Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 15

This page is an current talk page .

Support for name change

The tally regarding the article name change to the Catholic Church is as follows:

• Agree: Xandar, Majoreditor, NancyHeise, Marauder, Kraftlos, Richard, Gabr-el, Johnbod, Mike, Str1977, Storm Rider, jbmurray

• Stand aside: Defteri (had said he thought it premature to move towards changing the name without further discussion on the wording of the lead sentence, which we have now done).

• Oppose: Secisek: "oppose any attempt to move the article from its present location which is exactly the other major reference dictionaries and ecyclopedias put it." (I've asked him to clarify these comments). Soidi?

In addition, Gimmetrow, Xandar, Richardshusr, Marauder40, jbmurray, SynKobiety, NancyHeise declared in favour of changing the lead sentence to "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..."

Would other participants who wish to speak about this be willing to do that now, please? Since a name change is favored by many participants, would those opposed please indicate: a) their reasons for not favoring an article name change, and, b) their preferred alternative? Consensus is not unanimity. However, In a consensus process we do want to hear all points of view and attempt to deal with concerns raised. Sunray (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, you are doing an excellent job of mediating, I appreciate your efforts very much. I have notified the editors who have not yet voiced an opinion on the matter asking them to come to this section and vote. I also want to point out to Secisek that Encyclopedia Americana addresses the subject at Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add this diff to the FAC director's personal opinion in the matter of the Church's name here [1] and the official response from the Diocese of Hawaii regarding the Church's name here [2]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked Fr. Gantley the wrong questions, so his response is not relevant to this discussion. Has the Church ever formally and officially declared or defined that CC is its sole official name to the exclusion of any and all other names? It seems unlikely, or you would have been able to find a source by now. Gimmetrow 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Academic American Encyclopedia the Church "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. Gosh Gimmetrow, enough already. NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with the name change and the wording of the sentence provided that Roman Catholic Church redirects to it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, weakly I wonder if this will raise new opposition in terms of the clash with an Anglican or Orthodox view of what the "Catholic Church" is. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see! Then we can engage in another fun mediation! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I guess my previous opposition to the name change was that in the literal sense, Catholic church just means the universal church. Also because several other churches use the word; but in most common usage it refers to the Church of Rome. I just noticed recently the link to the disambiguation, I think that adequately demonstrates all the other uses of "Catholic church". I don't think there will be any confusion, especially since we also use RCC in the lead. I also think the title "Catholic church" is the obvious interpretation of Wikipedia's naming policy as it is what the church calls itself most the time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia must always first defer to the entity being named and their preference. RCC is an acceptable name the Church uses, but only within a specific context. Its preferred name is Catholic Church. I do expect this will cause the ire of other groups that claim Catholic church as a name of their own, but I also agree with Nancy that we will cross that bridge when we come to it. As an aside, were it simply me, as an outsider to the Church, I would use RCC because it is unambiguous and all understand specifically what church is being identified in the conversation. The Catholic church is often confused with the catholic church. Some will certainly feel this is grasping or even POV; however, it is fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church that there is one, and only one, Holy and Apostolic Church and God's vicar sits in Rome. I also realize that as an outsider, I use RCC but if I required this article to do so, I would be demanding that Catholics describe their church first from an outsider's viewpoint and then their own, which simply does not make sense and is the very definition of POV. --^StormRider 08:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support in substance. The change is correct but I wonder how this will not meet opposition outside of this mediation. (And BTW, sentences like "The Catholic church is often confused with the catholic church" are nonsensical.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition based on sectarian challenges as to to the "right" of the body to use Catholic Church as its name would fail under WP policy. Xandar 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that we let sectarians now dictate what other people may calle themselves? What kind of policy is that?

WP:SECT? Str1977 ^(talk)

11:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, just the opposite. The policy asserts that Wikipedia should call a group whatever it calls itself even if there is a more common name with some wiggle room as Kraftlos indicates below. --Richard (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why the naming policy is a bit ambiguous is because it allows for a more common name to take precedent over a less common official name; however in this case, I think its been demonstrated that RCC is not more common. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There does, however, have to be a concise but well-written footnote explaining the ins and outs of this debate. I've just glanced through the voluminous discussion that's taken place since my last participation in this debate. One thing I don't see is the point that for many Catholics, the term "Roman Catholic" is outright offensive; and in fact, there have been contexts in which it has indeed been used for the purposes of offense. This is an issue that I tried to address in my suggested text for such a footnote (somewhere way up on this page). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't really seen any sources saying this. I've certainly got that impression from other people in this debate. I honestly don't understand why it would be offensive. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose and Reject. "Catholic Church" is a term that can be applied to both a specific church, and any church that follows Apostolic Succession; using it to refer only to a single church, which denies Apostolic Succession in other churches, espouses a non-neutral POV. Bill Ward (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Bill. This page is for participants in the mediation only. If we get consensus here, we will take it to the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, because I didn't even HEAR that there was a discussion over this until yesterday, my voice doesn't count when I was involved? Ok. Then Mediation is worthless in this regard, as it appears that only certain voices will be heard. Bill Ward (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill, please don't get your feathers ruffled over your exclusion. Think of this discussion as a "committee" whose job it is to propose a name change to the larger body (similar to the process in many decision-making bodies). The current consensus-building process is focused on whether proposing a name change is (1) likely to resolve the current dispute and (2) feasible. You will have your opportunity to express your opinion if and when the name change is proposed on Talk:Roman Catholic Church.

The nature of a mediation is such that it needs to be restricted to those who are identified as parties to the dispute. If we didn't do that, the discussion here would risk becoming a free-for-all melee akin to that of an article talk page. I don't think you were a party to this dispute and, in any event, you were not identified as such so, for now, we would appreciate it if you stay out of the discussion.

--Richard (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill isn't the only editor commenting on this page who was not listed as a party. Gimmetrow 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And Bill, your assertion is not actually true. In regard to diocesis belong to the (R)CC it is common to talk about e.g. the Catholic Church of Birmingham. But that never occurs with any other denomination following or even claiming Apostolic Succession. In these other cases it is merely used to denote the "one universal church" as mentioned in the creed. And BTW, the (R)CC does not generally deny Apostolic Succession in other churches. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The mediation has been going on since January and the people on the list (see project page) were listed there in the initial mediation proposal because of their involvement in this ongoing discussion; people didn't just hop on, they were invited at the begining. By the way, Sunray is the mediator and he runs this discussion. You can follow the discussion, but this mediation is only open to the participants. Like Richard said, there will be another proposal on the article page once we've come to a consensus here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this. That's why there's a new note in the works and also why there is a Catholic church disambiguation page that's listed at the top of the article. That was also my initial reaction to this rename proposal, but given those two factors, I can't see how this would insert a POV; this is just a matter of Wikipedia's naming policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have so many reasons for this vote, you can ask me in person for them, I am not bothered to reiterate basic points stated above. Gabr-el 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to my perusal of recent discussion, let me repeat once again what is almost the only thing that I think can be said with any certainty about this debate: there are no good sources that give a clear account either way on the matter of an "official" name. After all, if there were there would be no debate! That includes Whitehead: Whitehead is not a good source, and is not a scholarly book, whatever his either religious or scholarly qualifications may be. If anything, I'd say that those sources that suggest that "Roman Catholic" is the official name are marginally better--but very marginally so.

Indeed, if there is any other clear conclusion from the literature that is out there, it is that the question of the church's "official" name is a matter of almost supreme indifference both to the official hierarchy and to the scholarly community. Beyond Wikipedia and a few other people writing on various Catholic websites, basically nobody else cares, at least nobody else who has bothered to write anything approaching a reliable (and so reliably citeable) source on the issue. NB Whitehead seems to suggest that the matter was of some considerable concern during the discussions at Vatican I, but he provides no evidence of that assertion, and indeed as far as I can see from scouring other accounts of that meeting, again nobody else seems to have taken any notice of this supposed controversy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

JB, I differ from you on your assertions about sources because

WP:V

does not say that all references must be to scholarly works anyway.

I want to bring up that one of those "scholarly works" that was being put forth to suggest that Roman Catholic is an official name was

USCCB (the official body of bishops in the US - the Church). The book is officially censored by the Bishops.[3] Is this what you think is a better source for us to use than Whitehead? Whitehead does not have any bad reviews by other scholars, it is peer reviewed and cited by them instead. NancyHeise ^talk

17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To make the comparison easier:

• Kenneth Whitehead, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic:

Author has a doctorate in Christian letters [4]

Book is peer reviewed by Fr. Peter MJ Stravinskas PhD S.T.D.

Book is cited by other scholars [5] [6]

Book is cited by Religious media that has Church oversight and is part of SIGNIS [7] [8]

• Richard McBrien, Catholicism:

Author has a doctorate in Theology

Book is peer reviewed - don't need link because we are not disputing

Book is "NOT" used by any religious media that has Church oversight and is part of SIGNIS.

Book is officially censored by the

USCCB for serious inaccuracies and for being misleading [9]

JB, I am certain that reliance on a book that is officially censored because it is misleading and inaccurate woule not fly at FAC. Are there any other sources put forth here that support Roman Catholic that you think are scholarly? I did not see any but maybe you can point them out for me. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, I just took a brief look at McBrien's book. Though again, my point is that none of the sources are great, it is crystal clear that McBrien's (while also aimed at the popular market) is a far more serious and scholarly book than Whitehead's. That doesn't mean it's right, of course; simply that it's more reliable in academic and scholarly terms. The review to which you point says as much very clearly indeed: "Insofar as Catholicism is a work of speculative theology, professional theologians may evaluate it; insofar as the book is an introductory textbook of Catholic theology, it has certain shortcomings from the pastoral point of view that will be examined in this review." The reviewers' problems are not with its scholarship, but by the effect of its transmission such scholarship to those it terms "theological beginners." Now, as Wikipedia is not a site with pastoral pretensions, but with scholarly ones, the problems this book poses for pastoral concerns are irrelevant. And that fact that it's not taken up by your religious media is again if anything a sign of the book's reliability in scholarly terms. Oh, and incidentally, I presumed you mean that the book is "censured" rather than "censored," no? But really, such censure, while no doubt important to those responsible for pastoral issues within the Catholic church, has no bearing here in the slightest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the merits of McBrien's book are irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Again, my point is that what really stands out is that there are no scholarly sources that even show the slightest interest in the topic. I said that those sources that suggested that "Roman Catholic" was the church's official name are marginally better, but again, only marginally. They are all in one way or another poor sources.

As for the Whitehead and his book. As the website you pointed to indicates, he is a "career diplomat" with an honorary PhD and numerous fairly impressive roles as essentially a political and educational consultant. But he's no scholar. And the fact he may be cited as an expert by a cable TV station is neither here nor there.

Even if he were a scholar, however, the point is the scholarliness of his book. And it's not a scholarly book. It's not published by an academic or university press, its bibliography is minimal, footnotes non-existent, and in any case the passage at issue here (an appendix) is the reprint of an opinion piece first published not in any academic journal but in a Catholic magazine. That appendix in particular has no references of any kind. As such, there is no way at all to follow up on its claims (and believe me, I've tried).

Just compare his book with a real scholarly book, the kind I deal with every single day of my working life. Here is one, for instance. The differences should be obvious. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, I think the gist of what JB was saying is that it would have been so much easier if we had not just a scholar's statement, but an official statement from the Church that would end all discussion. As I have continued to think about I can grasp some reasons for why the name of the Churcdh has never been made clear. Think of all the regal names that fit the role of the Church throughout history and as perceived by the faithful and their guidance. She has many names, many roles, and all of them have merit and contexts for their useage. Conversely, I am aware of the times RCC has been used as a slur, but in the present that is a small minority useage indeed and has fallen out of favor by the vast majority of people. Regardless, it will be good to finalize this chapter and move on with the hope we will no longer have to discuss this point again. Cheers.--^StormRider 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That would indeed help! But for whatever reason (I repeat) neither the church nor those who study it are, it seems, particularly exercised by this issue. Or as I put it above, "if there is any other clear conclusion from the literature that is out there, it is that the question of the church's 'official' name is a matter of almost supreme indifference both to the official hierarchy and to the scholarly community." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are going down this road again. It seems unnecessary and potentially divisive. There seems to me to be no need to get into this "my source is better than yours" type of argument. All participants who have not done so should read the section above on dealing with naming conflicts. The applicable guideline directs us to usage and primary sources in determining the name. In writing the note, we should refer to primary sources and then such secondary sources as needed. There would logically be a section of the note that would deal with use of Catholic Church and another on "Roman Catholic Church." The usages have been thoroughly discussed and analyzed, above. Time to write that note. Sunray (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is important because we can't use McBrien and we need to establish why. The USCCB states

" ...The problems which Catholicism poses as an introductory text fall into three categories. First, some statements are inaccurate or at least misleading. Second, there is in the book an overemphasis on the plurality of opinion within the Catholic theological tradition that makes it difficult at times for the reader to discern the normative core of that tradition. Third, Catholicism overstates the significance of recent developments within the Catholic tradition, implying that the past appears to be markedly inferior to the present and obscuring the continuity of the tradition. Falling within the latter two categories are difficulties that reappear throughout the work; they constitute a pattern that could be overlooked by an exclusive focus on particular passages.

[10]

I highlighted the most important comments which clearly make this an unacceptable source to use on Wikipedia. The Bishops statement clearly defines this source as unreliable and it fails

WP:V because of this review. NancyHeise ^talk

22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you have misread the review. Its whole point is to warn of the difficulties and dangers of the book in pastoral terms, for first-year students. Or to put this another way: the review warns that the book is too scholarly, not least because it assumes its readers are in a position to exercise intellectual judgement when faced with a plurality of opinion. It's what makes it a scholarly book that makes it (in the reviewers' judgement, and I like to think that they underestimate the intellectual abilities of ordinary Catholics) unsuitable for most lay people. All this is very clear precisely in the passages that you cite.

But again, I agree with Sunray that this discussion is a distraction for all intents and purposes. I repeat: the main finding here is that there are no reliable sources that say anything very definitive. Neither the Church nor scholars have any great interest in this entire issue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are only going to use such secondary sources as support what we already know from our usage survey of primary sources anyway. and I agree that there are no authoritative secondary sources. The Vatican would be an authoritative source, but the Vatican does not state "the official name is... Sunray (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is applied, we should at last be able to get out of the McBrien/Whitehead/EWTN/... tarpit. Soidi (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying something about McBrien. He discusses the dispute over the terminology of "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" (much like Whitehead, in fact, but better) in multiple works (not just Catholicism), and his conclusion includes: "To choose one side, however, is not necessarily to reject the other... What is important is that each side explain and support the reasons for the position taken." He's saying there are various opinions. We know these views in some detail, since we've cited them. This hardly seems controversial. Gimmetrow 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Responding to JB. The Bishops are not warning the book is too scholarly. They are saying that unless you are a scholar, you will be misled by McBrien's multitude of inaccurate statements. They are saying that unless you know better, the book will lead you to believe the Church teaches something it does not. (I am not making this up, this is sustantiated by this univ professor here [11]) The official bishops statement clearly identifies the book as "inaccurate", "misleading" and "overstates". The review is a bad review from an official Church body which makes the source unreliable. NancyHeise ^talk 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, again, you are quite simply misreading the review. The review is a warning about the potential pastoral consequences should the unscholarly read the book. Here, for instance:

The method is to offer a broad range of opinions on every topic with the apparent intention of allowing or stimulating the reader to make a choice. This places a heavy burden on the reader, especially since some of the opinions described do not stand within the central Catholic tradition. The reader who is a theological beginner could easily assume that all the authors cited are equally a part of the mainstream Catholic conversation, whereas some of the authors are closer to the margins. While the book could be a helpful resource to theologians looking for a survey of opinions on some question, it might well be bewildering and unsettling for Catholics taking undergraduate courses in theology. For some readers it will give encouragement to dissent.

Interestingly, this somewhat mirrors this debate. You and Xandar want there to be one simple answer: one official name. Others point out that there are a plurality of possible positions, perhaps some closer to the margin than others. This is, of course, the scholarly position. It's the position that Wikipedia also adopts. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Other media outlets who have sponsored bad reviews of McBrien's Catholicism are:

• the journal "AD2000" where James Likoudis gave it this review [12] which has quite a lot of bad things to say about McBrien's book.
• "Catholic Culture" sponsored this review by Univ professor Ronald J. Rychlak, also a very bad review which also puts McBrien into the category of a "fringe" source. See [13]. Rychlak is a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. NancyHeise ^talk 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The same content can be cited to other works of McBrien, and to other authors, so any criticisms of Catholicism are irrelevant distractions. Gimmetrow 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, please provide the source to support your statement above. I cite this scholarly review [14] and this official Church review [15] as evidence that McBrien is a fringe source. There are no books written by McBrien which contain "the same content". You can't just post a comment like that without providing some evidence to support it. You say these criticisms are just "irrelevent distractions". I disagree with that assertion and it is hard to be convinced otherwise when you put forth zero evidence to support your arguments. NancyHeise ^talk 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, after months of being asked, you have provided a sum total of zero evidence that "Catholic Church" is officially the sole name of this church. You have rejected all contrary views on some specious reasoning, while citing, as your primary reference, the writing of a non-scholar who doesn't even say what you claim he says. You have claimed his work has been peer reviewed, without providing those peer reviews. You have made numerous other completely wrong and unsourced claims throughout this mediation, including leaps of original research, synthesis and bias. On the other hand, I've mentioned at least two academics who have known credentials to show there are alternative views, and a third source that you even cite yourself, to show not only these alternative views, but to illustrate the bias used to make selective quoting. Your call for sources rings hollow. Gimmetrow 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee Gimmetrow, I guess the 15 other editors who agreed to use of my sources and wordings are all just a bunch of idiots like me who just can't see the value of your self published sources or those from the 1800's or those with official Church censorship. All I asked you for before you got all hot headed was to support your statement that McBrien's claims in Catholicism could be "found elsewhere" in his other books. If it is true, it should be easy to find them but I know your statement is not true because I already searched. NancyHeise ^talk 18:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee, now you've called me a liar? Wow. Gimmetrow 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention: Would participants who have not yet indicated a preference with respect to article name change please do that in the section for that purpose, above.

Lets now turn to writing the note that will accompany the lead sentence. Here are some thoughts about the approach.

Objective

• A clear, concise note describing the usage of each name by the Church that supports the proposed lead sentence: The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church^[1]...

Components of the note

1. Reference to applicable policies and guidelines on naming.
2. A brief overview of how the name "Catholic Church" is used in Church constitution and official documents (e.g., The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Lumen Gentium, the Code of Canon Law)
3. A statement about common usage of the name.
4. One or two secondary sources that support official usage (e.g., Whitehead).
5. A brief statement of when and how the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official Church communications (e.g., speeches and ecumenical communications by Popes).
6. Usage outside of the Catholic Church.
7. Secondary sources to support usage.

Does this approach make sense? If so, would someone be willing to produce a draft along the lines described above? Sunray (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, as I've mentioned, I already produced a draft. (See far above.) Though I don't claim it's perfect; not at all. And as I also mentioned more recently, the note should definitely explain why some people might take exception to the usage "Roman Catholic." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read that draft. It does cover the bases and I think we could use portions of it. However, the discussion did evolve apace since then and we need to refer to primary sources at the front end of the note. So if it were re-written a bit to incorporate that, it could work. I think we should also refer to naming policy in the note to forestall challenges. Sunray (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, it makes the most sense. I am willing to draft a note but I am off to a softball game, I'll have a look later. If someone else wishes to propose a note it would be nice to see different versions and then maybe do another vote. NancyHeise ^talk 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Majoreditor (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. If the references are set out separately as suggested, we needn't have too many arguments. So long as nothing is distorted and elements are set out with no undue weighting, the reader can make up his own mind about the various supports. Xandar 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We have no official source saying "CC is the official name". Not even Whitehead says this. The key points I expect to see in the note [16]:

• There are (at least) two meanings to the phrase "Roman Catholic Church"
• One meaning has a sectarian, non-Catholic origin
• There is a strong body of opinion within the church that the term "Roman Catholic Church" should be avoided

Each of these points can be expanded some if necessary, for instance the history of the non-Catholic origin of the phrase "Roman Catholic", or some of the other reasons behind the strong body of opinion. Gimmetrow 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We will need to be economical in language to incorporate all this, but I do think that if we are successful it will produce a "bombproof" note. Sunray (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox page for note creation efforts if anyone is interested, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NancyHeise/RCC_note_sandbox NancyHeise ^talk 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Note 1 sandbox on the grounds that the page is directly related to this mediation and has no raison d'être independent of this discussion. --Richard (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. NancyHeise ^talk 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's suggestion

This note is proposed for an article that is titled "Catholic Church" where the lead sentence states "The Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church (note 1)..." Please notice that the words "official name" objected to by Gimmetrow are not used and the sources are those suggested for use by Sunray (eliminating old sources such as those in the 1800's and makes use of primary sources and secondary sources).

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.^[1][2] The Church titles itself "Catholic Church"^[3] in its most official and self defining documents.^[4][5] It is the name in which all Vatican Council documents are signed by the pope, the name used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium and all Vatican II documents, and the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992.^[6][4][5] While some other churches refer to themselves as "catholic" and consider themselves part of the universal "catholic Church" (see Branch theory), they are not titled "The Catholic Church" and are not part of the organization that is headed by the pope.^[7][2] Although the Catholic Church does not subscribe to the branch theory it is sometimes required by mainly Protestant and English speaking governments to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.^[8] Within the Church, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used to describe that part which uses the Roman liturgy and distinguishes from the Eastern Catholic Churches that also form part of the whole Catholic Church.^[5] "Roman Church" may also refer to the Diocese of Rome.^[5] In common usage, the name "Catholic Church" refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church and its members.^[2][3]

• Completely unacceptable. This fails to address issues already pointed out, and adds yet more bias while removing even the tiniest hint of an alternative view that is barely present to knowing readers in the current version. Absolutely and unequivocally no. Even the suggestion of such a text, after all these months, is offensive. Gimmetrow 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What alternative view? I have used all of the sources that were just agreed as meeting

WP:V sources. NancyHeise ^talk

17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with NancyHeise's suggestion. A ntv (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• No way. The footnote should a place to defuse arguments, not to continue them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to make specific suggestions for changes to the wording? That would help to move things forward. Sunray (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I've provided a basis for a form of wording. (See far above on this page.) I strongly suggest that the tone and style of the note should be along these lines. In short, it should be a note that acknowledges plurality (this is after all what's at issue here) rather than trying to establish uniformity. Unfortunately, this note here prefers (as I said) to continue an argument rather than to defuse it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As you said at the time you proposed it, "it covers the bases." I have a couple of concerns with it: It doesn't refer to primary sources and it doesn't source every statement. On the other hand, I like the way it approaches the "Roman Catholic Church" part. I think that it could be combined with Nancy's version. It should follow the order suggested above (which is based on the policy and guideline). Sunray (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's proposed text above is disheartening, as if nothing has been heard after all these months. There are basically two problems:

• The concept of "official name" isn't properly and adequately supported by the note
• The note itself shows a bias in its selection and presentation of sources and quotes

The first may be handled by the "also known as" phrase. I've also seen "The Roman Catholic Church, or simply Catholic Church...", which would work for me. The note, however, needs to take a substantially new form or it's just more of the same issues. The key point is Catholic dislike of the term "RCC" due to the meaning attached to it in non-Catholic circles. That's the key point, and that's what needs to be said. Gimmetrow 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I thought that the note I was making was to be used in an article named "Catholic Church" where the lead sentence states "The Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church (note 1)." The words "official name" are not used in either the lead sentence or the note. This is what the vote above agreed to. No one proposed or agreed to "The Roman Catholic Church, or simply Catholic Church...". Also there are no references to support your statements about Catholics dislike of the term Roman Catholic unless you want to use McClintock, which I don't have a problem with because I was the one who originally proposed it. McClintock states that Roman Catholic is not the official name. I have just created a note using the actual sources that Sunray suggested and we all just agreed to use his formula. If you have a better note - with references to support your statements, please place it on this page and we can have another vote. NancyHeise ^talk 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Already been done multiple times. I think it's time to consider that the current note is fundamentally flawed and needs to be removed in its entirety until and unless a new, genuine unbiased text can be written. Gimmetrow 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, lets get down to it, then. Would you be able to make specific changes that address your concerns, Gimmetrow? I would suggest that you use Nancy's version as a starting point and make changes that would address your concerns. Please make changes to the sandboxed version. Sunray (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here's a short version mostly borrowed from Xandar below.

• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is used popularly, particularly in English-speaking countries, and is sometimes used by the Church itself, particularly in documents involving ecumenical relations with churches also claiming
  catholicity
  .
• However, Church officials prefer to use the name "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church".
• The term "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 17th century onward. The name is avoided by the Church when its use is susceptible of being interpreted as acceptance of the theory that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are but branches of a single Catholic Church (see Branch Theory.) Eastern Catholics in particular object to being labeled "Roman Catholic", preferring to be called "Eastern Catholic." In this usage "Roman Catholic" describes that part of the Catholic Church which uses the Roman or Latin liturgy.
• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" may be used to refer to the Diocese of Rome.

Could be even shorter. Gimmetrow 02:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be shorter, but I'm not seeing how it achieves the goal of explaining that "Catholic Church" is the most commonly used name. I think we need to keep the format I suggested above, which was based on

Wikipedia:Naming conflict. We definitely need to establish how the name is used within the Church. Sunray (talk

) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We do? Gimmetrow 04:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Naming Conflicts guideline, [17] suggests the following as objective criteria:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

I would suggest that the closer we are to the criteria suggested in policy and guidelines, the more support we will get from the WP community. Sunray (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems very odd to use a naming guideline to direct textual content. Gimmetrow 09:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It may seem odd but it makes sense. In order to determine the name of the article, we need to answer the questions in the guideline (even if the answer to some of the criteria is that there is no clear answer). Then, we can name the article using the answer to one or more of the criteria. Having done so, it only makes sense that the answer(s) to the criteria are reflected in the text. We obviously cannot answer the criteria one way to support the name of the article and then contradict those answers in the text of the article. The text can expand on the answers or add additional information not mentioned by the criteria but it should not directly contradict the answers used to justify the naming. That would be not only odd but outright unacceptable. Besides, if you don't like these criteria, which ones would you propose? --Richard (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is the name of the article, and the text is the text. The name of the article is resolved on the talk page, not the text of the article. It is especially bad to refer extensively to primary sources as if they say something they do not. You can probably say term X is used in document Y; more than that is likely to be interpretation. Gimmetrow 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is not article text we are talking about, it is a note explaining the name. I agree with you that we will also need to post it on the talk page when if/when we propose a name change. I also agree about saying "term X is used in document Y." That is exactly what the guideline suggests. The closer we can get to that formulation, the better, IMO. Sunray (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's attempt

Since no-one else has stepped in, I've put the following version together to move things on a bit and respond to objections to Nancy's suggestion. It incorporates sections from Nancy's version and the version put together by Richard from Soidi's and Gimnmetrow's contributions. I've not included references for ease of construction.

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.
• The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" in its most official and self defining documents. It is the name used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic experts such as Whitehad and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church.
• The name Roman Catholic Church is also in widespread popular usage, particularly in English-speaking countries. It is sometimes used by the Church itself, particularly in documents involving ecumenical relations with churches also claiming
  catholicity
  . At times the Church has also been required by governments to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.
• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 17th century onward. The name is avoided by the Church when its use is susceptible of being interpreted as acceptance of the theory that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are but branches of a single Catholic Church (see Branch Theory.) Eastern Catholics in particular object to being labeled "Roman Catholic", preferring to be called "Eastern Catholic." In this usage "Roman Catholic" describes that part of the Catholic Church which uses the Roman or Latin liturgy.
• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" is used to refer to the church of the Diocese of Rome.
• The name Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church has also at times been used to designate the Church.

Xandar 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Xandar's attempt as a basis for further discussion. Thanks, Xandar. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This version does seem to cover all the bases. We would need to add the citations to it. What do others think? Sunray (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to pretty much sum up what the sources are telling us. I approve. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good note that lays out the referenceable facts nicely. NancyHeise ^talk 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's attempt

The term "catholic church" was first used by

Other names that it uses include "Roman Catholic Church". This name, which appears in two encyclicals,[6] is common in official agreements entered into with other Christian churches^[7] and has several times been used by the most recent Popes, especially when addressing people who do not belong to the church headed by them.^[8]

Outside that church, strong objection is sometimes raised against its use of "Catholic Church" as a self-identifying term, on the grounds that "Catholic Church" properly applies to the

Soidi (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

references

If there is to be a historical part, we cannot jump straight from Ignatius's use of the term to modern usage, as if there had been no intervening development. The effort to avoid quibbles about the exactness of some expressions has necessarily made the language somewhat convoluted, but in the discussion stage exactness is perhaps more important than facility. Soidi (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Xandar's version, mainly because it's simpler. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the ending in view of Xandar's questioning of it elsewhere. Soidi (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This version also covers all the bases, I think. Soidi's comment that if' we cover the history we need to be more comprehensive seems apt. Do we need the history? Sunray (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that we do. Soidi (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We need some history of the term. Not much, but background to where the name came from. Xandar 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a some different views on this. A couple of observations: While history would be nice, the guideline doesn't require historical reference and we do have limited space (as this is a note). As Soidi points out, it is probably not a good idea to jump straight from Ignatius to modern usage. Bottom line is that history may be difficult to do properly in such a constrained space. Gimmetrow has suggested that our formulation should be to show how "term X is used in document Y" we want to avoid any interpretation (hence even limiting secondary sources). Does this make sense? Comments from other participants? Sunray (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As was mentioned a few months back, we could keep this note short and to the point and save the sources for a small spin-off article should the need arise. However might cause more controversy than it would resolve. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Soidi's version is too complicated and contains a lot of text that is not referenceable to any source. It contains weasel words throughout and is full of OR. I does not make use of our best sources but relies on citing examples of original documents relying on one Wikipedia editors interpretations of what those documents are referring to with no second reference to a reliable source that says the same. I like Xandar's version better too.NancyHeise ^talk 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In place of the word "examples" it is easy to cite a few concrete examples, selecting them from the many available. Do you want them? Soidi (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposed note seems the least controversial so far, with only Soidi putting forward a couple of contentious changes. Xandar 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that any of the versions to date need some editing to meet our goal. Nancy's first cut, Xandar's version and Soidi's have all added to to the picture (note that I am purposely accentuating the positive, here). Kraftlos has emphasized that it needs to be short and to the point. I share his misgivings about a spin-off article - let's worry about that later. Since several people have said that Xandar's version is workable, shall we focus our efforts on that? Sunray (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I was wondering if we might ping the other members of the mediation for comments but we can wait and do that after we come up with a compromise note. NancyHeise ^talk 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Soidi's proposed amendments (in blue in the sandboxed version overleaf): The word "other" before "documents of the Second Vatican Council" is uncontroversial. I could probably also live with "almost all" before "its official and self defining documents". In Soidi's other two proposed changes: Adding "Some" before "Eastern Catholics, in particular, object", is not borne out by the references. Eastern Catholics DO object strongly to being called "Roman Catholic".

Similarly, snd saying: (Soidi's amendments in brackets): "It is (one of) the name(s) used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium," would again be factually wrong. Of the alternative names posited here and elsewhere, only "Catholic Church" appears in Lumen Gentium. The proposed change here would be misleading and wrong. Xandar 00:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's statement is incorrect. Gimmetrow 03:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What, specifically, is wrong? Sunray (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably what Gimmetrow was referring to was Xandar's claim that "only" CC appears in LG. It is possible, but unlikely, that he was referring to Xandar's claim that putting "some" before "Eastern Catholics" is not borne out by references. There are references for that: the Catholic Encyclopedia says that Maronites "are proud to call themselves Roman Catholics". It is Xandar's claim that all Eastern Catholics object strongly to being called Roman Catholics that is unreferenced. Soidi (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we all seem to agree that "officially known" needs to go, why is it still in the article? If the defenders are unwilling to remove it, why do they refuse to allow any acknowledgement of the dispute, even though Sunray said OK? Gimmetrow 03:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's get the agreements finalized on this page and then make all the changes to the article at the same time. First, however, we have to finalize the note and then finalize the name. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of references to documents to Xandar's version. Soidi, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any other name than "Catholic Church" used in Lumen Gentium. I would suggest that we find additional citations for Xandar's version (or revise those sentences so marked). We need citations for everything in the note. Once that is done, I would suggest that we move the note back to this page and invite anyone who hasn't already commented to do so. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lumen gentium uses "the Catholic Church" just 5 times in the body of the document; it uses "the Church of God" and "the Church of Christ" only slightly less frequently and also only in the body of the document. (These examples of other names are sufficient to show that it uses more than one.) But for the title of the document it chose "the Church". It uses "the Church" 7 times in the titles of sections of the document. And it uses the same name 186 times in the body of the document (without counting the 9 times the same name appears also in the appendix to the document, which is part of the official acts of the Council, and which also explicitly speaks of the concrete Church that has the Pope as its head, not of some supposed ideal Church). Soidi (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You are raising important points because we will get questioned about this. It seems to me that the references to the "Church of God" are biblical or historical, rather than references to the modern Church. For example: "Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God." References to the "Church of Christ," seem to be referring to all of Christianity. For example:

"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."[emphasis mine].

I also note that the word "Catholic" (capitalized) is used throughout the document to refer to members of the Church; "catholic" (uncapitalized) seem to refer to the unified Christian church. Comments by others? Sunray (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

May I point out that, in the original and only official text of the sentence that you quote (from section 8), "catholica" is not capitalized: what you have there is "Ecclesia catholica". ("Ecclesia", in this sense, is always capitalized in the document.) "Ecclesia catholica" is thus treated on a par with, for instance, "Ecclesia universalis" (a synonym of "Ecclesia catholica") in section 19. Although one would expect only one name to be mentioned in each sentence (which would not suggest that that that particular name is the only valid name), may I also point out that in this particular sentence LG not only gives "catholica" a lower-case initial, but continues with the note: "Dicitur “Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia”, in Prof. fidei Trid., l. c. et CONC. VAT. I, Const. dogm. de fide cath. Dei Filius" (It [the Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri etc.] is called the "holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church" in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius), an indication that LG considers that what it calls the Catholic (or catholic) Church is also called Roman. But what I mainly stressed above was that, as the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is proof that "the Catholic Church" is an officially used name (but not, as some people would have it, proof that it is the only official name), so the title of LG is proof that "the Church" is an officially used name. Soidi (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this. You make the point that using "Catholic Church" in the title of the Catechism confirms that it is an official name. It follows from what you are saying that proof is proof and there is no need to try to put forward "more proof" (although we do have to ensure that there is no contradictory evidence). This suggests a succinct note, confined only to facts. You also make the point that we should not say that "Catholic Church" is the only official name. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I would be very happy with a note as succinct as:

In its official documents, this Church commonly refers to itself (as in the title of the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) simply as "the Church". When explicitly distinguishing itself from other Christian Churches and communities, it uses "the Catholic Church" (as in the same Council's Decree on Ecumenism) or, more rarely, "the Roman Catholic Church" (as in the 1977 Agreement signed by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Donald Coggan of Canterbury).

History of the names and the reasons why some avoid one name or another could very suitably be left for a special article or section of an article.

However, I think certain editors want something much more complicated. Soidi (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but others have expressed the need for a concise note. Finding the right balance seems to be important. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As one of those that has argued for a more detailed note, I would like to clarify that I am amenable to a concise note. I am most concerned that the whole story with all the bits about sectarian polemics and bishops at Vatican I, etc. get told somewhere in Wikipedia. I do not insist that the story be presented in the Note. In fact, I rather suspect that, the more we try to put in the Note, the harder it will be to get consensus. The alternatives are to present the story in a section of the article or another entirely separate article. Our early experience with

User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church suggests that reaching consensus on the story may still be difficult. However, if we can resolve the issue for this article (which is a very important article), we can defer the conflict over the story to Names of the Catholic Church which is a much more esoteric topic of relatively little interest to most readers. --Richard (talk

) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certain editors have already voiced their preference for Xandars version of the note. Also, I want to point out the the "original document" in English on the Vatican Website uses the term Catholic Church with capital Cs signifying the name of the Church. (Perhaps this was done for a specific reason.) "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,..."[18] NancyHeise ^talk 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The original document is not in English. It is in Latin. Soidi (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the Latin text may provide useful guidance, at times. However, according to WP:VER, must use

English-language sources

"in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." As the Vatican itself publishes the English version, we are obliged to use that in the note.

I have referenced Xandars version of the note and added some of Soidi's version into it while also citing the sources that support each statement in the article text as Sunray suggested. Even though the English language version with the capitalized Catholic Church comes straight from the Vatican website and

WP:VER#Non-English sources requires us to use this version, I omitted language that refers to the use of the term Catholic Church in Lumen Gentium to hopefully make Soidi happy and just stated how the document is signed. Let me know what you think. It is here [19] NancyHeise ^talk

17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:VER#Non-English sources envisages two distinct sources of approximately equal authority. The various available English translations of LG are far from being comparable with the original for authority. If on any point an English translation disagrees with the text approved and signed by Pope Paul VI and the other Bishops, on that point it has no value whatever. Soidi (talk

) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy's editing of Xandars version with elements from Soidi

Nancy produced a new version of the note on the sandbox page, largely with the intention of accommodating Soidi's comments. Unfortunately Soidi has added so much new, irrelevant and antagonistic material to it on that page, that it is almost impossible to make it out Nancy's original version. We are supposed to be moving towards agreement here. Not coming up with new sets of demands as soon as we are approaching an acceptable format. Anyway, I reprint Nancy's attempted compromise version below. Xandar 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.

The Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[10] particularly in English-speaking countries.^[6] It originated as a derogatory label applied to Catholics by Protestants beginning in the 16th century^[11] "who resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of Catholicity".^[12] Presently, it is sometimes used by the Church in ecumenical negotiations and agreements such as the ARCIC with churches that subscribe to the Branch theory,^{[citation needed]} even though this theory is rejected by the Church.^[11][6] Some governments have required the Church to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.^[11] Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" and "Roman Catholic" refers to either the Diocese of Rome or to specify that part of the Church which uses the Roman liturgy,

References

Discussion

Among the thousands of documents that Paul VI signed as Pope, he signed just 49 16 with the form "Ego Paulus Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus", and these 49 16 documents were also signed by hundreds of other bishops, none of whom signed as "Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus".[20] [21] [22] [23] What does Nancy present this as proof of? It certainly does not prove that CC is the one and only official name for the Church. This is just one of the weasel-type non-sequiturs in Nancy's text. It was only right to point them out.

Nancy spoke of "the Church constitution". The Church has nothing corresponding to the written constitution of a country. It issues hundreds of documents titled Constitutions, but none of them is the Church's constitution. It has issued at least one such document on (about) the Church, but there is no document that claims to be the Constitution of the Church. Paul VI did propose drawing up such a document, but the idea was discarded.

Nancy quotes the opinion of Thurston in the Catholic Encyclopedia article that "Roman Catholic" originated among Protestant divines, but omits what Thurston says in the same article about "Ecclesia Catholica Romana," or "l'Eglise catholique romaine" being common both in Latin and in the Romance languages before 1575. To balance Thurston's self-contradicted statement, it was only right to insert a quotation from a more authoritative Catholic writer, the Jesuit scholar John Hardon, who states that "Roman Catholic" was in use from at least the early Middle Ages.

Nancy speaks of "Roman Catholic" being used in ecumenical negotiations and in agreements by theologians such as the members of ARCIC. This weasel-style statement suggests that the use "Roman Catholic" is confined to these cases, and omits to say that "Roman Catholic" is used also in ecumenical agreements by the Church itself, represented by the Pope, and even in non-ecumenical contexts such as those of papal encyclicals.

Nancy's text says that within the Church "Roman Catholic" is used of the Diocese of Rome (yes, it is) or "to specify that part of the Church which uses the Roman liturgy" (almost certainly inexact). This is another weasel-style statement that suggests that within the Church "Roman Catholic" is never used of the Church as a whole, which is false.

Why not just show (one example is enough) that CC is used officially, and (again a single example is enough) that RCC is used officially, and omit all these weasel statements that seem to be inserted merely to suggest (without actually stating it) that CC is the one and only name used officially, and that RCC appears only in non-official contexts? Of course, you may also add the fact that some writers hold a certain view on that question, even if their view does not seem to be borne out by reality. Soidi (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi. We've had these sort of rants from you for the past nine months. Much of this stuff is just re-hashing old fights and making mountains out of molehills. It seems clear from the above that you hate Nancy's latest version. Since we're here to resolve this, rather than dig deeper into trenches, let's go back to my earlier version, in which we only had two points still in contention. I'll re print it here, with the amendments still disputed in green.

Xandar's merged version III

• The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the undivided Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.
• The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" (among other names) in almost all its most official and self defining documents.^[1] It is one of the^{[citation needed]} name used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, and in the other documents of the Second Vatican Council, and is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,^[2] the central compendium of Catholic belief created by the Church in 1992. The Catholic Encyclopedia^{[verification needed]} and Catholic experts^{[dubious – discuss]} such as Whitehead and Madrid, state that this is either the proper or official name for the Church.
• The name Roman Catholic Church is also in widespread popular usage, particularly[
  catholicity, but also sometimes when addressing its own faithful. At times the Church has also been required by governments to adopt the name "Roman Catholic Church" in legal documents.^{[<span title="the governments did not accept use of the disputed name of "Catholic Church" but did not impose "Roman Catholic Church" (March 2009)">citation needed}
  ]
• The name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label that was applied to them by Protestants from the 17th century onward.^[citation needed] The name is avoided by the Church when its use is susceptible of being interpreted as acceptance of the theory that the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches are but branches of a single Catholic Church (see Branch Theory.)^{[citation needed]} Some Eastern Catholics in particular object to being labeled "Roman Catholic", preferring to be called "Eastern Catholic." In this usage "Roman Catholic" describes that part of the Catholic Church which uses the Roman or Latin liturgy.^{[citation needed]}
• Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" is used to refer to the church of the Diocese of Rome.^{[citation needed]}
• The name Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church has also, at times, been used to designate the Church.

Xandar 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Two phrases in magenta added by Soidi (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You made your original comments on this draft, Soidi. I am dubious of the legitimacy of now coming up with new difficulties. We don't want to deal with one set of problems, only to have you then keep coming up with more. Xandar 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, especially since the first of the two phrases that I have now added in magenta here was one that I had already added to the Sandbox version of your proposal, but that somehow disappeared when you copied your proposal to here. Soidi (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You added the magenta points AFTER we'd discussed and reached some compromises on your original points. Now we can't go into honest negotiating, compromising on the wording of the note, if, once we're getting somewhere, you or someone else starts to add new demands. Most of us don't wish to waste time playing games, we'd rather be working seriously on improving this and other articles. We need a serious attempt to reach an agreeable note. It shouldn't be too difficult, but we don't want to be messed around. As for your latest points. The comment, (among other names) after "The Church titles itself Catholic Church" is wrongly placed, since other names are dealt with under their own bullet points. The additional point about the Church using "Roman Catholic" when "addressing its own faithful" is again not backed up by the facts or sources, and is itself a weaselly term in that it implies that the Church normally uses RCC, which it does not. Xandar 00:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to cut short this unproductive side-discussion on the legitimacy of adding "but also sometimes when addressing its own faithful", I have struck it out. I was and am unaware of any "compromise" having been reached to omit "among other names", which is needed unless we want to give the quite false impression that CC is the only name by which the Church is referred to in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Soidi (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for this late comment (I have not been paying close attention to the composition of the Note, deferring to other editors). However, I just noticed the phrase "the Church has also been required by governments..." and the associated Fact tag. I agree with whoever put the Fact tag there. We can say that the Church uses "Roman Catholic" in legal agreements with other governments but it seems to be a bit of an overreach to say that they were required to do so. Do we have a source that asserts that this was "required"? (NB: The Church may have felt that RCC was the only other choice but that's not quite "required". Also, are we sure that they were "required" in all cases or just in the case of the United Kingdom? They may have chosen to do so in legal agreements with other countries.)

As for "Catholic experts", could we substitute "Catholic writers" instead? I know it's a bit of a weasel but "writers" is not a false characterization and it could help address the "dubious" objection (which I assume Soidi put there).

--Richard (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On governments forcing the use of "Roman Catholic Church" I believe we have some references for this with regard to the United Kingdom, and at the time, (circa 1900) this would have also applied in "Empire" countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland etc. I'm not sure about the state of affairs in the United States. Xandar 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard's main point was that there are no grounds for saying that (for an officially received address to the head of state, who was also supreme head of the Church of England) the British government required RCC, rather than saying that it refused to accept CC. Would it not be best to adjust your text accordingly and move on? Soidi (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC) This remark is added after the remarks by Richard below: My memory of what Thurston wrote was false. It seems that the British government (one government, singular) did insist on the use of "RC" in two public addresses (not legal documents in general). Sorry for not having checked my wrong memory. Soidi (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Soidi. That is part of what I was trying to say. However, my point is a little broader than simply that. We should avoid the implication that, because some governments have insisted on RCC in official agreements, every instance where RCC is used in an official agreement with a government is there only because the government involved in that agreement insisted on it.

Whoa, wait a minute. Interestingly, when I went to our repository of sources, I found no examples where "Roman Catholic Church" is used in any of the agreements. There is the 1976 agreement with Spain where "la Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana" is used but that's not exactly the same thing. Are we now saying that "Roman Catholic Church" is not known by us to be used in any agreement with another government? If so, that defuses my second point which is that the repository of sources contains no instances of "Roman Catholic Church" being used in an official agreement with the United Kingdom or any Commonwealth nation or the United States.

I have no particular axe to grind here (at least, not yet). I'm just surprised that we have secondary sources that assert that RCC is used in agreements with other governments (even required by those governments) but we don't have primary sources providing instances of such required usage.

--Richard (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't help thinking there is a certain confusion just above. I think only one secondary source has been interpreted as saying that a government "forced the use of" RCC: Thurston's Catholic Encyclopedia article. (On this my own memory too played me false, as I now see, and I had better withdraw or modify my remark on it above.) This concerned the designation to be used for the Bishops in an address that they wished to present to their civil Sovereign on a public occasion (perhaps by reading it out in the Sovereign's presence). It was not a matter of an top-level agreement between the Holy See and "another government" (to use your phrase). No secondary source of which I am aware says that any government insisted on the term RCC in any such concordat or agreement. And as far as I know, and as you too have found, the term RCC is not in fact used in any such top-level agreement. Soidi (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I trhink we should wait a day to see if anything else crops up, and then try to resolve remaining disagreements on the note. Xandar 10:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid disagreements, I would suggest that we only keep (or add) statements to the note that are substantiated by primary sources. If I read Richard right, he is saying we should not be using secondary sources in this case (naming) that are not supported by primary documents. I agree with that. I also think that Gimmetrow's point about brevity is important. The example of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very strong. So let us begin with that and build a note that we can all agree with. Sunray (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" in almost all its most official and self defining documents". This is the sort of sentence that has been a problem for months. Ignore for the moment whether the church "titles itself" or whether churchmen use terms to refer to it. You could replace "Catholic Church" with quite a few other terms and the sentence would still be true insofar as the term appears in official documents and refers to the church. However, this sentence says much more than the mere appearance of some particular term in a document. Since it only lists one name, it says that the church "self-defines" with only that name. If we had any "official document" where the church clearly "self-defines" with a single name, I don't think this discussion would be happening. Gimmetrow 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That "The Church titles itself "Catholic Church" in almost all its most official and self defining documents", is simply a statement of fact. This is the name used in the Catechism, Lumen Gentium, the Documents of Vatican II, the majority of pronouncements and the Eastern and Western Codes of Canon Law. The sentence uses the name Catholic Church because that is the way the note is set out, separating usages of Catholic Church and other names. It is quite clear what name the Church self-defines by, and there is ample evidence for this. Some people just don't want that evidence to appear. Xandar 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the full statement of fact is "among other names": it is not a fact that the Church titles itself nothing else but "Catholic Church" in almost all its most official and self-defining documents. Soidi (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Building the note

I suggest we add statements that we think we have general agreement on. How about this for an approach: The mediator and participants may add statements that they think have general agreement or ones they want to test the consensus on. If others do not agree, they should indicate their concern and discuss it. If no consensus is reached on a particular statement, it remains out of the note, for now. Sunray (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, as I say below. If we look for "statements that we think we have general agreement on," we simply rehash all these months of argument. We should be looking for clear and concise statements of disagreement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it also would be a good idea for participants who add statements below to include reference to a primary source. Sunray (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Points of agreement

• [The Catholic Church] is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the central compendium of Catholic belief"authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine" created by the Church in 1992.^[2]
  • The description of the CCC is not the clearest and best. What exactly is meant by the unsourced "central compendium" phrase? Why not instead quote the papal document ordering publication of the CCC, which calls it "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine"? But I will raise no objection if some editor insists on the vaguer expression. Apart from this defect, the text seems to be a statement of an unquestionable fact, free of any POV interpretation. Soidi (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Revised wording added. Sunray (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There can be POV in the selection of facts to present. If we have this fact, will we also have the fact that Lumen Gentium is the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church"?[24] Gimmetrow 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder is it possible that Gimmetrow may be chiefly questioning the giving of special weight to the CCC. Would it be enough to say just "The Catholic Church is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church" and let the reader attribute whatever weight he judges proper to this fact? Soidi (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If Xandar can argue that it is misleading to say that terms appear in documents, then by the same argument the sentence above is misleading. Gimmetrow 05:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Both statements seem to be factual, what is your preference Gimmetrow? Sunray (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• It is the name most frequently used to refer to the Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, and in the other documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[1]
  • Note new wording in italics. This is measurable (thus likely unassailable). Sunray (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For Lumen Gentium, that statement is verifiably false. In [25], "Catholic Church" is used 6 times. "the Church" is used 190+ times (excluding "the church of God" and "the church of Christ") Gimmetrow 10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gimmetrow. And I would not limit his observation to LG alone. So this statement must either be moved down to "Points not (yet) agreed to" or else it should be replaced here by the sentence that is now in that section and that institutes a comparison between the frequency of two names only: CC and RCC. Soidi (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Surely "The Church" is a neutral term that can refer to any name. In order to verify the most frequently used term, we can search the Vatican II documents for all names. Sunray (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • What is true of LG is true of the Second Vatican Council documents as a whole. Do you want me to count the number of times "the Catholic Church" appears in some other document or documents and compare it with the number of times another name is used? In these documents "the Church" is by no means a neutral term: it refers specifically to the CC/RCC and nothing else. So this statement, even as modified a few hours ago, does not belong among the agreed ones. Soidi (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• In the Common Declaration of 29 April 1977 of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Donald Coggan the Roman Catholic Church is the name used for the Church represented by Pope Paul VI.

Points not (yet) agreed to

• There is some dispute as to whether in fact the church has an "official name," and what that name might be.
  • "Untrue", says Xandar. And someone else said that there is no evidence that there is any dispute except among us Wikipedia editors. In that case this statement is not something on which we agree and must be removed from the list. Soidi (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Various terms, including "Catholic Church" (for instance, in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and "Roman Catholic Church" (for instance, in the 29 April 1977 Common Declaration appear in official church documents referring to the church.
  • In view of Xandar's objection below, I suggest adding at the end: "Roman Catholic Church" appears much less frequently than "Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The relative frequency is a separate idea. Before that can even be considered, we must establish that the term(s) are present. Are they, or not? Gimmetrow 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Gimmetrow is right. Xandar has not denied that in official Church documents the Church is referred to by various terms, including the two mentioned. And in fact it is undeniable: the Church's own documents show it is so. So it seems that it belongs to "Points of agreement". Xandar's objection seems to be equivalent to proposing the following separate idea, on which we probably all agree, and which could therefore also be included among the points of agreement: Soidi (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the Church's official documents "Roman Catholic Church" appears much less frequently than "Catholic Church" as a name for the Church.
  • I think Soidi's line above is true, but it may be difficult to find multiple secondary sources saying this. Gimmetrow 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some Catholics dislike the term "Roman Catholic Church".
  • Xandar objects to the use of "some". "All" would not be acceptable to others: the popes, in particular, seem to have no objection to using the term; and its use has been defended by other Catholics. Can this be rephrased, or should it be excluded from the statements on which we agree? Soidi (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • All that "some" designates is that there exists more than one Catholic who dislikes/disapproves/distrusts the term. Given that quite a few sources demonstrate it (Whitehead, McClintock, Vaughan, Walsh, McBrien), is it true, or not? If we can agree on that, perhaps we can agree on "many"? Gimmetrow 05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As a rephrasing, I propose: Dislike has been expressed within the Church to use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" (followed by a cited example). This does not say "some" or "all". And I don't think Xandar can seriously say it is false. I think this is more elegant than Gimmetrow's "Many Catholics dislike ...", which might provoke the same objection that has been raised against "Some Catholics dislike ..." More important, perhaps, it would require sourcing with "many" examples. But if Gimmetrow's phrase is preferred to mine, I too accept it. Soidi (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • According to Walsh, "a good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'. They do so for a variety of reasons." Gimmetrow 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of concerns

I'm surprised that in the various versions of the note, nobody has mentioned the one point of clear agreement: that there is disagreement on this matter. Again, in my initial suggestion, I tried to make this clear with the following sentence: "There is some dispute as to whether in fact the church has an "official name," and what that name might be." I would have thought that this fact should be highlighted in any note. Indeed, this should be the purpose of the note: to explain and outline the controversy, rather than to argue one way or another. This is why the note should in fact be very simple to write. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added your statement to the "Points of agreement," so we can test consensus on it. Sunray (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or to put this another way... I see no reason why the note should revolve around "points of agreement." Au contraire: it should outline the points of disagreement. If you look to build the note around what is agreed, then (as in fact we're seeing) we'll just get the same old arguments rehashed once again. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if we agree on the points of disagreement ;-) Your point suggests that a powerful statement can contain oppositional propositions. I certainly agree. What I am trying to do by asking for points of agreement is to encourage collaboration among participants. This group of participants are are all very well schooled in logical argument. But if disagreements become sticking points, we could be here a very long time. If we shift to finding points of agreement, we may start to get somewhere in resolving this dispute. Collaborative editing can be very powerful if there is a common goal and everyone has a voice. Given the talents of this group, I am very optimistic that we will succeed. Sunray (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what's meant by the notion that "a powerful statement can contain oppositional propositions." Again, my point is to keep this note simple. And the note is not a place to resolve the dispute, but rather to outline differences. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Jbmurray about documenting disagreements provided that those disagreements can be verified to exist in the real world. I am experienced in doing this with

Nanking Massacre controversy

. But here's the problem: those controversies are well-document to exist "in the wild", both in scholarly publications and in the popular media. That does not seem to be the case with this "dispute".

Has anyone seen a citation to a reliable source (or even a not so reliable source) that suggests that there is a current dispute about the "official name" of the Church? (I mean now in this century as opposed to 100+ years ago?) There is the serious risk that this dispute is the result of original research on the part of a group of Wikipedians (us). I am willing to document the fact that both CC and RCC are in both common and official usage. However, I am not willing to have Wikipedia say that there is a dispute over the names when we have no evidence of such dispute in academic writings, writings from within or without the Church or even the popular media.

My feeling is that, for the most part, the Church itself doesn't much care about the "official name" nor does it care enough about the usage of CC vs. RCC to make an official pronouncement about it. Some Catholic writers such as Whitehead, Madrid and McClintock do care enough to argue for CC over RCC but it's not as if you can come up with tens of such pieces via Google. It's not as if everybody echoes these writers and cites them as the basis for the statement. For the most part, nobody seems to care as much as they do (well, except that EWTN republishes Whitehead on their website). On the other hand, nobody seems to care enough about RCC to write a defense of it. (at least, not in the past 100 years). Also, nobody seems to care enough about what Whitehead, Madrid and McClintock say about CC to attack their argument. And yes, this last paragraph is OR but it seems to be the truth.

--Richard (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree, and have been making exactly this point for some time. Hence my wording "some dispute." Not much of one, but "some." It is absolutely true that by an order of magnitude (several orders of magnitude, probably), the bulk of that dispute is to be found here on Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course, if "some dispute" is still too strong, then that can be modified further: "There is some disagreement..."

But again, my main point is that this note should not be an attempt to prove the case one way or another. It should be simply descriptive: Mostly it's unclear whether or not the Church has an official name; the vast majority of churchmen and scholars seem to be remarkably unconcerned by this fact; the few who do opine have differing views either way; the reasons why people might care are such and such. Very simple, very easy. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, except for Madrid, nobody seems to positively say the church has an "official name". (Some do say something to the effect that "RCC isn't it", but this seems like a shorthand for saying that a distrusted term can't be official, and "RC" is or should be distrusted.) I still think "naming" the church is a big trap. Both McBrien and Walsh give sets of arguments for "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", though more as referring to members than the church. Whether the main text says "CC, also known as RCC" or something else, I think the essential part of the note should be something to the effect:

Although both CC and RCC are commonly used, some Catholic writers argue the term RCC should be avoided insofar as it was used by some non-Catholics to intend there was some other Catholic Church that was not Roman.

I would rather start from there and see what others say absolutely must be added. I would hope this would satisfy Xandar as it shows an asymmetry in these two names. Gimmetrow 03:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Sunray is rightly suggesting that we should start with items on which we can reach consensus, that we should avoid, at this point, raising questions about people's interpretations of the Church's practice - all the more if these interpretations are conflicting - or about what people think the Church should do or should avoid, and that we should limit ourselves to examining what the Church actually does. Someone objected above that the selection of facts could set up a POV. If we all agree on what the facts are, I don't see that as a problem. Of course, the facts must be presented in their completeness; for instance, if we say that in certain documents the Church uses "CC", we should indicate whether in the same document it uses other names as well, since that is part of the fact. Soidi (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray also suggested sticking, for now, to primary sources. There is no primary source, one way or another, on the question of an official name. So I think that should be left until later. Soidi (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I've added the two pieces of my note to the proposed "points of agreement". Gimmetrow 04:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What primary sources can we use for those statements? Sunray (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, this is the persistent problem we have faced with Gimmetrow and Soidi, they want us to put info in the note that is unreferenceable original research and they want us to exclude important referenceable material.NancyHeise ^talk 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That the Catholic Church is the name used in the title of the CCC is referenceable by the document itself. That in the Common Declaration of 29 April 1977 of Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Donald Coggan the Roman Catholic Church is the name used for the Church represented by Pope Paul VI is referenceable by the document itself. That "RCC" is not used by the Church itself is referenceable only as Whitehead's view, not as a fact. Soidi (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, this is the persistent problem we have faced with NancyHeise and Xandar. They have succeeded in establishing unreferenced original research in a high-profile article, yet refuse to remove it when challenged to reference it, and even when opposing sources are given they dismiss them as "insigificant", thereby excluding other referenceable material. Gimmetrow 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Participants are requested to stick with content, not the contributor. Also, please note that we need primary sources to support the use of a particular name. Sunray (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy at

WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". Why do you keep directing mediation to "primary sources"? Gimmetrow

10:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it that Sunray is asking for primary sources only for statements about what is the Church's actual usage. Surely, Gimmetrow, you agree that the Church's own documents are better sources for deciding whether the Church does actually use "Roman Catholic Church", rather than secondary sources like Whitehead that declare that the Church never uses that name. That is not the sort of matter than the Wikipedia policy has in mind. Soidi (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ ^{a b} "Vatican II documents". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1965.
2. ^ ^{a b} "Catechism of the Catholic Church". Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 2006.