Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Church teaching section

On Feburary 1st Roscelese added the following sentence to the Church teaching section: "It therefore holds that homosexuality is inherently a tendency towards sin." I objected to the statement in this form, and there has been a bit of an edit war over the last few weeks, for which I am partly responsible. Mea culpa. I have tried to reword the sentence so that it better reflects reality, and have tried to add additional sources showing that my interpretation is supported by reliable sources. Rosclese refuses to allow any changes to it, save for adding a single character in the form of an indefinite article. She has reverted every edit I have attempted. Since we have failed to reach consensus on it, I have removed it from the main page per WP:NOCON. I would like to work on it here and, when we do reach consensus, to place it back in the article. My preferred version is "It therefore holds that being homosexual makes one inclined towards this particular sin" but, as can be seen from my edits, I am open to finding a suitable compromise. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out to you, "makes one inclined" is akin, per the cited source, to saying that kleptomania "makes one inclined" towards the sin of stealing, rather than being itself an inclination. Your attempts to obfuscate this point over the past couple of weeks (months?) are a waste of everyone's time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the wording that Roscelese inserted - this seems a correct interpretation to be. I don't see the need find further compromise language. Surely the consensus is therefore to keep that version and not remove it? In fact I don't really like the general approach in that section at all - trying to imply that the church teaches homosexuality is a sin because it is sex outside marriage is misleading. It can never approve of it - even if people were to be married: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered'. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved". Contaldo80 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The inclination is not an act, and the inclination itself is not a sin. The orientation is also not an inclination. From one of the sources I added but you deleted: "Of course, heterosexual persons not uncommonly have disordered sexual inclinations as well. It is not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered." I am not trying to obfuscate. Just the opposite, in fact. The fact that we have been edit warring over this shows that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS. When that happens, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I tired to move the ball forward by getting a discussion going here. Since you have rejected that offer and have simply reinserted the disputed language, I will escalate the matter rather than continue to edit war. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How is the quoted sentence you added about disordered heterosexual inclinations remotely relevant to Church teachings about homosexuality? Seems to me, it's an attempt to whitewash the homophobic view of the Church by saying something like, "Look, we're not really homophobic, see here, we condemn heterosexual inclinations when they get weird, too." The statement is irrelevant in this article, although I would certainly support its inclusion in Catholic Church and sexuality. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested that "it would be enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered", so this is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You say above that "kleptomania 'makes one inclined' towards the sin of stealing." You do not say that kleptomania makes you inclined towards sin. I have tried to say in the past that homosexuality makes one inclined towards a particular sin. Since we apparently agree on this, I will edit it to say so. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What about my previous comment was so unclear to you that you interpreted a "no" as a "yes"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way you described kleptomania, I thought your position had changed. Why is it OK to say that kleptomania makes one inclined towards a particular sin, but we must say that homosexuality makes one inclined towards sin more generally? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Because the particularity is not the issue with your phrasing. If it were, there would have been no need for your recent edit, since the text you removed was already specific. Again, what about my previous comment was so unclear to you that you interpreted a "no" as a "yes"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Concupiscence

@Oct13: I've reverted your recent addition because I don't think it adds any information for the benefit of the reader that wasn't already in the text; it just increases our (over-)reliance on interpretation of primary sources and our use of jargon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Oct13 (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge three articles

Merge this article, History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, and Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Three articles that say the same thing is redundant. Oct13 (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

They were only recently forked out, so you'd have to look in the talkpage and archives for the reasoning behind that. BTW, the source you just removed is just Dignity quoting "On the Pastoral Care," although I don't have a problem with the edit you made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The key point is that the Catholic Church and homosexuality is seen as the parent article from which the others emerge and discuss the issues in more depth. So they're not really saying the same thing. I have no problem with merging but at the same time I would not agree with losing the great detail available in the other articles. Bringing all that material into one article could create a long article. Again I'm not against long articles but I know the editor who originally forked this thing thought otherwise. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE give guidelines for how big each article should be. If you add the readable prose of those three articles (12k+30k+13k) you get 55k of prose. That size may be acceptable, but when you consider it in context of all the other daughter articles, it makes sense to keep them spun off. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Political activity section in the lede

Roscelese and I had a discussion above about how to describe the Church's political activity in the lede. I think that as they support some legislation and oppose others, it is best to describe the basis on which they make decisions and leave the details to the main body. Roscelese wants to say that the Church is active to oppose gay rights. I took a quick look at what the main article states about the Church's activity on decriminalization of gay sex acts. As you can see from the table below, I have found 10 statements where they supported decriminalization, five where they opposed it, and one neutral. Based on this, I don't think it is accurate to say that their political activities are primarily to oppose gay rights. For this reason I am reverting. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support decriminalization	Oppose decriminalization	Neutral
In the 1960s, the Catholic Church supported the call of the Wolfenden report to introduce legislation to decriminalise homosexual acts in England and Wales.[16]	Cardinal Williams did issue a statement opposing homosexual law reform.	In New Zealand in the 1980s, although the Church declined to submit a formal response to the parliamentary enquiry on decriminalization,
In Australia, CardinalArchbishop Norman Thomas Gilroy supported efforts begun in the 1970s to likewise change the law.[17]	In the 1970s and 1980s in Belize,[20] and India,[21] the local churches opposed the decriminalization of homosexual acts.
In the United States the Catholic National Federation of Priests' Councilsdeclared their opposition to "all civil laws which make consensual homosexual acts between adults a crime."[18]	In Uganda, some bishops joined other religious leaders in calling on parliamentarians to make progress in enacting a anti-homosexuality bill.
These positions were against those of the Vatican.	Rather he blamed fundamentalist US Christian groups as well as "individual Catholics, including some bishops," for encouraging greater criminal sanctions
However, in later years, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the archbishop of Mumbai, spoke out against India’s anti-sodomy law.	In Kenya, a single Catholic bishop welcomed a ruling from the High Court in May 2019 which upheld the laws against gay sex.
Gracias, a President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India and one of the eight members of Pope Francis's Council of Cardinal Advisers, declared it wrong to make gay people criminals, since the Catholic Church "teaches that homosexuals have the same dignity of every human being and condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse."
Days after a law was signed criminalizing homosexual acts in Nigeria, an editorial in "The Southern Cross" (a newspaper run jointly by the bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland) criticised the law, calling on the Catholic Church in Africa to stand with the powerless and "sound the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals."
At least one bishop argued that the Catholic Church would "defend any person with a homosexual orientation who is being harassed, who is being imprisoned, who is being punished.
In 2015, Bishop Giuseppe Franzelli in the Diocese of Lira, denied that the Catholic Church in Uganda is institutionally behind any push towards anti-gay legislation, and called for "respect and love" for gay people.[
The Papal Nuncio to Uganda, Archbishop Michael Blume, voiced concern and shock at the bill.

If we were speaking only about decriminalization, this might be valid assuming that it represented the balance of the sources (which, to be clear, is a big "assuming"). But we're not, and you know we're not. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to make an effort here. Would you like to run a larger analysis so we can both be working with the same group of data? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that since the data we have already show that the church is much more active against gay rights than for them, if you want to show the opposite, it is you that needs to bring in more data. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Roscelese - no consensus to change the wording. Slugger I think you really are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is clear the Church does all it can to ignore or resist LGBT rights but you seem to want to present activity as benign. I like the point made by NorthbySouthBaranf - be proud about what the church does in terms of discriminating. They do it because they believe it is important to do so - don't try and apologise for them as this is disrespectful to those with strongly held beliefs.

Let's bring this to GA status

Tensions have been running a little high lately by some of the editors, myself included, who have worked on this article in the past. As a gesture of good faith, and in an effort to collaborate together towards a common goal in order to build good will, I would like to propose an effort to bring this article to GA, or perhaps even Featured, status. I chose this article for two reasons: 1) it the main article on the topic with eight daughter articles, and 2) it has been more or less stable for several months.

I am going to issue invitations to members of the LGBT and Catholic Wikiprojects, and specifically invite editors who have made one of the last 500 edits to this article, @Roscelese, Oct13, Contaldo80, Genericusername57, Mathglot, Samf4u, Shellwood, Meters, Epiphyllumlover, Materialscientist, Jungegift, Bradv, Socrates Socratis, NADOAM, Auric, I dream of horses, Ira Leviton, Rathfelder, TonyBallioni, PaleoNeonate, Meatsgains, PPEMES, Aspening, Dlohcierekim, Dlohcierekim, Verbose., Cmn.jcs, Jon Kolbert, Gerda Arendt, Nowak Kowalski, Northamerica1000, Lionelt, Ryn78, Zyxw, Kind Tennis Fan, Gdcarroll, and Marauder40:. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: Sorry, I've no interest in this article. If you wish to improve the thing to GA status, my advice would be to take it up with members of the related WikiProjects. DlohCierekim 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Slugger O'Toole: Appreciate the ping. I agree with User:Dlohcierekim that WikiProjects would be a good place to advertise for this. I've got nothing against improving the article, I'm just not "a GA person". But if you organize an improvement task list, GA-based or otherwise, and you have a specific issue under discussion that you want my input on, you're more than welcome to ping me again. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What changes need to be made to the article? Oct13 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There are six criteria:

1. Well written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage:
4. Neutral
5. Stable:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

More details on each criterion can be found at WP:Good article criteria. I am going to begin by cleaning up the citations. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with bringing the article up to good article status. But I do have serious concerns about your involvement in leading this - based on issues raised by a range of other editors on a number of articles (along with an ongoing ANI). I would want to be absolutely convinced that "improving" the article isn't a cover to strengthen the Catholic "voice" at the expense of the gay "voice. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no agenda other than the one previously stated. Additionally, you will notice that the LGBT Wikiproject was notified before the Catholic Wikiproject. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Your editing record does not give me cause for comfort. But for the timebeing I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted a few of the recent destructive changes to the article wording. GA should be about making the article clearer, not about making it say less with more words. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't find your description of the edits as "destructive" to be helpful or to be WP:AGF. That said, I am reverting your change in the lead. As the article states, "In various countries, members of the Catholic Church have intervened on occasions both to both support efforts to decriminalize homosexuality, and also to ensure it remains an offence under criminal law." With that in mind, I don't believe your version to be accurate. Several of your other edits were very helpful, though, and I appreciate them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

In neither case is your wording an improvement. LGBT Catholics are "able" to have sex, so that's not an accurate description of Dignity's activities, and our article indicates that most of the Church's political activity has been against, rather than for, gay rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Your point able LGBT people being "able" to have sex is a fair point. How do you like this instead? "Organizations such as DignityUSA, which advocates for the removal of the prohibition against homosexual acts..." The problem with your wording for the lede is that you are making a blanket statement which, as you point out, is not universally true. I'm open to suggestions for alternative language that is both accurate and concise, but am strggling to come up with something different. Do you have any suggestions? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern is, as ever, representing the sources with appropriate WP:WEIGHT, a part of our WP:NPOV policy. I could support the addition of "primarily" against LGBT rights. Re Dignity, I think you already know that that's not a good description. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:WIEGHT also talks about the juxtaposition of statements. Saying one group wants LGBT people to have rights and the other wants them to be chaste as if those two positions were diametrically opposed to one another and mutually exclusive is not NPOV either. The History section already has two line about organizations like Dignity and Courage. I am going to move them down to the Pastoral Care section. This, I think, solves two problems. First, they probably better belong there anyway. Secondly, it talks about the organizations without mentioning anything specific. What do you think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting "diametrically opposed" from. The two groups have two different briefs, that's all. Re the potential move, I don't understand your logic in moving Dignity there, even if Courage probably belongs there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right that "diametrically opposed" wasn't the best way to phrase it. My apologies. I still have an issue with your wording in that you are juxtaposing "rights" with "chastity." One can have full rights and still be chaste, or be promiscuous and oppressed. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger - under a recent AfD against you a number of editors raised concerns about partiality in editing. I have said I am happy to improve the quality of this article. But I am not content to see issues critical of Catholicism being brushed aside and replaced with a robust Catholic narrative. This does everyone a disservice to everyone. Can I advise you to be more careful about ensuring absolute impartiality and neutrality in the edits that you make on what is an incredibly sensitive subject matter. If you don't think you're up to this then I'd ask you to please step back. You need to ensure that other editors have confidence in you to represent all sides of the discussion. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I proposed an effort to improve this article three weeks ago and pinged 40 other editors, including you, looking for help. I then stepped back and was looking for someone else to take the lead. No one, including you, did. You haven't made any edits here in two months... until today, and when you did they resulted in a number of citation errors that I will now go in and fix. To your more general point, I always try to be NPOV. I sometimes fail, here and in myriad other ways. I look to other editors to catch those mistakes and fix them as I strive to do better. Again, I would welcome your efforts to improve the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I see it as an issue that "article insufficiently displays the beneficence of the Church" is not in fact an issue standing in the way of the article's GA status. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made dozens of edits to this article in the last few days. I don't think that's a fair description of the sum total of my efforts. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Luckily, it wasn't intended to be. It is very tiresome to have to deal with tendentious editing even if it comprises only a part of someone's edits. In addition to walking back the destructive wording I already mentioned, I also cleaned up some wording and restored some spuriously removed material, since it very clearly is in the source and therefore not unverified or OR. Please revert yourself re: the Church's political activity. You do not have consensus to add this word salad, which is a clear WP:WEIGHT violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what about your edit you believed to be a "compromise" in any way or indeed to make it less salad-like. Again, gain consensus for your wording by arguing for its compliance with policy or changing it to conform to policy, instead of attempting to force it through tendentiously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Because I disagree that including the basis by which they make decisions is a WEIGHT issue. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Catholic Church makes decisions on the basis of Catholicism" is self-evident and unnecessary to include. If you're confused about WEIGHT, you could reread the parts where I have explained it to you.

Slugger, I directly quoted for you the part of Siker's book that refers to educational and athletic employment and to military recruitment, and the references to adoption, employing teachers, and public housing are in the very first paragraph of the other cited source (which also a bit further down talks about coaches and military recruitment). I don't generally do this, but I'm going to recommend that you take a step back from this article until you can improve your tendentious editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "on the basis of Catholicism." As you well know, "Catholicism" is a huge thing. Catholic Social Teaching is a very specific subset of that thing. As to Siker, I read page 194, which is what you cited. (It was originally 193.) I didn't find what you were talking about. After your most recent comment, I went back in searched the book. I think I found what you are talking about on page 195. That source says "the Church teaches that discrimination based on sexual orientation is justified in the employment of teachers and coaches and in military recruitment" (my emphasis). In addition to being on the wrong page, it also doesn't talk about public housing, athletics, or adoption, all of which you included. Another source, which you didn't cite, may, but then we run into WP:SYNTH issues if it doesn't explicitly say what you are claiming. Additionally, and this is the bigger point, there is a huge difference between teaching that something may be "justified" in some circumstances and "actively opposing" it in all, which is what you said. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Teaching that discrimination based on sexual orientation is ever for any reason justified is exactly the point here. It's not. As actual social science and psychological organizations have emphasized for decades, there is zero reason to think that gay and lesbian people shouldn't be teachers or coaches or in the military. Any "teaching" to the contrary is inherently based on nothing more than scare-mongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, are you saying that you think teaching that someone may be prohibited from doing something is the same as actively opposing someone from doing something? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @NorthBySouthBaranof:. I think ultimately it doesn't really matter "why"; the addition of "teaching" is immaterial regardless of whatever other information about the teaching is added at that place in the article. All we need to do is state clearly that the Church opposes antidiscrimination measures for employment, housing etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, yes? Why would it not? If I teach that "it's justified for black people to be prohibited from marrying white people," I'm a racist. Full stop, game over, the end. If someone teaches that "it's justified for gay people to be prohibited from teaching," they're a homophobe. Full stop, game over, the end. The Catholic Church, at least in the United States, is on record advocating that it be legal to fire gay people for no other reason than that they're gay. That's literally the definition of homophobia.

If the Catholic Church really believes these things to be true and is proud of its position (based on nothing more than something written down in a book of myths a couple thousand years ago) that I, and millions of other people, am a dangerous, "disordered" threat to children and society, why are you attempting to obfuscate the truth with word-salads like "Catholic social teaching"? Be open, be out, be proud - the church wants to discriminate against me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the Church's position is right or wrong. That's not for us to decide. The issue is whether a source that says the Church teaches that such discrimination is permissible in some instances is the same as saying that the Church is actively discriminating. I contend that those are not the same things. Look at another example: Say the Church teaches that it is acceptable for a parent to sometimes deny a child a cookie. That is not the same thing as the Church telling parents never to give their children cookies. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Your analogy is idiotic - gay people are not children wanting cookies, they're human beings entitled to equal protection under the law. By teaching that it is ever acceptable to discriminate against gay people because they are gay, then yes, the Church is actively encouraging the relegation of LGBT people to second-class citizenship. That's not my opinion, that's what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you didn't like my analogy. I fundamentally disagree, however, that teaching that something is sometimes permissible is the same as actively pursuing it. I have reread the source, and do not find the list of rights that you have enumerated. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger it is evident that a number of editors have expressed serious concerns about tendentious editing. I remind you of the AfD and advise you to step back and re-think. It is irrelevant whether I have or have not heeded your call to get the article to GA status or that I haven't edited apparently (?) for 2 months. I am still watching the article. Your edits never fail to strengthen language that supports the official line of the Catholic church and that actually really worries me. Improving the article is one think; brining it into line with the position of one particular organization is another. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Catholic league

This article is about the Catholic Church, as an institution, and homosexuality. Discussion about outside organizations are often relevant, but we are bound to make sure they maintain WP:DUE weight. In the Defense of Church teaching section we have one sentence about the Knights of Columbus, one on the Catholic Medical Association, and two on Life Teen. There are, on the other hand, eight long sentences on the Catholic League. Most of those sentences are not about defending the Church's teaching but about issues that are tangential at best: a parade, a TV show, and "corporate America." Some of them are even unsourced. I am going to trim it down to give it the same WP:WEIGHT as the other organizations. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

I restored long-standing material under dissent and defence of teaching. Slugger you were BOLD, I REVERTED, under WP:BRD the onus is on you to discuss and achieve consensus. Failure to do so will be evidence of disruptive editing. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am always willing to discuss and come to a consensus. Your style of simply making rollback reverts throws out the baby with the bathwater, however. I made a series of edits, explaining each one as I went. Twice. You came in and simply undid all that work. In so doing, you also reinserted copyrighted material, among other problems. We can not simply copy and paste text into an article, as has recently been explained to you by other editors. See WP:DCV. You have also restored material that is unsourced. See WP:V and WP:BLP. In other cases, you are restoring language that is not supported by the sources. You also removed failed verification tags, which is not a BRD issue. Please be more careful in your editing. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You continue to violate WP:BRD. I've asked you to specifically discuss the issues one by one and reach consensus for your changes. It is not sufficient to argue that your preferred version is the right one. If you fail to discuss the issues in detail then it surely is only another example of your disruptive editing - on which you have been called out by a number of other editors now. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Parent article

@Jzsj: has asked a few times about parent and child articles. A little more than a year ago, we had a discussion about how this article was WP:TOOBIG. The decision was made to WP:SPLIT this article. This, being the main article, remained as the parent article. Smaller, child, articles were WP:SPINOUT. When this happens, a WP:SUMMARY is left here in the parent article, and a more robust discussion of the particular topic is housed at the child article. In this particular case, we have child articles for Catholic teaching on homosexuality, History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, Pastoral care for gay Catholics, Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, etc. Hope this clears it up.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Desecration of the Eucharist

As part of Contaldo's rollback style reverts, which I described above as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he changed "desecrated the Eucharist" to "desecrated a communion wafer." I have reverted for several reasons. First, he has agreed to this language in the past, so I assume this was an error of incautious editing. Secondly, this section is a WP:SS of a main article, in which case we should use language that is "quite similar" to that of the parent article. In this case, the parent uses Eucharist. Third, the linked article uses Eucharist as well. For these reasons I am editing to say Eucharist. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Using the term "Eucharist"

The article describes a protest in St Patrick's cathedral by some gay activists. Should we keep the term "Eucharist" when describing their actions or is another term more relevant here? Contaldo80 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - There are four sources cited for this section in the article. None of them uses the term "Eucharist" (which is a term only Roman Catholics use). Instead the sources use "communion wafer". The Eucharist more correctly refers to the rite in which sacramental bread is used.Contaldo80 (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment What do you mean by Roman Catholics? First, I favor a strict constructionist approach. I would call them Catholics with a Capital C. "Eucharist" has a Greek origin although this is WP:Circular, read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_East_and_Latin_West#Use_with_regard_to_Christianity . Ironic why would the Catholic Church which uses Latin as her ecclesiastical language use a word with Greek origin. Just a thought.Manabimasu (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No - According to multiple sources, the Eucharist is the term used for the rite which includes the ingestion of both sacramental bread and sacramental wine, and not for the communion wafer or for any physical item used in said rite. Those items are always referred to as "consecrated bread" or "sacramental bread", and never by the term for the ritual. I'm going to assume that this was a simple conflation of the terms, and since the focus of the discussion if on the Catholic Church, I just hope this issue is resolved before somebody brings up transubstantiation. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. As explained above, the parent article and the linked article both use the term "Eucharist." The term "communion wafer" could refer to the wafer either before or after consecration. If before, there is no sacrilege. It is because this act took place after the consecration that it became a scandal. Saying Eucharist instead of communion wafer is thus more precise, reduces ambiguity, and avoids any potential confusion. Additionally, Contaldo is mistaken. Many Christian denominations use the term Eucharist (and, to PraiseVivec's point, many others also believe in the Real Presence). Even if they didn't, this article is about the Catholic Church, and Catholics use the term Eucharist to describe both the rite and the physical elements of the rite, as explained in the article: "Communicants, those who consume the elements, may speak of 'receiving the Eucharist'..." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The linked article also uses the same set of sources and they all say "communion wafer" too rather than "eucharist". So this line of reasoning is a red herring. I'm also highly doubtful that "Many Christian denominations use the term Eucharist" and that "many others also believe in the Real Presence". But that is neither here nor there. The main issue stands that the cited sources use communion wafer rather eucharist and insisting that "eucharist" be the word used to highlight the sense of scandal sounds pretty much like pushing a POV to me. Any more scandalous that the hierarchy of the Catholic church prohibited condom use and thus allowed many people to die a horrible death from AIDS? I feel like we are trying to favour one type of "scandal" or outrage above another. This isn't neutral. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Condoms and horrible deaths from AIDS? Talk about a red herring. It is true that some sources may use "communion wafer." Others may use "Eucharist." We are not bound to follow any outside organization's style, however. We have our own Manual of Style, and it says to use language that is "quite similar to the summary in [the] parent article." The parent article uses "Eucharist." You have not made an argument why we should not follow that guideline here. To give another example, I could find plenty of sources that talk about Leo the Great, or even Pope Saint Leo the Great. That does not mean we have to use those terms, however. Here at Wikipedia, we simply refer to him as Pope Leo I. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• No The word "eucharist" properly applies to the whole Mass or "Eucharistic celebration". To reduce the Mass to the Communion bread is a mistake that Catholic liturgists have been trying to correct for at least 55 years, since the Second Vatican Council. "Communion bread" is the proper term here. Jzsj (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• No but keep the quotation I want to keep a WP:NPOV but User:Contaldo80 has a point about WP:SS. To do so, from this specific source http://www.actuporalhistory.org/interviews/images/keane.pdf

Don’t summarize but cite from the source this quote. In an interview, Tom Keane accounts,

I put my hands out, and suddenly I have the Communion wafer in my hands, and the priest says, “This is the body of Christ,” and I say, “Opposing safe-sex education is murder.” Then I sort of—I didn’t really know what to do, and I think in some sense, some part of me was sort of saying, “Well, fine. You guys think you can tell us that you reject us, that we don’t belong, so I’m going to reject you.” So I took it and I crushed it and dropped it.

Manabimasu (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The above quotation seems neither clear, nor very relevant to the topic of the article, nor significant in the light of what any number of persons might say about the Church. Unless its meaning and relevance is clarified I see no reason for including it in this article. Jzsj (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

If the above quotation is not relevant, I would suggest changing "eucharist" to "host" if so needed.Manabimasu (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Manabimasu, I have mentioned SS twice, but I don't think Contaldo has. Can you clarify who you think has a point? I also agree with Jzsj that we shouldn't be quoting from Keane's interview at length here due to WP:WEIGHT concerns. Perhaps we could add more in the child article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole I need better clarification on what is the parent article. In Contaldo80 defense, he could just call WP:IAR. I would change to a more relevant term which is host. <The following is WP:COI>"Communion bread" is well -... the person was receiving after consecration and Catholics know that this "bread" is no longer "bread" —> Transubstantiation. Also, wafer does not have the right semantic touch see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wafer the examples are more of a protestant idea of the incident. That is why host is better because the definition of consecrated bread is secular and less of conflict see https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/host#h69945940852520 .

I would agree that "host" is best, or "Communion host" to be clearer. Jzsj (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Though it isn't my first choice, I could live with "Communion host."--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) – mostly based on what the sources say, but also per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. The term Eucharist is not well understood by non-Catholics (or communion-based Churches such as Anglicans and Episcopalians), whereas communion host is clearer to most. It might be true that one would desecrate the Eucharist by defiling the host; but the sources here seem to focus specifically on the host, thus so must we. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: Legobot removed the Rfc template on July 19, in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Wording: within Christian society

The lead paragraph talks about the level of acceptance of homosexuality "within Christian society." I find this phrase a bit vague; what is the intent here? Normally, that expression tends to be used more in a Protestant context than a Catholic one. Surely that cannot be the intent here. If it means, "...among its (Catholic) members", then it should say that. If it means, for anybody, regardless of religious belief, then it should say that. Or, is it implying an ecumenical alliance with other non-Catholic Christians, in a sort of, us-versus-dem-heathens type of thing?

The expression Christian society is not used elsewhere in the article. It was added in rev 881208335 in this edit. While the sentence in which it appears refers to occasional punishment of transgressors, I don't see anything in the rest of the article that refers to that, of which this might be a summary (the words transgress and punish do not appear in the body). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion on whether or not to include a sentence about transgression and punishment at the time. I happen to agree with you but did not want to battle over it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point about it being a weird phrase. Do you think the sentence was meant to convey (slash, would it be better now to have it convey) "in societies dominated by Christianity/Catholicism" (as opposed to countries with a different dominant religion), "in the context of canon law/religious life/other contexts where the Church's word is law", or something else? I think the former was probably the intent (could look in edit history for clues), but certainly the RCC has been very active in opposing homosexuality even in countries it does not dominate. On the other hand, omitting the clause leaves an obvious hole (acceptance by whom?), so what would be best to fill it, or to otherwise reword thesentence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree we should say something, but what? Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm..."has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within society" generally? Is the punishment an important part of the lede, considering the limitation of where the church has been able to enact that punishment vs. where it's opposed homosexuality without the power to punish on its own? Is there something else that could be added to the "resisted the acceptance" clause for WEIGHT purposes, if we did want to include a "when in its power, punished those who have transgressed" or something like that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts

• "active politically on issues of LGBT rights, primarily to oppose them" - Restored from overly wordy "active politically on issues of LGBT rights to support or oppose civil government legislation on the basis of Catholic Social Teaching, which often rejects civil rights for LGBT people or endorses discrimination against them." @NorthBySouthBaranof:, I see where you're coming from but I see no reason not to use the more concise language; obviously the church acts based on church teaching, and "support or oppose" adds nothing.
• "but also can make an individual less culpable for it" - Removed because the source explicitly notes that homosexuality does not make an individual less culpable for gay sex and claims it is demeaning to say so.
• Removed spurious "failed verification" tags for sourced statements about the Church's favoring of discrimination. The specific quotations have even been provided on talk or in edit summaries. Remember, just because a source is paywalled for you doesn't mean it isn't citable. I've restored the previous organization of the paragraph as there was no reason to arbitrarily separate the same issues into 2 paragraphs. The issue with the Shaw source is that he might not be considered authoritative, not that his source doesn't unambiguously advocate discrimination in the military; as for Catholic Social Services, if it's not actually affiliated with the church, please do let us know.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Further, removed the unbalanced "sensitivity" quotation from the teaching overview (why include that, but not the bit about which kinds of discrimination are just and necessary?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am, for now, going to revert two of these. The first is the clause attributed to Siker. If you read the last paragraph of page 192, which spills onto 193, you will see that a person's culpability will vary. The paragraph you are referencing says that a homosexual orientation does not mean someone is "always" inculpable. By extension, there must then be times when someone is culpable, or at least less so. Secondly, I am restoring the part about the need to treat LBGT people with respect. No where else in the article does it say this. Several sections below, however, it talks about when discrimination may be justified (in much greater detail that I think is warranted, in fact). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If that is the concern, the sensible thing to do would obviously be to move it down to the appropriate section, rather than pretending it's a meaningful part of the overview. Re Siker, so am I to understand that you're also planning to add, any second now, a corresponding statement that natural homosexuality does not alleviate culpability for gay sex, since that's also in the source? It seemed to me that omitting it was better, but you seem to be intentionally adding something that the source openly states is an edge case in preference to what the source states is the more common state of affairs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure which section you think would be more appropriate for the line about respect, but I am open to hearing your suggestion. The reference is for that sentence is to the Catechism, as is the first sentence of that paragraph. Both are equally the Church's teaching. Regarding Siker, he says "the Church encourages its confessors to note that on occasion a homosexual person's ability to maintain total, lifelong sexual abstinence may likewise be compromised." That doesn't sound like an edge case to me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in the very, very next paragraph it specifically notes that since only completely mentally compulsive behavior is excused, and it is an "unfounded and demeaning assumption" that homosexuality turns you into someone who can't stop yourself from having gay sex, it's still culpable. I take it you stopped reading at the bit you quoted, and that now that you've gotten the hint to read further, you'll undo your POV edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I went to the source material which Siker references. It states, in relevant part, "In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well." As it so happens, this one quotation speaks to both of your concerns. I'll add the reference to both bits. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you're aware that your addition misrepresents the source, but wish to add it anyway? Let's just not go there. I think just removing the misleading addition is preferable to adding something silly like "but usually does not" or "in the rare cases where homosexuality is so extreme as to constitute a mental compulsion." In any case, we are at the point in the WP:BRD cycle where it is time for you to try to gain consensus from other users for your addition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not an accurate summary of what I was saying, and I don't appreciate having my motives impugned. I also think you are misreading the source. Take a look again. It is not saying that culpability is diminished when "homosexuality is so extreme as to constitute a mental compulsion." It is that having a homosexual orientation is not so compulsive as to force people, against what would otherwise be their will, to sex with someone of the same gender. What is demeaning, the source is saying, is the idea that just because someone is gay that they can't help but have sex. That their animal instincts take over and they can't control themselves. In other words, gay people (and straight ones, for that matter) should be able to restrain themselves. Additionally, I think you are misunderstanding what BRD requires. There was a stable version here for a long time. You came in, were Bold, and made some changes. I Reverted them. Now is is upon you to Discuss and build consensus for them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

After stating that you wanted to include the puff text because you believe it balances the sourced statements about discrimination, why are you intentionally keeping it in the wrong section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you repeatedly referring to it as "puff." It is every bit as much the teaching of the church as anything else in that section. Additionally, I do not think it should be there to "balance" anything else out. I think that is the best place for it. I don't think that treating someone with respect is a "political activity." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no, dude, your addition of the claim from Siker is extremely recent. (In fact, the stable version of the article used to point out that the sources say homosexuality does not remove culpability for gay sex, since that's what's in the sources.) Based on your comment, you seem to understand that the takeaway from the source is the opposite of what you're claiming, so it's mystifying to me that you're attempting to edit-war in your misrepresentation. Is there some sort of opposite-day game going on that no one tipped me off about? Regardless, you must follow the WP:BRD cycle. Your addition has been rejected, and you must now seek broader consensus for your addition of new text. You are not a new user and I shouldn't need to explain this to you.

As for the puff quote, this just comes back round to my earlier question: why does that belong there, and not their support for discrimination? You've explicitly said above, where we all can see it, that you think it needs to be in the article because the article also talks about their support for discrimination (ie. balance). Why privilege one over the other when both are teachings? Do you know something the rest of us don't about the authority of the CDF? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

That clause has been there for at least five weeks. That is not "extremely recent" by any stretch of the imagination. That is long enough to be an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. You are also, again, misreading my comments. You originally tried to remove the sentence all together. You did not originally try to move it. In your edit summary, you asked "Why this, but not the part about how it's important to discriminate for the common good?" My comment above was explaining about why I thought it should be included there. In that context, I said it should remain there because the point was not made anywhere else in the article, unlike the discussion about discrimination. It was never about "balance." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As you're well aware, I was blocked, and if you're appealing to the implicit consent of Contaldo80 (talk · contribs), NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs), and Jzsj (talk · contribs), let's ping them to confirm. Obviously my moving the puffery to the section you seemed to be suggesting it belonged in was an attempt at compromise, but I guess that didn't work. Answer the question: why privilege one over the other when both are teachings? Do you know something the rest of us don't about the authority of the CDF? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you were blocked and unable to contribute, but the clock does not stop simply because you can't participate. Even if it did, there was a full week between when you were unblocked and when you decided to delete this text. Additionally, I believe Jzsj is also blocked as of June 24th. So, his WP:SILENCE over the course of the two weeks before he was blocked will have to be indicative of his consent. The answer to your question is the same as it was before: we don't need to mention discrimination twice in a parent article. I would be just as opposed to placing the content about respect in two places. It is unnecessary and undue. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: you seem to be the only other active editor here - any thoughts about the Siker content which Slugger claims a silent consensus for, or about his other recent additions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not been following developments here closely, but I will take a look and get back to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Thank you. @Mathglot: you as well, if you're thinking you'll be active here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is difficult to deal with. Judging from what I've read of the discussions above, there seems to be a very longstanding and involved disagreement, partly concerning the interpretation of a particular book (by Siker) which I have not so much as glanced at. This is not an issue that most editors who haven't been paying attention to disputes here are going to want to wade into. I'm trying to make what sense I can of this but it would help if someone could sum up the disagreement concisely. I'd agree that any potentially controversial addition needs consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Part of the disagreement is over the added passages of text, "A homosexual orientation can make an individual less culpable for the sin as the "promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense," which mitigates fault" and "It holds that "as human persons, [LGBT people] have the same rights as all persons, including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity.". I can see why someone could object to this as a form of excessive detail, in the case of the first of those two passages, or as being unnecessary, in the second case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Ah yes, sorry. So, Siker is writing about whether or not the church believes that being gay makes gay sex less sinful. Referring to various primary source documents, he writes that the sin of any given instance of gay sex can be aggravated or mitigated by the circumstances, including some where the person doing it might not be culpable at all. The analogy explicitly given is mental illness so severe as to waive responsibility for the sin of suicide. Siker continues by noting the church's explicitly stated position that it is an "unfounded and demeaning assumption" that for gay people, gay sex is "compulsive and therefore inculpable." (That's from "Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons." He also cites "Persona Humana," which explicitly responded to people arguing that homosexuality, being natural, justified gay sex by saying that no, it does not.) For me, this indicates that despite hemming and hawing and establishing hypotheticals, the church's position fundamentally remains that gay sex is still a sin for gay people. I don't think it's really necessary to go through both sides of this argument because I don't think any readers are coming to this article under the misapprehension that the church believes being gay relieves the culpability for gay sex and that it's only straight people who are really in trouble for doing it. However, if we are to touch on the subject, we certainly must not misrepresent the sources in the way that Slugger is suggesting. The "promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense" quote is straight-up WP:SYNTH from another primary source document that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and it's astonishing that Slugger thinks that adding it helps him make a case for his addition.

With regard to the second passage you quote, yes, it adds nothing to the article other than imbalance, misrepresentation and promotional puffery. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, FKC. On page 192 of the book Siker makes clear that the Church teaches that gay sex is sinful. In a sentence that runs over to the next page, though, he says (still explaining church teaching) "Nevertheless, the degree to which a person can be judged culpable for such activity will vary. This means in a particular instance a person engaged in a homogenital activity may not be subjectively sinful." He then goes on to explain more about how and under what circumstances culpability may be mitigated, and further church teaching on the topic. I believe this to be an important and relevant qualification. Roscelese is trying to interpret the clear meaning of the source ("For me, this indicates...") to say we shouldn't include the text because of something that isn't at issue. No one is arguing that the church teaches that gay sex is a sin. The church also teaches, however, that culpability for that sin can be mitigated. I see no reason to leave it out. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC) PS - This passage comes in the section of the essay labeled "Official Church Teaching." I should also point out that the author also notes in her introduction that the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is "quite complex and perhaps more nuanced than many other conservative denominational perspectives."--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Roscelese, thank you for your explanation. That does help in understanding the issue, and I believe you make a reasonable case. The fundamental point one wants to be clear about, where the Catholic Church's position on gay sex is concerned, is that the Catholic Church regards gay sex as a sin. Drawing ultra-fine distinctions about secondary points concerning exactly how that position is to be interpreted is not of use to readers; hence I don't see it as important that the church maintains that "culpability can be mitigated". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Summarizing sections Dissent and Defense in the lead

The article has eight main body sections, half of which are not summarized well in the lead. The lead previously had no adequate summary of sections Dissent from Church teaching and Defense of Church teaching. In this edit I added one paragraph summarizing these two sections. This is one of the main purposes of the lead, according to WP:LEAD; namely, The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

That was my intention, and that's what I did; summarizing the 499-word Dissent and Defense sections in 73 words; in proportion to their weight (330::169) in the article:

Content of lead paragraph 3, added in this edit and then deleted

There is dissent from the official Church position, both among the public, as well as at different levels within the Catholic Church hierarchy, with respect to issues such as same-sex marriage, extra-marital sex, lifelong celibacy, gay employment at Catholic institutions, and safe-sex education. Some independent Catholic groups such as Knights of Columbus and Catholic League have indicated their support for Church dogma, with contributions or activism against same-sex marriage.

Within two hours, Slugger O'Toole removed the paragraph, in this edit, saying "as explained on talk". I believe the explanation meant is this one (excerpted below for convenience):

excerpt from Slugger's explanation for the removal

Your new paragraph poses a bigger problem. For one, it discusses issues outside the scope this article. For another, it already repeats, in more words, the final sentence of the lede. Of greater concern is that is places WP:UDUE emphasis on the topic. There are 8 substantive sections to this article. Your new paragraph gives it 1/4 of the space in the lede, literally twice as much, and that's before you take into account the pre-existing verbiage. I am going to attempt to combine the two and would welcome further tweaks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that adding a 73-word paragraph to the lead was perfectly appropriate for this article, and it should be reinstated.

Dealing with Slugger's objections to it, one by one:

• it discusses issues outside the scope this article

If this is true, this can only be because the Dissent and Defense sections discuss issues outside the scope of the article. The only thing I did, was summarize in the lead, what was already there in the body. The way to fix a scope problem in an article, is to remove stuff from the article body that is out of scope, and then adjust the lead accordingly, if needed. The lead merely summarizes the body, and if the body is wrong, then the lead will be, too. Are you saying that those two body sections have out-of-scope material? Can you specify what exactly they are?

• it already repeats, in more words, the final sentence of the lede.

This is true; the added paragraph 3 should have replaced the final sentence of the lead, which was pretty lame and says almost nothing, namely: "There are groups, individuals, and ministries who support the Church's teaching, while LGBT activists around the world have protested against Church teaching and policy." The new paragraph was better, both in meaningful content, as well as in weight. The existing sentence is POV and misleading: in fact, there is significant opposition from within the Church hierarchy whereas this sentence implies that opposition is all by "LGBT activists". Untrue.

• it... places WP:UDUE emphasis on the topic... Your new paragraph gives it 1/4 of the space in the lede...

It may be true that it takes up 1/4 of the space in the lead, but I don't see why this is WP:UNDUE. Sections Dissent and Defense are 2 out of 8 body sections; and eyeballing the article, they appear to take up approximately 1/4 of the body. (According to section sizes in the Talk header, 26%.) In fact, the removed paragraph may be a wee bit short for the lead: there are other body sections that are not well represented in the lead, and once material for them is added to the lead, the 73 words representing those two sections will be less than 1/4 of the total.

In sum: the addition of a brief paragraph about the two sections Dissent and Defense seems altogether appropriate in the Lead, per the recommendations of the WP:LEAD guideline. It did not contain out of scope material, and the length is right in line with due weight considerations. It should not have been removed. Slugger, please revert your removal of paragraph 3 of the lead, or explain why you think removal was appropriate. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I see your point about how "there's dissent and there's support" doesn't really convey meaningful lede information. My initial gut reaction is that going into more detail about the character of the dissent, rather than a list of issues on which dissent exists, would be a more meaningful contribution to the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Okay, can you propose something? Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. What about something like the following: "Dissent from the Catholic Church's teaching has come from a number of corners. Some have sought to change Church teaching through theological arguments and protests. Other groups and individuals have supported the teaching through policy advocacy or ministry to LGBT people to help them live in harmony with the Church's teaching." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

By "character" I wasn't really referring to the venue, but more to noting that these dissenters say that the expression of love between people of the same sex is as spiritually valuable as between the opposite sex, that LGBT Catholics are as much a part of the Catholic Church as heterosexuals, etc. I think we'd need to confirm with sources that some of the actual events of protest were aimed at "changing Church teaching." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I'm not aware of any arguments made in the article that says LGBT Catholics are not part of the Church. Following Mathglot's lead, would you like to propose some language? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

First sentence

I've boldly removed the first sentence. I realize this is a (very) unusual move (I've never done it before) but I think it is warranted in this case. Here's why:

As of rev 907870302, the first sentence looked like this:

The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, ministry, history, and political positions on issues related to homosexuality, as well as those who support and oppose the Church's teaching and activity.

This suffers from two problems. (Well, three; it also contains no wikilinks; but let's ignore that.) First, the wording is very awkward. The reason for the awkwardness is described well in MOS:LEAD, here: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding redundancy." Possibly, the wording could be improved, if consensus is to keep it. However, there's another problem.

The second problem, which probably derives from the first, is more serious: it's a meandering tautology that doesn't fulfill the purpose of a first sentence, or indeed, add anything at all to the understanding of the article. The way to demonstrate this, is to analyze it from a journalism point of view, as if one were going to improve it. Currently, it is 33 words. Brevity being one goal, we could try to pare it down to the essential. If you cut out the comma-series, and the other faux-balance fluff, what you end up with, is a tautology: "The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality is [not, includes] the Church's ... positions ... on... homosexuality." Put another way, this is an empty sentence, which conveys nothing. The fluff that was cut out to arrive at the tautology, makes it seem like that sentence might be saying something, but what? Do you know anything more than you did, after reading the four title words at the beginning of the sentence? No. The 33-word length makes you feel like something must have been said, but really, there was nothing there.

If that sentence conveys nothing, that leaves the question of what to replace it with. I believe we actually don't need to replace it, because in fact, the second sentence already does a decent job of fulfilling the purpose of a WP:FIRSTSENTENCE:

The Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex.

In twelve words, this is, in fact, the core of the entire article; everything else flows from it. It could be expanded, if desired, but actually it's brief, to the point, and with the following sentences of the MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH does a great job of introducing the article, in my opinion.

I would further alter it to add the word dogma, because that's what actually prohibits it (and also as a side effect, solves the problem of duplicate links), and swap the last two sentences, which would yield this for the lead paragraph:

The dogma of the Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex. Historically, the The Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed. This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers.

I think this makes a much better introduction to the article, than the one that was there. The old lead sentence serves no purpose, it merely pushes off the central theme of the article for 33 empty words. The article is better off without it. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about how that sentence did not convey any meaningful information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not wedded to the particular wording, but I'm not sure the first sentence was as meaningless as you think. I also don't think that simply saying the church prohibits sex between two people of the same gender is "one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Though most everything else flows from that, there's obviously a lot more to the relationship. I'd like to work to come up with a better first sentence. I'll leave it alone until we come up with something else, though. Your new paragraph poses a bigger problem. For one, it discusses issues outside the scope this article. For another, it already repeats, in more words, the final sentence of the lede. Of greater concern is that is places WP:UDUE emphasis on the topic. There are 8 substantive sections to this article. Your new paragraph gives it 1/4 of the space in the lede, literally twice as much, and that's before you take into account the pre-existing verbiage. I am going to attempt to combine the two and would welcome further tweaks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: I'd like to address your comments about the removal of the new paragraph, but this section is about the First sentence, and so isn't the right venue for it. I've opened a new section about the new paragraph, and responded to you there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger: Regarding the first sentence, you said:

Though most everything else flows from that, there's obviously a lot more to the relationship.

Agreed. But, does it need to be stated in sentence #1? That's the question in my mind, since this section is really only about the first sentence.

I'd like to work to come up with a better first sentence...

I'm game. Suggestions? Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger, wrt to the "obviously more", how about we add something about the consequences of it, in a new sentence 2? So, we'd have sentence one pretty much as is, followed by something like, "Some consequences include opposition to: same-sex marriage, Safe-sex education [because primarily aimed at same-sex], hiring of gay employees for certain Church positions, ..." Just thinking out loud, here; but something about what follows from the central, basic dogma of no homosexual sexual activity. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I could go along with something like that but would tweak your wording a little.. How about, "While teaching that they have the same fundamental rights as all people, the Church is actively pastorally and politically to enact policies and procedures that flow from the Catholic theology of sexuality." That way we avoid the empty enumeration that you were complaining about with the previous first sentence. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you already know why that crap isn't appropriate for the article. You can read the talk page for where this has been explained to you at length already by multiple editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you would propose new language for us to work with instead of simply denigrating me. I made a good faith effort to move the ball forward. I would appreciate it if you would do the same.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

USCCB Statement

I removed the following statement from the Political Activities section: "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a statement that was characterized by two theologians as claiming that "nondiscrimination legislation protecting LGBT people promotes immoral sexual behavior, endangers our children, and threatens religious liberty."" FreeKnowledgeCreater restored it, asking me to gain consensus first. As I explained in the edit summary, this sentence is simply the opinion of two people commenting on a single statement made by just one of the scores of bishops conferences around the world. Why the opinions of those two people? Why their thoughts on this one statement? Why the statement of the US bishops? Why not include the opinion of other people, on other statements by the US bishops, or on statements from other bishops conferences? This, as a parent article, is about the church worldwide. In the child article, there are sections for multiple countries. I believe this sentence properly belongs there. What do others think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pointless fluff

I've removed the pointless fluff about how actually the church does support rights to housing, employment, and dignified treatment while opposing the right to housing, employment, and dignified treatment. It is not necessary, desirable, or compliant with WP:NPOV to seek to contradict every sourced statement that might reflect poorly on the church, and we already have the bit about how they oppose "unjust discrimination." The recent addition adds, at best, nothing of value to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking into consideration that the 1992 document says taking sexual orientation into account is only sometimes acceptable. Only using the word "obligitory" was neither accurate nor NPOV. However, I'm not sure how you can say that we "obviously" should enumerate every policy decision where the Church has said it is acceptable to discriminate, but listing areas in which the Church teaches that LGBT people "have the same rights as all persons" adds nothing of value. As originally presented, it read as if the Church opposed LGBT people working or obtaining housing, among other things. That obviously isn't true and while the current version is an improvement, but it still needs some work. I will edit again to try to improve it and would be glad to work with you to find verbiage that conveys the information in an NPOV manner. Finally, I have also indicated to you in the past that I take issue with using the phrase "pointless fluff." I don't find it helpful to building a collegial atmosphere. I ask you again to stop. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to sum up a document that's explicitly and specifically about how the church believes homosexuality creates an exception to its supposed position that everyone deserves rights as "the church believes everyone deserves rights." The source explicitly states that discriminating against gay people in housing, employment, and adoption is just. I'm tired of having to deal with this misrepresentation of the sources in section after section. You have not at all convinced me that this junk adds anything of value to the article, and above all you must stop misrepresenting sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The following is taken directly from the source: "Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc." It is not a "supposed position." I am not misrepresenting anything. Misrepresentation occurs when bits are cherry picked to support a narrative without telling the whole story. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to edit-war this crap through. Try RFC to see if you can persuade other editors, instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have things backwards. There was a consensus version. It included this text. Five weeks later you came along and tried to delete it. You even pinged people who have been active since then to see if they objected. No one did. I appreciate the suggestion of BRD and RfC in your edit summary, but since it is you who is making the change, not me, it is incumbent upon you to build consensus, not me. Should that consensus change, I will accept it. Until then, I am reverting. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Temporary blocks are not a way to "win" content disputes by forfeit, and five weeks is not a long time; I reverted the edit as soon as I saw it. You neither sought nor gained consensus at the time, and you do not have it now. I would recommend against continuing this edit war; instead, try to gain consensus for controversial additions like the ones you're suggesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to "win" anything during your block. I was bold. I did not need to seek consensus before adding the material. The WP:SILENCE of all other users over a period of more than a month and more than 50 edits in between from multiple editors indicates that there was a consensus. If you don't think that is the case, please tell me what exactly the the threshold is. How long does it need to stay before there is an implicit consensus? And, this being Wikipedia, I will also need a citation for that period of time, please. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've started an RFC for your addition since you persistently refuse to follow proper procedure yourself, and I will hope that you've amended your past tendency to ignore consensus that you don't agree with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. How long must an edit stand before an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS can be assumed? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no set time for that. It depends on the activity at the topic, and it depends on whether people potentially opposing the change were aware of it, and whether they were ready or able to voice their opposition. Five weeks is not long enough. I've reverted stuff I discovered after a few years. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And once again, I've had to remove absurd promotional garbage about how the church actually doesn't support discrimination based on sexual orientation. We have a huge heap of sources attesting that it does, both in principle and in individual instances. You must know better than to continue piling on as though a lack of editor support for one phrasing of this rubbish means it's a perfect chance to try another similar phrasing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And again. You must stop your tendentious attempts to edit-war this promotional fluff into the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I've asked you, several times, to please moderate your language. Calling a good faith edit "absurd promotional garbage" is not in any way helpful. I have also asked you, several times, to tell me how long an edit must stand before an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS can be assumed. I assume you are ignoring the question because you know five weeks is long enough. To the substance of your edit, the statement is attributed to a reliable source that says the church teaches no one should be denied the enjoyment of any human right due to their orientation. You don't have to like it, agree with it, or think it is perfectly applied in all cases, but you can't simply dismiss and delete it because of any of those reasons. If you have a better reason, please explain it here and gain consensus for your changes. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The material you added five weeks ago, mistaken beliefs about temporary blocks forfeiting content disputes aside, is the proposal being discussed in the RFC below, which at this moment is running unanimously against your addition. The crap about how the church believes that all people "have fundamental human rights essential to their protection and dignity as a child of God" (but not the right to have a job, or a house, or adopt children, or marry, or serve their country, or not be imprisoned for their sex life) was added by you three days ago and reverted immediately (likewise your earlier spiel that you replaced with the said text was added a week ago and reverted immediately); you nonetheless continued trying to edit-war it through. We can all see the article history and are not stupid. It is imperative that you follow WP:BRD and attempt to gain consensus for controversial new additions such as these. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Political activity section

The consensus is that a list of specific policy positions is an appropriate level of WP:DETAIL in the WP:SUMMARY of the Church's political activity.

Cunard (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NorthBySouthBaranof has joined the editing on this article and I am glad to have another set of eyes. I look forward to collaborating with him. However, he recently added a few sentences to the article which I then reverted. He did not come to talk but instead reinsterted the material. So as to avoid an edit war, I'd like to take up my objections to each addition here.

First he adds the words "and has actively opposed the extension of significant civil rights legislation, such as nondiscrimination in public housing, educational or athletic employment, adoption, or military recruitment, to gay men and lesbians" to the end of an existing sentence. He offers no source with these edits, but in the past has attributed it to page 194 of Siker. I have read Siker and do not see where he says the Church has opposed civil rights legislation in those areas. I previously made this comment above.

Next he adds a new sentence reading "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a statement which "claims nondiscrimination legislation protecting LGBT people promotes immoral sexual behavior, endangers our children, and threatens religious liberty," according to two Catholic theologians." This is properly sourced, however, as I explained in my reversion edit summary, I believe it to be an WP:UNDUE level of detail for this article. This is a parent article for a number of child articles. The appropriate level of WP:DETAIL is that "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article." I contend that adding information about a specific statement made by a specific bishops conference about a specific piece of legislation is not general summary information. I would welcome the addition of this information to the child article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That section is sourced to the NCR article as well, I'll be happy to add more specific refs as we go on. There is literally nothing UNDUE about a single sentence in an article of this length. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This LA Times article helpfully discusses the Catholic Church's stance here: The Vatican has declared its support for discrimination against gay people in such areas as public housing, family health benefits and the hiring of teachers, coaches and military personnel because government should deny certain privileges to gay people to promote the traditional family and protect society.. Good reference for this material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, again per WP:DETAIL. Why are you only including actions taken in the United States? The Catholic Church is a global institution. Again, I believe this material is better suited for the child article. How do you respond to the guidance above that "the parent article should have general summary information"? Do you believe this long list of specifics is a general summary? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do; it neatly explains how the Church has specifically and actively advocated for discrimination against LGBT people. We can and certainly should expand the section with more refs and discussion about things outside the United States. This article is not too long; in fact, its sections (at mere paragraph length) are probably too short. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. This article is supposed to have summaries of the main article. Some months back a separate political activity article was created. Since it has been WP:SPLIT, that's where all those details should go. The WP:SUMMARY left here should not be so long. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to file an RFC to get broader input and consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the arguments made by NorthBySouthBaranof. Slugger I remind you of WP:BRD - work to achieve consensus. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have edited this sentence once again. As the RfC below shows a mild consensus to keep the laundry list I will respect it. However, I disagree that saying it is sometimes acceptable to take something into account is the same as actively proposing (or opposing) a specific measure. Also, the sentence spoke of "civil rights legislation," which is a phrase the Washington Post article never discusses. Additionally, I put verification failed tags next to two sources. The Washington Blade article talks about a specific agency, not the church as an institution. It is original research to extrapolate that out to the entire Catholic Church. The same is true for an opinion essay in which one man says he thinks "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should remain. That Shaw happens to think it is good policy does not mean the entire church does. As far as I know, the church has never commented on that policy. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the political activity section

Is a list of specific policy positions an appropriate level of WP:DETAIL in the WP:SUMMARY of the Church's political activity or do those details properly belong in the child article? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Why not keep it in one and the same article? Seems more convenient, doesn't it? PPEMES (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, PPEMES, but but so long ago this article was WP:TOOLONG. A decision was made to split it up into smaller, more specific articles. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it. Child articles should be used to fork long articles, not to suppress relevant material from the main article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - Not too detailed, and certainly no need to split content. --John B123 (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - Summoned here by bot. Appropriate detail to avoid a lengthy article too convoluted and difficult to navigate. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent changes

I've reverted:

• the removal of Catholic dissenters from the Church's teaching say that love between people of the same sex is as spiritually valuable as love between people of the opposite sex. This is one of the main points of dissenters, and as a one-liner summary of the position, it is superior to the wishy-washy dispute that homosexual acts are sinful.
• the addition of synthesized criticism of Boswell which has nothing to do with the Boswell citation.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

John Boswell claiming that a bishop was gay does not make it a matter of historical record that the bishop was in fact gay. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to synthesize content against Wikipedia policy in order to make that claim, then. Boswell was a professor at Yale and the book in question is from UChicago Press. This is normally sufficient to support a point in an article unless other sources contradict it, which you have neither attempted to prove nor succeeded in proving; we can say "historian John Boswell writes" such and such a thing, but it's not compliant with Wikipedia policy to synthesize material in order to undermine statements that the sources aren't actually questioning just because you somehow don't like them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is original research to state that the claim is made by Boswell, and that his methodology and conclusions have been challenged by other historians. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=GFPqCLrXET0C&pg=PA209#v=onepage&q&f=false, which states, "Boswell suggests that the "passionate" friendships expressed in the writings of ecclesiastical men function as proof of these men's homosexuality. For criticism of Boswell's reading of male and female friendships depicted in late antique and medieval texts as homosexual relations, see, for example, John Cadden's review of The Marriage of Likeness in Speculum 71.3 (1996): 693-96, and Jeremy Duq Adams' review of Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Speculum 56.2 (1981): 350-55." There is no reason for this criticism of Boswell to be hidden in a footnote. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Since the criticism is not criticism of the statement that we're actually citing Boswell for, this is irrelevant. I'm having trouble understanding what it is that you're so confused about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I just quoted a direct criticism of Boswell's claims that are cited in the article. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I have the book in front of me. You're quoting a criticism of something else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain the distinction between what Boswell writes and what these historians are criticizing? --PluniaZ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

These historians are saying that Boswell is reading too much into the language and social structures around certain male-male relationships (like Sergius and Bacchus, who were soldiers) which Boswell's opponents argue were merely friendly. Boswell is being cited for historical discussion of homosexual activity and the responses to same, up to and including prosecution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the book too. In multiple places Boswell bases his claims that bishops were gay on alleged gay poetry and correspondence with alleged gay lovers, so the criticism is directly on point. Boswell makes a general claim about bishops writing gay correspondence in Chapter 8, and another general claim in Chapter 9, and makes specific insinuations regarding Bishop Baudri of Bourgueil and Bishop Marbod of Rennes in Chapter 9 on the basis of their supposedly gay correspondence, which is what these critics are challenging. So the criticisms are directly on point and should be included in the main body of the artice. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

But those aren't the claims that we're citing Boswell for. I still don't know what's confusing you so much. Are you under the impression that medieval people criticized and prosecuted these men for their platonic friendships and their poetry? This is not only not what Boswell is saying, it's also the opposite of what his critics are saying! If what you're suggesting instead is that nothing that Boswell writes has any value because people have criticized him on other points, I'm going to have to suggest that you take it to WP:RSN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Boswell claims that certain medieval bishops were gay on the basis of (1) accusations of homosexuality made against them and (2) supposedly homosexual correspondence written by them. Point (2) has been subject to significant criticism by historians. That should be mentioned in the main body of the article. See WP:BALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not citing 2, so this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with balance, it has to do with avoiding original research, because original research is against Wikipedia policy. Are you or are you not under the impression that medieval men were criticized and prosecuted for having friends and writing poetry? Because what you're telling me is "this respected historian thought that these letters had a romantic cast, so he must be lying about documents which discuss prosecution for sodomy." It's a ridiculous argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the article to reflect what Boswell says, and what his critics say. If you disagree with my edit, then we can request a third opinion or RfC. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Introducing new material specifically because you do not believe it is appropriate for the article and want to hang otherwise unrelated criticism on itseems like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Why not just restore the text to the version from before you added your synthesis (and yes, it's still synthesis even with your additions, you can't just grab a block of citations from another article without checking if they're relevant to this one), which specifically cited parts of Boswell's book that do not appear to be disputed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I will request a third opinion. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps as a show of good faith in the meantime you can remove the sources that we can surely all agree are unrelated to this topic and which therefore do not support the claims that they are cited for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the cites that do not appear to directly address this point, and added one more. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You can't be serious about this joke of a source, and you've still left in a source which doesn't address the text at issue. Please take this seriously; I am. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed synth and poor sources

I've had to remove the sources which don't address the topic at hand or which are obviously not reliable. The remaining source is a vague and passing mention in a footnote, and is insufficient to describe Boswell's statement as "disputed by historians". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Culpability

The RfC asked the question, "Is the addition to the article, of a statement to the effect that the Catholic Church believes that homosexual orientation can mitigate the sin of gay sex, appropriate?"

The consensus is no.

Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Is the addition to the article, of a statement to the effect that the Catholic Church believes that homosexual orientation can mitigate the sin of gay sex, appropriate?
2. If so, is the further addition to the article, of a statement to the effect that the Church believes that generally homosexual orientation does not mitigate the sin of gay sex, appropriate?

Further relevant explication is in a section above, but I'm sure people will make their cases here as well.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• No (to 1). Despite recent attempts to synthesize further support, this stems from a misrepresentation of a single source where the relevant comparison is mental illness so severe as to allay culpability for the sin of suicide. The church does not hold that natural homosexuality makes gay sex less of a sin for gay people than for straight people, and have made a number of other statements to that effect. If 1 must be added, I would support contextualizing it with 2, but "the church believes that being gay allays the sin of gay sex" is a misconception I believe that few readers are coming in with to start with, so it is not necessary to hash out this internal debate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Do you have a diff of the disputed text? --PluniaZ (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @PluniaZ: Yes, I believe this is the most recent attempt to include it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• No (to 1). No citation has been provided from an authoritative Catholic source stating that a homosexual orientation can reduce culpability for sin. The proposed statement is a Wikipedia editor's inference from the sources provided, but not explicitly stated by the sources themselves. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• No (to 1), per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• No (to 1). Unsourced. In particular, Catechism ¶1860 on Unintentional ignorance does not support it; it is from a section attempting to explain the difference between mortal and venial sin, the former based on intent and knowledge. There's nothing there mitigating culpability based on sexual orientation. Ditto ¶2357-2359, which labels homosexual sex as "acts of grave depravity" that are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law" and thus "under no circumstances can they be approved." No get-out-of-jail-free card there, either. Mathglot (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't prefess to be an expert in the Catechism, @Mathglot:, but I do know what you are quoting are primary sources. I am citing a secondary source below, which is preferred. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

    They are indeed a primary source, and the same policy also says that primary sources can be used, "with care", and "common sense". Quoting and attributing the Catholic Catechism written and published by the Vatican, in order to substantiate what the Catholic Church believes about Catholic dogma, is about as "common sense" as it gets.

    I'm fairly new to the article, and I almost forgot where I got that reference. I got it from you, in this edit, when you were edit-warring trying to keep that source in as a reference regarding the same topic as this Rfc is about. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

    • You're absolutely right that they are allowed with care. However, what you are doing here is an analysis of the Catechism (e.g. "No get-out-of-jail-free card there, either."). According to WP:PSTS, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source." We have a secondary source that considers the catechism and a number of other teaching documents and comes to a different conclusion. I think that's the one that controls here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. @PluniaZ:, @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, and @Roscelese: are partially correct. This source does not explicitly state that a homosexual orientation can mitigate fault for the sin. However, the source is clear that culpability for this sin can be reduced, perhaps to zero. The book states that while gay sex is a sin, "the Church also teaches that care and prudence should guide all pastoral judgement about a person's subjective responsibility for such behavior. (emphasis in original) An individual's culpability for any given instance of same-sex genital activity can be aggravated or mitigated, even removed altogether, depending on the circumstances... [T]he degree a person can be judged culpable for such activity will vary... [and] a particular instance a person engaged in a homogenital activity may not be subjectively sinful." The following sentence makes clear that the previous discussion was about those with a homosexual orientation: "[T]he Church encourages its confessors to note that on occasion a homosexual person's ability to maintain total, lifelong sexual abstinence may be compromised." So, while Rosclese is true that the Church does not teach that being gay makes it less of a sin always and in all cases, it does teach that it can in some cases. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This still does not explicitly say what is proposed in the diff - that the homosexual orientation itself makes a person less culpable for sin. That would be like saying a heterosexual orientation reduces a heterosexual person's culpability for heterosexual sins, which of course the Church does not teach. Finally, even if an author of a secondary source interprets Church teaching in the way you propose, the article would need to make clear that this is only the view of that author, not the view of the Catholic Church, keeping in mind WP:BALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • If you look at Jung's citations, you will see that it does say that. The sentence I quoted above, "An individual's culpability for any given instance of same-sex genital activity can be aggravated or mitigated, even removed altogether, depending on the circumstances" has a citation to the "Letter to Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." That means Jung is directly speaking about people with a homosexual orientation. I then went and looked up the primary source. There I found the document speaking about a homosexual orientation in section 11 thusly: "Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it." We now have both a primary and a secondary source that says a homosexual orientation may reduce (or increase) culpability. This, I suspect, should constitute an "authoritative Catholic source" to @PluniaZ: and @Mathglot:. It should also allay the concerns of @FreeKnowledgeCreator: and @Roscelese: since there can now be no doubt that we are not "misrepresent[ing] of a single source." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • No, that's not what the sources say. The proposed sentence in the article is, "A homosexual orientation can make an individual less culpable for the sin as the "promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense," which mitigates fault." Your sources say that mitigation of guilt depends on the circumstances, not on the orientation. Those are two different assertions. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, an edge case should not be used to undermine the major policy. The major policy is that "those who behave in a homosexual fashion... shall not enter the Kingdom of God." Prefect Ratzinger emphasizes that it is not morally acceptable to engage in homosexual sex. The possibility is very slight that someone, somewhere, might have mitigating circumstances. We should not present such slight chances as being available to everyone. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• No without massive amount of context and parsing, the bald statement on its own would be quite misleading to most people who are not theologians. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• No (to 1). per Roscelese and PluniaZ. JohnThorne (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results of the RfC regarding John Boswell

Reading through the results of the above RfC regarding John Boswell, there is clear consensus that the current version of the article should be revised to include some mention of the criticisms made against him. However, there is not consensus on the proposed revision in the diff. If anyone wants to take a stab at revising the article to reflect the responses to the RfC, that would be most welcome. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You may not close an RFC that you opened. I'd be happy to throw out a suggestion for "political activists like John Neuhaus" and/or "criticized some of his books on different subjects than this one," however, in the event that mention of the criticisms is included. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't close anything. The bot has removed the RfC tag, so we might not be getting any more responses, so it is now time to consider how to revise the article. Your proposed edits do not have any support among the responses to the RfC. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of a poor source and also represented the other sources in a more accurate manner. I don't currently have my copy of Christianity, Social Tolerance in front of me; can you explain why you boldly decided to rephrase the first sentence of the paragraph, given that Boswell, as far as I can recall, explicitly compares the punishments in civil and canon law (both on the books and as enacted) in a way that you're removing from the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the article as you drafted. Regarding the first sentence, the only explicit mentions of punishments that I found in the book is the punishment of Isaiah of Rhodes and Alexander of Diospolis, who were tortured (Alexander castrated) by the Emperor Justinian I, and later Aelred's mention that certain monasteries expelled monks caught in homosexuality. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

At this precise minute I don't have physical access to the copy I was using before, but GBooks on 176 of the 2015 edition says "under direct orders from the monarchy to enact ecclesiastical legislation on the subject, it issued a conciliar decree stipulating degradation from holy orders and exile for clerics convicted of homosexual behavior - a dramatic mitigation of the penalty under civil law - and excommunication, 100 stripes, and exile for a lay person (also a mitigation, though less striking)." This is with regard to Spain under the Visigoths, and also suggests that enforcement was probably sporadic. I cannot access the cited page/edition (211-215 in 1980) at this time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Yes, Boswell spends a good part of that chapter explaining that official condemnation and punishment of homosexual activity was indeed sporadic in the early Middle Ages. I'll take a shot at revising accordingly. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for continuing to omit Boswell's observation that in this period, the church lagged behind "secular" authorities in legislating against homosexuality? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Boswell states that even secular laws regarding homosexuality were "anomalies" in the early medieval period, so I don't think it's fair to say that there was a generalized distance between church and secular discipline in this area. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Claims of historian John Boswell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is disputed whether the article should be revised per this DIFF to include more details about the claims made by historian John Boswell regarding gay bishops in the Middle Ages, as well as whether to include criticism of his methodology and conclusions. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed revision provides greater detail about the specific nature of the claims made by Boswell, and the criticisms are sourced to reliable sources. The current wording is too vague and does not reflect the content of Boswell's books, which doesn't simply assert "This or that bishop was gay", but describes specific circumstances that might indicate a bishop was gay, such as accusations of homosexual relationships or writings that appear to have a homoerotic element. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support – The negative reviews of Boswell's book are by scholars and raise serious questions about his methodology. Jzsj (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As has already been pointed out, the diff represents pure synthesis. The historians are criticizing different statements of Boswell's, not the one they're being cited as having criticized, and of course the Neuhaus source is complete garbage from a political activist whom we should not be treating as a scholar. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on several grounds. Neuhaus isn't an expert or historian, and using an opinion piece from him to critique someone who is seems WP:UNDUE; and First Things in general is a strongly, stridently WP:BIASED source that can only be cited with an in-line citation on something like this (which cuts to the core of its bias) - even when publishing Young (who is an expert) it absolutely cannot be cited under an ambiguous "other historians"; if we cite it, it has to be in a way that names it in-text and makes its biases (and even then we would have to debate WP:DUE weight; the objection of a WP:BIASED source to something that goes against its ideological position has less weight than a similar opinion from a neutral observer.) "Accused of engaging in homosexual acts" takes a negative WP:TONE (ie. it frames Boswell as hostile and potentially-defamatory, with "homosexual acts" treated as something wrong or questionable) - we especially can't use the word "accused." "Wrote correspondence of a homosexual nature" does not adequately summarize Boswell's conclusions, which is that the bishops in question were gay. Finally, "Friendship in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Ages" - the only non-First Things source cited in that addition! - mentions Boswell only in a footnote. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I am open to alternative wording, and to dropping the Neuhaus cite, but the other cites establish that there are at least 4 scholarly objections to Boswell's methodology and conclusions: Young, Classet, Cadden and Adams. I don't see how it matters that three of these cites are found in a footnote - can you cite a Wikipedia policy that forbids article content to be based on footnotes? As for "accused", the point is that these bishops were accused of homosexual behavior at a time when that was a prohibited behavior in society. We can clarify that in the wording. Boswell's conclusion that other bishops were gay is based entirely on his inference that their writings were of a homosexual nature. It would be a bit redundant to say, "Boswell claimed that their writings were of a homosexual nature, and therefore that the bishops were gay", but I suppose we could draft something along those lines if you insist. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This kind of detail can and should be covered in the Boswell biography, but since it has been so thoroughly challenged, it should not be presented here, even with a rebuttal. To me, it looks like the Boswell proposal moves past the realm of minor scholarly opinion to step solidly into the world of WP:FRINGE thinking. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Binksternet - Just so everyone understands, are you saying that Boswell's claims should not be mentioned at all in this article? --PluniaZ (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Mostly. Certainly we should not make any statement of fact if it's cited to Boswell alone. I think Boswell should not be presented here in a way that makes mainstream scholars look like they are struggling to catch up, in rebuttal mode. Perhaps we can mention Boswell to tell the reader about how his controversial claims have gained a few adherents, against mainstream scholarly thought. The wording should make it clear that his ideas have never been accepted by the mainstream. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I would support revising the article along these lines. -- PluniaZ (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Binksternet: I think you might be misunderstanding the sources or the proposed edit. Boswell is a very respected scholar, even if not everyone has fallen in line behind each separate statement he has made, and certainly more prominent in the field than anyone being cited in opposition, even the "historians" who aren't straight-up fringe political activists (and the ones who are actually addressing this statement, instead of unrelated statements). Scholars are always going to disagree; it doesn't mean that every statement needs a synthesized caveat. For that matter, we might as well also be citing the people who cite and agree with him... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Classet was terribly unimpressed, saying that Boswell made every effort to fit his square peg theory into nil evidence. I don't think a scholar is someone who starts with a conclusion and chooses evidence to support it while ignoring all else. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'd definitely disagree that Constantinou (in Classen, ed.) is as emphatic as you're claiming, even about the topic he's actually discussing, which is not the topic he is being cited for! It's possible that the statement could be appropriately sourced, but this ain't it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

After looking through the literature and reading a bunch of reviews in scholarly journals, I have struck my !vote. Boswell is certainly respected by a range of scholars, despite the strong criticism of his some of his conclusions. We can cite him for facts and at the same time identify his various critics. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Which critics would these be? Of the cited sources, one is complete garbage, one is at least questionable and also doesn't support the claim it's cited for, and one is a wishy-washy disagreement in a footnote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I was talking in general terms. For instance, psychoanalyst Craig E. Stephenson notes that Boswell was "struggling against a collective riptide" and that "academia" dismissed Boswell's conclusions in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.[1] Naming a particular critic, historian John C. Moore disagreed with some of Boswell's conclusions in Boswell's 1980 work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.[2] Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Binksternet: But Moore also superpraises Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Should we note this as well? No one is here expecting that scholars will be unanimous on everything at all times unless they're completely unfamiliar with academia - but PluniaZ seems to think that Boswell's oeuvre is particularly discredited, and this is not the case. It should not be this hard, moreover, to find people who disagree with the specific Boswell book we are citing, instead of with his statements about Sergius and Bacchus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support Boswell's a reliable source to be sure. Yes, it's controversial to be sure, and yes some scholars disagree with him. Scholars disagree with scholars all the time, it's nothing new. I say add it in. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wekeepwhatwekill: Clarification - we already include Boswell. What PluniaZ is proposing to add is synthetic content about how Boswell is unreliable. Is this what your "support" is in refernece to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Roscelese NO, that's not what he (I'm assuming) is saying:

"It is disputed whether the article should be revised per this DIFF to include more details about the claims made by historian John Boswell regarding gay bishops in the Middle Ages, as well as whether to include criticism of his methodology and conclusions"'

Further his diff shows] him adding in text referenced by Bosewell as well as a line stating some scholars dispute him. None of this shows to be Synth. So, please explain which parts are synth. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: We already cite Boswell as a source for gay bishops in the Middle Ages; the addition consists of claims that Boswell is not reliable. Please read my previous comments on the matter, in the RFC and elsewhere - it's a combination of completely garbage sourcing, sources that are reliable but talk about other statements of Boswell's rather than what we're claiming to cite them for and/or ambivalent mentions in passing rather than the strong condemnation the edit implies. Moreover, as I've also stated, Boswell is an eminent historian whose work is often cited, and we would need much better sourcing than this to make an edit about how he's not a trusted source stand. The current text, where we cite him without including caveats about how he's actually not reliable, is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Not in this way. Awful: "certain bishops", "certain bishops", "other historians". I think Boswell and his critics' views should be presented, but in an informative way. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I do think that criticisms are fine to add in, but this one seems, well, relatively flimsy. I would recommend finding a more solid critic to cite. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 10:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support The more accurate and deeper the information is, the better HAL333 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is denial of communion notable for the article

Recently a story came out of a priest in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids telling a woman in a same-sex partnership to not recive communion, and that he would deny her communion if she kept comming to recive it source. Is this and other similar instances notable enough for the article, or is it too mundane? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Let's see if it makes it out of sources that uh, couldn't be charitably described as "specialist"/out of local sources. We have, for instance, mainstream national-level sources on Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion. You mentioned similar instances? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: There is this article about Thomas Paprocki explicitly stating that he would deny communon to LGBT individuals. The aformentioned subject of the LGBT woman denied communion has also recived a lot of attention from mainstream secular news agencies, see 1 2 3. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Ah yeah, it does look like national sources are talking about this and Paprocki (other incidents didn't necessarily make the threshold). There's also the Rainbow Sash Movement, created in response to the denial of communion to two gay men, which we mention in Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that I would include a single instance, but if it is part of a broader trend then I would say it is notable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Is denial of communion notable for the article

Recently a story came out of a priest in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids telling a woman in a same-sex partnership to not recive communion, and that he would deny her communion if she kept comming to recive it source. Is this and other similar instances notable enough for the article, or is it too mundane? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Let's see if it makes it out of sources that uh, couldn't be charitably described as "specialist"/out of local sources. We have, for instance, mainstream national-level sources on Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion. You mentioned similar instances? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Roscelese: There is this article about Thomas Paprocki explicitly stating that he would deny communon to LGBT individuals. The aformentioned subject of the LGBT woman denied communion has also recived a lot of attention from mainstream secular news agencies, see 1 2 3. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Inter&anthro: Ah yeah, it does look like national sources are talking about this and Paprocki (other incidents didn't necessarily make the threshold). There's also the Rainbow Sash Movement, created in response to the denial of communion to two gay men, which we mention in Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that I would include a single instance, but if it is part of a broader trend then I would say it is notable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"LGBT" vs "Same-Sex Attraction," identity based language vs attributive language

The overall problem with using the term "LGBT peoples" and "Gay Rights" is that they are nouns that compartmentalize the people involved into one specific homogeneous collective of people who have an identity separate from the rest of the population, when many people with a homosexual orientation do not wish identify as Gay or "LGBT" nor want to be associated with the label. Many homosexual, but devout Catholics do not wish to be associated with the "LGBT Community". It would be better to use more traditional adjectives-based writing to distinguish between those who are and those who have, but are not.

Examples: Same-Sex Attracted Persons, people with homosexual inclinations, etc. 2600:1700:A2B0:A40:316F:4100:83CE:3122 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There may be some people like that but, per MOS:IDENTITY, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." I think it is clear that most reliable sources use the term LGBT over same sex attracted persons. If you can find some reliable sources that talk about how some Catholics with a homosexual orientation don't wish to be included in the LGBT community, I would support including some information here about it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Courage is a good source for documentation on people who prefer to use descriptive terms such as "same-sex attraction". I've linked their FAQ; their resources have articles (some published in WP:RS) from members and testimonials which use the same terminology. Elizium23 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Describing LGBT civil rights as homosexuality in politics is not how reliable sources describe it. You may wish to avoid the term and use a euphemism which you think portrays the Catholic Church in a more positive light, but Wikipedia won't do that.

Similarly, your hiding of the term "same-sex marriage" behind an unnecessary pipelink appears to indicate that you want to avoid the use of that term. You may wish to hide it, but Wikipedia does not.

You changed the reliably-sourced description of William Masters' studies as "falsified" to "in dispute" without citing any reliable sources which claim there is a dispute.

These and other issues are why I reverted your edits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree that it is not appropriate to use POV jargon like "persons with same-sex attraction" in preference to normal, encyclopedic language like "gay or bisexual." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Except for that those are two different things entirely. Elizium23 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Provision of care to AIDS patients

Is there an accessible version of this source? While Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Center was an "epicenter" of AIDS care due to its location, How to Survive a Plague notes that Catholic Charities turned away gay men and women from health services, including AIDS care there. Obviously it's inappropriate to misrepresent Catholic hospitals' involvement here as involving some kind of charitable outreach. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've added the reference. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, is there a transcript? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you maybe quote the relevant bit? As I said, other sources suggest the opposite, and this is a lower-quality source to start with, so it would be a good idea to check. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you would consider this to be a lower quality source, but in the 34th minute the host states that "Catholic hospitals around the country were among the first to offer treatment to people with AIDS." -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Restored

I've restored the positions of the Catholic Med Assoc and Catholic League. If the issue is the title or scope of the section, then reorganize or retitle; the content is obviously in-scope for the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)