This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
I'd like to hear the reasoning behind moving virtue ethics to the top. I think its a bad move for a few reasons: virtue ethics is far from the most widely held Catholic ethical theory, if we were to include every Catholic ethical theory separately on there as a main heading, it would crowd the template, and finally the articles linked there aren't really a discussion of virtue ethics, but a discussion of virtues. My suggestion is that if we want to have an ethics part on this template (which I would be fine with), It be labelled Catholic ethics with bullets under it for Natural law theory, Catholic personalism, and virtue ethics. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with TonyBallioni, and I don't see why the link to Category:Branches of Philosophy was removed. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made the changes above and also added a link to Catholic social teaching, which you could go either way on, but seems to me to fall under practical ethics, which you would find in most philosophy departments these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THE SUPREMELY HONORABLE SAINT- ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS'S - NAME IS EMBARRASSINGLY MISSPELLED; AND MUST BE FIXED IN UTMOST HASTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ign christian, my pet peeve with coverage on-wiki of Catholic philosophy is that the major contemporary figures are so poorly covered. Anscombe with MacIntyre are arguably the most significant Catholic philosophers of the 2nd half of the 20th century because they belong to the analytic tradition rather than the continental school which Catholic philosophy has typically been grouped. Including one of the most significant Catholic analytic philosophers on this list would be a significant improvement. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TonyBallioni, thank you for responding. I'm not expert on this topic, but I agree with you that they are possibly the most influential Catholic philosophers of the second half of the 20th century. In accordance with your comment, I will add her on this list. Ign christian (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been doing a lot of work recently updating and expanding the Ignatius of Antioch page, and I noticed that Ignatius got added to this template. I really doubt Ignatius counts as a "Catholic philosopher." We only have seven letters from him, written within a few months of his death, where he writes off the cuff about his strong desire to be martyred and his belief in the need for a monarchical episcopate. How is that philosophy? If no one objects in the next couple days, I'll probably go ahead and remove him from the template (and remove the template from the Ignatius page). Montgolfière (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, we can't name every single Catholic philosopher. I've made a few changes already, but I'll put a few more thoughts here before changing anything further.
Probably not worthy of inclusion: Mercier, Nell-Breuning, Merton (not really a philosopher), Pryzwara, Stump, Kreeft (more of a populariser), Adler. Anyone want to make the case that any of these guys should remain?
How much should we include guys who are primarily theologians, particularly the modern & contemporary theologians (less division between the disciplines before the modern era)? Anselm is both philosopher and theologian; but is Rahner a philosopher? Congar?
Worthy of inclusion?: Henri de Lubac, John Finnis, Maurice Blondel, Charles Taylor, John Haldane. Any others?
The division between "Modern" and "Contemporary" I would suggest should be set at the turn of the 20th century.
In the absence of discussion, I will make many of the changes I allude to above - but remain open to further discussion if anyone cares to weigh in. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]