3,303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 11:44, October 25, 2008
, 11:44, October 25, 2008→Controversy?
:I propose moving that section to a separate article, linked from the Roman Catholicism page. If anyone strongly opposes, please say so; or I will make the change this evening (ie in about 12 hours from now). Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:I propose moving that section to a separate article, linked from the Roman Catholicism page. If anyone strongly opposes, please say so; or I will make the change this evening (ie in about 12 hours from now). Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:: I oppose the move, on the grounds of there not being sufficient reason to do so. I don't ''strongly'' oppose it, but then I'm not sure that that should be a requirement. If it is moved, then there should be a summary left in this article (i.e. not just a link). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:: I oppose the move, on the grounds of there not being sufficient reason to do so. I don't ''strongly'' oppose it, but then I'm not sure that that should be a requirement. If it is moved, then there should be a summary left in this article (i.e. not just a link). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I fail to understand your reasoning. This article should describe the theology, the essence of Catholicism, those things intrinsic to it. Abuse allegationa are not essential to an understanding of the faith, and have been played up by anti-Catholic bigots. I am not accusing you of being one, Philip, but you are playing into their hands. Your objections would be more credible were you to add a section about abusive pastors of your own denomination to the relevant article. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
==Requirements==
==Requirements==