Thanks for the reply. The Arbcom's ruling, to my reading, did not take a position on the issue of categorization. Categorization based on religion and sexual orientation are, quite rightly, singled out with additional criteria that do not apply to information in the text of an article. I think there is a serious question that remains as to whether membership in a house of worship, by itself, satisfies the "public self-identification" requirement of the rule. This issue will very likely come up in other biographies of people from a variety of faiths. Categories, especially regarding religion and sexual orientation, are more than simple navigational tools, but can give undue weight to specific elements of a person's background. I directed these comments to you since, as an administrator, you might be more concerned about the implications of these things than the average editor. Given the ruling concerning "edit warring," I don't plan to make any further edits to the article regarding this matter.