StardustToStardust (talk | contribs) |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
: From what I can tell of [[WP: BLOG]] it has no impact on experts who self-publish. Would Edward Feser not meet this? We can debate about weight. What shouldn't be done is blanketly deleting any mention of this from the article, despite a large amount of sources mentioning exactly this. [[User:StardustToStardust|StardustToStardust]] ([[User talk:StardustToStardust|talk]]) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
: From what I can tell of [[WP: BLOG]] it has no impact on experts who self-publish. Would Edward Feser not meet this? We can debate about weight. What shouldn't be done is blanketly deleting any mention of this from the article, despite a large amount of sources mentioning exactly this. [[User:StardustToStardust|StardustToStardust]] ([[User talk:StardustToStardust|talk]]) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
::It is ''one'' source's information; you are giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to Lamb's analysis. If truly {{tq|an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone}} then multiple sources for this claim should be either easy to find currently or be easy to find in the following days or weeks. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:11, 23 December 2023
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Background
This document does not arise from questions alone, but in response to actions.
- Lamb, Christopher (23 September 2022). "Historic step by Flemish bishops shows shift in Church approach to LGBTQ Catholics". The Tablet.
- "Germany's Catholic bishops vote to approve blessings for same-sex couples". National Catholic Reporter. Associated Press. 10 March 2023.
And some squabbling:
- "Spanish bishop to Belgian bishops: The Church doesn't have authority to bless gay unions". Catholic News Agency. 23 September 2022.
Rutsq (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Translation
Are we required to follow the official translation? "Supplicating Trust" is just terrible. Supplicans means supplicating in cognate-speak, but also begging or praying. An idiomatic translation might be "prayerful confidence" or "prayerful trust". Rutsq (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I say we follow RSs, considering they have provided a translation. If "improved" translations show up, we can discuss using those. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Rutsq I agree with you. I was looking for an official translation into English, but I did not find it until the moment the article started. Igallards7 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
False impression of the entire dokument
This article seems to be based on a false impression that the document speaks of blessing the union. The document explicitly speaks of blessing individuals who in no way seek a legitimation of their status, but rather knowing that they are in a bad state seek God's help to overcome it. 185.113.97.187 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Catholic archbishops in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and many other nations have now begun to bless same-sex unions, and both supporters and critics of the declaration have stated it applies in a collective rather than individual sense, see @ShirtNShoesPls: comments on Pope Francis talk page. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- The document talks about relationships between two people, not about individuals. The differentiation lies between what Catholic moral theology understands as sexual acts and affective acts. Igallards7 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Undue emphasis on traditionalist/conservative perspectives
The article currently places a massively undue emphasis on traditionalist and conservative perspectives. Reliable sources are clear that the overwhelming interpretation is that the blessings refer to the same-sex unions themselves rather than the individuals within them. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Multiple Statements from Catholic Bishop Conferences are being Deleted
For this to be a non-biased article, there has to be an inclusion of these statements. Multiple Catholic bishop conferences, even from conservative countries in Africa, are stating that this declaration does not change the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and multiple conferences have stated that these blessings are for the individuals involved. Toolioomc (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's already in the article. Francis has stated that the declaration applies inna collective sense and has overruled the 2021 statement.
- Who is a better source of Catholic teaching, if not the Pope? It's true that certain canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops gave alternative interpretations, but the meaning of the text is now clear, and there should be no controversy over it. It allows the blessing of same-sex unions. This is agreed upon by conservative and liberal sources alike. It's also the words of Pope Francis himself. Wikipedia takes account of majority and significant minority opinions. You're asking to add fringe views into the article. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- When you imply a connect not explicitly made—in this case, specifically identifying certain groups not listed—that's called original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Others articles have stated it in more explicit terms. It's just that Associated Press and Reuters are preferred citations if I remember correctly. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StardustToStardust: Oh that's just a very understandable and minor misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You're right to say Reuters and AP are generally preferred over most sources (they're really only inferior to academic coverage). However, if you cite them, you can only use the content in those sources. If you see another detail elsewhere, you can use a slightly less preferable but still reliable source to add that detail. If you find sources discussing the pope's comments on rigidity being associated with
canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops
, please add that source. I'm more than willing to self-rev with such a source. Clearly you were acting in good faith, but I think you may have been slightly confused on how to source that claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for the clarification. I'll find new citations. StardustToStardust (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StardustToStardust: Oh that's just a very understandable and minor misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You're right to say Reuters and AP are generally preferred over most sources (they're really only inferior to academic coverage). However, if you cite them, you can only use the content in those sources. If you see another detail elsewhere, you can use a slightly less preferable but still reliable source to add that detail. If you find sources discussing the pope's comments on rigidity being associated with
- Others articles have stated it in more explicit terms. It's just that Associated Press and Reuters are preferred citations if I remember correctly. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- When you imply a connect not explicitly made—in this case, specifically identifying certain groups not listed—that's called original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2021 statement explicitly overturned
The Associated Press article makes it clear that the 2021 document has been overturned: "The approval, which Francis had hinted at earlier this year, reversed a 2021 policy by the Vatican’s doctrine office, which flat-out barred such blessings on the grounds that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”
I'm Protestant. (So perhaps I'm missing something.) This is just seems like a cut and dry case. If the Pope overrules the bishops, theologians, and canon lawyers, it seems logical to default to his interpretation of the document over others. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- The 2021 has not been overturned. The Associated Press states the 2021 policy has been reversed, and this is untrue.
- On the contrary, the 2021 document and Fiducia supplicans go hand in hand. The 2021 statement reaffirms that homosexual unions cannot be blessed, while Fiducia Supplicans reaffirms that individuals, including those in homosexual unions, can be blessed.
- Please see paragraph 5 of Fiducia Supplicans :
- "For this reason, when it comes to blessings, the Church has the right and the duty to avoid any rite that might contradict this conviction or lead to confusion. Such is also the meaning of the Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex."
- I would caution against using news outlet before the document itself. Jmpv Nau (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Catholic philosopher Edward Feser, the Associated Press, Reuters, and many others have all stated that the 2021 document is overruled.
- Do you have any proof that it wasn't? StardustToStardust (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- The document itself. Read paragraph 5. 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Return of the Sophists
There's an efforts by editors (who I am assuming are opposed to the efforts of Francis to change how the Church approaches LGBT topics) to do mental gymnastics, cart wheels, and large-scale "popesplaining" to make interpretations concluding that this is actually no significant development at all, despite massive evidence against this.
It reminds me of the joke of the man caught in adultery by his wife. Who states:
"Who do you believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?"
At some point the obvious is obvious. (Coming from a Protestant.) StardustToStardust (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- The declaration itself that it is not changing the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and if commentators, both liberal and conservative voices, are saying otherwise, that should be corrected. Toolioomc (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is still a change in how the Church approaches LGBT topics, but it the document itself and the Vatican itself is saying that it is not changing it's views on marriage or on whether the situations themselves are sins or not.
- Regardless, if we are trying to be unbiased, we cannot divulge into theological discussions on a wikipedia article that is supposed to accurately describe the position itself, and the responses from both conservative and liberal sources Toolioomc (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is this a major change? Normally this is where I would insert a rhetorical response along the lines of "is the pope Catholic?" But that might not be appropriate given the subject matter at hand. So I will simply opine that arguing otherwise strains credulity. But we can only repeat what is being said in reliable sources. And there are people making that argument. Ergo we report what is being said in the sources. Right now the claims on this subject are all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Echoing AO here. There is clear evidence of no singular interpretation. The best I can see as to a consensus in RSs agree the document itself does not explicitly endorse blessing unions, but that there is a vocal number of clergy and laity accepting this as permission to bless unions. Additionally, there are conflicting formal explanations of the document being issued by episcopal conferences (those from Ghana and Nigeria look very different from some Northern European statements). I think the insistence on definitive statements outside of the phrase "it authorizes blessing same-sex and other 'irregular' couples" is not possible for now. Also, note the use of couples—there is good media consensus on this term being the most broadly acceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we default to how the Associated Press, New York Times, Reuters, and authorities within the Catholic church are interpreting the document, as Wikipedia rules promote "majority" and "significant minority" interpretation. I think most Catholic documents have various interpretations. However, in this case, the overwhelmingly dominant one among reliable sources is that it applies to the unions themselves. I understand the need to be cautious. It's just that this is also in my view fostering views that are fringe. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would take a very deep breath before assigning an interpretation to the document in wiki-voice that is not explicitly affirmed by the Holy See. Especially when a lot of prominent persons and entities are all saying or emphasizing different things. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Outside of a few outliers, the predominant viewpoint among sources is that it applies to the unions itself, which is something that even conservative philosophers like Edward Feser concede. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would take a very deep breath before assigning an interpretation to the document in wiki-voice that is not explicitly affirmed by the Holy See. Especially when a lot of prominent persons and entities are all saying or emphasizing different things. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we default to how the Associated Press, New York Times, Reuters, and authorities within the Catholic church are interpreting the document, as Wikipedia rules promote "majority" and "significant minority" interpretation. I think most Catholic documents have various interpretations. However, in this case, the overwhelmingly dominant one among reliable sources is that it applies to the unions themselves. I understand the need to be cautious. It's just that this is also in my view fostering views that are fringe. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Echoing AO here. There is clear evidence of no singular interpretation. The best I can see as to a consensus in RSs agree the document itself does not explicitly endorse blessing unions, but that there is a vocal number of clergy and laity accepting this as permission to bless unions. Additionally, there are conflicting formal explanations of the document being issued by episcopal conferences (those from Ghana and Nigeria look very different from some Northern European statements). I think the insistence on definitive statements outside of the phrase "it authorizes blessing same-sex and other 'irregular' couples" is not possible for now. Also, note the use of couples—there is good media consensus on this term being the most broadly acceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is this a major change? Normally this is where I would insert a rhetorical response along the lines of "is the pope Catholic?" But that might not be appropriate given the subject matter at hand. So I will simply opine that arguing otherwise strains credulity. But we can only repeat what is being said in reliable sources. And there are people making that argument. Ergo we report what is being said in the sources. Right now the claims on this subject are all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2021 overruling of document
@Karma1998:, the 2021 document is overruled.
The approval, which Francis had hinted at earlier this year, reversed a 2021 policy by the Vatican’s doctrine office, which flat-out barred such blessings on the grounds that God “does not and cannot bless sin.”
I'm sure that this was a good faith mistake, but your edits damaged the article and were actively misleading. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is a clear misreading. The 2021 document specifically addressed "when a blessing is invoked on certain human relationships by a special liturgical rite" (emphasis added). This document considers - after a lengthy discussion of blessings - non-liturgical blessings, which are quite a different matter. It expands on the narrow focus of 2021. Rutsq (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)?
"Union" wording
Associated Press uses "unions" to describe the document. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- This tweet is exceptional, relatively speaking.. See additional coverage: AP "unions" AP "couples", PBS "couples", Reuters "couples", Miami Herald "couples". The general English-language RS generally favor "couples". German-language media (and bishops) appear to favor "unions". ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Are those two things necessarily in contradiction? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, as one refers to the persons and one refers to the relationship. For example, many bishops are pointing to the blessings as directed towards the persons in their pastoral guidance. This comment from the Bishop of Lincoln is notable in directly contradicting many of the individual episcopal opinions included in the article: "A same-sex union cannot be blessed". Far from
sophist
, including that many bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources are interpreting this document as not authorizing blessing same-sex unions is necessary according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)- Leading Catholic theologian Edward Feser has stated that it is "obvious" that the document is referring to the union itself. I don't doubt that some bishops have attempted to do mental gymnastics around this, and as a Protestant Christian I view homosexuality as a sin, but either the Catholic Church has messaging that is nothing less than horrendous or the dominant interpretation is what was intended by Francis. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a tweet by a single expert is not sufficient to discount the opinion of literally dozens of individual bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources. I highly encourage you to take AO's advice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then we can add a note or a few paragraphs about it.
- However, Feser is not a random expert. He's considered a leading Catholic philosopher. If he states that he personally views the document as requiring the blessing of same-sex unions themselves, that it overturns the 2021 ruling, and that this is also the overwhelmingly dominant interpretation by Catholic priests and laity, while the Associated Press and Reuters are also reporting this, then we should make that viewpoint the main one in the article.
- While I'm an evangelical Protestant, it would be a great misservice to downplay what is obvious to everyone outside of apologists, and I think most traditionalist Catholics would also not want to be deceived into thinking nothing has changed. It's clear that many within the Catholic Church want to change the organization's teachings on human sexuality, marriage, and anthropology in the long run.
- I think many are attempting to do mental gymnastics surrounding this because of the notion that the Pope can not err. However, this declaration is not an infallible document, and previous papal members such as Pope Honorious have promoted notions that are now considered heretical.
- Would you affirm this? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comments like this indicate you are civily POV-pushing. As of right now, consensus on this article appears to favor "couples". I would come back with sources that aren't tweets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone has bias. With that in mind, my lean would be against this being the case, as I believe homosexual actions are a sin. But this is calling balls or strikes. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comments like this indicate you are civily POV-pushing. As of right now, consensus on this article appears to favor "couples". I would come back with sources that aren't tweets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a tweet by a single expert is not sufficient to discount the opinion of literally dozens of individual bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources. I highly encourage you to take AO's advice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Leading Catholic theologian Edward Feser has stated that it is "obvious" that the document is referring to the union itself. I don't doubt that some bishops have attempted to do mental gymnastics around this, and as a Protestant Christian I view homosexuality as a sin, but either the Catholic Church has messaging that is nothing less than horrendous or the dominant interpretation is what was intended by Francis. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, as one refers to the persons and one refers to the relationship. For example, many bishops are pointing to the blessings as directed towards the persons in their pastoral guidance. This comment from the Bishop of Lincoln is notable in directly contradicting many of the individual episcopal opinions included in the article: "A same-sex union cannot be blessed". Far from
- Are those two things necessarily in contradiction? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Associated Press is not the author. Jess (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have any source that says differently? StardustToStardust (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
"Wings" of the church
I would be cautious about labeling members of the Catholic church as "conservative" or "liberal". For example, many Catholics have traditionally opposed abortion while also advocating things such as universal healthcare or raising the minimum wage. This needs definitely context if added. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- These are terms used in reliable sources. The LA Times source you added the other day used "conservative", for example. Please use the terminology present in sourcing and refrain from imposing what you believe might be synonymous terms (this applies to the couples/unions distinction, as well). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Many of these "conservative" bishops support policies on subjects such as uncontrolled immigratio (of which Catholic refuge agencies play a huge part in), healthcare, and capitalism that aren't conservative. In a lot of mainstream news coverage it is also intended to make the group look bad or radical. Mindlessly using MSM coverage should be avoided.StardustToStardust (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- @StardustToStardust: please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR, for you are in the wrong here. Veverve (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Unbalanced representation within article
Right now, the article excludes why the declaration was so controversial, and this certainly needs added. The attention given to it has been based on the notion that this is a first stepping stone towards the church accepting same-sex marriage.
- Completely gone is any mention that it is widely considered to be a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages within the Catholic Church.
- The article defaults to what has been (prejudicial phrasing but I do not have a better word for it) "popesplaining" the document. Despite the fact that this is a minority viewpoint and has been widely mocked among most Catholics.
- How European churches are reacting in the aftermath.
With the current wording, readers wouldn't even grasp why the document has gotten so much attention among the faithful. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
the article excludes why the declaration was so controversial
: do you have an addition proposal supported by RSs?Completely gone is any mention that it is widely considered to be a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages within the Catholic Church
: I have not see any RS talking about this. And only the opinion of the consensus of reliable historians should be added for such claims, an opinion which I think will be formed only after a while.The article defaults to what has been (prejudicial phrasing but I do not have a better word for it) "popesplaining" the document. Despite the fact that this is a minority viewpoint and has been widely mocked among most Catholics
: I do not understand argument, you have not explained what the POV information was nor provided RSs to support your accusation of WP:FRINGE-pushing.How European churches are reacting in the aftermath
: there is a whole paragraph dedidated to this. What do you propose to add?
- Veverve (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
have not see any RS talking about this.
European bishops have repeatedly, explicitly, and confidentally stated it is a stepping stone towards future same-sex marriages in the Catholic Church. In the same way, the whole reason that there has been a widespread controversy among conservative Catholics is that they agree that this is the case as well, just that they see this as a bad thing.
do you have an addition proposal supported by RSs
My proposal would be to simply mention this perception in the lead. I do not believe we need historians (have any even commented on this yet?) to confirm the obvious. There's a multitude of news stories and opinion articles mentioning this perception.
you have not explained what the POV information
Claiming that Catholic doctrine hasn't innovated or developed is bias. Conservatives are widely concerned that this is exactly this. StardustToStardust (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)- You have not given a single RS to support your claims despite being told to do so multiple times. Veverve (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- This states that the 2021 statement is overturned.
- This is just one of the many articles stating that it was widely seen as a stepping stone towards a revised stance on homosexuality within the church. (Which is why conservatives have criticized it.) StardustToStardust (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot claim that those opinions are in the majority if you do not provide more than one source. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- * Catholic philosopher Edward Feser states it here.
- * Associated Press states the same.
- * Reuters declares similar.
- * Washington Post repeats the claim.
- Has any reliable, mainstream source contradicted any of this? The criteria for the other statement is even less. Since all we're stating is that the document has been seen as a stepping stone, an uncontroversial statement if there ever was one. The controversy wouldn't exist otherwise. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Feser's WP:BLOG is not a RS
- I agree that those three RSs indeed state the 2021 decision is reversed by FS.
- Veverve (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it being removed, then. Although from what I can tell WP: BLOG doesn't apply to experts who self-publish. Edward Feser would qualify as this.
- Lamb's opinion is at the very least a significant minority. I'd say an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone: for better or worse. We don't need more than one citation to make a point. The whole reason the document is controversial is this. StardustToStardust (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Lamb's opinion is at the very least a significant minority. I'd say an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone
: "Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed." - Jimmy Wales. Veverve (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)- If multiple sources like AP, Reuters, Washington Post and CNN all state the same thing, then it's safe to assume it's a strong minority opinion at very least. Completely removing everything from the article is wrong. Why would the declaration be controversial if nothing substantive has changed? StardustToStardust (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fernandez said this morning the union was not blessed. 2600:1006:B125:A67C:D871:8BF4:ACE4:B90 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- You cannot claim that those opinions are in the majority if you do not provide more than one source. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- You have not given a single RS to support your claims despite being told to do so multiple times. Veverve (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@StardustToStardust: You are defying consensus here. Other editors have consistently opposed this "stepping-stone" comment—especially since it is explicitly not in any source. You are encouraged to self-rev. I count at least five other editors who have explicitly opposed the insertion of your original research statements and two editors who have informed you that the use of blog source here is inappropriate. If you want a very policy explanation as to why the blog source is inappropriate here, consider that you are using the Feser source to make sweeping claims about general interpretation by conservatives—he is not an expert on aggregating pastoral practices nor an expert in canon law. Please adhere to consensus, refrain from POV-pushing (you have a perspective about how this declaration should be interpreted that contradicts most reliable sources), and quit edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's in the source here, @Pbritti:. None of this is original research. It's directly cited: "Francis has not gone down that route, but the pastoral openness he’s modelled to gay people lays the foundation stones for even more significant reforms in the future."
- From what I can tell of WP: BLOG it has no impact on experts who self-publish. Would Edward Feser not meet this? We can debate about weight. What shouldn't be done is blanketly deleting any mention of this from the article, despite a large amount of sources mentioning exactly this. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is one source's information; you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to Lamb's analysis. If truly
an overwhelming majority of conservatives and liberal bishops have interpreted it as a stepping stone
then multiple sources for this claim should be either easy to find currently or be easy to find in the following days or weeks. Veverve (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is one source's information; you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to Lamb's analysis. If truly