Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church and homosexuality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Many Catholics oppose the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality, and in some locations, such as the United States, show stronger support for gay rights than the general population.

The only backing for this sweeping statement is one survey paid for by the Arcus Foundation which is a homosexual advocacy group.

Being Catholic means recognizing the Church as the one founded by Jesus Christ, and accepting its teaching authority about matters of faith and morals. The source of opposition to basic Catholic teachings is not Catholics but ex-Catholics, nominal Catholics and non-Catholics.

There are more than 1,000,000 Catholic priests, nuns and religious world wide. Only a handful of dissenters are actually mentioned. So why is the longest section about dissent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfOwnedCat (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could write more about dogma if you feel there is more to be said. Unfortunately for you, your personal opinion that progressive Catholics are not "real" Catholics is not a source we go on here. If you believe that the PRRI is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. Oh, and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

But the opinion that "progressive" Catholics are real Catholics does count? Why do you have different criteria for different positions?

By the way, it is the religion itself that has to define what is necessary to be part of it, not some third party. Anyways, the term "progressive" also was not backed up with any source. So it does not fit the article too.

Tiago Becerra Paolini (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

'Progressive' is an attractive and slippery word. 'Saint' is the word Catholic people use to describe those who make visible progress in piety, the interior life, good works etc. The euphemistic sense in which you are using the word 'progress' also has Catholic synonyms: protestant, agnostic, atheist, heretic etc.

If it is 'progressive' to disagree with the Church's teachings about human sexuality, is it equally 'progressive' to disagree with other teachings of the Church?

Regarding personal opinion, what other kind of opinion is there? Regarding sources, you can find a source for anything. Sources are not a substitute for reason, truth and fairness.SelfOwnedCat (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's nice, but I'm not sure such an attitude is really compatible with a desire to better the encyclopedia. (See WP:TRUTH, etc.) Thank you for signing your post this time! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this article about truth a, hmmm... welll, a truth? You are carefully avoiding topics that shows you are being incoherent. It is true that there are no truth, talk about self-contradiction...

Tiago Becerra Paolini (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is reason and logic incompatible with editing this particular article? I challenge you to define what you actually mean by Progressive Catholic. This is key to understanding why the article is inaccurate and biased.SelfOwnedCat (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is the topic in question. You cannot make an article by throwing random terms without a meaning.

Tiago Becerra Paolini (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Only WP:TRUTH can entitle you to avoid engaging in a real discussion. Surely you do not want the malodorous, scandalous, laughable appearance of actually possessing WP:TRUTH? SelfOwnedCat (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SOC has a point, it is worthwhile to note where that survey came from. - Haymaker (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And to note who signed the "theologian" letter mentioned in the dissent section. - Haymaker (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Until we have neutral sources that comment on this fact, whether or not it's worthy of inclusion is absolutely irrelevant. Write an article for a reliable, neutral paper that links these theologians' academic status to the memorandum and get it published. Until then, you don't get to synthesize this information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you accepted an pro-homosexual source. Now you says that the sources have to be neutral. You are just applying different criteria for different positions (again).

Tiago Becerra Paolini (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how it is supposed to make sense. Wether or not Catholics are more prone to support gay rights in the US is irrelevant, as supporting gay rights (such as not being treated as an outcast in society, or turned away from jobs, etc) doesn't mean that they disagree with the Church on wether or not homosexuality is sinful. I mean, the Pope has spoken out strongly against homophobic violence, but that doesn't mean he regards homosexuality as acceptable. Pavuvu (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Vatican and other more local seats of the RCC have thrown their weight behind laws to keep homosexuality illegal, to ban same-sex marriage, to allow employment and housing discrimination, to prevent LGBT people from adopting children, etc. We should discuss the legal and political aspect of the RCC's condemnation of homosexuality (as I believe I mentioned earlier) - it would be foolish to pretend that they don't oppose legal rights for LGBT people in addition to commenting on the morality of homosexuality, and likewise to pretend that the views of lay Catholics are only a political difference and not a moral one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Should this page include disagreements among the church heirarchy regarding the church's teachings on homosexuality? AJMW 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A.Z. 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs serious improvement. A.Z. 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the references were to this cathecism in the Vatican website? One advantage is that people translating the article into other languages would know where to find translations for the quotations. It's very likely that this article will be translated into other languages in the future. I have just translated it into Portuguese. I had linked to the same website in English to which it's linked now, but now I'm going to link to the Portuguese version in the Vatican website. A.Z. 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article provide as much information on the defense of official church teaching as dissent from it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedziwoj42 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is some heavy bias towards the dissent, in volume if nothing else. Looks like the page used to be "LGBT and Roman Catholicism" which reveals the bias.134.84.183.168 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I have included a section which disscusses the extent to which the church teachings are accepted, I think this is an important section to have, it is one of the most challenging topics within the church today. I am concerned that the 'defence' section is too small, yet I have found this a very challenging topic to elaborate on, given that not many within the church make it their main priority to counter the beliefs of those who promote a dissenting viewpoint. Additions are welcomed, however I am not sure that the article should be cut down, I think that would be the wrong thing to do. AJMW 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job, AJMW. I don't know how important Frei Betto is, but he defends that homosexuality be accepted by the church. He wrote in 1997 a letter to Pope John Paul II, published in Brazil's biggest newspaper, questioning many of the church's doctrines. He wrote:

"E meus amigos Renato e Lúcio, que vivem juntos e comungam seus afetos, seriam aos olhos do pai de amor uma família?"

What about my friends, Renato e Lúcio, that live together and share affections, would they be to the eyes of the father of love a family?

I believe that, in Brazil, Leonardo Boff is also in favor of the church considering gay couples a family. Wikipedia's article about him says that he is a controversial figure because he "allegedly supports homosexuality". Again, I don't know how important both of them are, so I don't know how appropriate would it be to include information about them. A.Z. 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like having one page on Roman Catholicism and another on the priesthood. I think it would better be treated in just one page.Joshuajohanson 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I fully agree. Otherwise, we’d have to have many other similar pages (and that would be ridiculous): “Homosexuality and senators, Homosexuality and congressman, Homosexuality and school teachers, Homosexuality and Baptist ministers....” —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCP (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the primary reason that homosexuality in the priesthood has become a matter of such interest is the church sex abuse scandal, and the declarations of Pope Benedict. The articles deal with different issues - one is theological, one is about the logical machinery of an organised church. There should not be a merge in my opinion. AJMW 22:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church talks about all aspects, not just theological. There is stuff about the debate in the church, Courage International, and the history of declarations, and yes, even some about the logical machinery of an organized church. I also think the sex scandals and the reaction to them can be better understood within the context of the church in general. And yes, the media did make a big deal about the Homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Priesthood, but I would venture there would be unknown homosexual involvement among the ranks of almost any church. Are we going to do Homosexuality in the New Life Church leadership, and talk about Ted Haggard? Yes, some of the priests messed up and yes, it is important and we should talk about it, but I think having a separate article gives it undue weight. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one else has a rebuttal, I am going to go ahead and move it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I object. I agree with the above argument against merging. In any case, the contents of the article on "homosexuality in the Roman Catholic priesthood" were not incorporated into the "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" article, so I'm reverting the redirect. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest materials from this site be included: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/zmorhombibl.HTM

It is a Catholic exegete. If this is about Catholicism and Homosexuality, there should be much more material about the views of majority of Catholics led by its orthodox leaders. NPOV means more space and material given to experts. Right now this article is not NPOV. R Davidson (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states in paragraph n.2358 regarding the issue of homosexual tendencies:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

I visited the Vatican's official website last Wednesday, and the sentence was still there. However, when I visited it again today, the words "objectively disordered" have mysteriously disappeared. The current version of the paragraph reads as follows:

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."

Does the Church regularly change the wording of the Catechism or is this done infrequently? Does such a change in wording signal a shift in the Church's position? Maybe it's just insignificant, but I wanted to signal it anyway since it seemed pretty weird to me. BomBom (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is incredibly strange! If you look in the paragraph above it, the phrase "objectively disordered" is still present... but it is quite unheard of (at least to me) for the Church to do something like this. The phrase "they do not choose their homosexual condition" is also extremely bold and worthy of noting.

If this is really a legitimate Vatican alteration (although the wording seems somewhat sloppy to me, considering the overall flow and eloquence of the text of the Catechism), then praised be God! A step in the right direction... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.137.16 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombom's link above http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P85.HTM#173 is to an older version of the Catechism. The current article cites the current version which states:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The reason for the changes was that on September 8, 1997, Pope John Paul II formally promulgated the editio typica (the definitive Latin language edition), which included some modifications to the text. Thanar (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what could have been clearer that "That claim was not backed up by the source given and was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources" - Schrandit (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, the source states that a public letter published in La Presse and signed by 19 Roman Catholic priests that condemns the churchs position on homosexuality and ordaining homosexual priests. There is no claim, in this article, that they have continued to ordain homosexual priests despite condemning the practice. To find references for that, I simply had to search google for the keywords. References abound. It took 30 seconds.

Your edits are not improving this article by eliminating questionable statements. Rather, it appears that you are deleting statements that you find personally disagreeable. Please make sure to follow WP:EQ guidelines for article improvement and keeping biases in check.--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't really find anything on this google search that would back up the claim. In the mean time a damaging claim not backed up by the source remains displayed as fact on this article. Why is that? - Schrandit (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Google harder Spotfixer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I read that whole thing and it didn't say that Bishops had ordained candidates for the priesthood that are ineligible. - Schrandit (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several statements in the article currently to the effect that "However, since it is a magisterial dogma of the Church, it is considered definitive and unchangable.[6][7][8][9]" Four sources are cited, yet the claim is unfounded! Although the teaching against homosexuality is of the highest non-infallible authority in the Church, it has not been taught definitively, and so is indeed changeable, although it may never actually change. There is a tendency among some Catholics to try to make the charism of infallibility much broader than it actually is, and this article seems to suffer badly from that tendency. To date, exactly zero moral teachings have been definitively and unchangeably promulgated by the Church. le cizgasnu (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that "zero moral teachings have been definitively and unchangeably promulgated by the Church." The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that the infallibility of the Magisterium extends to moral teachings linked to saving faith:

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

There are two ways for the Church to teach something that must be definitively held: (1) by an ex cathedra pronouncement by a Pope, (2) by the Pope declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine:

"The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine. Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church." (Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, par. 9)

For example, Pope John Paul II declared explicitly that direct abortion is always gravely morally wrong. This moral teaching is therefore definitive and unchangeable:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine – I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (The Gospel of Life, par. 62)

Concerning the Church's teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed "the definitive and unchangeable nature of Catholic doctrine in this area" in its Notification Regarding Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS.

Thanar (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First thing saw was that homosexuality was wrong and sinful, and that anal sex was too. Yet heterosexuals practice anal intercourse too. Is this saying that ONLY gays practice anal sex, or it's gay to practice it at all? It also says oral sex is okay under certain conditions. Could somebody please define these? --98.166.100.251 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A well I see somebody put it at the top of this page, but shouldn't it be in the article? (needs a reference too) --98.166.100.251 (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church totally condemns sexual practises against nature, both heterossexual and homossexual. Remember that the Catholic Church until the Vatican Council II said that sex was only for reproduction.81.193.220.8 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.pontifex.roma.it/index.php/interviste/religiosi/3766-si-neghino-funerale-e-sacramenti-a-irregolari-e-omosessuali-praticanti-una-salutare-cura-pastorale-smarrito-il-senso-del-peccato-immorale-la-protesta-dei-conduttori-rai-pagano-tutti-per-la-faziosita-di-santoro

According to the article, LGBT people are worse than pagans, therefore should be denied communion and funerals.--DCX (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

German catholic theologian David Berger wrote a book over homosexuality in roman catholic church. Title of the book in german language ist Heiliger Schein Mircado (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Memorandum:Church 2011

Over 260 catholic theologians, particulary from Germany, Switzerland and Austria signed in January/February 2011 a memorandum Church 2011. They want more theolgian respect for gay couples, who live in civil unions 92.252.93.210 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

at the end of memorandum over 310 catholic professors signed that memorandum. 188.118.139.189 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In German town Mönchengladbach five same-sex unions got a blessing in Roman Catholic Diocese of Aachen.

• Spiegel:Riskanter Segen für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare (german)

In German town Wetzlar one same-sex union got a blessing in Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg.

• Frankfurter Rundschau:Dekan muss gehen wegen Schwulen-Trauung (german) 89.166.224.195 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion at Talk:Catholic Church led to the suggestion that this article include a section on the RCC's political efforts against same-sex marriage and be listed in Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. Help writing such a section would be lovely (as it would have a very large scope, making sorting through sources difficult). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If some large block of text is inappropriate for the lead, you MOVE it to some other place, not DELETE it. This proves other intentions, vandalism. --Stijn Calle (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have suspicions that you may be using Aduron78 as a sock-puppet? I hope that isn't the case? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First, sorry: I was being snippy when I replaced the first part of:

Many Catholics oppose the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality, and in some locations, such as the United States, show stronger support for gay rights than the general population.[1]

With the more accurate but useless:

In some locations, some proportion of Catholics agree with and some proportion disagree with the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality.^{[citation needed]}

The original wording can't work:

• What usatoday.com says becomes irrelevant as soon as the actual study becomes available for citing.
• The study did not ask "do you oppose Church teaching on the matter of...", it asked if the person believed "homosexual behavior" was a sin.
• Both "many Catholics disagree" and "many Catholics agree" are true statements. Choosing either is POV (though the first is much more loaded).
• "The majority of Catholics disagree" needs a {globalize} tag. 25% of the USA is Catholic, 78 million, but there are 1,200 million (1.2 billion) Catholics worldwide.
• "For the Catholic subsample (n=210), the margin of error is +/- 7.0 points at the 95% level of confidence". This means that if the survey was conducted again, there is a 95% chance that 43% support (vs 37%) for gay marriage ("do you favor allowing") will swing up or down by at most 7%. My stats might be a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that means there's at least a 95% chance that the difference between 43 and 37 less than 7. I might have to break out the graph paper, though.
• The study says [2] that practising Catholics (middle two column areas) show 32% support against the public's 37%. The stats of those who attend "less often" (59%) are very strongly correlated with the results for people reporting "unaffiliated" (again, 59%). I'm not suggesting we include this, just something to consider.

In other words, we can't frame these results as some sort of greater-than-average-population conflict between the laity and "the Church" on the subject of gay sex ("homosexual behavior"?) and gay marriage. Openverse (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Responses in no particular order: "Many Catholics agree with the Catholic Church" is inane. Nowhere do we refer to the majority of Catholics using only US numbers. Secondary analysis of primary sources is not useless and is in fact what Wikipedia is based on. We could bypass some of these concerns by using more surveys (eg. [3]) however it's not always easy to find ones that split by religion, esp. from other countries. I've again reverted your rewording and would recommend that if you wish to include the specific numbers, you do so without removing the secondary analysis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to not revert my other edits. You'll notice that I too was opposed to saying "many Catholics agree". We refer to the majority of Catholics when we say "Many Catholics disagree" and cite that claim (yes, at the end of that entire sentence) using a US study. Interestingly, the newspaper article is considered by us a primary source, not a secondary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. It's a primary source for the claim "a study was released" (that means that if the study was not from a well-established source, we might use this newspaper article to back it up). Also, the survey itself (actually, the report, which you should not have deleted as a citation) is in fact a secondary source, because it is an analysis of the results. You can learn more about this at the relevant policy page. And while newspaper reporters are a fine source for "it happened" or "she said this", they usually don't qualify as an acceptable source for "this means that" (this often comes up as a problem in science reporting), especially when the report is present. The only secondary material that we can extract from that article is a comment by Stephen Schneck that effectively says "you can't really say that because there are two ways of interpreting the data". Openverse (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Uhhhh, the claim that a newspaper analysis of survey results is primary, but the results themselves are secondary is...interesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I understand that you feel on the defensive, and I don't like conflict either. But a word of caution: please do take a moment to read what I said (and say) carefully, and also read the policy pages for further guidance. (I've underlined some relevant parts above.) Also, please avoid sarcasm (above) and accusations of trolling (the cn tag is there because the unsourced claim "many Catholics oppose" is not the same as the claim "in the US they show stronger support..."). Comments like that make the other person feel attacked, and only escalate the conflict.
        The report (secondary) is an analysis of the raw data (primary). The paper is (please read carefully) a primary source for the news, and an invalid secondary source for analysis. The Schneck fellow provides a (secondary) analysis, made legitimate by its inclusion in the (primary) news source.
        Furthermore, he explicitly says that you cannot prefer one interpretation over the other, in opposition to the wording you are trying to introduce. I have tried to accommodate your concerns in prior edits, but I plan to undo your recent revert. This is because you continue to prefer the unsourced and unfounded "many Catholics oppose" wording, and because you are now introducing the speculative "or protection against discrimination". I introduced the parenthetical examples because they were the subject of the study, but I'm guessing you introduced this wording because you take it to be a synonym for the term "gay rights". You might not realize that your edits paint an unfounded picture of conflict within the Church, of typical church-going Catholics being actively opposed to Church teaching and in favor of gay marriage, and of opposition to gay marriage as a matter of discrimination. Openverse (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It's difficult to assume good faith from a user who clearly isn't bothering to read the source. The anti-discrimination bit is in the source you added, the "many" wording about Catholic opposition to the church position is in the USA Today source which has been there for some time, and Schneck's (partisan!) interpretation does not actually contradict anything we've said. If you're not actually trolling, you're just not meeting the basic competence level required; I suggest you come back after reading the material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that we are having this trouble Roscelese. I've been thorough in explaining my objections to your position, but you are not having it. A few key points:
  1. The USA Today source is a blog. (Even if it was a proper news article, it wouldn't be a good source for analysis.)
  2. The USA Today source's poorly-written interpretation "many U.S. Catholics out of sync" cannot be changed into "many Catholics oppose".
  3. We cannot say "many Catholics oppose [disagree with] the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality". That sort of semi-ambiguous wording, even with the best sources, has serious problems (I've commented above).
  4. If you want to include a claim, cite it. That means you need to look through the history, find the citations that I added (and which you deleted), and place them after your claim, preferably with page numbers. If I don't know where your claims are coming from, there is really no excuse for becoming upset when I take issue with those claims on the talk page, and certainly no excuse for accusing me of trolling and "...not meeting the basic competence level required".

If you haven't reviewed the policies I linked above recently, perhaps you should have a look. I'm not linking them because you are expected to follow them, but because other editors do follow them. Hopefully we can work something out without needing to use up the time of others. Openverse (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You've claimed that there's a problem with stating that Catholics disagree with the church when that's what a reliable source says (see NEWSBLOG), but you are incorrect and repeating yourself will not make you right. WP:V is, actually, all about making sure that statements are cited to reliable sources, not about removing reliably sourced statements because we personally disagree with them, so find another policy (or more likely an essay of complaint from a user, since there's not much that will contradict "Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources") to cite. If you have no policy-based arguments to make, I recommend finding something else to edit - for instance, there are many stub articles on species which could use expansion or formatting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, and that's really too bad. How do you see dispute resolution going? You might want to glance through what we've written to each other above with an impartial eye. Do you want to go with 3O, or some other option? (For the record, I don't think this source (news, blog) or even the survey itself is good enough for the claim "many Catholics oppose [or disagree with] the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality", and that the claim itself is pov.) Openverse (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need my go-ahead to request a third opinion or DRN. I don't think you're likely to get the result you want, but that's because you're frivolously tagging cited statements, not because I've been holding out on you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, but I'm asking as a courtesy. I presume you mean the "many Catholics oppose the official teachings of the Church" statement, which you added, and are arguing we should keep because "hey, it's technically true that many Catholics oppose". The tagging is not "frivolous". Openverse (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If by "technically" you mean "the source describes a majority and uses the word 'many', but that doesn't conform to Openverse's personal biases," then yes, it's technically true. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The news blog that you've chosen is insufficient for a claim that serious.
2. The source is explicitly talking about U.S. Catholics (comparatively few reside in the US), you've reverted when I've tried to reflect this in the article.
3. The source turns around and explicitly says, quoting an expert, that actually you can't say either way ("swing group for both sides"). Openverse (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (over the inclusion of "Many Catholics [oppose the Church re. homosexuality]"):

I have looked at the above discussion, and I think a couple of comments may be helpful. The USA Today article is indeed a secondary source. Construing it as primary is creative, but at odds with the general understanding on Wikipedia. The USA Today article falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, i.e. it is to be treated more like a newspaper article, not an uncontrolled blog. Wikipedia's definition of primary and secondary is a bit whacky, but even so, the original study is self-published by the institute, and hence arguably primary in the sense used on Wikipedia. Moreover, as far as I can make out, there is no significant disagreement between the article and at least the press release. "Many" is not "most", nor does it imply it. A sizable proportion of Catholics in a large-population country like the US with ~70 million members qualifies as "many". Based on this, I think it is reasonable to claim that "many Catholics are at odds with the official church on issues of homosexuality", or similar words to that effect. Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan. You're focusing on the sourcing distinctions, though, and those aren't really at issue. (Still: news bad source for scientific analysis, newsblogs held to higher standards than news, and secondary sources aren't a matter of independence - all minor points). The issue is with reverts like the following, from:

Many Catholics disagree with the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality.[10][not in citation given] In some locations, such as... [Openverse]

Many Catholics disagree with the official teachings of the Church on homosexuality, and in some locations, such as the United States... [Roscelese]

The article:

"The latest research that finds many U.S. Catholics out of sync with their church's teachings on personal morality is out."

The article is explicitly talking about US Catholics. It's using the standard cautious "one study finds" wording, but here this switches to "they are in fact". It uses the term "out of sync with" (which could mean "are uninformed of"), but here this switches to "disagree with" (suggesting active disagreement). At the very least, the above should read "[At least one study has found that] many U.S. Catholics [hold views that contradict]". Do you think it would be inappropriate to clarify the statement in that way? Openverse (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously many non-Catholics also oppose the church's position against LGBT rights. This doesn't make the existing content synthesis. Tags actually mean things, you see. I've removed the tag. Feel free to add information about non-Catholic opposition to the church's anti-gay positions and activism, but the frivolous tagging is getting very tiresome. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those other groups are irrelevant. The issue is with the form of the section itself (and the article). In a "serious article" we wouldn't cherry-pick 4 scientists, writing up a paragraph on each, plus a survey, and then call the section "Dissent from global warming/evolution/whatever". Most editors would have no problem picking up on that as being synthesis. The standards here, though, are a bit different. It's simple, though: if you want to give particular attention to the views, trials, and tribulations of particular "dissidents", find a source that marks them leading figures in "the dissent from Church teaching". We should be writing "notable dissidents have included A B C [period]", and yet we have paragraphs dedicated to the views of several random guys. And stop removing all tags as "frivolous", as if to conceal that there is an active dispute. Openverse (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If the tag does not refer to an actual problem - for instance, I'm just randomly choosing these examples of course! if a cn tag was added to a cited statement or if a synthesis tag was added to a non-synthetic section - it is frivolous. Rather than complain about your behavior being called out, you should try to improve your behavior, and become more familiar with policy so that when you see a section you don't like, you can improve it, instead of choosing a tag at random to leave on it indefinitely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Every time the NPOV tag is added, the opposing party always says they are being neutral. That's not up to them (you). The "don't remove until resolved" message isn't some conspiracy to entrench tags into articles. Removing npov tags, especially while actively involved in the dispute, usually indicates either non-familiarity (no - you've been involved in enough disputes) or some sort of bias. Your "but I thought it wasn't really NPOV" is charming, though. Openverse (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article will not be held hostage by one user. If you're unhappy with the third opinion you requested, seek wider input. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's rather dramatic, Roscelese. I don't need your permission to check via edit if a milder wording on my part will appease you. No issue with the 3O, just with the perpetual reverts and removal of all tags within sections you wrote. Openverse (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Openverse can I ask whether you are employed by the Catholic church please? I'm concerned that your edits are not intended to be neutral, but rather to present a picture supportive of official church policy. Can I remind you that this is wikipedia and not L'Osservatore Romano, it does none of us any favours to play thngs down. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not employed by any church, nor am I sponsored or prompted to edit by any church or organization. Attempting to reduce bias towards a specific POV does not make me not neutral. If this article had any substantial bias against GLBT, I'd be removing it too, but someone has already done that job thoroughly. So which edits do you mean? Removing scare quotes? Replacing "disordered" with homosexual in a heading? Deleting irrelevant info? Expanding the lead? Adding qualifier "in U.S." to nebulous "many"? Let me know. Openverse (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

1. "The Case for Gay Acceptance in the Catholic Church", Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, March 28, 2012, The Atlantic. "The Catholic Church's attitude towards homosexuality is at odds with its tradition of tolerance and understanding. The actual practice of the Church is true to this tradition."
2. "Spain's Gay Marriage Law Reaffirmed By Top Court ", November 6, 2012, Huffpost. "The gay marriage law angered the predominant Roman Catholic Church but opinion surveys showed most Spaniards backed it... More than 22,000 gay marriages have taken place in Spain."
3. "Homosexuality and Hope", Catholic Medical Association. CMA appears to promote tolerance for homosexual individuals but they advocate therapy and chastity.
4. "Catholic tolerance and same sex marriage laws", June 30, 2011, Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, The Washington Post.
5. "Why my church is wrong about gay people", July 21, 2012, Kevin McKenna, The Guardian. Regarding Scotland: "This is why we really ought not to be surprised by the number of gay men who continue to join the Catholic priesthood." Also: "At present, my church's position seems to be this: we accept that you are gay but this is, somehow, a divine aberration. So we'll ignore it so long as you refrain from any beastliness, shenanigans or malarkey."
6. "To have and to hold – The trend toward giving homosexuals full marriage rights is gaining momentum", November 17, 2012, The Economist. "In Catholic France the new Socialist government has just approved a bill to permit same-sex marriage." Majority Catholic countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Spain and Portugal are shown to allow full marriage rights to gay couples.
7. "Philippines: Treatment of homosexuals and state protection available (2000-2005)", September 15, 2005, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, hosted by Refworld, a department of UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency. The Philippines is "over 80 per cent" Catholic, but "open homosexual behavior is increasingly tolerated". However, "the Roman Catholic Church is, according to the Reuters report, 'the single greatest barrier to acceptance of homosexuality'."
8. "Asia's Gay-Friendliest Nation?", September 7, 2011, Doug Hendrie, The Diplomat, republished in Huffington Post. Regarding the Philippines: "It’s increasingly common for gay men and women to marry heterosexually, preserving the all-important Roman Catholic nuclear family, and seek love outside of marriage." "More than 85 percent of Filipinos are Catholic, with most of the rest following hard-line Christian sects or Islam. The political power of the Catholic Church has kept divorce, abortion, and legal rights for gays at bay. The faith shows little sign of flagging here." "Monsignor Pepe says the church accepts gays, but calls on them not to sin. 'We accept them as our fellow Filipinos, we accept and cherish them, [but] gay men should marry a woman'".
9. "In the Philippines, a Struggle to Reconcile Faith and Love", December 9, 2010, Carlos R. Conde, The New York Times. "...the Philippines [is a] relatively tolerant, but still legally restrictive, predominantly Roman Catholic country."

Some of these will help expand the article to address the concern that it is not sufficiently global in view. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to find these. The ones providing statistics are especially helpful. A few of these (1, 4, 5...) are opinion pieces, though, and there's no shortage of those on either side. 7 is particularly good since it's a government study. It's a very sad read, though: homosexuals are "tolerated" as media caricatures, "Abuse within the family is often directed at children who reveal their homosexuality ... Girls, in particular, are pressured into abandoning their homosexuality, and some parents have resorted to having their daughters raped" ... companies, the police, and the military apparently actively discriminate. Regarding the stats: "...increasingly tolerated by the younger western-oriented generation", but "...most Filipinos [presumably including the non-Catholic population] largely agreed with the late Pope John Paul II's stand against homosexual marriage". Again, I stress that present acceptance of homosexuality, not even to mention gay marriage, is probably not the same worldwide as in the US. Openverse (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the points made in several of these sources is that the Catholic Church is known for its tolerance at the grassroots level—tolerance for individuals who do not follow Church catechism. The point is that Vatican policy is not the same as grassroots practice by nuns and priests. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we've got to be careful with how we identify the various positions here. "The Catholic position" is of course right out, but what you say suggests that "the church position" may be questionable too. What do you think of the wording I've preferred in some places, "official church position"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Official church position" is unambiguous and useful. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This article has some serious problems with NPOV, which look to be pretty well documented here. I would like to add the omission of the fact that the quoted priest, James Allison is a self-identified homosexual, which is an obvious bias.

Language used throughout the article is biased towards a pro-homosexuality frame of mind. For example, "Some Catholics who oppose gay rights and the acceptance of gay people regard the church's teaching..." What constitutes "acceptance of gay people" exactly? It is abundantly clear that the Church "accepts" homosexual persons as they are, with the exception of sanctioning homosexual acts and behavior that stem from the inclination. This is biased language, and furthermore, it is in the section claiming a defense of the Church's teaching. If some believe the Church is not "accepting" this language should not be used in a section on the Defense of Church teaching!

I have also made an attempt to add additional information from the Catechism (which is already being used as a source, I would like to add) regarding chastity, as an understanding of chastity is necessary to frame the implications it has on the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. These were also deleted.

Finally, changes to the end of the article concerning Minnesota's constitutional amendment are also factually inaccurate. I live in Minnesota and provided a local news link that corroborated my claim. This, also was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68kgamer (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My edits, which were made in good faith and with references, were completely reverted by two editors with LGBT-bias until I had a "consensus" on the Talk page! I would like an explanation please. 68kgamer (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe your edits to be just as much anti-homosexuality as the purported pro-gay wording you wished to correct. Your wording assumes homosexuality is bad, in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia does not make that judgement. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear why you believe this section, in particular, is to refrain from explaining homosexuality as the Church views it (disordered). The article is in need of review from other editors. Furthermore I have no arguement from you about why my words are anti-homosexuality. My statement above indicates how it is relevant to the Church teaching, and how the words "acceptance of gay people" are not accurate.68kgamer (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of writing in Wikipedia's voice, try attributing the viewpoints to the Church. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about writing in Wikipedia's voice. However "acceptance of gay people" should also not be in Wikipedia's voice. It is an inaccurate assessment of Catholic dogma. Oddly enough you are interpreting for the Church if you are saying proponents of the Church teaching do not accept gay people. That is an opinion. It needs to be attributed to those who are pro-homosexuality, if it remains in the article. It is factual that the Church does not condemn gay people; it condemns what it deems homosexual acts. Once again this section needs to be allowed to explain the Catholic defense. As long ago as 2007 this article was identified as having a bias towards the dissent. This is obvious in the amount of material in each section.68kgamer (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, the source you used is a primary source, and your edits tipped the scale toward UNDUE use of those sources to support a premise that (it seems, to me) was synthesized, violating our principle of no original research. Overall, your edits seemed to be promoting a particular point of view. Sometimes, it's difficult to assume good faith when one's first day edits are aggressively followed with edit warring and trying to make very specific edits that seem to have a singular purpose behind them. Unfortunately, this is a pattern that has been seen many times before, and it never ends well.

I would suggest you take a more measured approach to your edits in articles about controversial subject such as this. Consensus consistently wins the day, and collaborative editing is expected everyone. If we can discuss specifics, rather than generalizations and accusations of bias, then perhaps we can move the article forward. - MrX 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your explanation, and I am sure you have seen it where a page attracts someone to create a Wikipedia account and dive right in, as was the case with me. I do believe the article needs bias work, but as you say I need to be more measured. I apologize to other editors for not taking proper consensus.

I would ask however that the NPOV tags stay, as in my view there is more than enough evidence of a bias to retain the tags (as above, with bias claims from another editor in 2007). My specific complaints of bias at this time are what I described above, namely the Church not "accepting" of gays in its own subsection defending its doctrines, and the lack of disclosure that Dr. James Allison is a gay person himself. The fact that Dr. James Allison is gay is of interest to the reader; it is a neutral statement that can be interpreted a few different ways.68kgamer (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we also mention that all of the writers condemning gay people are heterosexual? Surely it is of interest to the reader to know that they all have a vested interest in maintaining their heterosexual supremacy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Note the documentation at Template:POV: This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. William Avery (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, please be so good as to indicate what is the "gross original research" that caused your perhaps knee-jerk revert and your kindly (?) admonition to "try sticking to sources next time" :-) . Then I can either point to how whatever statement you mention is in fact supported by a cited reliable source or modify it or withdraw it. The text that I altered and that you restored had much original research in it. Take its statement, in the context of the Holy See's opposition to one particular draft resolution proposed in December 2008, about what "the Holy See representative's address stated" - citing a speech by a different representative (Tomasi, not Migliore) in a different city (Geneva, not New York), in a different year (2011, not 2008) on a different matter! Then there was the claim that Tomasi compared homosexuality (in fact he was strongly stressing the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity and so did not speak ambiguously about "homosexuality") with pedophilia and incest. He did not. Only synthesis/original research can misinterpret him as doing so. More could be said about the original research in what I changed, but of which I said nothing when I did so, and I now leave it all aside. That's not what I want to discuss now. The question I am asking now is simply: What original research (gross or not) do you claim to find in my text? If you point to some, I will willingly discuss it, modify it or withdraw it. We can do this piece by piece. But please don't indulge in unexplained reverting. Esoglou (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You continue to demonstrate that you don't actually know what "original research" means (hint: it doesn't mean "failing to include my personal opinions"). Your little essay about how the Vatican opposed the resolution for totally benign reasons because it would totally have led to discrimination against opposite-sex marriages (which have to be "upheld") was way out of line. I didn't add the Zenit source, so I didn't notice that it was about a separate event - I'll clarify that. Re: acts vs. feelings, since we're not actually Zenit or the Vatican press office, I see no point in reprinting the entire statement; we have conveyed the necessary information in explaining why the Vatican has opposed all these resolutions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't defend your revert by simply saying that you were "explaining why the Vatican has opposed all these resolutions", when the text is speaking only about one 2008 draft resolution and we are supposed to stick to what the cited sources say, without adding explanations of our own. So again, what concrete statement in my edit about the 2008 draft UN resolution do you believe had no basis in the Reuters and CNS citations given? Esoglou (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) And please excuse my humble begging your loftiness for kind enlightenment about the "gross original research" that "demonstrates my ignorance of what 'original research' means" :-) . Esoglou (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Vatican has never encountered an LGBT rights proposition that it doesn't think will cause the world to end, so your assertion that it didn't actually support criminalization and just opposed particular language (when the sources clearly state that it thinks states can and should criminalize homosexuality and that it opposes attempts to prevent discrimination against LGBT people) is reading in something that isn't there. Lombardi's comment (which, note, is about someone else's actions) is interesting, but if you want to include it, you need to do so in a way that doesn't undermine sourced content in an attempt to make the church look better. Stating as fact the idea that LGBT rights lead to discrimination against heterosexuals is also obviously inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Sorry for letting my amusement get in the way. Perhaps the concrete statement you mean is this: "... a draft resolution ... that, so the Holy See's permanent representative at the United Nations claimed, could lead to discrimination against communities that uphold marriage as only being between a man and a woman". Is this not based on "Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it ... could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage" (Reuters) and "[The draft resolution] also includes a declaration that might put pressure on or discriminate against communities that uphold marriage as only being between a man and a woman" (CNS)? Doesn't look like "gross original research" to me. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why my version of the text states that this is what the Vatican representative claimed. Your version, on the other hand, framed it as fact. Perhaps this is a native-speaker issue again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Would your loftiness please explain how, in spite of appearances, my "so the Holy See's permanent representative at the United Nations claimed" was not saying that "this is what the Vatican representative claimed" and was instead "framing it as fact". (This seems to be an idea on a par with your idea that among the languages I speak and write English is not my first, a notion I am happy to leave you with, whether it is your sincere belief or only one of the descriptions you like to apply to other Wikipedians.  :-) But enough for now. I'll return to this some time tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well - that would make it a competence issue rather than a native speaker issue. I was trying to assume good faith, though it is perhaps unwarranted. Regardless of these personal matters, "a resolution that urged decriminalization of homosexuality and that could lead to discrimination against heterosexuals" is inappropriate unless the parenthetical is clearly an opinion. "A resolution that... and that, the Vatican claimed, could lead to discrimination against heterosexuals" is at least not stating anything untrue, although it would obviously be better to state first what the resolution actually was for before adding their complaints. What you wrote is "it could lead to discrimnation against heterosexuals, and look how ingenious the Vatican was to point it out." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Roscelese, your objection was to the word "so"! You want the parenthetical "so the Holy See's permanent representative at the United Nations claimed" changed to "the Vatican claimed". I presume you have no objection to indicating the precise person who made the claim on behalf of the Holy See, and therefore saying "the Holy See's representative claimed". So, I am restoring the text but removing (also for stylistic reasons) the word "so". So, that "gross original research" is no more. So, what other "gross original research" do you object to?

(It is a pity that you cannot simply assume the good faith of other editors. In view of what is obviously your strong personal conviction, I have no difficulty in presuming your good faith when you make baseless statements, such as that what I wrote (with the word "so") was that the draft resolution "could lead to discrimination against heterosexuals, and look how ingenious the Vatican was to point it out", and that "the Vatican has never encountered an LGBT rights proposition that it doesn't think will cause the world to end"  :-) .) Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. Esoglou - your editing is deliberately apologetic, and prevents a misleading view of the Vatican engagement on this issue. The Holy See was not out to helpfully point out drafting issues and suggest improvements; but rather it was a deliberate wrecking tactic as the Vatican doesn't like anything that could be seen to give homosexuality any special rights in international law. I also think other points of your drafting lean towards bias: eg "...the language supported by only one quarter of the participants". Why add that unless you want to give the impression that this is a low-key minority issue and the Holy See was on the side of the majority? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reuters reported the statement that "fewer than 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to the proposal in question while more than 150 have not adhered". Speaking of "only one quarter" is thus a slight exaggeration of the proportion. This pertinent sourced information avoids leaving the reader with the impression that the Holy See (which could only express an opinion and had no power to vote against the draft resolution) was merely a lone voice. However, I unquestioningly recognize your good faith in expressing an unsourced view of the Holy See's motives and in advocating that this information be censured out for not being in harmony with that view. Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it would give a misleading impression on where the balance of global opinion sat. You're correct that initially a minority of countries signed the resolution, but this number has steadily grown so that there are now 94 signatories supporting the resoluton with 54 countries signing an opposing resolution. The Holy See was in a minority in being almost alone among jurisdictions located in Europe in not signing the resolution in support. It's allies in the debate were on the whole countries where homosexuality remains a criminal offence and in some cases punishable by death. Unfortunate bedfellows indeed. If it was genuinely serious about tackling discrimination against LGBT people then it could have done more to use it's voice to the good, but it didn't - thus suggesting that my interpretation of Vatican motives is pretty spot on.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What concrete statement in the edit you reverted had no basis in the cited sources?

We must of course base our Wikipedia edits on what the reliable sources say. The sources cited in the article explicitly concern two distinct matters: a proposed 2008 New York-based General Assembly Resolution and a 2011 discussion of the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. You and the version of the article that you reverted to combine these two as one ("the resolution", you call it), without as yet citing any source for that idea. Neither source says anything about 2013. If you want the article to say that the 2008 draft resolution, the one that was proposed by less than 50 members of the General Assembly, was the same as what was discussed in Geneva in 2011, you must cite a source for it. If you want to say that the draft resolution of 2008 has now become an actual resolution (of the General Assembly? or of the Human Rights Council?) and has been signed by 94 countries, you must cite a source for it. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop playing games. You know that you're trying to put a positive spin on the actions of the Holy See, when really there isn't anything positive about it. This strikes me as straight-forward POV-pushing.Contaldo80 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion ("what strikes you") is not enough. It seems that you can find nothing unsourced in the edit that you reverted. What is unsourced is your claim that "it was a deliberate wrecking tactic" ("it" being the Holy See's expression of opinion in 2008? or its expression of opinion in different circumstances in 2011?). Your view of the power of the Holy See is extreme, if you think an expression of opinion by it (you surely are not denying its right to express an opinion on what it sees as moral issues), with no authority to vote for or against a proposal, can wreck whatever the UN General Assembly or its 47-member Human Rights Council has the power to decide. This unsourced claim of yours is no basis for excluding well-sourced relevant information. And it would be interesting to see what reliable source you can put forward in support of your quite extreme declaration that it is fact, not just opinion, that there is "nothing positive" about the actions of the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I see that in your latest edit of the article you maintain the claim that Tomasi compared homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. Now that is something not expressed in the cited source. Now, what can you point to in the edit you reverted that is not expressed in the cited sources? Esoglou (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you reading the same stuff as the rest of us? Tomasi said quite clearly in the source that states regulate sexual behaviour like incest and paedophilia, and they should treat homosexuality no differently. I appreciate your efforts to give a positive slant to the Vatican's actions, but let's leave that to the PR department hall we, and stick to neutrality in this article. If you're asking my opinion then the Holy See shouldn't be represented in the UN at all as it's not a real country - but that's neither here nor there and I don't want to get into that debate on this page.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese - I take your point about actions rather than words but I had been trying to give a flavour of what role catholic leaders had played in each of the states. And the statements made by the bishops heavily influenced each campaign. I know the US is one country but because state rights play a bigger role I thought it was more interesting for readers to understand what happened in each individual case. I think wih your amendments you've pared it back too much, and would ask that you please reconsider :) The US summary as it stands suggests quite a minor role for the church, but in fact it led the opposition in almost every instance (for good or bad), and I think it helps readers to get a feel for exactly how involved the Catholic church has been in this political debate by going into some of the detail. The question might be whether at some stage we roll this out into an article by itself - but I'm not yet convinced of that argument. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify things that I've trimmed that you think I should restore? (I'll listen to your suggestions before doing anything about the new material.) What I'm worried about is making the section into basically a list of statements. It seems enough to know that the church has campaigned against SSM financially (and I haven't cut any material on financial contribution except where it was literally redundant - we mentioned Minnesota twice), through urging parishioners to vote or campaign against it, and through other statements, without identifying every individual bishop. Whether you support marriage and think the article should name and shame the bishops, or oppose marriage and think the article should detail the charges against it, it's still somewhat unencyclopedic and WP:NEWS-y. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. On a second look I guess it's fine. Probably right not to go into a laundry list. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese - I think your edits to the section gay marriage have had the effect of making it all look a little bland now eg "The Catholic Church has led the opposition against gay marriage in x". It doesn't really give a reader a flavour of what went on. Some of that is quite notable. In France the warning by the Archbishop of Paris that the move to legalise gay marriage would lead to violence, attracted a lot of political comment by those seeing it as an incitement to commit violent acts (which did subsequently happen in France). Likewise the church's activity in Spain was prolonged and high-profile, but you wouldn't get a sense of that from reading the article now. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

For France we'd need information on the actual fallout of the bishop's remarks in order to attest that it wasn't just another comment like they make all the time; do you have sources? Similarly for Spain, all we have from the source is that they commented on it; are there more sources that show that their opposition was significant? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I believe you claim that this is a reliable source for the statement that Archbishop Tomasi "compared" homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. Would you quote the part of this reliable source that makes the statement? No synthesis, please. Esoglou (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person's feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of homosexuality in your quotation. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're being pretty disingenuous about this. The whole quote discusses the issue of homosexuality. You're trying to manipulate the sources. It won't wash.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the statement in the article should be rephrased. What about the version (without "comparing") that you reverted and that I am now restoring for you to look at more carefully? I hope you won't insist on the present phrasing. Esoglou (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomasi was commenting on the discussion in the 16th Geneva session around non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/joint-statement-by-33-nations-on-human-rights-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/). This is clearly meant to be a discussion on LGBT. If you still insist it's not then read Tomasi's later comments where he cites the catechism's position on homosexuality (http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-see-addresses-un-human-rights-council-on-gend). In the source cited Tomasi makes no distinction between states regulating incest and paedophilia, and those states regulating homosexual behaviour. It's also irritating that you keep starting new headings on the talk page to break the link with previous discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's synthesis. Is there anything wrong with the text that I have restored? Esoglou (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't said there is anything wrong with the wording "as, for example, they forbid pedophilia and incest"; but you have said that you "see no reason to change". In other words, you insist on your own wording. I suppose the best way to settle the question whether the quotation you cite is a reliable source for your wording is to put the question on the noticeboard and abide by whatever will be the result. Esoglou (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Cotaldo here. Tomasi was unequivocally comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, without distinguishing between them. Your edit, Esgolou, was no improvement. Also agree that you have been going a bit overboard with the apologetics to the point where you are violating policy, and manipulating the sources to softplay the position of the Vatican. That basically amounts to whitewashing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dominus Vobisdu. I have no desire to attribute anything to the Holy See which deserves not to be attributed. But in this instance the representative was indeed drawing a comparison between homosexuality, incest and paedophilia to indicate that all three (and perhaps others) are sexual behaviours that should remain within the scope of individual states to regulate. As an aside, the full force of that position only hit me when I began to research further to respond to Esoglou, and is a position that frankly scares me! But that is to digress... Contaldo80 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At WP:RS/N I responded to a question regarding this issue. You can go there to see my thoughts on the specific phrasing involving the word "compare" (or various forms thereof), but essentially I feel it should be avoided in favor of a direct quotation. I had no opinion there on whether the point being brought was relevant to the article.

After looking over the section in question, the source, and the discussion above, I would say the source is pretty obviously referring to homosexuality issues, but Wikipedia's policies make no room for obviousness and would demand that the source state such a thing plainly in order to claim that connection (it doesn't). Again, a direct quote wouldbe best, if the source is used at all.

If you wanted to paraphrase, stick to the term found in the source: which is, in this case, "certain kinds of sexual behaviors". Vague, yes, but the source is vague, and we shouldn't claim anything more specific than the source does.

I think a point based on this source is relevant enough to the section, as it informs the reader that, at least, the church finds it acceptable to criminalize particular sexual behaviors in the first place, which any discussion of the decriminalization of any sexuality encompasses. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:40, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the new wording more accurately reflects the source, Equazcion, and do you think it still gets across that the subject of the remarks was homosexuality, Contaldo and Dominus? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this, that is more accurate but not accurate enough. I read it as using pedophilia and incest as examples of behavior the church feels should be regulated, whereas the source uses them as examples of a global consensus. Those may seem synonymous at first glance but I don't think they are. Again I'm going to suggest a direct quote. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:43, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Equazcion. The church does indeed, in line with a consensus between societies throughout the world, find it acceptable to criminalize particular sexual behaviours. RS/N opinion - at least, so far - declares clearly inadmissible the interpretation of the cited source that has been doggedly maintained here. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's necessary to add that their position on this is "in line with a consensus between societies," since that's less about their position on the issue and more about justifying that position. But as part of a direct quote I think it would be alright, for the sake of completeness, perhaps. That's a slightly more subjective matter though. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)

I don't in fact think it necessary to add what was only a talk-page comment meant for other editors, rather than for you. Thanks again. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm jumping in from the RS/N thread. In my view, the comment doesn't use pedophilia and incest as examples of behaviours that must, in the opinion of the Holy See, be regulated, but as examples of sexual behaviours concerning which there is a consensus that they must be forbidden. Now does the Holy See agree with this consensus? Probably it does, but the text doesn't explicitly say so so the article shouldn't either. In fact, I don't see why the article absolutely need to mention anything concerning the pedophilia-and-incest bit of Tomasi's statement. It seems to be sufficient to convey the point, which is that feelings are OK but there are grounds to regulate behaviours. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The source is, on the one hand, reliable for a claim that Tomasi made a comparison. The whole text is about the question of whether gay people should be protected from state persecution and he basically says "well, incest and paedophilia are illegal all round the world". That entails a comparison, and there isn't an alternative interpretation of the text that can be taken seriously. That he doesn't say "I hereby compare the following things..." is immaterial. An the other hand, this is a primary source, and it doesn't on its own show that the fact of him making a comparison is noteworthy. It needs to be shown that his words drew significant comment. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I intend soon to edit in line with the clear consensus on RS/N that what Tomasi said should be reported by a direct quote. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What we have is fine now. Thanks. It is beyond doubt that Tomasi made the comparison. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the consensus, why don't you make your lone voice heard in the discussion? Everybody else declares it quite inappropriate to say Tomasi made a comparison. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed that you took this discussion to a separate noticeboard as you felt you weren't getting your way here, and then failed to give notification to others (such as myself) who you knew to be interested in the debate. There is no reason why the dicussion could not have been held here on the article talk page. In any case, to repeat what I said on that noticeboard, the language we have currently on the article page doesn't use "comparing", and I personally am happy to accept it. If there is a genuine consensus, however, to include a direct quote from Tomasi (and you absolutely insist on doing it) then we can include the following: "States can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples." While making absolutely clear that the comments were made in the context of a discussion about sexual orientation and homosexuality. But I really can't see why you're getting squeamish about a senior Catholic prelate mentioning homosexuality, incest and paedophilia in the same breath (plus polygamy) - it's not the first time it's happened. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the hostilities here but I just wanted to say it's commonplace to head over to a noticeboard to gain an outside perspective that's separate from the entrenched biases that may have developed over time at a hotly controversial topic like this one. I myself don't always announce I've posted to a noticeboard, as that invites the current fight over to the noticeboard, which can discourage outside input. I'll also say again that although it seems obvious the source is referring to homosexuality, obviousness is not a valid defense of a source on Wikipedia. If you're desperate to include a church-authored comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia, which sadly appears to be your motivation -- and if it's indeed happened so many times before as you contend -- then I think you should find a better source than this intentionally vague and tiptoey one. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:05, 31 Jul 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. This is all about context. The debate in Geneva was on sexual orientation ie homosexuality. The news article reported on Tomasi's comments in that debate. What else was he talking about? Cabbages?! The link is clear enough. And it's also normal protocol to alert people to discussions taken to a noticeboard - otherwise the discussion remains one-sided. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou presented the matter in a balanced way at a single relevant noticeboard and made note there of the existing discussion here. I'm not seeing any reason to call forum shopping. Regardless, you now have several new opinions, and as far as I've seen, none of them appear to be in favor of using the source the way you wanted to. If the church does liken homosexuality to pedophilia etc there should certainly be more than just this one remarkably vague source available. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:53, 1 Aug 2013 (UTC)

It's your opinion that Esoglou presented the matter in a balanced way. It's my opinion that it was geared towards acting as an apologist for the position of the Catholic Church. I would have thought that to be transparent. I think it's also odd that you've decided to accuse me of being inconsistent. I see no evidence of inconsistency. From reading your comments above it also seems highly unlikely that you follow news stories relating to Catholicism and homosexuality, and make light of the frequent comparison by Catholic clergy and hierarchy between homosexual activity and paedophilia/ child abuse. This is not a light hearted matter I'm afraid. A simple google search would rectify that. Tomasi did not chose to mention paedophilia and incest in his speech as throw-away examples; he selected them deliberatly in order to incite disgust and shock the audience to avoid taking the action (ie recognition) that was proposed. You need to be a Vatican-watcher to appreciate the context and nuances of this stuff. Nothing happens by accident. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you consider this such a serious matter is precisely the reason your stance appears weak. Wikipedia isn't about exposés. Wikipedia's editors need to be driven by something other than a righteous need to express a viewpoint (no matter how righteous a bias it may be, it's still a viewpoint). We call that WP:POV. You've decided the people must know what the church is "really" doing here, and if we were dealing with a secondary source's opinion it could go right in. But we're not. We're dealing with your opinion. And for the record, I'm not accusing you of inconsistency; By "new opinions", I meant that more people have since offered their opinions, and none support treating the source as you suggest. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:00, 2 Aug 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, Esoglou does seem to be the pro-[topic] here and you the anti-. That fact hasn't escaped me. Esoglou seems to have the cooler head here though (taking it less "seriously" as you put it, and that's a good thing, Wikipedia-speaking). This is one of the many "hot topics" where inevitably the people with strong opinions end up controlling an article via an endless tug-of-war resulting in tenuous article neutrality and frequent skirmishes. It's not a good thing. I'd love it if Wikipedia prohibited anyone from editing the same topic for more than a month so we could maybe prevent this. Articles should be edited by people who have no interest in getting any particular message into articles. Maybe one day. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:10, 2 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Contaldo, I'm sorry that it was not explained clearly enough for you that this was what I was referring to when saying: "I suppose the best way to settle the question whether the quotation you cite is a reliable source for your wording is to put the question on the noticeboard and abide by whatever will be the result"; what Equazcion was referring to when saying: "At WP:RS/N I responded to a question regarding this issue", what Dailycare was referring to when saying: "Hi, I'm jumping in from the RS/N thread"; and what I was again referring to when saying: "I intend soon to edit in line with the clear consensus on RS/N that what Tomasi said should be reported by a direct quote." Dominus Vobisdu, who supported you here, was able to comment at RS/N. Esoglou (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No it was not clear. There's no point getting clever about it. It's just irritating. You should have properly notified that the discussion thread had been started. I'm editing several articles and not just this one. No doubt you were hoping for a different answer there that you could present as a fait accompli here. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was the information removed about the 2010 Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference leaflet on the proposed on the proposed Irish legislation on civil partnerships? The edit summary statement "Your comments though are WP:WEASAL" [sic] does not seem to apply. Surely a widely distributed statement by the Irish episcopate as a whole is more significant than a single homily by a single bishop at a single church, which is all that the reverter allows to be reported. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The leaflet described the proposed legislation as discriminatory, not as "allegedly discriminatory". You could say that "the proposed legislation was allegedly discriminatory, as claimed in the leaflet", but it is nonsense to say that the leaflet made such a silly statement as "the proposed legislation is allegedly discriminatory"! Esoglou (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence reads perfectly well. People can understand what is meant. Wikpedia articles must summarise the issues in a sensible way. There is not enough space to go into too much detail on every point. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has reverted information on a statement contained in a submission that the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference presented, like other bodies in Ireland, to a constitutional convention called to consider (but not enact) proposed changes to the Irish Constitution, and has removed the quotation of the statement by the conference. One of the cited newspaper reports speaks of the statement as a "vow", the other speaks of it as a "threat". The reverting editor has deleted the citation of the first newspaper report and has restored his unsourced original-research claim that the statement was not merely interpreted by one newspaper as a threat, but was unquestionably "a stern warning to the government" (which cannot change the constitution - only a referendum can change it). I submit that it was unjustified to remove the newspaper citation, to remove the quotation of the actual statement, and to restore his unsourced original-research claim.

A further point, though a lesser one, is that the same editor furthermore declares unsourcedly that the conference thereby "sought to influence debate"; this can be taken as certain, but its mention may be intended (this too is unsourced) to suggest that seeking to influence public debate is an abuse and not a right. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The article from the Examiner talks about a "stern warning". The other article - from the Independent - is just as severe: "Bishops vow to boycott"; "Catholic prelates are leading the charge"; "warning that thy wil not perform" etc. But if it's a problem then I'll remove the word "stern", restore the link to the Independent, and restore the link to the Irish Bishop's Conference. What I won't do, however, is include lots of detail in the Bishop's submission. I think it's too much rehearsing the arguments. It's not as if any of them are particularly compelling in any case, they're simply a rag-bag - but if it makes you happy I'll add in a brief general summary. Finally, I'm leaving in "sought to influence debate". There's nothng wrong with this. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The personal interpretation, "a warning to the government not to legalize gay marriage or else", is not only sourceless but nonsense. Neither the Irish government nor even the Irish parliament (the latter, not the former, is the legislature) has power to legalize gay marriage. The Irish Constitution does not allow them to do so.

Why can't you accept that the bishops said what all the sources say they said, instead of attributing nonsense to them? Esoglou (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not always an easy task to distinguish what a catholic bishop says from what is nonsense. But I'll try harder in future. But it's pretty disingenuous to imply I'm making a personal interpretation of this - the language is supported by the news sources. They issued a "stern warning". I don't know where your "or else" comes from? Indeed, your comments above are quite slippery. The Irish bishops made a clear warning to the government and people of Ireland - proceed with efforts to legalise gay marriage (via a referendum) and we'll punish you by withdrawing from performing all marriages. I'm getting tired with all this PR spin. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, your desire to promote the church is overriding good editing practice again. Migliore made this statement in opposition to efforts to decriminalize homosexuality and prevent extrajudicial violence against gay people. Specifically, from what I can tell, it was about the Joint Statement on Ending Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. What they really felt in their hearts isn't what we're documenting here: we're documenting what they did and what they said, and this statement was made in opposition, not in support. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(I note that this comment of yours begins by once again talking about editors and the motives your all-seeing mind attributes to them, rather than by addressing the edit.) Which statement by Migliore do you mean? His 1 December 2008 press interview or his 19 December 2008 official statement to the United Nations General Assembly? It can scarcely be the latter, since you have deleted it. I am convinced that the official statement deserves mention at least as much as the press interview, and I don't see as valid the grounds you gave for deleting it: "unattributed quotation, laughable POV, irrelevant padding detail, quotefarming, deliberate obfuscation". I also do not see why you gave as source for saying the Holy See opposed the proposal the press interview rather than the formal declaration of opposition. The text of the proposal that Migliore formally opposed on 19 December 2008, as he said nearly three weeks earlier he would do, is given on the website of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association to which I gave a link in the article. (Thank you for not deleting that link.) The proposal that Migliore opposed in 2008 is obviously not the 2011 Joint Statement on Ending Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The 2011 document stated that it recalled the 2008 document. It was of the 2011 declaration that Archbishop Tomasi was speaking in the July 2011 interview that he gave to CNA, of which Contaldo inserted a mention into the article, a mention that you likewise deleted as "unattributed quotation, laughable POV, irrelevant padding detail, quotefarming, deliberate obfuscation". With more reason you also deleted Contaldo's statement that Migliore "claimed that the draft resolution might well protect gay people from discrimination", a statement to which I had attached a cn tag: this, the only tag you deleted, must be what you were referring to in your edit summary that also mentioned (in the plural) "frivolous tags for already-cited material". Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake, I meant Tomasi. You're mistaken that I removed his later comments - they're still present, just summarized. As for your frivolous tag, perhaps it came about because of Contaldo's misinterpretation of the source - Migliore didn't say "it protects gay people from discrimination, which is good, but it has these other problems," but rather "it protects gay people from discrimination, which is bad, and has these other problems." I've restored the text that adheres more closely to the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken in thinking that you had removed the citation of the July 2011 CNA report. I shouldn't have concentrated as much as I did on what was said here about Migliore. I note that you still call frivolous my questioning of Contaldo's statement, a statement that you too call mistaken. For my part, I think it much less frivolous to question statements and give the authors an opportunity to defend or modify them than to revert them out of hand, as I see others do. Less frivolous than deleting from a section headed "Decriminalization of homosexuality" a declaration before the General Assembly of the United Nations formally expressing the Holy See's view and stating that "the Holy See ... urges States to do away with criminal penalties against [homosexual persons]." There are edit summaries too that I see as more frivolous. Esoglou (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese - I support all the recent changes that you have made and am happy for the current version to stand. While I'm content that we ensure we clarify the position of the Catholic Church so there is no misunderstanding, we need to be careful about wandering so far that we effectively become apologists for the position of the Catholic Church. The facts peak for themselves. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Dominus vobisdu, "POV and very reliant on self-serving Vatic spin" that you allege as grounds for your edit is no better than a counter-edit on the basis of your own "POV and very reliant on self-serving anti-Vatic spin". You should indicate something specific that needs to be corrected. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is VERY far from being ready for prime time. Propose your amendments here, backed up by reliable sources and in compliance with WP policies, and get consensus first. Your version was highly apologetic and based on self-serving Vatican statements. When you turn up the decibles on the apologetics channel, you greatly decrease you chances of getting consensus, so cool it. It's a real turn off. You're here to help write an encyclopedia, not to defend the Church. It's getting to the point where WP:NOTHERE may be an issue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell me, what sources better than Vatican statements can you propose for knowledge of what is the Vatican's attitude to decriminalization of homosexuality? Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SPS, especially the part about "unduly self-serving". The Vatican was caught in yet another PR disaster, and had to save face. Saying that they opposed the measure because it might promote pedophilia and saying that they oppose "UNJUST" discrimination is very self serving, especially that the door is open on any form of "JUST" discrimination. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When a statement by the Vatican results in a public relations disaster, the statement is then all the more clearly a statement of the Vatican's attitude, not someone else's attitude. I still await your suggestion of a source better than Vatican statements for knowledge of the Vatican's attitude to decriminalization of homosexuality. Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, unduly self-serving statements are not reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So, for learning what's the Vatican's POV, you can suggest no source better than the Vatican's own statements of its POV. In addition, you claim that even Vatican statements of its POV aren't reliable sources about that POV. And yet, in spite of the (according to you) absence of reliable sources about the Vatican's POV, you and others still confidently make statements in Wikipedia about that POV. That leaves much to be desired for objectivity and freedom from prejudice.

If you insist on saying that official Holy See statements about the Holy See's POV are not reliable sources about the Holy See's POV on decriminalization of homosexuality, I must raise the question with a broader range of Wikipedians and we can then, both of us, abide by whatever will be the result. I will wait a little before doing so. Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, you've tried that before. You can't get want you want on the article page so you take it to a separate noticeboard where you solicit the help of others who have little or no interest in the article in the hope of getting a more desired outcome. If you want to do that then fine, but at least this time have the courtesy please of notifying us on this article page. The concerns that Dominus Vobisdu are exactly the same as I share. It is not sufficient to just quote various Vatican sources and then take them on face value. The context is crucial - the Holy See speaks publicly about non-discrimination, but its actions ensure the opposite. This is an important aspect for the article to get across. Otherwise it essentially becomes a press release. It's our job to cover the facts, not just the talk.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Irish bishops wrote: "Any change to the definition of marriage would create great difficulties and in the light of this, if there were two totally different definitions of marriage, the Church could no longer carry out the civil element." This was reported in the article as "if the civil definition of marriage was changed to include same-sex marriage, so that it differed from the church's own definition, they could no longer perform civil functions at weddings". An edit by Roscelese changed "could" to "would", on grounds of "POV and plagiarism". That editor is able to see plagiarism in quite extensive parts of the article, which she then on that ground deletes; but she refuses to identify the plagiarism for the benefit of those who aren't intelligent enough to see it (like the Emperor's New Clothes). The edit was no great display of equilibrium and objectivity. Rather the contrary.

With an edit dedicated to doing this alone, I restored "could" in line with what the bishops actually wrote. I explained: "The source of the use of 'could' in this paragraph is indicated; non-specific claims of plagiarism are no grounds for deleting; putting 'would' in place of 'could' is a falsification."

Within three minutes, an edit by Dominus Vobisdu restored "would" again, this time on grounds of "POV and very reliant on self-serving Vatic spin". What was reported was the POV of the Irish bishops, not of "Vatic"; and surely that means the POV that the bishops expressed, not the POV of someone else, such as a Wikipedia editor. That editor maintains that the Holy See's expressions of its POV (see above) and, it seems, also the Irish bishops' expressions of their POV are not reliable sources for stating the POV of the Holy See and the POV of the Irish bishops. This edit about the Irish bishops' POV was no great display of equilibrium and objectivity. Rather the contrary.

I must restore again what the bishops actually said. How long will it remain next time? Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing this point because you believe it's important to keep as close as possible to the source. Or do you want "could" because "would" looks clearly like the bishops are making a threat, and you don't want readers to perceive that the Catholic Church is directing the debate? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the source says "would" when describing what the bishops did in their statement; it's only when actually quoting (indirectly) the statement that "could" is used. Nothing is actually preventing them from performing the marriages, so "could" introduces undesirable confusion. If Esoglou really wants to include "could," perhaps we could represent the issue as the source represents (they said that they would not perform civil marriages if SSM became legal) and then add the quote "the Church could no longer carry out the civil element." Seems pretty dumb to me, but then, I'm not coming at this with the blinders of "must make the Church look good at any cost." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice that someone changed "could" back to "would". A reliable source uses "could". Wikipedia editors interpret other sources as meaning "would". Should we bring to the noticeboard the question whether any of the cited sources are reliable for "could" or for "would"? Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a noticeboard is necessary. What's necessary is for you to defer to the reliable sources that are present, which say "would" except when quoting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to point out that this no doubt good-faith claim of yours is mistaken. The Irish Examiner states explicitly: "In their 10-page submission, the bishops say any change to the definition of marriage would mean the Church could no longer co-operate with the civil aspect of marriage" (emphasis added). In view of the insistence here that sources that do use the word "could" are reliable sources for casting aside "could" in favour of "would", it seems that a mention on the noticeboard is necessary to put an end to the repeated reverting to "would". Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Same source: "Church leaders have warned they will no longer carry out the civil functions at weddings if gay marriage is introduced." Gosh, it's almost as though they use "would" when they're describing and "could" when they're directly or indirectly quoting, just like I've said multiple times! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The article says: "The Irish Bishops Conference stated ..." Since you still insist that the sources justify having the conference state what it did not in fact state, I have to put on the noticeboard the question whether your view, in spite of my inability to understand its logic, is correct. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I inserted information about the declaration that the representative of the Holy See made at the 18 December 2008 session of the United Nations General Assembly during discussion of proposals concerning decriminalization of sexual orientation or gender identity. The declaration was about the Holy See's attitude regarding unjust discrimination against homosexual persons and criminal penalties against them. This declaration by the Holy See at the level of the United Nations General Assembly certainly merits to be put in this article's section on "decriminalization of homosexuality", which includes statements by such representatives in the less important context of press interviews.

Yet Dominus vobisdu has chosen to delete again all this information with no better explanation than "POV, based on self-serving statements, against consensus". Of course it is POV, the POV of the Holy See, officially expressed by the Holy See's official representative. Of course the statement (singular, not plural) was self-serving, in the sense that the Holy See was giving its own POV, not someone else's. But this official statement of the Holy See's POV is an aspect of "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" much more important than the information, recently inserted into this same "decriminalization of homosexuality" section, about what a certain cardinal archbishop in Nigeria "was thought to have tacitly approved" (!) and how another in the Dominican Republic used the offensive term "faggot" (what this has to do with "decriminalization of homosexuality" is quite hard to tell). As for consensus, if Dominus vobisdu refuses his consent and insists on deleting/excluding this information without presenting a justifying explanation (I will wait a bit more to enable him to make an attempt), I suppose I will have to take it to a noticeboard, to find out what will be the consensus among a broader range of Wikipedians. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather new to this WP entry, so I'll take a crack at this. You added a reference to a Reuters story that does not mention the Holy See. Your France 24 citation adds one notable bit (gay adoption), so we can use that. The 3rd citation from the Catholic News Agency duplicates one in the preceding paragraph. There's usable material, I think. Your version implied Vatican support for the counter proposal (unclearly), but instead the Catholic News Agency says: "Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told Reuters that the Vatican did not support the Arab-backed statement." I see no reason for mentioning the counter proposal, much less quoting it. I'll try some addition and editing and I'll expand the citations. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective comments, so different from repeated insistence that expressions of the Holy See's POV cannot be given in an account of the Holy See's POV, because (of all things!) they are expressions of a POV (the Holy See's). I do not defend inserting in the context that Dominus vobisdu has set up the paragraph that you are speaking of. It was meant for the context that Dominus vobisdu altered on 2 August. It was to see whether he insisted on excluding important sourced information that he had not merely altered but had altogether deleted - a declaration at the United Nations itself, not just a statement to a journalist - that I placed that paragraph a second time even at the cost of not giving it in its proper context. I would be very grateful if you would kindly continue your editing of the text, perhaps combining the information on the 2 December 2008 and the 18 December 2008 discussions given in my first and second paragraphs.

Now for comments on your comments.

• The CNA citation (on the 18 December 2008 discussion) that I gave was not duplicated in the context that the paragraph on the 18 December 2008 discussion was meant for (my second paragraph). My first paragraph, that on the 2 December publication, contained a CNS (not CNA) citation about the 2 December 2008 publication. Dominus vobisdu removed that citation.
• If my version implied Vatican support for the counter-proposal, it was quite unintentional, for if Lombardi's comment is no longer in the article, that is because my insertion of it over 50 edits ago has been removed.
• The mention of both proposals, not just one, was as context for the 18 December declaration, a declaration that the reverters have treated as non-existent. Both proposals were before the meeting at which the Holy See's representative spoke and, if in that context the content of one proposal is indicated, why not that of the other?

When you have dealt with the 2008 question, then please go on to revise the account of the 2011 statements. See for instance whether "opposing efforts at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council to work towards ending violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation" is a neutral account of what the Holy See's representative was doing. I am confident that you do not swallow the claim that he was in favour of maintaining violence and criminal sanction based on sexual orientation. Compare that with what I think is an unobjectionable objective account: "at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which adopted by 24 votes to 14 a Joint Statement on Ending Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity". Dominus vobisdu removed this as, according to him, "POV and very reliant on self-serving Vatic spin"! Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou - could you come clean please on what your overall objective is for this article? That way we can perhaps work together if we can properly understand where you are coming from. I like to think that you're aiming to ensure the article is balanced and objective. However, I do have to tell you that my own view is that you have come perilously close on several occasions to promoting a "rose-tinted" view of the position of the Catholic Church. The article needs to give context. It is not sufficient to simply relay the words of various Vatican representative and take them on face value. The catechism of the Catholic church argues against discrimination of people with a homosexual orientation - but that is not the same as permitting the discrimination of people who engage in homosexual acts. This is a very nuanced position, but an important one. And helps explain why words say one thing, but actions say another. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, please excuse my inability to find in the cited Reuters news item the statement that the Holy See "objected that the language of the resolution would protect gay people from discrimination". My request is sincere and by no means frivolous. I have honestly tried to find this statement - by a spokesman of the Holy See, you say, perhaps Father Lombardi? Please quote for me the basis for this surprising statement about the Holy See's saying it objected to protecting gay people from discrimination. Have I perhaps misunderstood the statement? Or is it just possible - excuse me asking - that you have inadvertently placed a personal interpretation on what Father Lombardi, or whoever it was, said? Esoglou (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's right there in the source as the very first reason that Migliore stated for opposing the resolution. I know you're very invested in promoting Lombardi's opinion because you think it makes the church look better, but he isn't part of the delegation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

While I of course regret the continued attribution to me of motives of which I myself am unaware, I thank you, Roscelese, for indicating that your belief that "the Holy See ... objected that the language of the resolution would protect gay people from discrimination" was based on the Reuters report that "Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would 'add new categories of those protected from discrimination'". Perhaps you should have written something like "A Reuters report presented Migliore as saying ..."

Diligence would suggest reading what Migliore actually said about the draft resolution. Here is the full text: "Tout ce qui est fait en faveur du respect et de la protection des personnes fait partie de notre patrimoine humain et spirituel. Le Catéchisme de l'Eglise catholique affirme, et cela ne date pas d'hier, qu'il faut éviter toute forme injuste de discrimination contre les homosexuels. Mais ce n'est pas là la question. Dans une déclaration ayant une valeur politique et signée par un groupe de pays, il est demandé aux Etats et aux mécanismes internationaux d'application et de contrôle des droits de l'homme d'ajouter de nouvelles catégories devant être protégées contre la discrimination, sans tenir compte que, en cas d'adoption, elles créeront de nouvelles et terribles discriminations. Par exemple, les Etats qui ne reconnaissent pas l'union entre personnes du même sexe comme 'mariage' seront mis au pilori et feront l'objet de pressions." You can see that Migliore expressly declared that all forms of unjust discrimination against homosexuals must be avoided. Of the draft declaration he said that it asked for the addition of new categories to be protected against discrimination without taking into account that, if adopted, these would create terrible new discriminations. Wikipedia should surely state what Migliore actually said, if necessary by simply quoting it, rather than give as fact a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of a journalist's truncated presentation of what he said, a presentation the journalist may have been based on the hostile Italian media reports that he cites, without checking what Migliore actually said.

By the way, while it's Lombardi who is usually referred to as the "spokesman" of the Holy See, I grant that some will refer to a papal representative as a spokesman of the Holy See, even when the papal representative is only making a statement on his own authority. Esoglou (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, we'd better avoid unjust discrimination, but just discrimination is not only acceptable but necessary. Is that right? Anyway, how about we go with what reliable sources report, since after all, this is not a press release office for the Vatican. If you disagree with the paraphrase, that's one thing, but insisting that the article won't be acceptable until we've parroted the words of every bishop and archbishop to speak on the subject, verbatim (whether quoted or plagiarized) isn't likely to get you far. Again, you may not be aware of this, but Lombardi is not part of the UN delegation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely nobody, absolutely nobody, thinks Lombardi is part of the Holy See's observer mission in New York! I presume you know that for many years he has been and remains the director of the Holy See Press Office in the Vatican and in that capacity frequently makes statements on behalf of the Holy See. Presuming also that you will not insist on the notion that a Wikipedia account of the Holy See's point of view on some matter shouldn't report what a representative of the Holy See stated about its point of view on that particular matter, I will now include what Migliore actually said. Esoglou (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess the sentence will begin, "Migliore confirmed that the Catholic Church supports just discrimination against homosexuals where that is deserved". I've said this before, the context is crucial. Sources that analyise or report on what someone said are preferable to simply setting down what individuals have said. Otherwise the reader won't be able to make much sense of what has been meant by a speaker. I think we've indulged you Esoglou quite a bit on this section of the article - you are simply parroting what various officials have said, and at the same time not allowing the article to be clear on the implications of these flowery words. This discussion does, however, reinforce in my mind that this section covers decriminilisation and discrimination and I think we should name that way to avoid confusion. Roscelese - would you support that? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that if we find sources that specifically have to do with antidiscrimination laws, then we should make a section of that. What we have now is all about the decriminalization of homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, you think that the statement in the Guardian article that "the guidelines ... described gay sex as inhuman" is a reliable source for a Wikipedia statement that "the document said that gay sex was inhuman". Since the document does not say that explicitly, and not even once uses the word "inhuman", I think the Guardian article is a reliable source source only for a Wikipedia statement on the lines of "one newspaper interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman". Marauder40 thinks the same as I do. I expect Contaldo80 will, as usual, support you. Can we solve this impasse in some way other than by presenting the matter on the noticeboard?

I also do not agree with your change from "they must do all they could to actively oppose it" to "they must do all they could do actively oppose it", and from "... published with the agreement of Pope John Paul II a document called ..." to "... published a document with the agreement of Pope John Paul II called ..." Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to get the idea out of your head that it's okay for you to write little essays about how the sources are incorrect. The Guardian is a reliable source and "said gay sex is inhuman" is not a bad paraphrase of "only heterosexual sex is human, so homosexuality is wrong." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Holy See document did not say: "Only heterosexual sex is human, so homosexuality is wrong." It looks as if discussion here will be as inconclusive as discussion here on could/would. So it is best to ask about both on the reliable sources noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to discover (as if I didn't know before) that Vatican documents are slippery creatures. They say one thing on the surface which may look benign, but the implications are far from that. The document (as you well know) says that "Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life." It also says that homosexual relations are not conjugal or open to creating life. Thus the logical implication is that homosexual relations are inhuman or non-human. No, the document does not use the word "inhuman" - but does it need to? That is clearly what is meant, and the Guardian is quite right to read the document in that way. I think a lot of this "debate" is incredibly mischievous and deliberately designed to continually present things in a positive light, even when they are not. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's best to concentrate discussion on the noticeboard, where Andrew Dalby has made an interesting comment. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's normally done in the first instance on the talkpage but I know your passion for forum shopping. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read the initial part of this discussion. Esoglou (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You decided to bring the matter to the noticeboard. Have I missed something? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have had to undo a series of inappropriate changes:

1. This edit seems to be a weaseling in of the idea that the 1986 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was instead a personal view of its then Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger. In reality it was a declaration of the Congregation, not of one or even two members of the Congregation. This edit, with its "over the signature" (singular), when in fact the letter bore two signatures, misleads the reader into thinking the letter was by Ratzinger alone. It was signed also by Bovone, and neither Ratzinger nor Bovone signed in a personal capacity: they signed explicitly as officials of the Congregation, respectively Prefect and Secretary. We don't have to indicate who signed this document any more than who signed the Congregation's other documents that are mentioned. I am provisionally leaving in the article the mention of the signatures, but I think it would be much better to return to calling it simply a letter of the Congregation. May we do so?
2. With this edit a claim was inserted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith not only asked for withdrawal of support granted to certain organizations (which is in the source: "All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted."), but that in addition it asked for denial of "further Catholic sponsoship [sic]" (which is not in the source).
3. This edit removed the statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that a certain view was "in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people". The Congregation was not merely "concerned" about the view, as about something that, for instance, might be misunderstood: it unequivocally declared the view contrary to the Church's teaching and Christian moral sense.
4. This edit says, with no reason given, that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith "notified both Nugent and Grammick [sic]" that they were forbidden to engage in certain pastoral activities. The source says instead that the Congregation published for the world to know a notification that for a stated reason this prohibition was applied to Gramick and Nugent. There was no reason to delete what the source said.
5. This edit removed important material from an accurate account of what a 1992 article on L'Osservatore Romano (an article that the edit miscalls a letter) added to previous statements by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The edit enlarged instead on an interpretation of quotations in the article from an earlier document that is dealt with elsewhere in the Wikipedia article. The effect of this edit and others was to present other POVs in an article on "homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" while excluding that of the Catholic Church.
6. Contrary to what this edit claims, the Irish bishops did not actually state in their submission that they "would" not perform civil functions at weddings if the civil definition of marriage clashed with that of the Church. That was not in their submission statement. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these edits are "inappropriate".

1. The key point in citing Ratzinger is to show that he has played a significant role in much of the Holy See's position on the issue of homosexuality since the 1980s. This is significant as he then went on to become pope. Mentioning him by name helps the reader better see which individuals actually helped shape policy. Keep Ratzinger, leave out Bovone.
2. Withdrawal of support implies no further support. How can you withdraw support and then give more support? I think the source supports the use of the article text in this way. Reject change.
3. As I've stated before, this is not Wikisource. It will not do to quote Vatican documents at length. Any reader will see that the promotion of homosexuality was against Church teaching. There's a whole long section on it. It's not good to over-labour each point and at each stage. We must summarise to make the article easy to use. The language her conveys the key point which is that the Holy See reminded the faithful that they should not get too carried away in their support for people that are gay. Reject change.
4. Again we are not Wikisource. Repeating documents verbatim makes the article difficult to read and serves little purpose. Gramick and Nugent were censored, and made to stop their activities. This summarises the position well. What purpose does the press release serve other than to labour the point that they were not in line with the magisterium? We know that - it's obvious. If there was a spelling mistake then suggest you just correct it instead.
5. Again this is not wikisource. Summarise without repeating verbatim. Unless your objective is to bore the reader to death. If a key point is missing from the summary then we can consider including. Let me know.
6. The submission statement said 'could not', and news reports said 'would not'. Let's get to the heart of why you think this matters. You want to use 'could' because it implies passivity by the Church - they have no choice but to do something because it is the Irish state that has forced them into that position. I believe 'would' is a better word as in reality the Church is able to control its destiny and could continue carrying out marriage functions if it wanted to (and indeed probably will). It's simply hyperbole and I think it's intellectually dishonest to present it in this article in this way.

You are allowing a frustrating amount of POV to creep into our edits. If this carries on then can I suggest you start an article entitled "Vatican public relations briefings and homosexuality" or something to that effect. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

1. You admit that your aim was to "show" something not stated in the cited source. In other words, you admit to original research or weaseling.
2. You admit to inserting something that you only see as implied. In other words, you admit to original research.
3. You admit to insisting on having your own contested summary account rather than quote the unquestionable actual words. In other words, you admit to original research.
4. You admit to insisting on having your own contested summary account rather than quote the unquestionable actual words. In other words, you admit to original research. By the way, you attribute to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a power it does not have, when you say: "Gramick and Nugent were ... made to stop their activities." Gramick did not stop her activities, although Nugent chose to stop his.
5. You admit to insisting on having your own contested summary account rather than quote the unquestionable actual words. In other words, you admit to original research.
6. You admit to saying that the Irish bishops "stated in their submission" something that they did not actually state in that document, and to having employed your personal opinion ("I believe 'would' is a better word") as a reason for your edit. In other words, you admit to original research. You may of course say that, according to news reports, the bishops said they would not perform civil functions, but you can't say that this is what they stated in their submission. Isn't the RSN decision, now archived because not objected to within five days, enough for you? By saying here that the Church could still "carry out marriage functions", you show you misunderstand the submission: it is the civil formalities of church weddings that the bishops said they'd be unable to carry out.
   

Your change of 21 August, which you have repeated today, is therefore rejected because of its admitted original research. Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your bias and POV-pushing is doing this article a great disservice. You are approaching the narrative from the following perspective: the Catholic Church holds its teaches consistently through time and does not err. On the issue of homosexuality it is a case of 'love the sinner, not the sin'. Everything the Church does is perfectly reasonable and done in order to hold fast to teaching. But the evidence as set out in the article offers a different view. The Church did not take much of an interest in homosexuality for much of its life. In the medieval age it adopted a 'persecuting' tone, which was reinforced during the counter-reformation when the church tried to 'reform manners' and centralise authority. After the second vatican council a softer-line on homosexuality is taken. However, two things lead to a reaction (i) a hardening of public attitudes as the AIDS crisis takes hold; and (ii) the influence of John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger whose conservative views and desire to bolster papal authority lead to a crack-down on anything sympathetic to gay men an women. None of this, incidentally, is original research and me making it up. Therefore your persistent efforts to simply set out the contents of Vatican press release after press release has the effect of creating a worthless article. There is no analysis or context or objectivity. Each pronoouncment or letter is taken on face value. Your arguments about citing the sources verbatim are spurious. Are you capable of showing objectivity in editing this article? Or is your only objective to present the Roman Catholic Church in the most positive light that you can? Apologetics makes for a bad article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I refrain from attributing bias and POV-pushing to another's edits on this article and elsewhere. I think it perfectly reasonable, when mention is made of statements by the Catholic Church, such as the several that you have introduced into this article, that they should be presented as they are, not as interpreted by a Wikipedia editor. Esoglou (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Then you've completely missed the point of Wikipedia. It is an online encyclopaedia that summarises the complexities of issues in order to broaden knowledge. If we want just a collection of key documents then can I please point you to Wikisource where you may get more satisfaction from playing a part. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not closely followed the editing history of this article over time (only in the last few days). But from my experience of Esoglou on other articles I do not believe that Esoglou is often if ever guilty of POV pushing or apologetics in order to make articles present a more positive view of the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, he is concerned to ensure that articles accurately represent the facts of what the RCC actually believes or teaches as expressed in its most official documents. Other editors, especially those who object to RCC beliefs and teaching, often tend to react the way that you have and falsely accuse him of POV pushing. I have dealt with numerous pro-Roman Catholic POV pushers over the years and Esoglou is not one of them. I am also concerned by your apparent belief that Wikipedia articles are meant to offer "analysis". They aren't. I am not a Roman Catholic (or a homosexual for what it's worth) and don't know too much about how the RCC's attitudes to homosexuality have changed over time. But I do recognise POV pushing when I see it and there is also a lot of anti-RCC POV pushing going on in various articles including this one. Afterwriting (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for that. Incidentally I am a Roman Catholic and homosexual and thus I think I do know a lot about the Catholic Church's attitude to homosexuality. Your accusation of anti-RCC POV pushing is ill-informed. No-one disputes the importance of setting out clearly in this article the facts of what the RCC church believes ( - and I have taken great pains to do that, if you had bothered to follow the debate). Nor that we should give our own interpretation or research. However, what is not acceptable is to simply present statement after written statement issued from the Curia in full. We must summarise the key points. Esoglou is not interested in summarising anything; Esoglou just assumes we all want to read in full what has been said in whatever document. That doesn't make for a particularly good article. Secondly, can I point out that this article is "Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism". It is not simply an article about the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, it is about the interaction of the two at the broadest level. It must show that there is disagreement in different parts of the Church. It is misleading to simply present a top-down discussion of the issue and to leave it at that. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A summary by a POV editor cannot be counted on to be NPOV. And an article "about the interaction of the two" is not NPOV, if the view of one is censored out completely or partially. Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOL "this article is censoring the church's point of view" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Look Esoglou, if you think an editor's summary is not balanced and neutral then point out why and suggest how it can be more objective. But that's not the same thing as thinking a summary is not neutral and then replacing it with reams of material taken verbatim from a document produced by the Roman Catholic Church. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why an editor declared frivolous a request for a source that does say that the Catholic Church campaigns against decriminalization of homosexuality. The two sources at present given for that statement fail verification. They include information about a declaration by a representative of the Holy See who said that states have the right to punish homosexual activity. (He was explaining that the reason he did not oppose a draft declaration was because it spoke of homosexual orientation, not homosexual activity, the distinction between which he stressed.) That was not campaigning against decriminalization. The Holy See has also declared that states have the right to use capital punishment when needed. The Holy See is not thereby campaigning against abolition of capital punishment. It rather campaigns for its abolition. So what reliable source is there for the claim that the Church campaigns against decriminalization of homosexuality? We need a valid source for such a claim. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The source is perfectly explicit about the fact that the Vatican opposed the decriminalization resolution. It is absolutely not your place to justify, explain, or excuse why they did so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was wrong, and I apologize. I mistakenly thought the links were to a statement made at the 2011 Geneva discussions, concerning which the article previously insisted that the Holy See opposed passage of a draft declaration. Again I apologize for my mistake. I must begin again.

Since "the Catholic Church campaigns against decriminalization of homosexuality", as distinct from something like "the Catholic Church has campaigned against decriminalization of homosexuality", refers to something continuous or habitual, the two sources at present given for the statement fail verification. In 2008, the Holy See opposed a proposed resolution urging decriminalization. The United States did not support the same proposal. Claiming on that basis that the United States does not support decriminalization of homosexuality would be a false inference. In the same way, claiming on the basis of the Holy See's opposition to that proposal that the Holy See opposes decriminalization is a false inference.

Furthermore, the Holy See made it clear that what it found objectionable in the proposal was not the proposal's urging of decriminalization, but another aspect of the proposal. For this reason too, the sources given do not support the statement that the Catholic Church campaigns against decriminalization of homosexuality. We need a valid source for such a claim. Esoglou (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also, opposing any particular proposed legislation, which could be done for a variety of reasons, is not identical to "campaigning against" the decriminalisation of homosexuality per se. Afterwriting (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded the statement to avoid the use of the word "campaign" and to use past tense; this should satisfy everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for no longer calling my query frivolous. Esoglou (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated above, I have reverted the article back to the more accurate version of a couple of days ago after Roscelese managed to gradually edit it back to the previously factually inadequate wording which implies that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church always opposes the decriminalisation of homosexuality. This kind of wording is false and unacceptable. If you need to change or improve the references and wording then do so but please stop distorting things to assert things which aren't true. Afterwriting (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the Guardian simply made up the story about the church opposing decriminalization of homosexuality in Belize (or that the Monitor simply made up the story about the church supporting harsher penalties for homosexuality in Uganda)? I mean, you've literally removed sourced information for no apparent reason other than personal disagreement. What are these supposed campaigns in favor of decriminalization that you keep alluding to? I'm sure we would all love to know about them. But it's not "balance" if there really is only one side. Put your money where your mouth is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Afterwriting said there are campaigns by the Catholic Church in favour of decriminalization. So I must surely have misunderstood your question, "What are these supposed campaigns in favor of decriminalization that you keep alluding to?" He did say that you leap from a few particular cases to making a universal statement. That is a fault in logic. See also this, which ought to be enough. It is unreasonable to demand that the Church undertake a "campaign" for decriminalization, since it is certain that such a campaign would unfortunately be misunderstood as declaring that homosexual activity was not, after all, sinful. And if you pick some individual archbishop to cite as an opponent of decriminalization, you should not then be silent on one who says he wants the Church to fight against treating homosexuality as a crime. Esoglou (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think that we're unreasonably implying that the church has been involved in every effort to decriminalize, then you should suggest other wording that reflects the facts, rather than trying to falsely imply they were only involved in one. I think your concern that we're implying they were involved in every effort is ridiculous (do you also think they were involved in every effort to legalize marriage and every attempt to legalize adoption?) but if you're acting in good faith, you should be able to come up with variations that address your concerns without actually removing sourced information because you think it makes the church look bad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I will try to ignore your constant sarcasastic and patronising attitude and also your bullying of other editors. For your information I have, unlike you, absolutely no personal agenda to bring to this article. And, also unlike you, I have no interest in whether the church looks bad over this issue. All you ever seem to do is to try and twist people's comments and make erroneous assumptions about their intentions. I already changed the wording in a more neutral and factual way but then, after some modest changes by you which I did not object to as they were actually improvements, you then virtually reverted the wording back to the previous misleading wording. Your editing behaviour simply isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll pass over your personal attacks and address the minimal amount of that comment that was related to the article. Perhaps you didn't notice in your hurry to claim that the church has only opposed decriminalization one little time, but I added additional sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself can you?! You just have to keep on sarcastically and hypocritically attacking other editors and distorting what they have written in order to satisfy your own self-righteous agenda. It really is quite pathetic. Afterwriting (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I say something that implied that the Church was involved in only one "effort to decriminalize"? I can see that no more than I can see where Afterwriting said there are campaigns by the Catholic Church in favour of decriminalization. I do see as distorted your presentation (citing a very few picked cases) of Catholic bishops as against decriminalization and, from time to time, actively so; and as not merely speaking out against it, but conducting campaigns (did they?) against it. As one example of "Catholic bishops" opposing and campaigning against decriminalization, you presented a report on the Daily Monitor about a statement by the ecumenical Uganda Joint Christian Council that, while exhorting the country's churches "to remain steadfast in opposing the phenomena of homosexuality, lesbianism and same-sex union", and while expressing no opinion on a criminalizing bill before parliament, tasked a committee "to engage the House on the Bill". (For all I know, it may have been because of this "engaging" that the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" (with a minor or if HIV-infected) was dropped from the bill.) You omitted to mention that "the draft law in question was severely condemned by [Catholic] Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga of Kampala, [one of the signatories of the statement,] who recommended 'a benevolent Christian focus'" (source). In view of all this, Afterwriting should be commended for not having taken a leaf out of another editor's book and responded with something like "laughable POV, deliberate obfuscation; try sticking to sources next time". Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time with the suggestion that the church opposed the Uganda bill. You know that's not what the sources say and so do I; there is nothing ambiguous about the Monitor's writing that the church urged Parliament to "speed-up the process of enacting the Anti-Homosexuality law". (Moreover, if you look at the actual sources instead of trying to make things up out of your own head, you'll find that Lwanga had opposed the bill in 2010, saying that it was unnecessary because homosexuality was already a crime - yeah, that's some support for decriminalization there! - but then submitted this statement of support in 2012.) This sort of trolling doesn't help anyone. Picking through the nonsense, what I see in your comment is the suggestion that there is something wrong about accurately describing the church's activities. That's obviously not correct. Not only have you failed to present any convincing or policy-based arguments in favor of omitting this sourced material, I'm not sure you have actually made any arguments at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church and homosexuality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5