Talk:William Levada

message: Added a very short intro. Didn't use the style "most reverend" because I don't know what's going on with that policy. If anyone wants to add it back in, I've no objection. But last I saw, it looked like no style had a slim lead at this vote. --User:Jenmoa 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization and editing 

message: I understand there's some controversy over his handling of the priest sex abuse scandals when he was SF Archbishop. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do could put something in? Maltaran 18:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
: I added a brief sentence.  I don't know that there are any spectacular characterizations of his record in this, but if there are I'm sure someone will add more data! Lawrence King 09:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your sentence that some critics have voiced uncertainty about how Levada handled priests who had committed sexual abuse in Portland and in San Francisco, since I think that if there was criticism about Levadas handling it should be substantiated with more than just a statement that there is/was uncertainty among his critics. Gugganij 21:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back and added a link to an article about abuse coverups under his administration.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Gugganij 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite reasonable. Lawrence King 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Here's more about Levada's involvement in cover-ups. Malick78 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thankyou. As the suggestion was that he was involved in the bankruptcy, I've removed the point. Hopefully someone will clarify if there is a reason for making the connection. - Bilby (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual abuse issues 

message: Should this page simply be named "William Levada"?
Google gives 4120 hits for "William Levada" and 269 hits for "William Joseph Levada".  This suggests that he doesn't usually use his middle name, but it's not unknown.
Middle names are not used in the main titles of most biography pages.  See Bill Clinton, Bernard Cardinal Law, etc. Even John F. Kennedy only gets an initial in his main page's title.
Of course, we could just leave it as-is until he gets a red hat, but that could be more than a year from now.
:How about William J. Levada?  Although, considering his new position, he'll probably be getting a Cardinal's hat soon, we'll probably have to be moving it to William Cardinal Levada any day now.  RickK 21:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps, someday, it may be moved to Pope Buster I.  Aloysius Patacsil 00:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::As long as we have a redirect from William Levada and William J. Levada, it doesn't matter.  As a general rule, full names are used by other encyclopedias when possible.  I think it should be the same on Wikipedia, unless someone is known notoriously by a nickname, as is the case with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  On Wikipedia, it's common practice to use the name registered on the ordination records of the Vatican for those in the episcopacy, which for the most part is the first-middle-last or first-middle-patriarchal family name-matriarchal family name (for Latin American and Spanish people) format.  When they become cardinals, the most frequently used format is first-Cardinal-last, dropping the middle name.  Of course not everything is set in stone.
:::The Catholic-Hierarchy website uses ordination records for their listing of people who have achieved episcopacy. They list William Joseph Levada as the official episcopal name.  We should respect the format, just as how we would respect the consecrated names given to the Queen of England and Princes of Wales upon their Church of England investitures. --Gerald Farinas 03:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this page? 

message: Note that,just as Pope Benedict XVI became Prefect of the CDF in November 1981 and stepped down as Archbishop of Munich in February 1982,Archbishop Levada currently holds BOTH jobs...he is already Prefect and has not yet stepped down as Archbishop of San Francisco.See the recent Vatican bulletin on his meeting with the Pope.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wearing Two Hats

message: Hi Panairjdde, as far as I know those titular churches, where Cardinal Deacons are assigned to are called titular diaconries, aren't they. Gugganij 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Cardinal Deacon" and the titular church should not be in the introductory section.  This is a bit of trivia that has no actual impact in the Catholic Church.  Not one Catholic in a thousand could name the titular church of any American cardinals, and not one scholar in a thousand would find it worthwhile. Lawrence King 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I wouldn't exactley call it trivial, but you were certainly right to move it from the introductory section - it's not that important. Gugganij 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titular diaconry vs Titulus 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support: See the discussion section below for my reasons. - Lawrence King 10:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: On the ordination of women. It seems to me that a decree issued by a vatican office, even with Levada's signature, should not be taken to be his individual opinion, but rather simply as Vatican policy. There is a difference, right? maxsch (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia, the author's creation of an article, does not signify in any manner, his or her own opinion about the subject or persona. In Church dogmas, laws and official decrees, the Pope is supreme. He is infallible, that is, by our Catholic faith, his actions ex cathedra, regarding church teachings, are to be obeyed and by sheer disobedience thereto, sanctions like excommunication of heretics, burning them in the patio or at stakes, would result. But, but, but, when his Princes, the Cardinals, would author or sign a decree, his own thesis, opinion and teachings, in accordance with canon law and church established jurisprudence, become the law of the case, or in this matter, the decree becomes his own ponencia. It cannot be otherwise, since, any Cardinal who is not assigned on this, can voice any opinion. This matter of ordination of women priests, had been here for centuries. Take this case: the previous Popes criticized Sister Faustina, but Polish John Paul II did all to make her a saint of Divine Mercy. There is really no difference at all, regarding Levada's and the Vatican's latest anti-women decree. The decree and Levada's soul are like Florentino Floro and Angel of Death. There is no utter distinction. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions

message: Will the anonymous editor who seems to have recently gone from London to Ireland please indicate on what grounds he feels justified in conducting his one-man campaign to change from the established form to a form of his personal preference the way in which cardinals are referred to in Wikipedia articles?  Platia (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorifics insertion campaign 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on William Levada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214100311/http://www.usccb.org:80/bishops/reflections.shtml to http://www.usccb.org/bishops/reflections.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on William Levada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120915014546/http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/351694/top_vatican_official_testifies_in_us_sex_abuse_case/ to http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/351694/top_vatican_official_testifies_in_us_sex_abuse_case/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The views sections reads like it was authored by a stoned sociology professor from UC Berkeley and doesn't really show Wikipedia at its best. The article would be vastly improved by whittling down the number of subheadings to more succinct ones such as "social views", etc to avoid bourgeois liberal attempts to demonise his positions. I realise this man had the misfortune of being the Archbishop of San Francisco, but having little subheading like "opposition to gender inclusive language" (for, err, following what is written in the text which his religion is based on) is really beyond parody. And of course, the pro-homosexual political lobby is represented in force in Contaldo's renamed "opposition to LGBT rights" section. The "opposition to abortion" section goes without saying since all Catholic bishops are opposed to executing children as a basic tenant of their religion, this could be covered far more briefly. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bourgeois decadence run rampant in "views" section