Talk:Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use of correct ecclesiastical language[edit]

While this article clearly intended to be an article for popular audiences, i think it would be worthwhile to try to infuse it with correct ecclesiastical/liturgical language

The second sentence of this article reads "Roman Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy at their ordination and as such are called to refrain from all sexual activity."

First of all, a "promise" of celibacy is made by a deacon (preparing for the secular priesthood) to his ordinary. Second, religious priests make a vow of chastity at their profession. Thus it woudl be good if this sentence could be replaced with something like\

"Roman Catholic priests make a promise of celibacy at their ordination to the transitional diaconate (or a vow of chastity at the time of profession, in the case of religious priests) and as such are called to refrain from all sexual activity." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MattDawg579 (talkcontribs).

"Predatory gay sex" section[edit]

The newly added "Predatory gay sex" section, while possibly containing some pertinent material, is an appalling example of undue prominence, placing a large sensationally-titled section regarding the views of one individual from the perspective of one part of the world in the present moment, right at the start of the main section of an article which deals with the broad topic throughout history. Neither is it written in neutral terms, talking, for instance, about revelations rather than allegations and stating some matters in terms of fact, when, from the citations, they are also allegations by Despard. Whatever the merits of Despard's allegations, this is not the way to cover them in this article. I will remove the section. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's worth having something on the topic. I literally came here to find information on the frequency of abuse. The statistical correlation cannot be denied. (Edit: A large segment of my message had to be redacted as an automated filter is running on this article that deems the words in the title of this subsection to be 'unconstructive' and bans posting. Something else worthy of review.) 121.210.33.50 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Abuse is covered in other articles; go to Catholic Church abuse cases and follow links from there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2018: 40 priests outed in Italy[edit]

In 2018, 40 italian catholic priests were outed by italian callboy Francesco Mangiacapra.

--178.11.3.18 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Today's edits reverted[edit]

@Contaldo80: the priests named in the edit were not named in the article. It is a highly toxic WP:BLP violation to place someone's name to a contentious and unsourced assertion, and it can be removed on sight per WP:BLPREMOVE, and is not subject to the three-revert rule. Do not edit war over this, do not support the IP's edits, they are wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Can you clarify on talk first as to where to think the violation occured no - the presumption for WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:ONUS is to remove material first and discuss how it might be restored. Policy is very clear. The onus and liability is on you for restoring the material, and you'll need to make your case here, convincing me that it can be kept. Not the other way around. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case then fine. But I asked you to clarify. Take the time to do that properly. You may think you are addressing an urgent fix but without explaining what you are doing it looks arbitrary. Constructive engagement is the way forward. Can you also change your tone please: "You'll need to make your case here, convincing me that it can be kept". You have no authority - wikipedia is a collective project - we're all part of the decision-making process. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. I have authority to produce consensus: when it's only you and I in a dispute, either I agree to your proposed change or I don't. That's consensus. So if we involve more editors, I respect their opinions and we form consensus collectively.
  2. I explained why three times. I explained in the edit summary and I explained above, here on the talk page. I don't know what's not clear about my explanation? Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Calm down. No you don't - you just referred generally to WP:BLP. You only responded on talk when I challenged you. You don't have any authority - this is shared decision-making. Assume good faith and respond courteously or I will have no choice but to register a complaint. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Contaldo, if you are unfamiliar with WP:BLP, I recommend that you review it. You will find in its opening paragraphs "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Those go to the core of WP:BLP, and Elizium23's deletions were entirely appropriate in that context, and your reinsertion inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
As you'll see Nat I didn't disagree that Elizium's removal of the text was wrong. I did, however, ask for clarity as to what aspect of the text violated WP:BLP. This is a reasonable request. He did not provide that clarity until asked. The priests cited in the removed material may not have been cited in that article (as we have now established) but it is in the public domain that they are gay and plenty of sources to support that - and so the concern about defamation is not a valid one. The issue was whether they decided to come out in response to the word's of Pope Francis - this is something the cited source did not establish. I was calling for courtesy and constructive engagement Nat - not a huffy and aggressive response about who and who doesn't have "authority". Contaldo80 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Contaldo, I don't think you see how you're coming across here. No, you didn't just "ask for clarity", you reinserted the text. It should not have been hard to ascertain the BLP problems with unsourced information about living persons. The concerns about defamation were extremely valid, as we did not have a supporting source in the article - that's what BLP calls for, citations of information in the article, not just claims of common knowledge. You questioned where he has the authority, where BLP not only grants him the authority to guard against such problematic material, it actually calls on him to do so (which also rules out your "arbitrary" complaint.) You threatened him, and you attacked his tone when you are coming across as far worse than he. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No Nat - that's not what happened. If someone just says WP:BLP without saying what the issue is then how on earth are we as other editors meant to make a judgement. Elizium did not clarify that his concern was about a number of gay priests cited by name. That came only after I asked - politely and not threatening. If you read the stream above, he cited his "authority" to decide what could and could not go into the article. I think you're trying to be helpful Nat but let's not try to generate a drama where there does not need to be one. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)