I VTO'ed 2 of these and would entertain the idea on 2 more. The rest seem to me to be solidly legitimate closures.
- Are Catholics more likely to accept Platonism's idea of the Forms?
Asking if Catholics are likely accept some part of platonism is like asking "What does the Catholic Church say" about some form of platonism. Emminently topical
No, not it isn't.
This question equates to "Are X or Y more likely to Z" where X in Catholicism and Y is non-Catholicism. This is entirely a subjective question and there is no basis other that the opinion of the reader for whether a C answer or a non-C answer would be more "correct". This should not be re-opened in its current form.
- Do Catholics refer to all martyrs as Saints?
Somehow, I think this was legitimately off topic when the site started, but has morphed in to something that would be an acceptable question now.
The original form of this had neither scope nor substance. As pointed out multiple times (and that all the answers including your own reference) just reading the relevant Wikipedia page answers the question. "Off topic" might not have been the best close reason but at the time we didn't have as many options to choose from.
You edited the question to have some scope, but that didn't solve the fact that all the answers were basically regurgitating Wikipedia. I suspect it didn't get any re-open traction an the time because it isn't clear what value it adds to the internet to keep around.
- What is the case against seeing the Medieval Catholic Church as oppressive?
This is an overview of 800 years of apologetics. It might be too broad, but you can give a summary and some good sources. I know it didn't get reopened the first time I asked, but I never really understood why. Unless it's just too broad, but he was asking for a concise counter argument, so he's actually saying he wants a broad answer.
Meh. The OP just wants material to argue with his fried about. This has all the makings of a discussion forum thread that morphs as the debate progresses. If he actually wants to research the topic he can research it. If he doesn't understand something specific he can ask. But "what's the best way to prove my friend wrong" is not good question fodder.
Besides that your own attempt to answer this was to refer somebody to a whole book. That's a textbook case of too broad.
- Blessings of objects by the Priest
I've got no problem with this question, Catechetical materials have sections on sacramentals. This is a real question.
This was closed as too broad, including a VTC from a high-reputation Catholic user. He would know better than I how long this list is likely to be, but if there are whole sections of materials devoted to the topic and given your own attempt to answer it rambles on starting with Jewish musicals and ending with a circular argument that says the answer to the question is whatever the RCC says is an answer to the question is an answer to the question, I'm inclined to thing that "too broad" was a good call.
- According to Catholic tradition, why doesn't God the Father punish ISIS?
Decent question, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt as being a real question. If theodicy isn't topical, what is? Maybe it's too narrow? But if you take ISIS to mean "any terrorist group in the Holy Land killing Christians", I think it's a very nice question.
Read the comments. This is a train wreck waiting to happen. The OP doesn't want to engage the idea of Theodicy nor do they really even care about Catholicism. That was a band-aid on a poorly researched question to try to keep it from getting closed. What the OP wants is the reason David cites for the closure. Kevin's comment also quite salient.
As for benefit of the doubt, there are two things to note. ① This site doesn't work on benefit of the doubt. Questions actually need to be brought up to par, not left languishing in some land of guesswork. We tried that and it just turns the place into a discussion forum and the vote mechanism becomes a proxy for ideological wars. ② If we were to extend benefit of the doubt, the that series of questions didn't leave much room for favorable doubt.
- Why doesn't the Catholic church have prophets and apostles?
As a Catholic Question, this is definitely topical, at least it's a question - I understand it at least.
I wouldn't have a problem with this on if I just saw it on it's own. My only hesitation now would be the other Catholic who ⓐ tried to answer and ⓑ ended up voting to close as unclear. It looks like what the OP was after wasn't what that Catholic read into the question. Would your answer have been similar to his? Why did he run into trouble?
Given his comments about problems with word definitions between the OP and there being more than one issue mixed up in there, I would actually defer to his judgment on this. And leave it closed pending clarification.
Just because you think you understand it doesn't mean it's a good question. Often times many people think they understand it and it's only until some of them try to answer and discover they're all thinking of different things and it actually needs more clarification.
- During Catholic confirmation, what criteria should be used to choose a saint?
Every kid in Catechism asks this, it's not really pastoral advice or opinion based. There's a principle to choosing a saint name.
Perhaps. But given Matt's comment:
…as this site is focused on definite, factual answers to (primarily) academic questions, I can't really help beyond saying "The Church doesn't have any formal teaching."
I would start by replying to that comment and direct him here or make your case why there is a factual answer to this and see if you can conjure up a couple community VTO's.
- How can the Pope's recent actions not be viewed as condoning homosexuality?
I don't particularly like this question, but I see it as a question. The Pope made ambiguous statements in very widly circulated writings and interviews and lots of cardinals have the same question.
This seems to a case of a "Stump the Chumps" question. The OP is fishing for the answer they think is correct. Note the use of "hint 1", "hint 2", etc. This isn't a question format. There might be a good question to be asked on this topic, but this question is headed for trouble being asked that way.
- How do Catholics speak with their Guardian angels?
Nathaniel's edits made it less "you" based and more objectively answerable, this is definitely a good question
Meh. I just VTO'ed this one because the edits make it bearable. For the record this OP has been just patching "according to the RCC" onto otherwise generic truth or poorly researched questions and hoping they stick. The original version of this was no exception. We can expect a bit more effort that that.
- What is the role of the Pope?
The Role of the Pope is to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth. That's a pretty simple answer, not too broad.
Really? You want to answer this with a platitude? So then they edit the question to be "What does a vicar do?". What then?
I stand by my comment on this question. If you still disagree make a meta post about this one question and see if anybody else on meta picks up on it. I'll stay out of the way.
- Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded?
The last sentence is asking about Catholic Doctrine and if it is the same as it was when it was founded. That's a hard question, but it can be answered without writing a book.
The OP himself voted to close this as too broad!
If it were going to be re-opened, I would like it to at least specify explicitly that it's looking for the RCC view of the RCC. As it stands nothing in the wording of the question would prevent a Protestant answer from being relevant and Protestants (and others) don't believe the RCC belief on this subject is accurate.
- Is an adulterous priest still a priest?
Makes sense as a question if scoped to Catholic Priests.
This should have been closed as pastoral advice before being edited.
That being water under the bridge I suggest DrFry's comment is spot on. If this is to be addressed, at least split the two angles on this into two questions. If the OP doesn't want to do that a anybody else is welcome to. In fact given that what they actually came here for was pastoral advice it's probably best if somebody else frames the factual questions on the topic.
- According to the Catholic commentators, was Mary the original candidate for mother of God?
Tagged Catholicism right before being closed, definitely a Catholic sort of question - could use title edit. This question is relevant to Catholics and has an interesting answer, for sure.
So edit the title. If it could use an edit, then edit it instead of bringing it to meta. Clearly the comment about not being scoped to Catholic vs. Protestant is why this was closed. Given the this topic isn't very interesting to Protestants I'd say it's safe to assume a RCC scope, but the question should be fixed.
While you're at it fix the "for your arguments" bit. That makes it sound like the guy is looking for for/against arguments rather than just a factual statement about the RCC view. That sort of question leading should be closed until it's clear that's not where it's going.
- Does the Roman Catholic Church consider other religions evil, demonic, and satanic?
Nothing wrong with this one, could clarify misconceptions and the answers are good
The OP did a really poor job of following through on requests for clarification. I think the original version of the question was actually more clear than the edits made it. Either way it looks feasible to me. If somebody else is willing to agree then I say lets open it. I don't really feel like mod hammering this one with two other diamonds already in the fray.
- Why did the Roman soldiers compete to possess Jesus' clothes?
This is a clear parallelism between OT and NT that is not self-evident, OK question in my book
This is another case of you think you see something "clear", but so far everybody that's taken a stab at that has come at it from a completely different perspective.
If you think there is question in there somewhere, try asking answerable question yourself and linking it it from a comment.
- According to Catholicism, why did Jesus address inanimate objects?
Clearly edited to have Catholic standing, answered using Summa
Looks like the edits make a decent question out of this and most of the VTC'ing was before the votes. VTO'ed.
- https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54865/what-are-the-implications-of-a-christian-putting-their-name-in-a-muslim-registry
This makes sense, since it is a grave matter for a Catholic to profess another religion and to lie
Unless the RCC specifically addresses this instance of this issue I would suggest. Nobody is arguing apostacy or lying are good, but there are arguments going around about how doing this wouldn't be either of those things (I disagree but that's another story). The point is that unless the RCC specifically has something on this topic this is likely to be answered a bunch of different ways be people extrapolating from general principles (lying) to the case at hand. This will generate reams of discussion content and eventually turn into an nonconstructive vote war.
At the very least the question need editing to be much more explicit about looking for established teachings specific to the matter from RCC sources.
- Why doesn't the Roman Catholic church defrock Richard Rohr?
This is not opinion based, it's looking for a reason why the Catholic Church doesn't do something that a common Catholic would think it would do. No one asking the question could automatically know that it's opinion based.
- Why did Jesus use bread to turn into His body?
I've got no idea why this became an opinion. The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the Catholic Faith, books have been filled about this subject. This is a worthy question.
You say books have been written on the subject and the question is looking for application to a specific circumstance. That sounds like something between "too broad" and "too localized" to me. Given this is a high profile case and the existing answer I'm inclined to think it's workable, but seriously saying books have been written about something is not a good argument for re-opening a question!
I propose finding a couple community VTO's for this. Ping some high rep Catholics in chat or open a stand alone meta question to get some attention.
- What's the deal with numbers?
This is why does the Catholic Church seem to condone numerology. It's hard to ask a question like this where you know 7/10ths of the facts around it, but need the gaps filled in. I could have asked "Does the Catholic Church condone numerology" and the answer would be 10 times longer and less useful or 10 times shorter and less useful.
- Was Adam anatomically God's image, as Michelangelo's painting seems to indicate?
This question was probably always about Catholicism owing to it mentioning Pope Julius, it was edited to be tagged as such and then closed. There's a good book called "Do Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons" which fails to answer this question, because it's a mystery, but it doesn't mean it's not a question!
Mentioning a Pope doesn't scope a question to Catholicism. Note that NONE of the existing answers took it that way.
My personal suggestion would be to rephrase this in a way that would admit the current answers, then ask a separate question specific to Catholicism if you have something specific to ask. Editing this one would obsolete the current good answers, but the answers should be directed at a question that's more specific to them so we don't open the floodgates on every numerology kook out there.
- Is there a sense in which Stephen was the first Catholic saint?
This is a good question too, it originally wasn't tagged as Catholicism, but as a question posited to Catholics, it makes sense (would also be good to include the Holy Innocents, who many consider the first martyrs)
You say it's posited to Catholics, but it could just as well have been Orthodox. The tag edits were probably a case of too little too late. I'd probably give it a pass in this form but would feel better if one of the original voters votes to reverse.
On a more general note, you used several lines of reasoning that were fallacious. Please note the ways that these are not good defenses of questions and look past them to other issues next time around:
Being topical isn't a valid defense of a question. Lots of things are topically related to Christianity or even specific branches thereof. That doesn't automatically make them fit our question guidelines.
- real question / valid question
Lots of very real and valid questions aren't a good match for this format.
Being clear to you isn't actually a good defense of a question when comments/answers or other people are involved. It may seem clear to them too, but you have to look at whether what you understood is the same thing as what other people understood. If not, then no matter how transparent you think the matter is, "unclear what you're asking" is still valid. When most people reading the question come away with the same idea about its scope then it's clear.
