Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent addition and revert of Francis' response to dubia by Burke, Bradmüller, et al.

[edit]

Two editors in quick succession added, and then removed content about the recent dubia by two cardinals and others addressed to Pope Francis, which included questions about the blessing of same-sex unions, and other matters.[1][2] Neither the addition of this content, nor its removal, were proper; at least not for the stated reasons in the edit summaries. The addition of content (diff) was improper, because there was no valid sourcing. Although two references were provided, the first was the letter by the cardinals itself, along with the Pope's reply, thus a WP:PRIMARY source, and the second one is from the news and information portal of the Catholic Church in Germany, and so isn't independent, and since the article dealt heavily in quotations with no analysis, it's really only repeating content from the primary source, and cannot be counted as secondary. So, the addition of content in Wikipedia's voice based on these primary, non-independent sources fails our reliable sourcing policy and amounts to the opinion of the IP editor who added it, and therefore is inadmissible original research.

For those reasons, I agree with the removal of this content in this edit. However, not for the reasons stated in the revert summary, which gave no justification based on policy- or guideline, but rather provided yet another non-independent, primary source, namely, the English translation of the response by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.[3] This amounted to removing the previous WP:Original research by an argument based on more WP:Original research, therefore, not a valid reason, either. On balance, since the burden of proof is on the person wishing to add content, the removal was correct, even if the stated reasoning was not.

I would support inclusion of the content if proper reliable sourcing could be found, meaning WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:SECONDARY, but for now, the status quo is the correct one, per policy. Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Katholisch.de: Legale Sünde – Der Papst und die Entkriminalisierung von Homosexualität, 16 February 2023
  2. ^ Reuters: Pope Francis says laws criminalising LGBT people are a 'sin' and an injustice
  3. ^ Ladaria, Luis F. (22 February 2021). "Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex".

On the use of the term "couples"

[edit]

Whenever Fiducia Supplicans and the blessings are mentioned, I think we should say "priests can bless individuals in same-sex relationships" instead of "priests can bless same-sex couples". Saying "couples" makes it sound like priests can bless the union, and that goes against Church teaching and the new document. 177.85.3.155 (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like the USCCB use "couples". It's not meant the way most media initially reported it as. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Roman-Catholic Church for civil unions/partnerships, but not for same-sex marriage

[edit]

We have in Germany by all Roman-Catholic bishops a manual for blessing ceremonies for same-sex unions; we have "Fiducia supplicans" for same-sex unions by pope Francis; we have in Italy and Hungary civil unions by state; Pope Francis supported civil unions --92.77.57.101 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't convinced anyone here that any of this is support of the Roman-Catholic Church (as a whole). See also this other discussion page. Stop adding the same things without decent sources. Vollis (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]