ShirtNShoesPls (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
|||
Line 126:
:::Bishops throughout the world have begun to widely bless same-sex unions. Who do we believe? A few random canon lawyers? Or how it is being applied? This argument comes across as sophism. No offense. Even ''First Things'' [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/the-pope-and-the-black-hole applies it in the sense of blessing the union itself]. The overwhelming viewpoint is that it applies to the ''unions'': not just the people. '''The language is always collective.''' [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::An opinion piece by a journalist carries substantially less authoritative weight than a statement published by the Vatican, the commentary of multiple canon lawyers, and the latter reporting of reliable sources. In your words, this is the opinion of one writer. You have failed to demonstrate that it factually applies to unions, even if that interpretation is common. Experts receive deference. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::1.) Again, if Catholic archbishops are blessing the unions than a collective sense then the argument seems sophist. 2.) The Vatican commentary isn't office. 3.) Even traditionalist sources are predominantly interpreting it in a collective sense. [[User:ShirtNShoesPls|ShirtNShoesPls]] ([[User talk:ShirtNShoesPls|talk]]) 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 06:56, 21 December 2023
Pope Francis was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Deaconess
@KlayCax: It doesn't look like deaconesses are directly mentioned in this Wikipedia article's. Please understand that the lead follows from the body—make additions there first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, @Pbritti:. The deaconesses wording wasn't added by me. It's been in the article for awhile. I reinstated the women priest wording - albeit it's been in the article for a much shorter period of time.
- There's no need for personal attacks. KlayCax (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax: You're adding UNDUE material—that's not a personal attack. You're also right up against 3RR. Again, do not include material in the lead when it is not discussed in the body. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax: It should be added that the material you have add is not supported by the sources: "dialogue" does not correspond with the term "research", which is what the Deseret News article uses; "open" is not the lexicon used by the pope but an interpretation made by several outside observers. Both of these developments and matters should be accurately reflected in this article wherever they appear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax: You're adding UNDUE material—that's not a personal attack. You're also right up against 3RR. Again, do not include material in the lead when it is not discussed in the body. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Age record
It should be noted that Francis is the oldest head of the Papal State in 283 years (Leo XIII was not a head of state, he was a prisoner). I think this deserves to be mentioned in the lead. --95.24.68.78 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just need a reliable source that verifies this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The first Jesuit Pope
To be added in the incipit 176.200.119.68 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
"openness" to blessing same-sex unions
The article states that the pope expressed what has been described as "openness" to blessing same-sex unions. It would be helpful to state what the pope actually expressed, instead of stating only how it has been described, especially because there is an important difference between the two in wheather the union or the persons are blessed. Since the pope previously has already confirmed that the Church cannot bless sin and that homosexual acts are considered and will continue to be considered gravely sinful, there can be hardly any doubt whether the pope is opened to discussion regarding blessing the disordered unions, which is not possible, or rather blessing the persons who had been involved in such unions but are seeking to be closer to God and live a better life. The pope's own words on the matter can be found here: rc_con_cfaith_risposta-dubia-2023_en.pdf (vatican.va) While it is absolutely true that what the pope expressed has been indeed described by an onslought of media outlets as opennes, even will to blessing same-sex unions, that does not change what the pope actually expressed. If the wikipedia article on the pope contains how his words were falsly described, it should also contain some reference to his actual words and their meaning. Nagyszakall (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Couples
The New York Times - The Vatican said Monday that Pope Francis had allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, his most definitive step yet to make the Roman Catholic Church more welcoming to L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics and more reflective of his vision of a more pastoral, and less rigid, church. [1]. M.Karelin (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think The NYT is a good source, right ?? M.Karelin (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm readding it. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fox News also describes it as blessing same-sex couples rather than LGBT individuals. In fact, the document wouldn't make sense if it were referring to individuals with same-sex attraction, as that was already permissible within the church.
- It's clear that Francis means same-sex couples can be "blessed" rather than blessing LGBT individuals. The Italian wording of the document is entirely in collective rather than individual terms. Words like "individual" or "person" or them" is never used - "persons" is used twice, "couples" is used 18 times, and "couple" 22 times. Reliable sources overwhelmingly also give the same interpretation.
- The only area of dispute to me is what a "blessing" necessarily implies. The fact that he's allowing same-sex unions be blessed shouldn't be controversial. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm readding it. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ShirtNShoesPls: You are mistaken with your edit to the article: the union is not blessed. See this official Vatican source: "Although the couple is blessed but not the union". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's the viewpoint of one writer at Vatican News. It doesn't represent the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church or the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. The document itself is clearly speaking in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ShirtNShoesPls: No, that's the official stance of the official Catholic Church publishing arm. Also, you have a lack of understanding on the consensus of reliable sources. See Barron's and The Pillar (run by canon lawyers). Additionally, AP correctly refers to this as "blessings for same-sex couples", not their union. It should also be added that Pope Francis did not issue the statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The Pillar isn't a credible source. It's a fundamentalist Catholic website that has engaged in the doxxing of LGBT Catholics. The Barron's source says nothing about it only narrowly applying to inviduals. It's also logically nonsensical. LGBT individuals were already allowed to be blessed by Catholic priests.
- A single writer at Vatican News (whose positions are not the same as the Catholic Church's positions) isn't an infallible guide. The overwhelming consensus of sources is that it's in referrence to same-sex unions.
- However, you are correct in saying that there's a dispute in what the language means. Traditionalists state it's a "God will keep the good parts of the relationship intact while making it so you turn from sin" while progressives see it as a "first step" to affirmation. (I however don't think that debate belongs in the lead.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- "It's a fundamentalist Catholic website"
- And?, using that logic we could say that NYT and other sources are non-Catholic or secular websites, indeed, every source can be reduced to "a single writer".2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, can you provide any evidence that they doxxed someone? 2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ShirtNShoesPls: No, that's the official stance of the official Catholic Church publishing arm. Also, you have a lack of understanding on the consensus of reliable sources. See Barron's and The Pillar (run by canon lawyers). Additionally, AP correctly refers to this as "blessings for same-sex couples", not their union. It should also be added that Pope Francis did not issue the statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- That's the viewpoint of one writer at Vatican News. It doesn't represent the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church or the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. The document itself is clearly speaking in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- @ShirtNShoesPls: You are mistaken with your edit to the article: the union is not blessed. See this official Vatican source: "Although the couple is blessed but not the union". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@ShirtNShoesPls: You are ignoring the official statements of the Vatican, canon lawyers (The Pillar reporting that a priest responsible for sexual morality rules is violating them is not "doxxing"), reliable sources, the USCCB, and other sources [2] [3] (Fr. James Martin's quote not withstanding), [4]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- That wasn't an official statement of the Vatican, the large majority of canon lawyers have intepreted it in a collective sense, and Catholic churches have already started to widely "bless" the unions in this way. LGBT Catholics were already allowed to be blessed. If it was only on an individual level, why does the document always refer to it in a plural sense, and why even release a document about it? The USCCB wording just states that the Church doesn't see it as a same-sex marriage. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Most sources have aligned on using "blessing same-sex couples" over "blessing same-sex unions". Catholic official statements, independent reliable sources, and subject-matter experts (here's another) all agree: this isn't about blessing unions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Bishops throughout the world have begun to widely bless same-sex unions. Who do we believe? A few random canon lawyers? Or how it is being applied? This argument comes across as sophism. No offense. Even First Things applies it in the sense of blessing the union itself. The overwhelming viewpoint is that it applies to the unions: not just the people. The language is always collective. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- An opinion piece by a journalist carries substantially less authoritative weight than a statement published by the Vatican, the commentary of multiple canon lawyers, and the latter reporting of reliable sources. In your words, this is the opinion of one writer. You have failed to demonstrate that it factually applies to unions, even if that interpretation is common. Experts receive deference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- 1.) Again, if Catholic archbishops are blessing the unions than a collective sense then the argument seems sophist. 2.) The Vatican commentary isn't office. 3.) Even traditionalist sources are predominantly interpreting it in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- An opinion piece by a journalist carries substantially less authoritative weight than a statement published by the Vatican, the commentary of multiple canon lawyers, and the latter reporting of reliable sources. In your words, this is the opinion of one writer. You have failed to demonstrate that it factually applies to unions, even if that interpretation is common. Experts receive deference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Bishops throughout the world have begun to widely bless same-sex unions. Who do we believe? A few random canon lawyers? Or how it is being applied? This argument comes across as sophism. No offense. Even First Things applies it in the sense of blessing the union itself. The overwhelming viewpoint is that it applies to the unions: not just the people. The language is always collective. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Most sources have aligned on using "blessing same-sex couples" over "blessing same-sex unions". Catholic official statements, independent reliable sources, and subject-matter experts (here's another) all agree: this isn't about blessing unions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)