Jump to content

Talk:Mother Angelica/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias

Is it just me, or is this article incredibly biased? I mean, I can understand being vaguely positive toward a subject - obviously you have to be interested enough to write an article. But presenting alleged miracles as facts? Come on.

This article does indeed seem to have a lot of bias.

I like this article and was happy to see wikipedia finally has something on mother angelica. I do not think it is biased. The world is full of miracles, scientific and otherwise. Suggestion: eliminate the word "terrestial" which hits like a lightening strike. Otherwise, it's fine.


NPOV

I've made a lot of edits to try and clean up the biases. . .probably still needs more work. I've also shortened the article a bit and added more headings to make it more readable. Other suggestions? TMS63112 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel this page is far too pro-Mother Angelica and perhaps even comes offf as preachy. There is far too much religious detail and it comes off as preachy. I've tracked most of it, such as the unnecesary capitalization of the word WALKED as if to prove to Wikipedians that Mother Angelica truly is miraculous, to a shrine's website. It only seems to be made out of things coming from supportive sites. I fear that this most certainly is not appropriate, as Mother Angelica is still certainly a controversial figure as her Wikipedia used to say, and it is wrong for whoever originally did this to gloss over without even addressing it with words lifted from other websites. I've attempted to shorten it and also removed a lot of the extra adjective in front of words that give the article an overly-religious flair (such as Most blessed sacrament, Good News of Jesus, etc.) I still feel this article is too long and contains far too much detail. Vartan84 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't tangle with Pirate Nun. --205.146.141.238 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The entire "Miracles" section seems biased toward religious beliefs, rather than actual fact. --Jeames 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire article suffers from NPOV problems. I am adding the {{NPOV}} tag. Mike Dillon 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps you could say "while some suggest it is a miracle others insist is it scientifically possible." And perhaps offer some sort of scientific explanation if you have one rather than just saying it isn't possible, when people have seen it. I am a little offended that anyone would argue that these were not miracles. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean they are not miracles. That's fine to present the opposing views. But do not talk about the miracles as if they are non-sense fairy tales.IamAng12 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a way to be fair. Any miracle is inherently unbelievable to non believers. THere is no need to put in wild phrases like, "some claim this was not a miracle." It is simply enough to state what happened from an outside perspective, then say that Mother Angelica felt it was a miracle. Instead of saying she had a miracle, say she suffered this leg problem, it went away. She claims it was a miracle. That's it. Neutral. Basejumper 09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Descriptions of religious miracles are always dubious to non-believers. The article clearly presents them as such in most instances, and where it doesn't I'll go through the text and edit it to make that perfectly clear. Since there were no specific concerns given when the NPOV tag was added, I'm going to remove it now. Articles such as on Our Lady of Lourdes or Rosary are good examples of how religious phenomena can be presented in a neutral manner. Dgf32 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Nun

More information should be presented about her alter-ego, "The Pirate Nun." Most people who have seen her only because of her wearing an eye-patch.

She had a stroke. This might not be a well-written article, but this is just mean. Like making fun of people in Category:Amputees as having "Pirate alter-egos" and then laughing at their misfortune--T. Anthony 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite

I really should learn how to do this but for right now I do have the source needed for the comment that she is arguably the most influential catholic woman in america. It's on Time's archive and the links here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983275,00.html 65.12.135.63 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations need to be added or the article could be in violation of Living Persons by having unsourced info. Basejumper 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So your issue seems to be you own disbelief of miracles as such? Are things not neutral, because they contain mentions of things you can't lend your credulity to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by {{{User}}} ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


In the interests of balance on the external links, this article should also reference the NCR article which a different link attacks.

Title: Angelica, EWTN push Disneyland church http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v30/ai_15630810

Vandalism

The vandalism is GREAT! I will be back to do it every day. YES I WILL HA HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.81.228 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there something we can do about this moron. I am so sick of having to undo his vandalism. Can we have it permanently locked? Dumbot keeps removing the protection so this vandal keeps hitting it over and over gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DumbBOT is not removing protection. It is removing the padlock icon when the page protection expires. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Then what do we do to prevent 71.166.81.228 from vandalizing the article time after time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nominate the page for semi-protection. I tried yesterday and was declined. Your mileage may vary. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New comments

NEW COMMENTS: Mother Angelica is a deply conservative Catholic whose definition of 'Catholic' 'Fidelity' and 'Holiness' is not universally shared. She was named as 'the closest thing Roman Catholics have to Rush Limbaugh' (Insight on the News, May 23, 1994, Rod Dreher). Dreher quoted Sister Mary Collins, who chairs the department of religion and religious education at the Catholic University of America: "I think that she is in fact dangerous, because she does not know her limitations. She's really quite ignorant of Catholic tradition, both in practice and theology."

Two very striking examples of the conservative nature of her work and theology are readily apparent on EWTN. Firstly, the guest list is deeply conservative, without contrasting views to the entrenched far right theology presented by priests like John Trjillo and Bob Levis (in a recent edition of Web of Faith Levis told his viewers that large tattoos were mortally sinful). Secondly, the manner is which the liturgy is celebrated in ultra-conservative. One obvious example is the practice of most communicants genuflecting before receiving communion and all receiving communion on the tongue, not the hand. There is an overwhelming focus on Christ's presence in the Eucharistic species, and a much lesser sense of his presence in the People and the Word.

EWTN in general, and Mother Angelica in particular, are for many the public face of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is far from representative of that great Church across the nation. It is a far right, deeply conservative, uncompromising, unforgiving and often mocking face that tolerates no diversity within the Church. There is little doubt that EWTN has been a powerful force within Catholicism but Mother Angelica is as divisive for some as she is unitary for others.

By way of comparison with the secular TV world: EWTN is the Fox Network of religious broadcasting. In the world of religious TV, there is little to differentiate EWTN from the Islam Channel in terms of being doctrinaire, authoritarian, narrowminded and ideologicaly-driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimbarak (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of balance on the external links, this article should also reference the NCR article which a different link attacks.

Title: Angelica, EWTN push Disneyland church http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v30/ai_15630810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimbarak (talk • contribs) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I have yet to see anything on her show that is bad theology. She is faithful to the magisterium of the Church which is all that matters in the end. As much as academic theologians think that their observations are law, they aren't. The academic theologians would like to think that what they produce is binding; it isn't. They are not like scientists and researchers whose findings are binding on the rest of the world of science and academia. They are more like law professors whose opinions mean nothing unless they are picked up by higher authorities (in the case of law professors, its the legislatures and the courts while in the case of theologians its the heirarchy). The academic theologians are angry and sore because she rejects any teaching authority they fraudulently claim for themselves.

Secondly, the purpose of the Mass is the eucharist. To paraphrase the Vatican II documents, Christ is present in the Word, in the assembled, in the person of the priest who acts in persona Christi; however, Christ is most profoundly present in the Blessed Sacrament. The Church never changed its belief that Eucharist is at the center of the Mass. It is only lay liturgists and those who want to be Protestants that read that equality into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Feud with Cardinal Mahony

Both this article and the article on Roger Mahony, the Cardinal Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles refer to a "feud" between him and Mother Angelica, but neither article describes the factual basis of the feud nor indicates how it was resolved. Such information would be helpful. 130.13.1.20 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.20 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point; it seems to be covered here if anyone wants to incorporate it. --CliffC (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mother Angelica vs EWTN

With founders, it is sometimes hard to separate out what belongs in her bio and what belongs in the EWTN article. I think there is too much here that belongs to EWTN and should be removed. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material

A majority of the article does not site any sources. I believe the page should be removed until sources can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellathefonz (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I do not agree. Please place left-brace fact right-brace next to items you believe need referencing. I expect someone will footnote them eventually. "References needed" over three months should probably have their material deleted. This is not a highly controversial article that needs meticulous attention. It does need the truth and it does need references. I agree you are right there.Student7 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1400, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Worldcat list of her books cataloged by libraries. This can help flesh out the bibliography section. I don't know anything about this person so I don't have anything else to add. --Javaweb (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

File:MotherAngelica.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MotherAngelica.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests April 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Reports of Miracles

Please don't revert the edit. The claims are ALLEGED until Mother Angelica herself or the Holy See, or her Bishop Robert Baker speaks on this matter, and not just through confidantes such as Bob and Penny Lord through her religious videos, or Raymond Arroyo's book. At best, it is hearsay and has no objectivity since it cannot be measured through scientific evidence. I admire Mother Angelica, but this is not a platform to make a biased side of her story. It is "Alleged" for the neutral readers who do not cast the same agreement which the visionary nun claims.

IN addition, these miracles are included in her early childhood, since it is 1943 and 1995. So it must be placed in a separate section. Hope you understand my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveforMary (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the tone of the subtitle is funny. "Alleged reports." Do the reports exist or not? "Reports of alleged miracles" might be a little less pov. Needs rewording. FYI, I am not claiming that these are miracles!
Also, that "after praying a novena" implies but is unclear, that she experienced abdominal pain for at least nine days prior to her recovery. This needs a bit of tweaking to clarify, IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
In Catholic terms, only the Holy See can declare a miracle to be genuine. While such a declaration may be quoted in a scholarly article, it is hardly for Wikipedia to decide whether miracles are possible or not.

208.87.248.162 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and referencing

Hi, this article has been nominated for In the News Recent Deaths on the main page, however it lacks citations and referencing. If any of the previous editors are able to add sources to their writing, that would be great. MurielMary (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

After reviewing the archives, I gather that any attempt to make this article WP:NPOV by including any criticism, like the following, will be quickly reverted and it would be a waste of time to try. Is that correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/mother-mary-angelica-who-founded-catholic-tv-network-dies-at-92.html
Mother Mary Angelica, Who Founded Catholic TV Network, Dies at 92
By PAUL VITELLO

MARCH 27, 2016

She dispensed religious opinions sometimes at odds with Vatican policy. She lectured teens on fornication, bishops on theology. And at her most passionate, she launched attacks on feminists and other liberals she saw as undermining the authority of the church.

In 1993, when a World Youth Day event in Denver featured a woman playing the role of Jesus Christ in a Passion play, she called it “blasphemous,” and delivered a litany of complaints during her show about what she called the “ungodly” influence liberals were having on the church. “I am so tired of you, liberal church in America,” she said. “I resent you pushing your anti-Catholic, ungodly ways upon the masses of this country.”

Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, a prelate identified at the time with the church’s progressive wing, called her remarks some of the most “disgraceful, un-Christian, offensive and divisive diatribes I have ever heard.” The administrative body of American bishops, then known as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, asked that the segment be pulled from the network’s lineup of reruns. Mother Angelica refused.

A more significant clash occurred in 1997, when Mother Angelica criticized Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles for proposing changes in the sacrament of holy communion that she viewed as a breach of core church doctrine. “I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero,” she said. “And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero.”

Cardinal Mahoney demanded an apology and a retraction of her call for disobedience. He received a grudging apology, which Mother Angelica then obscured with a long on-air explication of her complaint. At the cardinal’s request, the Vatican began an inquiry into her work. No disciplinary action was taken.

--Nbauman (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material removal

I went through and deleted most of the unsourced writing from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.72 (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for main page

This article is nominated for inclusion on the main page, under "recent deaths". In order to be successful, the article needs to adhere to WP style such as neutral point of view and general conciseness (the long repetitive quotes currently being added are not consistent with these policies). It would be great to have this article featured on the main page; adhering to policies would assist this happening. MurielMary (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP has a neutral point of view, not a Catholic point of view

Hi Wowaconia, I note that you have reinstated considerable sections of detailed quotes regarding Mother Angelica's death. I removed these for three reasons - one, the lengthy sections of detailed quotes disrupt the flow of the article; two, the content of the quotes can be summarized in prose; three, WP maintains a neutral point of view, not the Catholic worldview which you mention in your edit.

The subject of the article is motivated by Catholicism, the eye-witness to her death speaks from a Catholic world-view. I merely quoted the only source we have of her death and his reaction to the death.

The reaction to the death is part of the claim of notability for the subject of the article - claims that the day of her death has meaning is claiming that the subject of the article's death is as notable and supernaturally significant. I am an atheist but I recognize that Catholics hold that such a thing has significance. I would say it would be a violation of neutrality to avoid mentioning that those at her death-bed held that the date was supernaturally significant.

The subject of the article only has notability because of her Catholicism; to gloss over that does no service to anyone, especially to readers unfamiliar with its tenants.

I will add a link to the Wiki-article Redemptive suffering to clarify that the doctrine exists and allow readers to explore it directly, I can see how without that it might be seen as OR. --Wowaconia (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As it seemed that one could hold that my claim that she believed in redemptive suffering was OR, I added a news source that stated this. --Wowaconia (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Name Changes...

I'm not an expert on articles about religious figures, but it seems a little confusing to be jumping between the names "Rizzo", "Mother Angelica" and "Sister Angelica" all over the article (sometimes back and forth in a single paragraph). It might be better to refer to her consistently under one name (probably Rizzo), while mentioning her changing titles briefly in appropriate places. Thoughts on this? Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mother Angelica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mother Angelica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother_Angelica/Archive_1&oldid=832626293"