Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Suggestion prompted by reading Catholic-hierarchy site[edit]

Rather than going ahead and editing this in right now, how about something like "(resigned cardinalate)" along with the Archbishop title? Catholic-hierarchy site has such a note, and that site too is now referring to McCarrick as Archbishop. Carlm0404 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have put that in today (July 31) as proposed. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just a misuse of the infobox format. And sloppily done to boot. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, so just use the nearby references to cardinal, right? Carlm0404 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you feel a need to “use”. See the rest of the infobox. It’s a previous position and its listed with the appropriate dates. Just like Louis Billot was just a priest until you changed it. We removed McCarrisk’s "rank= Cardinal Priest" cause it’s no longer true, as well. There are plenty of examples of bishops who resign in similar circumstances and there’s no reason to handle this differently. See Robert Finn (bishop) or Juliusz Paetz. We don’t indicate who resigned at age 75 and who resigned under pressure, lawsuit, conviction, etc. The infobox is designed to handle demographic info without that sort of commentary/explanation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, the addition of an appropriate field for cardinal_end might be useful if this is going to keep happening. But that’s another issue I guess. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Blog for background[edit]

This may not be a Reliable Source but it looks loaded.Someone may want to follow leads. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cardinal-mccarrick-everybody-knew/ 12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the refs for that claim satisfy WP:RS --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Per WP:EGRS: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person are subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Categories, lists and navigation templates: such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. For example, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, may not be categorized as gay." I think that is abundantly clear in this case. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And for very good reason—a shame, since a large percentage of (quacks like a) ducks may go unrecognized, perhaps, even unclaimed.

Section heading[edit]

Currently, the section on the latest news reads: "Accusations of sexual abuse and removal from public ministry". Isn't there a guideline about keeping section headings concise and succinct? This one just seems a bit wordy to me. Admittedly, the section has two components and both are described in the current header, but it seems like the first half is the most important and germane to the situation, where his removal from ministry is simply the natural consequence. If there are follow-on consequences, shall we add them to the heading as well? Is there a way to describe the situation in fewer words? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And is this section a sub-head of "Retirement", as it is now, or a change of subject worthy of its own heading? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with changing it to simply "Accusations of sexual abuse". The removal from ministry is a conseqeunce, as you said. Whether to keep it under "Retirement" is unclear. Right now his biography is divided into four headings -- "Early life and education", "Priesthood", "Episcopal career", "Retirement" -- representing four stages in his life. Since the public accusations and removal from ministry occurred during his retirement, it might be best to keep it subordinate to that. On the other hand, the actual abuse occurred before his retirement, so that suggests it should be a separate heading altogether. I don't have a strong opinion either way. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

NYT refs and Higuera[edit]

@Display name 99: regarding your edit the string "Higuera" simply does not appear in the ref [1] no matter how "carefully" I read it, I cannot manifest those characters into existence. It also makes no mention of this being "This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior.". I've reverted your changes, please discuss here. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are the quotes:
"The first documented complaint about Cardinal McCarrick came at the latest by 1994, when the second priest wrote a letter to the new Bishop of Metuchen, Edward T. Hughes, saying that Archbishop McCarrick had inappropriately touched him and other seminarians in the 1980s, according to the documents."
Ok, then "This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior." this is unclear (or maybe I'm simple minded) because that reads like this is the This was the earliest known occasion in which a priest complained to a superior - about any kind of sexual misconduct. Probably my fault. I'll revert, thanks! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
and
"When Archbishop McCarrick was appointed to Washington, Father Ramsey spoke by phone with the pope’s representative in the nation’s capital, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the papal nuncio, and at his encouragement sent a letter to the Vatican about Archbishop McCarrick’s history." Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see, NYT doesn't include "Higuera". My bad. I swear I read Gabriel Montalvo and didn't connect that to Gabriel Montalvo Higuera. My bad, I'll own that screw up, thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia defining adult homosexual conduct as abuse?[edit]

There seems to be a general consensus that McCarrick never approached minors, nor is there any allegation of violence or coercion.

All that remains is homosexual conduct between adults. Why are we calling this abuse? 87.147.189.34 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

-- No, he was convicted by the Catholic Church of "sins against the sixth Commandment" meaning sexual sins, with minors and adults.

It is abuse because he misused his authority over those adults. They were seminarians or priests and he was an Archbishop and then a Cardinal. It's like when a teacher has sex with their student who is 18 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:557:D859:7526:8BC:3290 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


There are three kinds of allegations against McCarrick.
1. Allegations that he abused minors.
On June 20, 2018, Cardinal McCarrick was removed from public ministry by the Holy See after a review board of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York found an allegation "credible and substantiated" that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old altar boy while a priest in New York. Patrick Noaker, the attorney for the anonymous complainant, alleged two incidents at St. Patrick's Cathedral, one in 1971 and the other in 1972. Noaker stated that when measuring the teen for a cassock, McCarrick "unzipped [the boy's] pants and put his hands in the boy's pants."
And again:
In late July 2018, a New Jersey man whose uncle had known McCarrick since high school alleged that McCarrick had sexually abused him for 20 years, and that McCarrick had exposed himself to him when he was 11 and had sexually touched him beginning when he was 13.
In the article, these sentences appear with lots of footnotes to reputable sources. Do you agree that the term "abuse" is fully appropriate for such cases?
2. Allegations of completely consensual sex between McCarrick and adult seminarians and adult priests. These are never called "abuse" in the article.
3. Allegations of unwanted sexual advances that McCarrick made toward seminarians. These did not involve violent rape, but they did involve his deliberately putting these men in positions they wanted to avoid, in full knowledge of the fact that he held almost absolute power over their future careers. They are therefore very similar to the majority of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and others. I agree with you that the term "abuse" is misleading. But these are not consensual, either. What is the best term for these? Sexual harassment? — Lawrence King (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Follow-up: The American Psychological Association defines "sexual abuse" here as "unwanted sexual activity, with perpetrators using force, making threats or taking advantage of victims not able to give consent." Does category #3 above fit that definition? — Lawrence King (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you could try using "sexual harassment" for the case of seminarians, who presumably are already of age of consent for consensual sexual activity. And, yes, it causes deep concern to have it come from someone who has such power over their careers. There was the published case of Desmond Rossi, in active ministry in the diocese of Albany, who spoke out with support of his local bishop; Rossi was uncomfortable as a seminarian under McCarrick, and it fell to McCarrick to approve Rossi's transfer out of the Newark archdiocese jurisdiction (understood to also need approval of the bishop at the receiving end). Carlm0404 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

McCarrick was laicized on the 15th of February, because that is when he was notified. A law is not a law until it is promulgated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8200:557:D859:7526:8BC:3290 (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Residence in retirement (BEFORE going into seclusion in Kansas in 2018)[edit]

"Retirement as archbishop" section's 2nd paragraph mentions residences but fails to mention Little Sisters of the Poor. If you go to https://cathstan.org/Content/Default/Mobile-Master/Article/On-his-60th-year-as-priest-Cardinal-McCarrick-praises-witness-of-priests-and-laypeople/-3/-7/8440 , you find May 18, 2018 article which says "Cardinal McCarrick, who turns 88 on July 7, now lives at the Jeanne Jugan Residence of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Washington." When did he start living there?

I am well aware that May 2018 is just 1 month before scandal became public, causing McCarrick to leave public ministry and later the Cardinalate (and as stated, go into seclusion far from the East Coast). Carlm0404 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And here is the text from this Wikipedia article I was referring to: >After his retirement, McCarrick resided for some time at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in the Archdiocese of Washington. He subsequently moved to the grounds of the provincial headquarters of the Institute of the Incarnate Word in Chillum, Maryland, in a building on a complex that included a seminary.

Carlm0404 (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

C-Span Video confirms McCarrick lead the graveside service of Ted Kennedy[edit]

He was not just a simple speaker.[2].2601:447:4101:5780:435:D511:8ECF:F20A (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

defrocked[edit]

There has been some argument about use of the term "defrocked," since official Catholic law does not use that term; the official term is "laicization". But Reliable Sources are mostly using the word "defrocked"[3], which is far more commonly understood, and IMO we do need to use that word in the lead even if we also use "laicization". After it was removed from the last sentence I restored it as "...the most senior church official in modern times to be laicized[10] - commonly referred to as defrocking - and is believed to be... " Everybody OK with that? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The most important person in this discussion is the WP reader. Defrocked is the term he or she will understand. It's the term being used in the press. I'm not sure that we need to split definitional hairs here. It strikes me that this discussion is like Clinton's ninety minute discussion with prosecutors before he said, "I did not have ...," a disingenuous use of definitions by most people's yardstick. Rhadow (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course "defrocked is okay".--138.245.3.78 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Ravenpuff was correct to restore "defrocked." Use of "dismissed," it seems to me, is a form of whitewashing and not the term used in the press. Rhadow (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can the violet in the infobox be changed to normal gray?[edit]

Is there some possible way to continue using the "infobox Christian leader" with all its parameters, but without the violet background-color? B/c violet is, among other things, the color of bishops, and emphatically not of laymen. (Note for those who know about things: I think for things such as that, "current legal status", not "sacramental character", is the thing to look at.)--138.245.3.78 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To capitalize or not to capitalize?[edit]

Our article often capitalizes references to the Catholic Church in text as “the Church” :

  • Within the Church, McCarrick was variously regarded as a moderate[3][4] or progressive.[5]
  • The emergence of these reports and the lack of action from the Church hierarchy infuriated Catholics and sparked demands for action against Church leaders believed to be responsible.[2][10]
  • Although McCarrick was sometimes labelled a liberal, he was noted for adhering to Church teaching on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the male-only priesthood.[7]

… but sometimes doesn’t:

  • ...but continued to be a prominent figure in the church well into the 2010s
  • After a church investigation and trial, he was found guilty of sexual crimes against adults and minors and abuse of power, and was dismissed from the clergy in February 2019.[13] McCarrick is the most senior church official in modern times to be laicized and is believed to be the first cardinal ever laicized for sexual misconduct.[14]

We should be consistent. IMO we should not capitalize the freestanding word “church” - except when required as part of the name of an individual church, or in a direct quote. It may be that individual Catholics capitalize "Church" as a token of reverence or respect, but we are a neutral encyclopedia, and we recognize that there are many churches, not necessarily one Church. I notice that our article “Catholic Church” does not capitalize “church” by itself in text. Let’s reach a consensus how to handle this in this article. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I am going to make all standalone reference to "church" be lower case. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Chronological order[edit]

I find "On October 6, Pope Francis authorized the Vatican archives to conduct a "thorough study" to answer how McCarrick managed to rise in church ranks despite reports that he had slept with not only seminarians, but also young priests."
This follows a paragraph which references ,2019. Please consider supplying the year (2018?) and/or moving it up one paragraph, because October ,2019 is still future.Carlm0404 (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues regarding statements about Cardinal Wuerl[edit]

This article has several WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues in its statements regarding Cardinal Wuerl. The article cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that allegations against Wuerl have been "proven to be true". That is editorializing. The discussion of Wuerl also ignores the nuances in what Wuerl claims to have known and not known. Likewise, the discussion of the May 28, 2019 Crux article contains various editorializing statements, such as "as Vigano claimed" and makes several analytical jumps in assessing the implications of the correspondence written by McCarrick. These paragraphs should be conformed to the corresponding paragraphs in the current version of the article on Cardinal Wuerl. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Issues regarding McCarrick's letters released on May 28, 2019[edit]

On May 28, 2019, CBS and Crux released stories about a newly revealed set of letters written by McCarrick. These letters were provided to CBS and Crux by McCarrick's former private secretary, Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo. The documents released consist solely of letters written by McCarrick. While these letters may establish what McCarrick knew or believed to be true, they do not establish what anyone else knew or believed to be true. As such, statements in the discussion of this story to the effect that the letters confirm that other people knew about the allegations or restrictions against McCarrick, such as Vatican officials or Cardinal Wuerl, are at most inferences and as such cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do confirm it, as even acknowledged by his secretary. Read the sources better[4][5]. This is also not a place for you to dictate your own point of view as fact.2601:447:4101:5780:4025:53F8:E70C:2E0B (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, those sources contain (1) partial content from letters written by McCarrick and (2) allegations made by McCarrick's former private secretary. They also contain a denial from Cardinal Wuerl. That is the only factual information in those sources. From that factual material, we cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that any Vatican officials or Cardinal Wuerl knew anything. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Superfluous material in Vigano section[edit]

The section on Archbishop Vigano is unnecessarily long and contains extensive material that simply is not relevant to this article, which is supposed to be a biography of Theodore McCarrick, not Archbishop Vigano. Cardinal Dolan saying he was a "little impatient" after a month of waiting for the Pope in September 2018 is not historically significant and does not belong in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. The subsequent paragraph is a needless digression into media sensationalism about a "civil war" in the Catholic Church, sourced solely to a well known conservative opinion columnist for the New York Times, Ross Douthat, who makes a living by rousing up conservative hysteria over "liberals" in the Catholic Church. His opinions about an imaginary "civil war" in the Catholic Church do not belong in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. The other source given for that paragraph (CNN) doesn't say anything at all about a civil war or a liberal/conservative divide. I am removing that as a source for the paragraph because it does not support the assertions in the paragraph. The paragraph as a whole, as well as the Dolan quotation need to come out, and the entire section on Vigano needs to be shortened and made encyclopedic. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, how you're just shamelessly making stuff up. The paragraph is sourced solely to a Ross Douthat article because YOU removed the CNN article. Seriously, WTF? Furthermore, the paragraph does not state that there ever was a Catholic civil war, only that it has been described as such. So we aren't taking Douthat's observations as fact. The stuff in the paragraph about an ideological divide mainly comes from Douthat, but the CNN article also talks about battles between liberals and conservatives. Here's a quote from near the end of the article: "Dawn Eden Goldstein, an assistant professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Connecticut who lives in Washington (she teaches her courses online), said some of the calls for Wuerl to resign are coming from conservatives who want to take down one of Pope Francis' top allies." The article is more focused on the "insurgency" from Catholic laity against bishops. That is where the term "Catholic insurgency" comes from, so it is false to say that the CNN articles does not support the claims made in the paragraph. That term is not used in Douthat, which means that because you removed the CNN article, it's currently unsourced. Arguing over whether or not to include a citation to a source recognized as reliable is extremely petty. Of all the things to argue about, the CNN citation is one of the dumbest. Please restore it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from WP:PERSONALATTACKS.
I have re-read both the CNN article and the Douthat article. Neither of them support the statements in the paragraph under dispute. The paragraph claims that the Vigano allegations and PA Grand Jury Report have produced a "Catholic civil war" in which large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops implicated in cover-ups to resign. However, the CNN article identifies only one bishop under pressure to resign, Cardinal Wuerl. Douthat does not identify any. And neither article mentions calls from "significant numbers of lay Catholics" for Pope Francis to resign. Moreover, immediately after Dawn Eden Goldstein accuses conservatives of wanting to take down Wuerl because he is a Pope Francis ally, the article states, "But the people calling for Wuerl's removal in Washington are also a mix of liberal and conservative, young and old, men and women." This contradicts the entire theme of the disputed paragraph, which is that there is a civil war between liberals and conservatives over which bishops should resign.
More importantly, I again raise my objection to the excessive length and detail of the section on the Vigano accusations. This is not a biography of Archbishop Vigano. It is a biography of Theodore McCarrick. There is no need to chronicle the day-by-day reactions to Vigano's claims. If consensus is not reached on this page to shorten the section, I will take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, as I do not believe this level of detail is appropriate for a biography of a living person. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack. It's pointing out that your criticism of the paragraph being sourced solely to Douthat is grossly dishonest because you were responsible for removing the CNN citation over my objections. Seriously, how did you not expect me to notice that? If your concern is with the paragraph itself and with other parts of the article, I'm not sure what removing the CNN citation is supposed to accomplish. As for your claim about the facts in that particular paragraph not being supported by sources, I will point out that a similar paragraph on another article contains a link to this NYT article which includes "Catholic civil war" in the title. I'm not sure why it isn't here. Like the Douthat article, it's a conservative op-ed. But again, the paragraph never takes what is says as fact, but instead, reports on what people are saying. This is what Wikipedia is supposed to do.
To a degree, I understand your concerns about excessive focus on Vigano. I am willing to allow you to shorten some content related to him without protest. However, I reiterate that it is important to show how the scandal has affected the Church, not just which priests or bishops did what, when, and where. Hence, this paragraph is crucial and needs to go back into the article. I think that it should be re-added with the link to the second NYT article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Regarding the quote from the CNN article, I also wish to note that the paragraph does not distinguish between liberals and conservatives over the question of whether certain bishops should resign, only Pope Francis. It says: "Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign." There's no mention of ideology there. It then goes on to describe pretty clearly that conservatives are mostly the ones calling for Francis to resign while liberals are mostly defending him, but I think that we can probably agree that that's true. Display name 99 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The only sources presented that refer to a "civil war" in the Catholic Church are op-ed pieces by conservative opinion columnists Ross Douthat and Matthew Schmitz. It is not encyclopedic to repeat every claim made by an opinion columnist about a topic. The rest of the the claims in the disputed paragraph are false. No source states that "Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign." No source states that "Large numbers of conservatives, many of whom have long disliked Pope Francis, have called on him and certain bishops to resign following the Viganò letter and other revelations, while liberals, most of whom have been supportive of Francis's papacy in the past, have more commonly criticized the letter and defended Francis."
The first sentence in the first paragraph you added about Cardinal Wuerl needs to be deleted. No source states that Wuerl was "suspected" of having known about McCarrick.
The last sentence you added about "supporters of Vigano" also needs to be deleted. The first source given, from the UK Catholic Herald, does not say anything about supporters of Vigano, does not say the sanctions were not official, and does not say the sanctions were only loosely enforced. The second source given is LifeSiteNews, which is an extremist website with no reputation for accurate news reporting and hence not a WP:RELIABLE source. See: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/life-site-news/ --PluniaZ (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Correct, we don't need to repeat every claim, but this is a claim made by two very high-profile people. Both of their articles appeared in the New York Times, which is probably the most prominent newspaper in the nation. That's important. The CNN article clearly talks about many lay Catholics wanting Wuerl to resign. There are quotes from people demanding that he resign as well as a quote from somebody else about a "mob mentality." It says that a priest received a standing ovation after calling for Wuerl to resign. If you want more than just Wuerl, here's an article from very recently in which a university president requests that the Bishop of Buffalo, NY, step down over allegations of protecting abusive priests. The sources also talk about demands for Pope Francis to step down, so your statement that the "significant numbers of lay Catholics" sentence is not supported by the sources is untrue. I'm sure I can find even more stuff for you. As for your allegation about the statement on Pope Francis being unverified, if the three articles are insufficient, here is a NYT article which frames the problem as being based on ideology. I'll admit that I could have done a better job of including good sources to support the paragraph, but they're there if you look for them.
As for Wuerl, the post article states: ""The explosive allegations against McCarrick, which include two other accusations of abusing minors as well as those of harassment of seminarians, tipped off a full-blown crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." There can be no charges unless there is suspicion. If you want, I can change "suspected" to "accused" or "charged" in order to make it more line with the article. Here's a quote from a Crux article from September 7: "In recent weeks, Wuerl has faced questions over his knowledge of the alleged sexually coercive behavior of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick." Please explain to me how this means anything other than Wuerl was suspected of knowing about the allegations against McCarrick. And the question isn't even particularly relevant now anyway, because Wuerl stated that he did learn about the Ciolek allegation but forgot about it. Whatever suspicions there were had to be at least partially true.
For the question of LifeSiteNews, I'm going to quote Lawrence King, who summed up the reasons for using it very well on the Vigano talk page. He wrote: "If this page were using data from LifeSiteNews to establish controversial claims as facts, that would be a problem. But biographies of living persons routinely cite statements by the person himself/herself, and that's the very essence of bias. The Richard Nixon page quote Nixon himself as saying "I am not a crook." Should this be deleted? Every person is biased in their own case, without exception -- even you and me and DN99. But the important thing is that the Richard Nixon page does not say "Nixon was not a crook" (which would be a misuse of a source) -- it says "Nixon said 'I am not a crook'," which is true. In the same way, the Vigano article is right to document Vigano's own claims about himself, even when he chose to publish then on LifeSite News." Hence, we can relate what LifeSiteNews claims to be true without actually taking a position on whether or not it is true. And before you say that we shouldn't be writing about opinions and speculations from fringe websites, I'd like to point out that this theory was advanced by just about everyone who tried to argue that there were some sort of restrictions. Douthat discusses it in the NYT article, for example. We point out what people questioning Vigano argue, and we should represent what those supporting him are saying as well. Display name 99 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, no source states that significant numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign. If you disagree, then provide a quotation from a source to that effect. The article on Bishop Malone does not mention McCarrick and is therefore unrelated to this article.
The two Wuerl paragraphs at the end of the "warnings" section should be deleted in their entirety. The content of these paragraphs is already relayed in the Vigano section, albeit more briefly, which is appropriate, since this article is a biography of Theodore McCarrick, not Cardinal Wuerl. And claiming that there were "suspicions" is absolutely unacceptable when not a single source states that there were suspicions - it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to infer that there were suspicions based on our interpretation of the sources. WP:BLP demands the immediate removal of that statement.
The reasoning used to justify LifeSiteNews as a source in the article on Archbishop Vigano is inapplicable here. The rationale in that article is that the subject of the article chose to use LifeSiteNews to make claims about himself. That is not the case in this article - McCarrick has not used LifeSiteNews to write about himself. But given that LifeSiteNews is probably used on many Wikipedia articles, I will bring this to the attention of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and let them settle it.
Finally, as a new point, the ordering of the sections needs to be adjusted to match the real life chronology. McCarrick was removed from public ministry two months before the Vigano letter, so that needs to come first. That will require extensive work to fix, which can only be done once the edit protection is lifted from the article. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If the sources don't talk about significant numbers of Catholics wanting bishops and/or the pope to resign, what is "Catholic insurgency" supposed to mean? The article on Malone does mention McCarrick, yes, but it still shows how Catholics were calling on multiple bishops to resign shortly after these allegations emerged.
I think that the Wuerl paragraphs belong in the "warnings" section. The revelation that he knew about the Ciolek allegation is not directly related to Vigano, and the release of the McCarrick correspondence was not done by Vigano either. Your claim that the sources don't support the idea of their being suspicions is absolutely ridiculous considering the two sources that I just quoted. Again, I can change the article to say that he was "charged" with knowing or "accused" of having knowledge of McCarrick in order to better align it with the source says, although it means essentially the same thing.
We're using LifeSiteNews to show what supporters of Vigano are saying, not because we're taking what is written there as fact. I believe that the question of LifeSiteNews being acceptable to use has already been answered by them, so please check before you send it there. Display name 99 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It's clear that we are not going to agree. I am making a request for comment. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

@Display name 99 and PluniaZ: I have protected the article for two days because of edit warring. The goal is to give you time to work out a compromise approach here, rather than by reverting each other in the article. Please be respectful toward each other and discuss in good faith. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

Please remove the duplicate word "which which" - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Arjayay, I think it would help if you pinged an administrator and said where in the article the duplicate word is. Display name 99 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It is in the final paragraph of "Warnings about McCarrick's conduct", but a search for "which which" is not very complicated - Arjayay (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request[edit]

Please delete the following statement that begins the second-to-last paragraph in the section Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Warnings_about_McCarrick's_conduct: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied." The sources provided do not state that Wuerl was suspected by anyone of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities. As Donald Wuerl is still a living person, this statement violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't. This is an example of an editor trying to circumvent the talk page discussion process in the midst of a content dispute. For my arguments as to why it should stay, please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Stop with the personal attacks. Last warning. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Display Name 99. This not the first time that that this editor is gaming the system. Thucyd (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ, do not remove others' talk page comments as you did here. Every criticism of another person's editing style is not a personal attack, and this comment by Thucyd was not. WP:TPO says: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." This wasn't even what I would consider uncivil, so do not touch it again. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Superfluous material in a biography of a living person that is not supported by the sources provided[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.


It is disputed whether this biography page should include the following material: (1) the material that was added in this diff: Disputed Material 1 and (2) the material that was removed in this diff: Disputed Material 2. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove Both - Disputed Material 1 goes into unnecessary detail about a person, Donald Wuerl, who is not the subject of this biography page. Moreover, the content of Disputed Material 1 is already covered in a more appropriate, concise form in the following sentences of the current version of the article in the section Vigano Allegations: "After the report was released, Wuerl's spokesperson denied that he was aware of any misconduct by McCarrick, but Wuerl subsequently acknowledged that he had been aware of certain accusations against McCarrick." And: "On May 28, 2019, McCarrick's private secretary Msgr. Anthony J. Figueiredo released letters written by McCarrick suggesting that while senior Vatican officials placed restrictions on the former Cardinal after abuse allegations surfaced, they were not official sanctions and were not strictly enforced under the papacies of either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis."
The final sentence in Disputed Material 1 is superfluous as it does not directly relate to the subject of this biography and is not supported by the sources given. Neither source claims that the sanctions were not official or were loosely enforced.
Disputed Material 2 is a needless digression into claims of a "civil war" in the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If you read the underlying sources, they do not in fact claim that the McCarrick allegations have produced a "Catholic civil war", but that there already is or else will be a Catholic civil war over doctrinal matters, not Theodore McCarrick. Moreover, the claims in Disputed Material 2 that large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign is not supported by any of the sources given - none of the sources state that large numbers of Catholics have called on Pope Francis and bishops to resign. The sources establish that there was a large movement calling on one bishop, Cardinal Wuerl, to resign, but that belongs in the biography of Cardinal Wuerl, not Theodore McCarrick. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Both, maybe change "significant numbers of" to some as compromise-The paragraphs on Wuerl are short and can be made shorter. The essential information is there and is supported by the sources. What we have on him is not much longer than what we have for some of the other bishops in that section, and it is all relevant and factual.
The final sentence of Disputed Material 1 is: "However, a spokesperson for Wuerl denied that he had any knowledge of the sanctions." That is important for the article in order to be fair to Wuerl.
As for disputed Material 2, I would accept changing "significant numbers of" to "some" as a compromise in order not to imply that the number of those calling for resignations is greater than it is. The paragraph does not state that Catholics have called on large numbers of bishops to resign, only those "implicated in alleged cover-ups." Wuerl is chief among them. So is Richard J. Malone, Bishop of Buffalo, who has faced calls for his resignation.
It is false to say that the sources do not support the idea that there were unofficial, loosely enforced sanctions. The LifeSiteArticle says: "The next key claim of Viganò is that having been told to cease his public ministry by Pope Benedict, McCarrick resumed travelling, speaking and so on under Pope Francis, who made use of him as a trusted adviser. Of this one can say: it would be incredible, it would simply not cohere with publicly known facts, if this were not true. As Cardinal and Pope, Ratzinger tried hard to rein in abusers, but he drew back from public actions which would cause grave scandal. Thus, as Pope he finally managed to cashier the monster Maciel, but did not grasp the nettle and suppress his foundation, the Legionnaires of Christ. Against considerable opposition, Pope Benedict appointed a clean bishop to the tainted see of Brussels, to succeed Cardinal Daneels, but did not intervene further in the Belgian church, or punish Daneels, leaving his appointee, Leonard, isolated and ineffective. He accepted the resignations of four Irish bishops accused of covering up abuse, but failed to use the psychological moment to clear out the hierarchy more fully. Pope Benedict's papacy was, truly, painful to watch. The claim that Pope Benedict quietly told McCarrick, who had already lost his vote in any future conclave due to age, to live a life of penance and prayer must be true, because Benedict must have known about the problem, and we know that nothing more public happened to McCarrick at that time." Douthat writes, "And given the distracted and ineffectual way that the last pope ran the church, it’s very easy to imagine a distracted and ineffectual attempt to restrict McCarrick being subverted and ignored by the cardinal and his allies in the hierarchy." Display name 99 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) I have also listed several sources throughout a discussion in an above section to supplement what is already there. I encourage anyone looking into this to examine those, not just the sources listed in the diffs. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The paragraphs on Wuerl are duplicative of material that is already contained in the article. There are no other paragraphs in the article devoted to particular persons other than the article's subject, Theodore McCarrick.
The final sentence of Disputed Material 1 is "Supporters of Viganò countered by suggesting that the sanctions were not official and were only loosely enforced." None of the sources provided state this. It is your interpretation of the sources. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for editors to put forth their interpretations regarding the subject matter. We are here simply to restate what the primary and secondary sources say in an impartial, encyclopedic manner.
The only bishop for whom there have been calls to resign that reliable sources relate to Theodore McCarrick is Donald Wuerl, who is already discussed in the article. The calls for Bishop Malone to resign are unrelated to McCarrick - not a single source claims that there is a relationship between the two. Not a single source states that Catholics are calling on Pope Francis to resign. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ, I'm going to leave the final sentence of the Vigano section alone for now. Our changes of coming to an agreement there are slim. But I would like to propose an alternate version of the paragraph. Here it is, minus the sources:

The McCarrick case and Viganò allegations, happening at about the same time as the conclusion of the Grand jury investigation of Catholic Church sexual abuse in Pennsylvania, which alleged systematic cover-up of clergy sex abuse by bishops in Pennsylvania over decades, produced what has variously been described as a "Catholic insurgency" or "Catholic civil war." Significant numbers of Catholics across ideological boundaries have called for greater accountability and transparency within the Church. The issues have however opened up ideological divisions within the Church, especially over the role of homosexuality in clergy abuse and allegations of negligence by Pope Francis. A large number of conservatives, many of whom have long disliked him, have sharply denounced him, while liberals, who have been generally supportive of Francis's papacy in the past, have more commonly criticized the letter and defended the Pope. Matthew Schmitz, editor of the conservative journal First Things, identified three sides to this civil war: those on the "right" who want a crack-down on sexually active gay priests, those on the "left" who want the Church to change its teaching on the immorality of homosexual sex, and those supporting "a muddled modus vivendi" in which the Church continues to proclaim "that homosexual acts are wrong while quietly tolerating them among the clergy.

That paragraph has almost nothing to do with the subject of this article, Theodore McCarrick. Neither McCarrick nor Douthat nor the CNN article claim that the McCarrick incident has produced a Catholic civil war. The CNN article (solely in the headline) states that there was an insurgency against Cardinal Wuerl, but that belongs in the biography of Cardinal Wuerl, not Theodore McCarrick. Moreover, dozens if not hundreds of opinion columnists have written about this issue. Repeating Matthew Schmitz's views violates WP:UNDUE. If you want to create an article about a perceived "Catholic civil war" in which the views of all opinion columnists are presented with equal weight, you are welcome to propose such an article for creation. But none of that belongs in a biography of Theodore McCarrick. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The terms "Catholic civil war" and "Vatican power struggle" were both used in the headlines of NYT articles, which go on to talking about them more in depth. A priest in America Magazine wrote an article arguing against the idea that a Catholic civil war existed, but the fact that he did so shows that it's an idea which has gotten some attention and therefore warrants our notice. It deserves to be covered in this article because it would be happening if not for McCarrick. I'd accept removing the Schmitz commentary. On a broader note, my proposed solution for the Wuerl paragraphs and my proposal here both show that I am willing to compromise. I think it would be good of you to make a similar gesture. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Both(Summoned by bot) This is way outside my area of expertise, but the concise arguments of PluniaZ above, seem sound. Briefly that much of this content is off-topic (the subject being McCarrick) - while other parts are not actually supported by the sources, or don't have enough RS to support the claims made (Significant numbers of lay Catholics have called on bishops implicated in alleged cover-ups as well as Pope Francis to resign)? Pincrete (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete, were you aware that PluniaZ and I reached a consensus to include a modified version of both paragraphs in the article? For example, the sentence you quoted about "significant numbers" has been significantly altered, and those words are no longer used. We reached this consensus painstakingly and after much negotiation. Part of it was done off of this talk page, so I don't blame you for not seeing it. Here is what we agreed to by compromise and which PluniaZ just removed. I think the content in the article is supported by these sources and would be happy to answer specific questions. I don't consider it off-topic at all. The Wuerl paragraph is simply devoted to what he knew about McCarrick, and we already have a full section devoted to what bishops knew or might have known about him. The second paragraph concerns the impact of the McCarrick case on the Catholic Church. How is that off-topic? Would you be willing to modify your vote in light of the revisions to these paragraphs? Also, PluniaZ, I reprimand you for removing these paragraphs when it was obvious that Pincrete was basing their vote off of the original version of the paragraphs and not the compromise versions. I don't think that is appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Brief reply, if you had reached agreement, why is there an RfC? I agree that the other editor probably shouldn't have removed content while the RfC was open (unless it seriously breached BLP), but I'm not going to get involved in that spat. I haven't fundamentally changed my response.Pincrete (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete, the RfC is open because PluniaZ started it before we reached consensus and then never closed it. I didn't close it either, unfortunately. If you're willing to accept the compromise that we came to, either one of us can restore the content and close it right now. MelanieN, sorry to bother you again, but I'm going to go ahead and ping you because you've been the only administrator I know of involved with this article. Display name 99 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So what is the closure the two of you have agreed to? How should it be worded? (This is a good example of why you should not launch an RfC until you have first attempted to reach agreement on the talk page without one. See WP:RFC.) I note that the two of you are reverting each other on the article page again. Am I going to have to lock it a second time? Or can you two learn that WP:Edit warring is against the rules? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. and does Pincrete agree with the version you agreed on? It sounds like they wanted both versions removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, we have not agreed to any closure. We did attempt an agreement before PluniaZ launched an RfC and eventually reached one while the RfC was still open. The problem was that neither PluniaZ nor myself shut the RfC down afterwards. An editor has now weighed in and agreed that the content should be removed. However, the content that they stated should be removed was the content that existed prior to our compromise. PluniaZ has now used that as an excuse to go back on our agreement and remove the content that was agreed to during the compromise, which was modified to assuage their objections. To me, this is extremely questionable both because Pincrete based their response on the original version before the compromise and because the RfC is still technically open. Does that make sense? There was another paragraph that PluniaZ removed with only a vague explanation. I reverted, and they re-reverted and posted a message below on the talk page, which I have responded to. There's no more edit warring going on there and hopefully won't be. Display name 99 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Note: the text that was removed includes content that you added to the article on our mutual request. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Closing RFC and seeking dispute resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected Edit Request[edit]

Display name 99 (talk) and I have reached consensus on his talk page that the following change should immediately be made to the article in order to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES:

  • Remove the sentence: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied."
  • Replace that sentence with the following: "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, faced questions regarding how much he knew about McCarrick's activities."

Please make this change immediately in order to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES, which requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." --PluniaZ (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Innuendo in a BLP article?[edit]

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to repeat innuendo about BLP article subjects? The deleted paragraph in this DIFF consists entirely of innuendo and is sourced entirely to anonymous sources. The quoted statements in and of themselves tell us nothing about the article's subject. "He placed his hand on other men." Ok, lots of guys do that, especially in prior decades. It doesn't necessarily mean anything sexual. And there is no express statement in the source that it was of a sexual nature. It is all left for the reader to imply. This is innuendo and I don't think it's appropriate for a BLP page.

As a secondary objection, the source is a primary source, but it is offered to give criticisms of the article's subject. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources." Per WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." That is exactly what the CNA article is. It simply recounts the anonymous stories of seminarians and offers no analysis of its own. Per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." This CNA article fails to do that. It is a primary source and cannot be used to offer criticism of the article's subject. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no criticism or praise in the article. It simply recounts what is in the primary source. There aren't any statements in the article which are not supported by the source. Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." How is what we have anything but a straightforward and descriptive statement of what is found in the source? Is there anything in the paragraph that isn't supported by the source? Display name 99 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It's criticism because it's innuendo - the statements, which say absolutely nothing of consequence if taken at face value, are presented by CNA in a way that suggests there is a deeper, nefarious meaning behind them. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, this is criticism and needs to be sourced to a secondary source. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ, there's no criticism if we're just repeating back what a reliable source says. CNA is a reliable source, and the interviews that they conducted are important to understanding the allegations against McCarrick. It's one thing to complain about citations to LifeSiteNews, but here we're dealing with a non-partisan news source that is widely recognized as reliable. The guideline never says that praise and criticism from secondary sources HAVE to be included in an article, only that they should be if such a secondary source can be found. The problem is that these allegations are so recent that it's probably not possible to find a source that is really secondary. The claim that the article "doesn't say anything substantive about McCarrick" is false. Not only does it contain the information that was already in the article, but it also includes allegations that McCarrick was sleeping with seminarians and placing his hands on them in a manner which made them uncomfortable. I would gladly add this information to the paragraph in order to make it more substantive. In order to have one less thing to worry about, I urge you to consent to this course of action. Display name 99 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts[edit]

The matter of "who knew what when" appears to be far more nuanced that a scattershot account of accusations and disclaimers suggest.

  • Both O'Connor and Bea opposed McCarrick's promotion to Washington, but the decision was not made by the Congregation for Bishops, but by JP II and his personal secretary who both viewed McCarrick as a personable bishop with important contacts and access to generous donors. Msgr. Dziwisz was aware of rumors circulating about McCarrick, but discounted them as similar to the gossip communists spread about priests in Poland.
  • Vigano may actually believe much of what he says, but his views are colored by an obsessive paranoia that he was exiled from his previous position in Rome by a gay mafia, whom he sees Francis as tolerating rather than opposing. Ramsay states that at the time McCarrick was inviting seminarians for sleep-overs at his beach house, the contemporary view was that since there was no mention of any inappropriate touching it was not considered immoral. It was "odd", "crazy", and arguably an abuse of authority. Had he thought it anything more, he would have taken more forceful action, as he did when he successfully moved for the expulsion of one of McCarrick's proteges. Over the past twenty years, with a greater awareness of sexual harassment/abuse and more recent revelations regarding the bishop's conduct, Ramsay's views have evolved, but he is careful to distinguish how he saw things then, and how he understands them now. In November 2000, Ramsay conveyed information as he understood it at that time, which was as "highly inappropriate". It seems unlikely, given that Montalvo pushed for something in writing, that the nuncio had anything more than a suspicion of rumors, however, Vigano claims Montalvo reported "gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests." Montalvo was too experienced a diplomat; if he had reason to believe allegations of "gravely immoral behavior", I suspect he would have had an in camera conversation with the Congregation. However, to parse out each misstatement by Vigano is both tedious, and would make the article unreadable,
  • It is interesting to compare the coverage by the sources. (cf. National Catholic Reporter vs. National Catholic Register) Secular media is primarily interested in whatever salacious headline will generate clicks. A few commentators have observed that this has less to do with McCarrick than with pushing the idea that "Pope Francis is taking the Church to Hell in a handbasket". In the long run, it will make little difference, since the Pope gets to appoint the successors to his opponents as they age out. -Rome has never left the Renaissance. What's really entertaining is that it's the Italians that get this. Manannan67 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the article is excessively detailed in a way that is not encyclopedic. The article reads like a ticker tape account of the latest news and gossip about who knew what and what McCarrick may or may not have done on any particular occasion. I don't see this excessive detail in other BLP pages (except for some other prominent Catholic clergy). My view is that the entire section on sex abuse should be cut down to a few paragraphs covering (1) the early settlements, (2) the 2018 public announcement by the NY Archdiocese, (3) one paragraph stating that there is controversy over who in the Catholic hierarchy may have been aware of allegations against McCarrick and (4) a final paragraph covering the outcome of the Vatican trial and his laicization. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If you that, we will lose an incalculable amount of crucial information. WP:Article size caps articles at 100kB. We're currently at 29 kB. There's no need to worry about being excessively detailed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I seriously doubt any of it is "crucial". The Vigano section could stand a serious cut as most of it is in his own article. Manannan67 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The question of whether sanctions were imposed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI, as Vigano alleges, and the evidence for or against such a theory, is a matter that directly relates to McCarrick. It is isn't just about Vigano. Where the subject begins to drift further away from McCarrick is in analyzing how Vigano's report was received by various bishops and parties in the Church. Fortunately, that is already discussed much more heavily at the Vigano article. Really, if I had to point to any content that could be cut, I would signal out the part that you recently added about Vigano allegedly "twisting facts." Because it's an issue solely with Vigano's credibility and does not directly relate to McCarrick, how do you justify adding it to the article while at the same time calling for the removal of large amounts of other material? Please at least be consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Take it all out, that's fine with me. But Vigano's a poor source for sanctions, since he failed to impose them himself. Manannan67 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand what you mean. We're not here to make a judgment on whether or not Vigano is trustworthy. Doing so would be in violation of WP:NPOV. We're just here to represent what he says and to report on evidence and statements that have emerged regarding possible sanctions. Display name 99 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe L'affaire McCarrick and the ongoing controversy and fallout of who knew what and when, should have its own article where it can be expounded upon? Such an article can be linked from McCarrick, Viganò, Wuerl, et al. — Archer1234 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The Vigano allegations are discussed in depth at the Vigano article. There's been talk of splitting that into a separate article, but that is best raised at the Vigano talk page. We do have a few paragraphs on who knew what. I suppose it's possible we could create a separate article about knowledge or alleged knowledge about McCarrick's activities by Church bishops, which would include the "Warnings about McCarrick's conduct" material from this article and the stuff about the Vigano letter from the Vigano article. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a proposal to this affect, but I see PluniaZ has gone ahead and significantly shortened the Vigano section on this article already. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67 (talk) and Archer1234 (talk) - which version of the article do you prefer, the old or new version in this diff: Diff of disputed versions. My version is the older version. I think the advantage of my version is that it combines and organizes the pre-2018 material into a chronologically ordered section that flows naturally, whereas the newer version doesn't have any cohesive structure to it. I also think the newer version goes into unnecessary detail, cramming in seemingly every news report that has ever been issued about this period, and including too many generalities in what is already a very dense section, (e.g., "There have been questions about how much senior Catholic officials might have known about McCarrick's actions." - Yes, we already get that from the article). The rest of the section on sex abuse is largely the same, except I combine smaller paragraphs into larger ones - I think that makes it easier to read but maybe that's just me. The final sentence about where McCarrick lives seems creepy and unnecessary in a BLP. --PluniaZ (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as Vigano is concerned (1) since most of this is on his own page, all it needs is a brief summary and a link -which it already has. (2) It's not a matter of assessing his credibility, but a question of balance. If you list all his various allegations, then you also have to mention those who have called him on it, and then what you've got is a "he said/he said" situation. Even now, since there is nothing to qualify his statements, it gives the impression that it's not only true, and but for him there would be no investigation. I would keep the Warnings (which seem largely contemporaneous0 separate from the relatively recent Vigano material, at least for the time being. Ramsay kept a copy of his letter to O'Malley, but the former nuncio doesn't seem to have done likewise.
  • I guess I prefer the first version. The more concise, the less confusing.
  • A few minor points: Should Warnings come before Allegations? They certainly had warning long before there was anything definite.
  • Sandri never said Montalvo told him about McCarrick. Saldi never mentioned McCarrick's name at all. Per Ramsay's Commonweal article, Sandri was vetting McCarrick's secretary Figueiredo for a possible appointment and wanted to know if he'd been involved "in the stuff you mentioned previously" -or words to that effect. From this Ramsay understood that Montalvo had forwarded his letter of Nov. 2000.
  • Under Allegations: "As a result, in 2009 or 2010 Pope Benedict XVI..." I would take out "As a result" because it isn't clear what was done, and if it was because of Vigano or some other heavy-hitters in the wings (like the Archbishop across the river for example, or others. Dolan was head of the USCCB at the time. That outranks any nuncio, and Ramsay was one of his pastors). There's a couple of other places that could arguably be tightened up. Too much minor detail tends to bury the significant developments, but that's enough for now. Manannan67 (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Manannan67 (talk). I agree with your proposed changes. I don't think there is any need for two separate sections on Warnings vs Allegations - I've combined them into one section in my proposed draft. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Warnings" is definitely large enough for its own section in my view. The allegations against McCarrick personally and questions about what other bishops may have known are two separate matters, so I don't see any reason for combining them. I'd be fine with putting the Warnings section before "Allegations." Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I can see Warnings leading into Allegations because I think they were separated in time. First, a lot of gossip about a creepy bishop; then sometime later individuals willing to confirm specifics. I'm not sure Michael Reading saying, something like 'yeah, I heard stuff. I thought he was creepy too', really adds anything, since he doesn't say he ever reported it to anybody.(talk) 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm also unsure about the quote from Lopes. "I was a seminarian when Theodore McCarrick was named archbishop of Newark. And he would visit the seminary often, and we all knew." It is clearly meant to indicate that Lopes was a seminarian at Immaculate Conception in South Orange, New Jersey. But he wasn't. He went to St. Pat's in Menlo Park, California. He never attended school in New Jersey. Is he saying McCarrick frequently visited Menlo Park? That this was scuttlebutt on some cross-country seminarian grapevine? As a gradute of ISI is he just jumping on the bandwagon? Is either he or the writer being deliberately misleading or just disingenuous? Questions. Manannan67
Thanks Manannan67. I had the same thoughts about the Lopes quote. Seeing as Lopes was born in 1975, I'm confused as to how he could have been a seminarian when McCarrick was ordained Archbishop of Newark in 1986. He must have meant "Washington, D.C." instead of "Newark". I'll propose some language. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ: FWIW here's Lopes' official CV,[6]; and here's the full interview [7] in which he immediately qualifies his statement by saying he was talking about "rumors". -and then he goes completely off-topic. Manannan67 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Manannan67. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP, we should not be including rumors, so I will take it out. --PluniaZ (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Display name 99 - I asked Manannan67 above which version he preferred, yours or mine, and he said mine. His exact quotation is "I guess I prefer the first version. The more concise, the less confusing." The first version is mine. That is 2:1 in favor of my version. If you don't like it, you can do an RfC, but please don't edit war against the Talk Page majority. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)