Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2012

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Preemptive Note on Cardinals

Just to get ahead of the curve, when an announcement is made that a consistory will be held to create new cardinals, that does NOT constitute publication in Canon 351§2. That means that their articles on here should NOT be updated with the title Cardinal until the consistory, although it would be very appropriate to add a note about the announcement to their articles. Likewise, they should NOT be added to the various lists of Cardinals without an explicit note that they are only designees until the consistory is held. (Typically the consistory is held 4 to 6 weeks after the initial announcement - the announcement will include the date.)--Dcheney (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Afd

Comments on Afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Immaculate_Conception_of_Saint_John_the_Baptist ? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II Peer review

The Pope John Paul II article is currently on peer review, if anyone is interested in participating -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Gospel article WP:weight: mainstream editors needed

Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and copy on WP Anglicanism. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed redirection of Christianity subproject talk pages

I have recently started discussion about possibly eliminating the use of a separate talk page for it here. Input from any interested editors is very welcome and encouraged. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the religious origin of Thanksgiving be mentioned in the lede?

Even though Turkey Day is long past and many of us are looking for a nice place to take our sweetie for St. Valentine's, there is a heated debate about Thanksgiving here. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't canvass unrelated WikiProjects because you believe their members will support your point of view. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to talk:Thanksgiving where this project's banner is displayed. Thus this project is relevant. Allow me also to refer you to WP:NPA where you'll find that making false accusations is a violation of policy. You've been around long enough to know better. I would hate for you to get blocked again unnecessarily--not that any block is necessary – Lionel ^(talk) 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cute, but the banner is there because you added it. Again, WikiProjects exist to improve articles related to particular topics, not to make it easier to canvass people with particular points of view to aid you in unrelated disputes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't canvassing, he's informing the project because people don't necesarrily check talk-pages...by the same token they don't check project pages, either. By the way, making false-accusations is a personal attack that can get you blocked? Wish I had known that when a certain editor falsely accused me of something and slandered my good name on wikipedia. Thanks for the reminder, Lionel! The next time some liar comes after me I will be sure to go that route.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Mike, but could you please try to keep your language cleaner. That type of language is just not appropriate for this type of talk page, regardless of the topic or Wikipedia policies. It is just a question of general decency. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Catholicism will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in Catholicism. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Catholic Church and women. I just took a look and it has expanded a lot since I last looked a it. It was mostly done by Richard and Ozhistory, so if you contact them directly, that might be best given that they may not be watching this page. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hello! I noticed that other large projects, such as WP:India, have newsletters. I think a newsletter could help improve the project. Who is interested in contributing to it? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge projects

WP:WikiProject Catholic canon law and WP:WikiProject Vatican City are inactive. Should they be merged here? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But the reality remains that only a handful of editors are active, so redecorating the projects does not create activity. The same trend is present on other, unrelated projects e.g. neuroscience, computing, etc. The last post on WikiProject neuroscience was from September 2011: i.e. 5 months and no postings. So that is a wiki-wide issue. History2007 (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK. I'm going to be withdraw the merger and mark these inactive and redir the talk pages to WT:CATHOLIC. And while I'm at it similar treatment for Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Armstrong (priest)

Just wrote an article on a priest who won 5 super bowl rings. Wouldn't mind having others take a look at it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

merge Kirishitan (POV issue?) into History of Roman Catholicism in Japan?

Thoughts welcome. The term kirishitan is used in Japanese, but in relation to early Catholics, not anything distinct from Catholicism. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Template Catholicism

There is a discussion on minor changes to the Catholicism template on Template_talk:Catholicism#Particular_Churches_and_liturgical_rites. The discussion is only about minor issues such as links and liturgical rites, etc. However, the template is Redlocked, and before we ask for it to be modified, this note is posted in case someone has suggestions. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Catholic cats removed

An editor has been methodically removing Catholic categories from biographies per WP:BLPCAT, and in the case of Adam Weishaupt left "unsourced cat" in the edit sum. The half dozen or so removals at which I glanced seemed within policy. I believe in order to add the cats back we'd have to add content to the articles. In the mean time, however, should these articles be tagged with the banner {{WikiProject Catholicism}}? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories come and go. But you can, of course add the project banner to the talk page. Personally I see categories as a dead-end in Wikipedia and hardly pay attention to them. Anyone can change them in another month anyway... History2007 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, that position directly conflicts with your wish to see Wikipedia move from the file to database query paradigm. Surely, you must see how categories allow this? Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Long time, no see. But as is the category structure is too unstructured and haphazard to be useful. If and when categories are used in a systematic way, with formal bot assisted formats, they can help. That would require a policy change. As is there are two effective ways to waste life on Wikipedia: long talk page discussions and category ping-pong. A month later an IP will show up and kick it all over, and there is not enough policy-based basis for arguing about it.... History2007 (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the problem. It isn't that it is unstructured or haphazard, but that it is somewhat arbitrary and subject to the bias of the category creator and whatever conventions are in use. Standardization is a valid criticism and needs to be addressed, and surprisingly, has been implemented across the category system. But something tells me you aren't aware of how much the categories are used for backend maintenance, for example with AutoWikiBrowser. The problem isn't with categories, it's with how we use them. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the current category system is unaware of the basic concepts of Ontology (information science), and conflicts with well thought out academic systems such as Wordnet. But I will respond no more here, given my statement above about long talk page comments. History2007 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Church bells

{{Infobox church}} now has parameters for church bells (number of, weight, and hanging arrangement). Please help to populate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism in Oxford

Hi, some days ago I made this Navigation Template to help navigate through the most important catholic writers who studied or taught in the University of Oxford. What do you think about it? Is it worth adding it to the articles? Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, but after looking at it, my reaction was: "who cares". People like Greene even objected to the label, and my view is that it will add almost nothing of value to this project. Sorry. History2007 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation

International Commission on English in the Liturgy Corporation is a new article by a new user. Clearly falls under purview of the WP:Catholicism so somebody may want to take a look. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Safiel.

It is already covered under its proper name International Commission on English in the Liturgy--Dcheney (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I totally missed that. <smacks head>. I have tagged the duplicate article for Speedy Deletion under criterion A10. Safiel (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation template

Do we have anything like this: {{WPChristianity-invite}}? If yes we should drop one here: User talk:Bobw1776. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mariology

On the Mariology template, the words"approved or worthy of belief" (for apparitions) link to a page on dogma. I think the link should be removed, as approved apparitions (ex. Fatima, Lourdes) are not dogmas, correct? 24.191.87.42 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I fixed it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint John Bosco--Request For YOUR Comment

A long disputed section in Father Bosco's article has an open RFC. You can help resolve this once and for all. Your input is requested here: RFC re: "Bosco's concerns over his influence". Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Should articles on Archdioceses cover diocese-specific activities or broader Catholic community in that area?

I'm new to this wiki project and I would like to make contributions related to the history and current make up of the Catholic community in the Pacific Northwest. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon covers much of this geographic area and it's a start-class article, so I'd like to start contributing here but I'm not sure what the scope should be for articles on Archdioceses. Should I only cover the direct activities of the diocesan hierarchy and staff (the legal entity and its employees), or should I also include noteworthy Catholic Organizations and Catholic individuals located in this diocese? For example, the Feature-Status article the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami lists only diocese-administered universities in its Education section. The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon doesn't directly administer any universities, but would it be appropriate for me to mention other Catholic Universities in the diocese that are administered by Jesuits or Holy Cross? If the Archdiocese article is not the right place for such contributions, is there an article (or should I start one) that describes the broader Catholic community in this geographic region? Appreciate feedback and advice! --Isaac.holeman (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Religious communities typically have a province or other territorial structure. It seems appropriate that organizations run by religious communities be covered in an appropriate territorial article for that community. Unfortunately, these may not exist at all, or be underdeveloped. Dominicans in the United States covers four provinces. The case may often be that provinces are not adequately covered in secondary sources to even establish notability for possible articles. It also seems appropriate, lacking the territorial articles, that the organizations be listed in the main page of the religious community, for instance, Society of Jesus has a list of universities. I think that to avoid confusion, diocesan articles should cover only diocesan activities. Elizium23 (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Catholics/Catholicism in X region" could be a separate article from "Diocese of X region," but with the current state of articles of this kind, it would just lead to a lot more more stubby and listy articles that don't help anyone. I'd support including non-diocesan stuff in the existing articles, and splitting on a case-by-case basis if the article gets too large. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help with identifications

I need some help with a couple of images. These images were at the bishops section of the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Ghent, but I moved them to the talk page as none of them seem to have ever been bishops of Ghent. Could you please take a look at Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Ghent and find an appropriate place for these images? (Note, the one on the left has his own article) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeanne de Jussie

Hey all, a while back I had to expand the article for Jeanne de Jussie, a sixteenth-century nun in Switzerland. She wrote The Short Chronicle, which details her time at the convent, the Protestant Reformation, and her consequent move to another convent in France. Is this the kind of article relevant to your work? I wasn't sure where I could propose it but I would appreciate some revision if it's something you're interested in. Pferrete (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

YES! You are definitely in the right place. Great job on that expansion newbie! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic handed over to the judiciary in the London area during the 1640s

I have copied a list of Roman Catholic handed over to the judiciary in the London area during the 1640s, from a book published back in 1902. Wikipedia has biographies on some of the people, but not all of them. If someone is interested it might be a useful springboard for more articles on Roman Catholic martyrs of the period. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Religious Notability

In looking at WP:BIO due to an AfD and was surprised that there was not a notability essay or guideline regarding religious individuals. Should this be addressed? As I am not a member of this wikiproject I thought this would be the best place to bring this up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a guideline would be good - there was a recent discussion in which a few users cited the idea that all people holding X position in a religious hierarchy are inherently notable, but that sort of precedent should, I feel, be codified rather than just floating around. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length, at least once, and even if not a guideline, then an essay would be good. If the essay is cited enough times, given the recent move against new notability guidelines, it'd be better than nothing. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask active editors from WikiProject Religion to join the conversation? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is basically what happened over at WP:Poker a few years ago. We wrote up our own guidelines and almost immediately had our rough draft taken before the keepers at WP:N who told us that we couldn't write up our own guidelines because it hadn't been accepted by the community. We responded by creating {{essay-project-note|type=section}}---a template that declares the guidelines to be that of the project. Since then writing of project specific guidelines has garnered some traction and we've successfully used our guidelines at Poker to defend various players. By having an essay, you can avoid claims of selective reasoning and show that the inclusion is long standing and objective not subjective.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. With an essay from the WikiProject itself (especially large ones, such as this one), although it may not have overall consensus, I believe that it can be shown that there is consensus within subject matter experts and thus, given a limited scope the essay can be applied regarding the notability of high ranking religious individuals (in this case of this project that would be, IMHO, any members of the Episcopate) that do not themselves meet WP:GNG.

In the case of other faiths, I cannot say. The role of the bishop in other faiths, such as ones where the bishop is elected by the local congregation, do not have apostolic lineage. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree... Off the top of my head, I would include: Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals (if I'm not mistaken there have been a few cardinals who are not bishops). Popes/anti-Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, Cathedrals, Religious Orders, Papal Encyclicals, those are just a few.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this project have an MOS section, regarding notability? I ask because then such an essay can be hosted there like how WP:MILUNIT was once hosted at WP:MILMOS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So how would the wording of such guideline be worded?

Would it be something like:

In general an individual is considered notable if they meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. That is that the individual has have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources.

In particular within Catholicism an individual will almost always sufficient coverage if they:

1) Are, or were when living, members of the Episcopate (the Pope, Patriarchs, Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops); or

2) Have been declared a Saint by the Catholic Church; or

3) Are in the process of possible canonization and are recognized by the titles "Venerable" and/or "Blessed"; or

4) Played an important role in a significant event within the Catholic Church; or

5) Made a material contribution to Roman Catholic theology that is indisputably attributed to them; or

6) Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on Catholic matters/writings.

This is a working proposal, so any additions, subtractions, or comments are welcomed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the goal is for declaring notability, but if the door is opened to Bishops being notable and hence quotable across articles that would create a mess. There are many Bishops out there, and if notability means they can get an article, I see no major problem in that, but the uses to which the notability badge can be put should be clarified. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This guideline is a "notability" guideline, meaning it is used to determine whether or not a topic can have a standalone article. Notability is different than relevance. Inclusion of content in an article, even a quote from a notable person, requires a reliable source. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of writing the guideline here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. Also, I think we should limit the bishop qualification to diocesan bishops. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the reason for limiting the bishops to only diocesan bishops; other bishops such as Coadjutor Bishop or Auxiliary Bishop by being elevated to bishops have apostolic succession. Furthermore they may hold a non-diocesan position that is of equal importance such as those who are part of the Roman Curia or Papal Nuncio. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also perhaps it can get a shortcut, saw WP:NPCATH for Notable Person Catholic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding bishops, it's not a big deal. That said, "importance" to Catholics does not translate into "notability" according to RS. And at the end of the day, we need RS. And from a practical perspective, if you ever want to get a consensus to include this in the WP:MOS, it will be easier by including only diocesan bishops. Also we should anticipate other denominations writing guidelines claiming notabiltiy for all of their bishops. For the shortcut, the standard prefix for the project is "CCW." So the shortcut would be WP:CCWMOS. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but notability to the primary subject is important; for instance look at the notability for baseball (a guideline I may add). In it any individual who has stepped foot on the field as a player in a major league is notable. The same reason can be given as to bishops in the Catholic Church.

Perhaps we should create the shortcut, and add it as an essay for now in the section Wikipedia:ANYBIO#See also as done with WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have boldy added the term Episcopate to the essay and added a wikilink at the section I mentioned above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Added the shortcut. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully other wikiprojects will create their own notability essays, and a shared religious biographies guideline can be created on shared common criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work on adding the shortcut by the way, will make it easier to refer to in future AfDs. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I cross-posted this in the Talk Page, but, I think the notability for Catholicism should have a hierarchy like the Church's. This is both to avoid false reliability (like if a Bishop teaches doctrinal errors) and to ensure factual doctrine (like the Incarnation being the conception, birth and infancy of Christ).

For example, the Magisterium - Pope, Ecumenical Councils, etc. - would be the most reliable source, including for things like whether a council was ecumenical or not and whether a Pope spoke infallibly or not and what authority encyclicals and catechisms and other writings have, since the Magisterium has levels of authority (Ordinary Magisterium, Universal Magisterium, etc.), whereby it would be easy to know if something was true or not and if something was infallible or not.

Or, take the example of alleged quotes by saints and the bad theology of dissenting theologians. Saints and theologians might be reliable, but would everything they say and do be? I think you'd need to look at them from the light of Faith, which is according to the Church's hierarchy.

Or, take the example of dissenting Catholics. Sure, they might say "But I think this heresy is right!" "But I like this apparition, even if the Church says its not real!" Opinion has nothing to do with doctrine, and in fact, it can confuse people about what the Church teaches - for example, what the Church teaches about Vassula Ryden is drowned out by dissenting opinions on Ryden.

Oct13 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholics can be confused? But of course... Yet that joke aside, your point is valid, and there is some discussion of it as a 7 level belief system. But the notability discussion here (as pointed out by Lionel above) is about inclusion in Wikipedia rather than the level of theological certainty. However, as you said, most Catholics are probably unaware of the levels of certainty, etc. But that is nothing new and has been the case for centuries. And in some cases, as Immaculate Conception the Magisterium has lagged behind sensus fidelium - but that is an entirely different discussion. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think that separate notability criteria would be a bad move. We already have the GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people); drafting an additional notability guideline with different (subject-specific) criteria is a recipe for drama and timewasting. bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Papal Orders of Chivalry

Recent concerns have arisen about the article Papal Orders of Chivalry. If you view the page you will see that it is blanked by a copyvio template. I have started a rewrite of the article but as I am not the greatest editor on Wikipedia I would appreciate and welcome all input. Just bear in mind that anything that you add will be scrutinized under a microscope so watch out for WP:Close paraphrasing, cited or not you will rarely win an argument over that subject and will have to rewrite it anyway. Check out the discussion here Talk:Papal_Orders_of_Chivalry#Copyright_problem. The working copy of the rewrite is here: Talk:Papal Orders of Chivalry/Temp. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there four Marian dogmas, or are there five?

A discussion is taking place here regarding the number of Marian dogmas in the Catholic Church, four or five. Help and advice will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Status of Medjugorje

Later this year, Godwilling, the Medjugorje apparitions will be judged by the Church.

My question is: What's gonna happen to Status of Međugorje when that happens?

Oct13 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It will just have to be updated accordingly. They have been putting pressure on this issue, so we just have to wait for the news stories to come out. History2007 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is, Will people want the article deleted or merged? I wouldn't want either, since I think the article has too much info on Medjugorje, but can understand if it happens. Oct13 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries, that type of page is hard to delete. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Catholic policies"

I see this a lot on Christian articles. But I can't judge other Christians, so I can only speak for Catholic articles.

On these articles, an orthodox Catholic is often said to be "conservative" or "holds Catholic policies" or "conservative policies".

Isn't this a case of politics fallacy, e.g, someone holds a political policy in common with someone else, so they must be like them?

Also, isn't the political blanket an insult to the person's religious and moral beliefs, neither of which are politics?

Really, this whole thing of "conservative vs. liberal" is pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.

Oct13 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest not walking into that patch of quicksand. People talk about those things in Wikipedia and apply labels at will both ways, and the discussions will last for ever and a day.... History2007 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

But if it can work on conscience clause when it comes to Catholic doctrine... Oct13 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Conscience clause (medical) is not under WikiProject Catholicism; should it be? Also, as abortion-related, that article is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions which include 1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks, so use extreme caution when editing. Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I don't know if it should be in the project or not. Oct13 (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We certainly can't say "holds Catholic policies." If we're referring to a politician whose opposition to LGBT rights, for example, is informed by her Catholicism, we miiiiiiiiight squeak by with "conservative Catholic policies," but it would be better to go long-form as "holds conservative policies which she attributes to her Catholic faith," or some such. Can you give us examples of articles where you've found the problematic usage? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see that National Catholic Reporter has some of this phrasing. I am not sure it is warranted in this case. Let me repeat the Gold Standard of Wikipedia article-writing, we report what is in secondary reliable sources. If reliable sources say that NCR "promotes a dissident liberal position" then we can report that, with due deference to WP:NPOV. If a reliable source says that "numerous conservative Catholic commentators" did something, then we can report that, too. But offhand looking at the [citation needed] and lack of sourcing for the second assertion too, I can't see any support for those statements in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points well made. Here are some examples (with references) of what I'm talking about:

Benedict XVI: Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI is theologically conservative

John Paul II: John Paul II was considered a conservative on doctrine,

Timothy Dolan: Dolan is considered to be theologically conservative,

Sadly, I can't find anything liberal yet. (Perhaps my search skills are weak?)

Oct13 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Vatican City

I don't see a Vatican Portal, so I was wondering if Vatican City could become the Vatican Portal too?

There's not much difference between the two. Oct13 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pierina Gilli

The Pierina Gilli article is largely the work of a new and enthusiastic editor who has, essentially, edited only this article. The article has numerous cleanup issues and is tagged for them and the creator of the article has called for help on the talk page. I'm not at all knowledgeable on the topic, specifically or generally, so would like to draw it to the attention of those who are more likely to be. Doddy Wuid (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a WP:SPA probably. And there are lots of these types of claimants with various followers, so in time we will see more and more... It costs nothing to type in the page and we just do not have enough experienced editors to check them... I could do this 72 hours a day and still be 12 hours short.... This is the new age of Wikipedia: shortage of experienced editors, no shortage of new ones... History2007 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible separate groups for Old Catholics?

I was wondering whether there would be any interest among the editors here for a separate group dealing with Old Catholicism. As many of you probably know, the Old Catholics are not officially counted by independent observers as "Catholics," but rather as a form of Protestants. That being the case, it might be a bit confusing to some people to have them counted as Catholics, or within the scope of this project. Would there be any people interested in establishing a separate group for the Old Catholics? If yes, please respond here. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean creating a separate WikiProject, or making a Task Force under WikiProject Christianity? I don't know how productive that would be, given that we are stretched thin enough as it is, and I don't know how much mainstream Protestants really know about the Old Catholics; furthermore, Wikipedia generally recognizes the rights of groups to self-identify - for example, LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses self-identify as Christian - so if Old Catholics say they are Catholic, then perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably a task force. The number of extant articles seems to be sufficient for such a group, and, while I acknowledge the self-identification issue, the Old Catholics also have a comparatively clearly separate distinct history, from (I think?) the First Vatican Council on. On that basis, they probably have sufficient content to merit a separate group, even if the number of editors is possibly rather small. Also, having a more central separate location for individuals who are more interested in Old Catholic articles than Catholic ones might be useful as well. I suppose the same could be said for the Eastern Catholics as well. Anyway, just an idea. I wasn't trying to imply anything by proposing separation, and I hope that, while I do acknowledge their being one or more separate entities, I don't myself necessarily see them as any less "Catholoic" than those who follow the current Roman pope. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may be a positive step to balance the tyrrany of the majority in certain aspects of Wikipedia. Your point about Eastern Catholicism is well taken. I have recently opened a discussion about Eastern Catholicism at Talk:Catholic Church#Theotokos and inclusion of Eastern Churches in lede. Sorry if that is off-topic. But I myself would definitely be interested if an Eastern Catholic task force would form. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind an Eastern Catholic myself, although I myself am of the Western Rite. This would probably be the place to propose such a group. Any other interested parties? John Carter (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ave Maria Mutual Funds

Aloha. I'm doing some research on socially responsible investing, and I noticed that Ave Maria Mutual Funds wasn't tagged by this project, so I tagged it. It's got some sourcing issues, so I'm hoping someone can help fix it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not know about that.. that is all we need now: Raffaello Follieri coming back (I noticed he will be free this week) and talking Tommy into a new new pizza business run from Church property or somewhere like that... History2007 (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Heresies in Catholicism template discussion

Heresies in Catholicism template discussion going on right now. I feel this template deserves to be on Wikipedia, to help users find heresies condemned by the Catholic Church. Some users are claiming this is against Wikipedia policies, but I'm getting tired of everything Catholic being considered wrong on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, and would value your input and help. Oct13 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you misrepresent the comments of others, including those of some Catholics like myself. The issue involved is really is being condemned by the Catholic church so overwhelmingly important that rejection by that single body has to be given prominent notation in every article which qualifies as such. It is also a clear violation of WP:NPOV as well, because it gives such importance to the opinions of one independent group in numerous articles which have little if anything to do with that group. The mythical example Template:Things I don't like and its analogues are not now, and never have been, considered acceptable for inclusion in articles which are not specifically devoted to my own personal opinions. I believe you would be very well advised to read WP:POV/WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with John and as I said on the Afd, this will just generate unnecessary friction and not teach much to the reader. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of heresies in Catholicism

I have proposed that this article be renamed. Please feel free to discuss the matter at Talk:List of heresies in Catholicism#Requested move. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignatian pedagogical paradigm

I have created this article -- Ignatian pedagogical paradigm -- based on several sources and would appreciate additional hands on it. Thanks.Marikafragen (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks well written, but probably needs more sources, and there are plenty of them, it seems. Nice article. History2007 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

CFD discussion

I wanted to advise interested parties that a discussion has been opened at WP:CFD regarding Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations. Here is a link to the discussion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the same proposal that we came up with around this time last year, so if you didn't comment back then, we'd love your input now! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Map of dioceses of Canada

Where's the map of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Canada? --Jaques O. Carvalho ☜ 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brown priest

The article Brown priest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable - a term apparently used by one author, whose book is the source of this list. Not sure the list is useful - most members of the list are not notable. We don't have lists of, say, businessmen who were Nazi supporters, why have a list of priests?Brianyoumans (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The term is only traceable to the 2007 Spicer book. The term "brown priest" was apparently not used during the 1930s or '40s, and was not used by any but Spicer. If the list is to survive, it will need more than one source, and it should be moved to a new name, for instance List of Nazi-affiliated Catholic priests. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Monastery categories

To my surprise, there's no geographic categorisation for monasteries; there's a Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order, but the Russian Orthodox are the only faith to get their own "___ monasteries by country" metacategory, and Category:Christian monasteries in the United States by denomination only has Orthodox and Anglican monastery categories. Is this situation the result of a discussion, or is it simply because nobody's created geographic categories for Catholic monasteries? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab in the dark its because no one wanted to go through the effort of doing the categorization. There is also perhaps a bit of a question regarding, for instance, priories vs. abbeys and similar questions, but I can't see any reason not to categorize by country, or, for that matter, by church, if there are for instance monasteries of a specifically Maronite, Melkite, or other particular church. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Herald digital archive now online

From Father Z's blog. The Catholic Herald, a great newspaper in the UK, has placed its full archives online going back to the 1930s. Subscriptions are £40 per year. This could be a great source for articles here. Elizium23 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus GA

The preeminent Catholic lay organization has been nominated by yours truly for Good Article. If you would like to review Knights of Columbus click here--it's only #201 in the queue! Arrrgggghhh!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 03:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete redundant page: Visit to the Blessed Sacrament

I lack the expertise to know how to delete a page but boy is there one worthy of deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visit_to_the_Blessed_Sacrament

It's redundant with the article on Eucharistic Adoration, except much worse. 108.243.188.132 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a merge, we should attempt to rescue any and all valuable content on the page. But otherwise, I agree with you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Albertus Soegijapranata

I was wondering if anyone here could take a look at the article and ensure I used the terms correctly (such as Holy See vs. Vatican, apostolic vicariate, novitiate, etc.) . I'm not very well-versed at writing articles about Catholicism, let alone bishops. Thanks beforehand! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Help in explaining dedication of churches

I'm having some real trouble explaining the concept of dedicating a church in the Categories for discussion page. Could someone who is better at explaining Catholic concepts to non Catholics (or for that matter Anglican or Orthodox concepts) please explain why dedicating a church to a saint is not simply "naming" a church. I am having extreme trouble explaining this, even when 15 other Wikipedias (including all the main languages) are allowing this.

I'm sure it's my abiliy to explain rather than their willingness or ability to comprehend that's at fault.

JASpencer (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection of the dead

In ictu oculi has asked me to post Talk:Resurrection of the dead here. More specifically, I presume, Talk:Resurrection of the dead#Requested move 2012-06-25. Esoglou (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Roman Catholic Dioceses - United States

Template:Roman Catholic Dioceses - United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for input: Deletion of Metz Accord article

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metz_Accord Lectiodifficilior (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Someone who is knowledgeable in the ways of archiving, could you have a look at Talk:Society of Jesus and fix it/explain to me why nothing is being archived there? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:Archiving. Basically for most pages you need to manually archive the page. If the talk page is real popular you can set it up such that a bot automatically archives it, but there is no reason to do that for less popular talk pages. Instructions for both are on the WP page. It is pretty easy as long as you follow the steps.Marauder40 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed the steps. It's not working. I just asked for some technical help in getting it working. Nothing on that page says that I have to use manual archiving. Elizium23 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources issue

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention this discussion which hints to an ongoing issue including similar biographical voices (as this shows, the voice Pope Julius III is also in need of serious update). Regards, --RCarmine (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) (contributor to it:Progetto:Cattolicesimo)

A few editors who edit mostly gay related pages have been adding as much homophobic material to papal articles as possible. When any concern about POV or neutrality is brought up, the editors say it is unfounded, remove the tags and avoid a discussion. A good example ison the Paul II page, where n eidtor stated there was no reason to add the rumourthat the pope died while engaged in sex with a page becuase the source states that it is merely legend and was first detailedfive years after his death; so these editors replaced the term "legend" with "many modern historians believe". Many of the same issues are on the Julius III page as well, where they refer to the pope as a sodomite, imply the pontiff was a pedophile who moved a teenager into his home so the two could share a secret relationship and so on, then hide behind the notion that they are merely discussing the scandal that was caused by Julius' nepotism and that the article mentions that it can't be proven the relationship was sexual (which still implies it likely was, or, that the pope was at least gay and a pedophile). These need attentionand discussion. Bellae artes (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City

I have begun to add these articles to the Project umbrella. I have been very innactive here for some time. I hope there are a few here that can help improve this article with some stronger historical church documentation. A vatican expert on papal heraldry, would a great addition as the Vatican Website is being used with undue weight and editors are attempting to parse the information without references when this should be an easily covered subject from the Vatcan sources. Also outside sources from mainstream opinion that can confirm claims etc would be great. I have just begun research into this area and it seems extremely interesting.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You said undue weight ifs given to Vatican sources, then state that the Vatican sources shoudl be enough? How are the Vatican sources given undue wieght, any secondary source would use the Vatican sources for their research, so why not go to the Vatican sources to begin with? If a primary source says apples, and a secondary source says bananas, then clearly whoever wrote bananas is wrong and must be ignored per the primary sources. Bellae artes (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

POV???

I have some doubts about the edits of Jay Fitzgerald. They look to be biased, but am not sure. Can someone take a look at the edits to see if they are neutral or not? The Banner _talk 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly is an editor who likes words. I like economy. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass removal of baptismal names from Vietnamese bishops and Cardinals

About 20 articles, see Cardinal of Ho Chi Minh City Jean-Baptiste Phạm Minh Mẫn -> Pham Minh Man etc. Where these moves discussed or notified at all at WikiProject Catholicism? Because it looks as though the most reliable sources retain them. This is a major mass move, and if removing the baptismal name should be done via WP:RM. I was considering reverting all 20 or so undiscussed moves as controversial - but would like to check with WP:Catholicism to get second, third and fourth opinion first. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On a more general point Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) doesn't seem to give any guidance. But I note Category:Chinese cardinals, Category:Japanese cardinals, Category:South Korean Roman Catholic bishops still have their baptismal names. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The recently promoted FA Albertus Soegijapranata still has his baptismal name (Albertus) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to look in SE Asia at areas like Category:Indonesian Roman Catholic archbishops, Category:Malaysian Roman Catholic archbishops. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Britannica gives "Roman Catholic Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc" -- no "Pierre Martin". Catholic News Service gives "Cardinal Nguyen Van Thuan". In Vietnamese, the names of clergy are generally given in the same format as that of other Vietnamese names. (Here is an example.) Kauffner (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how the example given vietcatholic.com Mái Ấm Họa Huệ Mừng Bổn Mạng (Assumptionists celebrate patron saint) shows that "In Vietnamese, the names of clergy are generally given in the same format as that of other Vietnamese names" and is an argument for wholesale removal of baptismal names from Vietnamese bishops: "Thánh lễ do cha Phao-lô Nguyễn Văn Hưng," (= "Mass by Father Paul Nguyễn Văn Hưng, director of training....) "Nhưng trước đó, bài Tin mừng được Thầy phó tế Phê-rô Phạm Văn Dương," (= "But first Gospel by Deacon Peter Phạm Văn Dương.") .... "Gio-an Bao-ti-xi-ta Nguyễn Ngọc Thăng" (= "Jean-Baptiste Nguyễn Ngọc Thăng") etc.

But anyway, I already know what I think, the purpose here is to get a broader set of opinion. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Another one: Joseph Marie Trình Như Khuê Archbishop of Hanoi from 1960-1978, moved to "Trinh Nhu Khue". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint identification

Who's that on the right?

At Commons, I've uploaded photos of a number of stained-glass windows from Catholic churches. I've been able to identify most of the subjects, but the right-hand window in the photo has stumped me. Another editor has identified him as Ferdinand III of Castile, but I have my doubts: the editor is Brazilian, so likely to identify Iberian saints; but the church was established in an area of Nebraska settled primarily by Germans and Bohemians (with some Irish Catholics in the parish as well). The current parish priest, who's of Spanish descent, couldn't put a name to the figure on the window, adding to my doubt that it's F3. Any suggestions? A reply at my talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The parish website's Church Tour says: "The saint in armor is unknown. He could easily be St. Wenceslaus, St. Alexander, St. Stanislaus of Cracow or several others." Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how good a source the parish's website is. I think they're mistaken, for example, on the saint atop the high altar: they identify him as St. Leonard of Port Maurice, but he's holding a skull, which I don't think is usual in depicting St. L of PM; I suspect that it's St. Francis of Assisi. (Hard to see much detail at the distance, but there's a photo of the altar at Commons.)

I'm disinclined to think that the window depicts St. Stanislaus, who's usually shown in bishop's attire, and who wouldn't be shown with a shield (the sword was the instrument of his martyrdom, not something he wielded in life). St. Wenceslaus is often depicted holding a dagger, but our window shows somebody with a rather large sword. I'm not sure which St. Alexander is meant: of the ones listed at the WP dab page, the only one that comes even close is Alexander of Bergamo, and he doesn't seem like a good match. Ammodramus (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move. Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gregory of Nazianzus FARC

I have nominated Gregory of Nazianzus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: natural marriage

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural marriage for discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Template discussion

Please see Template talk:Christianity#"Eastern Catholic" is not a denomination for a discussion. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Episcopal appointments and WP:CRYSTAL

Hi folks, we are having some ongoing problems regarding the appointment of successor bishops in dioceses and the policy of WP:CRYSTAL as it applies between the dates of appointment and installation. As discussed extensively at Talk:Charles J. Chaput, the effects of an episcopal appointment are very limited compared to the enthronement/installation, which happens a couple months later. I will use as an example, Salvatore J. Cordileone, bishop of Oakland. Upon receipt of his new appointment to San Francisco, the bishop obtained the power and obligations of a Diocesan Administrator of the Diocese of Oakland. He remains bishop of Oakland. He gains the title, "Archbishop-designate of San Francisco". The see does not become vacant. The resignation of George Hugh Niederauer has been accepted; Niederauer remains archbishop of San Francisco. (see below for revised analysis) At this point, succession boxes should not be changed, infoboxes should not be changed. Lead paragraphs can be supplemented to include the new announcement, but the information already there, about being bishop of Oakland or Niederauer being archbishop of San Francisco, that should not be deleted. It is strongly encouraged to place in the body of the article a description of the events of July 27, the appointment and the resignation. This is where that information belongs. Add references, because there are plenty. The installation ceremony happens in a couple months from now. When you watch that installation ceremony on live streaming video, and the Apostolic Letter is read to the whole assembly, and the archbishop takes his seat on the cathedra, then you can go ahead and update the infoboxes, add the succession box, change the lede paragraphs, and all that jazz. But all that jazz is currently happening immediately upon news of the appointment, and this is wrong, this is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and I am at 3RR on certain articles without your help, so more eyes would be appreciated. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For clarification on when the various title changes become effective, I would suggest consulting Canon Law, specifically: 382§2; 402§1; 418§1; and 418§2,1º.--Dcheney (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my position. I have already linked and quoted the canons on Talk:Salvatore J. Cordileone, for anyone who would like to see what they actually say, which proves that I am correct, of course we knew that already from the talk at +Chaput's page from before this. Rather than edit-war with every anonymous IP who comes to "fix" the article, I have tagged it with {{Accuracy}} and {{Crystal}} in an effort to spur appropriate discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am assiduously collecting sources which support my position (having been unable to find sources which disprove my position). Unfortunately, the secular media uses imprecise language and I lack access to a library of dead-tree resources I can readily use, so my current crop of links is a mix of primary and questionable sources. I would have thought that citing Canon Law would be sufficient.

Here is a program from the installation of Samuel Joseph Aquila in Denver. Refer to page 10, where the Rite of Canonical Possession is clearly described. Then refer to the Code of Canon Law, Can. 382 §3-4, where this protocol is likewise described.

Here is a blog post, by one of the most respected members of the Catholic blogosphere, Rocco Palmo. It treats mainly bishops-elect, that is, those who have been appointed bishop of a diocese but not yet received their episcopal consecration of Holy Orders. But the language here is also clear, and the process for a bishop-elect is much clearer than that of an archbishop-designate such as +Cordileone. A newly appointed bishop can't immediately be the bishop of his diocese, because he isn't even a bishop yet! Episcopal consecration and canonical possession must occur first.

Would we, as Americans, give power to the president-elect on the night of his election? On November 7, should I go around Wikipedia and edit articles to say that Mitt Romney is now the President of the United States? No, you reply, he is President-elect; election is not inauguration, and Inauguration Day is January 20, 2013. Exactly the same rules apply to episcopal appointments. It adds insult to injury that with lateral appointments such as +Cordileone's and +Aquila's, there is a see being left vacant, but that see does not become vacant until he is newly installed.

It should be understood that a Catholic bishop cannot be known as "Bishop of Nowhere", he is always consecrated for a particular see. If a bishop's election is honorary and he serves in the Roman Curia, or as an auxiliary bishop, for example, he is a titular bishop, that is, he reigns over a defunct diocese somewhere in the world. Fulton J. Sheen and Eduardo Nevares are examples of titular bishops. Now let's take +Cordileone, currently bishop of Oakland. His appointment sends him to San Francisco, but he is not yet in possession of that see. How can he cease being bishop of Oakland? He cannot be Bishop of Nowhere. He is not Bisohp Emeritus, because he has not retired.

Here is another article by Palmo describing the Rite of Canonical Possession. I don't know how to make it much clearer! I hope that we can standardize this, because as far as I can tell, this kind of abuse of WP:CRYSTAL has been happening since 2007 and is misleading thousands of readers seeking true information in these pages. Elizium23 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a revision to make per the strikeouts above, new information has come to light that I have confirmed though various sources. Pastoral Letter from Archbishop Emeritus Mario Conti, Bishop's retirement kicks off process, also some forum postings and an email sent to Archdiocese of SF: when a bishop has tendered his letter of resignation, it is accepted either immediately or nunc pro tunc. The standard practice is nunc pro tunc, which means 'now for later' and what happens is that a search for a successor is made, and upon publication of the successor's appointment the resignation is effective. That means that +Niederauer has become Archbishop Emeritus of a vacant see of San Francisco; likewise +Conti for Glasgow. This is different from an outgoing bishop in the lateral move; +Cordileone is still bishop of Oakland and +Tartaglia is still with Paisley, but they are effectively Diocesan Administrators now. So, this complicates things, and I hope they're all clear as mud to you, because it has taken me several months to work out all the details of the process to my satisfaction, and my zeal has caused a constructive contributor to threaten retirement, so I hope the damage here can be repaired and that we can move forward with a uniform approach to articles on Catholic prelates. Elizium23 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am currently in the midst of repairing many, many articles on Catholic bishops which say in the lede sentence "...is bishop of [diocese] since his appointment by [Pope] on [date]" which is of course incorrect, they did not attain this title until their installation. Also, it has come to my attention by careful reading of this excellent article that Bishops-elect not yet ordained are already entitled to use the addresses "The Most Reverend" and "Your Excellency". This box can be added immediately on announcement of the appointment. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Latin Rite / Latin Church / Roman Rite

There is a bit of confusion in the world about these three terms. Here is the true story. Latin Rite is more or less a slang or portmanteau of the other two. It is a more common term than the other two combined, and even used by Popes and officials in the Church, but it is not strictly "official", because the other two are in Canon Law and the majority of Church documents. Here is the distinction: read the articles for the full story, but the Latin Church is the sui iuris Church in communion with Rome. It encompasses several rites, the largest of which is the Roman Rite, which includes the extraordinary form and the ordinary form of the Mass. The Latin Church is somewhat unique in that it does encompass several rites unlike all the Eastern Churches which each celebrate in a single rite. Now, I am trying to establish a basis for changing occurrences of "Latin Rite" in articles to the official terms so that it is not so ambiguous. The drawback is that Wikipedia must report reliable secondary sources which will often use the confusing term "Latin Rite" and we must report it that way; changing it would even be original research. But, if it is clear from the article text which official term is implied, and the sources don't specifically mention a term, then I suggest we change it to the official term for clarity. It would indeed be very helpful if the use of the confusing term Latin Rite is greatly reduced here on Wikipedia so it would reduce usage worldwide. Elizium23 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The other drawback is that some articles will now say "...the Latin Church of the Catholic Church", which sounds redundant and confusing on the face of it, but is actually accurate (and let's not even mention the issue of "Roman Catholic (term)") Elizium23 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there an official exclusion of use of the term "rite" to refer to a particular Church, at least by metonomy? Within the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the word "rite" has a precisely defined meaning that corresponds neither to the idea of "particular Church" nor to that of "liturgical rite": canon 28 §1 of that Code states: "Ritus est patrimonium liturgicum, theologicum, spirituale et disciplinare cultura ac rerum adiunctis historiae populorum distinctum" (not just a liturgical heritage, but also a theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage characteristic of peoples' culture and the circumstances of their history). But outside of that Code, we can surely use the word "rite" to mean either a form of liturgy or - as far as I can see - a Church.

In Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict XVI declared that all priests of what he called the Latin rite (meaning, surely, the Latin Church) are free to use either the present Roman Missal or its 1962 edition in celebrating Mass without the people. "All" means even those who normally use, for instance, the Ambrosian Rite, or the rite of some religious institute - unless of course they are under some obligation deriving from another source to use at certain times or always a liturgical rite other than the Roman. A person is a member of a particular Church, but not a member of a particular liturgical rite. A person uses in the liturgy a particular liturgical rite, but does not use in the liturgy a particular Church. Members of a particular Church may be authorized to use several liturgical rites of a particular Church, as the clergy of Braga are authorized to use either the Roman Rite or the Rite of Braga. Whatever liturgical rite they use in liturgy, they are all members of what Pope Benedict does call the Latin rite.

The Code of Canon Law includes canon 1015 §2: "If not impeded by a just cause, the proper bishop is to ordain his own subjects personally; without an apostolic indult, however, he cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite." A Latin bishop does not need an apostolic indult to ordain a subject of his who uses in the liturgy a rite (Ambrosian, Bragan, Carthusian, Mozarabic, Roman ... or Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara ... ) different from the liturgical rite that the bishop himself uses. But he does need an apostolic indult to ordain a subject of his who (by baptism or for whatever other reason) is "of an Eastern rite", i.e., a member of an Eastern "rite" - even if that person, who is of an Eastern "rite" in the sense of the canon (i.e, a Church?), is authorized to use in the liturgy a Latin liturgical rite such as the Roman Rite, as does happen for Indian Eastern-Church clergy serving Latin-Church faithful. Conversely, if a subject of the Latin bishop, one who is a member of the Latin Church/rite, has obtained an indult to use in the liturgy some Eastern (liturgical) rite, as again does happen, the bishop needs no apostolic indult to ordain him. So this canon of the Code of Canon Law (for Latins) does seem to use "rite" in the sense of "Church". Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Hudson

Jackie Hudson is up for a peer review. Your review would be appreciated. Thanks, --Guerillero | My Talk 00:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Religious institute initials

This is a request for help for editing as regards Catholic etiquette. This is a rather minor matter, but I am currently in a dispute with a small group of editors regarding the inclusion of the initials of a person's community in bold at the start of an article. The MOS speaks of postnominal initials as "honorifics", such as OBE and KM, and indicate that they should not be bolded. I, on the other hand, consider these postnominal initials as part of a person's name indicating heritage, the equivalent of Jr. or Sr.

A small group of editors, who are open about having no familiarity with religious matters, are in strong disagreement with me, taking a strict interpretation of this phrasing. They have repeatedly and systematically changed the format I have used. There have also been a few comments made which I find somewhat unsettling. So I would appreciate the input of the editors in this project in this matter. The discussion can be seen on the Talk page for the MOS. Daniel the Monk (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability of bishops

I can't find a notability guideline dealing with bishops or other clergymen. Can someone who is familiar with the area weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Nicolas Lemmens? It would also be great if someone can point me to the related guideline or if this wikiproject has a notability essay. Ryan Vesey 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone please look at

Kirishitan and History of Roman Catholicism in Japan. The first article seems to be heavily OR and duplicate. I left a note on WP Japan as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. --Jayarathina (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for assessment

Could someone please assess Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests? I'd like to get it on the board, but I probably shouldn't rate it myself, since I would probably rate its quality as lower and its importance as higher than is justified. Thanks. Openverse (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)