Talk:Theodore McCarrick

message: Try this archive link? . The article mentions that "the Archdiocese of Newark and its archbishop" were named in the lawsuit, but it's not clear to me whether or not that means McCarrick. Cheers, gnu57 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , thank you for the link. The time period mentioned in this article of 1986 to 1988 is when McCarrick was Archbishop of Newark. But as his name does not appear anywhere in the article, I'm not sure that we can use it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paywalled northjersey.com link 

message: I feel that McCarrick is eligible for :Category:Religious figures convicted of child sexual abuse, :Category:American members of the clergy convicted of crimes, and :Category:American people convicted of child sexual abuse because he was found guilty by the CDF in a canonical trial. Unless we feel like creating special parallel categories for ecclesial trials and convictions, a conviction is a conviction in any court of law. Elizium23 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories: convicted 

message: The lead describes him as a "former cardinal and bishop". There are two issues I am raising. Most importantly, is the term "former bishop" appropriate? I assume that Wikipedia would identify someone as a Catholic bishop if the Catholic Church says he is a bishop. It is my understanding that McCarrick is still considered a bishop since the church teaches that Holy Orders can never be removed, although his authority to function in any ordained ministry has been removed. An example of such a situation that I was taught is that in an emergency when no other priest is available, a laicized priest can administer last rites when someone is in danger of death. So my question is: Is "former bishop" an inappropriate term for McCarrick? If so, then the second issue is grammatical. I understand "former cardinal and bishop" to be equivalent to "former cardinal and former bishop". So should the rewording be "bishop and former cardinal"? Sundayclose (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , a laicized bishop is a former bishop. He loses the rights and privileged associated with being a cleric. The Church regards him as a layman. His name is Mr. McCarrick. He cannot wear any vestments of his former office. Etc. etc. Elizium23 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I am making a distinction between the title and privileges of bishop and the sacramental power of holy orders that was conferred when he was consecrated. I understand that he does not have the rights and privileges of bishop, but I feel certain that the Church teaches that what he received sacramentally during his consecration can never be removed, just like the changes that occur in bread and wine during Holy Communion cannot be reversed. Sundayclose (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the Church regards him as a layman. It is utterly forbidden for him to confect sacraments except in danger of death. There is no stretch of the imagination by which he could be called a bishop except in technical sacramental theology. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree, and I won't beat a dead horse on this issue. But it is the technical sacramental theology to which I refer. In that sense, the Church says he is always a bishop. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree on this question, however the Church will still in reality see his ordination (as priest) and consecration (as bishop) as licit, and thus is entitled to the style of a bishop. Of course he lost the His Excellency/the Most Reverend styling, but he is still a Bishop.  Mjmartin1942 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former cardinal and bishop 

message: It is true that for contemporary ordinary bishops, 75 is a mandatory retirement age, but this is a relatively new thing; for most of history, bishops died in office. So I am not sure that we can say "all bishops retire at 75 so we don't need to say it." Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But for contemporary cases is it proper to say "customary"? Isn’t it better to say something like "He submitted his resignation as required when he turned 75." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customary resignation 

message: On October 6, 2018, the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had decided that "a thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick, in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively". This is not a properly worded sentence. The Pope has decided that "a thorough study ..." is what? 71.34.93.226 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly worded