Talk:Catherine of Siena/Archive 1

Archive 1

1911

I wonder very much why so many articles in this Wikipedia provide nothing but the text of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. It's all right that people at least acknowledge their sources, but surely something has happened since 1911, and more important, it is definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide only an exact copy of the 1911 CE, which one can consult on a special website. The 1911 CE definitely had some bias, and Wikipedia does strive as much as possible to avoid bias. Wikipedia simply is not the 1911 CE! Traiectinus 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there either has been no Catholic Encyclopedia since 1911 or there isn't one accessible to the Internet(anti-SSPX drivel I regret wasting time on so deleted) Sorry, kind of off topic. Catherine was a remarkable, if slightly peculiar, woman who did important things in any age when few women did. However she did support a new Crusade because she hoped it'd unite the Christian world and bring peace to it by sending all their violent men overseas. This might sound paradoxical, but in the Middle Ages Europe was sometimes more peaceful in times of foreign wars as war sent their bitter or violent young men away from citizenry.--T. Anthony 01:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To return to the beginning of this talk: the issue is really whether it is not possible to create an encyclopedic article with more and more accurate, more neutral information than provided by the CE of 1911! One of the questions this raises is quite simple: does contributing to Wikipedia equal to copying from the online version of the CE of 1911, sometimes even including the scanning errors? It seems silly to me to copy only the CE from www.newadvent.org, which can perfectly well stand on its own merits! Traiectinus 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a problem with saints is that others may not be interested. By and large the only scholarly sources I find on Catherine are about her being anorexic or otherwise mentally unstable. Still I did find this by Anglicans and a fairly lengthy article from Rutgers. Although that also largely seems to be about her being a loony anorexic. The urge to psychoanalyze the dead is one of the most annoying aspects of history writing right now. As Asperger's in women is now being associated with anorexia, I forget the article, I imagine in no time she'll be that too. Sigh, I'm veering again. Anyway there's a reason saint articles tend to mostly be from Catholic Encyclopedia, even with ones like her where they had a political influence.--T. Anthony 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The major reason for using the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1911 is certainly the fact that using it causes no problem with copyright. Admitting this, I still think copying it does not provide us per se with quality articles for the Wikipedia. Catherine of Siena is not only interesting as a saint, but played a role in Italian politics indeed. Her writings have won her reknown for her role in shaping Italian literature. Other saints, too, have done things, have written works or have lived in a way that merits more than only hagiographic treatment. In this respect the CE is often sadly outdated. I am sure wikipedians like more varied information. -- Traiectinus 11:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I linked to her letters at Gutenberg which contains some 19th c commentary. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will read enough of that to expand on it. I might myself sometime.--T. Anthony 11:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Grandparent

I love the description: a ‘local poet’. But was it a man or a woman? (Indeed is it verifiably true?!) —Ian Spackman 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This article is blatantly and carelessly cut and pasted from this website: http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/1019stcatherine/catherine.html

someone needs to fix this.

Nakedophelia 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hermit

The link "see Hermit" should be removed, and the word "anchoress" should be made into a hyperlink to refer to the article on anchorites. Since the latter article distinguishes between hermits and anchorites, and since Catherine was actually an anchoress and not a hermit, this is proper. kthx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.151.59 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article on Anchorite says that the person remained confined to a cell for the remainder of her life. This is not what Catherine of Siena did, so she does not fit the definition. I removed Anchorite from the See Also list. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

She matured very early

"At the age of four she consecrated her virginity to Christ despite her family's opposition."

Can this be true? This sounds very much like Catholic tradition to me. In fact, the entire article reads like this. Also, there are no reference given. I would say that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Death

Perhaps the article should mention that there is some disagreement about the cause of her death. While some sources say she died from a stroke, others claim she starved herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Age of Jesus

I deleted a reference to St. Catherine dying at 'the same age as Jesus' (33). I removed it since the age of Jesus is highly disputed (He died in A.D. 33 but was born before our calendar's reckoning of A.D. 1). It may be worth mentioning that there was/is a popular piety surrounding the number 33 for this reason, but it should be phrased and cited properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMottola (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right - according to the gospel of St. John the age of Jesus was not yet fifty, implying that he may have been in his late forties! However, based on the 3 other gospels, there has been this general idea that Jesus died when he was 33, and so Catherine may have thought so too - but of course no one knows if this was something she paid any particular attention to! Given her obsessive attitude to religious ideas, however, it does not sound too far-fetched when psychiatrist Finn Skårderud (who was quoted here) thought it likely enough... --Kvent (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Self starvation

There is a significant amount of literature on Catherine's self starvation, and she figures prominently in histories of anorexia. Is there any reason why this is not even alluded to in the article?

I guess no one has felt up to it. If you are familiar with the literature, you are welcome to edit the article. 206.53.193.48 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone into that. Self-starvation seems to have become part of her identity and also the cause of her death. --Kvent (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Novena Prayer to St Catherine

I thought it a welcome addition to this article on St Catherine to include a Novena Prayer which is over 54 years old but recited quite often these days by people from all walks of life, particularly by the infirm and sickly, and by health care professionals. I remember, quite fondly, that all of the staff at Sloan Kettering in NYC would gather together and say this prayer up till and on her feast day, both on April 29th (new Calendar) and April 30th (old Calendar). AMC0712 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem encyclopedic to have it here. It doesn't really add to information about St. Catherine; it seems to be of significant size compared to the article. I would have recommend having an external link point to a page with a copy of the prayer. However, I can't find another copy anywhere on the web, so that suggestion won't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No encyclopedic value. Have removed it.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scholastic philosopher and theologian": Article doesn't deliver on its lead

We have a WP:LEAD that states Catherine's connection to philosophy, Scholasticism, and theology. Not one of these three words occurs later in the article. This is a major failing of the article (unless the lead is outrageously wrong and needs to be changed). Wareh (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Images

Barna da Siena, The Mystical Marriage of Saint Catherine OF ALEXANDRIA (1340) - WRONG SAINT

Giovanni di Paolo, The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Siena (c. 1460) - RIGHT SAINT

<---| SOURCE |--->

The image with the description ""The Mystic Marriage of St Catherine" by an unknown artist, c. 1340, in Boston." is not actually of Catherine of Siena. For one thing, its dating to c.1340 predates Catherine's birth and (more tellingly), the woman in the image is holding a palm frond, the traditional symbol of martyrs. Catherine of Siena was not a martyr. Given the palm frond and the date, I'm wondering if this is actually Catherine of Alexandria, who also experienced a mystical marriage. Further, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, from which this image is taken, identifies the woman as Catherine of Alexandria. --JAW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.137.20 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I second the motion. This is definitely St. Catherine of Alexandria, whose mystical marriage is a well-known art historical theme. I suggest moving the link from the St. Catherine of Siena wiki site to the one of St. Catherine of Alexandria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am2980 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct, now changed, thanks (eventually). Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The foreskin of Jesus

I've read in several places that Catherine believed she had been mystically married to Christ, but rather than having ring placed on her finger; she imagined the foreskin of Jesus left over from his circumcision. Have we a good source for this and can we include? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a lot. [1], [2], Google Books. Mauro Lanari. --79.36.86.194 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Glick et al. 97, where it is quoted from her letters as a metaphor, seems the closest to a proper source. Others are notably vague. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This further source is not worse at all. M.L. --79.36.86.194 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

M.L. --79.36.86.194 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello?

Life ¶4: "Serving them humbly became an opportunity for spiritual growth." cf. ¶6: "By staying in their midst, she could live out her rejection of them more strongly." So she rejects them by humbly serving them. This sounds a little inconsistent. Is it rather Skårderud's interpretation? Mannanan51 (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Foreskin claims

The claim that St Catherine of Siena wore a ring made from Christ's foreskin is absurd, unfounded and extremely offensive. I don't know what got into the head(s) of those who have supported this idea. It appears in not one life of any saint or mystic in all Church history. There is absolutely no reference to it in St Catherine's writings either. Never once is a foreskin mentioned. Here is the quote from her letter (#221)to Sister Bartolomea Della Seta, that a couple of people have imagined (and it really is an imagining, disconnected from the obvious meaning of the text) to refer to a foreskin. "...bought with the Blood of Christ crucified. Well seest thou that thou art a bride, and that He has wedded thee and every creature, not with a ring of silver, but with the ring of His Flesh."

You see it's an allegorical description, where "ring of His flesh" is a combination of the two concepts of a wedding ring, and His saving death on the Cross in which He offered His flesh (and blood, and soul) as a holocaust to pay the debt of our sins, which is referenced just beforehand, where His purchasing us by His sacrifice is mentioned. That whole part of the letter is about the theme of Christ purchasing us and wedding us by His saving death which He underwent out of love for us. This is very ,very obvious, and is a theme found throughout Catholic literature and in the lives of saints and mystics, and indeed in official Church prayers and the Mass. If it was referring to a foreskin, how then would it make sense that she says: "and that He has wedded thee and every creature"? Do the people who invented this illogical idea think that a foreskin was given to every believer? A bit after the part I quoted, she says: "catching the devil with the hook of Thy humanity, and hast wedded it with Thy flesh." She also says: "Thou hast given Thy Blood for a pledge, and at the last, sacrificing Thy body, Thou hast made the payment." You see. More language of the same theme which is using the allegory of a wedding to describe spiritual things. "Pledge", "Payment", are both examples of such. Read the section in question. It's the last part of letter #221. Please, kindly edit out the incorrect part. Thankyou. Sharbel23 (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This is OR, and application of a modern sensibility to a medieval person. Bynum is the usual modern source on this, and seems to have convinced most other scholars, although her evidence is perhaps not absolutely watertight, especially as she claims Raymond of Capua was already somewhat embarassed by the idea and fudged the evidence. Clearly it is a mystical/metaphorical idea; no-one is suggesting she went around with one of the many purported relics on her finger. See [3], [4], [5], and many other discussions in modern scholarship. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, there are plenty of things that would be difficult to explain without saying it's either (a) a miracle or (b) mystical/metaphorical. Take the idea that Catherine went without a heart for several days until Jesus inserted his into her, too: heart exchange in C of S. I've tried to update the reference to the foreskin in the article to indicate that it's a somewhat controversial and surprising aspect of her life and works, but one with a significant weight of scholarly-textual evidence and some degree of consensus around it (as well as a reception history).Altenmaeren (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the discussion thread just above, someone mentions this ref by McDermott -- a Dominican himself, I believe -- is he misquoting Noffke here: ring as circlet of flesh created at circumcision ? I don't have Noffke in front of me, but I know she is a Dominican, so presumably a source not given to what are being called "blasphemous" opinions! Altenmaeren (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is over 7 billion people in the world. Of course you can point to a small number who uphold the insane foreskin-ring idea. The fact remains that a foreskin is not mentioned in St Catherine's letters in relation to a ring. It simply is not referred to at all. When you read the letter in question (#221), and not just that letter but all her letters - you quickly see that her use of figurative language is so common that sometimes in her letters it's her normal mode of speech. One of these cases is actually letter #221 itself. And as I've mentioned - the section of the letter in question specifically uses this language (figurative) for that whole part of the letter. I have already pointed this out. If you are in any doubt, consider the words which I already quoted: "Well seest thou that thou art a bride, and that He has wedded thee and every creature, not with a ring of silver, but with the ring of His Flesh." As you can see, she says "EVERY CREATURE"! This on it's own demolishes the ridiculous and offensive claim that she is talking about a foreskin. Some modern people come along and make wild claims with no basis in fact...literally invent things, and you prefer to use what they say rather than accepted accounts of the saints life? Why? Do you want to mock Catholic saints? Why repeat such obscure, stupid, and offensive claims? Please get rid of the incorrect and offensive part, other wise I'll have to pursue some other course of action to get this lie deleted....if you won't listen to reason. Sharbel23 (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective on this; I'm sorry that it is so upsetting to you. Checking the McDermott book on Catherine, though,(McDermott) he cites Noffke's translation of Catherine's Letter #221 as saying "Look at that tender little child who on the eight day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring" (while also granting that none of the biographical sources close to her mention this motif). This is pretty unambiguous: it is indeed referred to, and not "literally invented" by any means; it's unfortunate if it's a turn of phrase that upsets you, but this isn't the place to come to terms with that, nor to accuse other people of various biases. It's worth pointing out that both McDermott and Noffke, besides being authors and scholars, are a Dominican friar and nun, respectively -- i.e., not people one would easily suspect of being negatively biased towards Catholicism. If you'd like to start a RfC, though, please do. Altenmaeren (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The foreskin of Jesus is the only relic of him that could exist (if you believe the New Testament), as such was extremely important in Christian mythology. It may have been the holy grail, so to speak. The rings of Saturn was said to be Jesus's foreskin. At least 18 European cities have claimed to have the foreskin. Catherine's hand with the invisible foreskin was cut off and kept as a relic. It is not a stretch to think that the wafer you get in the Catholic Church was originally a symbol of the foreskin. What other flesh of Jesus is there? Now some people are going to take offense. I just don't know a better way to put it. The way you look at Jesus's foreskin, lots of non-Catholics look at the current traditions of the Catholic Church. Jesus's foreskin and the Catholic Church are facts of life regardless if somebody finds them absurd or extremely offensive.

(unsigned by Altenmaeren)

Actually I think that the evidence is that the various foreskins were not regarded as especially prominent relics in the Middle Ages, certainly not in the same league as various physical objects believed to have been touched by Christ, such as the Crown of Thorns. Even then there were many skeptics, and of course the fact that there were so many inevitably meant most were certainly fake, even if you believed one wasn't. They have however been massively beloved by anti-Catholic writers since at least Calvin. So I don't think it was in fact "extremely important in Christian mythology", even at the end of the period. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree (and Sainte-Chapelle, not having a foreskin but much else besides, is fine evidence of this!)-- not sure who made that comment right below my last one. Altenmaeren (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if your a Catholic, what your knowledge of Catholic faith and history is, or what your interest is in Catholic subjects, but I can tell you that for someone to suggest that the foreskin of Christ has something to do with the Eucharist is perverse, blasphemous and suggests that your mind is in the gutter. There has never been any such suggestion in Catholic History. In all the writings of the Popes, councils, fathers, doctors, saints, theologians - never has this been discussed, and as far as I know, even suggested in a prominent writing. Christ gave us His heart. In the authentic Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, the most famous Eucharistic miracle, which contains a miracle within the original miracle (by the preservation - to this day - of the miraculous flesh and blood), the flesh, when studied in the 20th century, was found to be tissue from the wall of the heart. How could you even imagine something so twisted? Do you have any regard at all for what the Church actually teaches about the Eucharist? - That it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ? Why are you going out of your way to find obscure and worthless references to St Catherine, by dissident or modernist writers who don't represent any authority on St Catherine, and who themselves reject far more weighty and trustworthy accounts of her life, without any basis for doing so, to then impose an invented blasphemy? St Catherine is a saint of the Catholic Church. Information about her is obviously most immediately important to Catholics. Why then do you not accept the account of her life by her biographer, which is accepted by the Church? For what reason do you disregard this in favor of rubbish from the like of Noffke? Don't you understand that made up rubbish is common nowadays, and that people 'Catholic in name only' are a dime a dozen nowadays? I repeat that 'the foreskin as ring' idea is made up. I didn't suggest that you made it up, but that Noffke or someone else did. The letters simply don't say what Noffke says they say - it's made up. Your argumentation on this is basically: "Because I can find at least one book suggesting something, no matter if it's novel, outlandish, unsupported by any evidence, and just a made up idea by one person, still that's enough to put in a wiki article." The ring St Catherine wore was of gold like many other mystical spouses of Christ. The current entry is outright lying, saying: "Catherine herself mentions the foreskin-as-wedding ring motif in one of her letters". She never mentions a foreskin. Please accept this fact and move on. Sharbel23 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this perspective. Noffke is a Dominican Nun, and the leading expert on Catherine of Siena in the English-speaking world. I've checked her English translation of the letters and cited it above. If you want me to go check the Italian, I can, to ensure that this member of the Dominican Order who has dedicated her life to the ideals of St Dominic and the study of St Catherine is translating accurately. Altenmaeren (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, if this is an issue of such concern for you, can you please do some research into the source texts, rather than just attacking the work of actual scholars and deleting sourced info provided by those scholars again and again? It's a pattern: I try to reword the relevant section to make it more accurate and more acknowledging of the controversy; you delete everything. That's not building consensus, and that's not working together constructively. You're starting to sound like a broken record, and I think approaching this textually may be better than the approaches you've been taking in your argumentation above. It's not "one book", it's the authoritative English translation of Catherine of Siena's letters, translated by a Dominican nun and scholar, Suzanne Noffke. To question this edition, the next step is not to attack others as being anti-Catholic (particularly the clergy!), but to see what source texts these scholars have used. That is, then, the critical edition of the Italian letters of St. Catherine. I can do that without too much difficulty if it's necessary; my Italian is alright, if not magnificent. If there are other editors that read medieval Italian, I'd love for them to check the source text. If that doesn't appease you as accurate either, we have to look at the manuscript evidence, which is a significant scholarly project. One that I'm qualified to undertake - I'm trained in paleography and codicology - but not for the sake of one person with a bone to pick. As asides: Check out Agnes Blannbekin if you want to see just how odd medieval attitudes to the foreskin were! And Dominican nuns are hardly "Catholic in name only," too - my goodness. Altenmaeren (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've started a dispute resolution at WP:DRN -- please join in the discussion here and there if you'd like to contribute. Thanks for your attention to this article! Altenmaeren (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if there was in fact no such ring and it was actually an abstract concept, there's enough content about the question of such in the sources that it ought to be mentioned in the article and there was no reason to remove the references on this basis. The Catholic church may have not talked about this, but the church is not the arbiter of what can and cannot be considered encyclopedic and what is not or what may appear on Wikipedia. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that it is blasphemous, offensive, and a sign that Altenmaeren has their mind in the gutter, that would still be irrelevant as Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Sharbel, while you have your views about it being more of an allegory, Wikipedia is based off of sources, not original research, and you cannot simply refuse to consider notable sources that you don't personally agree with. ANI is unlikely to do anything this early in the process, but edit wars that continue do have a tendency to end up back there. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that someone has added yet again the section to which exception is being taken. What a wonderful way to reach a compromise! I'll leave you guys (it's always guys) to it and scrub the article from my list.Bmcln1 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a notable source, correctly cited with the content put in a neutral manner. It's can't be removed just because people don't like it. Last time I looked, the WP:BLASPHEMY link was broken. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

One person doesn't like it! Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I would remind you of WP:AGF given that you're essentially arguing that since WP:NPOV and application of Wikipedia's policies about sourcing of content were finally followed, it must have been a man who did that. There are many terrible editors that identify as male and many excellent ones that identify as female, so I strenuously object to your characterization. 24.210.156.247 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And that is what social media is for. If there is a fact that annoys me, I go to Facebook and whine about it. (actually, I don't - but I would if I cared enough) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)