Talk:Robert Sarah

Suggestions to use more neutral language

How about we replace this one sided comment: he played a lead role in rejecting attempts to ensure more welcoming language toward people that are gay or divorced.

With this: he advocated the need to be "inclusive and welcoming to all that is human"^[1] while rejecting efforts to stray from Christ's teaching on marriage and the family.^[2] Cr7777777 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

By all means add in the new sentence if you think it's helpful to have Sarah's spin on what he says. But we keep the existing sentence so readers can understand what it meant without the soft soaping. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine.

How about replacing this one sided comment: He is a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights

With this: He is a critic of ... the redefinition of marriage

Marriage has always necessarily included opposite sexes.Cr7777777 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Polygamy is legal in about 25% of countries, including Singapore, Malaysia and Pakistan. Would that fall within the scope of marriage as defined by Cardinal Sarah? Or would he see that as a redefinition as well? Is there an absolute definition of marriage that we can all agree on in order to make the claim that it is being redefined? Is marriage between a man and woman, as well as a man and a woman and a woman and a woman? Is it just a woman and a woman that is not to be included? Do we include levirate marriage under Sarah's definition too? How do we handle the age people are allowed to get married- should we include the practice of child marriage? What about temporary marriages like fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community? Polyandry is common the Himalayas as I understand it - is that part of the definition? Plus Group Marriage which is practise in Polynesia. What about polygyny when there is a big age gap between man and wife? What about those that are divorced and remarry, does that count? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Marriage always necessarily required opposite sexes. Even all of the examples you cite include opposite sexes. This fact is not trivial given the complementarity of man and woman and their ability to meet a child's need for a mother and father. Regardless, gay "marriage" is undoubtedly a redefinition.Cr7777777 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Did't the Romans permit marriage between people of the same sex? I seem to recall the Emperor Nero married a man. So did the Catholic church redefine marriage after this point or had the Romans redefined marriage beforehand, and the Catholic church was simply returning to first principles? If a woman is in a polygamous marriage to a man, is she just married to the man, or is she married to the second wife that the man is married to as well? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't let Contaldo80 drag you into an off-topic discussion of editors' ideologies. Please stick to the topic of the article and the reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha. "Editor's ideologies". Love it. I think I just demonstrated that pleas made that marriage is being "redefined" is claptrap and shouldn't be presented in articles here as fact. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80, please stop removing the identity of your source as the fired Vatican official. This is relevant info. I warned you to stop this disruptive editing on your talk page. If you remove it a third time, I will notify the administrators. Cr7777777 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Listen, it doesn't work by you "warning" me about anything. I have raised a legitimate concern about the use of the specific word "fired" - it is tangental to the point being made. Karasma's comments are of interest because he was a senior official in the Vatican who has been much in the public eye because of his homosexuality. He is well placed to comment on homosexuality and Catholicism. Anyone can read more about him from his biographical article to find out about his career. My concern is that the use of the word "fired" is intended to imply his irrelevance, bias, or unreliability. I have asked you quite nicely why you think "fired" as well as the objection to "percieved" are needed and if you don't intend to engage constructively then we will get nowhere. So far you have only said that "fired" shows he was "irresponsible". What has being irresponsible to do with him making comments concerning Sarah - the comments relate to Sarah and to his Karasma's own position? One might easily take the view that he wasn't "irresponsible" but was rather the victim of instituotinalised homophobia and that in any western country he would not have been allowed to lose his job because of protections against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. "Former" does the job quite well and achieves the objective of neutrality or are you arguing that he isn't a "former Vatican official"? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked further into this and there seems a lack of clarity as to whether he was dismissed from his post or if he resigned. Plus the fact that the supporting quote comes from the Daily Mail which is an unreliable source and a tabloid. As a compromise perhaps we don't refer to his Vatican role at all as his comments on Sarah were made after he left his job there. I've suggested "Polish theologian" as that is what he remains. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several articles showing that Charamsa was fired. I'll add more sources. Please cite your sources showing that the reports of Charamsa's firing are incorrect before you continue your edit-warring. All major news reports show that Charamsa was known as a Vatican official. Cr7777777 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edits now are clearly aimed at being unhelpful. If you want to continue to pursue this then take it to an arbitration board. When did Karamsa make his comments? What date? What was his role then? He made the comments as a Polish theologian. He did not make the comments as a "fired Vatican official". You want to use this wording simply to discredit him. It's pathetic and lazy. In any case there is a strong suggestion that he resigned before he was fired - the sources back this up. So if you're not careful we will change the sentence to "the Polish theologian who resigned from his position as a senior official in the Church in disgust at the rampant institutionalised bigotry and homophobia". As I said - take it to arbitration and if you get the go-ahead then make your change on the back of that. And not before. I advise you that you have already been blocked once and if you continue to approach this from a highly partisan position without attempting a middle-way then you risk being referred by me and potentially being blocked again. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Contaldo80, that's your fourth revert deleting a simple fact. You are being unreasonable. Your edits are disruptive. I have to go to the administrators.Cr7777777 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do. And let me know once someone has given you some sensible advice about to handle the material in a mature way without trying to violate neutrality. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality section

Contaldo80, in your recent revert of my edit, you claimed that Sarah does not oppose "what people are doing in their bedroom." Yet, the Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as mortal sins. The appropriate passage in the Catechism is quoted in the NCR source for that section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Contaldo80 may not have made the point as clearly as s/he might have, but clearly meant that the material presented in this section is not about Sarah's opinions on the morality of certain sexual behaviors, nor theology, nor the catechism. The section reports statements Sarah has made on questions of public policy, that is, the degree to which and whether certain classes of people should have access to civil marriage or not, whether or not sexual acts between consenting adults should be crimes, etc. The phrase "LGBT rights" is not advocacy. See, for example, the dozens of WP articles that begin with the phrase LGBT rights in. In some cases those articles describe an extensive body of legal protections. In others they describe the lack of such legal protections. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bmclaughlin9 - you indeed made the point better than I did. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Obsessive focus on homosexuality in article

Cardinal Sarah, like the Catholic Church in general and in fact most of the people in the entire world (Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, the Islamic World, etc), outside of North-Western Europe and North America, is opposed to homosexuality in society. That is pretty much a given, he is in the majority on the topic. However, as it stands there is far too much focus on this subject in the article to the extent that it reads like political propaganda or somebody with a bee in their bonnet against Cardinal Sarah.

Sarah's opposition to homosexuality is completely uncontroversial in Africa where he is from and indeed, as the talk above shows, this focus has only been highlighted beyond reasonable bounds because of the editor Contaldo80, who, as a self-confessed single-issue editor, is mostly focused on giving undue weight to homosexual issues in articles, which both exaggerates the importance of the topic and attempts to take a bias in favour of it (as well as being English and Anglican; positions which are highly contrasted with the values of an African and a Catholic like Cardinal Sarah). I propose a radical purging of this section, whittling it down to maybe a paragraph or two. Mention it yes, obsess over it? No. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This sort of stuff is really off-topic. "Cardinal Sarah, like the Catholic Church in general and in fact most of the people in the entire world (Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, the Islamic World, etc), outside of North-Western Europe and North America, is opposed to homosexuality in society." Got a source for that?! Or just your gut feel? You've also made a mistake (again) to attack me personally. Now you're stating that I'm "English and Anglican". WTF? How do you know this and what does it have to do with my editing? In fact I'm neither. I have no religion - and if you're interested in my personal views (which are not relevant here) it's that I, in fact find, religious belief a childish practice. Nor am I a "self-confessed single issue editor". And even if I am, who the hell cares?!! It's not against wikipedia guidance. And unless you can point to evidence that I'm on a mission to exaggerate or give bias or give undue weight then you better retract. Because I'm fed up of your constant slurs. Don't ask me to go into your evident biases - otherwise the list will be long. In any case the material is sourced. The references are mainstream and reputable. Sarah is particularly vocal in his opposition to LGBT rights, somewhat out of step with other senior Catholic clerics. He is senior and his views carry weight. I suggest you spend more time bulking up the rest of the article rather than reducing sections that you think cover the story a little too well. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You clearly state on your profile that you are British and are a single-issue editor in regards to homosexuality. According to the Spartacus Gay Travel Index, the United Kingdom is #2 in the list of the world's most pro-homosexual countries. While Cardinal Sarah's employer, the Vatican City is #158 in the list and most of Africa is in the bottom half, so he and most of the rest of the world clearly have a different set of cultural values to you and for you to try and overstate the case against his views, like on this article, has a whiff of imperialist and racist bias about it.

It is a violation of basic NPOV to push a little pet issue like homosexuality as the central issue here. To claim that Sarah is "out of step" with other high ranking clerics is completely subjective POV. The position which Cardinal Sarah holds is the normative position of the Catholic Church. There are competing groups of clerics at the top level and just because you personally prefer the views of White North-Western European dissidents, like Godfried Danneels, doesn't mean we create propaganda against the rest, just to suit you. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church is noted for its opposition to homosexuality. As a comparison, Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals as part of its basic practice, but on the article for the King Salman of Saudi Arabia, we do not mention the topic at all, let alone making it the central focus of the article. Because homosexuality isn't that relevant in the grand scene of things.

PS - you also have a tendency to try and change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" in Wikipedia articles, this is a specifically Anglican talking point. Doesn't matter if god does or doesn't exist, the Catholic Church and the British Empire both absolutely exist and they exist on the international stage as competing power blocks and cultural worldviews. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't even begin to waste my time responding to this list of paranoid rubbish. Much of it clearly directed at me in terms of abuse rather than concerned with improving the article. If you have an issue with specific references or constructive comments about how to improve this article then set them out clearly. Otherwise we're done here thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Undue tag

An editor has tagged the section "Opposition to LGBT rights" as given undue weight. We certainly give it a lot of weight, but I think it's merited. I also think the best way to provide a fuller portrait of Robert Sarah would be to add material so that this section would become just one among several topics under the general heading "Views". I've looked into adding a section for his views on Islam or perhaps "radical Islam" but haven't come up with much material. We give a lot of weight to his views on liturgy -- they just happen to covered as part of his job. If we labeled them with the heading "Liturgy" (which I'm not advocating) the charge of undue weight would evaporate instantly.

Could the section use a rewrite? Sure. It's clear that too many hands were at work simultaneously and the citations are sloppy. But doing it right -- and cleaning up the summary at the top as well -- won't be easy. It's on my todo list, but I thought i'd tackle the easier liturgy issue first. That has similar problems. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bmclaughlin9 - sounds sensible. Agree that adding more material to other sections is a good solution. It seems no-one has had much of an interest in doing so, so far. Liturgy seems a good place to start. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, but I would advocate letting the tag rest there until such an update is done, since until, objections on undue weight can hardly be denied. Chicbyaccident (talk)

But aren't they "undue" only in so far as there is so little material on the rest of Sarah's life? Otherwise you'd get into a situation where you'd have to reduce many articles that have a lot of detail under one area (well sourced) but then little elsewhere. Seems somewhat inconsistent. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of the tag to let keep such content, while for neutrality reasons making a discreet tag that other encyclopedically relevant content would make the article a better overview? Ought we not to pay particular concern about such respect in the case of biographical articles? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I've suggested moving the tag to the top of the article. I'd rather we make clear that the whole article could do with adding more material. Otherwise the tag where it was suggests that the inclusion of the section on opposing LGBT rights was inherently wrong - whereas we're saying we want more material overall (as well as tidying up the section on LGBT rights). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Wouldn't it be optimal though if that tag also explained what it is referrering to then? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be obvious from examining this talk page. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please hold off on moving the tag. The right way to do what you seem to want is to set up new section names and then ask for expansions instead of saying undue. That way we invite editors to add/build rather than subtract. I'll get to this soon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

LGBT ideology

Opposition to "LGBT ideology" sounds a loaded term to me. I still think "Opposition to LGBT rights" would be better. What do others think? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been over this. This heading shouldn't be changed without consensus. I hope people can be patient while I work out some reorganization later today or tomorrow (but definitely after the eclipse!). Once material is reorganized, we can revisit the question of heading names. I hope that works for others. Debating how to rename a moving target -- and it will be moving around soon -- isn't a good use of our collective time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

For example, if we could document -- and I'm sure it's out there -- his attitude to (European) feminism, we would change the title from LGBT to something like "Critique of Western secular values". His presents an interesting mix of anti-LGBT and pro-African, anti-colonial values. (Though he is very much in line with Eastern Europeans as well.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think "Opposition LGBT rights" and "Opposition to LGBT ideology" are both questionable from different ends and have an activisty feel to it. We wouldn't put on Chris Hansen's article "Opposition to paedophile rights", for example. Maybe "Stances on homosexuality" or "Views on homosexuality" would be the most neutral titles possible, since it avoids both poles of POVs which describe it as either an ideology or somehow deserving universal "rights". As far as I am aware, his statements mention homosexuals specifically, not mentioning bi-sexuals, lesbians or transsexuals by name (although he has criticised the latest American/Western European project, rolling out the whole "gender" thing in recent years, in separate but related statements on society). Maybe they deserve different subheadings? Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You think it right to compare homosexuality with paedophilia? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as can be shown, only the Anglo-Saxons and a few closely related groups in Western Europe have thought it novel to differentiate since the 1950s and I'm not sure why their views should predominate in an article that has nothing to do with them. The entire rest of the world almost all see the two things as illicit activities, codified in law as criminal offenses, including in Cardinal Sarah's homeland Guinea where homosexuality is categorised by law as "indecent" and punishable with up to three years in prison (see LGBT rights in Guinea). There is also no clamor to overturn this law on the part of the Guineans or Africans in general (despite the wounded yelps of Britain's Amnesty International). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken this for some sort of media message board. Who on earth cares what your musings on the subject are. Why do you keep going on about anglo-saxons? Strange terminology you use. I've advised you before to stick to discussions about article editing rather than let your personal prejudices bore us all. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Paedophilia will probably be the next "right".--5.170.196.51 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've just discredited yourself from making further edits to this article. Disgusting comment.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

See comments below. His comments mention same-sex marriage twice and criminalization of homosexuality once and bathroom legislation once. So lesbians and trans are included. You seem to want the title to be about something other than what RS is doing here. And as explained before, one can be for or against lgbt rights. The use of the term does not imply a point of view. The use of the term reflects the fact that they are real things that exist at law in some jurisdictions and not others. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And then I thought: it's easy to be more specific: Opposition to LGBT rights legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

When presenting on Wikipedia what individuals say or opinion on different matters, I believe Wikipedia would do well to try to minimilse any coat wording or description for that, including in headings. Shouldn't we strive to let quotations stand for themselves as much as possible? So I believe the heading proposal with less wording, such as "Views on homosexuality" is more minimilised than the proposals with more, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Why can't we be transparent? He has been vocal in opposing LGBT rights. "Views on homosexuality" is opaque - no point trying to pretend he likes some of it and doesn't like the rest of it. He is actively opposed to reducing discrimination against people that are LGBT - his language is intemperate and provocative. "Opposition to LGBT rights legislation" is the most sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we've now rejected "LGBT ideology" so why is one editor insisting this be the language? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Trying to pretend" - making pretentions about things external to it, isn't that precisely what Wikipedia ought not to do? The discussion seems to circulate around what wordings to put and not after "homosexuality". So why not conclude "views on homosexuality" is the most minimal, while letting quotations express themselves? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not about homosexuality - it's about LGBT in its broader sense. "Homosexuality" implies some sort of medical condition. And it isn't his view on homosexuality that the material covers (which is presumably in line with the Church catechism which says that homosexual feelings are fine) - rather it is his opposition to the manifestation and expression of homosexual behaviours in society that he has problems with. Specifically same-sex marriage, non discrimination protections etc. As well as any recognition of transgender rights. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: In any case, "Opposition" to is incostent heading with the other equivalent headings in the section, and ought thus to be removed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That's surely over-kill. There's nothing to say all the headings have to be aligned. In any case the title is simply descriptive of the content. The alternative is just to say "LGBT Rights". But really the issue here is his complete objection to such rights - it's not a mixed picture under a general heading. The only argument I can see for this sort of change would be to avoid it being evident that Sarah is an opponent of greater civil rights for LGBT citizens - but instead a benign upholder of Church teachings. In fact the terminology he has used is unusually provocative and unsympathetic for such a senior churchman, and thus notable for that. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Reorg, new sections, and needs expansion tags

I've given it my best shot for now. Note that 2 of the 3 request for expansion tags say specifically what could be added. Re the "LGBT rights" question, what is discussed is (1) legislation outlawing homosexual practices, (2) same-sex marriage legislation, and then (3) a list of 3 issues of which two are LGBT legislative (same-sex marriage and bathroom bills) and one is health care. I think Rights remains the proper label.

I think the single really bad paragraph is the middle one on the Synod (his speech re apocalyptic beasts). It has too many snippets of quotes and some of it is irrelevant. Like he only mentioned the Supreme Court decision and terrorist attacks in Tunisia on the same day to note how these two threats compete for headlines. Just a way of putting them in parallel, a good rhetorical device.... but that sort of detail probably doesn't belong here. I'll come back to that graf.

We cannot also use the Notes section to hold a longer quote, even a few sentences, if that's important.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes working on the summary, but we need to do better than "he received praise and condemnation". That sort of thing only works in the body of an entry if you're about to give examples so we can see who was on each side and what they found to like or hate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you've generally done a good job. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)