→Relationships: re: |
Bealtainemí (talk | contribs) →Relationships: seems strailghtforward |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:::::Then cite those reliable sources that, you say, show that Catholic Çhurch ''teaching'' rejects "same-sex relationships" without any specified limitations. Areyou perhaps referring to the unidentified source that you name "Boulder"? A pity that, instead of responding collaboratively to the invitation to clarify your claim by specifying the unqualilfied relationships, you have insisted on it and accused those who disagree with you of bad faith. Until you support your claim with a reliable source, I must remove it to here: "... to change [[Catholic teaching on homosexuality|Church teaching]] to allow for ... the acceptance of same-sex relationships". [[User:Bealtainemí|Bealtainemí]] ([[User talk:Bealtainemí|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::::Then cite those reliable sources that, you say, show that Catholic Çhurch ''teaching'' rejects "same-sex relationships" without any specified limitations. Areyou perhaps referring to the unidentified source that you name "Boulder"? A pity that, instead of responding collaboratively to the invitation to clarify your claim by specifying the unqualilfied relationships, you have insisted on it and accused those who disagree with you of bad faith. Until you support your claim with a reliable source, I must remove it to here: "... to change [[Catholic teaching on homosexuality|Church teaching]] to allow for ... the acceptance of same-sex relationships". [[User:Bealtainemí|Bealtainemí]] ([[User talk:Bealtainemí|talk]]) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::It's literally already supported by sources in the lede, besides being a summary of the material as a whole. Once again, no one is going to read "same-sex relationships" and come away thinking that the church wants him only to have female buddies or coworkers. This is a really paper-thin excuse for removing neutral and sourced material, and "I'm going to remove longstanding sourced text just 'cuz and now you have to make the case to keep it how it was" is absolutely not how the collaborative editing process works here. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 14:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
::::::It's literally already supported by sources in the lede, besides being a summary of the material as a whole. Once again, no one is going to read "same-sex relationships" and come away thinking that the church wants him only to have female buddies or coworkers. This is a really paper-thin excuse for removing neutral and sourced material, and "I'm going to remove longstanding sourced text just 'cuz and now you have to make the case to keep it how it was" is absolutely not how the collaborative editing process works here. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 14:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::If it's literally in a source, just quote the source. If it's not, just adjust your edit in line with what is actually in a reliable source. No personal interpreting, please, no original research. Seems straightforward. Oh, and stop attributing bad faith ("paper-thin excuse") to other editors. [[User:Bealtainemí|Bealtainemí]] ([[User talk:Bealtainemí|talk]]) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== 2020: Change of Position of Roman Catholic Church == |
== 2020: Change of Position of Roman Catholic Church == |
Revision as of 16:16, 27 October 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Loves Pride | ||||
|
Communion wafer versus Eucharist
Briancua - as you will note three out of the four sources cited for this incident refer to communion wafer and not "Eucharist". I cannot yet access the 4th source but will check in the library later this evening:
- ACTUP Oral History Project "I put my hands out, and suddenly I have the Communion wafer in my hands".
- ACT UP/ NY Chronology 1989 - "The news media choose to focus on, and distort, a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer."
- DeParle, Jason (January 3, 1990). "Rude, Rash, Effective, Act-Up Shifts AIDS Policy" - "But they had never set off the kind of controversy that began on Dec. 10 at St. Patrick's when one member crumbled a communion wafer."
Despite this you have repeatedly altered the wording away from "communion wafer" in the article to your choice of wording (Eucharist). You have done so on the basis of arguing your own view that "the wafer could be before consecration, in which case there would be nothing to desecrate. The issue is that it was the Eucharist". Can you explain to me why you think going against the cited sources is acceptable in this instance and why your insistence on the use of "Eucharist" (despite not a single verifiable third party source) is acceptable? Can you explain further why you think you should over-rule legitimate concerns without even the courtesy of discussion on the talkpage (recognizing its contentious nature)? Can you clarify why you think you are not falling foul of rules around EDIT-WARRING? Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I explained my rational in the edit summary you cited. By saying "communion wafer," it is unclear if you are referring to the wafer before or after consecration. If it was before consecration, no one would take offense. The reason Catholics consider the action to be a sacrilege is because it took place after consecration. Saying Eucharist over communion wafer eliminates the ambiguity. All of that said, it was you who first added this material to the article, and you used the word Eucharist. There was consensus for it, and the terminology stayed Eucharist for some time. It is now you who is making a contested edit by trying to change it without first changing the consensus, and without taking it to talk. If the consensus changes in favor of communion wafer, I will not object to changing the text. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- BrianCua please be advised that this is not helping your case (an ANI against you remains open). Stop using my words and edits against me as if we're playing some sort of cat and mouse game ok. The sources cited say "communion wafer". If you change this again without citing sources that use the language "Eucharist" then I will refer you for persistent edit-warring. You are presenting your own opinions above with no supporting material. Can I ask you nicely one last time to stop this aggressive approach that seeks to simply over-turn everything that other editors try to do which you don't like. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am not trying to play any games. I am simply trying to demonstrate that there was a consensus for Eucharist. If you want to change the verbiage, please change the consensus first. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Where is the consensus Briancua? Which other editors stand alongside you to affirm this "consensus"? You have reverted the section yet again to replace the words "communion wafer" with "Eucharist". You have deliberately scoured online sources to find something that refers specifically to "Eucharist". Despite the fact that the majority of sources cited say "communion wafer". This is not observing neutrality - this is a clear case of bias and edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You added the text and used the word "Eucharist" on July 12th. It has been almost three months since then. As no one has objected to the word until now, consensus has been demonstrated to use the word Eucharist. Again, if you can change the consensus, I would be happy to see you change the phrasing. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I objected to Contaldo80's addition of the material because it was not supported by the sources. Therefore Contaldo80 was not able to achieve consensus for use of the word "Eucharist". I have noted Contaldo80's concerns and have removed the word "Eucharist". Contaldo80 - are you happy now that I have addressed your concerns? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes thanks. Looks good to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are carrying on a conversation with yourself, or why you deleted your bizarre reply. However, I will point you again to WP:BRD. When you make an edit that is reverted, you should take the issue to talk, not edit war. Gain consensus, don't just keep inserting your preferred language. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The version before your contested edit says Eucharist. Please do not continue this behavior. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Briancua this is simply exasperating. I added Eucharist, I took it out. There is no established consensus version that includes Eucharist. The version before my initial addition did not have Eucharist at all. Communion wafer is additionally supported by the majority of sources and is more accurate. Why despite this are you insistent to have Eucharist? Eucharist is your preferred language - no one elses. Can you explain why we should Eucharist and not communion wafer? Because actually I find your approach quite bullying and unpleasant. I don't think you're editing in a way that is fair - you are determined to push a religious POV. You are perverting interpretation of guidance to achieve your own preferred position, and constantly threatening me with recriminations if you don't get your own way. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I objected to Contaldo80's addition of the material because it was not supported by the sources. Therefore Contaldo80 was not able to achieve consensus for use of the word "Eucharist". I have noted Contaldo80's concerns and have removed the word "Eucharist". Contaldo80 - are you happy now that I have addressed your concerns? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You added the text and used the word "Eucharist" on July 12th. It has been almost three months since then. As no one has objected to the word until now, consensus has been demonstrated to use the word Eucharist. Again, if you can change the consensus, I would be happy to see you change the phrasing. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Where is the consensus Briancua? Which other editors stand alongside you to affirm this "consensus"? You have reverted the section yet again to replace the words "communion wafer" with "Eucharist". You have deliberately scoured online sources to find something that refers specifically to "Eucharist". Despite the fact that the majority of sources cited say "communion wafer". This is not observing neutrality - this is a clear case of bias and edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I am not trying to play any games. I am simply trying to demonstrate that there was a consensus for Eucharist. If you want to change the verbiage, please change the consensus first. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- BrianCua please be advised that this is not helping your case (an ANI against you remains open). Stop using my words and edits against me as if we're playing some sort of cat and mouse game ok. The sources cited say "communion wafer". If you change this again without citing sources that use the language "Eucharist" then I will refer you for persistent edit-warring. You are presenting your own opinions above with no supporting material. Can I ask you nicely one last time to stop this aggressive approach that seeks to simply over-turn everything that other editors try to do which you don't like. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry you are getting so upset. It must be frustrating to feel so strongly about an issue and then not be able to get your own way. It is not my intention to bully you, and I don't believe I have ever threatened you. Please provide me with the dif so that I can see it, make amends, and apologize. I am simply trying to edit in accord with the five pillars and other policies and guidelines. I've pointed out to you that there was an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. As I have said to you many times, if you can change the consensus, I would be glad to change the language. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Communion bread. It seems to me we're asking the wrong question here: it should be "Eucharist" or "Communion bread", and the former is less appropriate since it is a much broader term referring to the whole central thanksgiving part of the Mass. Communion bread is most precise, and better conveys the meal aspect of the Eucharist, while "wafer" goes back to before Vatican II called for hosts that looked more like bread. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks I agree with that. As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I am no longer happy to accept the term eucharist - this has troubled me for a while and I think it exhibits clear bias and is not supported by the sources. I would like to make clear to ALL editors that my position is against the use of eucharist and should not be seen as supporting any "consensus". Without my explicit support then there is no consensus for eucharist - just one editor (who included the term) for and one editor against. Thank you. Thank you also for reminding me that my words are not my own to retract as I see fit. So now we have no consensus I would like to know why we are still using the word "eucharist" even though the sources don't say that? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason, Contaldo80, is clear. when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, the prior version uses the word Eucharist. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to add that I am no longer happy to accept the term eucharist - this has troubled me for a while and I think it exhibits clear bias and is not supported by the sources. I would like to make clear to ALL editors that my position is against the use of eucharist and should not be seen as supporting any "consensus". Without my explicit support then there is no consensus for eucharist - just one editor (who included the term) for and one editor against. Thank you. Thank you also for reminding me that my words are not my own to retract as I see fit. So now we have no consensus I would like to know why we are still using the word "eucharist" even though the sources don't say that? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
RFC on James Alison
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Is it appropriate to note that James Alison is an unincardated priest? Additional discussion can be found above. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Unincardinated" is a complex issue, unlike incardination which is a common status of a priest. That he is a former Dominican says enough. If one wants to learn his story they'd better go to the article James Alison. Jzsj (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Jzsj:, but don't you think that the complexity of the issue makes it worth noting with a wikilink? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- His name is already linked, for those who wish to know his history. Jzsj (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- True, but we mention that he is a former Dominican. Should we remove that as well? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- His name is already linked, for those who wish to know his history. Jzsj (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. His coverage in this article is so fleeting that it would be WP:UNDUE to bring it up. It is already in his BLP, let readers follow the link and find it there. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, it doesn't add anything to this article except inappropriate implications about his reliability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Roscelese, but you have already made your opinion known above. The purpose of this RFC was to bring in some outside voices. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Is it relevant to add that Cardinal George Pell is in prison for child sexual abuse? The intention seems to be to discredit the man.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting that Wikipedia does not even have an article on the notion of unincardated, and given it is a new term for me as well, I do not think it is central to this article and should be left out. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Summoned by bot. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains(talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's clear now that the consensus is to NOT include the reference to incardation. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – I can't see a reason to include it, other than to attempt to undermine the validity of his opinions about the article topic, by attacking his credentials. Adding one word to the brief description of him here, doesn't help present a balanced view of him; his story is one click away for anyone that is interested. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slugger O'Toole as you opened this RfC can you please close it. It is clear that the overwhelming consensus is not to make reference to the incardation of Alison. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I accept the consensus, but don't believe it would be appropriate for me to close it per WP:RFCEND. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Slugger O'Toole Neither should any of us as INVOLVED; but you do have an option that others don’t: it’s permissible for the originator to simply withdraw it. To do this, leave a comment below, and remove (or hide) the rfc tag at the top. Or, you (or anyone) could request closure. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I accept the consensus, but don't believe it would be appropriate for me to close it per WP:RFCEND. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Relationships
No one reading that the RCC opposes same-sex relationships and campaigns against their recognition by the government is under the impression that the word "relationships" refers to friendships. Reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your assertion here is no excuse for misstating the fact. If relationship means sexually explicit that is already expressed and repeating it is unnecessary. Within the Church this is an important distinction: a priest should not refuse Communion to those who are living together, since he cannot know if their relationship is explicitly sexual. Jzsj (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could show good faith by eg. editing the text to "same-sex marriage" rather than removing obvious, well-known, and sourced information. Literally nobody reading this article is going to come away with the misapprehension that the church disapproves of same-sex friendship, even if they are very stupid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've added "same-sex marriage" to the lead, no problem. Living together in a same sex relationship causes more "judgment" than one might think. A pastor in our diocese received national attention in the press when he refused Communion to a lady at her mother's funeral, because she was living with another woman. I'm saying that the Church does not require pastors to make these judgments, though some do. As Pope Francis famously said: "Who am I to judge." It just might apply here. Jzsj (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I noted that the closing statement repeated what was said just above, while the lead should be a brief summary. So I've removed the repetition and added that "relationship" here means sexually active. This should eliminate possible confusion. Jzsj (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your personal feelings are not a reason for inserting flagrant original research. Again, no one is under the misapprehension that the church condemns, preaches against, or politically campaigns against friendship. It has done all those things vis-a-vis same-sex relationships without regard to whether or not they are sexual. Please revert your disruptive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the fact that it takes no personal research to learn that some women who love one another choose to live together without engaging in sexual activity together. But the obvious meaning of Same-sex relationship is that it involves sexual activity.[1][2] What I said above needs your careful consideration, that many conservative Catholic priests say that it is scandalous for same-sex people to live together, and so we need to shout this distinction from the housetops! Jzsj (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you repeatedly bringing up "Catholics condemn same-sex relationships regardless of whether or not the people are having sex" as a counter to my point? That is exactly the point I'm making. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your personal feelings are not a reason for inserting flagrant original research. Again, no one is under the misapprehension that the church condemns, preaches against, or politically campaigns against friendship. It has done all those things vis-a-vis same-sex relationships without regard to whether or not they are sexual. Please revert your disruptive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I noted that the closing statement repeated what was said just above, while the lead should be a brief summary. So I've removed the repetition and added that "relationship" here means sexually active. This should eliminate possible confusion. Jzsj (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've added "same-sex marriage" to the lead, no problem. Living together in a same sex relationship causes more "judgment" than one might think. A pastor in our diocese received national attention in the press when he refused Communion to a lady at her mother's funeral, because she was living with another woman. I'm saying that the Church does not require pastors to make these judgments, though some do. As Pope Francis famously said: "Who am I to judge." It just might apply here. Jzsj (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You could show good faith by eg. editing the text to "same-sex marriage" rather than removing obvious, well-known, and sourced information. Literally nobody reading this article is going to come away with the misapprehension that the church disapproves of same-sex friendship, even if they are very stupid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- ^ Umberson, Debra; Thomeer, Mieke Beth; Kroeger, Rhiannon A.; Lodge, Amy Caroline; Xu, Minle (2015). "Challenges and Opportunities for Research on Same-Sex Relationships". Journal of marriage and the family. 77 (1): 96–111. doi:10.1111/jomf.12155. ISSN 0022-2445. PMC 4294225.
- ^ Frost, David M.; Meyer, Ilan H.; Hammack, Phillip L. (2015). "Health and Well-Being in Emerging Adults' Same-Sex Relationships: Critical Questions and Directions for Research in Developmental Science". Emerging adulthood (Print). 3 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1177/2167696814535915. ISSN 2167-6968. PMC 5004769.
- Please furnish proof that the Church's magisterium has condemned gay people living together in a chaste relationship, if that is what you are saying. Jzsj (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- I literally don't care. This sounds like a conversation you could have with your friends or your church, but your original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jzsj: I'm already tired of telling you to stop injecting your non-neutral point of view into this article. Do not remove sourced information because you don't like it. No one is under the misapprehension that the church condemns friendship, and as the sources state extremely clearly, acceptance of same-sex relationships is a major issue related to the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:GF Bealtainemí (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know on what basis you deny what I indicated above and what is the experience of many of us who have followed the behavior of conservative pastors, who have denied Communion to persons, even at their mother's funeral, by supposing that because they live together therefore they are having sex together. By refusing to include in the article that living chaste lives together is not against Church teaching, you are supporting pastors who chose to judge that women who live together are likely having sex together. If your sources don't make this distinction then your sources are poorly informed. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. The behavior you describe is non-acceptance of same-sex relationships, not some kind of mistake that could be cleared up if these pastors read your edits to Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, that Wiki should tell the truth about Catholic teaching, whether pastors read Wikipedia or not. Jzsj (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- We do this by reflecting reliable sources, such as those that note that dissenters from Catholic teaching seek to change its non-acceptance of same-sex relationships. Not fringe ex-gay sources and personal synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, that Wiki should tell the truth about Catholic teaching, whether pastors read Wikipedia or not. Jzsj (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. The behavior you describe is non-acceptance of same-sex relationships, not some kind of mistake that could be cleared up if these pastors read your edits to Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then cite those reliable sources that, you say, show that Catholic Çhurch teaching rejects "same-sex relationships" without any specified limitations. Areyou perhaps referring to the unidentified source that you name "Boulder"? A pity that, instead of responding collaboratively to the invitation to clarify your claim by specifying the unqualilfied relationships, you have insisted on it and accused those who disagree with you of bad faith. Until you support your claim with a reliable source, I must remove it to here: "... to change Church teaching to allow for ... the acceptance of same-sex relationships". Bealtainemí (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's literally already supported by sources in the lede, besides being a summary of the material as a whole. Once again, no one is going to read "same-sex relationships" and come away thinking that the church wants him only to have female buddies or coworkers. This is a really paper-thin excuse for removing neutral and sourced material, and "I'm going to remove longstanding sourced text just 'cuz and now you have to make the case to keep it how it was" is absolutely not how the collaborative editing process works here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- If it's literally in a source, just quote the source. If it's not, just adjust your edit in line with what is actually in a reliable source. No personal interpreting, please, no original research. Seems straightforward. Oh, and stop attributing bad faith ("paper-thin excuse") to other editors. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's literally already supported by sources in the lede, besides being a summary of the material as a whole. Once again, no one is going to read "same-sex relationships" and come away thinking that the church wants him only to have female buddies or coworkers. This is a really paper-thin excuse for removing neutral and sourced material, and "I'm going to remove longstanding sourced text just 'cuz and now you have to make the case to keep it how it was" is absolutely not how the collaborative editing process works here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then cite those reliable sources that, you say, show that Catholic Çhurch teaching rejects "same-sex relationships" without any specified limitations. Areyou perhaps referring to the unidentified source that you name "Boulder"? A pity that, instead of responding collaboratively to the invitation to clarify your claim by specifying the unqualilfied relationships, you have insisted on it and accused those who disagree with you of bad faith. Until you support your claim with a reliable source, I must remove it to here: "... to change Church teaching to allow for ... the acceptance of same-sex relationships". Bealtainemí (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
2020: Change of Position of Roman Catholic Church
However, Pope Francis has said he supports LGBT civil unions, which, by Papal Infallibility, means that the Catholic Church now supports Same Sex Civil Unions. --188.96.185.39 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that there are no moral teachings of the Catholic church that have been declared infallible by papal or conciliar edict (though there are certainly teachings that, while open to clarification, cannot entirely change). Also, such statements as this one by Pope Francis are far removed from the two cases where a pope himself has infallibly defined a church teaching. Depending upon reception by Catholics, this may or may not enter into the ongoing magisterial teachings of the Church. Jzsj (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)