Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:50, 21 April 2009 [1].

---

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism

Nominator(s): NancyHeise ^talk 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism/archive2

• Featured article candidates/The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an interesting subject that I have worked on for months with the help of experienced FA writers and administrators who have reviewed and commented on it extensively. Thanks for taking the time to review and comment. NancyHeise ^talk 20:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• If this article is going to cover morality, it should better distinguish more or less serious obligations and failures. It should also express better the range of thought on certain points like tattoos and elective surgery, which are not necessarily included in "mutiliations" in the CCC.[2] It needs a little more historical perspective, too, not just about the history of certain moral positions (eg, just war philosophy), but about the commandments as a way of collecting moral rules, that is: how the Decalogue is used in the Church. (Moral rules are also organised in terms of the theological and cardinal virtues, or the 7 sins/virtues, for instance.) Also, I think the quote use in the caption on divorce is misleading, out of context. Gimmetrow 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gimmetrow, thanks for your comments. I changed the wording in the picture to express exactly the words used in the Catechism and referenced the sentence to the Catechism. The picture shows a man with subdermal implants in his forehead, these are expressly covered in the Catechism section referenced. There is no mention in either the article text or the picture about tattoos or body piercings. Also, I want to point out that this article is not "going to cover morality" (your words). The scope of this article is limited to the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism which is a part of the Catholic faith covered in the Catechism in its own section. It is not an article on the whole Catechism and we explained this in the lead. We explain in the second paragraph in the "Lead" and the third paragraph in "Background" how the Decalogue is used in the Church, and we wikilinked just war so reader can go directly to that page for more info. Since this page is a summary of ten commandments, we make use of wikilinks as policy suggests. Thanks for your comments. NancyHeise ^talk 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the words "subdermal implant" in the CCC, so where is this expressly covered? This, and the caption referring to divorce, seem misleading as to content. Also, if this is an article on the place of the Decalogue in the Church, then it should cover the history of the Decalogue in the Church, which includes how some applications have changed over time. Or are you planning a series which will include "Fifth Commandment in Roman Catholicism"?Gimmetrow 22:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the picture to that of a woman smoking crack cocaine since the Catechism just says "body modifications that are not for therapeutic medical purposes" and this is not defined in the actual Catechism but only on some other peripheral sites that are not as authoritative as the Catechism. The Catechism and the scholarly works supporting the article do actually say the words "use of drugs" [3] and crack fits into that category. Peter Kreeft states on page 238 of his book [4] "Especially 'the use of' (illegal) 'drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life' (CCC2291)". Does the Catechism have to actually use the words "crack cocaine" for me to use that picture? NancyHeise ^talk 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding your comment that says this article "should cover the history of the Decalogue in the Church". The article does cover that already, in the lead and background sections. Neither the Catechism nor my scholarly sources dwell on the history of any changes in the decalogue. What changes specifically would you like to see covered here? I am not aware of any changes in Church teachings, it has condemned abortion since the first century and we already cover just war theory developed by Augustine. Please be more specific. NancyHeise ^talk 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. The CC refers to "amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations" under the 5th commandment. In that context, it means pretty serious mutilations, on a par with amputation, that either removes or severely interferes with the normal function of the body, which are only permissible for medical reasons. The point is, I don't think everyone agrees the specific body modification is a mutilation in this sense. Probably just about everyone agrees that crack is an illegal drug. For historical perspective: has the Decalogue always had the same emphasis in the Church? There is a mention of a change of view on cremation. Has anything else changed somewhat? Gimmetrow 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are OK with the new picture it sounds like - great. I also placed a new picture in the sixth commandment that has a caption that is referenced to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops book on the Catechism, I included the quote. Regarding changes in Church emphasis on the decalogue: We state in the lead that it has been used in teaching the faith "ever since the fifth century" and maintains this prominent place today so there is no change to discuss. The issue concerning cremation is also covered in the article. While new issues have been introduced to mankind in these latter centuries like artificial birth control, these did not change church teaching on the ten commandments. The Church addressed these new issues in the different categories of the Ten commandments into which they fell. This is not a change in church teaching, just a clarification. Do we need to tell Reader that there was no artificial birth control before such and such a date? NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source that explains what I just stated above regarding the church addressing new issues.: [5]NancyHeise ^talk 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I added mention in "Background" that the Ten Commandments serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching referenced to this theology professor's book here [6]. I think you were making the suggestion that the Church changed its teaching on the Ten Commandments but really the Ten serve as the basis for Catholic social teaching, not the other way around. This is now included in the Background section for clarity. NancyHeise ^talk 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? If there were a featured article on, say, Beatitudes in Roman Catholicism, what would you expect to find? An explanation of the moral implications, sure, with background of the occasional when they were said. I would also want to know where and how they are used in the liturgy, and about significant treatises and sermons throughout history. I would expect some history of interpretations and a reasonable emphasis on explaining the views that are not shared by groups outside the Church. Gimmetrow 03:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I think you are going beyond the scope of this article. I am using several scholarly books to create this article and none of them cover what you have proposed here. If my scholarly sources don't cover those issues, I don't think I should try to either. Regarding views not shared by groups outside the Church, we have covered the opposing POV's in the First Commandment under Graven Images as well as in the Fifth and Sixth Commandments. Are you proposing that this article should cover the beliefs of other Christian groups interpretations of the Ten Commandments? I would have to disagree since the title of the article specifies which Christian group the article is about. The main article on the Ten Commandments of which this article is a subpage, has the information on the various beliefs of different Christian groups. This page has a link to that page in the very first sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are probably explaining the CCC, so If you follow them, you will have an article on the "Ten Commandments as presented in the CCC". Is that the scope you want? Gimmetrow 04:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My sources are explaining more than the Catechism and draw upon more than just the Catechism. Please see the bibliography of the article for a list of these sources. The source used most often is Peter Kreeft's Catholic Christianity which is a scholarly source with notes to the Catechism as well as relevant papal encyclicals, sermons and all those things you wanted me to include. I have also used Pope Benedicts Jesus of Nazareth among other neat sources that go beyond a mere interpretation of the Catechism. None of these go into the subjects you have suggested above and I think your request is beyond the scope of this article which mirrors the most scholarly works on the subject. NancyHeise ^talk 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But you just said Kreeft includes "all those things"? Gimmetrow 04:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As references and he discusses them. I have included Kreefts comments referencing these other items throughout the article. See the Tenth Commandment for an example [7]. Please read the whole article to see how different sources have been used to create a whole picture of each commandment that goes beyond the Catechism - even though the Catechism is the central consolidated work of Catholic belief that this article relies upon the most - as it should. NancyHeise ^talk 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, just scanning through the article, there are numerous references to documents throughout the article beyond the Catechism. I make a list for you here so you can see that we go way beyond the Catechism and include the relevant documents where appropriate as used by our scholarly sources:

• 1)In Background we have references to the Bible, the book Western Civilization, Peter Kreeft, the Torah, the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, Lutheranism, and Augustine of Hippo's book Questions on Exodus, Schreck.
• 2)In the First Commandment we have references to Augustine of Hippo, the Catechism, the Second Council of Nicea and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Schreck
• 3)In the Second Commandment we have references to Gospel of John, Kreeft, Catechism, and Pope Benedict XVI, Schreck
• 4)In the Third Commandment we have referenes to Pope Benedict, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Catechism, papal encyclical Dies Domini and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Schreck
• 5)In the Fourth Commandment we have references to Pope Benedict, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Catechism, Sirach, Gospel of Matthew, Kreeft, Shreck
• 6)In the Fifth Commandment we have references to Kreeft, a book called Life Unworthy of Life, various medical books and journals, the Catechism, the US Catechism for Adults, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Second Vatican Council, Gospel of Matthew, Schreck
• 7)In the Sixth Commandment, we have references to Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II, the Catechism, the US Catechism for Adults, Kreeft, DignityUSA, Courage International, various news articles, Schreck
• 8)In the Seventh Commandment, we have references to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism
• 9)In the Eighth Commandment, we have references to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism
• 10)In the Ninth Commanment, we have refernces to Kreeft, Schreck and the Catechism and the Gospel of Matthew
• 11)In the Tenth Commandment, we have references to the Catechism, Kreeft, the US Bishops, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Paul, the Gospel, Schreck NancyHeise ^talk 05:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has references. It needs more historical perspective to be comprehensive. With that, I'm out. Gimmetrow 11:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Gimmetrow. The article does more than reference these, they discuss them in the article text. If my scholarly sources went into more of a history, I would have included more of a history. I also did a search on Googlebooks to try to attend to your comment but there is nothing more about the history of the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism other than what we have already provided. The Ten Commandments are pretty straightforward, not much can really change about them you know. NancyHeise ^talk 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Commandments don't change. Man's interpretation and application of them does have a tendency to change, though. Anyway, the article still has this sentence:

The Church considers "marriages marked by serious emotional, physical, or substance abuse" to be candidates for valid annulment.

This seems misleading, out of context. Gimmetrow 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Per your comment here, that sentence referenced to this source [8] has now been moved to the section that discusses separation, domestic violence and annulments. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You've moved it to the small section on separation, but the quote says annulment. If it's going to be used at all, it should be in the section on annulments. However, you're missing the point - the quote is out of context as it stands. Read the source (a diocesan website) and notice everything else discussed in the same context as the one part you've selected to quote. It's discussing "signs" that may indicate a reason for investigation, all of which imply something that existed for the entire term of the union. Taking this one part out of that contexts implies that substance abuse appearing years after a marriage could be grounds for annulment - which is misleading without more explanation. Gimmetrow 16:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good comment, I have rearranged this section per your comments here. Since separation, civil divorce and annulments are not considered an offense against the dignity of marriage, I have made them their own section instead of including them in that section and expanded upon what could pass for cause for investigation for annulment per the source that lists those grounds. Please see the section again. Thanks for pointing this out, it led to an important change. NancyHeise ^talk 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Okay, the RCC navigation template is huge. I have a nice big screen and it's taking up way too much space on my screen, I can only imagine what it's like for someone with a normal sized monitor. Oh, wait, I see it resizes to take up a fixed percentage of the screen. Ugh.

There is no requirement to have navigation templates or infoboxes in articles. So if you want to remove it, you need to secure consensus on the talk page to do so, etc. etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - I removed the template and placed a note on the talk page letting people know I removed it because of your comment here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• For some reason, there is a big pile of white space after the seventh commandment section on my screen.

Fixed

• You have embedded links in the quote boxes. Embedded links are no-nos for the MOS in the body, not sure about the text. Strongly suggest removing them though.

Removed

• Current ref 44 (Nazi doctors..) lacks all bibliographic details. You need to format it just like a book, with page number and publisher author, etc.

Fixed

• Current ref 45 and 46 The Journal of Medical Humanities and Science articles, are both lacking all other bibliogrpahical details, they should be formatted like a journal, with titles in quotation marks, journal titles in italics, etc

Removed (because they are redundant and one ref to university press is enough.)

• Current ref 73 (Is the Vatican wrong..) is lacking all bibliographical data. Needs publisher etc.

Fixed

• Your Catholic Encyclopedia ref is wrong. You're referencing the "commandments of god" article in there, correct? You should use {{cite encyclopedia}} as the author of that isn't Herbermann, it's John Stapleton (the author of each article is credited at the end of the article).

Fixed

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the "embedded links" using {{bibleref}} in the quote boxes would have been fine. Gimmetrow 02:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, I have made corrections to these items. NancyHeise ^talk 04:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Fix the 6 disambiguation links (there is also a self-redirect, I don't know if its intentional or not)
• According to WP:REFTOOLS: The following refs are duplicated, a ref name should be used instead

• Addis, p. 195
• Kreeft, p. 238
• {{bibleverse||Exodus|20:17}}
• Also, multiple pages in the refs should be formatted as pp. not p.

• External links are up to standards, checked with the links checker tool.--Truco 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Truco, I fixed these items. However, I was only able to find Kreeft p. 238 in there once and I did not change two of the listed dabfinder items because they currently link to the correct page. The problem was that the correct page has the correct definition we are using and then lists other items. There is no other page for those to be linked that would be more correct. NancyHeise ^talk 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for explaining that. The scripts sometimes lag a bit.--Truco 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)--Truco 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Several of the issues I raised in the previous FAC remain unaddressed. There is still incorrect use of WP:ITALICS throughout the article. There is a mixed style on bullet lists, with some beginning with caps, others not; some correctly using bolding, others using italics; some ending in puncutation, others not. Bullet lists need to be consistent: see WP:MOS. The hyphen in the infobox between Pope and Pope needs to be corrected an WP:ENDASH. WP:PUNC logical punctuation needs review throughout. Images belong within sections, not above them, and there should be no left-aligned images under third-level headings (see WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS; example at Graven images section). There are still WP:MOS#Ellipses and WP:DASH issues throughout; sample at ... the first to win public acceptance... by German doctors before World War II - the basis ... and another sample at: Lust - The Church teaches ... Still on WP:MSH, why "The" vocation to chastity? These issues are still throughout the article, although I raised them in the last FAC. Here's a sample of three issues in one sentence:

2) Divorce - Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse, except for marital infidelity, and marries another commits adultery"Mark 10:11.

Faulty hyphen (should be WP:ENDASH, inconsistent punctuation at ends of bullet lists, and please point out the exact version of the scripture cited that includes "except for marital infidelity".

Cleanup is needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I have cleaned up these items and gone through the article again. Another couple of editors came through too I see, Michael Devore and Edge3. I hope we got everything this time. NancyHeise ^talk 04:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of these items have not been attended to. In addition to my edit summaries as samples, there are still inconsistent lists and faulty dashes in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I have spent more than an hour and a half rechecking the article for these issues and fixed everything per your comments here and in the edit summaries. If I failed to fix something it has not been for lack of trying. :) I really think I got them all this time, Brian helped a lot too. NancyHeise ^talk 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose - This may be a bit harsh, however File:Smoking_Crack.jpg I feel is inappropriate. In including the image an individual who is clearly identifiable is permanently branding them as a drug user for all time. I think another more appropriate annonmised image could be found Fasach Nua (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is your interpretation of the image grounds for opposing the article? If the image doesn't breach any rule of copyright or licence, I don't think your oppose is sustainable. Also, what is "annonmised"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PS However, the image size looks disproportionate to the text and should not be forced up to 300px. It should be thumb size as required for general non-lead images. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of images is the same for any content, it can be licenced correctly and still be rubbish if the article singles out president Bill Clinton to illustrate adultary I would oppose, as I would consider it needlessly diparaging, and the inclusion of this image, for me means it is not wikipedia's best work, and thus not an FA. If you type "annonmised" into google, it asks Did you mean: "annonymised", perhaps that's what I meant Fasach Nua (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo raises the question as to whether the permission came from the subject, and if so whether it is really of a person posing as a crack user, which may be acceptable for illustrative purposes. Certainly an annonymised photo of a crack user would be virtually useless for any purpose.--Grahame (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the photo to a hunky marine instead of the crack smoking woman. The section deals with personal health not just illegal drug use so the healthy marine jogging in the water is descriptive too I think. Let me know your honest thoughts. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

oppose stricken Fasach Nua (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am reading slowly through, and expect to have a few further comments in due course. For the moment I have several issues with one of the key sentences in the lead, namely:

"The New Testament used by Christians depicts Jesus's teaching that following the commandments are among the bare minimum required; he exceeded them in his teachings and summarized them into two "great commandments" that taught love of God (the first three commandments) and love of neighbor (the last seven)."

First, the absence of punctuation in "The New Testament used by Christians..." suggests that there are other New Testaments used by other people. Then, surely "depicts" is an inadequate word? "Depicts" suggests portrayal, not at all the sense rquired here. And, "are" is wrong, because it relates to "following the commandments" which requires an "is". "Among the bare minimum required" feels like suspect grammar, and doesn't say of whom it is required – "a minimum requirement for mankind" might serve better. Finally, to say that "he exceeded them in his teaching" is really saying again what has just been said, that observance of the commandments was a minimum requirement; this needn't be said again. So, putting all these together, I suggest a revision of the sentence along the following lines:

The New Testament, used by Christians, contains Jesus's teaching that observing the commandments is a minimum requirement for mankind. He summarized them into two "great commandments..." etc.

I can't promise this level of clause analysis throughout, but I think this is an important sentence, and that the wording must do justice to its significance, particularly as this has the makings of a powerful article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I changed the sentence, please see and let me know your thoughts. Thanks also for your kind copyedit. NancyHeise ^talk 23:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the sentence is good now. I read through the whole article carefully, and made numerous punctuation and minor prose fixes. I think I've picked up most of the glitches, but there may be a few still lurking out there. My more substantive points:-

• Background: Can "ten" be described as "several". If I had ten children you wouldn't say "he's got several children". I think several means a smaller number.

Fixed

• Fourth commandment
  • Opening sentence: Citing Rabbi Neusner, Pope Benedict XVI states that he "rightly sees this commandment as anchoring the heart of the social order." As written, the "he" could refer to either Neusner or Benedict. It would be clearer as: Pope Benedict XVI states that Rabbi Neusner "rightly sees this commandment as anchoring the heart of the social order."

Fixed

• • There are two bare external links in the text which need formatting

Fixed

• Fifth commandment
  • "...some going so far as to call such rhetoric 'odiously wrong'." has the smack of POV. "...some calling this rhetoric "odiously wrong" would be OK.

Fixed

• • Is the parenthetical (such as World War II) given in your sources as an example of a just war, or is this an editorial aside?

Fixed I eliminated the phrase because my source just lists US bishops [9]

• • There's a bare link here, too.

Fixed

• Sixth commandment
  • In the list, fornication is defined but not condemned

Fixed

• • I found this phrasing very odd: "The procreative aspect requires couples to be open to children, regarding them not as a right but as gifts from God." I assume this means open to the idea of having children. But I find "the procreative aspect" rather cold and clinical.

Fixed - I changed "open to children" to your wording but was not able to come up with a better word than "procreative". I welcome you or anyone else to change that word if they can think of something better but for now, it is a correct term if not warm and friendly enough. :)

I would suggest you begin the sentence: "Transmission of life" requires couples... etc. That phrase relates to earlier text and is a lot warmer, I think, than "The procreative aspect". Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed inserted "transmission of life"

• • "Jesus taught that "anyone who divorces his or her spouse, except for marital infidelity..." Sandy has marked this as a failed verification, because the biblical text you have cited says "except in the case of sexual immorality", not mentioning marital infidelity. Your text should reflect the source.

Fixed actually it says "unless the marriage is unlawful", I copied the text directly from the New American Bible (the Catholic bible)

Looks OK now, but your inserted note "depending upon the biblical interpretation" is unnecessary. I think this is a question of wording or translation rather than interpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

changed "interpretation" to "translation". Do you prefer to eliminate this phrase altogether?

As worded now, it's OK I think. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seventh commandment: Since the commandment is "You shall not steal", I fail to see the relevance in this section of "Because it considers humans to be stewards of God's creation, the Church forbids abuse of animals and the environment." Likewise I found the second paragraph somewhat tangential – though I suppose Proudhon's "property is theft" has relevances in capitalism and socialism.

Fixed

• Eighth commandment: The words "These include:" have to be considered as part of each of the sentences in the list that follows. As you have it, each of the listed items is a complete sentence without "These include", except the first which I have fixed. Can you fix the rest?

Fixed

• Ninth commandment
  • More bare links

Fixed

• • If this commandment deals with covetousness of the flesh, why does the wording in the display box refer to house, ox, ass etc – things which are not part of the flesh? Should the wording of the commandment be so nearly identical to that of the 10th?

Response The wording is copied and pasted directly from the Catechism definition of the ninth commandment. I was wondering the same thing but I can't argue with the primary source and the quote box states that it comes from that source.

I think some sort of note is necessary, drawing attention to the repetitive wording. I'm frankly surprised at the confusion here – not yours, but the Church's. If I covet my neighbour's ox, am I breaking the ninth or tenth commandment, or both? Why is it necessary to have a sort of double jeopardy here? We Prots don't have this confusion because it's all one single commandment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Note added

The note says: "The wording of the ninth commandment in the Catechism is almost identical to that of the tenth". What is the exact wording of the tenth, in the Catechism? Your version has two ellipses and repetition of the phrase "anything that is your neighbor's". Is that exactly how the Catechism records the tenth commandment, ellipses and all? If not, the wording in the tenth box must be altered, to correspond to the text in the Catechism. (Some sources, like this, suggest that the wordings of the ninth and tenth are identical). Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I actually copied and pasted the exact words taking them from the Vatican website for the Catechism, ellipses and all. The quote box is not altered in any way by me. It is difficult to say that the wordings are identical when they clearly are not exactly the same per the original document on the Vatican website. Per the Vatican Catechism, here's the ninth [10] and here's the tenth [11] NancyHeise ^talk 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine - that's the way it is! Brianboulton (talk)

• • "Blessed are the pure of heart..." I have never seen this rendered other than "pure in heart" – and that's how your reference has it.

Response The bible ref uses "clean of heart" and I changed it to that wording. However, I kept "pure of heart" later in the text because Kreeft uses both "pure in heart" and "pure of heart" but the latter term is the one that I was more directly referencing in the text.

• Tenth commandment
  • More bare links

Fixed

• • The last sentence is not a "While" sentence, since the two statements are complementary. Suggest replace "While" with "Since" or "As".

Fixed

These are not major matters, but need attention. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Great comments Brian, thanks for taking the time to go through and alert me to these items. I have addressed all of them as noted in your text above.NancyHeise ^talk 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Sandy

Sandy, you tagged this sentence "Jesus taught that "whoever divorces his wife, except for marital infidelity, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." because it did not reflect the biblical interpretation given in the Bible reference. I changed the sentence to Jesus taught that "whoever divorces his wife", except for fornication, unchastity or an unlawful marriage (depending upon the Biblical interpretation), "causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."[95] Different versions of the Bible apparently have different interpretations of that sentence so I adjusted the sentence to reflect that inconsistency. Thanks for pointing this out to me, I always just go to the New American Bible but someone else added that sentence and must have been using a different Bible version. I think it is OK now, let me know if you have a problem with the new sentence. Thanks. (See the New King James Version, the New American Bible Version and the 21st Century King James Version of Matthew 5:32 for illustrative examples)NancyHeise ^talk 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I have one outstanding query concerning the wording of the tenth commandment. Otherwise, all my concerns have been met, and on resolution of this one remaining issue I am ready to fully support this article's promotion, as I am satisfied that he FA criteria are met.Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• CoI'd from supporting or opposing. However, some minor things - "Third commandment" has sandwich text between the Pope and the box on the upper right. It also has a blockquote with quotation marks (one or other) and the blockquote is squashed by the Pope. I would possibly add some text after the blockquote and move the Pope to the right. I would fix the quotation marks with the blockquotes throughout. You tend to break things into smaller sections too quickly. The marriage sections, after Commandment Six, tend to do this a lot. Larger sections would be more appropriate and make it easier to read. I was surprised that there was little historical consideration. Those like Augustine or Aquinas spoke about the Ten Commandments often. Also, there are Catholic textual glosses that go into great depth about the Ten Commandments which have not been stated. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

moved picture to right

keeping quotation marks because they do not violate WP:MOS

Augustine and Aquinas are included in the article to the extent they were covered by scholars discussing this subject

Other concerns addressed below under Ioannes Pragensis commentsNancyHeise ^talk 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose unless the article would be renamed "Ten Commandments in today's official Roman Catholic teachings". The article is full of sentences beginnig like "Pope Benedict XVI states...", "The Catechism explains..." but it offers almost no information about hundreds years of Catholic moral theology, the development of its views and related church doctrines etc. There is only one short reference to Thomas Aquinas in the article, and that is all - no other early Catholic moral theologians are included, no explanation of "sola fide" conflict with Reformators in 16th century is offered etc. I think that the article in its current state is a well designed presentation of what one would hear about Ten Commandments in the church sermons and documents today, but it has a rather shallow theoretical basis (for example it offers almost no information about the textual critic of Ten C. in context of Vulgata translation) and it ignores the historical development of the understanding and use of Ten C. in the church. Therefore its perspective is more the perspective of an insider from 2009, not neutral perspective of history, sociology and philosophy of religion, which considers development of ideologies in time, includes also critical voices and tries to see things from impartial perspective. I am very sorry to vote against a well written article full of information, but I felt very disappointed after reading it because of its one-sided, reductionist perspective.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to be more specific, let us take the following two examples:

1. You cite Aquinas only in a general ethic context, but you drop his (and other Scholastic theologians) analyses of problems in Ten C. like here, for example A.4. - why Christians are not hallowing of the Sabbath?

2. The article should explain the role which Decalogue played in the Sola Fide controversy, leading to canons of Trent council (see esp. chapter XI).

There are more things like this, one should also include early history of the church, and also things from the 20th cetury, like the letter of German Catholic bishops from 1943 where they protested against Nazi murders in the name of the Ten Commandements ([12]). I hope that you understand better what I mean now.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ottava Rima and Ioannes Pragensis, I want to point out that there is no mention of the items you are asking for in the most modern scholarship on this subject. When a person does research on the Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism, they will find no more historical information, nor criticism than we have provided on the subject matter here. I will not be amending the article for your considerations because they do not reflect modern scholarship, Catholic or non. Thanks for your comments anyway. I just want to mention here also that Council of Trent decisions regarding the Ten Commandments is mentioned in this article - to the extent they were covered by modern scholars. Also, Ioannes, the New Advent Encyclopedia of Catholicism is almost 100 years old, the issue you link is also not mentioned in any modern scholarship on this subject. I can not be expected to create an article that meets FA if I have to create controversy that is found nowhere in modern scholarship. Please understand that FA criteria prohibits these fringes. Final decisions of the Councils concerning the Ten Commandments is all that is needed in the article, not detailed discussions amongst the bishops over two millenia and it is these final decisions that we have already included here.NancyHeise ^talk 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, re: Ioannes request that I include the German bishops mention of the Ten Commandments in their protest letter to Hitler. Catholic Bishops mention the Ten Commandments so often in their discussions with leaders and others throughout history that it is unreasonable to expect me to include this especially when scholars discussing the Ten do not make mention of these things. Ioannes link is to a primary document in German, not a scholarly work discussing use of the Ten. The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is not a history page, it is a theology page with background and the most relevent decisions by Church councils and key Church scholars throughout history as relevent to the developement of Catholic doctrine on the subject. NancyHeise ^talk 23:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are joking, Nancy, right? Do you realy believe that modern scholars are not interested in developments of scholastic theology or in the history of Reformation and Trent Council? - Of course I do not insist on including exactly those links I placed here - it is up to you to find better sources. But you cannot omit 1000 years of development of R-C theology.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ioannes, I am in possession of and have access to the most modern scholarly works on this subject and all subjects of the Catholic Church. The most respected work on the developement of Catholic doctrine, a book I own and one that is also on googlebooks [13], is called The Catholic Tradition by Jaroslav Pelikan. There is zero mention of a history of the ten commandments in this book - perhaps because the ten are so straightforward that no further analysis is needed other than what we have already included in the article because this is all that the scholars discussed about them. You are asking me to create something that is not covered in modern scholarship. That is WP:OR. A total of Zero scholars mention the German Bishops letter to Hitler in their discussions of the Ten Commandments. Why then should I be asked to include it here? You provide a primary document as a reference but when I search for secondary sources discussing the topic of the Ten Commandments in English (as required by Wikipedia policy), I come up empty. Jaroslav Pelikan produced several other works on the development and history of Catholic doctrine but there is nothing in his books that goes beyond what the other scholars I have used in the article say too. What is important to these scholars and this article is the final decision of the Councils, not their discussions leading up to decision and I think you are being unreasonable to ask me to include things not covered in modern scholarship. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be in summary form - which is what this article provides to Reader.NancyHeise ^talk 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no Wikipedia policy demanding that we "search for secondary sources discussing the topic ... in English". WP:NONENG says only "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". I fear that for this topic you should include sources in German, Italian, French and Latin, because many of the books are probably not available in English.

Further, the discussions or conflicts leading to a decision are about as important as the decision itself because without knowing the history leading to a decision you do not understand the sense and motives of the decision, and therefore you are unable to interpret it. Your article is good in describing WHAT the R-C church teaches today; but it is very weak in explaining WHY and SINCE WHEN the church teaches it, and many similar questions.

Moreover the church history often translates into "normal" history of the world and this connections should be included. I give you an example: I live in a city with many Middle-Age Catholic churches in Gothic style. But in the churches from about 1300, most of the pictures, altars and other furnitures are Baroque or younger, that is after 1650 or so. Why? Because of the conflicts about the interpretation of the commandement "You shall not make for yourself an idol". The iconoclast conflits in the Western European church in the late Middle Age / Early Modern Era led to almost complete destruction of the old pictures, statues etc. - you cannot explain the state of our Central European churches without mentioning these conflicts about the Second Commandement and the victory of the iconodulic Tridentine view in our region.

Further, the article does not include the current discussion in R-C moral theology about the interpretation of Commandements. Let me allow another example: Your personal page features a picture with a lot of halibuts you caught. Does the Fifth commandment allow to kill a living being for fun? Does it even allow to kill living beings? There are important R-C theologians who say "no" at least to the first question, and some (like Eugen Drewermann) even to the second one. The environmentalist themes are very quickly gaining importance in the current Christian theology, and one of the themes in this context is the Fifth commandment.

To summarize, the R-C theology always faced many important questions regarding the Decalogue. 1. If we are no more living under the Law, why and how are the Commandements (which are the very heart of the Law) binding for us? 2. If they are binding, why are we obeying only some of them (we do not observe the Holy Sabbat, we do use pictures of God, we call Jesus "God" even if there is only one God in Heaven) 3. If we know which Commandements are binding, then we should interpret them in the current situation in order to know how to behave according to them (the task of moral theology), and 4. If we know how to behave, we must know how to tell it to the people (pastoral theology). You succeeded somehow only in the fourth question, but you do not tell us the story behind the first three questions, which are in my opinion preceeding the fourth one, and therefore more important.

I really do not believe that it is possible to save this article under the current name for FA status. It would require a total rewrite and a lot of work. Consider to change the name of the article in order to reflect the limited nature of the text. "In Roman Catholicism" does not mean only in today's Roman Catholicism, only in official Roman Catholicism and only teachings of R-C Magisterium without deep explanation.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ioannes -

• I think I need to clarify that we eat those big fish (halibut) all year long. If you go to Kodiak and go fishing, your fish are filleted and frozen and shipped to your home, or in our case, packed in coolers and checked on as luggage. My family and I do not kill for fun and fishing is not immoral if you eat your catch. The article covers care of the environment in the Seventh Commandment, this has not been overlooked as you stated above.
• Regarding your comments on the article: you want this article to be a summary of the developement of Catholic Doctrine - something that no scholar does when they write or speak about the article's title "Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism". If they did, I would have no problem complying with your request. I am not complying with your request because if scholars do not do what you are asking, I don't think I should be creating something that does not reflect "modern scholarship".
• You say I do not give Reader the "why" regarding not being held to the Jewish law but I do - the article text in "Background" states "The Church teaches that Jesus freed people from keeping "the burdensome Jewish law (Torah) with its 613 distinct regulations but not from the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments"[5] because the Ten "were written 'with the finger of God',[note 1] unlike the other commandments written by Moses"[5] - with an explanatory note (note 1) to boot.
• Also, per modern scholarship, the article includes all references they make to the history of the developement of Catholic interpretation of the Ten, including the clash of iconodules and iconoclasts. This is not something I left out - its under Graven Images and has wikilinks to appropriate daughter articles discussing the matter at greater length - in accordance to WP:summary style. This same method has been applied to every major Church decision regarding the Ten - as discussed by modern scholarship. I did not go beyond the matter provided by the experts on the subject and I think that doing so would constitute WP:OR.

NancyHeise ^talk 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy,

• The problem is not your personal consumption of fish, but the current theological discussion about the rights of humans to destroy nature and life in light of the Decalogue, which is omitted in the article.

I think because there has been no change in official Church teaching on this subject, there is no mention of these discussions in modern scholarship and I don't think I should cover it unless scholars cover it. NancyHeise ^talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the book [14] I found this "In der Katechtenbelehrung der Alten Kirche kommt der D. durchweg nicht vor. Aufgenommen wird er dagegen in MA. in Beichtunterricht und Beichtverhör. Dies führte schliessl. dazu, dass der D. zum Gliederungsprinzip moraltheol. Abhandlungen wurde..." (Article Dekalog) In my humble English translation "In the Old Church, the Ten Commandements were absolutely not used to teach the catechumens. They were accepted in the Middle Ages and used in the Sacrament of Penance and for the preparation for it. At the end, this led to use of the Decalogue as ordering principle in books about moral theology...". That means your assumptions about unimportance of the history for current scholars are false. In the literature they cite for example R. Hoffmann ([15]) and his article "Die Bedeutung des Dekalogs, theologisch und geschichtlich, in der Sicht der katholischen Moraltheologie", then K. Holl, "Der Neubau der Sittlichkeit", B. Reicke "Dei zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart" (1973) etc. This is the type of scholarly sources you should read and use - otherwise the WP article will remain without the historical basis.

The article omits no facts of historical importance for the Ten Commandments and is properly based upon modern scholarship. According to Wikipedia policy, the article uses English speaking works for references on a topic that is vastly and properly covered by English speaking experts - no need to go to work in other languages as this is not an obscure subject. NancyHeise ^talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• From the above point it looks like your assertion that "Jesus freed people from keeping the burdensome Jewish law (Torah) with its 613 distinct regulations but not from the obligation to keep the Ten Commandments" seems to be one-sided of even false: The Wörterbuch says that the early Christians thought that the Decaloge as such was abolished by Jesus, and moreover the Catholic Church itself does not observe all points of the Decalogue (the images of God, Sabbat).

No, this assertion is false and I have never seen this in Catholic teaching anywhere. In fact, in the Didache, the earliest Christian writings, the Ten Commandments are part of the examination of conscience prescribed by the Apostles - our lead also mentions this use and this work is part of one of my books on Catholic teachings. NancyHeise ^talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• The the clash of iconodules and iconoclasts you describe is the one which happened in the Old Eastern Church and was partially motivated by influence of islam. But for this article is much more important the further conflict in the R-C church itself (Savonarola, Calvin...) which was more clearly motivated by the interpretation of the Decalogue. Again, there is really a lot of literature to this problem at least in major European languages, so have no fear form WP:OR and start a research.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the wikilink to the page on the iconoclasm issue addresses all clashes. The only one that affects this page is the one that resulted in a decision of a Church Council. No change was made in Church teaching for the latter thus we have covered that which is relevent to the developement on Church doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments and omitted that which is irrelevent. NancyHeise ^talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very busy for the week of April 20-24 and will not be able to respond to comments until after Friday Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.