Talk:Roger Mahony/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

What is the Sensenbrenner-King Bill? 24.7.87.135 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Controversy

The section on Controversy could use citations. An attempt was made in some places but it looks as though some of those links no longer work. For example, one section reads this way but citations, again, are broken:

"Mahony recently caused controversy by deciding not to do background checks on volunteers working with youth, saying that this wouldn't allow illegal aliens to volunteer and may limit their opportunities for christian service. Many use this as an example of Mahony caring more about politics than the safety of children."

Likewise, the reference to the feud with Mother Angelica as well as issues with the Sensenbrenner-King Bill could use a citation. There is a link to a New York Times editorial, but it requires a member log on that might not be available to all readers. Craig.borchardt 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing these sentences from the article: "Mahony recently caused controversy by deciding not to do background checks on volunteers working with youth, saying that this wouldn't allow illegal aliens to volunteer and may limit their opportunities for christian service. Some have used this to say that Mahony cares more about politics than the safety of children."

These statements had two citations:

1) The first is to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/ap_on_re_us/church_abuse_fingerprinting_1, which is a yahoo news story that currently says: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."

2) The second is to http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=119576, which appears to be a forum or blog. The topic on this page is not about background checks but rather "Is it lying to tell kids there is a Santa?"

If there are citations for these sentences, please revise.

The article also states:

"He has editorialized that certain proposed measures would effectively outlaw the provision of charitable assistance and religious ministry to individuals not in valid immigration status."

The citation here also links to the New York Times website, which requires a subscription logon to read. I'm removing this sentence and revising to reference a letter to President Bush that is freely available.

The articles also states:

"Mahony has said that he will instruct his priests in all 288 parishes in the Los Angeles Archdiocese to defy the relevant provisions of the Sensenbrenner-King Bill, if they become law."

There is no citation here either. If you can find one, please revise.

Craig.borchardt 8 January 2007

Intro

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)

As no one has bothered to respond, I'll reinstate my text. Gentgeen 05:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

All of which are also true of the term "prelate". By definition, all bishops are prelates, but not all prelates are bishops. You have also not addressed the fact that our article on bishop is much more appropriate to the topic than the article on prelate. Gentgeen 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, the link to prelate is still horrible. That article is not well written and mostly irrelevant to the subject of this article (as Mahony is not and never has been a territorial prelate or a personal prelate, the two offices that take up 75% or more of the article's prose). I also don't like the article bishop (Catholic Church), as it is pretty much a cut and paste job, duplicating much of the prose at bishop. The new content that exists, such as its Ordinations of Bishops and Eparchs section, is unreferenced and completely inaccurate. I know that red links aren't evil and linking to stubs isn't always bad, but why link to problematic articles when superior ones exist to be linked to. Gentgeen 09:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

current name usage for American hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church

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)Michael Clarke

correct use of "Cardinal Archbishop"

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)Michael Clarke

Apology

I added the landmark apology and record-breaking settlement.

--Florentino floro 08:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger Cardinal Mahony

I believe that this is the standard naming for cardinals. Any objection to moving the article? -Will Beback 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The article should have the standard name for a cardinal. D323P (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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))

I think it is proper to revert

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)

Possible confusion between personal preferences and style conventions for Wikipedia articles

Westofpch, thank you for coming back to my talk page and to the article Roger Mahony so quickly [on May 19]. Unfortunately, we seem to be talking right past each other, and, as a result, you have accidentally misunderstood the issues which I have raised with you concerning your recent editing of the entry on the Cardinal.

First of all, I realize that messages, simply because of the inherently remote nature of this type of communication, can seem to carry a somewhat hostile tone at times due to this remoteness, and so, in order to compensate for this effect, I will take good care to try to sound as non-hostile in my responses as possible – even when I mean to relay a message that is critical in nature.

• Roger Cardinal Mahony's use of his own name, and title. Purely by way of explanation, I mentioned that your reference to the Cardinal's decision about use of his office title was unclear at the present time, but you misunderstood. I meant that no one can include this fact claim unless verifiable, reliable sources (plural) are given in the article which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title.
• Encyclopedia article style convention[s]. When you referred to the entry on Roman Catholic cardinals, you explained that your decision was correct. What the article says in fact is that both usages are correct, but you did not acknowledge that in your message – and I wonder why. It appears that you might have confused your personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia. No reader or editor may capriciously decide to change an article to suit their personal judgement, even in regard to how the subject uses their name and title themselves, because style conventions have to be maintained consistently throughout the entire encyclopedia.

In conclusion, please give this matter some more thought. It does not matter what rules of style the Los Angeles Times, for example, has adopted for itself, because that decision does not affect style conventions inside Wikipedia. There are basic rules for how Catholic articles, for instance, must all match, and a matter such as how Cardinal Mahony uses his own title bears no relevance to what is written in this encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think. 198.252.8.202^TalkHistory 21:57, Tuesday May 20, 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of following Wikipedia's style. However it says the opposite of what you're asserting. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)#Cardinals. It says:

• In the titles of articles, cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title "Cardinal", as "Ascanio Sforza", not "Cardinal Ascanio Sforza", nor "Ascanio Cardinal Sforza".

So "Roger Mahony" matches the WP standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I once read on the Dutch Wikipedia that according to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 that Cardinals have the status of "Princes of the Holy See" and that their title "Cardinal" has to be treated accordingly as if it's a title of nobility, i.e.: title Cardinal between the given name and the surname. Demophon (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of "Princes of the Holy See" in this undated version of the Canon Law.[1] Regardless, Wikipedia makes its own decisions on how to use titles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to look it up how and why the Dutch Wikipedia has this statement. Of course we have follow the Wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. But remember they are not molded in solid iron, and when there is prove these guidelines can be adjusted. After a proper debate of course. But first I have to look it up! I will come back with it later. Demophon (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback, Demophon, thank you — both of you — for coming back so quickly to this article, as I could certainly use some help from you two. At least I can clear up some of the confusion about the Cardinal's title by making these few technical points:

• First, Westofpch cited the article section Cardinal_(Catholicism)#Title, not the article section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Clergy)#Cardinals, in order to explain why it was justified to comb throughout the entire article, including templates, and change every single listing of Mahony's name, when his full name was described, from the traditional usage that appears in every other biographical article on a Cardinal to the usage of putting the office title before his first name.
  
  Now, here is why that judgement is wrong, in the context of this article section: "Since 1630, cardinals have taken the style Eminence. In accordance with Latin tradition, they, like the pope, sign by placing the title (Papa, abbreviated P.P., or Cardinalis abbreviated Card.) after their first name, as, for instance, "Benedictus P.P. XVI" or "John Card. Doe". This order is also found when referring to cardinals in English, and is the form that James-Charles Noonan, in The Church Visible, p. 205, cites as the correct form.....However, the form that places the title before the first name, e.g., "Cardinal John Doe", in line with usages concerning other figures, both lay and religious (such as "Pope Benedict XVI", "President George W. Bush", "Archbishop John Smith"), is the usual form on the Vatican website and in the media; some dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,[9] the Diocese of Westminster[10] and the Archdiocese of Wellington,[11] opt for this style.....Ultimately, it is a matter of personal preference which form one chooses to use, as both forms are now generally recognized."
  
  Previously, Westofpch said above on this page (as well as on the talk page I am using) the following: "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." Why would this editor misstate what the article actually says in order to give the rationale for this change? I don't know, and, speaking frankly, since I am not a mind reader, I do not know whether Westofpch has any kind of ideological ax to grind which would serve as any kind of motivation for editing Roger Mahony in this manner; nor would I care to speculate on the matter, since it would not advance the quality of the article.
  
  
• Second, you, Willmcw, referred me to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Clergy) in order to indicate why you reverted — but this link is not even relevant to the editing issue at hand. Don't worry, Will, I'm not sniping at you — in fact, when I first began looking into this issue, I actually made the same mistake of looking at this link first, in order to figure out exactly how previous editors (especially ones who are, or were, part of WikiProject Christianity) had actually edited all of the other article entries on Cardinals in order to establish the traditional style convention in the first place. Unfortunately, your citation does not deal with the Roger Cardinal Mahony-vs.-Cardinal Roger Mahony issue because your Wikipedia conventions reference only deals with internal Wikipedia rules for naming articles — in other words, article titles, not titles which pertain to the persons who are the subjects of these various articles.
  
  Obviously, this is why the article has to be named Roger Mahony, and not something else. Will, you are actually dealing with article titles, not titles of church authority. So, in other words, you reverted a reversion which someone other than me carried out because you are confusing the article title issue with the Roger-Cardinal-Mahony/Cardinal-Roger-Mahony decision that we have to make.
  
  
• Third, Demophon, you have actually provided the correct conventions link on your talk page without realizing it. Will, take a look at MOSBIO/Honorific prefixes in order to see what has gone wrong. This section actually contradicts itself, because it begins by saying "3. Styles should not be used to open articles on royalty and clergy. Thus the article on Pope Benedict XVI should not begin 'His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI... ' nor should the article on Queen Victoria begin 'Her Majesty Queen Victoria...'" But the section then goes on to say "Clergy should be named as described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Clergy)."
  
  Worse, the very next section, MOSBIO/Academic titles, says "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name." This very confusion has been provoked precisely because Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Clergy) has nothing to do with anything other than the titles of the articles. Maybe I can illustrate how serious this confusion is by pointing to a different way in which Wikipedia is inconsistent. Both of you should take a look at User_talk:Demophon#No_degrees_in_the_first_sentence_please in order to see what I am talking about. The unvarnished truth is that every other biographical entry on a Cardinal describes the full name of the person in the traditional format (e.g. Edward Cardinal Egan, Bernard Cardinal Law, John Cardinal O'Connor, etc., etc., etc. [except the obvious exception, Cardinal Richelieu]), and yet this principle of entry formatting is not being applied uniformly elsewhere in Wikipedia.
  
  

When you made the reversion, Will, you (1) did not take a look at any of the other articles on Cardinals in order to see how they were formatted, (2) you may not have consulted anyone who is either part of WikiProject Christianity or part of WikiProject Catholicism (I haven't checked), and far worse, (3) you obviously did not scroll down the article in order to see what other editorial changes you would also revert as well, because when you reverted the article you also reverted 2 corrections of the misspelling "Eminance." I'm guessing you didn't mean to do that, and I realize that you also want as good an article as we can get. I believe that we are all agreed that WP naming conventions for the names of article entries basically work, and that therefore this article should be named Roger Mahony. Do either of you want to place a RfC on the talk page of either WikiProject Christianity or WikiProject Catholicism? I won't stop you. In the meantime, simply in order to make sure this article matches the other entries on Roman Catholic cardinals, I'll just revise the entry again and correct the 2 misspellings, and, when both of you are no longer busy and can get back to this article, we can all decide what to do from there. 198.252.8.202_TalkHistory 19:44, Thursday May 29, 2008 (UTC)

Is 74.10.45.34 also 198.252.8.202,or are they two different people? If folks are using talk pages it'd help if they'd register accounts. The "eminances" are hidden fixing them is secondary. For the other guideline on titles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These have probably been mentioend before, but the webpages on the archdiocese site say "Cardinal Roger Michael Mahony".[2][3] There would have to be a very good reason, supported by references, to override the usage preferred by the subject and by the archdiocese. Arguments based on synthesis with various rules would be original research, prohibited by WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is incorrect to say that all articles on American cardinals use the old form. See William Henry Keeler. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To User:198.252.8.202: Thank you for taking the time to reply and give further rational for your point of view. It seems clear that (a) we both want to present information in good faith which is clear, correct, and verifiable, (b) that we do so within Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and style convention, and (c) we disagree on how best to do this in the case of Cardinal Mahony.

In support of your point of view, you essentially brought up three points (two in bullets, one in your conclusion). I will respond to each in turn below:

"Roger Cardinal Mahony's use of his own name, and title. Purely by way of explanation, I mentioned that your reference to the Cardinal's decision about use of his office title was unclear at the present time, but you misunderstood. I meant that no one can include this fact claim unless verifiable, reliable sources (plural) are given in the article which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title."

To this end, I offered up multiple verifiable, reliable sources which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony": reprints of speeches the Cardinal has given, letters he has published, and articles he has written all titled or signed as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." While each of these is an independent occurance, they all come from the Los Angeles Archdiocese (whether from their website or from their diocesan newspaper, The Tidings); in my mind, this would be the definitive source, but since some might actually regard it as ultimately being insufficient, I offered up quotes from the Los Angeles Times showing their usage of the cardinal's name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." You seem to have a different issue with this reference (which I will address below), but regardless of your issues with either, the point of fact is that there are already multiple "verifiable, reliable sources (plural) given . . . which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title" as you request.

"Encyclopedia article style convention[s]. When you referred to the entry on Roman Catholic cardinals, you explained that your decision was correct. What the article says in fact is that both usages are correct, but you did not acknowledge that in your message – and I wonder why."

You are absolutely correct in that the article says that both usages are correct. I did not feel that I had to state that explicitly since the vast majority of cardinals use the title as you prefer, i.e. Sean Patrick Cardinal O'Malley. In my mind, it is analogous to being accused of refering to an article about an eclipse but failing to mention the sun is visible most of the time, when both writer and reader know the obvious conventions. In this case, you and I both know that most cardinals use their titles between their first and last names. I unhesitatingly stipulate as to the correctness of the more common order of first-Cardinal-last, and I referenced the wikipedia article on Roman Catholic cardinals as evidence that both are, in fact, correct. I anxiously await your acknowledgment of this same fact.

"...It appears that you might have confused your personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia. No reader or editor may capriciously decide to change an article to suit their personal judgment, even in regard to how the subject uses their name and title themselves, because style conventions have to be maintained consistently throughout the entire encyclopedia.In conclusion, please give this matter some serious thought. It does not matter what rules of style the Los Angeles Times, for example, has adopted for itself, because that decision does not affect style conventions inside Wikipedia. There are basic rules for how Catholic articles, for instance, must all match, and a matter such as how Cardinal Mahony uses his own title bears no relevance to what is written in this encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think."

A few points here:

• You are absolutely incorrect in assuming or inferring that my "personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia" in any way affect my attempts to edit this article . While I do not have access to the style guide of the Los Angeles Times, I do find it interesting that the newspaper currently refers to "Cardinal Roger Mahony" while in the past they used the form "Timothy Cardinal Manning" for Cardinal Mahony's predecessor as Archbishop of Los Angeles and that Cardinal Manning preferred that style when referring to himself. I also find it interesting that one of the other major newspapers in the area, the Orange County Register also uses the style "Cardinal Roger Mahony." The Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, and I seem to be following the convention and example set forth by the Cardinal himself in his own writings. In contrast, I have not chosen to make similar edits to any other cardinal, e.g. Edward Cardinal Egan, since in his own writings Cardinal Egan chooses to place his title between his first and last names.
• Your reference to style conventions inside Wikipedia is an interesting one. Upon checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style, one will see that there is no reference as to the preferred usage within Wikipedia for use of the title of Roman Catholic Cardinal within that man's name. It is clear then that the issue is still up for discussion and debate (as all of us are now doing here). I can only conclude (without malice, mind you) that your references to "article style conventions in this encyclopedia" and "style conventions inside Wikipedia" are not references to any agreed upon manual of style within Wikipedia, but merely a statement about the most common usage of the title within Wikipedia. I am not surprised that this is more commonly used within this encyclopedia considering that it is, by far, the most common usage by cardinals throughout the world; however, "more common" does not equal "more correct" and until there is clear consensus on this issue, it is prudent to continue to allow for either correct usage.
• Your subsequent statement of "No reader or editor may capriciously . . ." along with your statement on the Roger Mahony talk page that "I do not know whether Westofpch has any kind of ideological ax to grind which would serve as any kind of motivation for editing Roger Mahony in this manner; nor would I care to speculate on the matter, since it would not advance the quality of the article" is, whether or not you intend it, inflammatory and clearly violates the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. While you try to caveat your statements and/or make them generic, this passive aggressive style is still accusatory, regardless of your intent, in the same way as the following very similarly worded statement: "I do not know whether Person X beats his dog; nor would I care to speculate on the matter. . . ." Merely raising it as a possibility in a public forum such as Wikipedia is tantamount to accusation, whether or not that is your intent and whether or not you place caveats at the beginning of your article stating that it is not your intent. I urge you to refrain from such statements as we continue this lively debate.

To summarize my arguments and line of thinking:

• 1) Both styles (i.e. "Roger Cardinal Mahony" and "Cardinal Roger Mahony" ) are widely acknowledged to be correct usages of the title for a Roman Catholic Cardinal, both within Wikipedia and in other sources outside this encyclopedia.
• 2) Roger Mahony himself uses his title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony" as is evidenced in his own writings and speeches. This evidence is referenced within Wikipedia and is available through a number of sources, both online and through other media.
• 3) No clearly established rules or style guidelines have been established on Wikipedia as to this issue.
• 4) Given all of these three, it is within the spirit and mandate of Wikipedia to present complete, thorough, and unbiased information that the article for Roger Mahony duly refers to his title of Cardinal in the manner which he himself prefers.

With this in mind, I will state my intent to revise the article such that it makes reference to Cardinal Mahony's preferred usage of his title without changing the entire article; however, this should NOT be construed as my acceptance of the form "first-Cardinal-last" in cases where the Cardinal himself chooses to use his title differently; on the contrary, I strongly consider this issue still open until such time as a genuine consensus is reached and/or Wikipedia administrators make a definitive ruling, I welcome and look forward to continued lively (and respectful) debate on this topic. Westofpch (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Template on sexual abuse cases added/reverted

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)

Please see Template talk:SACC. Editors agree template is being mis-used/applied. --Morenooso (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes--Morenooso (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Vatican/Rome involvement in Mahony's censure

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). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of text on sexual abuse cases

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)

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)

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)

Agreed. The sexual abuse scandal is the only reason most people know Mahoney's name. Not only does this fact warrant a section dealing with this issue, it should be presented prominently. ADM's attempt to remove this information is a blatant attempt to white-wash Mahony's record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.146 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Mother Angelica

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)

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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

what should this article say about Archbishop Gomez?

(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)

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)

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). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

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)