Talk:Roger Mahony/Archive 1

message: What is the Sensenbrenner-King Bill? 24.7.87.135 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google tells me that el Diario has an article on the bill, which states that the bill would make it a federal crime to provide any assistance to an undocumented immigrant, including religious workers, health care workers, social workers, etc. Gentgeen 23:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I recently changed the introduction to read:
:Roger Michael Cardinal Mahoney, AA, STB, MSW, is a bishop and cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. He is currently serving as the fourth Archbishop of Los Angeles and was raised to the cardinalate in 1991.
It was quickly reverted back to saying ... is a prelate in the ..., which I feel is (a) less precise, and (b) a poorer link for the subject of the article. Let me explain.
Prelate is an appropriate term for Cardinal Mahoney, as it includes diocesan ordinaries. However, it also includes other church officials, the monsignori, religious superiors, etc, basically any member of the clergy or the religious in a position of authority over other members of the clergy can be called a prelate. However, bishop only refers to those who have been ordained to the episcopate and therefor have received the fullness of Catholic priesthood. While the two terms are not quite referring to the same concept, in the Catholic Church all bishops are prelates (in the sense of being in authority), while the reverse is not true, so bishop is a more precise term.
Our article on prelate mentions the concept of someone "raised above others" for a couple of lines, then spends 90% of its content talking about territorial prelatures and personal prelatures, neither of which have anything to do with Cardinal Mahoney. On the other hand, the article on bishop talks about many things, including the role of the bishop in church governance, the history of bishops, bishops mentioned in the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers, and the various different titles used by a bishop. It is, in my opinion, a better, more complete article about what someone who's reading Cardinal Mahoney's article would want to know about.
The decision regarding how many times to write and/or link to cardinal isn't really important to me.
Gentgeen 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has bothered to respond, I'll reinstate my text. Gentgeen 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand your concerns about the generic meaning of "prelate", but the fact that Cardinal Mahony is both a bishop and cardinal (as in your revision) is then made clear when it says that he is the Archbishop of Los Angeles and was made a cardinal in 1991. The term bishop also has several meanings: titular, auxiliary, coadjutor, archbishop, etc. Tajm 9:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, "prelate" is a general term, and that is exactly why I used it to describe Mahony. I did not want to be redundant when I gave his episcopal position and the date of his elevation to the College of Cardinals. Prelate is often used in this method (i.e., to describe a high-ranking churchman)—and it is then clarified with Mahony's offices. Wiktionary's page for "prelate" also says that is normaly used in reference to a bishop. Moreover, the link of Bishop is less precise than the link for Bishop (Catholic Church), which I have taken the responsibility to change. Tajm 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Since no one has yet to reply to my message of 10 April, I am going to proceed to change "bishop and cardinal" to "prelate." If anyone decides to reverse this edit, please read my previous note. Tajm 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I'm curious why these articles persist in using outdated, old-fashioned formalities for the American Catholic hierarchy. Cardinal Mahony certainly should be viewed as THE authority on the proper form to use for his name and title, right? If you look at the LA Archdiocese's Web site, you'll note that the correct usage is as follows:
His Eminence, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles. He is generally referred to as "the Cardinal" by his associate bishops and priests in his diocese. In formal business and social communication, he is referred to in the third person as above, never ever as Roger Cardinal Mahony. That's an old usage, hardly ever used by American Cardinals these days, and never used by Mahony.
American Cardinals stopped putting "Cardinal" in between their given name and surname long, long ago.
Let's make this article an accurate description of reality today, instead of a pining for the old pre-Vatican Catholic formalities.
Thanks!
Mpclarke 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current name usage for American hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church 

message: Also... Cardinal Mahony is NOT the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles. There is no such thing as the "Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles!" Mahony is in fact the Cardinal Priest of Santi Quattro Coronati, as the article correctly notes. There's a gigantic amount of disinformation in this article, eek!
Mpclarke 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct use of "Cardinal Archbishop" 

message: I added the landmark apology and record-breaking settlement.
--Florentino floro 08:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: I believe that this is the standard naming for cardinals. Any objection to moving the article? -Will Beback 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The article should have the standard name for a cardinal. D323P (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all of his own uses, Mahony places the "Cardinal" title before his first name.  This actually is NOT incorrect, and as referred to in the wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinal, other Cardinals style themselves similarly.(Westofpch (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Cardinal Mahony

message: To User:198.252.8.202  Thank you for your recent note to me regarding your edits to the wikipedia article on Cardinal Roger Mahony.  As someone who has lived in the Los Angeles Archdiocese under the prior Archbishop, Timothy Manning, it was very noticeable that the new/current Roman Catholic Cardinal did not follow the more common convention of placing the "Cardinal" title between first and last name.  This is not just a whim of the Deacon in charge of the webpage, but rather common practice of the Cardinal himself, as is evident all of his publications in not only in his webpage but also in other archdiocesan publications (e.g. The Tidings); furthermore, mainstream publications that regularly cover Cardinal Mahony, such as the Los Angeles Times, use the form "Cardinal Roger Mahony."  There is now a well established record of Cardinal Mahony using the title in that way, and therefore it follows that it will not conform to other Wikipedia articles of other Roman Catholic Cardinals who choose to use the title differently.  And as I mentioned in above, the Wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinals states that this form is correct.  I think it is proper to revert to this form.  Please continue this discussion on the article Talk page or send me a message again.Westofpch (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I think it is proper to revert

message: This template, which is a glorified navbox, does not belong on this article. At best it should be a see-also or Main link. No consensus for adding. Its image has already been deleted since it was placed on this article last night. That indicates no consent for usage in the template. --Morenooso (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Template talk:SACC. Editors agree template is being mis-used/applied. --Morenooso (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes--Morenooso (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Template on sexual abuse cases added/reverted

message: To the IP editor that insists on adding these statements, none of the sources you have provided nor any I have found mentions Carlo Maria Vigano or his office by name, which makes these statements uncited, contentious information on living persons (Mahony and Vigano) and I am challenging them in good faith. Per the biographies of living people policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (original emphasis). A claim that is referenced to a source that does not explicitly verify that claim or requires the reader to make conjecture is the same as unsourced. I have seen a couple of sources (NY Times, Catholic News Service) that mention Federico Lombardi, but none of those sources explicitly states that the order to censure Mahony came from Rome. Additionally, the sources I found that mention Lombardi only state that Gomez's actions are "unusual" and that they do not affect any title or office conferred on Mahony outside of Gomez's jurisdiction (the latter is stated with a reference lower in the article). 
Unless there is a source that explicitly states something to the effect of "the Vatican ordered/permitted Gomez to do this", this information cannot be placed on the article. I would venture to guess it's probably true, but especially where living persons are concerned it is not enough that something is true; it must also be verifiable. If you or anyone else can find such a source I'll be more than happy to help add it to the article (probably not in the lead but in a lower section, but let's find those sources first). —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican/Rome involvement in Mahony's censure 

message: It has come to my attention that User:ADM has eviscerated the articles on Bernard Law and Roger Mahony, moving out practically all the text regarding the sexual abuse cases.  I grant that some of the material may need to be trimmed out but I believe that the reduction has been too drastic and does not provide adequate treatment of the single reason why these men are notable outside the Catholic Church.  It is unfortunate that a single incident which is not entirely their fault should overshadow their careers but that's what happened and that's what Wikipedia should report, our own personal feelings notwithstanding. I have reverted to the revision prior to ADM's edits.  I'm open to trimming the section on sexual abuse cases; in particular, the section on the FBI investigation needs to be updated or removed.  --Richard (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Roger Mahony and Bernard Law, the reason some information was removed was because I decided to put it in sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese and sexual abuse scandal in Los Angeles archdiocese. I guess the reason I did that was because I'm not sure Law or Mahony were in full control of their respective dioceses when the scandals occured, and that it was more of a diocesan scandal than an episcopal scandal, even though it arguably involved both. Also, I feel that the articles about the affairs should be broader in scope than the mere biographical material on certain bishops, and that vice-versa the articles about the bishops should not only talk about the scandals. ADM (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree with ADM. I believe the topic deserves more coverage here than the little stub that ADM left behind.  However, there was a bunch of unnecessary detail that was creating an imbalance in the article so I deleted it.  The deleted text is still in the article on sexual abuse scandal in Los Angeles archdiocese.  --Richard (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of text on sexual abuse cases 

message: Why did I remove the Mother Angelica stuff?
1) It was duplicative to the "pastoral letter," itself of questionable significance, which I nevertheless left in. I added a reference to Mother Angelica in that section.  2) The cited sources have bad links and/or are from unreliable sources.  3) This is an article about Cardinal Mahony, not Mother Angelica.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In deciding whether either of these paragraphs/sections should remain on the article, we need to judge how significant they are relative to Mahony's life/career as a whole, and give appropriate weight to any discussion of the matter. I agree that the "pastoral letter" section is of "questionable significance," but the amount of weight given to it isn't grossly inappropriate at this time. If text on the matter starts to dwarf discussion on more lasting aspects of Mahony's life/career such as the sexual abuse scandal we should definitely trim it down. If there is to be any mention of Mother Angelica it can be limited to one sentence in the remaining paragraph, similar to how the matter is discussed on her article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Angelica 

message: (Archbishop Gomez is the successor to Cardinal Mahony as archbishop of Los Angeles.)
The "Retirement" section contains this:
"Gómez is the highest ranked Mexican born prelate within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops."
OK, but remember this is an article about Cardinal Mahony.  I do recall reading, however, that Cardinal Mahony suggested being succeeded by a Hispanic, and he was given Gomez as his coadjutor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.45 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first read this article, the sentence about Gómez immediately caught my attention as being out of place, so I would support its removal. Primogen (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and removed that sentence as this article is about Mahony, not Gomez. I have no prejudice against that statement being included in the article on Gomez (it already is, but not with that exact wording). —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  what should this article say about Archbishop Gomez? 

message: Do there really need to be three examples of Mahony's 'coat of arms', one right above another.  The two in the infoboxes are clickable and produce large images.  The third (from the cathedra) should be removed.  BTW, Mahony does not have a 'coat of arms', as he is not a member of the nobility or gentry and not entitled to bear arms.  He has a 'stemma'.  --Vicedomino (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms