Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 12

Observations

As a mediator who has worked with Shell in the past, I thought I would offer to "sit in" until she returns. I am neutral on this topic. I've read through the discussion and am generally impressed at your civility. I'm also amazed at your stamina! I note that you have been very close to consensus several times, and I want to encourage you to carry on. I think you may be able to resolve this fairly soon and if there is anything I can do to assist, I will try.

I ran a count of the number of times the two terms occur on the Internet:

• "Catholic Church" (32,800,000)
• "Catholic Church" -Roman (20,000,000)
• "Roman Catholic Church" (6,350,000)

Perhaps I have missed something, but do we have the wrong article name here? I would welcome hearing your thoughts on this and also, where you all think the discussion stands right now. I think Shakespeare's maxim that brevity is the soul of wit would be useful guidance right now. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong article name?

Hi Sunray. Your participation is heartily welcomed.

In a nutshell, we DO have the wrong article name. If (and it's a humungously unlikely IF) we could move this article back to Catholic Church, much of the problem would go away since half the problem is caused by the fact that the WP:LEAD guideline specifies that the article title should appear as near the beginning of the lead sentence "as possible". The current article title thus causes us to say "The Roman Catholic Church...." which then leads to the dispute about what to say about the "Catholic Church" which is the real name of the church. Doing otherwise has been cited in the WP:FAR process as one failing of previous revisions of the article.

So, why not move the article back to Catholic Church? It's because of a huge ruckus that was put up a couple of years ago by some Anglican Wikipedians who insisted that Wikipedia was endorsing the usurpation by the Roman Catholic Church of the name Catholic Church when, as they claim, the Anglican Church also lays claim to being Catholic. After much heated debate, the solution was to use the name "Roman Catholic" to designate the Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI.

--Richard (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this background, Richard. I can well understand how there may have been objections in the past. It would take a strong consensus on this page to even think of opening that one up again... Sunray (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We should not shy away from revisiting the issue. Wikipedia has evolved since then. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving the article to CC, but I think any discussion of such a move would drag on for months and end up without a consensus for a change from status quo. Gimmetrow 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

One official name or more than one?

This dispute is not about the frequency of use of "Catholic Church" versus "Roman Catholic Church" - especially on the internet. Everyone, presumably, knows that "Catholic Church" is much more commonly used. The dispute is about whether the church has any "official" name(s) - and, in particular, whether "Catholic Church" is its *only* official name. Especially for those of us who are unbiased on this issue, there is a compelling body of evidence that indicates that other names other than "Catholic Church" also have some degree of official status within the church itself. Afterwriting (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Does everyone agree that there are two names in official use? Sunray (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No. This is the point. No evidence has been given for any other name in official use. Repeated requests have been made for the details of other names supposedly used as official names of the worldwide church and details of the frequency that these names are alleged to have been used, along with reliable references. There is never a valid response. In fact it is quite obvious that "Catholic Church" is the name that the worldwide Church always uses in its central pronouncements and documents. The red herring that the proper name has to be the only name ever used to describe the Church seems to me a strategy used to prolong the argument, once people had lost on the main point. As far as renaming the article to "Catholic Church", that would be the ideal solution, although as others have said; that would probably precipitate another row with a slightly different cast. In the last debate on the title, Catholics accepted RCC, to prevent ambiguity, so long as "Catholic Church" redirected to RCC. In strict terms, WP policy, as I read it, would probably favour use of Catholic Church as title though, despite objections. Xandar 11:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Both Afterwriting and Xandar, and Sunray too, have put their finger on the point: Is there only one name in official use? Xandar and Nancy say there is only one, and that that one is "CC" and none other. "No evidence has been given for any other name in official use," says Xandar. Yet there are documents of the Church itself, documents of the highest official character, that make official use of several names, of which "CC", even if the most common, is not the only one. Sources have been cited that even speak of some other name, other than "CC" as "the" official name. All these sources that speak of a supposed official name are expressions of opinion, since none of them cites any act of the Church by which it is supposed to have adopted any particular name as official. The only solution that I can see is to state that the writers that Xandar and Nancy cite do hold that opinion. But Xandar and Nancy reject that solution, and demand that the article state that opinion as fact, although it is contradicted by the actual practice of the Church. That indeed is the point. Soidi (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Soidi, for your reasoned and sensible comments. As you rightly say, various documents do in fact exist that make official use of other names. Despite this Nancy and Xandar persist in denying this and keep repeating their false mantra that "No evidence has been given for any other name in official use." (Xandar) This is simply untrue and there will be no resolution of this despute whilst they obstinately maintain this untruth. Afterwriting (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

All good comments. It is important to deal with facts. It strikes me that in determining a name of something, what that entity calls itself is crucially important. Have participants looked at official documents to determine how the Church refers to itself? Sunray (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the largest documents recently published by the Church for the masses to inform people on what it means to be Catholic is simply called "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Most documents refer to the church as simply the "Catholic Church". You have to search hard to find documents where the church authorities (not individual parishes or people) refer to the Church as anything other then the Catholic Church. Yes they do exist but just like some people might call someone Dick, Rich, or Richard, and that person themself refers to themself as Dick, Rich, or Richard, that doesn't change the person's official name. Marauder40 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to search hard in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find any instances, other than the title, in which "Catholic Church" is used as a name for the specific Church we are talking of. You don't have to search hard to find instances of "Roman Catholic Church" used in official documents: in its relations with other groups of Christians, the situation in which it would most need to distinguish itself from the others by using a particular name, it repeatedly calls itself the "Roman Catholic Church". The "Dick, Rich or Richard" analogy fits rather the abbreviated "Catholic Church" name, shorter than, for one instance among several, the "Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", by which it officially called itself in the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (altering the first draft of that passage from "Roman Catholic Church" but rejecting a motion to use simply "Catholic Church"). Even one single document such as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council is enough to show that it calls itself by at least half a dozen other names. Add more official documents and you get yet more names by which the Church calls itself. Defteri (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Defteri is suggesting that the Church uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" when distinguishing itself from other churches. I get that sense too, but haven't yet seen any authoritative examples. As to foundational documents of the post Vatican II era, the term "Catholic Church" does often appear. Lumen Gentium refers mostly to "the Church" (100 times) but also "the Catholic Church." (six times) The term "Roman Catholic Church" does not appear. "Catholic Church" also appears in the Code of Canon Law, and, as you have pointed out, in the Catechism (though rarely). Would anyone be able to give some examples of when/how "Roman Catholic Church" is used in Church documents? Sunray (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that google hits on "Catholic Church" are not very reliable. That covers all instances of the term, without context. Many of the hits are likely not talking about this church at all - an unknown number refer to other entities that use the name (including the Old Catholic Church, the Anglican church, and various other denominations). Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The guideline on naming conflicts suggests using the advanced search feature in google to to identify common names using external references. The guideline suggests eliminating unwanted terms, removing wikipedia hits (since we want to know what terms others use), and confining the search to English sites. So we then get the following:

• "Catholic Church" -wikipedia -anglican -old –roman (8,870,000)
• "Roman Catholic Church" – wikipedia (4,740,000)

This, however, is just one of the approaches suggested. Sunray (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Using "Search" on www.vatican.va produced the following cases of "Roman Catholic Church" (in English) used by Popes with regard to the whole Church, not just to the diocese of Rome or the Latin Church: Pius XI ref), Pius XII (ref), Paul VI (ref ref), John Paul II ref ref ref, Benedict XVI (ref ref).

The website of the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy gives many more, but in Italian (Chiesa cattolica romana).

Even liturgically ("lex orandi lex credendi") a formula is used that speaks of the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, which is certainly not a reference to a spread merely of the diocese or of the Latin Rite: "for the freedom and the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church" - ref. Defteri (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! May we then conclude that the Church uses both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" in official documents? Sunray (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That would appear to be the case. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In no way. None of Defteri's googled documents use "Roman Catholic" in the title. What is more; the documents are highly unimpressive. No less than four of the nine documents are letters or common declarations with the Church of England, in which it has already been stated that "Roman Catholic" is used out of politeness. Two other documents seem to be Italian translations of speeches by two popes to a Polish Ecumenical Council including Orthodox representatives, which amounts to the same thing. There is one other ecumenical use. So what is left? The Pius XI document. Divini Illius Magistiri. This uses "Catholic" unqualified 35 times. It uses "Holy Roman Catholic Church" once, and that is in a quotation of someone else from the 16th Century! The other is the fifty year-old Humani Generis of Pius XII. This uses "Roman Catholic Church" all of once, among 20 uses of the unqualified word "Catholic", including in the title. So, outside specific bilateral documents, we have one rogue or accidental use of "Roman Catholic Church". Hardly proof of any use of this term, far from it being an official name of the Church!

In contrast searching the site for "Catholic Church" produces over 6,000 hits on the English language documentation alone! These are solid official and central usages, using the name in the title. Some random examples: [www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM the Catechism], or letter to all bishops, addresses to Church in Bangla Desh or Uganda. Here is an ecumenical document made with Lutherans who are less offended by usage of the term "Catholic". Also JPII Audience and Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis. In addition, of course, we have the definition in Lumen gentium, the names of the Episcopal Conferences and countless other usages and documents. Xandar 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"No less than four of them are letters or common declarations with the Church of England" - it is precisely such documents that require a clear choice of name for the Church. In internal documents all sorts of names can be freely used: The Mystical Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the People of God ... When dealing with another group, a name that identifies specifically and non-polemically the Church on whose behalf the Pope is writing or speaking is required. A common declaration with the head of another Christian group is an official document of very high importance, and, unquestionably, the use of "Roman Catholic Church" in such documents, whether for "politeness" or not, is official acceptance of that name as an official name of the Church. As for official documents that use both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church", the greater number of uses of the shorter name quite obviously does not mean that the longer is not really used! What difference does it make whether the name is used in the title of a document (as in Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church) or only in the body? All these documents are public official documents in which the Pope is speaking as head of the Church. None of them are off-the-cuff remarks. All were prepared with at least as much care as an official declaration of the US Department of State. Defteri (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, we need to look more closely at these documents. My question is: Are any of them official documents of the Church? The first one I looked at was the encyclical by Pius XI. Is that not an official document of the Church? I don't think that the test will be that the document uses "Roman Catholic Church" in the title. Surely it will be the statements within the document that will establish the policy. Clearly we need to consider the meaning of these documents and their relevance to the name. Sunray (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Their relevance is minute since there are so few of them and they are so weak compared to the overwhelming standard and consistent use of Catholic Church. Again I must contradict Defteri's point that any use of another name in any document, no matter how few, makes it an official name. The ACME Corporation, based in New York, may when dealing with another company in New Zealand also called ACME, refer to itself in mutual documents (for clarity) as the ACME Corporation of America, The ACME Corporation (US), or the American ACME Corporation, this does not mean that it has changed its official name. and any such assumption is Original Synthesis. Xandar 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Xandar, but ACME Corporation's name can be verified by referring to its Articles of incorporation or Charter when it was incorporated. I've been looking and asking for months for the analogous documents for the church. So far nobody has pointed to any documents comparable to, say, those available for the Episcopal Church (United States). Therefore, this discussion gets moved to observables - what names are actually used. Gimmetrow 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

About sources

I present the following summary partly in response to Sunray's request for a summary of where the mediation stands now and also because the discussion immediately above focuses on primary sources, the use of which is disputed...

One point that has been raised repeatedly by NancyHeise and Xandar is the use of primary sources vs. secondary sources. There are scant secondary sources that say explicitly that the official name of the church is the "Catholic Church" although there are several sources that come quite close to saying it. Whitehead, for example, says that "Catholic Church" is the "proper name" of the church rather than "official name". It's also clear that his writing is a polemic, arguing in favor of the name "Catholic Church" rather than a dispassionate statement of established fact.

However, no one has presented any secondary sources that state that any other name (e.g. "Roman Catholic Church") is an official name of the church. Thus, we have a few weak sources stacked up against no sources. Part of the problem is proving a negative. No one has found a source saying that the Catholic Church has no "official name". Given the scant number of sources saying that the church is officially called "Catholic Church", one wonders if "official name of the church" might be a Wikipedia neologism.

Soidi, Defteri and Gimmetrow have relied on the presentation of primary sources, i.e. actual examples of other names such as "Roman Catholic Church" being used in official documents of the Church and in other official contexts. WP:RS suggests a strong preference for secondary sources over primary sources. NancyHeise has interpreted this preference to be an inflexible dictum forbidding the use of primary sources. A careful reading of WP:RS will indicate that this is not what the guideline says. Primary sources can be used to support assertions made in articles. However, any interpretation of what the primary source says is susceptible to being characterized as unacceptable original research. This is effectively the charge made by NancyHeise, that Soidi et al are interpreting the use of "Roman Catholic Church" as being an official name when, according to Nancy and Xandar, this is original research.

In fact, Nancy has resisted efforts to come to a compromise wording other than what is in the current article revision unless someone meets her challenge to provide a secondary source acceptable to her that states that the church has more than one official name (i.e. a source that contradicts Kenneth Whitehead and Patrick Madrid).

I commented that this challenge is not a requirement of Wikipedia policy. It is sufficient that the proposed replacement wording be sourceable. It is not necessary to source the motivations behind the proposed replacement wording. Thus, formulations like "Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church", don't really need as much sourcing as Nancy has been insisting on.

When Nancy created this Request for Mediation, the issues that she identified to be mediated were canted towards reaching a finding that Soidi et al had violated Wikipedia policy by insisting on wording based on unacceptable sources and that this continued insistence on using unacceptable sources constituted harassment.

I have indicated to Nancy that this was not the scope of mediation and that no such finding was likely to come out of the mediation process. She has not indicated acceptance or rejection of this proposition.

--Richard (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard. I think you are mis-stating some of our argument. 1) I have put compromise wordings forward that fulfil our objective of stating the proper or official name of the Church, but do so in a way that sidesteps the (unproven) contention that the Church has other official or proper names. These have been repeatedly ignored. 2) The argument on sourcing is not about whether a fudged statement like "also known as " can be sourced. It can. The point is that "also known as" is inaccurate. What Nancy, I and other editors are objecting to is a campaign to remove and censor sourced material (ie the official or proper name of the Church) on the basis of unsourced objections and harrassment. In addition, without a good secondary source, the contention that another official name exists is indeed Original research, and hence against WP rules. Xandar 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, if I have misstated your argument, I apologize. I did the best I could to provide a neutral and balanced summary although I suspect some of my own POV showed through. I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts to propose compromise wordings and I have indicated that I could support many of those. In fact, Soidi et al have indicated support for at least one or two of them as well. This is why Sunray suggested that we have gotten close to consensus a couple of times already.

IMO, the sticking point is that Nancy has shown no interest in compromising unless sources are shown to prove that there are other official names for the church. Your proposed compromises don't assert that there are other official names for the church and Soidi et al don't require that the lead sentence suggest or imply that there are. All they want is for the lead sentence not to assert that there is one and only one official name of the church. Thus, IMO, the key to compromise is for the lead sentence to neither assert that there is one and only one official name of the church nor to assert that there is any other official name of the church other than "Catholic Church". If the lead sentence says nothing about "official name" in any way, then I believe everyone can accept the solution. This doesn't mean everyone or even anyone will be happy and satisfied but, hopefully at least, everyone can tolerate the compromise solution.

--Richard (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are both raising important points. I want to consider them but have to be off-wiki for several hours. In the meantime, I would like to hear from more participants, in the section above, about continuing with the mediation. Sunray (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Richard's effort to present the situation. However, I must remark that one sentence is inexact. He wrote: "However, no one has presented any secondary sources that state that any other name (e.g. "Roman Catholic Church") is an official name of the church." At least three secondary sources have been presented that say RCC is an, or even the, official name. Apart from the two mentioned in Gimmetrow's initial summary, you have Claud D. Nelson's book, which was presented above by jbmurray. Like the sources presented by Xandar and Nancy, they merely state their opinion and cite no statement whatever by the Church about an adoption of an official title. To my mind, that makes what they say much less important than what the Church's actual usage shows to be the reality. Defteri (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there are other sources. For instance, Granderath's account of what actually happened at Vatican I; even a reviewer, who referred to the work as "one of the most important contributions to the literature of dogmatic theology in our day" [1] covered one of the relevant points we've brought up from that book. There is also the view that the official name of the church is the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" (based on Vatican I, so in a sense these sources do cite something, although in context I think the phrase can easily be understood as referring to the church of Rome in particular and not the Church as a whole). Finally, the view that the name of the church is simply "the Church", ekklesia. We've been discussing this for months; all the refs should be somewhere in the archives. Gimmetrow 06:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts based on the discussion thus far:

1. I think that a key to this mediation is to determine how to describe the Church's official name or names. Have I got that right?
2. There may be some confusion about the use of primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are useful in establishing facts.
3. How could we determine the official name without looking at primary sources? Would it not be critically important to see what official Church documents say about its name?

It seems to me that in this mediation we are not concerned with writing the article, but rather with establishing a fact. If I am missing something, I hope that participants will set me straight right away. Sunray (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that it seems to me that the historical facts that will be most important to us will most likely be found in recent Church history because we are attempting to ascertain the current thinking with respect to the Church's name. Sunray (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray's summary of the situation and of what the mediation is about. I also hold that there is no evidence of the alleged historical fact of the Church's adoption of any particular name as its one and only official name. The objective evidence available is that it in fact uses several names as official. Soidi (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we may finally be starting to get actually get somewhere. I really can't understanding why it is apparently so difficult to come up with a form of words that virtually everyone could reasonably agree with. The introduction doesn't really need to refer to "official" or "proper" names even if there are any. This issue, if necessary, could be more appropriately addressed in some other ways - maybe even in a separate article specifically devoted to it where all the different arguments can be addressed. My principal objection to the article at present is the uncritical inclusion of Whitehead's opinions in the notes. As some of have continued to assert, Whitehead's writing is polemical, unbalanced, riddled with factual errors and unworthy of inclusion in the article - regardless of what Mother Angelica or EWTN think about him. Out of interest I have decided to write to an archbishop (one whom I expect to give an unbiased response) to ask his thoughts on whether there is actually a formally pronounced "official" or "proper" name. Afterwriting (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Afterwriting, I see no real point in consulting an archbishop or several archbishops on the question. Their replies, whichever side they favour, will have no weight here. The same can really be said of the use of Whitehead by EWTN, to which one editor attributes such importance on the grounds that EWTN is a member of the Vatican-approved SIGNIS. I have already commented elsewhere that the news of the hosting of events promoting sexual license, cross-dressing and homosexual ideologies by three United States Jesuit universities, all three of which are members of the Vatican-approved association ICFU, shows how ridiculous is the idea that EWTN's membership of a Vatican-approved association means that everything it does has the Vatican's seal of approval. Soidi (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When I said that the views of even several archbishops will have no weight here, I was thinking of the refusal of certain editors to give any weight whatever to the way popes use "Roman Catholic Church". This I should have made clear. Soidi (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Occasional uses of other names, even by Popes do not make them the official or proper name. It is important that the official or proper name of the organisation be given in the first line of the article, and not fudged because this is extremely significant information. Some people here want to suppress that information by means of various obfuscations, one of which is this pointless "official name" argument. I am quite willing to accept "proper name", "correct name" or some other clear variant. What we will not do is have the information suppressed. Xandar 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not asking that the mention of "official name" be suppressed - as long as the view that there is one and only one official/proper name is presented as the opinion of certain people, not as an unquestioned fact. That this is their opinion is a fact. But that the Church never uses any name other than CC as an official way of referring to itself is obviously not a fact. Xandar himself more or less admits that the Church does "occasionally" use other names. That is enough. It shows that there is no such thing as "the" official or proper name (the one and only official or proper name). In actual verifiable fact, the Church does use several names as official or proper. And there is no evidence whatever that the Church ever limited itself to just one official or proper name. Soidi (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That "Catholic Church" is the proper/official name of the Church is a fact, not opinion. It is abundantly obvious. The argument of "never using any other name" is a red herring, an "argument" that seems only to be being applied to the Catholic Church, since it's use elsewhere would leave no organisation with an official or proper name. However I offered a formulation that would get over this pedantic point, namely: "The Roman Catholic Church - in normal official usage, the Catholic Church - " which could be acceptable as a compromise solution. However it remains ignored. Xandar 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone said above, wishing it to be so, opining that it is so, or saying that it is so will not convert into a fact your claim that there is only one proper/official name. You can point only to opinions on this matter not to a fact. On the contrary, the verifiable fact that the Church officially employs more names that one has been pointed to with several examples. The other entities that you have referred to adopted a specific name in their founding documents or by some documented later act: that is how we know that they do have an official name. You have failed to respond to the challenge to cite some such document or act for the Church. Is that simply because no such document or act by the Church exists? Defteri (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to contact the archbishop more out of personal curiosity rather than using his response (if any) as any kind of evidence in this dispute. I would presume, however, that this particular archbishop is not so prone to biased and unsubstantiated prattling as Whitehead is. As far as any "official" or "proper" name is concerned, I am quite willing to accept that there is such a thing - but only if a clear, indisputable and authoritative church source can be provided. As Nancy and Xandar have completely failed to provide any such source then the question of whether there is in fact an official name - especially only one official name - remains open and, therefore, no such claim about an official name belongs in the article. If there is an official name then provide substantial evidence - otherwise the article must be reworded accordingly. Just wishing something to be true doesn't make it so - the same with asserting something to be true just because there is no apparent evidence to the contrary (or, in this case, rejecting all evidence to the contrary). Afterwriting (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The secondary sources have been provided. As far as Primary sources go, then as a quick sample, there's:

• St Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 315-386) urged those he was instructing in the Christian faith: "If ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God" (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 26.
• The term Catholic Christians entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of "that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria ...as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches." This law of 27 February 380 is included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus
• St Augustine: "In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the very name of catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the catholic church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. (St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental.)
• "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium. One of the infallible documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.) Xandar 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

- which expressly declares that the Church "is called" (dicitur) the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, and which, while making no express declaration whatever about any other names by which the Church is called, actually uses other names also, including "Catholic Church", among others.

Summary

I agree with Afterwriting that we may be starting to get somewhere. I see substantial agreement in recent posts. Xandar said "It is important that the official or proper name of the organisation be given in the first line of the article." Soidi points out that the Church has used more than one name. There has been some useful discussion about secondary sources. It seems that secondary sources have been a point of disagreement. The reason for this is likely that someone with a different perspective can always question the authority of a secondary source. To get agreement, we need to establish the facts. Defteri has presented some primary sources on use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" I think these sources would be worth further discussion.

May I test the consensus at this point?

• It seems to me that there is general agreement that "Catholic Church" is an official name as it is mentioned in constitutional documents such as Lumen Gentium and Canon Law.
• Many participants agree that "Roman Catholic Church" is also an official name.

Xandar has suggested the following wording for the lead sentence:

"The Roman Catholic Church - in normal official usage, the Catholic Church - "

Does this formulation work for participants? Sunray (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Normal official usage" does not apply exclusively to "Catholic Church": there is nothing abnormal about the official usage of other names. So Xandar's proposal is unacceptable. Soidi's proposal, which I retouch because of objections expressed to the phrase "common parlance" is much better:

"The Roman Catholic Church or - as it is more usually called both informally and in its own official usage - the Catholic Church".

Though longer, it only states what can be verified.

I have no objection to referring to "Catholic Church" as an official name.

Remark: Lumen Gentium does mention several other names for the Church, as Gimmetrow and others have pointed out. I notice that Xandar has once again cut off his quotation from this document just before the note where Lumen Gentium explicitly states that the Church governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him is called the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. Defteri (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Normal" usage is the usage that is used on the vast majority of occasions, ie normally, which covers any minority alternative usages that some (I believe mistakenly) claim to exist. Also: Following the link I give above to Lumen Gentium on the Vatican site, (para 8 is quoted) you will see no mention of other names that have been cut off by me. Xandar 21:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In the vast majority of occasions, the church is referred to as "the Church". Excluding combinations like "the Church of God" and "the Church of Christ", simply "the Church" is still found something like 190 times in Lumen Gentium. "Catholic Church" is found 6 times. Gimmetrow 03:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, part of the debate is what is meant by "official known as". If it just means a name used in official contexts, then there are many such names, and neither CC nor RCC are the most common. (Although I agree CC is more common than RCC.) If it means something analogous to a legal name, then the church may not have that sort of name. "In normal official usage" is a step to using observables ("usage"), but it still implies/suggests a legal name ("official"), and "normal" is a problem too. "More usually called" is closer to acceptable, but probably too weak. I still think formulations using "official" and comparable are really trying to express Catholic distrust of the non-Catholic meanings assigned to "Roman Catholic". The most clear and direct thing to do is just say that. The best solution (to me) so far is to say "also known as", with a note describing and citing catholics who prefer to avoid using the term "Roman Catholic Church". Switching order ("The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church") is also fine with me. Gimmetrow 05:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but I still maintain that

"The Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church,..."

is horrible and should not be considered by anybody on either side of this debate. On the other hand, I think most of us could accept the locution

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..."

if we can get past our emotional attachment to winning the debate and focus instead on finding a compromise. --Richard (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If Xandar really thinks "normal" means no more than "usual", why does he not accept the formula "The Roman Catholic Church or - as it is more usually called both informally and in its own official usage - the Catholic Church"? What does he mean, when he says: "You will see no mention of other names that have been cut off by me (Xandar)"? Would he please look up his source, where he will find, immediately after the words at which he cut off (namely, "and by the Bishops in communion with him") the reference ("13*") to the note in which the Council document makes its only statement about what is/are the name(s) of the Church. In the English version the note is left in the original Latin: Dicitur "Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia": in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concl. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001). So the Council stated expressly that the Church "is called 'the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church'". The parenthesis is explained by the Council's reference to the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which only has "the Holy Roman Church" (Sancta Romana Ecclesia), while the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council has "the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" (Sancta catholica apostolica Romana Ecclesia). The document makes no other explicit statement whatever about what the Church is called. Defteri (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Gimmetrow rather than Richard on what they say immediately above. Defteri (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have explained before that "also known as" suggests that what preceded is a more formal name and what follows is a nickname, abbreviation or alias. Thus, you would say "Lawrence Peter Berra, aka Yogi Berra" but not "Yogi Berra, aka Lawrence Peter Berra". This is why I predict you would get strong opposition to "RCC aka CC" and (I would hope) less opposition to "CC aka RCC". If you look over my contributions to this debate, you will notice that "RCC aka CC" is just about the only locution that I have opposed. --Richard (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you remind me why we don't use "or":

"The CC or RCC is..."?

Gimmetrow 06:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a little stilted to me but I wouldn't object if that is what it took to reach a compromise. --Richard (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It has the virtue of simplicity (though perhaps a tad stilted, as Richard notes). Before we go too far down the road with this, though, I think we would need to decide whether we want to change the name of the article (since normally the article title would appear first in the lead sentence). Sunray (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we cannot change the title of the article. There is already an article with the proposed new name, one that covers several meanings of the phrase "Catholic Church". If our article here is to continue to be about the specific Church we are considering, it must have a title that clearly points to this Church and no other. (Sorry, I was wrong.) The articles Catholic, Catholicism, and Catholic Church (disambiguation) give several meanings of the phrase "Catholic Church". Unless our article here shows in its very title that it is about the specific Church we are considering, it will arouse opposition.

Richard's proposal,

"The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..."

suggests, if I understand correctly, leaving the title unchanged, but altering the order of the words. If it were true that "Catholic Church" were the one and only official name, we could certainly begin with Catholic Church. But that is not the case. With only a few short-lived disturbances, this article has from the start begun with the same words as in the title, and a change in the order of the names would certainly stir up strong opposition from those who claim that it is wrong to appropriate the name "Catholic Church" to just one group of Christians.

Richard himself does not support the first proposal that he mentions:

"The Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church..."

I humbly think that my proposal, as modified,

"The Roman Catholic Church or - as it is more usually called both informally and in the Church's official usage - the Catholic Church",

successfully avoids the objections raised by Richard himself against "also known as".

In any case, I strongly fear that Xandar and Nancy will refuse to accept each and every one of these proposals, on the grounds that they do not say that "CC" is the one and only official name of Church, something that they think is "abundantly obvious". And yet, my proposal does at least use the expression "official usage". Soidi (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rephrase my proposal:

"The Roman Catholic Church, more usually called, both informally and in the Church's official usage, the Catholic Church,"

Soidi (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard's proposal, "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church," would enable us to avoid usage of "official", "proper" etc, by placing the real name first, however it would require that the article name be changed to "Catholic Church". There are good arguments for this change-back under WP naming policies, and it may be necessary if this argument continues for too long. There is no other article "Catholic Church", since under the last compromise on the titling issue, "Catholic Church" automatically redirects to RCC.

Defteri - Soidi's suggestions are far too long and obfuscatory, adding nothing to "in normal official usage", except to make the phrase less comprehensible and clear to the reader. (in usual official usage sounds horrible. Any further explanations can be kept for the note. (As for the claims about Lumen gentium, people are quite able to follow the link in my post in the section directly above to see that the official Vatican version is as I quoted it. Defteri's attempt to take a supplementary academic note that refers to a Vatican 1 document and interpret that as not only part of, but actually negating the main text, is stretching credence to its limits.) Xandar 14:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is no academic note giving a source for something said in the text. It is instead a statement by the Council that the Church "is called" by those names. The Vatican version is as you quoted it, but does not stop where you chose to stop quoting it. Defteri (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My proposal may not add anything to Xandar's, but it takes away the idea that usage of any name but "CC" is abnormal. Soidi (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone putting different text in green is just confussing the matter, why don't we start editing the table under "Discussion of Alternatives" that Richard created earlier and everyone put which versions they favor and which they don't. In the last column if you have a SHORT explanation as to why not put it. This will at least let everyone know where everyone stands. Marauder40 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. It might be a good time to pull together the options that are currently favored and put them at the bottom of the page. That way it is easier for those who may not have been participating recently to easily see current proposals. Sunray (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)