Talk:Fiducia supplicans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Translation

Are we required to follow the official translation? "Supplicating Trust" is just terrible. Supplicans means supplicating in cognate-speak, but also begging or praying. An idiomatic translation might be "prayerful confidence" or "prayerful trust". Rutsq (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I say we follow RSs, considering they have provided a translation. If "improved" translations show up, we can discuss using those. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rutsq I agree with you. I was looking for an official translation into English, but I did not find it until the moment the article started. Igallards7 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple Statements from Catholic Bishop Conferences are being Deleted

For this to be a non-biased article, there has to be an inclusion of these statements. Multiple Catholic bishop conferences, even from conservative countries in Africa, are stating that this declaration does not change the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and multiple conferences have stated that these blessings are for the individuals involved. Toolioomc (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Francis has stated that the declaration applies inna collective sense and has overruled the 2021 statement.

Who is a better source of Catholic teaching, if not the Pope? It's true that certain canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops gave alternative interpretations, but the meaning of the text is now clear, and there should be no controversy over it. It allows the blessing of same-sex unions. This is agreed upon by conservative and liberal sources alike. It's also the words of Pope Francis himself. Wikipedia takes account of majority and significant minority opinions. You're asking to add fringe views into the article. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

When you imply a connect not explicitly made—in this case, specifically identifying certain groups not listed—that's called original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Others articles have stated it in more explicit terms. It's just that Associated Press and Reuters are preferred citations if I remember correctly. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: Oh that's just a very understandable and minor misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You're right to say Reuters and AP are generally preferred over most sources (they're really only inferior to academic coverage). However, if you cite them, you can only use the content in those sources. If you see another detail elsewhere, you can use a slightly less preferable but still reliable source to add that detail. If you find sources discussing the pope's comments on rigidity being associated with canon lawyers, theologians, and bishops, please add that source. I'm more than willing to self-rev with such a source. Clearly you were acting in good faith, but I think you may have been slightly confused on how to source that claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll find new citations. StardustToStardust (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Return of the Sophists

There's an efforts by editors (who I am assuming are opposed to the efforts of Francis to change how the Church approaches LGBT topics) to do mental gymnastics, cart wheels, and large-scale "popesplaining" to make interpretations concluding that this is actually no significant development at all, despite massive evidence against this.

It reminds me of the joke of the man caught in adultery by his wife. Who states:

"Who do you believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?"

At some point the obvious is obvious. (Coming from a Protestant.) StardustToStardust (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The declaration itself that it is not changing the Catholic doctrine of marriage, and if commentators, both liberal and conservative voices, are saying otherwise, that should be corrected. Toolioomc (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is still a change in how the Church approaches LGBT topics, but it the document itself and the Vatican itself is saying that it is not changing it's views on marriage or on whether the situations themselves are sins or not.

Regardless, if we are trying to be unbiased, we cannot divulge into theological discussions on a wikipedia article that is supposed to accurately describe the position itself, and the responses from both conservative and liberal sources Toolioomc (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a major change? Normally this is where I would insert a rhetorical response along the lines of "is the pope Catholic?" But that might not be appropriate given the subject matter at hand. So I will simply opine that arguing otherwise strains credulity. But we can only repeat what is being said in reliable sources. And there are people making that argument. Ergo we report what is being said in the sources. Right now the claims on this subject are all over the place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Echoing AO here. There is clear evidence of no singular interpretation. The best I can see as to a consensus in RSs agree the document itself does not explicitly endorse blessing unions, but that there is a vocal number of clergy and laity accepting this as permission to bless unions. Additionally, there are conflicting formal explanations of the document being issued by episcopal conferences (those from Ghana and Nigeria look very different from some Northern European statements). I think the insistence on definitive statements outside of the phrase "it authorizes blessing same-sex and other 'irregular' couples" is not possible for now. Also, note the use of couples—there is good media consensus on this term being the most broadly acceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we default to how the Associated Press, New York Times, Reuters, and authorities within the Catholic church are interpreting the document, as Wikipedia rules promote "majority" and "significant minority" interpretation. I think most Catholic documents have various interpretations. However, in this case, the overwhelmingly dominant one among reliable sources is that it applies to the unions themselves. I understand the need to be cautious. It's just that this is also in my view fostering views that are fringe. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would take a very deep breath before assigning an interpretation to the document in wiki-voice that is not explicitly affirmed by the Holy See. Especially when a lot of prominent persons and entities are all saying or emphasizing different things. See also WP:SYNTH. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Outside of a few outliers, the predominant viewpoint among sources is that it applies to the unions itself, which is something that even conservative philosophers like Edward Feser concede. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"Wings" of the church

I would be cautious about labeling members of the Catholic church as "conservative" or "liberal". For example, many Catholics have traditionally opposed abortion while also advocating things such as universal healthcare or raising the minimum wage. This needs definitely context if added. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

These are terms used in reliable sources. The LA Times source you added the other day used "conservative", for example. Please use the terminology present in sourcing and refrain from imposing what you believe might be synonymous terms (this applies to the couples/unions distinction, as well). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Many of these "conservative" bishops support policies on subjects such as uncontrolled immigratio (of which Catholic refuge agencies play a huge part in), healthcare, and capitalism that aren't conservative. In a lot of mainstream news coverage it is also intended to make the group look bad or radical. Mindlessly using MSM coverage should be avoided.StardustToStardust (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I again encourage you to review the verifiability policy, which you again seem to misunderstand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@StardustToStardust: please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR, for you are in the wrong here. Veverve (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Union" wording

Associated Press uses "unions" to describe the document. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This tweet is exceptional, relatively speaking.. See additional coverage: AP "unions" AP "couples", PBS "couples", Reuters "couples", Miami Herald "couples". The general English-language RS generally favor "couples". German-language media (and bishops) appear to favor "unions". ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Are those two things necessarily in contradiction? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as one refers to the persons and one refers to the relationship. For example, many bishops are pointing to the blessings as directed towards the persons in their pastoral guidance. This comment from the Bishop of Lincoln is notable in directly contradicting many of the individual episcopal opinions included in the article: "A same-sex union cannot be blessed". Far from sophist, including that many bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources are interpreting this document as not authorizing blessing same-sex unions is necessary according to policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Leading Catholic theologian Edward Feser has stated that it is "obvious" that the document is referring to the union itself. I don't doubt that some bishops have attempted to do mental gymnastics around this, and as a Protestant Christian I view homosexuality as a sin, but either the Catholic Church has messaging that is nothing less than horrendous or the dominant interpretation is what was intended by Francis. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but a tweet by a single expert is not sufficient to discount the opinion of literally dozens of individual bishops, episcopal conferences, and reliable sources. I highly encourage you to take AO's advice. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Then we can add a note or a few paragraphs about it.

However, Feser is not a random expert. He's considered a leading Catholic philosopher. If he states that he personally views the document as requiring the blessing of same-sex unions themselves, that it overturns the 2021 ruling, and that this is also the overwhelmingly dominant interpretation by Catholic priests and laity, while the Associated Press and Reuters are also reporting this, then we should make that viewpoint the main one in the article.

While I'm an evangelical Protestant, it would be a great misservice to downplay what is obvious to everyone outside of apologists, and I think most traditionalist Catholics would also not want to be deceived into thinking nothing has changed. It's clear that many within the Catholic Church want to change the organization's teachings on human sexuality, marriage, and anthropology in the long run.

I think many are attempting to do mental gymnastics surrounding this because of the notion that the Pope can not err. However, this declaration is not an infallible document, and previous papal members such as Pope Honorious have promoted notions that are now considered heretical.

Would you affirm this? StardustToStardust (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments like this indicate you are civily POV-pushing. As of right now, consensus on this article appears to favor "couples". I would come back with sources that aren't tweets. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone has bias. With that in mind, my lean would be against this being the case, as I believe homosexual actions are a sin. But this is calling balls or strikes. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press is not the author. Jess (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any source that says differently? StardustToStardust (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)