suppress sourced information because of that belief. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm... I haven't seen Esoglou say that he thinks Baudoin is a hero (although it's very possible that he has that POV). I have seen you mention several times in edit summaries and on Talk Pages that we shouldn't "pretend Baudoin was a hero". Those assertions indicate your POV. Both POVs deserve to be documented in the article as long as they are put in the mouths of reliable sources. The key here is to stop this POV-pushing and just write what the sources say. I did a bit of Googling and expanded the section with a little more detail. Hopefully, this will put an end to this POV-pushing edit war. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for removing your claim that the Belgian parliament created the arrangement. Would you now please quote the source on which you base your statement that the arrangement was a part-creation of Baudouin's, so that there will be no longer be any possible doubt about the accuracy of your account. I have only found statements that the king agreed to the government's plan, but perhaps, as you say, he was a part-inventor of it. My text, which explicitly said that the government had the king's agreement before taking any action, cannot, as far as I can see, be said to suggest that the king risked anything. He did say, as I presume you know, that he would rather abdicate than sign the bill, a fact not mentioned in what either you or I have put in the article, but he didn't have to make that choice. My own opinion on whether Baudouin's action was heroic or, as many Catholics maintain, a cowardly compromise, is immaterial. Let us from now on discuss the text of the article, without attributing motives and hang-ups to each other.

I don't understand on what grounds you are convinced that the title of Belien's book is A Throne in Belgium and not as imaged on Google Books, A Throne in Brussels.

I wrote the above before being called away, and I find now that the text has in some respects been improved by another editor, but your naming of Belien's book remains. There has been a disimprovement in that the arrangement is now once again attributed to the parliament, not the government, but I am confident that the editor who made the changes will revise it in the light of what we discussed above.

My remarks here are unrelated to the exchange of comments between Richard and Roscelese immediately above. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Esoglou - I struggled a bit with "Parliament" vs. "government". Here's the problem... according to this source, it appears that the Socialist and Christian parties were in a governing coalition when the Socialists "joined the opposition Liberal parties to lead an alternative majority to approve [the abortion] law". It seems the government was the Socialist and Christian parties but the law was passed by the "alternate majority" with Christian parties voting against. The King notified the Prime Minister of his unwillingness to sign the law. It is not clear to me who came up with the agreement. Assuredly, the Prime Minister was involved and so he is clearly the head of "the government". However, all the parties including the "opposition Liberal parties" had to be involved in this arrangement so I wrote "Parliament". I'm not sure there is a big difference in this case but now you know what my thought process was. If you insist on "government" over "Parliament", I won't object. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Brussels vs. Belgium was a slip-up - I was restoring the citation template rather than the messy link, which contained the wrong title. Belien's book goes into detail as to how the temporary abdication was arranged; here is a snippet of a longer explanation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese. Esoglou (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The parliament (legislature) had the constitutional power to pass the law. The government (executive) has the constitutional power to verify that the king is "unable to reign". That's what the constitution said and says. Only Belien's book, as far as I know, speaks of the parliament as being involved in the declaration of inability. The other sources speak of the government. (You know that the prime minister is head of the government but not of either house of parliament, and that the parliament/legislature can remain unchanged when the government/executive is changed by losing a vote of confidence. So executive and legislature are not, after all, identifiable, even if the distinction is not as immediately obvious as under the United States system.) I strongly suspect that Belien is wrong. I haven't time now to make sure that, in the Second World War, the government declared Baudouin's father, who stayed in Belgium, unable to reign. If, as I think, they did, the government, which went into exile in London without having the parliament with them, were able to act without the parliament. I hope that is enough. To delve deeper would require more time. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the full paragraph from Belien (apologies for any OCR errors):

For a law to take effect, the Belgian Constitution requires that the

King sign the bill. Baudouin refused to sign the Abortion Bill because the Catholic Church forbids its members to facilitate abortions. He told Charismatic friends a few months before the bill was voted that he would 'sooner abdicate than sign.' In the end, however, he did not abdicate but told Prime Minister Martens that the government had to find 'a legal solution in which the necessity of a well functioning parliamentary democracy can be reconciled with the King's right not to act against his conscience.'R5 Andre Alen, a Professor of Constitutional Law who was Martens's advisor, came up with a 'creative interpretation' of Article 82 of the Constitution. That article states that 'should the King find himself unable to reign,' a regent is appointed. To avoid the appointment of a regent. Alen combined Article 82 with Article 79, which states that after the death of a monarch and before his successor has taken the oath, the 'Ministers assembled in Council' temporarily assume the royal prerogatives. The King wrote to Martens to confirm his agreement with the solution that Parliament declare him 'unable to reign' and vote him back into office after the 'Ministers

assembled in Council' had signed the abortion bill in his place.

As far as I can tell, parliament had no involvement beyond passing the law. The constitutional crisis was between, and was resolved between, the king and the government (Prime minister and Ministers). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn, and so I ask Richard to change his "by which the Belgian Parliament would declare the king unable to govern, assume his authority and enact the law after which Parliament would then vote to reinstate the king on the next day" back to something like "by which the government declared the king unable to reign, assumed his authority and enacted the law, after which the parliament voted to reinstate the king on the next day". Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, in spite of what Hrafn said, Richard is influenced by the words actually used by Belien, who (alone, as I said) indicates the parliament as the (unconstitutional) agent. So would Richard please look at the other sources cited. The first has: "Confronted with what amounted to a veto by the king, the government acted to suspend Baudouin I from power and declared him 'unable to govern'. The cabinet government (a coalition of Socialists and Christian Democrats) then assumed the king's powers and promulgated the abortion legislation. Then on April 5, 1990, the Belgian parliament was called into special session. By a vote of 245 to 0, with 94 abstensions, King Baudouin I was reinstated as the reigning monarch of Belgium." The other cited sources also say, in line with the constitution, that it was the government, not the parliament (which was not in session), that declared the king unable to rule (the proper term to use, according to the constitution, is "unable to reign"), that it was the government, not the out-of-session parliament, that assumed the royal powers, and that it was the government, not the out-of-session parliament, that gave the final touch of enactment to the law. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree that "Belien ... indicates the parliament as the (unconstitutional) agent" -- Belien makes no such statement. He simply indicates that the parliament passed a law legalising abortion (and a parliament is surely constitutionally empowered to make laws). Interestingly enough Belien notes in the preceding paragraph that abortion had already been de facto legal in Belgium for some time (and even had their costs reimbursed by the state), they were simply registered under the legal fiction of defining them as wikt:curettage. The only arguable "unconstitutional agent" was Baudouin himself -- who abrogated a right of de facto veto to himself, where the constitution (unless I'm very much surprised) allowed him none. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this incident, I cannot help but consider it as nothing more than a piece of bizarre theatre:

1. Abortion was already quasi-legal in Belgium, and the legislation was merely making it fully legal.
2. Baudouin never had any hope of actually preventing the legislation -- the best/worst that he could hope for was to get himself fired for failing to act like a good figurehead (which is all that a constitutional monarch is) and do as he was told.
3. The only effect that the constitutional compromise had was to (i) allow Baudouin to simultaneously save his feelings and his job & (ii) save Belgium the cost of the coronation for a new monarch. Under a constitutional monarchy, it doesn't matter who the monarch is, as long as you've got one.

Personally, I don't see if there's really much point in including this sideshow in the article. But if it is included, I think that it is very important that my point #1 above is included (cited to Belien) to provide context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As is obvious, I will raise no objection to the interpretation of Belien's "the solution that Parliament declare him 'unable to reign'" as meaning that the declaration was actually made by the government when the parliament had not yet met so as to take action of any kind. Esoglou (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... in an excess of courtesy, it appears Esoglou has been waiting for me to change the text to reflect the "everybody except Belien" comment that it was the "government" and not the "Parliament" that came up with the arrangement. I misread the above comments and assumed that Esoglou or Hrafn would make the appropriate changes. I am OK with either of them changing the text as long as the new text makes it clear that it was Parliament that reinstated the king. (Not that I care that much but I believe it took a vote from Parliament to reinstate him. If the other sources indicate that the government (e.g. the Prime Minister) was able to unilaterally declare the king unfit to perform his constitutional duties, then I am OK with saying that it was the "government" that did it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I had already changed the article. I must admit I missed the "the solution that Parliament declare him 'unable to reign'" bit. I just looked up an official translation of the Belgian Constitution. It states (at article 93) that "If the King finds himself unable to reign, the ministers, having had this inability stated, immediately convene the Houses. The Regent and Guardian are appointed by the joint Houses." This implies (but rather vaguely) that it is the king himself who makes the determination, and that the parliament only gets involved to appoint a Regent and Guardian (which stage was short-circuited by re-appointing Baudouin). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I humbly apologize to both Richard and Hrafn for my regrettable negligence in failing to notice that the text had already been changed. I am making a slight further change to make clear that the agreed solution was put into effect.

The "finds himself" in that unofficial, and I must say defective, English translation of the Belgian constitution is a Gallicism. In French, you say "Je me trouve à Bruxelles", literally "I find myself in Brussels", to mean instead: "I am in Brussels". So the official French text of the constitution has: "Si le Roi se trouve dans l'impossibilité de régner". The official German text: "Befindet sich der König in der Unmöglichkeit zu herrschen". ["Befinden" is not the same as "finden". My German-English dictionary (Collins, Harper and Ernst Klett Verlag) gives the following examples of its basic meaning: "sich auf Reisen befinden" = "to be away"; "unter ihnen befanden sich einige, die ..." = "there were some among them who..."; "die Abbildung befindet sich im Katalog" = "the illustration can be found or is in the catalogue" ...] And the official Dutch text has: "Indien de Koning in de onmogelijkheid verkeert te regeren", where the verb, which is not in a reflexive form as in French and German, indicates a change of situation. Esoglou (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This new translation of the Belgian Constitution was made under the

guidance of the Legal Department of the House of Representatives and with the collaboration of Mr A. MacLean.
The Legal Department is also thankful to Mr R. Ryckeboer, Adviser to the President of the Constitutional Court, for his suggestions and

appraisal.

This is therefore an official English translation of the text (though not of course the official English text of the constitution, in that (i) it has no power of law & (ii) no such official English text exists). Incidentally I found your lack of translation of the French, Dutch & German texts singularly unhelpful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Hrafn, for not having defined my use of the term "official", when I echoed the "without official recognition" of the Wikipedia article on the Belgian constitution, where I went to get links to the official texts. What I meant was that a Belgian court that was deciding about the constitutionality of some law or action would have to take into account equally the three official (in that sense) texts of the constitution in the three national languages, but would give no weight to a translation into English or any other language no matter how authorized. You quite rightly say that the translation in question is not "the official English text of the constitution, in that (i) it has no power of law & (ii) no such official English text exists".

Here are translations of the French, German and Dutch texts of article 93:

French: If the King is unable to reign, the ministers, after having this incapacity ascertained, immediately convoke the Houses. Guardianship and regency is provided for by the Houses brought together.

German: Should the King be unable to reign, then the ministers immediately summon the Houses, after having this incapacity ascertained. The joint Houses see to the guardianship and regency.

Dutch: In case the King becomes unable to reign, the ministers, after having this incapacity ascertained, immediately call the Houses together. Guardianship and regency is seen to by the joint Houses.

You will note that the "ascertaining" of the king's incapacity to reign (or the "verifying" or "determining" or "establishing" or however you want to translate "constater", "feststellen", "vaststellen") is not done by either the king or the government. Presumably, when the constitution was drawn up, it was envisaged that the government would ask one or more doctors to examine the king, as happened with George III of England, a case that would be fresh in the memories of those who wrote the Belgian constitution. Esoglou (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that (even from the English translation). Of course the whole thing becomes even vaguer when the 'inability' is moral rather than medical -- how then was it 'ascertained'? Was it by the king simply stating 'I can't sign this bill into law'? It strikes me as rather ad hoc for what is meant to be a profound constitutional issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It was decidedly "ad hoc", a new invention. Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read at least one source somewhere that described the incident as the government/Parliament ignoring the constitution and doing what they wanted (i.e. pass the law without creating a constitutional crisis). However, this article is not about Belgian politics or Belgian constitutional law. It is about the Catholic Church and abortion and what makes the incident notable is the Catholic Church's use of the incident as a laudable example of "moral courage". If the Pope hadn't commented on the incident, it would be less noteworthy for the purposes of this article. Even so, it's sort of an awkward thing to fit into the article. If we removed CFC, McBride and Baudoin, the article would probably be improved as a result. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Assenting and dissenting - where is this going?

The dissenting section has been dormant for a while, but Esoglou indicated when adding Teresa that he intended to go about adding other "assenting" groups, so now might be a good time to talk about where the two sections are going to go. Discussion of Baudouin indicated that an individual person's faith was relevant to the article in a brief mention (which is not quite what we have, but putting that aside for the moment), but everyone seems content to put it in the "Belgium" section in Pseudo-Richard's geographically organized structure. Similarly, I wonder if we might put relevant individuals and groups in their countries' sections; otherwise it'll turn into a useless kitchen-sink of "here's a notable Catholic who opposes abortion rights" and "here's a notable Catholic who supports abortion rights." (Martin Sheen vs. Gregory Peck, etc.) So CFC would be in the USA section; Pseudo-Richard has talked about writing about the role of Catholic lobbies in the American anti-abortion movement, etc. That way the importance of these individuals and groups would be contextualized in a way that made their presence in the article relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection, whichever way you want. If, that is, you still think such individuals and groups should be mentioned in this article. I am not convinced that they should. But if they are to be mentioned, I think we can't have only those who are for or those who are against Catholic teaching on abortion. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

An individual or a group is not notable just by virtue of being for or against abortion rights. I agree with Hrafn's comment elsewhere that the whole Baudoin incident has been blown up way out of proportion to be more than it really was (one source says that the Belgian government/Parliament simply "ignored the constitution" to do what they wanted i.e. get the law passed without forcing the king to really abdicate or do something against his conscience). However, since the Pope lauded Baudoin and at least one archbishop made a public statement praising him, that's what makes the incident notable. Thus, reporting on the positions of Sheen and Peck seems to be not very worthwhile.

Incidents like the CFC advertisement and the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride are, IMO, open to debate. The CFC advertisement is not, IMHO, notable in itself but it does serve to illustrate the point that even Catholic religious are not unanimously in agreement with the Church teaching on abortion. I think we need to put more emphasis on telling the reader what the point is and finding more sources to support it. It would help to find secondary sources that establish the existence of a dissenting faction within Catholic religious and help to put a size estimate on it. Are we talking 25% of religious, 10%, 1%? And, in which countries?

The story of Sister Margaret McBride is another conundrum. We should be discussing issues rather than specific events and yet this incident helps to highlight an issue. It would be better to be discussing the issue directly and then use McBride's excommunication to illustrate a point rather than to focus on the excommunication as an incident and leave it for the reader to infer the point. News stories about McBride are thus primary sources and what we really need is a secondary source that is talking about the Church's disciplinary actions with respect to abortion. If such a source mentions McBride's excommunication, it is likely to do it in the context of "the big picture" of the Church's enforcement of discipline rather than the kind of treatment we currently give it which "sticks out like a sore thumb".

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There's also the idea of combining the new anti-abortion medical personnel section and McBride into one section. Such a solution would provide a good structure for going into more depth about Catholic hospitals and their relationship to abortion and contraception. I'm not sure, though, what makes you say that news stories reporting on McBride are primary sources. They're not particularly historical, but they are secondary sources. Re the CFC ad, it's notable enough to support its own article per discussion in scholarly, historical sources. I agree with your thoughts about making the article less events-focused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting McBride in with the "freedom of conscience" section. There are clearly two sides to the debate and medical personnel are particularly challenged to balance their personal moral convictions with the requirements of their profession and their faith. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the CFC ad - Did you mean that the CFC has its own Wikipedia article or that the CFC ad has its own Wikipedia article? (I assume you mean the CFC). It's OK to mention the CFC in this article. However, just mentioning the ad by itself is a bit awkward because it seems "apropos of nothing" (i.e. just thrown out there for the reader to digest without any connection to anything before or afterward). As I wrote above, we should focus on the existence of dissent among Catholic religious and use the CFC to illustrate that point. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The CFC ad has its own Wikipedia article (A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion), independent of our article on CFC (Catholics for Choice). But yes, again, narrative/context is nice when it can be supported by RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the comments of the Pope and the Archbishop of Denver actually make Baudouin's actions notable? They are both partisans in this, so of course they will attempt to hype its significance. What did Baudouin actually stand to lose? His figurehead position and a few perks? It's not as though he was risking poverty, let alone death, by his threat to abdicate. Therefore to call this 'heroism' is fairly obvious hyperbole. This is why we rely on third parties not partisans for determining how noteworthy events are. And although the third-party coverage doesn't allow it to be dismissed completely, it hardly suggests that it amounted to a 'sea change' in Belgian attitudes on abortion (quite the opposite). This suggests that this material is probably better suited to Baudouin of Belgium than this article, and that its inclusion here may be undue WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you completely. If we are able to shift this article away from reporting about specific events (e.g. Baudoin, McBride and CFC) and towards issues, it may become less useful to report on Baudoin. Without debating whether or not Baudoin was "heroic", we can argue that he may not be more relevant than the story of Alvin York was to the history of World War I. Too many Wikipedia articles become "kitchen sink" articles where everybody with a relevant anecdote wants to add it to the article. We have to ask "what issue or point is the Baudoin incident illustrating"? If there is none, then the section becomes unhelpful. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that any whatever of the cases of opposition to the Church's teaching mentioned in the article produced a sea change in anything whatever. Certainly not the teaching. Nor do I think that Mother Teresa's talks in Oslo and Washington (and in many other places) produced a sea change in her listeners' attitude, except perhaps in an extremely few cases. But I think removing of these interventions, for or against, is unacceptable to perhaps the generality of the interested editors. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any context that Baudouin is a part of? So it might be less of a "look it's Baudouin" and more of a "this incident was part of X trend and here are some other examples." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

'Kay, I moved the assenting and dissenting stuff to geographical sections (except Dombrowski/Deltete because that didn't really seem like a USA thing even though they're American). Not ideal (it'd be better to come up with trends or themes if we can) but better than the kitchen sink of assenting and dissenting people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)