Talk:Patrick McLaughlin (churchman)

Article title

As I said in the summary when moving him away from Patrick McLaughlin (priest), for the last twenty-six years of his life he wasn't a priest. Perhaps I've missed the part of the naming convention which requires 'priest', could the mover-back please say more? Xn4 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize the move would be controversial or I would have dropped a note here. I still think years of birth and death are the wrong way to go - we typically use occupation in article titles. It seems to be as a priest that he made his most notable accomplishments, though I understand it's not ideal. How about Patrick McLaughlin (former priest)? Nesodak (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Anglicans of course recognize their own orders and consider that their priests can become former priests. Roman Catholics don't recognize Anglican orders (a decision of Pope Leo XIII in 1896) and for converts they require re-ordination. McLaughlin wasn't ordained again. But most Orthodox churches do recognize Anglican Orders. Depending on the degree of his commitment to Rome, McLaughlin may have come to the view that he had never been a priest, but his Orthodox friends wouldn't have agreed with him.

I can't see anything in the Wikipedia naming convention which opposes using dates as a qualification, but perhaps Patrick McLaughlin (churchman) would also work? Xn4 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Living People

I'm wondering if the section on descendents is necessary, and if it might be outside of the guidelines for living persons. I don't think we need more than a cursory mention that there were N-number of children, and perhaps birthyears. Occupations, names of grandchildren, etc., aren't necessary, unless some might be noteworthy in their own right. PurpleChez (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this section may not seem essential, but there's an important difference between being necessary and being valuable. My reason for including that very brief information is that it relates to the subject's lifetime and puts him in the context of some of the influences on him. Wihout knowing at least something about a man or woman's own family (partners, children and grandchildren, in particular) you will never really begin to understand that person. This must be especially so in the case of a married priest who joins a church with a celibate priesthood! Xn4 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Left?

The lead says he "left the Church of England", but the article only says he resigned his orders? Is this the same thing? Not just in practice, but did he become a non-Anglican formally? Srnec (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is meaningless to say a priest of the Church of England resigned holy orders informally. Father Patrick wrote a formal letter of resignation to his bishop who was only too delighted to have this brilliant innovator off his hands. Like his aunt Louisa McLaughlin he went his own way when obstructed by authority. Neurolinguist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes... but one need not have holy orders to be a member of the Church of England, no? Srnec (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Srnec has the beginnings of an argument, but it's an academic point, given other events. P McL plainly didn't formally cease to be a member of the C. of E. by giving up its priesthood, but he did so ipso facto when he joined the Church of Rome. Xn4 04:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. The current wording of the article is an improvement. Srnec (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for your help. Of course, as an Anglo-Catholic, he no doubt saw himself throughout as a member of "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church". These are deep waters. Xn4 04:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of a Baptist church (but not necessarily a Baptist) who considers himself a member of the "one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church". Deep waters indeed! Srnec (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much family

Too much here about family connections - needs to be trimmed. Family history for the sake of it is "indiscriminate", per WP:NOT. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Patrick McLaughlin (churchman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070711210336/http://copies.anglicansonline.org:80/churchtimes/000910/feat.htm to http://copies.anglicansonline.org/churchtimes/000910/feat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)