Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV terminology

Should we not be striving for neutral terminology in this article? Why is there a constant effort to stack it with non-neutral wording and an unwillingness to permit edits that move it in that direction? This edit replaces several instances of perfectly neutral "persons... homosexual orientation" or "homosexually inclined" with the politically charged wording "gay people" to no good effect. I suggest that the most neutral wording be sought always and used in this article and more like it. Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style asks us to eschew jargon. As such, we should use words the way they are used in the rest of the encyclopedia and in the world in general. This isn't a case of a specialized Catholic term for which there exists no substitute - for instance, it would be ridiculous to avoid saying "Eucharist" or "Communion" in an article. But in the rest of Wikipedia, and in the real world, we say "gay people." We don't say "people with same-sex attractions" as though we were saying "people with cancer" or "people with Alzheimer's." To pretend homosexuality is a disease is not neutral, and if you want to convey the fact that someone believes it is, you need to use a quote, not do so in Wikipedia's voice. To claim that "gay people" is a "politically charged" term is quite simply nonsensical. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But do we say "retarded people" or "people with mental disabilities"? See how one is politically charged and unacceptable while the other is (currently) descriptive? Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So you do think this article should treat homosexuality as though it's a disease? Your example is right in line with the ones I provided. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out the parallel between "gay people" and "people with homosexual tendencies". I would be glad to hear your rationale for why the former is just as interchangably NPOV as the latter, but I probably wouldn't believe it anyway. I am also disappointed that it took yet another editor to intervene when you should be following the "BRD" cycle, which is not "BRRRRRRDRRRRRDRRRRD" as I have seen too many times. Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I assumed your question was meant in good faith because you really weren't sure, but I guess I was wrong. Please answer my question: why do you think it is appropriate to refer to homosexuality as though it is a disease? I've already given my rationale: "gay people" is the term used in the real world and it doesn't mimic the linguistic pattern we use for referring to people with diseases or disabilities. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I came here, and I reverted today, in support of Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. That is why I am standing by the wording - I don't care about your outlandish claims or inquisition on a tangent. The wording that was already there is more neutral and that is why it must be employed in favor of politically charged terms. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the claim that "gay" is politically non-neutral is simply wrong. Maybe you're in a bit of a bubble, but you should recognize that WP isn't the encyclopedia of the bubble. I will check at NPOVN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

it is ironic that someone considers the term homosexual tendencies jargon in an article with homosexuality in the title. None of the terms used are exclusive to the Catholic Church. The terms used are more accurate in describing what the Church is saying and means. The terms are also in the RS.Marauder40 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to quote what the church is saying, you should use quotes, rather than using non-NPOV jargon in Wikipedia's own voice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Again it is not just the Church that uses that terminology. It is cleaner the way is is and more exact. It is also NPOV. The term gay is more loaded and not. It is only recently in the scheme of things that the term gay was more then just slang. The views of the Church are for more then just those then those that personally identify as gay.Marauder40 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no NPOV problem with "gay". It's the common term. "People with homosexual tendencies" is a much broader term to me, encompassing much of the sexual spectrum. But I similarly see no particular NPOV problem with that term either. It depends on what you want to say. If in doubt, I suggest Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As used in the article [1], gay (rather than bisexual, "homoflexible," etc.) is clearly what's meant (eg. the Church does not urge bisexual people toward chastity), but you do bring up an interesting point: the language is not only POV but also unclear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought the church pretty much urged everyone to chastity, at least in the sense of not engaging in overt sexual behavior of any sort with someone outside of marriage, presumably including bisexuals as well. But I agree with the point that what is probably most important is that the language be clear, even if that language is perhaps not the terminology in most common use. I have always found myself that sometimes overused terminology becomes much less clear over time, given the number of differing meanings given to it. In this case, I really don't know what to do, other than perhaps use the exact quotation from the source itself, whether it uses common language or not? At the very least, doing so doesn't cause any OR concerns about whether the language used is being interpreted or misinterpreted correctly. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I could have been clearer in that offhand comment (the church is fine with a bisexual woman marrying a man!) Perhaps you could explain why you believe "Persons who experience same-sex desires and identify with the homosexual orientation" is clearer than "gay people", and why (if that reason is "the church believes that homosexuality is not real and/or is an illness") we wouldn't just use neutral language and explain further in the article text. With regard to clarity, you might also address Stephan Schulz's concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to maybe be continuing to make a few conclusions. The church pretty much allows anyone who meets their requirements to marry, and those requirements are really minimal, basic, male and female (at this point - personally, I don't know how it deals with transsexuals, or preoperative transsexuals). It does more or less hope and more or less official expect that from the time of the wedding forward, the individuals involved will engage in chaste behavior, but, honestly, and having spoken at various times with a few priests about annulment, divorce, etc., they don't even place much hope there. I think the end of the quotation though, "identify with the homosexual orientation" is an additional overt qualification, which is not I believe necessarily implicit in "gay," which is the sort of language I was thinking about earlier that gets used so frequently in so many contexts that its exact meaning becomes at least a bit vague and it becomes much harder to apply any sort of clearcut definition to it. And, actually, I thought I did address Stephen's concern above, so I guess I might ask for clarification regarding what you are thinking of there too. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little off topic, but if there's a way in which you think the article's current references to chastity for gay people don't fully represent the church's position, perhaps you could propose the changes that you feel are necessary. After you mentioned quotation, I refreshed my memory of that part of the catechism (the part which is cited for "experience same-sex desires and identify with the homosexual orientation") and that breakdown isn't actually in the source at all, so "identify" may be a moot point. The phrase used is "homosexual people." ("Gay" is still preferable to "homosexual" for various reasons that have been written about, but "homosexual" is at least not jargon-y and doesn't treat homosexuality like a disease.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If the phrase used in the original document is "homosexual people," then, honestly, as per my earlier comment, that seems to me to be the best language to use. Not knowing the language that these documents were written in could potentially be a problem, but if there is, as there generally is, an official translation of them into English if that isn't the language they were written in, that would presumably be equally acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What John Carter says is obviously correct. It would be ironic, as Marauder says, to claim that, in an article with "homosexuality" in its title, "homosexual" should be replaced by "gay" on the grounds that "homosexual" is jargon and loaded. As Elizium23 commented, this article suffers from insistent blocking of efforts to make it more neutral and to indicate objectively the Roman Catholic view, surely an essential part of an article on "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism". In the form insisted on by Roscelese and MrX, this passage also took out of context a phrase of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity", making it perhaps suggest weasel-fashion that the Catholic Church demands chastity only of homosexual persons. Much the same effect was achieved by removing from their context terms such as "self-mastery" and presenting them within what appear as scare quotation marks. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You should read the discussion and look at the edits in question before commenting next time. No one is arguing for replacing "homosexual" with "gay". Neither MrX nor myself changed any context around the call to chastity, and in fact, as I mentioned in my previous comment, our wording is closer to the source than the bizarre little phrase that was there previously. In your eagerness to complain about this article censoring the Catholic view (ha ha!) you've neglected to do some pretty basic things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I still agree with the observations by John Carter, Marauder and Elizium that I mentioned above. I may even agree with Roscelese's comment immediately above, with the obvious exception of her attribution of motives. And I still agree with the remarks about the distortion of this article by snippet quotes taken out of context. Esoglou (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me, as also reflected in the Gay article, that "gay" and "homosexual" are not interchangeable terms and that this, therefore, raises issues for this article as well as various other articles. The current title of this article indicates that it is principally concerned with issues related to: (a) Official Roman Catholic attitudes to homosexuality as a sexual orientation and, secondarily, with sexual practices between people of the same sex; and (b) The attitudes of homosexual people to the Roman Catholic Church on these issues. "Gay", however, is a broader term which encompasses much more than sexual orientation and practices. There is, of course, a broad spectrum of personality and cultural differences among homosexual people so generalisations should be avoided. Many homosexual people do not identity themselves as being "gay" in the broader sense or as belonging to any "gay movement" or "gay culture" and so on. On this basis it does not appear to me that using "gay" in this article is either accurate or neutral. I am, however, open to be persuased otherwise. Afterwriting (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The original language was verbose and stilted. If the discussion has now died down replacing those phrases with either "gay" or "homosexual" that is progress. I'd like to see wiki's discussion on the use of these two terms. "Homosexual" tends to be more formal lending itself to the written context while it seems archaic in conversation but my info might be dated. However, after 60 years (and 30 living in Greenwich Village) I have never found a gay person who objected to the word "gay" including gay conservatives. That includes gay Catholics active in St. Joseph's parish. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Afterwriting's observation that "homosexual" is the more precise, less ambiguous term, and with Jason's that "homosexual" is the more formal term, better suited for written contexts, such as an encyclopedia or a serious study, even if not for conversations. Esoglou (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that there would be a benefit to having some sort of guideline regarding when to use the words "gay" and "homosexual" in wikipedia. "Homosexual" seems to be to be the more vaguely "scientific" or formal term, while "gay" seems to me anyway to carry strong undertones of being directly related to the recently prominent "gay" community. If I'm right in that, then that might be one basis for differentiating between the two terms. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that makes sense - I myself have sometimes found that it feels odd to refer to a historical figure as "gay" even though I know perfectly well that "homosexual" would be equally anachronistic. That sounds like a good discussion for WP:WikiProject LGBT Studies. If you started a thread there, I'd be happy to comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at all involved in this topic, but I will give my editorial advise based on my application of Wikipedia guidelines. I became aware of this through a post on NPOV Noticeboard. I generally work on science and technology related articles. By our principles, article contents should summarize the topic neutrally. The sources should be selected to provide informative contents on the topic and not chosen to advance any position. Referring to our guidelines on imprecise expressions, we should use wording that summarizes what the sources say without infusing editorial bias. In doing so, we need to be careful not to draw conclusions or inferences by SYNTHESIS, as we don't post original research here. Wording shouldn't be changed to make it politically correct or cushion the harshness. At the same time, it should preserve the level of uncertainty expressed in the source. So, if reliable source reports "several scholars say that...", you shouldn't say "it is seen as...". An alcoholic and a person with inclination to alcoholism are not the same. "conditions prevalent in people with substance use issues" is ok for an expression meant to have a very broad meaning. Further in the writing, sections may narrow it down to specific substance and abuses. Using the expression "people with substance dependency" to euphemistically express "addicts" is ok, nor is it ok to describe occasional drug user as "addict" as it misrepresents the fact. It's sometimes a matter of editorial oversight as well as a POV issue.

If it hasn't been done so, I recommend going through the sources and verifying the editorial accuracy of Wiki contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether or not you have concrete opinions on the wording in this article? I think your parallel with alcoholism/addiction language makes sense, but if you look at the sources, it's clear (and not only from the fact that the sources actually say so) that it is gay people who are being referred to, not happily married straight men who occasionally have the fleeting thought that George Clooney is attractive (also, of course, the fact that every linguistic parallel is a disease should make one think twice about using this pattern in reference to homosexuality, as I've said). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese is right. And in any case it's disingenuous to pretend that the Catholic Church doesn't use the word "gay". Here are two examples. The pope recently said "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" Also in the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders it refers to those who support the so-called "gay culture"’’. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In the first part of edit, gays or homosexuals seems appropriate. "clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense" that conveys what the sources say is what we're after. I'm not sure if courage.org.uk reference is warranted here as it looks like an opinion piece. Is he particularly notable in religious studies that make his opinions particularly important? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not reviewed every part. Can you cite a snippet from the source, then what the prose in article read so we can look at specific contention points ? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A lot of academic sources use American Psychological Association Manual of Style, which includes avoiding heterosexist bias. This article is about a religious sect, but it's still an encyclopedia article.

“ Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word homosexual when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and the terms lesbians and gay men are preferred to homosexuals used as nouns when referring to specific persons or groups. The word homosexual has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear.

... Terms such as gay male are preferable to homosexuality or male homosexuality, as are grammatical reconstructions (e.g., "his colleagues knew he was gay" rather than "his colleagues knew about his homosexuality"). The same is true for lesbian in place of female homosexual, female homosexuality, or lesbianism.[2]

”

• "Persons who experience same-sex desires and identify with the homosexual orientation" should be written as "people who experience same-sex attraction and identify with a gay/lesbian or bisexual orientation"Cavann (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "gay" is preferable to "homosexual," but I'm actually concerned about the weird pathologizing jargon of rendering gay people as "people who experience same-sex attraction and identify with [whatever] orientation," as though a. they might be incorrect in their self-identification or b. the attraction is a burden they suffer, the same way we write "people with disabilities" or "with cancer." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be patronizing if we put "and/or" there. Some people do have same-sex attraction or same-sex sexual relationships, but do not identify as LGBT (hence the term men who have sex with men in health sciences). Cavann (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a classification that the source, which just says "homosexual," didn't actually go into. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that those POVs are invalid and unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and that the POV of the APA is so right that we should apply it in Wikipedia's voice? Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia documents non-neutral POVs, it does not adopt them. We can describe the Catholic Church's POV while still using the neutral terminology suggested by the APA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the APA is neutral. Elizium23 (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What is proposed in place of "heterosexual", a word invented together with "homosexual" and no less open to the charge of having a "clinical" character? "Straight"? What is proposed in place of "heterosexuality"? "Straightness"? What is the opposite of "heterosexuality"? "Gay-or-lesbian-ness"? "Gaiety/lesbianism"? Excuse my asking. Esoglou (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizium, we do not refer to Catholic people as "delusional people" etc in LGBT articles even tho some people may have that POV.Cavann (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum. Your response is irrelevant to the issues raised in this section. If your concern relates to this article, start another section for coherence please.Cavann (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Gay sex as inhuman

‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - there is a thread on this subject on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you think consensus has now been reached and it reflects the edit you have made them I am content to let the matter rest, having expressed my concerns on several occasions. But please don't simply dismiss my edits as "vandalism". That's not really warranted. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the thread, in which Contaldo80 failed to substantiate his insistent contention that "the document said that gay sex was inhuman". Esoglou (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Inhuman" is a ridiculous assertion (considering humans have sex), a terrible accusation, and a violation of WP:NPOV in terms of non-neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Esoglou and Binksternet (probably for the first time!). Despite the word "inhuman" being (mis)used in The Guardian newspaper article the Vatican document itself does not say anything about homosexuality which justifies using the word in this article to describe the document's views. Afterwriting (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The larger problem here is that we present a ton of primary-source documents and very few secondary ones. We can agree that using that detail from the Guardian article isn't a good idea, but the theory that we need to find commentary on the document rather than choosing ourselves what we want to include from it is sound. There are some reliable Google Books sources on it that we can use to help decide what we should include. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese - your observation is an important one. The article is stacked with primary sources in a way that enlightens few and bores many. Using secondary sources to contextualise seems to be a fundamental point of creating articles on wikipedia - otherwise it just becomes wikisource. On the issue of inhuman I'm prepared to let the matter drop. The difficulty is that some editors have an established view in their head of what "inhuman" means - and one meaning is undeniably "callous". But the dictionary also holds the equally valid definition that says that something is inhuman if it is not suited to human purposes. The Vatican document clearly states its view that homosexual sexual relations cannot promote conjugality or result in procreation and are thus not suited to human needs. To reject this second reading and to believe that only the first definition can be the right one strikes me as original research. And no-one has yet come up with a response to that argument. If someone has simply made the point that the word is easily misunderstood and perhaps provocative and could be replaced with something else that better conveyed the issue, then I would have been happier to hear it. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

What Benedict XVI said

Instead of removing the request for support for his claim that on 11 March 2012 The Washington Post reported that Pope Benedict XVI told American bishops "to forcefully denounce the powerful push to grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry", Contaldo80 has again simply repeated his claim, based on nothing but his own authority. Would he please at least try to substantiate his claim. Unsubstantiated claims, he knows, can be deleted. See Template:Request quotation. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's there in the Washington Post, what more is there to substantiate? Would you like me to ring you up and read it to you for your personal comfort?:

• http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-09/national/35446670_1_gay-marriage-bishops-pope-benedict-xvi

• You continually impugn my edits and cast doubt on my words, and time after time I have patiently proved you wrong. I have to date tried very hard to assume good faith with you and I will continue to do so - regardless of the editor - and assume all edits are made from the standpoint of neutrality and objectivity. But I would be interested to know whether you are a Roman Catholic priest or employed by the Roman Catholic church? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually he did no such thing. He requested a link to the actual article which is his prerogative. It is the responsibility of the person trying to add information to back up their information. The original citation given was incomplete, just giving a newspaper name and a date (which now appears to even be an incorrect date.) Based on that request the term "forcefully" appears nowhere in the entire article and is OR. Esogolou's earlier version is a better statement of what was said in both the Vatican official representation AND the Washington Post's version.Marauder40 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Contaldo80, for giving the text, which of course did not have Pope Benedict speaking of "freedom to marry" for same-sex couples, which would imply a concept of marriage very different from his, as the Washington Post itself made clear, saying that "Benedict stressed that sexual difference cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage". Nor did the Washington Post say that Benedict told the bishops "to forcefully denounce the powerful push". These ideas, falsely attributed to the Washington Post, were simply a Wikipedia editor's personal imaginings or wishful thinking, and we can now remove them. Again, thank you. Esoglou (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My use of "forcefully" to summarise the points made in the Post article is not unreasonable. I doubt Benedict was asking his bishops to make the argument by whispering quietly in a corner somewhere, so the suggestion that it is OR is perhaps a little strong. But I can live with it being left out. But I ask Esoglou again, are you employed by the Roman Catholic Church? If an employee of Walmart was editing the Walmart article then I would want to know the position, from the perspective of transparency. Particularly because every edit made (to my knowledge) has only used material either taken directly from press releases/ speeches of organ of the Catholic Church or from Catholic writers. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We're editors, not plagiarists. It's ok for us to accurately summarize while attributing. MilesMoney (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but not to distort what the source says. In this particular case, there was nothing in the Washington Post on which to base "forcefully". Esoglou (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Forcefully" would have been completely consistent with the report in the article. Benedict XVI has encouraged the Church leadership to take a very firm line on same sex marriage. That is beyond doubt. But I ask again, Esoglou are you a formal employee of the Roman Catholic Church? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Any response? I think we deserve transparency.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He is in no way obligated to respond. If you suspect a COI bring it through the right COI channels. This line of questioning is very similar to lines of questioning where people get offended if it is even implied that the fact that someone being gay may be causing POV or SPA editing. Every time anyone remotely says that they are immediately brought to ANI. Marauder40 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the current edit. First quoting is incorrect. Second it is incorrect interpretation of a primary source. When he is referring to those that "held out false hope to any brother or sister." He is not talking about the Church. He is talking about those that uphold non-authentic teachings related to homosexuality, thus giving people a false hope. Third the requested information on the Cornwall book was not provided. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to correct the issues, but there are several and I was really tempted to revert to an older version that doesn't have the entire paragraph.Marauder40 (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

True. But I will wait to see if Contaldo is able to accept correction and to modify his text. Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not the same thing as asking if someone is gay or indeed Jewish and then implying that it affects their edits. If someone if specifically employed by an organisation or a company or a government and is making edits to articles relating to that organisation or company then there is inevitably an issue of objectivity. If an editor is making edits in a private capacity then that in my mind is acceptable (and would, I suspect, be consistent with editing guidelines - happy to be corrected); if the editor is making them on behalf of the organisation or company in their capacity as an employee then that surely raises issues of neutrality. As far as I have personally seen I do not think Esoglou has made any direct edits that either offer criticism of the position of the Roman Catholic church or that offers information that has not come either from official Church channels or from Catholic writers (and indeed has a habit of modifying anything that can be viewed as criticism). If you think it's best handled through a COI channel then I will adopt that approach. I will at least give credit to Marauder who clearly states on his article page that he is a member of a couple of Roman Catholic religious orders.Contaldo80 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the policies on COI. You clearly are having issues distinguishing WP:COI, WP:EXPERT, and interest in topic. This page is for addressing edits to the article, not addressing the editors. Please either bring an issue before the proper channels or stop talking about it on this page. If you really want to discuss things take it up on personal talk pages, but he is under no obligation to tell you anything.Marauder40 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To turn to the article. Maruader - perhaps you can clarify please what requested information on the Cornwall book I was asked to give and did not provide? I will give you the benefit of the doubt that I've missed a legitimate request. Nor am I convinced that the wording in the article is incorrect. The letter says "you did not betray those people who, because of homosexuality, are confronted with difficult moral problems, as would have happened if, in the name of understanding and compassion, or for any other reason, you had held out false hope to any brother or sister." It's your opinion that John Paul was not talking about members of the Roman Catholic church but rather "those that uphold non-authentic teachings related to homosexuality". It's my opinion that he was indeed referring to Catholic priests, nuns, theologians etc reflecting currents in the 1970s among those inclined to a more authentic vision of compassionate Catholicism post-Vatican II and a desire to recognise homosexual relationships. However, I've tried to minimise the challenges of interpretation either way and reworded the sentence. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a letter but a speech to the whole body of the US bishops, not just a group of them. It praised them for their (the bishops') pastoral letter. The Cornwell remark was in the context of "As he approached the mid-point of his second decade in office", not the time of his address to the bishops at Chicago less than a year after his election. Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Contaldo you are showing exactly why primary sources are not supposed to be used except for providing direct quotes on Wikipedia. Your interpretation is incorrect based on cherry picking a small section of a document. If you read the entire document it reflects exactly what I said and is much closer to the changes that Esoglou has now made to the article. The Pope was praising the attendees for not giving people false hope during things like counseling, or other venues where they may be addressing people. It never said anything about giving people false hope that the Church would change its policies. This is another case of YOUR summary of something inserting a POV into the article that isn't in the actual primary source. As for what you didn't address. A tag was placed in the article after the Cornwall reference requesting a fuller cite then just what was given. It was requesting page numbers of the cite. You removed that request without addressing the issue. Marauder40 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the page number as I was using an electronic version of the book. However, the point covered is dealt with under chapter 17, Sexology and life, but there are references to John Paul II's attitude to homosexuality throughout Cornwall's book. I naturally refute the claim about POV. The edit I originally made captured the point that John Paul II was concerned at movements inside and outside the Church aimed at taking a "softer" approach on homosexuality than traditionally observed. His call was to maintain a harder-line in the interests of "truth". Surely the reference to "false hope" is the false hope that someone living a full life as a homosexual can be accepted as a normal member of the Catholic Church? Finally, can I ask again. Is Esoglou employed by the Roman Catholic Church and are his edits being made on behalf of his employer? This will help me decide wheher to request a COI investigation? I have no statement yet to suggest that this is not the case. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Curran

The sources, uniformly, attribute the action taken against him to his views on a broad range of subjects relating to sexuality. One source does not even mention his views on homosexuality and the others list multiple issues without identifying his views regarding homosexuality as primary. The reductionist, somewhat weaselly language inserted in the article ("following . . . ) is neither substantively accurate nor consistent with policy like BLP and V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to confirm that Curran's beliefs about sexuality are the reason for what happened to him. I notice you're not denying that the issue of homosexuality is a big part of that, as our sources say. At most, you're arguing that we can't attribute all of it to homosexuality. If so, I agree, but then all that supports is a more nuanced reference, not removal. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree MiesMoney, but to reflect concerns in the spirit of being constructive I've attempted to reword the section to avoid the impression that it was just Curran's views on homosexuality that were the problem (adding an additional reference from the Catholic writer John Cornwall). Although I think it's true to say they did play a major part. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Esoglou, I continue to try to take your edits in good faith, but I'm continually disappointed by your strenuous efforts to skew the article towards a "pro-Church" position ( - I've raised elsewhere the question of whether yor are directly employed by the Catholic Church?) Rather than ensuring neutrality your recent edits seemed aimed at justifying a particular agenda. I have removed, for example, the recent change where you have up-front - under Church teaching - set out how Dignity USA and John Allen interpret Church teaching. The reason you have done this is obvious. You have chosen two "gay-friendly/ sympthetic" organisations/ people to try to infer (co-opt?) that even they accept the official teaching of the Church on this issue. It seems bizarre. Official church teaching can be established through plenty of Vatican documents; we don't need some third party to tell us what they think is in them. Why single out these two - are they particularly significant? It's like citing Stonewall UK (a gay rights oganisation) to explain up front in a article what they think the English laws on homosexulity do or don't do, without first setting out what those laws are about. Likewise I have removed the words of Basil Hume from this section. While I respect Hume, and knew him personally, I don't think we can pass him off as some definitive expert on the issue of homosexuality and the Catholic church in the same way that Persona Humana, the catechism, and the letter on pastoral care are significant milestones for this issue and have a global (rather than English) bearing. I'm not against having his contribution elsewhere in the article but we need to think carefully where it can best fit in. Finally, I've absorbed the point made by John Cornwall into the text rather than under a separate heading. A popular editing technique of yours, I'm afraid, is to isolate a writer or viewpoint that you do not agree with and then present it to the reader in the article as some sort of marginal aberation rather than a valid contribution to the discussion. Let's try a bit better shall we? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to comment on editors rather than edits. "Helping support coverage of (certain) issues on Wikipedia", to quote a source you know very well, is no reason why an editor's edits must be rejected. What counts is whether the edits are pertinent and well sourced.

A section headed "Church teaching" needs a presentation of what the teaching is. It is not enough to give subsections about distinct primary sources enacting various provisions. The subsections on the two CDF documents could even be omitted, since the documents deal with particular aspects of Catholic teaching on the subject and are not overviews of the teaching as a whole. What is essential is to give an overview of the Catholic Church's teaching, cited to one or more reliable sources. The secondary sources cited for the material you have deleted are independent of the Catholic Church, and you surely know that "independent sources are not necessarily 'neutral' in the sense of being even-handed. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea." In fact, a favourable account acquires added credibility if provided by a hostile source. You have given no reason for doubting the reliability of the sources of the account that you have deleted and that must be restored until you give some reasoned motive for removing it.

You have also removed Hume's overview of Catholic teaching on the subject, to which you were the first to draw attention. (You should be thanked for continuing to add similar sources to the article.) It is unquestionable that Hume is, in comparison to, say, Cornwell, "some definitive expert on the issue of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality". Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hume was just a cardinal in England and Wales - not particularly significant player in terms of office. But he was well respected and he does summarise things well so I don't mind leaving him in (seeing as this is Engish wikipedia). What you do need to clarify is the original source for the statement from Theophilus of Antioch: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire." The use of 'homosexual acts' seems an anachronistic word to use. Please clarify the original source or I guess we will take it out. Finally I really hope you are not a member of the Catholic clergy as denying your office strikes me as a grave and offensive thing to do from the perspective of personal integrity and the dignity of that office. So I shall assume good faith that you are simply an editor contributing in a personal and transparent capacity. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You ask for "the original source" of what Theophilus wrote. Here you have it. The word he used was ἀρσενοκοιτία. The source cited in the article gave "homosexual acts" as the English translation. The nonsensical "citation needed" tag you added to the citation must obviously be removed. If you think another English translation better, add a source (other than yourself) that gives that other translation. You may also wish to take Google Translate to task for giving "sodomy" as the English translation of ἀρσενοκοιτία. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No thanks. If you want the sentence to stay then find a better academic reference to render the term more meaningfully. "Homosexual" is a 19th century term and is meaningless and misleading in this historic context. Let's try harder shall we. It's a shame we don't have a priest to hand who could help us with the translation from the greek - Esoglou do you know anyone perhaps?Contaldo80 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's revert

It would be good to know what this revert by Binksternet suggests should be discussed on Talk. Esoglou (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Even better would be to know what you were thinking with this revert which returned to the article two "citation needed" tags and an inaccurate piped link to Bonfire of the Vanities. You added a paragraph about the Buggery Act of 1533 which has nothing at all to do with the Church, using WP:SYNTH to make a point. You brought too much emphasis about a questionnaire which will likely have future ramifications but does not now have any importance at all. Your editing style consistently presents the Church's stance in the best light, even when it is widely criticized. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what two "citation needed" tags I "returned to the article". I asked for a citation for the unsourced statement that Aquinas "argued that sodomy was second only to murder in the ranking of sins", a reasonable request, surely. And for the unsourced statement that "The civil authorities followed the lead of the Church in trying the crime of sodomy in secular courts", a statement that occasioned a mention of the Buggery Act, which was passed by a king who opposed the Catholic Church, was repealed by a queen in harmony with the Catholic Church, and was reenacted by a queen opposed to the Catholic Church. This mention fitted in with the information that Contaldo insists on inserting about civil law rather than the canon law and the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's what should be removed. What was inaccurate about the link to the article Bonfire of the Vanities? You surely don't imagine that the only such bonfire was that of 7 February 1497 under Savonarola? Read the article. As for the Synod of Bishops questionnaire, I don't think it should be in the article; but since it is there, it should be accurate. Contaldo insists on inserting such matters. I choose not to be a reverter, and instead to add balancing information to what he inserts. As for your last comment, a Wikipedia article on "X and Roman Catholicism" should not be limited to statements unfavourable to the Catholic Church; and deleting sourced information merely because it can be seen as favourable is not an exercise in NPOV. Esoglou (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the objections to the previous text have not been maintained, I am restoring it. Esoglou (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean, ten hours have elapsed with no comment so I'm doing what I wanted to do right away.

Look, man, I presented legitimate reasons why the Buggery Act of 1533 should not be in the article, why the Easter egg link to Bonfire of the Vanities was not appropriate, and why there is too much emphasis on the current questionnaire. Let's address these, specifically, keeping them out of the article until consensus has been established. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Questionnaire

I question the notability of including anything about the survey at all. It's a survey, how often do we add anything about surveys about wide ranging topics? Just because some of the questions ask about same sex attraction, do we add the fact he survey is happening to every article that has questions concerning it in the survey. Wait until or if something actually comes out of the survey concerning this topic to add it to the article. It should at least remain out until Esoglou concerns are addressed. Marauder40 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the edits associated with the last two comments. I hope Contaldo will accept them too. Esoglou (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure but the questionnaire really needs to say in. This is very significant as a recent development. By all means shorten it but it would be odd to leave out completely. I'm also grateful to Binksternet for efforts to tidy the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying things like "Anyone who doesn't think this is a significant recent development has no business editing an article on catholicism" do not help and only contribute to a battleground mentality. It is a survey. Until something comes of the survey it isn't a big deal. Even Bink said "You brought too much emphasis about a questionnaire which will likely have future ramifications but does not now have any importance at all." I have actually taken the survey in my parish and the same-sex attraction portion was only a small portion of the entire survey. This isn't the first survey that has gone out and it won't be the last. You (and some within the press) are making a much bigger deal about a survey then it actually is. As I said earlier, why no mention of the survey in other areas that the survey covers. Marauder40 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC news today points states: "This month the Vatican launched an unprecedented survey of the views of lay Catholics on modern family life and sexual ethics." I'm sure many "traitionalist" Catholics like to downplay it all, but if major news sources say it is significant development then I see no reason why we should ignore it. Your views above about it being big deal I'm afraid are simply your view and WP:OR. No do I see the point about covering other quetions from the survey in an article about homosexuality but if you think there is value to be added in doing so then please make the case. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All active editors except Contaldo agree in opposing mention of a short-life questionnaire that, among many other things, asks about civil legislation on same-sex unions, the local church's attitude, pastoral care for those involved, and acceptance of the idea of the natural law in the union between a man and a woman. Insistence, on the unsupported authority of a single editor, on mentioning the questionnaire is equivalent to vandalism and must therefore be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong on this. While it's helpful to try and agree consensus for including/ not including material, WP guidance acknowledges this may not always be possible. So it's more important to ensure issues around notability and supporting references are addressed. I'm wlling to hear arguments about why the material presents a problem for either of these two things. But seeing as stories about the questionnaire have received very prominent coverage in most media (print and broadcast) then it would be difficult to argue that it is not notable, and indeed extremly odd to exclude. The BBC, for example, has described it as "unprecedented". So I think it should stay in until someone is able to put forward some sensible arguments as to why this is just a run of a the mill questionnarie which happens to be sent outto parishes on a regular basis and isn't likely to lead to very much. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You think it should be inserted and stay until someone puts forward an argument that you think is sensible. Get someone to agree with you. Everyone else here disagrees with you. Are they all out of step except our Contaldo? Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether everyone is in step with me or not is neither here not there. The only approach we can follow is that as set out in WP guidelines. The text as we have it meets notability and sourcing requirements in my opinion. If others think it does not then I would be very happy to see those arguments and decide what to do on the basis of evidenced discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So Contaldo again edits Wikipedia to make it reflect the Contaldo idea of what is notable, which outweighs that expressed by all other editors. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Who are these "other editors" you're calling upon? There are rules on notability. If you want to argue that the material is not notable then please go ahead and argue the case. I've expressed my opinion that we should base our judgement on the fact that the BBC is a respected and mainstream news organisation and has called the exercise "unprecedented". If you want to argue that the BBC is not a reliable source then feel through to do that. Your other attemt to define it as "off topic" is a further indication that you are clutching at straws.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet's view is that it is "a questionnaire which will likely have future ramifications but does not now have any importance at all". Marauder40 questioned "the notability of including anything about the survey at all". My view is similar. We three have for quietness sake let your mention of the questionnaire remain in the article, so why are you unable to let the indication remain that there are editors (n fact all involved except you) who think the mention is out of place? Do you think you are the only editor who counts? Here you insist on inclusion of what you alone support, elsewhere today you demand exclusion of what you alone object to. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A reminder as to guidelines: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."

I am not insisting on absolute inclusion of the material on the questionnaire. But I am insisting that if it is to be removed or given a heading of "off-topic" then it be removed in line with guidelines on what is/is not acceptable. I have made my argument that the BBC sees the questionnaire as highly notable, and the BBC and other mainstream news organisations have indicated the significance that there is a reference to civil unions for the first time. While I respect the view stated by another editor that it is: "a questionnaire which will likely have future ramifications but does not now have any importance at all". I have to say that is personal opinion until supported by a reliable mainstream source. In addition the argument to include the heading of 'off-topic' has not been made. The section talks about a questionnaire issued by the Catholic Church authorities (catholicism) asking for the first time on civil unions (homosexuality). I accept the rest of the questions in the questionnaire are not relevant but this one is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms". So please allow incorporation of the surely legitimate concerns of all involved editors except one (yourself, of course), who consider insufficiently relevant to this article "an unprecedented survey of the views of lay Catholics on modern family life and sexual ethics" that asks no question whatever about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual activity, nor about the rightness or wrongness of marriage-like civil unions of same-sex people, nor about the rightness or wrongness of adoption of children by such people; and which only asks about how to give pastoral attention to those who have got involved in such unions (which you know the Church condemns), and how to ensure for children in such situations transmission of "the faith" (which, as you know, condemns such unions).

Anyway, once the assembly of the Synod of Bishops has taken place, the section will soon be even more obviously irrelevant. Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it won't become irrelevant. The question on the pastoral care of people in civil unions is highly notable in itself and will remain so, regardless of whether subsequent reforms are enacted. And I have provided material to support that claim. I think you are letting personal politics interfere with your judgements. You know nothing about what the Synod of Bishops will or won't do. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevances

Documents that don't mention homosexuality in relation to the Catholic Church have no place in this article. There is no place therefore for mentioning any of the 19 ecumenical councils and the tens of thousands of local councils that say nothing of homosexuality. There is no place for mentioning encyclicals and other papal documents that say nothing of homosexuality. Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No-one has have they? The article only talks about those councils and encyclicals that did. If your problem, however, is with a brief reference to the fact that homosexuality wasn't dealt with in Trent or Vatican II then I fear you're missing the point. These two councils have been the most influential in the formation of modern Catholicism (as I suspect you well know). That they did not deal with homosexuality is notable. But a brief passing reference suffices in that regard. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that says absence of mention of homosexuality by some church council is significant, you can cite it. But don't treat Wikipedia as a place for publicizing your personal views. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think the article is best served by a source confirming that Trent and Vatican II were extremely significant councils in the shaping of the modern catholic church then I can do that now - Diarmuid MacCulloch, A history of Christianity. Alternatively if you can find a reference that suggests they were not significant councils in any way then please indicate and we can agree a different approach. I know you're often keen to suggest a golden thread from the time of Jesus to the current day suggesting consistency in Catholic doctrine or teaching. That might be appropriate with some issues, but I don't think it's our job to go out of our way to demonstrate it if the facts and historical sources say something different.Contaldo80 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Did silence mean the councils disagreed with the existing teaching? Or did silence mean the councils accepted the existing teaching without question or adjustment? What notable significance do you claim there is in their silence? Explain it to the rest of us, who see no more significance in the councils' silence on that matter than on thousands more. Your interest in that one matter seems to outstrip by far that of the Church. To think that that's what ecumenical councils ought to meet about rather than matters such as Lutheran and Zwinglian teachings! Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not willing to speculate on why the councils did not discuss the issue of homosexuality. I'll leave that to you to do if you want. It is certainly notable that the two defining councils of the modern Catholic age didn't feel the need to spend any time on the issue of homosexuality despite the fact that they did take an interest in regulating personal morality for lay Catholics. If pushed I agree that they no doubt accepted earlier teaching, but perhaps thought it was not a priority to do more. This interest seems really only to have emerged directly in modern times under the papacy of John Paul II. But I'm intrigued as to why you are very sensitive about singling these two defining councils out. Does their silence worry you? By the way who is "the rest of us" that I need to explain myself to? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting logic: The fact that it was only in the past, eight centuries ago, that any general council "felt the need to spend any time on the issue of homosexuality" proves that "this interest seems really only to have emerged directly in modern times under the papacy of John Paul II". Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

John Paul II seemed obsessed with homosexuality. We're living with his legacy. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting personal opinion. But unrelated to the general councils of 1179 and 1215. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. But you did ask. Maybe best if editors avoid distracting from the work at hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Didache

I am somewhat concerned by the reference to the Didache in this article at he start of the section dealing with history. I have found seven English translations of the Didache and they interpret section 2 of the text in the following ways: You shall not commit pederasty (Roberts-Donaldson); You shall not corrupt boys (Lightfoot), You shall not corrupt youth (Hoole); You shall not commit sodomy (Lake); You shall not molest children (Lewis); You will not sodomise young boys (Armstrong); You will not seduce boys (Smith). Only Lake seems of most relevance to an article dealing with homosexuaity - the rest imply pederasty or paedophilia. It' not clear to me, therefore, that the inclusion of such a text can point clearly to informing readers as to how the Catholic Church approaches homosexuality and how its thinking has developed over time. There is a risk of WP:OR in getting a source to say something which it does not clearly do. Views welcome. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sodomizing boys (not girls) is homosexual activity, isn't it? Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Right if you're making a statement like that then may I suggest that perhaps you shouldn't be editing an article on homosexuality. Sex with children is paedophilia, not homosexuality. I know some senior figures in the Catholic Church link to confuse the two but we should avoid such foolish mistakes here. Indeed the global sexual abuse scandal ripping apart the catholic church has two strands: (i) homosexual clergy with inappropriate relationships with other men or post-adolescents; and (ii) clergy sexually abusing children (boys and girls), and adolescents. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Though homosexual activity can, without ceasing to be homosexual activity, be consensual or not, intercrural or not, rape or not, Contaldo solemnly declares that homosexual activity cannot be paedophiliac but only not paedophilia. Not everyone agrees with Contaldo. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Contaldo solemnly declares that homosexual activity cannot be paedophiliac but only not paedophilia."

Eh? Are you having trouble with your english again? According to professional opinion, paedophilia is a distint sexual orientation. Let's treat it as such in this article, without blurring the boundaries.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

paedophiliac (ˌpiːdəʊˈfɪlɪæk) Definitions adjective: (psychiatry) of or relating to the condition of being sexually attracted to children paedophilia or (especially US) pedophilia (ˌpiːdəʊˈfɪlɪə Pronunciation for ) Definitions noun: the condition of being sexually attracted to children http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/paedophiliac

"Pedophilia is not a “sexual orientation,” and erroneous use of that phrase will be corrected soon in its new manual on mental illnesses, the American Psychiatric Association said Thursday." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/#ixzz30Jlw3Ad7 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter So, being clear on definitions is a must to any discussion. Being clear as to the APA's defined disorders is also a must. It is clear that pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation." Past definitions are now merely historical perspectives that led to the APA's new DMSV manual.

It is not correct to say that homosexuals are paedophiles nor that homosexuality is a disorder; as if to say that homsosexuality is a perversion. Homosexuality is not a perversion according to the bible nor the APA. The definition defines an adult's sexual attraction to children, regardless of gender or sexuality. Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation.

Do not blur the boundaries ( http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf ). AlaskaTW (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC) The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher

“Although Hadrian was married to Empress Sabina, the love of his life was his handsome lover, Antinous, who died in AD 130. The historical record gives no indication that Aristides mentioned homosexuality in general or linked Romans 1 to pederasty or homosexuality in general. His focus is on exalting Christianity and condemning pagan Greek idolatry.” http://www.gaychristian101.com/aristides.html

I have to agree with this analysis that Aristides really was talking about idolatry in comparison to the Church's faith. Also, no mention of sin from Aristides. Again, what has been presented in this wiki is misleading. One does not get to interject their personal feelings or insights into what Aristides says to condemn homosexuality. AlaskaTW (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem with acknowledging the view that paedophilia is not a sexual orientation. I'll take your lead as for the current accepted position - thanks for the clarification. The point I was making is that homosexuality and paedophilia are two different things. Esoglou above seemed to be blurring the two. To return to my original point - I am concerned that a good deal of original research is being woven into the historical section of the article. AlaskaTW is rightly to point out concerns on Aristiades. I'm also not happy at the narrative that suggests the Christian position was against the Roman/Greek one which accepted homosexuality in the form of pederasty. And that the Didache thus condemned pederasty. As I've set out above, only one translation I've found of the Didache actually uses the word pederasty. Can we have the text please from the secondary sources clarifying what has actually been said on the matter. Until then I think we leave this sentence otu as it is rather dubious. The same for Aristiades. Let's include them only once we have good secondary sources informing us of their significance to the evolution of Catholic thought on the issue of homosexuality. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Didache did not say paedophilia was a sexual orientation. There is nothing dubious about what it said. When it forbade homosexual paedophilia (οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις), it did not thereby explicitly condemn sodomizing an adult, but that does not mean it approved of it. Unless someone wants to defend pederasty, why delete the mention of its condemnation by the Didache? Please don't misunderstand me. I by no means insist on the translation that uses the word "pederasty". Use any other translations that use different but equivalent terms. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo80, at the very least, the "Christian position" would have paralleled Roman/Greek (more specifically, Roman when the Church became Roman) laws and Greek pederasty having been assimilated into Roman culture (albeit, that which single handily altered Roman law) did not define homosexuality. Pederasty then becomes a catch all term for the sin being committed; taking boys off the street (kidnapping; 1 Tim. 1, 10: the unchaste, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching; http://www.usccb.org/bible/1tm/1:10 ) and is therefore, by biblical exegesis, "a catalogue of typical vices" (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6#54006009-1 ). Even here the Church avoids the historical defining line that associates sodomites with homosexuality. Instead of that defining moment in which homosexuality is defined, it is simply stated that "sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys." We would call this practice pedophilia today. But there is a fine line between defining pedophilia (as we do today) and what the Early Church spoke of in regards to the "vices" (sins). There was reason to speak of these vices and that too is being ignored in this wiki; not that what is being ignored is the purpose of this wiki. Simply, such documentation is not warranted and what has been documented is misleading if not, a false representation of Church history.

Your thoughts above are most warranted. You bring to the table discussion that would warrant further verification of the true meaning of that which seemingly translates to condemn homosexuality or even pedophilia. That true historical representation is lacking with the documentation of Didache and Theophilus. I agree with your stand and that is why I commented to your contribution.

Esoglou, you said, "it did not thereby explicitly condemn sodomizing an adult, but that does not mean it approved of it", this does not infer that the lack of what was said is a valid assumption. In defense of the Didache's reference of "pederasty" or more specifically the Church's usage of pederasty in defining what the Didache translated as saying, (see; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality , "The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men.") should be more closely examined to show what it categorically defined. Such a catalog would define what has been chose as a interpretation of what the Early Church Fathers were "harsh" about. Just because the Church has focused on pedophilia and ultimately defined such abuse as homosexuality, does not make this catalog of vices representative of what we call pedophilia nor homosexuality today. What should be used to define the catalog of vices is what represents such catalogs collectively and, therefore return Christianity back to the original meaning of sin (vices are representative of sin). I suggest that such catalogs do represent sin in the plural and not singular sin. There is only one sin as represented by the plural of catalogs. Therefore, pederasty, may be misleading just as homosexuality is; is in itself a representation of a vice as listed in all the catalogs. Pederasty, as it has been referenced needs further documentation and/or, replaced by catalogs with each vice defined. What is apparent is that use of homosexuality and now the questioned, pedophilia, is that the true meaning, true teaching is forsaken. Which leaves editing such documentation out the only means to make this wiki valid and representative of Church teaching. AlaskaTW (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I very much agree with Alaska. We're trying too hard to make ancient sources say something potentially different to its original intention. This article is about homosexuality. I think we should only use material which we agree is actually focused on the issue of homosexuality. I therefore support the removal of this material. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo80, so, how does one go about removing material that does not support the Church's documentation on homosexuality? Is there any arbitration that will mediate removal and reinstating these controversial documentation?AlaskaTW (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, when you say "forbade homosexual paedophilia (οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις), how is it that you translate homosexual from οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις. The translation in the Didache says: "you shall not commit paederasty. There is not reference to homosexuality. The word did not exist then. You seem to know that the Didache is referring to homosexuality when you say: "but that does not mean it approved of it." Why delete the mention of the condemnation by the Didache? Because this wiki is about "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism," not paedophilia. If you have any facts relating to the Didache speaking to homosexuality please present those facts here and on the wiki, "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism."AlaskaTW (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That was not a translation, but a description, like Greenberg's description of pederasty as one of "the most visible forms of homosexuality in [the early Christians'] time". Greenberg, like me and like the Didache itself, was speaking not about an inner tendency, but about sexual activity by men on boys. Esoglou (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I see, so homosexuality is a fantasy with Greenberg and you. Just because you say so? Where is your documentation that says that pederasty is homosexuality? One is a pervertion and the other is a sexuality. Honestly, if you could document this you'd do so. Remove all that is a figment of your imagination. You have no valid documentation. Your documentation must be verifiable. AlaskaTW "But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men."

Examining Dod's translation of “filthiness”, the Latin translation for this English word is, spurcitiae or, spurcitia and can be interpreted as, indulge oneself or, extravagence, thriving conditon, luxury. The last definition, luxury, then applies to the Latin word, luxuria, as talked about by Mark D. Jordan in his book, The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology. "There the wine of the Sodomites is, as it is in Deuteronomy, the source of the drunkeness of luxuria." "Indeed, he [Alan of Lille] singles out for particular reprobation gluttony, pride, and avarice." P. 89.

The Sin of Sodom, Ezekiel 16: "49d Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy." This is the only definition of the sin of Sodom in the Christian Bible. Alan of Lille parallels Ezekiel's definition of the Sin of Sodom. Note that there is no mention or reference in Ezekiel 16 in regards to homosexuality. The abomination Ezekiel mentions is the reprobation that Alan of Lille speaks to and the "filthiness" Dods uses speaks to this "reprobation."

“What a person loves, and how he or she loves it, will determine the course and character of life, as well as the condition of society.”

"The Latin word, luxuria as introduced by Gregory the Great in his Moral Readings of Job [Moralia in Job,written between 578 and 595] in which the seven capital sins centered around “pride: vainglory, envy, wrath, sadness, avarice, gluttony of the stomach, and luxuria. Gregory is referring to sexual sin, he lists luxuria last because he wishes to emphasize this word, addressing effeminacy and animality. The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan, p. 39. Gregory establishes genital luxuria as the “graver dysfunction.” This, then, for Jordan is a moral device for sexual sin to be the fundamental “notion of a disordered desire” (Augustine). Ibid., p. 40. This seems to be the origin of which the meaning of Sodomy, as if it meant something to do with homosexuality as a sin, where the Church first condemns homosexuality as a sin relating it to the emphasis of the seven capital sins.(talk) 09:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Alaska, please clarify your ideas. What you wrote above is about the translation by Dods of Theophilus's To Autolycus, not about the Didache. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality, pederasty and the Didache

Alaska, please clarify your ideas. You ask: "Where is your documentation that says that pederasty is homosexuality?" Do you mean homosexuality as an inner tendency? I have never said that pederasty is homosexuality in the sense of a tendency. Nor did the Didache. Or do you mean homosexuality as same-sex sexual activity? In that sense, I do say that pederasty, that sexual activity by a man on a boy of which the Didache speaks in saying, Οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις (literally, Thou shalt not corrupt boys), is a form of homosexuality.

Even apart from the documentation already in the article, including Greenberg, there is an abundance of reliable sources that call pederasty a form of homosexuality in the sense in which I have used "homosexuality". For examples, take Percy, Dynes and Donaldson, West and Green, DeYoung, Osborne, Campbell, Griswold, Harvey, Köstenberger, Schinaia, Blasius and Phelan, Germond and De Gruchy, Ortnet and Whitehead. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, Early Church writings speak of paedophilia, as you have defined, "Thou shalt not corrupt boys" and mistakenly interpreted a perversion with a human sexuality. My discussion on the Didache purposely strayed from the Didache to demonstrate that what the Early Church did was to fabricate, and in my own words, invent (Mark D. Jordan) genital luxuria (Jordan), a form of the sin of luxuria that common man could understand. This (genital luxuria) was invented by Gregory the Great. What you state, "Thou shalt not corrupt boys," and "mistakenly associated a perversion with a human sexuality" calling homosexuality a perversion, is as much an invention too. Again, if you can document that Early Church writings indeed spoke of homosexuality without injecting your assumption that Church Fathers were indeed speaking about homosexuality, then put that proof forward.AlaskaTW (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This section is about the Didache's condemnation of a certain male-on-male sexual activity without reference to the perpetrator's straightness or queerness. If you want to discourse on other matters, do so elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, I disagree with your rhetoric and even more so with your attempt to validate your insistence that paedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality. As I exam your documentation, that supposedly validates your rhetoric about homosexuality, I find nothing that does little more than what this Editorial Review of DeYong's book, Homosexuality:

"From Publishers Weekly DeYoung, who teaches New Testament at Western Seminary in Oregon, responds, from a conservative Christian point of view, to the revisionist biblical studies of John Boswell, Robin Scroggs, William Countryman and many others. Unfortunately, while DeYoung displays no small acquaintance with both the biblical material and the works of his principal opponents, his book is a nearly impenetrable jumble of textual argument, theological and ethical assertion and confused terminology. In striving for a comprehensive refutation of Boswell et al., DeYoung has produced a volume that will be too technical for all but the most dogged layperson, but one that will distress scholars of every persuasion with its rhetorical and interpretive shortcuts. Many of his critiques, especially those of Boswell's use of biblical and ancient material, have merit and are echoed in other recent scholarship, but they are presented with such disregard for scholarly protocol that they will not persuade the unconvinced. Entirely missing is a central idea to compete effectively with the lucid, if debatable, paradigms of the revisionists. DeYoung intersperses long quotations from ancient sources that do little to focus the reader's attention; more bizarre still, he indulges in brief, fictionalized narratives that speculate on the experiences of such characters as Lot's wife, a Canaanite temple prostitute and (strangest of all) a Luke Skywalker-like future Christian. This book is all trees and no forest and should be avoided. Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. " http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Contemporary-Examined-Ancient-Literature/dp/0825424925

I could not have said it better. I was about to buy DeYoung's book, Homosexuality but I find no value in such misinformed research.

What do you not understand about research that documents what speaks of paedophilia in the context of the Early Church? Where you present "impenetrable jumble" I present documented research that clarifies Early Church Fathers. Please confirm whether you are a conservative, fundamentalist Biblicist so that I know whom I am dealing with.69.162.195.140 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)AlaskaTW (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What this section is about is the condemnation in the Didache of a particular male-male sexual activity, not about "Early Church Fathers" in general. You have made not even one attempt to cite any reliable source that denies that the Didache condemns it. I agree that paedophiliac tendency and homosexual tendency need not be identified. If you want to discuss that question, which is off-topic here, do so with someone who disagrees with you. What is under discussion here is what is in the Didache: a condemnation of a sexual activity. The Didache says nothing about sexual orientation. Can you not understand the difference? I repeat, "Alaska, please clarify your ideas." Esoglou (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what you want it to be. Since when is personal rhetoric allowed? The Didache is not about "male-male activity," it is about paedophilia. There is a difference and you fail to show proof that your male-male activity is defined. That means that you must edit any reference to homosexuality, out.AlaskaTW (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you persist in your confusion, you remain incurable. Not even one reliable source can you cite that says the Didache's οὐ παιδοφθορήσεις wasn't about men having sex with boys (an action) but referred instead to men having or not having a particular sexual orientation. You have not even attempted to do so. Wikipedia is not a forum for airing your unsourced notions or original research. Esoglou (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, you continue to claim that the Didache speaks to homosexuality and it does not. I submit Catholic Answers, Early Teachings on Homosexuality: , quoting,"The Fathers are especially harsh against the practice of pederasty, the homosexual corruption of boys by men." But, nowhere in the early writings does it say homosexuality. The writings continually speak of pederasty. Any suggestion or interpretation that states that the Didache speaks of homosexuality must come with documentation. You cannot state homosexuality just because the Didache speaks of pederasty; pederasty does not mean that adult male-male homosexual acts are condemned. You must document how the Church reaches this conclusion and that is not happening in this wiki. I have documented my point of view. Not all documentation is necessarily directly associated with the Didache. It was not until Gregory the Great writing Moralia in Job that the Church first addresses Sodomitic sin a sexual interpretation. . If you remove reference to homosexuality in the mention of the Didache, that quote then has no purpose in this wiki.AlaskaTW (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's curious how you imagine someone here said the Didache's undoubted condemnation of man-boy sex is a condemnation of man-man sex.

To counter the many reliable sources that speak of man-boy sex, which the Didache condemns, as homosexual sex, you have still failed - no wonder! - to present even one that says it isn't homosexual sex. Instead, you cite yet another source that says it is! Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, it is quite evident that the mention of homosexual acts has every intent of establishing the condemnation of homosexuality by the Church. Although this condemnation is evident in this wiki it is also very evident in every mention of the Church. From this perspective this wiki would be correct to establish that the quotes in this wiki pertain to those that the Church uses to condemn homosexuality. To use these quotes to condemn homosexuality does no justice to biblical scholarship. Why? Under, "Church Fathers" there is mention of homosexual relationship in the context of "pederasty", in the first paragrahp. The second paragraph mentions David F. Greenberg speaking about male prostitution and pederasty in early Christian writings. I can state that the Google Books sample does not make such a statement. Granted that Google Books does not present the whole book but Google's sample clearly demonstrates that: "Synopses & Reviews"

"Publisher Comments:" ""At various times, homosexuality has been considered the noblest of loves, a horrible sin, a psychological condition or grounds for torture and execution. David F. Greenberg's careful, encyclopedic and important new book argues that homosexuality is only deviant because society has constructed, or defined, it as deviant. The book takes us over vast terrains of example and detail in the history of homosexuality."—Nicholas B. Dirks, New York Times Book Review" "Book News Annotation:" "A magisterial study that places homosexuality in a cross-cultural and trans-historical context. Greenberg (sociology, NYU) illuminates and accounts for the influence of social factors on sexual preference, the social organization of sexuality, and the ways that societies have thought about sexuality and tried to control it. His comparative approach seeks to confirm that homosexuality is not a uniform phenomenon across time and that social beliefs about homosexuality stem from identifiable features in societies." "Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)" This quote completely misrepresents Greenberg's purpose for writing this book. Over and over this wiki misleads readers. Pederasty is not homosexuality. Remove all reference to Church Fathers and homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskaTW (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This quote from Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism: "unequivocably opposed to male prostitution and pederasty—probably the most visible forms of homosexuality in their time".[65]” misleads readers to believe that Greenberg spoke negatively of homosexuality. I'm not even sure if Greenberg actually wrote that quoted statement in the second paragraph. If Greenberg did, it would not have been his intention to speak of homosexuality as something that was a “moral consideration”(The Construction of Homosexuality, p. 146) in that time and culture. The mention of prostitution had to do with “campaigns against cult prostitution” (The Construction of Homosexuality, p. 141), about idolatry. Any reference that is made of prostitution in the developing Early Church had to do with worshiping other gods. The focus was not on homosexuality. The issue with pederasty was also about temple prostitution. 1 Cor. 6: 9; 9 “* Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes* nor sodomitesc”. “* [6:9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.” Then there is all the history that Greenberg presents regarding homosexuality during this early years of the Church, none of which had anything to do with what this wiki would have you believe about homosexuality and the Early Church. http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/6#54006009-1

The Council of Ancyra on line 94 is about bestiality.

The Council of Elvira, Canon 71 is about sexual abuse of boys.

Neither has anything to do with homosexuality unless this wiki intends to invent homosexuality so that the Church can condemn homosexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskaTW (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Roscelese, why have you removed the sourced mention of the Cardinal Archbishop of Mumbai's declaration, "Gays are not criminals"? Contaldo80's insertion of this information was accompanied by an indication of its source, the only defect of which was the omission of the title of the cited article, an omission that I remedied. Your edit summary suggested that the insertion was done by someone "seek(ing) to undermine or intentionally confuse reliably sourced content already in the article". Your comment, with "seek to" and "intentionally", is about editors rather than an edit. Let us judge the edit by what it is, not by someone's suppositions about editors' intentions. The edit is objective sourced information about a public declaration by a Catholic cardinal archbishop in India regarding a decriminalization of homosexual activity that was overturned by the Supreme Court of India. So what objective reason can you advance for removing this "reliably sourced content already in the article"?

And why did you by the same action make it appear that opposition in another context to decriminalization was expressed by the Catholic Church in India as a whole when, as stated in the sourced clarification that you removed, it was an action of the Catholic Church in Kerala alone, not by a body representing the whole of the Church in India? Your removal of the clarification did objectively - to quote your edit summary - "confuse reliably sourced content already in the article". (Let us leave aside whatever you may have been "seeking" to do or "intentionally" doing.) Esoglou (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that as the person adding the content, it's actually your job to do it in a non-destructive way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Look again. Contaldo80 it was who introduced the information about the declaration by Cardinal Gracias that was summarized as: "Gays are not criminals". You have not explained your removal of this contribution by Contaldo80. Nor have you explained your removal of my clarification about the statement made not by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, but instead by a spokesman for the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council. I am therefore restoring the substantiated information that you cut from the article. Whatever you "seek" to do something about it, please "do it in a non-destructive way" instead of deleting well sourced content. Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou - once again you included a lot of irrelevant and superfluous detail in your edits. Can you try and be a bit focused please. You tend to veer towards apologia at times - thinking that the more you write then the more it will somehow justify any position taken by the Catholic church. This is very political. I'd rather we leave the church to explain its own position itself elsewhere and just stick to summarising key facts directly and as simply as possible. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm sorry but I just feel I had to remove a lot of pointless irrelevant material from this article. I fear certain editors have an agenda - to twist material to put a pro-Catholic spin on everything, rather than to dispassionately set out the facts and let readers decide. The article is about homosexuality and catholicism and yet certain edits have tended towards apologetics. It seems it's not sufficient to talk about how the Catholic church dealt with people who were homosexual, it seems we also have to add vast tracts of text reminding us how the civil authorities or the protestants also dealt with homosexuals. Presumably to imply that it was so much worse and aren't we lucky the Catholic authorities were so benign. Can I remind everyone that we don't need to cover every existing issue in the world here on this article page, we can link through to other topics so readers can go there to find out more if they want. What does it add, for example, to mention that the arhbishop of Mumbai is one of Pope Francis's special advisors? What is the benefit of insisting that the BBC referred to the discussion on civil unions in the context of the questionnaire "in passing"? All this sort of stuff is not only superfluous, it has the effect of over-loading the article, making it unreadable, and boring anyone who might come across it. Finally, I say again. If there are editors who are direct employees of the Roman Catholic church and are making edits on behalf of the church then they need to declare it in the issues of transparency. I suggest as a way forward that any editors wanting to restore material into the article indicate first why they think it is important, balanced and relevant. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can fully agree with Contaldo80 about editors restoring "material into the article indicate first why they think it is important, balanced and relevant."AlaskaTW (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Civil authorities

I don't object to removing this topic, Contaldo. It was you who introduced it into the article. You still have not given the words of R. Moore on which you base your claim that "civil authorities followed the lead of the Church in trying the crime of sodomy in secular courts", a claim that you follow up by saying that in 1478 the Spanish Inquisition was established. Yet you want to exclude from the article the sourced information that for centuries already the civil authorities had been trying in their courts what they classified as the crime of sodomy; that they were doing so on the basis of Roman civil law, not Catholic Church law; and that it was civil law, not Catholic Church law, that imposed the penalty of burning. That does not sound much like "following the lead of the Church". Shall we agree to remove this topic? All of it? Not just the part that you object to? Please agree. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm really only following what I've read elsewhere on wikipedia. In the main article on sodomy the section on the medieval period deals with a Catholic monk called Benedict the Levite who seems to have been instrumental in utilising the Emperor Justinian as a justification for "ecclesiastical supremacy over mundane institutions, thereby demanding burning at the stake for carnal sins[including sodomy]". Furthermore, "For delaying reasons described in the article Pseudo-Isidore, but also because his crucial demands for capital punishment had been so unheard of in ecclesiastical history priorly based upon the humane Christian concept of forgiveness and mercy, it took several centuries before Benedict's demands for legal reform began to take tangible shape within larger ecclesiastical initiatives." The article explains that "This came about with the Medieval Inquisition in 1184." A body set up by the Catholic church. So it seems perfectly consistent I think to use Moore's argument that the civil authorities followed the lead of the church. Although I take your point about the importance of nuanced language, so suggest we change instead to "the civil authorities were influenced by the church in pursuing the burning of individuals found to be guilty of sodomy". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You surely know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. And haven't you seen that burning was a civil-law penalty? And that the article says it was in 1451 that the Roman Inquisition was enabled to prosecute men who practised sodomy? Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Gracias

In a paragraph about opposition by the Catholic Church in various countries to a decriminalization of homosexual activity, India was mentioned. The evidence given was a statement by a spokesman for the bishops' council of a single state. To put that in proper context there was good reason to mention also the opposition to a (re)criminalization of homosexual activity voiced by another representative of the Catholic Church in that country and to show that because of this other representative's importance at the highest level in the Catholic Church he was of much greater weight as a mouthpiece of the Catholic Church. In this too, please don't pick and choose to suit yourself. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok let's leave it in. I guess it also shows how under this papacy (Francis) the engagement and tone on gay issues has changed markedly in a positive way. So perhaps illustrates the transition well. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Undefended long-questioned claims

Rather than just ignoring the objections raised weeks ago against some of your statements and duly tagged in the article as questionable, please either: a) defend your statements; b) amend them; or c) allow them to be deleted. Don't just put them back in. Esoglou (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather you flag the important ones here under talk rather than me having to wade through the article to identify them. I'm conscious that you don't like statements that could be perceived as critical of the Catholic church. I want to be confident where possible that concerns are legitimate and reasonable and not intended as "wrecking tactics". Can I also suggest you work to improve areas of concern by finding further references or information, rather than adopting a defensive tone that seeks simply to discredit anything that is not "the official line". We all might learn something. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The tags placed on the claims were enough and should have been attended to. And you know, don't you, that in Wikipedia claims not based on reliable sources may be deleted? Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

I have made changes to the lead which I think better capture the rest of the article as it has now developed. If there are specific concerns then it would be helpful if editors could flag here so we can consider and perhaps address.

I remain confused as to why under the history section there needs to be a reference to Henry VIII and the English Buggery Act. Are we implying that he introduced this at the instigation of the Catholic church authorities? If that is what is being implied then I'm happy to leave it in.

I also suggest we put a reference in to Malta to reflect the recent developments where the Church auhorities are intervening but ultimately failing to block the introduction of civil unions for gay couples due to popular opinion among lay Catholics being overwhelmingly in favour. Any thoughts?Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your changes involved a POV editorial "However" and a peacock "frequently" (how frequently?). But more essentially, they were not an improvement. Your opinion of what "better captures" the rest of the article or rather the parts that you like, ignoring anything else, is not decisive. It should capture whatever is well sourced, no matter what view the source is in tune with.

That, when those accused of homosexual behaviour were tried by church courts in England, they were almost never punished is a fact at least as relevant as one individual's (Peter Damian) advocating stricter punishment (not, of course, the civil-law death penalty) for guilty clerics, especially if the Church did not accept his demand. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opinion that the changes made to the ediorial were POV. It's my view that they were not and did reflect the article. Perhaps the best approach is to ask for a broader set of editorial views to determine whether others share the concerns. To help with that it would be good if you could continue to flag the phraees you find difficult. "However" seems a fair word to use when you are contrasting the actions or views of two different sets of people. Can you be clearer as to the problem? Likewise "frequently" is a common turn of phrase. I'm not sure it's really that helpful to try and pin down exact numbers as we don't have all the instances in front of us - but in practically all of the legislative moves around the world to extend LGBT rights there has been enggagement from local Catholic authorities to resist.

Peter Damian was, of course, Saint Peter Damian - a figure after whom many Catholic churches and schools have been named; a quite influential in the history of Catholicism I would argue. Bailey says his Liber Gomorrhianus is "in som respects the most notable medieval pronouncment on upon the issue of homosexual practices". Payle says it "was unique in the Christian medieval literature of the west" in dealing solely with homosexuality. Is the English Buggery Law quite so relevant. I do wonder. It seems to be a case of clutching at straws. Is there more evidence you could perhaps find on english church courts - were individuals fined for example? Can't we leave just the reference to the courts? What's the value in referencing Henry VIII and the Buggery Act? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your continuous insertion of views that present the Catholic Church as villainous are allowed to stand as long as they are well-sourced. You should treat in the same way expression of the view of the Catholic Church itself: "flag the phrases you find difficult", so that they can be defended, amended, or let fall. Don't just delete them on your sole authority.

It is nonsense to claim that a saint's personal opinions must be those of the Church. Take Thomas Aquinas's on what is now the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And by saying Peter Damian's writing "was unique in the Christian medieval literature of the west" and thus not typical of Roman Catholicism, you have suggested it is out of place in this article.

The English Buggery Act does not in itself say much about "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism". What does say something - perhaps a lot - is the contrast between the way church tribunals judged those accused of buggery and the way the civil tribunals that the Buggery Act empowered have treated them. Esoglou (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be notable that 1533-34 was also the precise date of schism with Rome, the declaration of Henry as the Head of the Church in Britian, and his subsequent excommunication. Obviously WP:SYNTH without a WP:RS, but there you have it. Elizium23 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think more coverage on the widespread opposition of lay Catholics to Church teaching is a good idea. Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it would be inadmissible synthesis for us, out of our own heads, to link Henry's Buggery Act to his approaching break with Rome. And as you also say, there we have it: a citation within the article that says the Act was indeed part of Henry's campaign to break the power of the Catholic Church in England. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou - one of the weaknesses in your approach to editing is that you are guided by personal opinions and original research rather than supporting your views with independent historial analysis and external sources. Sources that have been cited dealing with the issue of homosexuality and catholicism have indicated that Peter Damian had an important role and marked influence on both contemporary and subsequent attitudes to homosexuality both within society and within the Church itself. Hence his inclusion. I'm not going to get into interpretation and speculation. That isn't the job of a wikipedia editor. I'm also concerned about the continued strained approach to include a reference to Henry VIII? You say above that this is to contrast the civil approach towards buggery with the ecclesiastical one. But this is simply original research. If you have a source that says that loud and clear then please use it, but in it's absence then there is concern about serious manipulaion of sources to forward personal views. The intention - as with the inclusion of superfluous material on the spanish inquisition and earlier on protestantism - seems intended (if one were being cynical) to say to readers (and I paraphrase): "Yes the Catholic Church was bad but by contemporary standards it wasn't as bad as others". And is it chance that your keen to especially reference Henry VIII - who was a Catholic monarch but was notable for estalishing the (protestant) Church of England? Your other weakness is an acute tendency to partisan editing on behalf of the Catholic Church supported by your claim above that I have inserted "villanous" views. Apart from "villanous" being slightly quaint usage in my opinion, I suggest you present clear evidence of my "villanous views" or retract the accusation. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally I agree with Elizium that it's good to have more information on lay opposition to Church teaching where we can. Perhaps from a recent survey I saw from New Zealand. Is any editor here an expert in the affairs of the Catholic church in New Zealand perhaps?Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that I proposed deleting the Peter Damian reference? I did not even propose it, still less did I follow the example of an editor who actually did delete references to matters of greater relevance than that. I have not even deleted your insistent inclusion of Bailey's contrary-to-fact statement of over half a century ago about the earliest canons against homosexual behaviour and have just let the sourced facts speak for themselves.

What gave you the idea that I said you had inserted villainous views? I take it that the included views portraying the Catholic Church as villainous are not themselves villainous but are good-faith and sincere. I take it that this is true also of you and your views. Your opinion of me and my views may perhaps be different.

A cited source says Henry's Buggery Act was aimed at breaking the power of the Catholic Church in England. Another says that Catholic Church tribunals there almost never punished those accused of homosexual behaviour. Both these concern "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism", don't they? Esoglou (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For lay opposition I would just mine the archives of this publication, which has for decades efficiently documented dissent with Catholic teaching and is an utterly reliable source thereof. Conversely it is wholly unreliable when it comes to communicating authentic Church teaching and in fact no longer has the right to call itself Catholic. Elizium23 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a good article that came out today in an orthodox Catholic publication that would be useful to this article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't make stupid edits

"what is generally called same-sex marriage" - What rubbish. You don't have to personally support same-sex marriage, but you won't use Wikipedia as a platform for your personal views.

"This also leaves unexplained...the nickname of the Halloween Letter"; "Allen's statement...also leaves unexplained..." - Perhaps you could show us what source this analysis of Allen is coming from.

If you have constructive edits to make, try making them without a lot of accompanying destructive edits. That way, they might have a chance of remaining in the article.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for indicating concrete problems that you see in the text that you have twice reverted in toto. I have removed the phrase "generally called", but surely you will allow mention of the Catholic Church's view that "same-sex marriage" is not in fact marriage. As is obvious, you don't have to personally hold that it is not marriage, and I trust you won't exclude from an article about the Catholic Church mention of the Church's view, even if it differs from yours. I have also removed from after the report of what Allen rightly or wrongly says the information about the name that certain movements have applied to the Homosexualitatis problema letter. I trust you are aware that, especially in this context, problema in Latin and Italian means not "problem" but "issue", "question".

Anything else you want to discuss constructively rather than revert destructively? Esoglou (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You did not fix the problem of original research involving your own analysis of the words of the Council of Ancyra (314). I have done so.

You also put your own rebuttal forward to answer Bronski, this rebuttal in the form of a footnote based on this newspaper piece. This is a problem with WP:SYNTH. I fixed that, too. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is excellent, Binksternet. Thanks. We should be able to make progress. I am far from insisting on keeping the commentary that you object to. Would you have any objection to restoring the account of what the Council of Ancyra decreed, omitting of course the remark, "without any distinction between clergy or laity"?

I also don't see why you deleted Pope Francis's statement that homosexual activity is a sin that can be forgiven and forgotten by God, and that there is a world of difference between that and crimes such as sexual abuse of children. I cited Pope Francis only on the Contaldo's insistence on having a quotation in support of the statement that for the Catholic Church homosexual activity is still a sin - which I thought was obvious. With the addition of the quotation that he asked for, which brings in the idea of crimes, the statement would stylistically be better placed as a separate sentence instead of appearing as the parenthetic phrase, "which it still is to the Catholic Church". "Pope Francis declared that homosexual activity is a sin that can be forgiven and forgotten by God, and that there is a world of difference between that and crimes such as sexual abuse of children." Don't you think this statement of Pope Francis worth keeping? Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bronksi is pointing to the reduced influence of Catholicism as the modern era emerges from the medieval. Why would one Pope's thoughts have a bearing on the slow change away from religion? Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Pope Francis was obviously only giving the Catholic Church's point of view, that there is a world of difference between a forgivable and forgettable sin such as homosexual activity and crimes such as sexual abuse of children. He was saying nothing about the general attitude, which may well be that there is no such thing at all as sin. Isn't what he said about that attitude of the Catholic Church towards homosexual activity worth keeping?

And isn't what the Council of Ancyra said worth keeping? Esoglou (talk)`

"LGBT rights"

I have had to remove the statement that "(the Church urges all Catholics to oppose contrary legislative proposals advanced in the name of ... and) other LGBT rights". The source cited made no such statement. It only quoted Hilary Clinton described a particular declaration as recognizing the human rights of LGBT people worldwide. It did not say what perhaps by synthesis was attributed to it that the Catholic Church urges all Catholics to oppose proposals to advance LGBT rights. Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your lack of reading comprehension is noted, and I will restore the phrase, as the source clearly states that the resolution the church opposed had to do with anti-LGBT discrimination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since your reading comprehension is so much superior to (your noting of) mine, would you please quote me the statement in [vatican-official-says-un-gay-rights-agenda-endangers-churchs-freedom the cited source] that says that the Church urges all Catholics to oppose legislative proposals advanced in the name of LBGT rights (other than same-sex marriage, homosexual civil unions, and adoption by same-sex couples). It clearly states other things, but I can't find this statement in it. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh I see the problem. You changed the paragraph from "the church hierarchy opposes/campaigns against..." to be "the church encourages Catholics to oppose/campaign against..." and you're now complaining at me because the source doesn't support your text. Good job!! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for applying your reading comprehension - so much superior, you say, to mine - to the addition that you made to my text, and thus seeing that the citation did not support your addition. Please now apply your wonderful reading comprehension to the text with which you replaced mine and see whether the citation supports your claim that "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have ... actively encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against ... other LGBT rights". The citation is the only basis you give for your claim.

If I may add a minor request, would you, as a further favour, explain what "passive encouragement" could be distinguished from the "active encouragement" that you attribute? But that is a minor matter in comparison to my main request. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is fortunate that unlike the text that you added, my text does not try to claim that the bishops encouraged parishioners to campaign against other LGBT rights. (Isn't it funny how if you take out text, you change the meaning of the sentence? Like, who would have thought that "cardinals and bishops have opposed" was an important part of that sentence.) In deference to your inability to read, however, I've used "or." (The original version, before your changes, also of course worked.) I've also restored the original text of the part that included "actively," which, looking into the history, I see was the result of previous sensible text which was changed by Contaldo. Rather than whining, you could just restore the older and better text, but I suppose you are concerned that it doesn't make the church look good. I do not have that problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for extending your reading comprehension (which you contrast with my "inability to read") to seeing that "and" is not the same as "or". Esoglou (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph on opposition to LGBT rights, order

As people have pointed out in the past, this article suffers greatly from overreliance on self-published sources, and while frankly I doubt that much headway against that will be made in the face of editors whose primary purpose on WP is to promote the Catholic Church, there really are places where we all could have some decency. It's entirely ridiculous to elevate a self-published statement about how the church haaaaaates discrimination over the reliable sources documenting their political efforts. Whether or not you agree with those efforts. It's about compliance with Wikipedia policy on neutrality and sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede edits

I've just made a number of edits to the lede, removing from it a number of details that are far too specific for what is supposed to be an overview of the article. These details can be treated in the body of the article, if they are not already. Had I not made these edits, I would have added a long-overdue "lede too long" template. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Many of your edits were good, but not the one by which, on the basis of one source that spoke of campaigns in parishes of some US dioceses to get people to vote against legislation introducing same-sex marriage (the only source that speaks of encouraging campaigns and on this issue alone), one Holy See general document decrying homosexual civil unions, and one press interview (not a vote or even a formal speech) by the Holy See's observer in Geneva, you put in Wikipedia's voice your original-research generalized claim that "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals (none mentioned) and bishops, have frequently (where did you get this?) opposed, and sometimes actively (not just passively!) campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against, same-sex marriage, homosexual civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples, and other (unspecified, generalized) LGBT rights." Esoglou (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have a problem with the idea that the lede is a summary of the article. It is not only unnecessary but undesirable to give excessive detail. Yes, even if you feel that excessive detail makes the church look better! Please read WP:LEDE. (Please also read the article that you're trying to edit. The US the only place anyone has campaigned against anything? Nonsense.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article on the basis of what is said in reliable sources either in the lead itself or elsewhere in the article. It does not make statements on the basis of an editor's remarks such as "The US the only place anyone has campaigned against anything? Nonsense." when the cited source speaks only of US. It can only report what reliable sources actually state.

An editor should attempt to respond with valid citations to problems noted in their presentation, such as the problems to which I have attempted above to draw your attention. An editor should not repeat a cherry-picking of words from cited sources, after another editor has placed the words in context by quoting the phrases in which they occur. An editor should not simply undo another editor's work without in a spirit of objectivity and cooperation seeing whether at least some parts of the work are valid.

Your idea of excessive detail may not be another's. Not everyone would agree with your idea that it is excessive to mention, for instance, that the Catholic Church holds that marriage cannot be "redefined" to include relationships other than those between a man and a woman. {Here on the talk page I can draw a parallel with Lincoln's famous story on New Year's Eve 1862 about the western court where an attempt was made to show that a calf had five legs by calling the tail a leg, "but the decision of the judge was that calling the tail a leg, did not make it a leg, and the calf had but four legs after all".)

What is excessive for the lead is rather the information on the Church opposing some decriminalization proposals and promoting others, and its promoting in the public arena the views that it holds and that have already been adequately expounded in the preceding paragraph.

Furthermore, what seems logical to you, others will not necessarily judge to be logical. Take for instance even the first words of your version, "Homosexuality is considered in Catholic Church teaching under two distinct aspects", which you follow up with "Homosexuality is seen as ...", suddenly turning "homosexuality" into a univocal term of only one aspect. That may be your idea, but the article is not about homosexuality and Roscelese, but about homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, which strongly distinguishes. Esoglou (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you retract that last remark. Do you remember how many users supported sanctioning you last time you attributed my edits to my sexual orientation?

I'm still not sure that you've read WP:LEDE or Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Please read both of those and only then try to edit. That way, you will understand that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article (eg. summing up half a dozen separate incidents of the church campaigning against LGBT rights, summing up the church's opposition to marriage with a brief explanation of the reason while saving details for the body), and not contain excessive apologetic detail. You could also look at a dictionary, so that you know that "homosexuality" has an actual definition that we use and doesn't just mean whatever you want it to mean. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about your notion of homosexuality, but about the notion of the Roman Catholic Church. Wasn't that clear? And what is the "actual definition" of homosexuality that you want us to use? Is it "the quality or state of being homosexual"? Or is it "erotic activity with another of the same sex"? What is it you want the word to mean? Only the first of these two things? Or do you think they are one and the same? The Catholic Church doesn't. And, as I said, this Wikipedia article isn't about your ideas but those of the Catholic Church (and, one could add, dictionary ideas of the meaning of words). So how about undoing your revert and discussing matters calmly before you edit?

So what's wrong with distinguishing, as the Catholic Church does, between the two dictionary definitions of "homosexuality", instead of rejecting the dictionary as well as the Church? What's wrong with allowing the context of the words you cherry-picked to be given? What's wrong with indicating, as you have been asked to do, what concrete grounds you see in the article for making the lead say that cardinals and bishops "frequently" (rather than always, as they should, if they are faithful to Catholic teaching) oppose same-sex marriage, homosexual civil unions and adoption of children by homosexual couples, and that they "sometimes" (against your wishes but in line with their belief) "actively" (rather than passively) campaign against these and other undefined "LGBT rights"? What's wrong with indicating whatever reason you have for deleting another's work entirely, if indeed you have any reason other than simply "I want the lead limited to my choice alone and so I delete all else indiscriminately"? What's wrong with reporting (with source) the Church's view that it is impossible to "redefine" what is really marriage? Is that not important enough? What's wrong with discussing before editing?

Your suggestion that I have not read WP:LEAD and the article we are discussing, like your very recent claim that I am unable to read, and like your abundant similar personal abuse in the past, reveals much more about you than about me, who continue to treat you with amused affection. If you thought I was making some derogatory remark about your sexuality, that again reveals more about you than about me. Esoglou (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do not respond, I must myself undo your (re)revert, even if it means you will continue an edit war by re-re-reverting. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What you seem to be confusing is "this article is about the church perspective on homosexuality" (a statement which is itself flawed, because it's not just about the perspective but also actions, etc.) with "this article must propagate the church perspective on homosexuality." We can and must document the perspective without adopting it, and that's what your jargon and propagandic language does. I've made a small edit to the lede text, which should be acceptable to both of us as it (the way you want) allows "homosexuality" to refer to both orientation and actions while (as I want) not treating homosexuality as a disease or implying that sex acts are the main definition.

You're getting very caught up in your own anti-marriage pronouncements, and I suggest that you take a step back, breathe, and then look at the situation again. Whether or not the cardinals and bishops "should" always oppose marriage etc. is neither here nor there, because we only document the actions and statements they make about it. As for "what's wrong" with not documenting every anti-marriage statement they've made in the lede, as opposed to summarizing them as the church believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, I've already repeatedly pointed you to WP:LEDE, which explains that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and not contain excessive detail. Check it out.

Presumably that "amused affection" is the same one that led you to post sexual images on my talkpage and to repeatedly attribute my editing to my sexual orientation. I want none of it. Don't be a creep. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not having realized in time that a joke that I found amusing would find you, like Queen Victoria, "not amused". One would have thought that it would be a source of considerable satisfaction for you to have me tied up for six months as a result of what I have preserved on my talk page (the image on the left, not that on the right, which I presume you would not find so offensive). I absolutely deny your accusation of having repeatedly attributed your editing to your sexual orientation. Someone else has instead repeatedly accused me of editing "to make the Catholic Church look good". But it is surely time to stop commenting on editors and to comment instead on edits. In this regard I congratulate and thank you for making a change that recognized that "homosexuality" has more than one meaning. Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There are all sorts of accusations flying about! I've seen the suggestion made that at least one editor on this article is a Catholic priest! Contaldo80 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria

I propose to include some text to cover the recent legislation in Nigeria which makes participation in a same sex marriage a crime punishable by 14 years imprisonment. The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria has been reported as welcoming the move as a 'step in the right direction' and a 'courageous act'. Archbishop Kaigama wrote that the action is 'in line with the moral and ethical values of the Nigerian and African cultures', and commended the president for not bowing to 'interntional pressure'. He blesses the president 'to protect you and yoUr administration against the conspiracy of the developed world to make our country and continent, the dumping ground for the promotion of immoral pracrices'. I believe this to be a relevant story for the article and a significantly high profile figure (the Archbishop of Nigeria) is involved. Any comments before I add? Any advice as to whether it should go under the section dealing with discrimination or opposition to same sex marriage? Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about Jeffrey S. Siker

Please see this section:

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[edit source]

The letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which the Rainbow Sash Movement[25] and Dignity Canada[26] disparagingly called the Hallowe'en letter, was, according to John L. Allen, Jr., released on 1 October 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States".[27] The letter, whose incipit is Homosexualitatis problema (as in the Latin text)[28] was designed, Allen says, to remove any ambiguity in the 1975 document Persona Humana. It gave instructions on how the clergy should deal with and respond to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.[29] While Jeffrey S. Siker does not specify the date or language of publication, John L. Allen says it was released in English on the date that the document itself bears, thus indicating that the rather long interval between signature and publication allowing prior distribution under embargo[30] was not observed in this case.

What is the reason for including the reference to Jeffrey S. Siker? As far as I can find, he is "an ordained Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theological Studies at Loyola Marymount University. Internet Resources", but I have no idea why he is mentioned here. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

A good question. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Since even the editor who originally inserted a mention of Siker now questions it, I have made bold to remove it. Esoglou (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm afraid my efforts at irony were not obvious enough. I meant to say that it's inclusion reflects the apparent need in this article to cover every issue in painstaking and obvious detail and to source every simple statement that is made. That said, I can see no harm in having it if it serves to put the material beyond doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We have no source for saying that Siker has not said that, and there seems to be no point in saying that someone didn't say something. It should be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. I think I bit of clarity is needed here. There are two Siker-related issues in this para. The first is the statement that he did not comment on publication of the letter (which I think NatGertler is referring to). The second is that he clarified that it gave instructions on how clergy should deal with people who are gay (the point I was responding to above). I can't determine which issue Gandydancer was most concerned about - perhap they can clarify? Esoglou in their edit rather unhelpfully took out the material dealing with both the issues - after being the one initially to add the rather defunct statement about Siker not knowing about dates. To be clear, I'm happy not to include the non-material about dates, but think we should retain the stuff clarifying the role of the guidance. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

United Nations report

I propose to add some relatively short material to cover the UN Committee on the rights of the child which this week said "...While also noting as positive the progressive statement delivered in July 2013 by Pope Francis, the Committee is concerned about the Holy See’s past statements and declarations on homosexuality which contribute to the social stigmatization of and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and children raised by same sex couples. The Committee recommends that the Holy See bring all its laws and regulations, as well as its policies and practices, in conformity with article 2 of the Convention and promptly abolish the discriminatory classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate children. The Committee also urges the Holy See to make full use of its moral authority to condemn all forms of harassment, discrimination or violence against children based on their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents and to support efforts at international level for the decriminalisation of homosexuality." Any comments before I do so? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers

I just don't get the continued insistence that we have to have page numbers for everything. It's obsessive and irritating. Or maybe that's the point. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's normal, when giving a citation, to indicate not just the name of a library, not just the name of book, but where exactly the citation is to be found.

Thanks for completing the Allen citations. Would you please quote the statement by MacCulloch that those convicted by the Spanish Inquisition in Aragon on charges of sodomy were, as you say, executed by burning without benefit of strangulation. Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You have the page number - read it youself! And there's not much more to read in any case as that's exactly what he said. I'm sure the local library in London, Paris, Manawatu-Wanganui or wherever must have a copy. I've consulted a number of encyclopaedias over the years and rarely have I seen page numbers listed after an article. At the back of books, yes, but not encyclopedia articles. And in a world where a lot of material is retrieved online, it's rather old-fashioned to insist on page numbers. But nevetheless I have made efforts to be constructive, but I'm afraid I personally view it as yet another poorly disguised wrecking tactic. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if it were true - which I don't believe - that it is old-fashioned to cite the page number when citing a source for a statement you make, you cannot employ what you contend to be the new fashion when contributing to Wikipedia, since here, "per the verifiability policy, the source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate" (Help:References and page numbers). But to get back to my request. Template:Request quotation states that this template "is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online". The page of MacCulloch's book that you refer to is not available online. It is surprising that MacCulloch should be so precise about Aragon alone as to say that in that kingdom, rather than in Spain as a whole or even a wider field, those who were convicted of sodomy were not allowed to be garroted before being burnt. I am of course not suggesting that you falsified MacCulloch's statement, but I do suppose that, like me, you make mistakes from time to time. Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

p623 "In Spain, where witches were comparatively safe, the Inquisitions's punishment was the same for sodomites and unrepetant heretics - burning without benefit of strangulation: between 1570 and 1630 around 150 'sodomites' suffered this terrible fate." Hopefully you can find it in a New Zealand bookshop.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So how does that support, "Nearly a thousand people were tried for sodomy in Aragon and its dependent territories between 1570 and 1630. Those convicted and executed were as many as those killed for heresy- by burning without the benefit of strangulation." IMHO, not at all. 150 does not equal "nearly a thousand" or "nearly as many". Marauder40 (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The Haggerty source is both cited and accessible. I understand wanting confirmation of non-web sources, but the decent thing to do isntead of badgering people for quotes from web sources is to look at them yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to request a quote, especially when the facts addressed are questionable. That is why the template exists, it is especially important when there are editors that have in the past misquoted or wrongly editorialized what was said by a quote. It is clear now Contaldo80 provided the actual quote, that it was misquoted. Marauder40 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Contaldo, for giving the MacCulloch quotation that I asked for. I have removed the tag. Since the quotation does not support the statement claimed to be based on it, I have made the statement conform to the quotation, while also remedying the unackowledged copying from a copyright-covered work. Esoglou (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I find these sorts of editorial interventions disruptive and irritating. I was asked for the MacCulloch quote about non-strangulation before burning. This was given. That is a separate issue from how many people were tried and died. Haggerty said a 1000 people were tried. MacCulloch said a 150 people died. Where is the inconsistency. Marauder - if you can't follow the debate, then spare us your opinions. Thankyou Roscelese for the continued voice of reason. I question whether some editors are genuinely interested in creating a good article or just creating obstacle after obstacle. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Haggerty speaks of Aragon, MacCulloch of Spain as a whole. It is a fallacious synthesis to present them as speaking of the same thing.

Restoring "without benefit of strangulation" was a repetition of an unacknowledged copy and paste from a copyright work. That should not be done in Wikipedia.

The breach of Wikipedia norms must be undone. Esoglou (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Marauder - if you can't follow the debate, then spare us your opinions." Contaldo80, keep your opinions to yourself. I can follow the "debate". Stick to commenting on the article and the edits, not the editors. Your edits are WP:SYNTH taking comments about two different things, editing them together to make it appear they are related. The way your makes it appear is if 1000 people were convicted and executed for sodomy, that isn't the case. YOU are synthesizing things to forward your own personal view of how things happened. Anyone can see that.Marauder40 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I can patiently point out what the material says in nice clear simple terms. The Spanish Inquisition held jurisdiction in sodomy cases in the kingdom of Aragon only. Secular authorities prosecuted sodomites in Castile and Leon (See Federico Cavajel in 'Butterflies will burn', University of Texas). Esoglou - what "fallacious synthesis" are you therefore talking about? I'm confused. Thus when MacCulloch talks about the Spanish Inqusition executing 150 sodomites he is referring to Aragon. Furthermore, the Aragon Inquisition dealt with 823 cases over a sixty year period (see Anna Clark, Desire: A history of European Sexuality' p83). Maruader - I look forward to you retracting the above statement: "YOU are synthesizing things to forward your own personal view of how things happened". Thanks. Shall we move onto the deaths in the new world - Mexico - next perhaps? Although I must say I find working on this article personally quite depressing - researching the myriad ways the Catholic church has treated homosexuals throughout its history and even today. But that is the price of knowledge I guess.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I retract nothing. YOU are confusing issues. Your original edits were merging the Spanish Inquisition, the Aragonese Inquisition, and the actions of the civil authorities into one. YOUR edits made it appear nearly a thousand were convicted, when the numbers were much smaller. Your original edits suffer majorly from synthases. Again you are treating this as a battlefield where you have to WIN an argument instead of collectively working towards a NPOV article with proper facts.Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The original sentence stated "Nearly a thousand people were tried for sodomy in Aragon and its dependent territories between 1570 and 1630. Those convicted and executed were as many as those killed for heresy - by burning without the benefit of strangulation." Perhaps you have difficulties with comprehension (I'm not going to judge) but the statement as originally draft did say nearly a 1000 were "tried" and not "convicted". And the subsequent edits maintain that line. As for your comments about a battlefield, well I won't expend efforts dignifying them.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, keep you comments about "difficulties with comprehension" and the such to yourself. Your original sentence was synthases pure and simple. The fact that you don't recognize it as such is a major problem. It didn't include all the necessary facts. Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo, in your latest edit it is only your original-research synthesis that makes MacCulloch say: "Of those 150 were convicted". We must keep to what the cited source says. Esoglou (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you two are on about. Perhaps you could make a clearer effort to explain yourselves? We now have a set of sentences that read: "Within Aragon and its dependent territories, the number of individuals that the Spanish Inquisition tried for sodomy between 1570 and 1630 was over 800 or nearly a thousand. In Spain, those whom the Spanish Inquisition convicted and had executed "by burning without the benefit of strangulation" were about 150". I don't understand why we have to repeat "Spanish Inquisition" twice and refer to Spain when clearly the reference is already there for Aragon? And just what is the synthesis you're implying? That those who died weren't convicted? I'd appreciate it if everyone were more precise.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You should be satisfied with stating what the sources say, without synthesizing MacCulloch's statement about Spain. Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop being slippery. It was you that originally insisted we use Aragon as a more precise way to cover the issue. We then established that jurisdiction over sodomy by the Inqusition only applied in effect to Aragon. And so when MacCulloch says Spain we know that he means a specific part of Spain ie Aragon. Isn't this all really a big waste of everyone's time.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here you have again synthesized MacCulloch's statement with those by Pérez and Monter (which it was I, what you call "we", introduced on 13 December) to decide what MacCulloch "means", instead of reporting what MacCulloch says. I notice that you chose not to synthesize MacCulloch's statement instead with that of Arie, according to which many of the executions attributed to the church were in reality the work of the civil authorities. Esoglou (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Could someone please explain to me what value is added by stating firstly in the lead: "The Catholic Church believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman" and then insisting we follow it with the new language: "Accordingly, the Catholic hierarchy, including the pope, departments of the Holy See, cardinals and bishops, opposes introduction of same-sex marriage." Especially when further down we already have: "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have frequently publicly opposed and actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against, same-sex marriage, gay civil unions and LGBT adoption by same-sex couples". Can I remind some editors that we're not writing a long and boring sermon. The issue is sufficiently covered in the lead without wearing the reader down with obvious repetitive statements. And the suggestion to use "sometimes" instead of "frequently" seems WP:WEASAL. I honestly can't think of one country that has introduced same-sex marriage where a bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope has gone on record to voice their disapproval. Perhaps "frequently" should be "always". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "frequently" is unfounded for either of the two matters that have been confused mistakenly, even if in good faith:

1. The Catholic hierarchy's opposition to introduction of what is called same-sex marriage. The cited sources indicate that an appropriate word would be something on the lines of "always", not "frequently".
2. Their organizing campaigns against it, for which a single source is cited that speaks of a few bishops within the United States alone and in one period alone. An appropriate word would be something on the lines of "sometimes", not "frequently".

In Wikipedia we must keep to what the sources say. The breach of Wikipedia norms must be undone. Esoglou (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating this. But I've redrafted to put beyond doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

However, your language also removed information - it's not just that they've encouraged others to campaign, they have campaigned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The exaggeration is to follow up the well-sourced indication that the Catholic Church states its opposition on principle to proposals to legislate for "same-sex marriage" with a statement that the Church "frequently" states its opposition, based perhaps on an editor's personal idea of how frequently is "frequently". Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes Roscelese apologies for that. Esoglou - 'frequently' is not my "personal idea". If you can name one country which has introduced same-sex marriage and where the Catholic hierarchy has not publicly stated its opposition then I'd be willing to listen. This disingenuous approach is getting tiring. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cardinals and bishops actively campaigning

Please point out to me where the cited sources say that cardinals and bishops have "actively campaigned against ... same-sex marriage, gay civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples, and other LGBT rights". The first citation speaks of bishops in some parts of the United States who "urged their parishes to host a signature drive" for a referendum against same-sex marriage, The same source, which nowhere speaks of cardinals, quotes an opponent of this measure as saying that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage". It does not make its own the claim made by an opponent that "Catholic leaders" (not "all Catholic leaders", so does that have to mean "cardinals and bishops"?) have campaigned against same-sex marriage. If even the source does not state as fact that cardinals and bishops have themselves campaigned against same-sex marriage, how does Wikipedia state it as fact? I don't see where the sources say that Catholic cardinals and bishops, as well as encouraging others to campaign, have personally campaigned actively against same-sex marriage and gay civil unions and adoption by same-sex couples and "other LGBT rights". This statement, made in Wikipedia's voice, perhaps needs rephrasing. Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you're still not reading the article or its sources (which do point out very clearly that eg. the church donated huge sums to anti-marriage campaigns, the bishops campaigned against non-discrimination), and part of the problem is that you are changing the text so that it no longer reflects the sources in smaller ways and then complaining about how it doesn't reflect the sources. The change from "hierarchy speaks out against marriage and other issues and sometimes actively campaigns" to "hierarchy actively campaigns against marriage and other issues"? That was you. If you have the debate with yourself first and spare Wikipedia, it will save us lots of time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I need not dispute your declaration that it was I who made Wikipedia make the claim: the claim, whoever inserted it, appears not to be based on reliable sources. To defend the claim, you declare that "the church" gave "huge sums" to enable others to campaign, but the claim is that cardinals and bishops have themselves actively campaigned. You declare further that "the bishops" - i.e., all of them? - "campaigned against non-discrimination", a declaration that does not count as a reliable source for the claim that you are defending. The claim still needs to be either sourced, or amended, or deleted, doesn't it? Esoglou (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Read the article and its sources. Your disruptive editing and commenting is getting really annoying. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To defend the claim that you have inserted in the article, you must point to whatever you see in "the article and its (unspecified) sources" that is obvious neither to Contaldo, who earlier removed the claim, nor to me nor, I suspect, to others. Otherwise, as you know, your insertion must be undone. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Since your claim still remains undocumented, I have replaced it with information that is supported by the cited sources. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So you have reverted, reinserting your personal POV on the basis of your personal interpretation of a Wikipedia article (not a reliable source by Wikipedia norms), instead of indicating even one reliable source that states that Catholic cardinals and bishops have themselves actively campaigned on even one of these questions. Yours is the action that violates LEDE and NPOV. Esoglou (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. Your childish refusal to read them is not my problem. You need to start behaving like a Wikipedia editor and stop behaving like a PR agent for the church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please give the name-calling a rest and WP:AGF. A little less passion for your personal viewpoints and reading more closely would really help in working thru disputes.Cloonmore (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Esoglou makes the better point. The current lede is vague, imprecise and Violates NPOV in using terms like "leading figures" , "active campaigning", and "LGBT rights". The article is about RC and Homosexuality: The lede should quote primary sources as to the church's teachings, public positions and actions. Cloonmore (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, why not point to any one source for any one of your claims about what cardinals and bishops have themselves campaigned for? - if, that is, we may presume that in the article there really are to hand reliable sources for your claims. Esoglou (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese is right that these sorts of interventions and edits are disruptive and are not made in the spirit of neutrality and objectivity. The article is simply stuffed with references to show where Catholic leaders have personally and specifically intervened in public debate on same-sex marriage, decriminalisation of homosxuality, and LGBT discrimination. The lede is simply a summary of the full article. Read the rest of the article and you'll find its all there. And incidentally by user name is "contaldo80". Make the effort to get it right. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If the article is "simply stuffed" with such references, it should be easy for you to pick one, any one, that states that "cardinals and bishops" (not just lay leaders or priests) have personally and specifically "campaigned" on one or more of those fields, not just encouraged others to campaign. So please do. Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken your suggestion and done just that. Another example to show that you're not really interesting in developing a balanced and informative article, just bogging everyone down in petty point-scoring. Just one that's in the interests of the Catholic Church. I do not think I have seen you make one single edit that can be seen as critical of the church position. If you have then please point it out. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We're getting nowhere here. By another of her reverts, Roscelese now disputes that the one source actually cited fails to verify her claim that "cardinals and bishops" have not only encouraged others to campaign against same-sex marriage, but have themselves been campaigning. I hope we can get help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to resolve this point at least. If this source is judged to be reliable for the claim, there is no need to look for another. If it is judged not to be reliable, that too may help. See where I have raised the question. Esoglou (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Falsified accounts

I continue to assume good faith on the part of the inserter of the claim that, according to Klaits, who was dealing with a period that by no means ended with the Protestant Reformation, it was Catholic churchmen and their allied secular authorities, who verbally and physically attacked groups that included homosexuals, as if the attacks were not also by their Protestant ecclesiastical and civil counterparts and indeed, more widely, by "the lower strata of the population". We must keep to what the cited sources actually say.

The same holds for the insertion of unsourced ideas into the third paragraph. And for deletion of the sourced statement that, before Henry VIII's Buggery Act, those accused of buggery were tried by church tribunals. Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the relevance in an article on Catholicism in what Protestant churchmen did or didn't do? And I deleted the sentence in the Buggery act section because it made no grammatical sense. Not for the first time in this article sadly. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We must not distort sources by inserting what they do not say.

What people other than yourself would see as making no grammatical sense is a sentence consisting of an "until" clause and nothing more, such as you put in place of a sentence that did have a main verb. Esoglou (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It was badly phrased and confusing. I didn't claim to make the sentence perfect, just less bad. Let's all try harder shall we.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think your subtle efforts to suggest in the article that church courts were somehow more humane or compassionate than secular courts is misplaced. I have read several recent academic works that instead suggest that church courts were instead a jealously guarded ecclesiastical privilege where individuals "literally got away with murder". That many monks and priests would have been accused of sodomy, it probably suited the church authorities to manage those cases with discretion under their own jurisdiction.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you ever make a comment without accusing someone of something or some snarky remark? As for your pictures, I question the addition of all of them, but the two I removed were the worst as far as not adding anything to the article. Do we add those pictures to every article that addresses gay material? Pictures should stick to the topic homosexuality AND the Catholic Church. You would have the same objection if I added pictures of the Bible and the catechism. Both are related but would add nothing to the article.Marauder40 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to add an image of gay non-Catholics here. The reverse (non-gay Catholics/not an image of Catholics engaged in anti-gay activism) happens to be true on a technicality, it's just that the Basilica image is part of the standard template. Better than an image of a random same-sex wedding would be an image or images of gay Catholics (probably protesters since, as much as I love Francis Poulenc and so on, we don't talk about individual gay Catholics in this article). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Marauder40 is being disingenuous. We already have the words of the Catechism in the article - so it wouldn't make much sense to take a photograph of the words on a page and then post the image. But nevertheless I've sought to be constructive and added an image of a Catholic wearing the Rainbow Sash as part of the Rainbow Sash Movement; and a photo of two Catholic women who where indeed married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest in 1901 (although I accept the priest and the Pope didn't know about it and wouldn't have liked it). Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Again you prove that you cannot make a comment without accusing someone of something or some snarky remark. Roscelese agreed with my comments. The original pictures were out of place in the article. Stick to addressing the article, not the editors.Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Says the editor as he personally attacks another editor. Try and be more impartial when editing and we'll all be happier. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion on reliability of a citation

Today has seen archiving of the discussion at RSN about whether this news item was a reliable source for the statement that leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against (or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against) same-sex marriage. Since not even one of those who intervened in the discussion defended the reliability of the citation as a source for the statement, the citation was then removed, while leaving the statement in place. It would be interesting to learn on what grounds one editor has restored the contested citation with, as edit summary, "No, that's not what happened at RSN". Esoglou (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Grounds: "Refusal to ignore comments you disagree with != consensus." The source explicitly talks about bishops urging parishioners to campaign, and this has been pointed out to you. I'm sure you are very busy - so are we all - but if you don't have time to read the sources, do not edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The citation does not support the claim that Catholic cardinals and bishops themselves campaigned. Do you suppose that having others campaign is the same thing? Who among those who contributed to the RSN discussion agreed with that mistaken idea? Collect did not. Dezastru did not. Elizium23 did not. Cloonmore did not. Roscelese, instead of speaking of the reliability of the citation in question, wrote of an editor not being "arsed" to do something. So what editor said the citation is a reliable source for the claim that Catholic cardinals and bishops themselves campaigned? I must even ask you: Have you read the RSN discussion we are talking about? Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I neglected to mention in my previous comment that you have evidently read neither the article nor the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Did the RSN discussion endorse the citation as a reliable source for the claim that cardinals and bishops themselves campaigned? Or did it say the citation is not a reliable source for that claim? That is what is in question here. You have chosen not to answer. Accordingly, in the absence of a denial that the RSN discussion gave the citation a thumbs down as a reliable source for what it was claimed to say, I am free to remove the citation with the support of all editors who did express a view on its reliability. Esoglou (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The point of the discussion wasn't to find out whether that citation supported the cardinals and bishops doing the campaigning, but rather to find out whether it supported the text in the article. Multiple users have pointed out to you that it does. Do not edit disruptively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RSN did not state what you are stating. It is pretty clear that stating cardinals and bishops actively campaigned... is currently SYNTH. You may view it as clearly stated in the articles, but it is SYNTH to say so without a clear RS saying that fact. Also I believe your latest revert is a violation of the use of rollback privileges. I personally will not report it but I know others on here may.Marauder40 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

In a sentence structured the way the sentence is ("in some instances, X, and in others, Y"), not every citation is going to support every part of it. Some citations (maybe in the body and maybe in the lede as well; I don't know offhand which ones were copied to the lede) support the campaigning of these high-ranking churchmen, while others, like the NPR one, support their telling others to campaign. The paragraph is a summary of a very long and well-cited section. That's how WP:LEDE works. Really wanting to conceal negative material about the church is not a justification for an exemption from the guidelines that everyone else must follow. Do you seriously think that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it were still in summary style, but in two separate sentences? Of course we would, because Esoglou has repeatedly demonstrated that he's not interested in stopping his tendentious editing. I consider rollback fully justified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism. The only other exceptions do not apply in this case. It is obvious this is a good faith edit on the part of Esoglou so use of rollback is a violation of the privilege. You should refer to WP:ROLLBACK, specifically the section that says "When to use rollback", which specifically says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning." As for the edits themselves. I personally have no problem with the sentence if the portion "actively campaigned against" was removed from the sentence. That portion of the sentence is SYNTH. The rest is validated by the RS.Marauder40 (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not synth. It is stated in the sources present in the article. No one's looking at the NPR source and reading between the lines; it simply happens to be that this enormous section has more than once source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You act like we can't read. I have read through or at least searched through most of them. There is a difference between having homilies and encouraging people to do things. That is not campaigning. Please provide the one source that says "cardinals and bishops are actively campaigning". I see the ones that talk about giving homilies, writing letters, giving talks, etc. It is a stretch and SYNTH to say they are campaigning. Campaign could easily be used in the pro-life arena, not in this one.Marauder40 (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm acting like you can't read because the article and its sources are super explicit about what the church and its officials did. If all they did was speechify from the pulpit to their congregations about these issues, we wouldn't be saying they campaigned, but they donated millions of dollars to anti-marriage campaigns, joined cases against decriminalizing homosexuality, lobbied parliaments to enact stricter penalties for homosexuality or not to pass antidiscrimination laws, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that Roscelese has read the RSN discussion, even its opening words: "In the third paragraph of the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, is citation of 'Seattle Catholics Divided On Repealing Gay Marriage' a reliable source for the statement... The question is about cardinals and bishops (not other leaders) themselves actively campaigning (not just encouraging others to campaign)." The question was about one citation, not other citations, nor about editors. The RSN discussion decided that the citation is not a reliable source for the claim made about cardinals and bishops themselves campaigning. As long as the citation is falsely presented as supporting that claim, it must be removed. If Roscelese wishes, she is free to restore it in a position that presents it as supporting another claim (such as getting others to campaign), but not as supporting also the claim for which it is unreliable. Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is not unclear. If you have suggestions for alterations, please provide ones that are not, as your past ones have been, obviously ridiculous and disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is not unclear: it does present a certain citation as supporting what it is unreliable for, a citation that must therefore be removed. Don't put it back as again as support for a claim for which the RSN discussion declared it invalid. Esoglou (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

All the provided sources are individual examples of things people did. They don't equal actively campaigning. To make the jump is synth. This is the second time you used rollback, even after being warned. Persist and I will report it.Marauder40 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Is your implication that they did this on their own time as private citizens? How is campaigning not doing? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is between an active campaign and individual actions by individual dioceses, bishops, etc. If I give money to Proposition X, Y Z is that a campaign, no it just indicates I Support the cause. I think the word campaign here is implying more then is actually happening. Just like when Pope Francis makes a single comment in a large encyclical and the US press acts like he is making huge pronouncements about something new, this is also making a mountain out of a molehill and the use of the word campaign without sources saying a campaign is Synth.Marauder40 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What word would you choose to summarize these events in compliance with WP:LEDE? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Division of sentence

Roscelese wrote: "In a sentence structured the way the sentence is ('in some instances, X, and in others, Y'), not every citation is going to support every part of it. Some citations (maybe in the body and maybe in the lede as well; I don't know offhand which ones were copied to the lRede) support the campaigning of these high-ranking churchmen, while others, like the NPR one, support their telling others to campaign."

To remedy the structure of the sentence, I have divided the statement that cardinals and bishops themselves actively campaigned from the statement that they encouraged others to campaign. From the citations adduced as supporting the statement that cardinals and bishops personally campaigned I have removed the one declared to be unreliable for that purpose, while leaving it as supporting the statement that they encouraged others to campaign. Esoglou (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Pope Francis:Roman Catholic Church could support civil unions

In March 2014, pope Francis said, Roman Catholic Church could support civil unions

• CNN:Church could support civil unions 178.3.19.15 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In the same article, the Vatican Press Office clarified that Pope Francis did not intend to discuss same-sex unions with this statement. Elizium23 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

it's not important what the Vatican Press Office said. It is important, what the Pope Franics said. 178.3.19.15 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• DailyMail:Pope to stop condemning same-sex civil partnerships hints leading cardinal in move which could be step towards Catholic gay marriage

• New York Daily News.com:Pope Francis understands gay civil unions

• Yahoo News:Pope Francis wants church to study civil unions, Cardinal Dolan says

178.3.19.15 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that if the reliable secondary source reports what the Vatican Press Office said in the same article, then it is entirely relevant what was said. It is original research to take the Pope's comments and decide that they apply to homosexual unions, because he didn't apply his comments to them in specific. The article is attempting to draw a conclusion from something that was not said by Francis and explicitly denied by the Press Office. Elizium23 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What Pope Francis said is already covered fully, amply sourced and quoting his exact words, within this article. There is absolutely no point in trying to insert an additional discussion of it elsewhere in the same article on the basis of personal interpretations of a single source! Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it odd that we deal with Pope Francis' suggested support for civil unions in the article. But then we add this ridiculous caveat to say that debate in Italy on civil unions can include heterosexual unions - and maybe this is what Francis meant (not homosexual unions)! Some of us really are tying ourselves up in knots. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Church Fathers

Understandably, this wiki page is about Roman Catholicism and their documented view of homosexuality. Under, Church Fathers, there is this quote: " Theophilus of Antioch (d. between 183 and 185) wrote: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire."[60]." The reference, "Rick Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch (Lexington Books 2000 ISBN 978-0-73910132-2), p. 59," suggests that Rick Rogers' has correctly quoted Theophilus of Antioch, identifying Theophilus' mention of homosexuality. I have and will put this term's usage in bold print to demonstrate the difference between a reference I will present.

Taking from ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, VOL. 2, THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS, Translated by the Rev. Marcus Dods, A.M., BOOK I, p. 93 and from, Early Christian Writings, Theophilus of Antioch, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/theophilus-book1.html , “But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men.” Because Rogers' quote interprets "homosexual acts" as opposed to Dods' "filthiness" there must be more of an explanation from this wiki to document that "homosexual acts" are indeed what early Church writings were referring to.

There is an etiological study that would represent this transition from "filthiness" to "homosexual acts" that would justify the Church's position on homosexuality. I rather think that the Church would not want to see this become a discussion. Whether or not, the quote from Rogers stands as misleading because the etiological course to interpreting "homosexual acts" is missing.

The etiology begins with Gregory the Great's use of the Latin word, "luxuria." This word can be found in Mark D. Jordan's book, The Invention of Sodomy. This then is the issue regarding Rogers' interpretation using the term "homosexual acts," when it was translated, "filthiness" by Dods. How, or where the Church comes up with "homosexual acts" when the Early Church spoke of pederasty (derived from the Greek paiderastes, literally, a lover of boys is, of course, of more ancient traditon, The Rite of Sodomy, Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Randy Engel, Vol. II, p. 443.), becomes a study in itself on the invention of more potent device by using the word sodomy. From sodomy the Church then moves to homosexuality.

How this is done in this wiki, places into question whether Rogers' interpretation of "homosexual acts" was used purposely to validate condemnation of homosexuality, without any doubt.

I propose an edit which corrects this misleading quote. Given that this wiki is about homosexuality and the Catholic Church there is a sense of fidelity to this marriage of terms. Staying with this fidelity then honors the purpose of this wiki. Removing the quote of Rogers and replacing it with Dods' translation then moves away from the Church's stance on homosexuality. To remain faithful to this wiki's purpose an exploration of "luxuria" and "sodomy" is necessary to establish where this condemnation of homosexuality comes.

This, then, is a task I am not prepared for but wish to engage others to assist with the process of editing this wiki. I cannot even begin to know if I have misused protocol with "Talk." AlaskaTW (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)AlaskaTWAlaskaTW (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While it's clear that recent translations of early Christian texts do often impose modern conceptions of and prejudices against homosexuality onto the text, I suspect that that's not what's going on here; Dods is writing in the nineteenth century and probably is trying to be cagey about the vice he's referring to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, do you have a reliable source of commentary on Dods that offers that explanation or is this your personal opinion? Elizium23 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's my opinion and I'd never suggest that we put it in the article. I initially read AlaskaTW's comment as suggesting that we discuss the differences in translation and was going to say that we would need an analytical source for that, but then realized that s/he just wanted to use the Dods translation instead, which I'm not sure is a good idea. Not knowing the original text and only seeing these two translations, I'm speculating that Dods's 19th-century translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I would have reversed your insight into who is being cagey. An internet search:

Theophilus of Antioch Editions "Jacques Paul Migne's Patrologia Graeca,[37] and a small edition (Cambridge 1852) by W. G. Humphry. Johann Carl Theodor von Otto's edition in the Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi vol. ii. (Jena, 1861) is by far the most complete and useful. English translations by Joseph Betty (Oxford 1722), W. B. Flower (London, 1860), Marcus Dods (Clark's Ante-Nicene Library), and Robert M. Grant (Clarendon Press, 1970)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch, reveals that only Rick Rogers interprets the original language using "homosexual acts." I have not been able to find Theophilus' books in the original language. All other translations use, "filthiness." This does not necessarily mean that one or the other is the correct translation but it does beg the question whether "homosexual acts" is an inferred translation, an interpretation given other documentation. Note that the above quote, each mention of translations all use "filthiness" and, come from theologians two centuries ago. If Rogers is correct then there must be an explanation why his translation differs. What explanation there is validates the Catholic condemnation of homosexuality.

I was not referring to Rogers' translation as cagey because his translation says something profound without documentation. AlaskaTW

My first response listed four translations using "filthiness" as opposed to Rogers' "homosexual acts." Any of these translations listed above say the same thing. Only Rogers' translation is different and therefore needs documentation to validate his translation. As I said, that documentation goes to supporting the transition from "filthiness" to "homosexual acts." The original text may not be readily available. Those books may have been translated from rare documents kept by a university or museum. I have not found the three books in another language.

I do not understand from where you speculate that the "translation is just avoiding directness because of social taboos. Those social taboos, as you refer to, comes from history. I am suggesting that there is a means to validate an otherwise, inferred translation or interpretation. If there is no effort to justify using "homosexual acts" then earlier translations must be used; "filthiness."

I began this discussion here to address the use of "homosexual acts" as misleading. Such use of "homosexual acts" begs the question because the word homosexual did not exist in the vocabulary of the Early Church. Which leads to the need to build from the original meaning to the understanding this wiki presents; "homosexual acts." There is documentation out there. Mark D. Jordan builds the invention of sodomy. From sodomy the build to "homosexual acts" becomes easier. Without the invention of sodomy there is no reference to infer "homosexual acts." AlaskaTW

Obviously the word homosexuality didn't exist in the vocabulary of the early church; nor did it exist when most of the translations you cite were made, but that doesn't automatically mean that the older text must be referring to general badness instead of to specific types of acts that later centuries would call "homosexual" or relate to homosexuality. As I've already pointed out, I'm aware that some modern translations read the contemporary understanding of homosexuality and the homophobic beliefs of modern Christians into their interpretations of older texts, but you need to be equally aware that yes, this is the sort of euphemism that eighteenth and nineteenth century writers use [3]. Can you provide us with the quote in its original language so we can have some idea of what we're dealing with here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, I cannot, I wish I could but as stated above I was unable to find the books in the original language. I will still look or even require.

Examining Dod's translation of “filthiness”, the Latin translation for this English word is, spurcitiae or, spurcitia and can be interpreted as, indulge oneself or, extravagence, thriving conditon, luxury. These definitions comes from a reverse translation using an internet, english to latin, dictionary program. The last definition, luxury then applies to the Latin word, luxuria, as talked about by Mark D. Jordan in his book, The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology. The Latin word, luxuria as introduced by Gregory the Great in his Moral Readings of Job in which the seven capital sins centered around “pride: vainglory, envy, wrath, sadness, avarice, gluttony of the stomach, and luxuria. Gregory is referring to sexual sin, he lists luxuria last because he wishes to emphasize this word, addressing effeminacy and animality. The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan, p. 39. Gregory establishes genital luxuria as the “graver dysfunction.” This, then, for Jordan is a moral device for sexual sin to be the fundamental “notion of a disordered desire” (Augustine). Ibid., p. 40. This fits nicely with

St. Augustine's Concept of Disordered Love and its Contemporary Application, David K. Naugle, Th.D., Ph.D., Southwest Commission on Religious Studies Theology and Philosophy of Religion Group, March 12, 1993. “What seems to interest Augustine here is the moral attitude of the questioner, not so much that the order and beauty of these things imply the existence of the Creator, but rather that since God had created them they must be seen for what they are as His handiwork, to value them accordingly, and to worship only Him and not his handiwork which would be disordered love. The moral aspect of his deliberations—rightly understanding the order of things and responding appropriately to them—seems to be the critical point (Marcus 1967:204).” p. 11, 12.

“To love God is, then, the indispensable requirement for happiness, because only God, who is infinite, can satisfy that special need in humanity that is the temporal and finite with resultant pathologies.” p. 12.

“What a person loves, and how he or she loves it, will determine the course and character of life, as well as the condition of society.” p. 12.

“The Bible would call this disordered love in the extreme “idolatry,” and the disordered lives that result from idolatry would, in the biblical idiom, be labeled unrighteousness.” p. 18 http://www3.dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/disordered_love.pdf

Jordan speaks of effeminacy and animality as something that Gregory addresses in his book, Moralia in Job, 26.17.29. Gregory continually expounds on pride: “Thus Saul grew up, from meritorious humility, into swelling pride, by his height of power. He was in truth raised up in consequence of his humility, and rejected through his pride: as the Lord bears witness, Who says, When thou wast little in thine eyes, did not I make thee the head of the tribes of Israel? [1 Sam. 15, 17].”; “Whence also it is said by Paul, For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. When then the administration of temporal power is undertaken, a person must watch with the greatest care, in order to learn how to select from it what is of use, and to withstand its temptation, and to feel himself, even with it, on an equality with others, and yet, by his zeal for revenge, to set himself above those who do wrong.” “[xxxiv]” “62. For they were seeming to live as if in calm, when they were taking care to rejoice in the credit of holiness.”

“But haughty men prostitute their effeminate hearts to human praise, because they are corrupted by self-love. Of whom it is said in another place, Men shall be lovers of their own selves. [2 Tim. 3, 2] But of this very corruption of theirs it is here fitly subjoined, And their life among the effeminate.

[vi]. 7. “For these revel in their own praise, because they seek not the glory of their Maker. But they who seek the glory of their Maker, are tortured with their own praise, . . .”

As for Jordan's comment that sin is connected with animality Gregory states through quotations of Ezekiel [Ez. 8, 8-10]: “. . . and the abominations of animals,”; “Whence it also well follows in that place, And He said to me, Go in, and see the most wicked abominations which they do here. A person enters as it were to behold abominations, who on examining certain signs which appear outwardly, so penetrates the hearts of those under him, that all their unlawful thoughts are made plain to him. Whence he added, And I went in and saw; and behold every likeness of creeping things, and the abomination of animals.”; “Animals also are within the wall, when if any just and becoming thoughts are conceived, they subserve the pursuit of worldly gains and honours, and of themselves indeed they are already suspended, as it were, from the earth, but by their ambition, they still bring themselves down to the basest objects, as by gluttonous desire. Whence it is also well subjoined, And all the idols of the house of Israel were painted on the wall. For it is written, And covetousness which is idolatry. [Col. 3, 5] After the animals, therefore, the idols are properly described, because, though they arise themselves, as it were, from the earth by becoming conduct, yet they bring themselves down to the earth again by dishonourable ambition. But it is well said, Were painted; because while the appearances of outward objects are drawn inward, whatever is thought in imagination is painted, as it were, on the heart.”

“Gregory's teaching on luxuria doubles the sin. On the one hand, . . . If the memory of one kind of pleasure is successfully controlled, control itself may become an occasion for luxuria. On the other hand the sin is housed in the genitals as in a part of the body that has been given over to demonic control. It flames out of those organs through specific channels of desire. It reaches out to fornication, adultery, to every perverse ordering of the flesh.” The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan, p. 39. “One way to ease this duality is to believe that Gregory means to elevate sexual sins to a unique prominence as cause of sin. The “loins” would become the source of the whole of luxuria. There is something to this belief, but it ignores the different logic implicit in the two views of luxuria. The logic of generalized luxuria is the logic of mutation, infiltration, reactivation; the logic of genital luxuria is the logic of disruption, direct assault. This dual logic is not accidental. It is important to Gregory's argumentative strategy. To have a category that bridges the two logics, the two models of causality, is to have a category that can be used to prevent troublesome sins from being sujected to corrective analysis. Luxuria has two logics built into it by Gregory. If one is attacked, it can be retired and the other brought into play.” Ibid., p.39. “There is more. The two logics are not deployed symmetrically. It is rather the case that the generalized luxuria is used to defend the genital one from criticism. To the charge that Gregory's teaching gives too much weight to genital sins, it can be replied that luxuria is much broader then that. It is more like Augustine's notion of disorder desire, a fundamental inversion in the will that shows itself in dozens of secondary disorders. But as soon as this expansive doctrine is advanced, Gregory will bring all of its weight to bear on genital sins, as if they just were the fundamental inversion. Certain sins of the flesh are brought into the system of moral teaching at one level, then linked by the term luxuria to much graver dysfunction. It is easy enough then to transfer the sense of gravity out, down to the sins of the flesh.” Ibid., p. 39, 40.

I have explored the translation “filthiness” in Dods' Theophilus to Autolycus showing that it translates to the Latin words “spurcitiae or, spurcitia” and then showing that the definition of these Latin words means, luxury. From there I encorporate Jordan's etiology of luxuria. I could further represent the biblical use of luxuria with Jordan's mention of OT and NT usage. I have no doubt that biblical usage of this word will double the “two logics” of Gregory and the logic of Augustine with his “disorder desire.”

What all this demonstrates is that the invention of sodomy (in the modern sense) has its ground work established in Gregory the Great and Augustine. This development does not end here with this research but continues on to develop Rogers' interpretation of “filthiness” as “homosexual acts.” This then is why Genesis 19, Sodom and Gomorrah, is interpreted to speak of what we now call homosexuality. Gregory the Great established the path to re-interpret Sodom and Gomorrah, disregarding Ezekiel 16: 48,49, the only biblical definition of the Sins of Sodom. Even Ezekiel sets the stage for Jordan's research on luxuria as well as for Augustine's “notion of a disordered desire.”

I started saying that this research would go towards explaining the Church's reasoning behind the condemnation of homosexuality. I also stated that the Church most likely does not want this explanation known. The contention begins with Rogers' use of “homosexual acts.” AlaskaTW — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but it's ten thousand characters of original research of the kind that Wikipedia does not allow. We absolutely cannot base an edit on the fact that you ran a word through Google Translate. If there are reliable secondary sources discussing Gregory's use of "luxuria" or discussion of Sodom in connection to the article topic, by all means consider adding that information. I'm not sure it is useful to pursue this discussion further if it's going to be more fallacious caviling on a single word. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Those ten thousand characters were not intended to be submitted for an edit. I merely set out documentation regarding early Church documentation to demonstrate that there is a need to address the wiki, Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. All documentation that I presented was Catholic in origin except one (and I'm not sure that it isn't.) I began this effort seeking assistance because I have no knowledge of the wiki process. I merely set forth reasonable documentation that could be used. Very interesting, interesting enough to warrant some form of correction to Rogers' translation. His interpretation comes to hi:When I read your comment, I presumed that I had mistyped, but I find I did not. The Greek text is in column 1045, what is in column 1046 is the Migne translation into Latin (not "my" Latin translation - I wasn't born then), which has no more authority than the English translations. The Greek text does have the word ἀρσενοκοιτἰα (in the dative plural case): ἐπὰν ἐμφύρωνται μοιχείαις, καὶ πορνείας, καὶ ἀρσενοκοιτίαις ... The same document has not only the abstract noun ἀρσενοκοιτἰα (literally, male-lying): it also the concrete noun denoting the doer: ἀρσενοκοίτης (literally, male-lier - or should I spell it male-lyer?) in col. 1028B, where it says such people will not see God unless they first cleanse themselves of all filthiness (μολυσμός). You do realize, don't you, that Greek dictionaries indicate that the two words ἀρσενοκοιτἰα and ἀρσενοκοίτης do refer to homosexual activity? Esoglou (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)m not from a translation but from the invention of a series of terms; "filthiness," 'luxuria,' sodomy and homosexual acts. My documentation validates what the Church teaches using ancient text from Gregory the Great, Augustine as well as the use of scripture. As with all wikis, there are embedded links that could deal with the above documentation. To leave Rogers' translation as is misleads others to believe that homosexuality was indeed the issue of the Early Church Fathers. That is not acceptable. AlaskaTW — Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been away, and the thought of having to read all the above about English words such as "filthiness" daunts me. May I be excused? Autolycus wrote in Greek, not English, and the word he used (see PL6, col. 1045C) was ἀρσενοκοιτία (arsenokoitia). This word literally means male-lying. If you look up a dictionary of Greek, ancient or modern, you will be told it means (male) homosexual intercourse. Since one fairly ancient Greek writer says men can commit ἀρσενοκοιτία even with their wives, in that context it must mean anal intercourse, as stated by John Boswell ((Boswell, John (1981). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7.).

The explanation that User:Roscelese gave at 01:03, 14 April 2014 of the choice by 19th-century Dods of the English word "filthiness" to represent ἀρσενοκοιτία in his translation of the passage is obviously correct.

As an aside, the Latin translation of ἀρσενοκοιτία given in PG6 as puerorum stuprum (literally, rape of boys) throws light on the use of the Latin phrase stupratores puerorum (literally, rapers of boys) by the early 4th-century Council of Elvira. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Esoglou. Thanks for your effort and the link to the original language of Theophilus to Autolycus. I believe you meant to link to 1046C, not 1045 C. No problem as I believe that I am well on the path to discover the original intent. Although, I do not see the Greek usage, "ἀρσενοκοιτία (arsenokoitia) in the text. Your contribution is very interesting. Your Latin translation, I believe represents the true concern of the Early Church Fathers; "ἀρσενοκοιτία (arsenokoitia)." Again, my concern that Rogers' translation misleads readers into believing that the issue the Early Church Fathers had was homosexuality. At the very least, this quote should be removed. I will continue my research. Thanks.63.140.83.85 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)AlaskaTW

When I read your comment, I presumed that I had mistyped, but I find I did not. The Greek text is in column 1045, what is in column 1046 is the Migne translation into Latin (not "my" Latin translation - I wasn't born then), which has no more authority than the English translations. The Greek text does have the word ἀρσενοκοιτἰα (in the dative plural case): ἐπὰν ἐμφύρωνται μοιχείαις, καὶ πορνείας, καὶ ἀρσενοκοιτίαις ... The same document has not only the abstract noun ἀρσενοκοιτἰα (literally, male-lying): it also the concrete noun denoting the doer: ἀρσενοκοίτης (literally, male-lier - or should I spell it male-lyer?) in col. 1028B, where it says such people will not see God unless they first cleanse themselves of all filthiness (μολυσμός). You do realize, don't you, that Greek dictionaries indicate that the two words ἀρσενοκοιτἰα and ἀρσενοκοίτης do refer to homosexual activity? Esoglou (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou, this is the text that I believe we are both addressing:

“Incredulis autem et superbis, et iis qui non acquiescunt veritati, credunt autem iniquitati, cum repleti fuerint adulteriis, scortationibus, puerorum stupris, avaritia et infandis simulacrorum cultibus, erit ira et indignatio, tribulatio et angustiae10, ac tandem tales ignis aeternus 347 detinebit."

The word that is in question, I believe is, "scortationibus." Please correct me if I am wrong. Your statement, "where it says such people will not see God unless they first cleanse themselves of all filthiness (μολυσμός)," tells me that Dods' translation using "filthiness" is not an incorrect translation of the Greek word but his sentence structure may be wrong. If the two Greek words, "ἀρσενοκοιτἰα and ἀρσενοκοίτης" refer to "(literally, rape of boys)," "ἀρσενοκοιτία given in PG6 as puerorum stuprum," then the issue was not homosexuality but instead pedophilia. One can play on the words homosexual and pedophilia and divert the attention from pedophilia but then that would mislead the intent of the sentence. I'm beginning to get a better feel for the intent of the sentence as opposed to the intent of Rogers' use of "homosexual acts." This is very helpful. The argument is becoming very clear and I will be more adept at discussing this text when an acquaintance comes back with his translation, interpretation. 63.140.83.85 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)AlaskaTW63.140.83.85 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. The document is written in Greek, not Latin or English. The differing translations, whether in Latin, English, Russian or Esperanto, do not alter the meaning of what is in the document. The part quoted (in translation) in the article does not contain the word μολυσμός, which a dictionary will tell you means "filthiness". The word μολυσμός appears in quite a different part of the document, and I quoted it in the hope that you would at last see that Dods was not translating ἀρσενοκοιτἰα literally, when he used for it the word "filthiness". I thought that would be obvious. And the word ἀρσενοκοιτἰα does not, in spite of what you said, literally mean "rape of boys". Are you calling Boswell a fool for thinking that a man committing ἀρσενοκοιτἰα with his wife was performing anal intercourse (sodomizing), rather than raping a boy?! No, I don't understand you. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In my last reply, I quoted several issues you mentioned. Granted, I do not know Greek but I do want to understand exactly what the sentence says. I do not disagree with your saying what the original language says. My reply was about finding your comments interesting. I am not calling Boswell a fool. I am trying to understand your comments. You did make comments that would seem to validate Dods' usage of "filthiness." 63.140.83.85 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 63.140.83.85 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.83.85 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Dods put "filthiness" in his translation where the original has ἀρσενοκοιτἰα. This is an inaccurate translation. His motive for using the word "filthiness" was doubtless that which Roscelese indicated. I used "filthiness" as my translation of μολυσμός, a word very different from ἀρσενοκοιτἰα, and I can show that "filthiness" is an accurate translation of μολυσμός, though not of ἀρσενοκοιτἰα. In another part of the same document (chapter II), Dods translated οὐκ εἶ ἀρσενοκοίτης ("you are not an ἀρσενοκοίτης", "you are not one who practises ἀρσενοκοιτἰα") as "you do not corrupt boys", no doubt in line with what Dods considered the most common form of homosexual activity.

On a slightly different matter, I must plead guilty to having over-simplified by giving "rape" as an English translation of Latin stuprum. Just go to the Wikipedia indication of the meaning of stuprum, or better to the sources cited there, and you will find that the meaning of stuprum, though including that meaning, was much wider. Esoglou (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, the more you speak about this matter the better I have come to understand what Theophilus meant. You have been very helpful. Interesting how the word stuprum has a wider range of meaning. I believe this understanding shows that Dods related to pedophilia and not homosexual acts, as Rogers translated, and that follows your suggestion that stuprum meant, rape, but later suggested that the word had a broader meaning. The illustrative parallel to translating ancient Greek always depends on other writings of the time. Looking at what Theophilus said earlier, again going by what you've said, pedophilia was Theophilus' concern and may very well be the correct translation or, interpetation. This is what I've learned from your take on Theophilus' to Autolycus, Book I. I still believe that Rogers' translation to English, “homosexual acts”, is misleading. The greater meaning is about the sexual abuse of young boys and goes beyond to parallel what St. Augustine spoke of as “disordered love.” This sort of understanding also fits what the NT speaks to as the “New Being” in Christ. It all makes sense. Now, I must do more research and learn how to translate ancient Greek. Thanks for your time, Esoglou. 63.140.83.85 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)(talk)

You seem to have the fixed idea that Theophilus was speaking of pedophilia/pederasty. The word he used was not limited to the sodomizing of boys and young men. If he were writing of that form of homosexual activity, he'd have used the word παιδεραστία. But that's not the word he used. I most certainly did not say what you for some reason attribute to me. Must I repeat yet again that Theophilus wrote in Greek, not in English or Latin, and that cherry-picking among discordant translations is no argument whatever for the meaning of what he wrote? Esoglou (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that we've identified the word in the original text that's translated as "homosexual acts", should we note that it's arsenokoitai, given that we discuss the translation and meaning of that word to some extent? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not agree with your last statement, unless you are a Ph.D. and can deal with the linquistic shift. Every other translation that I encounter, I mean to say all other translations, translate Theophilus as saying, "filthiness" and that fits what the original Christian message always addressed, Love thy neighbor. To translate "homosexual acts" means that the Church is moralistic, which would be wrong. Homosexuality was not an issue then and it therefore is projected today on Theophilus' message. There is the context of Theophilus' book I to consider too. All the catalogs do not speak of homosexuality either.

I must ask why you insist that Rogers' translation is right as opposed to all the other's translation. I'm hurried at the moment and will check back later. 63.140.83.85 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)(talk)

Evidently you're too hurried to read what has already been written. I can wait. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I disagree, I have read everything you and Esoglou wrote, and I appreciate what you wrote too. I am also in contact with someone with two Ph.D.'s and knows Greek well. What was explained to me was that one must understand, "using a dictionary or lexicon alone doesn't work in situations like this. You have to go into the writer's vocab and usages, not the blanket interpretations which include other writers' usages, which are frequently far distant both in culture and time," I read, Esoglou saying, "no doubt in line with what Dods considered the most common form of homosexual activity" and, this read this to infer Esoglou opinion suggesting homosexuality as Dods'meaning. I don't see that Dods speaks to anything about homosexuality. He spoke to pedophilia. There is a difference. Not even the Church speaks of Theophilus engaging the meaning of homosexuality as we know it today or, try to imprint it on the first or second centuries. The discussion is around pedophilia not homosexuality. The two similar mentions were translated using "filthiness" and the context of the meaning of "filthiness" is well documented in other early writings and NT. Esoglou's mention of "stuprum's" having a wider meaning than just "rape" also lends to the understanding that I have given the context of Theophilus' Book I.This person that I asked to help translate was not up to the job but he did explain why he wasn't. He is very old and I appreciate his insight. I also appreciate yours and Esoglou's input. I am paying very close attention to what you two have to say. I am rather baffled but respect your input. I will continue to nail down this question about the two differing translations. AlaskaTW (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As Roscelese said, we can wait until you nail down something about what Theophilus wrote and cease talking about different words in different languages. Wikipedia admits only what is found in reliable published sources. Greek dictionaries are reliable sources about the Greek word that Theophilus used. But, as your friend quite rightly said, they are not the only source and they should be supplemented with information about how the word was used in practice over time. That I have done by citing what Boswell, a published reliable source, showed about one use of the word in Theophilus's time. When you do have something to contribute about that word, rather than about the various words used by Dods and the like, come back. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to interesting as I will be back. It amazes me that you've sided with Rick Rogers when his translation is as unexplained as every other instance of Dods translation. When I say every instance, I mean to say that I can site multiple instances of other translators using "filthiness." Whereas, you only go by the author of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, wiki. Granted you've attached great validity to modern dictionaries and lexicons, but you fail to understand Theophilus' meaning according to the time frame to which he wrote. In fact, you've missed stated my friends comment. He did not say, "they should be supplemented with information about how the word was used in practice over time." What he said was, "You have to go into the writer's vocab and usages, not the blanket interpretations which include other writers' usages, which are frequently far distant both in culture and time." Not as you stated, "how the word was used in practice over time." I would say that translations of the original text of Homer's Iliad, Sappho's Lyrics, Aristotle's Poetics and, the Gospel of John would lend to a translation far removed from modern lexicons. I will begin this endeavor and seek Greek scholars to validate my findings. You know where I'm heading but not as if I have a preconceived idea of what Theophilus meant in Book I. I am approaching this study by understanding what Theophilus meant and will accept the results and apply those results to develop a true understanding, with documentation. I really don't understand you and Roscelese supporting Rogers whom does not document his translation, "homosexual acts." I thought that I was approaching the LGBT community through "Talk." I did not expect such difficulty coming from this LGBT community. As I said before, I appreciate your dialog and it has been helpful. Thanks. AlaskaTW (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

New Advent To Autolycus, Book I An ocean of Catholic resources at your fingertips. Chapter 14. Theophilus an Example of Conversion.

“But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, Romans 2:8-9 and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men.”

About this page

Source. Translated by Marcus Dods. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm>.

“I think that Esoglou makes the better point. The current lede is vague, imprecise and Violates NPOV in using terms like "leading figures" , "active campaigning", and "LGBT rights". The article is about RC and Homosexuality: The lede should quote primary sources as to the church's teachings, public positions and actions. Cloonmore (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Church_Fathers

Following Esoglou my contention with: “ Theophilus of Antioch (d. between 183 and 185) wrote: "To the unbelieving, who despise and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, when they are full of adulteries and fornication and homosexual acts and greed and lawless idolatry, there will come wrath and anger, tribulation and anguish, and finally eternal fire."[60]” and, the differing translation of Dods: As is quoted from Catholic resources: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02041.htm , follows Esoglou's Lede comment that, “The article is about RC and Homosexuality: The lede should quote primary sources as to the church's teachings, public positions and actions.” Taking from the New Advent.org resource on Theophilus' Book I Rick Rogers' translation does not meet Catholic resources.

Rick Rogers' translation needs to be removed because it is not a Catholic resource. Had the quoted translation been from Dods, it would have been out of place. The quoted translation simply misleads the reader to think that Church resources uses this translation to condemn homosexuality. AlaskaTW (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But this article also discusses history, not solely the present position. Am I misunderstanding your argument? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Roscelese, the article does discuss history and there in lies my argument. Historically and within the Church's teaching, Dods has the correct translation. Correct me if I am wrong but, Rick Rogers is not a Catholic; I really don't know one way or the other. If not, his translation not only goes against the Church's documentation but misrepresents the Church's validation of Dods by siting Dods. Rogers' translation is of this century and may or may have not validated his translation. I need to purchase his book and validate Rogers' reason for translating "homosexual acts." I still need to research on a deeper level what the original language really said. There is validation that what was talked about was the sexual abuse of young boys but then neither Dods or Rogers states this. What was filthiness to Dods or what yet requires in depth analysis of Theophilus's meaning can be related to what we today call pedophilia but not homosexuality. My argument does not accept "homosexual acts" as it is misleading. My argument lies within the true meaning of the Greek word (excuse my laziness in looking up this Greek word so I can print it here) where I can accept the translation as presented by Dods use of "filfiness" as it fits the context of Theophilus's meaning. If Theophilus was speaking about the abuse of young boys then "filthiness" represents this concept of abuse and it is filthy. But, to translate homosexuality and say that it is filthy is a misrepresentation. The quote from Rogers must be removed on the premise that the Church does not accept "homosexual acts" nor does "homosexual acts" fit the context of Book I. Homosexuality, as we know it today was only addressed by Roman government and Greek culture then and not by the Church. The Church did not begin to address sexual issues until Constantine where Roman government was struggling with Eunuchs and their rites. The problem then was what constituted the identity of a man. I refer you to the book, The Manly Eunuch, by Mathew Kuefler, ISBN0-226-45739-7 on what was truly the concern in the early centuries after Jesus. This subject now must go in depth on Eunuchs but then Eunuchs begins another subject, although, connected to this issue of homosexuality. That is unnecessary since I am asking for the Rogers' quote to be removed. There is no history of homosexuality in the Early Church. The issue was with pedophilia and still is today. Another article would be appropriate entitled, Pedophilia and Roman Catholicism. Homosexuality and Pedophilia are not the same issue and must not become associated with each other. Homosexuality is not "filthiness," it is not a perversion. Greek society then did not see pedophilia as a perversion but did find fault with Roman adoption of pedophilia as, the Romans did not understand the cultural aspect of Greek pedophilia. I would go as far as to say Eunuchs were the downfall of the Roman Empire as they changed the dynamics of Roman culture. I know that I've mentioned a few ideas without documentation but did so because they are pertinent to our conversation but are not needed in, "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism." AlaskaTW (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But Alaska, this isn't an article about the history of translations of Theophilus. Esoglou's provision of the original text and mine of support for my guess about Dods using a euphemism have pretty conclusively addressed your point that Theophilus is talking about something filthy and that we need to figure out what. Did you read the source I linked? The only thing I think we need to figure out is whether we should mention in the article prose that the word Rogers is translating as "homosexual acts" is arsenokoitia, because we discuss the complicated translation of that word in our article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It stands to reason that,Esoglou's comment, "follows Esoglou's Lede comment that, “The article is about RC and Homosexuality: The lede should quote primary sources as to the church's teachings, public positions and actions.”, is a valid point concerning this article and that Rogers' translation is not what the Church says Theophilus said. The Church does not side with Rogers on his translation and the quote should therefore be removed as a misrepresentation. Too clarify that Rogers' translation is questionable still avoids striking the misrepresentation of the Church. The article should be concise and without misrepresentation. Any clarification on your part would clutter the intent of the article. I may not agree with the Church's stance on homosexuality but to misrepresent the Church does an injustice to the Church. To clarify that "arsenokoitia" is the Greek word means that there is much more to question regarding the Church. That is not what the article is about. Not about questioning the Church. Rogers' quote must be removed. Replacing it with Dods' translation would be out of place in supporting the article. Theophilus is just not what this article needs to support the Church's stand on homosexuality. AlaskaTW (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Remind me of the source you provided for me. Are you talking about Boswell or the phrase, "puerorum stuprum?" Either way, your point is out of place given that this article is about the Church and homosexuality. "Puerorum stuprum" is not about homosexuality nor does Boswell's statement have anything to do with Theophilus' Book I. The point I make is that the Church does not use Theophilus to prove its stance on homosexuality. The quote from Rogers is out of place and a misrepresentation. AlaskaTW (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave you a secondary source talking about how "filthiness" was a common euphemism for homosexuality/"homosexual acts" at the time Dods was writing. I no longer have any idea what you're talking about as far as the church not supporting Rogers's translation. Why would we expect it to and how is that relevant? This is Wikipedia and we aren't bound to print only things approved by the church; we document, we're not a propaganda organ. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, it is very apparent that you are interjecting the invention of homosexuality into the article when in fact it has no place because the Church does not speak of Theophilus' Book I as a reference to "homosexual acts." That history lesson on the invention of homosexuality is very interesting. The article is about the Church and homosexuality. What Rogers says goes against what the Church has accepted and documented. You'd expect the Church to because it would then then be relevant to this article. This is the on going discussion in this "Talk, Lead" section. The relevancy to the Church, to the article, the quote from Theophilus must translate "homosexual acts" but the Church does not accept that translation. The Church documents, "filthiness" quoting Dods. This article is misrepresented by the quote from Rogers. AlaskaTW (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

“In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Catholic Historical Review 87.2 (2001) 309-310

“Is there really a Life of Theophilus apart from the Writings (chapters 1-2)? One needs more about his literary habits, and while Professor Rogers, author of this interesting study, says, "it is fun to notice how Theophilus insistently claims that pagan thinkers are often, what I would call, 'ideological kleptomaniacs'" (p. 134), he seems to neglect Theophilus' own reliance on anthologies with slight reference to primary texts, except for some Homer and Hesiod, possibly a little Plato, and some minor specialties. Jerome's judgment on his books as edifying (p. 8) proves little since he had not read them.”

. . .

“In his last two chapters Rogers reviews my attempts to show from possible allusions that Theophilus had some definite ideas about Jesus, and concludes that the connections are too vague to be useful. Reconsideration suggests that some of my suspicions may have been "misplaced concretions," and I agree that it is hard to reconstruct ideas about someone not mentioned. None the less, the claim that Theophilus' "profile of this first-century figure was situated in an appropriate ecclesiastical context" (p. 167) is also a leap in the dark, as much scholarship must inevitably be.” http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/catholic_historical_review/v087/87.2grant.pdf

I would take this review even farther, even though Grant does not mention Rogers' mention of “homosexual acts” he has indicated that historical evidence is not presently available to make much of a conclusion regarding what Theophilus was talking about which leaves very little to validate “homosexual acts.” Furthermore, what evidence that has been presented in this “Talk, Church Fathers” demonstrates “a leap in the dark” to support Rogers' translation, “homosexual acts.” That “leap” was extended from Boswell to Rogers' translation, from Greek dictionaries to Rogers' translation and from Rogers' translation to the Church. None of these “leaps” historically document Rogers' translation, “homosexual acts.” This conversation does bring very interesting negative conclusions that have been very, worth while.

My point regarding the use of Rogers' quote of Theophilus being a misrepresentation to Church documentation is valid. As I do more research into this questionable translation I welcome positive input from others on “Talk, Church Fathers.” So far, nothing presented in this discussion has presented proof positive that “homosexual acts” is the correct translation. Without such proof, the quote needs to be removed given that the Church does not use Rogers' documentation and Rogers' translation goes against all other translations, as I've documented. AlaskaTW (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't followed this debate line by line. But AlaskaTW, is the inference that the Catholic Church has not always condemned homosexuality (particularly in the form we know it today which is consensual sexual activity between two adults of the same sex)? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Contaldo80, I make that inference. I'm writing a book and the thesis of that book depends on proof of my hypothesis that the Church at some point in Church history must have made Canon Law, or through Ecclesiastical Letter that transition from what never was a condemnation to condemnation of homosexuality. I believe that I have that transition in history documented in my writing but it is not as clear cut as say, Canon Law. It is evident that the Church did not always condemn homosexuality; not in the Bible nor in Early Church history. Any documentation that the Early Church did, as with this wiki, "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism", with reference to the "Didache" or with Theophilus seems to ignore where this condemnation of homosexuality comes from. Theophilus as translated by Dods, the first book was translated "filthiness" and yet the quote coming from Rogers translates "homosexual acts". There seems to be a modern influence to Rogers' translation of the Greek translating "homosexual acts". Whereas, Dods (late 1800's) translates "filthiness" and so do others of his era. The accepted translation that the Church uses comes from Dods. I see no comment about Rogers' translation within the Church (I may need someone to way in on this if there is thought coming from the Church.) and reference to the Didache is preferenced by identifying pedophilia (by the Church.) This transition from the biblical meaning of Sodomy or, from Sodomy to pedophilia (this is where I begin my thesis) or, Sodomy to homosexuality (condemnation) is the key to unlocking condemnation of homosexuality by the Church. Instead, the Church avoids discussion about the roots of condemning homosexual acts. This is irresponsible biblical exegisis. This brings to mind another reason as to why the Church fails to be responsible to pedophilia. AlaskaTW (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is it so easy for you to believe that Rogers's translation is influenced by the prejudices and values of his time and Dods's is not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

“Every other translation that I encounter, I mean to say all other translations, translate Theophilus as saying, "filthiness" and” “The lede should quote primary sources as to the church's teachings, public positions and actions.” Cloonmore (taken from this “Talk”. As to the Church's teaching, documentation, the Church sites Dods.

““In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Catholic Historical Review 87.2 (2001) 309-310

“Is there really a Life of Theophilus apart from the Writings (chapters 1-2)? One needs more about his literary habits, and while Professor Rogers, author of this interesting study, says, "it is fun to notice how Theophilus insistently claims that pagan thinkers are often, what I would call, 'ideological kleptomaniacs'" (p. 134), he seems to neglect Theophilus' own reliance on anthologies with slight reference to primary texts, except for some Homer and Hesiod, possibly a little Plato, and some minor specialties. Jerome's judgment on his books as edifying (p. 8) proves little since he had not read them.”” AlaskaTW.

Maybe you can validate Rogers' translation. We would then have a discussion that you can support as favoring your assumption that Theophilus was speaking about “homosexual acts” (Rogers).

There is your answer. Use of Rogers' is a mere assumption that “homosexual acts” is the true translation. My research as documented in previous discussion here validates further my answer to, “Why?” Dods is validated because the Church recognizes his translation. The wiki is, “Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism.” Using Rogers misrepresents the Church. Why? Because the Church does not site Rogers. I encourage you to show that the Church does and therefore validate your insistence on using Rogers' translation.AlaskaTW (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting AlaskaTW - thanks. This confirms my suspicion that there is a danger of interpreting early Church statements/ actions in the light of modern-day political considerations (to support the argument that the Catholic magisterium never changes). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Siting original translations and even siting original interpretations are always in question. Even new translations and interpretations are also in question. The point that I make regarding "secondary sources" is that there are valid "consensus," "secondary resources" that validate my asking for those citations to be removed. As I research whether your support for Rogers is valid I don't see your documentation that would support Rogers. Seems as if you should be documenting your support of Rogers. My research has documented Rogers' as having missed the point and at the very least that Rogers cannot document his translation, "homosexual act." I've documented four or five others that translate, "filthiness," and I've documented that the Church uses Dods' translation. I've talked about Dods' translation "filthiness" being within the context of Theophilus' books. Your dictionary definitions, coming from lexicons but nothing that you've presented is original work that relates to what the ancient language, writer meant. You make a "leap of faith" to conclude that the Church would have it no other way. I call this Catholic Faith. Accepting the Magisterium without question. An unconditional acceptance. No matter what your faith there is reason to question, to remove at the very least the two documentations in "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism." Those quotes have nothing to do with this wiki, as I've documented the need for removal. I can concede if you can show me documentation that will support keeping these quotes. And then there is concern regarding my usage of "pedophilia." I concede that there is probably as much, at the very least, reason to remove the usage of "pedophilia" as I may have suggested. That in itself does not belong in this wiki anymore than does "homosexual act." Two topics merge here, homosexuality and, Roman Catholicism. If the Church uses Dods' translation of Theophilus then Theophilus' quote does not belong here. I suggest that you present documentation that demonstrates that the Church has changed her position regarding Dods' translation of Theophilus' Book I as supporting your consensus of keeping the quotes.Otherwise, it is time to remove those quotes.AlaskaTW (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5