Talk:Joan Chittister

"heterodox/heretical nun"

Describing Joan Chittister as a "a heretical[1] Benedictine nun[2], author[3] and speaker[4]" seems to be causing trouble for someone, but there's no discernible reason why, given that the original revert was because there were no proper sources, and I then supplied a proper source [[1]] from the subject of the article herself. Given the evidence above on this talk page and the deeper page history, there used to be a "Criticisms" category (perhaps fair, given that so much her noteworthiness rest on her attacks on mainstream Catholic teaching) but this was squashed following censorship by her supporters. Consequently, straightforward categorisation of her as a heretical nun would seem to be the most delicate way of skirting the need for a category detailing the various criticisms and controversies surrounding her work. "Heretical" used to be taken as applying to anyone who was a dissident, even a political one, but the definition has been very much tightened up.

"Only a belief that directly contravenes an Article of Faith, or that has been explicitly rejected by the Church, is labelled as actual "heresy.""

The most minimalist understanding of Articles of Faith would bypass all Ecumenical Councils and Papal Encyclicals and be limited to the Nicene Creed, which makes frequent and heavy masculine references to God of the kind that Chittister wrote against in the source I provided. Beyond this, the source provided contains numerous instances of Chittister's beliefs as contrary to principles of and facts about the Catholic Church.

• Suggesting that Friday Abstinence is no longer recommended.
• Suggesting that the Sunday Obligation no longer stands.
• Asserting that the Church understands "multis" to mean "all" not "many".
• Asserting that liturgical style represents schismatic division.

And there are myriad sources for

• Asserting that women priests exist, though Ordinatio Sacerdotalis demonstrates the Catholic position.

Rather than rake over all the controversies and conflicts that caused so much trouble in the history of the article, it seems much more diplomatic to just acknowledge her heretical heterodoxy and save everyone from inevitable edit-wars over a "Criticisms" category.--XVI Chancer (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. You are offering an interpretation, which right or wrong is still yours. It also seems odd that is she is heretical that she isn't being officially denounced. If that were the case, we could certainly include it. As this is a BLP issue it's best discussed at WP:BLPN as discussions here can't override our BLP policy. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Church doesn't lock up or exile heretics anymore, because the only possibility for progress is dialogue. It's not the Middle Ages any more! As sources have been provided which demonstrate a fact (a+b=c), surely whoever has made a complaint to the Foundation must provide sources to disprove or discredit said fact before any action is taken?--XVI Chancer (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Our policy on original research at WP:NOR says that you can't make the sort of 'demonstration' you have, and WP:BLP makes it clear that editors should "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." It actually says this twice, " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Take it to WP:BLPN if you still want to add it. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done as you recommended in reading WP:NOR and WP:BLP and taking it to WP:BLPN. The key word I think is "contentious". The source is her own work and demonstrably proves the objectivity of the reverted part of my edit, so there's no room for contention. The article as it stands is unfortunately quite misleading, but is it really worth the rigmarole of the old "Controversies" subheading? I'm not yet convinced.--XVI Chancer (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Hi - I am not seeing in that citation that she self describes herself as a heretic - she says, is it heresy to say... which is different. Perhaps you have sources that could be used to add something like, and John has said she is a heretic because of her belief in...bla bla.. Youreallycan (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've commented at BLPN, and I agree with Doug. This kind of charged label is almost never a good idea, particularly in the lead. Stick to sourceable facts or balanced opinions by experts in the body, not an editor's view of what is heresy and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• What everyone else has said. You say that she's heterodox, but the cited sources only allude to her positions. To infer your text from those sources is to engage in original research. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an encyclopedia reflecting what reliable sources say about the subject, I can't find any such sources making this accusation against her. What I'd be looking for is prominent members of the church hierarchy commenting that she was heretical in either major church or mainstream media, and even then we'd probably attribute it to the person making the statement, not using it as a label. If the Roman Catholic Church considered her a heretic, they'd excommunicate her. Here's an example of 6 nuns being excommunicated four years ago [2]. But so far as I know, no formal charges have been brought against her and she is still a nun and member of the church. Calling her a heretic is subjective so long as she hasn't been excommunicated. If that were to happen, we can describe it in her article, but it hasn't, so we can't call her a heretic. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Regarding whether Sr Joan Chittister is excommunicated as a heretic, Catholic canon law (canon 1364) says "an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication." Latae sententiae means automatic; a heretic excommunicates him or herself. Heresy has a technical definition: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." So, to be heresy, a. the person must be a baptized Christian, b. their denial of truth must be obstinate (ie a legitimate authority has tried to correct them) and c. the truth they deny must be one that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, in other words in the hierarchy of truths taught by the Church it is one of the core ones that must be believed religiously, for instance Jesus is fully God and fully man, and Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Denying a lesser truth may be wrong but it doesn't fit the definition of heresy. It is almost unheard of in this day and age for the Church to formally pronounce on whether someone is a heretic. Excommunication is not like a civil court making a restraining order. Heretics are automatically excommunicated anyway, and those who become aware that they are obstinately denying some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith are obliged to abstain from Holy Communion until they have the censure of excommunication lifted by a confessor who has the faculties to do so (which in most dioceses is any priest). The censure of excommunication is medicinal; if you think about it a minute you realize the only person who would abide by it is someone who realizes their sin of heresy, is listening to their conscience and does have some desire for their relationship with God and the Church to be healed. Joan Chittister's radical hopes appear to have to do with building "a new church in the shell of the old one" (an apparent allusion to Karl Marx; she says this in her foreword to a book by Sister Kaye Ashe OP)... "it's a new church whether anyone wants it to be or not"; like a substantial and vocal minority of other sisters of her generation in LCWR orders, she wants the revolution, even if it means a true doctrinal and sacramental break (her willingness for this is so strong she was willing to "say mass" openly on at least one occasion). --Elizdelphi (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Primary sources include trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KQ4F-RTW United States Census, 1940 does not appear to be a primary source, but is a secondary source. The primary source is the Census Records which were not cited directly in the reference. The secondary source, which this is, is the summary prepared by the genealogical website of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, which uses aggregated data from public databases.

I believe you're overlapping primary and secondary to eliminate any secondary source that in any way, shape, or form relies on primary sources. Everything ultimately relies on primary sources. -- Eblem (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't start this dispute on more than one article talk page. We've already begun discussion on Talk:Phyllis Zagano#Date of Birth. Elizium23 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two separate articles and two separate issues. This one cites Census Records. The Zagano entry cites a third party aggregator of information including addresses, phone numbers, and demographics. I personally wouldn't begin with "Don't start this...." unless you have some authority to tell me what I may and may not say, which on the surface you do not, but it's your comment, not mine. --Eblem (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joan Chittister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101221091051/http://ncronline.org/user/5 to http://ncronline.org/user/5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have checked this change by Cyberbot and I do not believe it is good. The change produces a 404 error. If I change tag to 'true' this will mean I approve the edit; so it shall remain with a red X. meanwhile I have warned off the bot from this page, I think. Fylbecatulous talk 13:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)