Wikipedia and Catholicism: Navigating Misinformation and Religious Bias

This article is part of a Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources series.

Even though, overall, Wikipedia offers a vast amount of information on a wide range of issues, the information presented in its articles on Catholicism is frequently theologically false, tendentious, and heretical. Although attempts have been made to address such problems, the policy of open editing allows almost anyone—believers or nonbelievers—with little knowledge of the Catholic Church to edit these entries. This leads to the dissemination of incorrect information, especially by some editors, who may be non-Catholics or even atheists, introducing amendments that distort authentic Catholic beliefs.

In the case of David Gerard, that personal bias influences Wikipedia content. As an administrator, Gerard is accused of using his authority to convert his complaints into articles that may form public opinion. This indicates another problem in Wikipedia, where specific groups of editors can put forward certain biases that affect articles, such as those on Catholicism, which undermines the neutrality and accuracy of the site.

Issues with Wikipedia’s Coverage of Catholicism

Wikipedia’s coverage of Catholicism faces significant challenges due to unqualified editors, lack of expert review, reliance on secondary sources, and gatekeeping (limiting or regulating who can edit or contribute to certain articles or information on the platform).

Many contributors to Catholic articles lack a deep understanding of Church teachings, leading to personal biases—whether secular, Protestant, or anti-religious—shaping the content. This often results in inaccuracies, as these contributors present their opinions as facts. The absence of expert oversight exacerbates the issue, allowing unverified theories to be treated as doctrine. At the same time, official Church documents, such as papal encyclicals and Vatican statements, are frequently ignored in favor of secondary sources. This practice creates confusion about Catholic doctrine and blurs the line between theological imagination and established teachings.

Wikipedia’s system enables certain editors to exert disproportionate control over Catholic articles. These individuals can block changes and corrections that do not align with their personal biases, perpetuating errors and sidelining contributors who aim to correct misrepresentations. This gatekeeping stifles accurate representation and hinders the dissemination of true Catholic teachings, ultimately distorting readers’ understanding of the Church’s doctrines and practices.

Below are the results of research into these articles, specifying mistakes found in connection with Catholicism in Wikipedia resources, and are examples of articles and topics that contain specific inaccuracies.

Critique of Wikipedia’s Coverage of Papal Infallibility

The first article under consideration is the article on Papal Infallibility from the English version of the Free Encyclopedia.

Wikipedia distorts Catholic teaching. For example, it erroneously states that the Pope is infallible and cannot lead the Church astray.

In fact, the concept that the Pope himself is always infallible in everything he says or does is incorrect. What is shielded from error is the doctrine when proclaimed ex-cathedra (from the chair of St. Peter) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This means that infallibility applies only to formal and definitive teachings regarding faith and morals—not to all actions or statements made by the Pope. Essentially, infallibility is about the teaching itself being protected from error, not the personal infallibility of the Pope as an individual.

The article compounds the error of conflating the processes of defining and popularising Dogma, which are, in fact, two different concepts.

Defining Dogma refers to the official process by which the Catholic Church establishes a particular belief as Dogma, meaning a core and essential truth of the faith. This is done by authoritative Church leaders, such as the Pope or an ecumenical council, and involves declaring the belief divinely revealed and necessary for all Catholics to accept.

Popularizing Dogma, on the other hand, is the spreading of awareness and understanding of the Dogma among the faithful. It involves education, preaching, and communication efforts to ensure that the belief is known, accepted, and integrated into the daily lives of the faithful.

Another error in the article is its definition of sensus fidelium as the acceptance of infallible teachings.

In Roman Catholicism, sensus fidelium(literally “sense of the faithful”) refers to the collective sense or instinct of faith held by the entire body of the faithful—both laity and clergy—guided by the Holy Spirit. It represents the consensus or agreement of believers about matters of faith and morals.

The concept acknowledges that the entire Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, shares a common understanding of the truths of the faith. It is not just about the hierarchy defining doctrines. Sensus fidelium emphasizes that the whole Church community has an active role in discerning and living out the faith. This “sense of the faithful” means that believers, in communion with their leaders and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can recognize and uphold the authentic teachings of the Church.

The sensus fidelium is important because it underscores the idea that truth in matters of faith is not solely imposed from above but also resonates with and is confirmed by the faithful. It plays a role in understanding the living tradition of the Church and is often considered when articulating or confirming doctrines. (ref.: Vatican I, Definition of Papal Infallibility).

Further, Wikipedia misrepresents how infallible teachings relate to Church Tradition and Scripture. Specifically, the Wikipedia article asserts that infallible teachings merely do not contradict Tradition or Scripture, implying that avoiding contradiction is sufficient. This underplays the necessity of a much deeper connection.

According to Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium(paragraph 25), infallible teachings must not only avoid contradicting Tradition or Scripture but also align with the Deposit of Revelation. The Deposit of Revelation refers to the totality of revealed truth handed down through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, the Church’s infallible teachings must be in complete harmony with this body of truth. It is not merely about avoiding contradiction; they must actively express and uphold the truths already present in the Deposit of Revelation.

References such as channels of infallibility are never used officially in the Church, and labeling the Pope as the ruling agent misrepresents his function in governing the Church’s teachings. The assertion that Papal Infallibility has been used only once since Vatican I is an ongoing debate among theologians, as some have affirmed that it was also used in other documents such as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Evangelium Vitae.

The article gives incorrect information about the nature of the ex-cathedra proclamation of Immaculate Conception when it was defined. Moreover, the idea that infallible teachings can abolish the errors of non-infallible teachings is hermeneutically unjustified.

Infallible Teachings are free from error and must be accepted by all Catholics. They include doctrines declared ex-cathedra by the Pope, such as the Assumption of Mary, or those defined by ecumenical councils (e.g., the Nicene Creed).

Infallibility is invoked when a teaching relates to essential truths of faith and morals, intended to be held by the entire Church.

Non-infallible teachings are also considered authoritative but are not declared infallible. They are teachings of the Pope or bishops that may not carry the same level of binding certainty as infallible teachings but still require respectful adherence by the faithful.

Non-infallible teachings may be subject to further theological development or even correction over time. Still, they are given with the intent of guiding the faithful in understanding and living out the faith.

Lastly, the article wrongly assumes that the Vatican offers lists of teachings that are infallible, while, in truth, such teachings are always infallible and do not need such confirmation.

Regarding Vatican II, it is important to note that it was stated that “definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable” (Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25).

Theological Errors in Wikipedia’s Article on the Immaculate Conception

There are several issues with the theological content of the article devoted to the Immaculate Conception in the English version of Wikipedia. It erroneously suggests that preservation from original sin is only on the soul of Mary, neglecting that according to the Council of Trent, original sin is on the body as well as the soul. The article likewise misconceives grace and erroneously asserts that Mary’s future ‘fiat’ was the reason for the Immaculate Conception, not Christ’s merits.

Mary’s “fiat” is significant in that it represents her willingness to accept God’s plan, but it was not the reason for her being conceived without sin. The actual reason was God’s grace, provided through the anticipated merits of Christ. The statement in question mistakenly attributes the cause of Mary’s Immaculate Conception to her future response rather than to God’s decision based on Christ’s future redemptive actions. Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s being preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception, while her ongoing sinlessness refers to her choosing to live without committing any personal sins.

The importance of apparitions, such as those at Lourdes, is also overstated or misinterpreted.

In 1858, a young girl named Bernadette Soubirous claimed to have visions of Mary in Lourdes, France, during which Mary confirmed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception by identifying herself as the “Immaculate Conception.” Apparitions like this are often given importance by the faithful, but the belief in Marian apparitions is not obligatory for Catholics, even when the Church approves them as “worthy of belief.” While apparitions like Lourdes may affirm certain doctrines, they are not a substitute for the established teachings of the Church.

Misconceptions in Wikipedia’s Article on Sanctifying Grace

The article on Sanctifying Grace in Wikipedia has come under criticism over issues of accuracy and theology. It integrates other perspectives but does not emphasize Catholic teachings, and it has gaps in sources and impartiality. The misconception lies in the Catholic notion of grace as a supernatural endowment by God, enabling one to be made like unto God; to share in the Divine Nature. The article has some confusion in theological terms, and grace is defined as “God’s divine life.”

Recall that, following the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas, grace is an effect in the soul, not God’s essence. Also, there are inconsistencies in the use of the terms sanctifying and actual grace as used in the article.

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a different notion, in which sanctifying grace is defined as a stable state through which one lives with God.

Wikipedia’s Depiction of Roman Catholic Dogma

There is an apparent lack of editorial integration and comprehension in the article on the Catholic faith. It provides a weak background to its allegations, for example, in its citations on the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and provides scant regard to mainstream Christian theology. It lacks due regard to the early existence of the Scriptures and the New Testament.

Moreover, the article alters quotations of theological positions of scholars Michael Schmaus and Ludwig Ott and presents them in a rather simplified manner. It distorts Ott’s work and omits his catholic view of the Magisterium as the daily and average one. In fact, Ott’s views were that the Magisterium is the authentic teaching authority of the Church, tasked with safeguarding, interpreting, and explaining the Deposit of Faith, which includes Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. He stresses that the Magisterium does not create new doctrines but is responsible for preserving and explaining the teachings handed down from Christ and the apostles.

Those contributing to the article lack adequate theological knowledge, and the article makes mistakes such as stating that Dogma can be issued by bishops. An appeal to Bible verses and other religious sources can also be accused of misuse of citations and oversimplified explanations of delicate issues of theology which are not supported by strong arguments; the presence of unrelated material, such as the information on apparitions, is also contradictory to the focus on Dogma and demonstrates the lack of editorial work and depth in the article.

Cultural elements are distorted; authors cite early patristic inadequately and distort Aquinas. The article misquotes Ludwig Ott’s work and peddles the fiction that Immaculate Conception originates from the Song of Songs. Furthermore, it distorts the Church’s teaching on beliefs about Mary’s conception and other visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich: while her visions received imprimatur, they do not serve as the formal basis for doctrine.

This Wikipedia entry is tainted both with erroneous theology and with the practical mistakes of the editors.

Additional Information of Value

The article, “Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record” documents the difficulty the Catholic Church faces in guaranteeing that its teachings are depicted truthfully in virtual reality.

Conclusion

Before contemporary forums such as Wikipedia, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had the monopoly of Catholic doctrine.

The Church should take advantage of the Wikipedia model of a non-profit, community-based wiki without the influence of commercialization and with a primary objective of knowledge dissemination, which is in line with the Church’s goal of sharing its knowledge with an emphasis on its authenticity.

In this manner, the Church should also follow the same pattern to manage the flow of various types of information within the complexities of the digital process and, at the same time, provide doctrinal integrity.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.