nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + + + +
Talk:Roman Catholicism (view source)
Revision as of 14:17, October 25, 2008
, 14:17, October 25, 2008→Controversy?: Why just theology? Unless we move it to a certain other article.
:: 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)
:::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)
:::: Why should this article be limited to the theology of Catholicism? Why can't it include the history of the church (which is already there), the spread of the Church, and other aspects, including criticisms and controversies? The Bible doesn't whitewash its leading characters, and I see no reason to whitewash the Catholic Church (or any other church) by failing to mention this aspect and/or other failings. As for "my own" denomination, first, as I said above, my impression is that most other denominations have handled the situation better, so that it's never been the same issue as it has been with the Catholic Church, and second, although I currently attend a Baptist church (and have for about 12 years), I'm not an expert on the Baptist church, it just being the latest of several I have regularly attended in my life, so don't know enough about its failures to write about them.
:::: On the other hand, I see that this article links to [[Catholic Church]], which is ''also'' about the Catholic Church (!), so perhaps this article ''should'' be just about their theology. If that is the decision of the editors here, then I could happily agree to taking this issue (and anything else that is not related to their theology) out of this article and transferring it to the other article.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
==Requirements==
==Requirements==