The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Catholic Church and homosexuality is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
To avoid duplication and more work. The pastoral care article also is unclear about what it is exactly. Pastoral care seems just a way for bishops to be diplomatic. It also seems like a POV fork. To keep due weight, I propose to not merge things only sourced to advocacy organisations (like new ways ministry) or individual bishops statements (these should be in their individual articles). 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:E1E3:34:3BF6:F855 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The daughter article is larger than the parent article, which would create a huge UNDUE issue if they were to be merged. Even if the daughter was paired back, which I don't think it should be as the content is sourced, relevant, and has consensus, it would still be too much. People should remember that these articles were spun out years ago for good reason. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the UNDUE issue. There is more than enough content on the Pastoral care page to justify a stand alone page and it is just one facet of the parent page. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mature enough of an article to stand alone. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been more than a month without discussion and it appears the consensus is to keep the articles seperate, so I am closing this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the bible in the lead and linking it to "The Bible and homosexuality"[edit]
To clarify: I think the lead should mention that the church says that its teaching is based on bible verses (later mentioned in the article) without implying if their interpretation is correct or not. That the teaching has been developed later by theologians and ecumenical councils is a fact and I don't want to imply otherwise. If someone has a better idea how to put this into words, I'm open to that.
Why the lead should mention the bible (+the link):
1) We mention theologians and ecumenical councils (so to Catholics also popes), the only authority (to Catholics) that we leave out is the bible.
2) The discussion in theological pieces, but also generally, revolves around the interpretation of the passages of the bible. (and ofcourse natural law but this is covered by "theologians")
3) The catechism cites the bible. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:17AF:E2FD:D828:F9F7 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about introducing it as an interpretation of the Bible by the church, leaning just a bit harder on the human factor and less on assuming the Bible as gospel? Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Bible as gospel" You mean as unreliable and untrustworthy as the gospels? Dimadick (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent addition and revert of Francis' response to dubia by Burke, Bradmüller, et al.[edit]
Two editors in quick succession added, and then removed content about the recent dubia by two cardinals and others addressed to Pope Francis, which included questions about the blessing of same-sex unions, and other matters.[1][2] Neither the addition of this content, nor its removal, were proper; at least not for the stated reasons in the edit summaries. The addition of content (diff) was improper, because there was no valid sourcing. Although two references were provided, the first was the letter by the cardinals itself, along with the Pope's reply, thus a WP:PRIMARY source, and the second one is from the news and information portal of the Catholic Church in Germany, and so isn't independent, and since the article dealt heavily in quotations with no analysis, it's really only repeating content from the primary source, and cannot be counted as secondary. So, the addition of content in Wikipedia's voice based on these primary, non-independent sources fails our reliable sourcing policy and amounts to the opinion of the IP editor who added it, and therefore is inadmissible original research.
For those reasons, I agree with the removal of this content in this edit. However, not for the reasons stated in the revert summary, which gave no justification based on policy- or guideline, but rather provided yet another non-independent, primary source, namely, the English translation of the response by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.[3] This amounted to removing the previous WP:Original research by an argument based on more WP:Original research, therefore, not a valid reason, either. On balance, since the burden of proof is on the person wishing to add content, the removal was correct, even if the stated reasoning was not.
I would support inclusion of the content if proper reliable sourcing could be found, meaning WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:SECONDARY, but for now, the status quo is the correct one, per policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
