Talk:Charles J. Chaput

Untitled

I do know that the Archbishop is a somewhat controversial figure after the statements he made following the election, and I'd keep that in mind when making future edits to this article.

JesseG 19:11, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page should be merged with the entry for "Charles Chaput"

There is no entry for Charles Chaput. It's just a redirect to this article. I think it should be left as is for the time being.

JesseG 04:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his surname

I don't think the pronunciation that has been added is correct. I have heard it spokeand have seen it explained that it is pronounced like "shampoo" without the 'm' (edited to add: ʃæ'puː). The source added says "(pronounced sha-PEW')", not shə-POO. I read "sha-PEW'" as rhyming with "shampoo" without the 'm' and with an added 'y' after the 'p'.

The point is, I don't think the pronunciation given is correct. I may be wrong, but the source given doesn't support the pronunciation given. --Elliskev 17:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rhymes with "slap you"
• Like "shampoo"

--Elliskev 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but I would say his name is pronounced as shə pew'. (Pronouncing pew as the bench in churches). carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the pronunciation, this time with a citation. The "pew" vs. "poo" sound could be the result of regional pronunciation differences. (For example, in Pennsylvania where I live, "dew" is pronounced as "doo", but in other places, it's pronounced "dyoo". — AJDS ^talk 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just changed the pronunciation after hearing a YouTube video of Card. Rigali introducing Abp. Chaput. I assume that Card. Rigali pronounced it correctly. — AJDS ^talk 20:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The way it is currently (sha-pyoo) is probably about as close as you're gonna get sounding it out. If I were to describe the pronounciation (as done in Denver) it would be Sha with a long A sound similar to that of the SHA sound in SHAtter. Followed by the "pee you" that you might say when you smell something that stinks, but where the p is very short, soft, and all but dropped and the "you" is pronounced with a "w" sound at the end. Similar to the sound of Pewter.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, his surname is French Canadian, and in Quebec it is not pronounced Shapyew, it is pronounced Shapu, with a hard u, which sounds like the German ü sound, as in Glück. Also, in French, the letter t is often silent if it is the last letter of a word and preceded by a vowel. I know his name is pronounced in a different way in English, but I just wanted to give the original French pronunciation. 76.67.158.22 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Line not being displayed properly

The following excerpt was copied from Chaput's entry here on Wikipedia today (July 19, 2011). This is not all the text that was intended to be displayed, but if I try to fix it, I would have to do a bunch of test edits. Could this be fixed by someone more knowledgeable than I am? Here is the excerpt:

On July 19, 2011 [4] appointed as Archbishop of Philadelphia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The info box.

I'm not sure of what to do with the info box here. Chaput is NOT the archbishop of Phily yet. He is the archbishop designate; but he is no longer the archbishop of Denver, he is the Apostolic Administrator there. For the next two months Rigali is still in charge of Phily and Chaput is still over Denver---but neither are the Archbishop of said cities. Any thoughts.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good question. I went over to Catholic Hierarchy.com to see what David Cheney is doing there, and he seems to be anticipating the Philadelphia thing. I would have the Archbishop of Denver title in the "other" (i.e., former) posts, while having his main title be "Archbishop of Philadelphia (designate)". — AJDS ^talk 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling him the Archbishop of Phily isn't accurate, although I suspect a lot of sources will do so because it is easier than having to do it right in 2 months. But I can live with putting the priority on Archbishop-designate of Phily.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for contradicting, but he is Archbishop of Philadelphia. If he were not already in bishop's orders, he would only be Archbishop-Elect of Philadelphia; then on receiving episcopal ordination, he would immediately become Archbishop of Philadelphia, even if weeks passed between his ordination and his taking possession of his archdiocese. He wouldn't be ordained Archbishop of Nowhere, changing to Archbishop of Philadelphia on the day he took possession. Of course, a priest who is ordained bishop in the cathedral of the diocese to which he is appointed takes possession by the ceremony of ordination itself; but he could be ordained bishop of that diocese elsewhere, for instance in Rome. In the concrete case, Archbishop Chaput is no longer Archbishop of Denver, although he has for the moment the powers of an apostolic a diocesan administrator of that see. He is now Archbishop of Philadelphia. And Rigali is no longer Archbishop of Philadelphia, but only administering the archdiocese until Chaput takes over. Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're making a lot of sense. — AJDS ^talk 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then ought we change the infobox to "AB of Philadelphia"? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, it's like being elected president/senator. People may call you president/senator, but until you take the oath of office/installed, you technically are not. Many sources are calling him the Archbishop of Philadelphia, but that is not universal. The Archdiocese of Denver website lists his title Archbishop-designate of Philadelphia and Diocesan Administrator of Denver. [1]. The Colorado Catholic Conference calls him Archbishop-designate[2] Catholic.org did an interview titled, [Sandro Magister Interviews Archbishop Designate of Philadelphia Charles J. Chaput http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=42128], Allentown's WFMZ refers to him as Archbishop Designate[3], Catholic News Servce [4], MyFoxPhily regularly refers to him as Archbishop designate.[5] I could go on and on, but until he is officially installed, I believe it is wrong---I mean, the ArchDen website has his label with the Archbishop Designate. If you can find something authoritative to support your view, I'm willing to be proven wrong, but when the ArchDen, Colorado Catholic Conference, various Catholic News sources, Philadelphia media all use the designate, I tend to go with them.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ArchPhila also lists his title as Archbishop Designate of Philadelphia [6]. The Denver Post writes, "he will continue for the next two months to be Denver's archbishop in a limited way — properly called a diocesan administrator — [quoting Chaput] "because I'm on my way to somewhere else.""[7] I'm guessing that since the Post quoted Chaput, that they talked to him about this. That seems to imply, that if we are to be technical about it, that he is still the archbishop of Denver but as a lame duck they call him Diocean Admin. The Catholic Standard and Times[8] And if he was OFFICIALLY the archbishop of Phily, would he have said, "In terms of my official presence, I'm going to be installed on the Feast of Our Lady's birthday, on Sept. 8. I don't think it's really appropriate to be on the ground before that."[9]---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So that explains the curious "Archbishop Designate" phrase! The United States media are applying to Catholic Church nominations what they're accustomed to with regard to United States elected officials. They even present Sandro Magister as calling Chaput Archbishop Designate of Philadelphia. In his article on the interview, Sandro Magistro twice calls him (correctly) "il nuovo arcivescovo di Filadelfia" (the new Archbishop of Philadelphia), without any attempt to find an Italian equivalent of the American expression "designate". The only Catholic Church situation in which "designate" would be correct (in English only) would be "Cardinal Designate" for someone whose elevation to the cardinalate at a coming consistory has been announced. I wonder what do these American media consider Chaput to be at the moment. Is he still Archbishop of Denver, since he is still administering the archdiocese? Well no, officially he is now only apostolic diocesan administrator of the see. As Rigali is no longer Archbishop of Philadelphia and only its apostolic diocesan administrator. Or do the American media still consider him Archbishop of Philadelphia? If Chaput is not yet Archbishop of Philadelphia and is no longer Archbishop of Denver, what is he Archbishop of? You know that all bishops in the Catholic Church must have a see, at least a titular one. Do the American media think that at present he is not an archbishop at all?

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not just American. Cardinal Scola is Archbishop of Milan even before taking possession of his new see. Bishop John Magee remained Bishop of Cloyne even after "the Pope had placed the running of the diocese in the hands of Dermot Clifford, metropolitan archbishop of the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly", on 7 March 2009, and he ceased to be Bishop of Cloyne only on 24 March 2010. Just as there was a precise moment when Bishop Magee ceased to be governing the Diocese of Cloyne, while still remaining Bishop of Cloyne, and the writ of Archbishop Clifford took effect, there has to be a precise moment when the new Archbishop of Philadelphia takes charge and the powers of the present apostolic diocesan administrator cease. Until that moment, the archdiocese is run by the Archbishop Emeritus of Philadelphia, not by the new Archbishop of Philadelphia, who is already Archbishop of Philadelphia, not Archbishop of Nowhere. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Late note: I think your original wording here was correct and Rigali is the Apostolic Administrator of Phily, while Chaput is the Diocesan Admin of Denver. The difference being that Rigali retired and was appointed by the Pope to govern Phily until Chaput is installed. Chaput became the Diocesan Administrator because according to Canon Law when a bishop is transferred from one location to another, they automatically assume that position in their old diocese until they assume their new role at the new diocese. This interpretation is supported by the wording on the ArchPhily website which calls Rigali the Apostolic Administrator while ArchDen call Chaput the Diocesan Administrator.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it were just the media, you might have a point. You might also have a point if you pointed to something more authoritative than a news source in another language. But the fact that both the ArchDiocese of Denver, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Chaput's press secretary[10] are refer to him as ArchBishop-Designate tends to lend credence that that is his proper title. Now, you argue that the equivalent doesn't exist in other languages. Well, anybody who has studied languages or history knows that formal equavalence doesn't always exist between languages. Luckily there is a wiki-policy relative to the use of language when discrepencies arise, and that is to use the language/style utilized for which the articles subject best represents (or if on a location specific subject the original linguistics of said article.) Since it is not just the Catholic media but both the ArchDen and ArchPhila use the phrase "Archbishop Designate" I tend to give them a fair amount or credence on this subject.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

National Catholic Register [The former archbishop of Denver will officially become the ninth archbishop of Philadelphia Sept. 8 http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-charles-chaput-takes-the-helm-in-philadelphia/]. Right now, Philadelphia has an Apostolic Administrator (a sign that the seat is currently vacant.) Both diocese call Chaput "Archbishop-designate." Chaput's press secretary went out of her way to correct herself to say "Archbishop designate". Chaput, if he were Archbishop of Phily, would not say that it would be inappropriate for him to arrive before his installation. Also, while he is definitely no longer Archbishop of Denver, could the POSSIBILITY exist that until he is formally elevated that he is without a see? That perhaps, the reason the Denver Post wrote, "properly called a diocesan administrator" is because he might technically be in a period of limbo and not an Archbishop? I don't know, all I do know is that when authoritative sources (NCR, ArchDen, ArchPhily, etc) refer to him as Archbishop Designate, I tend to give them some credence.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no dispute here about what the United States media, including the United States Catholic printed and electronic media, call him. The main question is: Are they right or wrong? A secondary question is: Even if they are wrong, should the English Wikipedia, which is not an exclusively United States publication, follow them for the few weeks that it matters? (By the way, if you object to quoting Sandro Magister in the language in which he wrote, you will find what we can call an official translation of his article here. And you can thus satisfy yourself that "il nuovo arcivescovo di Filadelfia" does mean "the new archbishop of Philadelphia".)

There is no "possibility" for a Catholic bishop to be bishop of no see. He may be governing no see, as the Bishop of Cloyne governed no see for over a year, while still being Bishop of Cloyne, and as titular bishops govern no see, but are bishops of their titular sees. Cardinal Rigali is Archbishop Emeritus of Philadelphia and in addition is at present governing that see as Apostolic Diocesan Administrator of Philadelphia, not as Archbishop of Philadelphia. Cardinal Rigali was was not Bishop of Scranton during the eight months that he governed that see as Apostolic Diocesan Administrator of Scranton, not as Bishop of Scranton. Archbishop Chaput, whom the Pope has transferred (not will transfer) from Denver to Philadelphia, is Archbishop of Philadelphia and in addition is at present governing the see of Denver as Apostolic Diocesan Administrator of Denver, not as Archbishop of Denver, but has not yet assumed charge of his own see of Philadelphia.

In the Catholic Church, being Bishop of a see is not necessarily linked with actually governing that see. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the questions I had was wether or not this was isolated with just Chaput, but it's not. Finding bishops/archbishops who make lateral moves is not easy (there is probably an easier way but I was doing it the old fashioned way.) There are probably more but these are the only two bishops/archbishops that I found making lateral moves:

When The Bishop of Steubenville was transferred to Joliet, the Diocese referred to him as Bishop-designate[11]

I'm not sure of the title timeline here, but Blase Joseph Cupich was the Bishop or Rapid City when he was appointed to become the new Bishop of Spokane on June 30th, 2010. The US COnference of Catholic Bishops called him "bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, and bishop-designate of Spokane, Washington" in a July 2010 press release.[12] And the Spokane Diocese website says that he was installed in September. And other sources called him bishop designate to Spokane[13]

In both cases we have reliable primary sources that should know the distinctions (the Diocese and the US COnference of Catholic Bishops) using the phrase "Bishop Designate" for a consecrated bishop that was changing see. That along with ArchDen/ArchPhily both using the designate tells me that it is the norm in the US at least to use that modifier until the official installation. In order for me to support removal of it, I would want to see something that affirmatively states that the use of designate in the US is wrong.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, there is no dispute about general United States usage. It isn't universal usage even in the United States: the New Orleans Archdiocese speaks of Alfred Clifton Hughes as serving as Coadjutor Archbishop "since February 16, 2001", the date the Pope transferred him from Baton Rouge, and you don't suppose that he left Baton Rouge and reached New Orleans that day immediately on his appointment at noon, Rome time, pretty late in the day in Louisiana! I have found the same phrase on a United States non-diocesan site concerning Timothy J. Dolan as Archbishop of Milwaukee, and no doubt more could be discovered. On the Vatican website and in official documents of the Holy See you will find the terms "Bishop of", "Bishop Elect of", "Bishop Emeritus of", and "Titular Bishop of"; but you certainly won't find "Bishop Designate of". So should en:wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a journal, follow the general usage of one particular country just for the few weeks that this particular usage appears to differ from usage elsewhere? Esoglou (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of Designate also doesn't appear to have been used with Archbishop Gomez when he became the Coadjudicator ArchBishop in LA. But it does appear to have been used when Dolan replaced the Archbishop in NY.[14], ABC News[15], NBC [16]. As for Style on Wiki-EN. Yes, the manual of style is that if there is a linquistical nuiance in the language, to use the style that A) is more appropriate for the country of the subject. EG if we were writing about the President of the US, we would use American English. If we were writing the same subject on the King of England, we would use British English. If the subject is not specific to a particular country (EG we were writing on IBM Computers) then the articles style would be in whichever style it was originally written. So here, you might be right, on one level Chaput might be the Archbishop of Philadelphia right now in a spiritual/technical sense, but and it might be a peculiar Americanism to use designate until the official installation. But the use of designate does appear to be the norm in the US. When looking at the virtually every article/dioscean page, you will see both the appointment date and the installation date. I would argue that because we are dealing with a US Archbishop and the norm in the US is to use the designate modifier between appointment and installation, that it is the proper form when dealing with American Bishops/archbishops.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it just because I am not from the United States that I think the Holy See's terminology preferable for Wikipedia articles on Roman Catholic bishops? With each day that passes, the time is getting shorter in which one could arguably insert in this Wikipedia article (and soon afterwards remove again) the terminology that is the general (not universal) United States practice (not norm). We two should surely shut up and let others do whatever they like about it. Otherwise Archbishop Chaput will already be installed before we end our discussion. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

AS for the Holy See's terminology... there are linguistical variances in every country. Those linguistical nuiances are governed by the local ordinates. Remember each bishop/archbishop is a ruler within his/her own realm. And I think it is obvious that the American Council on Bishops has approved the language and endorses its use, otherwise the official church bodies in the US would not be using it. I also think it is obvious that Rome allows the US Church to use this language to distinguish that period between appointment and installation. If it wasn't for the various Diocese and official governing bodies in the US using the designate modifier, I'd give way to the notion that it was media driven; but it's not. I specifically think the Press Secretaries correction of herself when introducing Chaput is the most telling of the response. When she introduces him as "the Archbishop of Philadelphia" then pauses, and says "or more properly the Archbishop designate of Philsdelphia" when introducing him with his standing right there.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that the correct term for the one holding interim authority is "diocesan administrator". You may also have noticed that canon 430 of the Code of Canon Law, even in its US translation, says: "The function of a diocesan administrator ceases when the new bishop (not "the bishop designate") has taken possession of the diocese." I think Wikipedia should use the language that the Holy See uses, as exemplified perhaps by its Code of Canon Law (which even in its US translation nowhere uses the word "designate" as an adjective). You think Wikipedia should use the language of local media, as exemplified perhaps by a press secretary. Let's leave it to some third party to speak or act on the matter. Esoglou (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion throughout, it seems best to me to go with the conventional American usage, although it would seem to be at variance with the Holy See's terminology, or even technically incorrect. I would like to note as an aside that it would be fascinating to hear a canonist's opinion on all of this. — AJDS ^talk 21:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, Alekjds. If my opinion remains a minority one, I will of course yield, although the majority opinion (at present 2 to 1) contradicts, as you say, the Holy See's terminology (cf. canons 382 and 404 of the Code of Canon Law, even in the United States translation), and I am still convinced that, since it isn't a matter of a variety of the English language, such as spelling, Wikipedia should use the official terminology of the Roman Catholic Church in speaking of internal matters of the Roman Catholic Church. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If we were talking about "local media" as you put it, then I might agree with you; but we are not. We are talking about numerous diocese in official press releases using the same terminology to describe the state between being informed of a transfer and officially taking canonical control of a diocese. According the CCL, a bishop has 2 months to officially take control and when becoming the head (bishop/archbishop) this is supposed to occur in the cathedral and be a big deal. When it is a person coming in as a co-adjudicator, they do not have the same language about the pomp and circumstance (Which is probably why we don't see it for the two archbishops who were made co-adjudicators.) But you can find the term used by numerous diocese in the US, by the US Council of Bishops, by national media outlets, by the official press secretary. Again, I think her clarification at Chaput's press statement was EXTREMELY telling. With her introducing Chaput, she introduced him as the Archbishop, then made a deliberate correction to Archbishop-designate. It is clear that in the US at least, the phrase archbishop-designate is used. If you want it removed, then you need to provide something other than Original Research to support the removal and the opinion that it is wrong. I have provided numerous reliable primary and secondary sources that use the phrase; both of which are of a nature that would know (eg not your local news media that might introduce a term by mistake.) I have shown that the phrase is used in multiple dioceses and for numerous bishops/archbishops. You have presented opinion. As for the CCL not having the phrase in it? That doesn't prove anything. It just says that the phrase isn't used in the CCL.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but presentation of opinion (something that is quite legitimate on talk pages) is not a characteristic of just one of us. Isn't it possible to classify as original research also your claim (based to some extent on synthesis of a remark, which you consider to be "EXTREMELY telling", by a press secretary who I suppose was no canonist) that "(arch)bishop designate of", a title never used by the Holy See, is the correct title to use in Wikipedia (just for a few weeks' duration) concerning United States Roman Catholic (arch)bishops? That seems to me just as much original research as the view that in internal matters of the Roman Catholic Church Wikipedia should follow the Holy See's usage, a usage found even on United States websites such as that of the Archdiocese of New York (reproduced on several other American sites), which states that Timothy J. Dolan "served as Archbishop of Milwaukee since he was named by Pope John Paul II", and the EWTN website, which says that "on April 4, 1996, he (Salvatore de Giorgi) became archbishop of Palermo" (April 4 being the date of his appointment).

On a by-the-way point, raised by you, not me, it is only "strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be done within a liturgical act in the cathedral church with the clergy and people gathered together" (canon 382 §4); furthermore, the new bishop of the diocese need not even be present: "A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event" (canon 382 §3). In essence, taking possession is not linked even with being in bishop's orders: otherwise there would be no need for the prohibition in canon 379 of taking possession of the office before receiving episcopal consecration. But that is just an aside. Esoglou (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not original research to point to the Title as provided by the ArchDen and ArchPhily; or other dicocese that use the phrase. All you've done is provide commentary on the CCL and cited an Itialian news source. So let's review the facts:

1. Both ArchDen and ArchPhily (and serveral other diocese) use the phrase Designate to describe a bishop who has not taken official possession of a diocese after his appointment.
2. Chaput has been clear that he has not taken official possession of Phily and that this will occur on Sept 8.
3. Chaput's press secretary, when introducing Chaput introduced him as "Archbishop of Philadelphia" and then made a deliberate correction to "Archbishop designate of philadelphia." You point out that she probably isn't a canon scholar, but failed to note that she made this correction in front of Chaput. If her correction were in err he probably would have corrected her, but instead it is probable that he coached her on the proper terminology---and he is an expert on Church heirarchy.
4. Numerous media outlets (both secular and religious) use the term designate.

Those are the facts and we can agree on those correct? No dispute so far?

Your contention is that despite it's use in the US and by the Church heirarchy in the US, that it is not appropriate to be used here. To this end, you cite an Italian news source and the Code of Cannon Law which does not use the phrase "Bishop Designate." You further argue that Wikipedia, should not use the language common the American Diocese/Church because The Church is Roman Catholic and should use the language used by Rome. Have I summarized your position correctly?

Within each diocese, the Bishop has a certain level of autonomy and responsibility. The Bishop, however, must adhere to his Archbishop. The Archbishop similarly reports to the US Conference of CAtholic Bishops, which then is subject to the Pope. But at each level, the administrator is free to act so long as not contradicted by a higher level. I know this is simplistic, but you can agree to that right?

Both Diocese to which the Archbishop are involved call him Archbishop designate, and this has not been overturned by the USCCB or the Pope. Again, I don't think you can argue against that.

So, hopefully we can agree that both the term is used and that the Archdiocese using the terms are doing so properly or at least a blind eye from Rome?

So the final question becomes can the US have particular adaptations and text taht are proper to the US but differ from Rome and/or other English speaking countries? (And note, I am not conceding the this isn't proper in other countries, but only arguing for it in the US.)

I think it is safe to say that language does differ and that even within US speaking countries there are variances not only in secular language but the language of the Church. To this end, review the new translation of the Mass. The New Translation (2011) of the Mass is not being written by Rome, but is being written by a committee which reports to the various Conferences of English Speaking countries. When the Conferences of the English speaking countries agreed to a translation, that version was then submitted to Rome for approval. AFTER that version is approved by Rome, "Particular adaptations and texts that are proper to the United States approved by the Congregation will be integrated into the final text."[17] The specific language used in the US version of the New Mass will have differences from the British, Canadian, Australian, etc versions. This is because of cultural and linguistic differences in those countries.

The Church thus, acknowledges and grants authority to each bishop, archbishop, and USCCB within their area. It also recognizes linguistical variations. Thus, your argument that we should use the language of Rome (Latin) and not the language used by ArchDen/ArchPhily, is IMHO, without merit. Designate is the specific language used by the Dioceses in question, has been used by the USCCB, and has not been contradicted by Rome. Thus, per WP's practice, when presented with linguistical differences, we should use the language specific to the subject.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You point out a general (not universal) United States practice (which I do not deny and have never denied) and claim that this practice is what Wikipedia (which is not exclusively American) should use for Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States in the interval between their transfer to another see and the day on which they take possession (personally or by proxy) of their new see. I point out a universal practice of the Holy See reflected even in United States translations of its documents, and claim that this official practice of the Holy See is what Wikipedia (which is not exclusively American) should use for Roman Catholic Bishops everywhere from the day of their transfer to another see.

The liturgical books used in English-speaking countries have approved "adaptations" (such as instructions when precisely to kneel) and "texts" (such as feasts celebrated in one country but not in others) – and even these variations have to be confirmed by Rome before being inserted in the books - but the liturgical books used in English-speaking countries have no differences whatever in language in the common texts apart from spelling. Your supposition that "the specific language used in the US version of the New Mass will have differences from the British, Canadian, Australian, etc versions" is unfounded.

My, this really is a long discussion. Esoglou (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

He might be installed before this is over ;-)

No, but seriously, this is probably my last comments:

It will take more than your opinion on the subject to convince me that the usage is wrong. So far, you have nor provided any source to contradict the usage or to substantiate your position. The only sources you've provided are 1) the Italian version of an interview you said was mistranslated into English and 2) the CCL. And the CCL is not comprehensive in all matters. Your contention is that since the phrase "designate" does not appear in the CCL, that it is wrong. If that were the case then the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and just about every diocese in the US would be wrong in using the phrase---an argument that I find absurd. Unless I see something that contradicts Chaput's preference (which I believe is clear from the usage in both ArchDen, ArchPhily, and from his press secretary) or something authoritative, you will be hard pressed to convince me that it should be removed.

Oh one side point of interest, I did find one source that was critical of the use of the term. In one of his letters, Edward Augustus Freeman wrote, "there is no such phrase as 'bishop designate' known to the law, tis a mere vulgarism of the newspapers." Of course, that was written 121 years ago in England.[18] So the phrase is neither new nor distinctly American.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it will also take more than your opinion on the subject to convince me that the Holy See's usage is wrong for Wikipedia and that the "vulgarism" or barbarism unknown outside the United States should be used instead. I did not say that Sandro Magister's article had been mistranslated, only that the account reported in our conversation was a misrepresentation: I gave you the link to the English translation of the article, and it does call Chaput the new Archbishop of Philadelphia, in the English version (done in the United States) as well as in Italian. I have already given some United States sources, official Catholic ones, that speak of someone being bishop of the see from the date of publication of the nomination. Other examples of United States bishops spoken of by United States sources as Bishop of X ("is Bishop of ...") on being given the post by the Pope and before they took charge of the see are Bishop Tyson of Yakima Archbishop Dolan of New York (statement by Bishop Clark of Rochester) Bishop Estevez of St. Augustine (I notice that this source uses "associate bishop" instead of Wikipedia's and the Holy See's "auxiliary bishop"; I would also be against introducing "associate bishop" into Wikipedia even for United States auxiliary bishops) Bishop Ricard of Steubenville Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix (statement by Archbishop Sheehan). Even in the case of Chaput, the Philly Post blog did not wait for the installation to use the headline "New Archbishop of Philadelphia. Nor did Fr James Farfaglia wait. Nor did Deacon Bob Yerhot. Esoglou (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one providing opinion, I'm providing the primary and secondary sources wherein the various diocese are referring to the incoming bishop as Bishop Designate. You accused me of using local media to support my position, but I'v been providing actual primary sources. Let's look at your latest group of entries:

1. Saint Paul Cathedral of Yakima has Tyson's title as "Bishop Designate of Yakima"! OR "who is wrapping up his duties this week as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Seattle, will be formally received into the diocese at a solemn celebration of Evening Prayer at 7:30 p.m. Monday, May 30th at St. Paul’s... Msgr. Jean-François Lantheaume, charge d’affaires for Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the pope’s representative to the United States, will present the official letter of appointment."[19] In other words, he was still the auxillary bishop of Seattle until he became Bishop of Yakima?
2. Dolan is now installed, but some media outlets did refer to him with the designate title Statin Islan Live [20] APNBC AP AgainABC A very interesting report from NBC, which reads, "A quick point of clarification. Timothy Dolan does not *officially* remove the "Designate" in front of his title of Archbishop until tomorrow, when the letter from the Pope is signed and notarized by the Chancellor of the Archdiocese ... But the College of Cardinals will not officially recognize him as such until tomorrow." News USA Today really a reprint of AP articl
3. Diocese of St Augustine calls Bishop designate Estevez what? Bishop Designate! Catholic News Today indicates that he will become the bishop. EWTN's FB page specifically for the their coverage of the installation of "bishop designate"
4. Bishop John H Richard --- it's almost impossible to find stuff about the transfer of this bishop 14 years ago.
5. Bishop Olmsted---yes, lets look at Bishop Sheehan's post, what does he say, he's happy to "announce today that Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted is the Bishop-Elect of Phoenix. He is presently the Bishop of Wichita". So Sheenah used the phrase "elect" instead of "designate", but Olmsted did not become Bishop of Phoenix until the cannonical act, which occurred a month later. Sheehan's statement is a perfect example as to why/how people get messed up, because after introducing Olmsted as "Bishop-elect" he then refers to him as "the new bishop." No he remained the Bishop of Wichita, but no longer served Wichita in that manner.

You accused me of using "local media" earlier, when I was pointing to both primary and secondary sources, and now you are using blogs to support your position about Chaput? Yes, you are going to have sources calling him "Archbishop of Phily." You may have "reliable sources" call him Archbishop of Philadelphia (Just like there were "reliable sources that called Dolan Archbishop of New York" but until the Chancellor records the event during the installation, it's not official. Hell, we had people calling Obama president the day after he was elected, we often refer to our senators/representatives by their title before they assume the position. But that does not make it correct, according to cannon law he does not become the Archbishop of Phily until he takes canonical posession. NOTE:I just noticed that the pbilyblog post you linked to had the subtitle of 'An announcement expected Tuesday to name a bishop from Denver to replace Rigali', so obviously, the author wasn't declaring that Chaput was NOW the AB of Phily despite the headlines!

Can. 418 §1. Upon certain notice of transfer, a bishop must claim the diocese to which he has been transferred (ad quam) and take canonical possession of it within two months. On the day that he takes possession of the new diocese, however, the diocese from which he has been transferred (a qua) is vacant. {Notice is does not say, "upon notification of the transfer diocese is vacant", but upon cannonical possession.)

§2. Upon certain notice of transfer until the canonical possession of the new diocese, a transferred bishop in the diocese from which he has been transferred:

1/ obtains the power of a diocesan administrator and is bound by the obligations of the same; all power of the vicar general and episcopal vicar ceases, without prejudice to {Their role is limited after the announcement to prevent outgoing Bishops from stacking the deck or making changes that would obligate future bishops.}

Can 382 §3. A bishop takes canonical possession of a diocese when he personally or through a proxy has shown the apostolic letter in the same diocese to the college of consultors in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who records the event.

The recording of the event is part of the installation. I've already provided a NCR article where it explicitly states that he becomes Archbishop in September. I've already shown several quotes from Chaput where he says that it becomes official in September. According to the 418, Chaput would remain the titular holder of Denver (?) until "the day he takes posession of the new diocese." This is consistent with Sheehan's statement on Olmsted you quoted. it would also be consistent with the treatment of Bishop designate Estevez in St Augustine you appealed to. Here's an official pronouncement from the Diocese of Joliet, The Pope "has named Most Reverend R. Daniel Conlon, currently Bishop in the Diocese of Steubenville, Ohio ... After his installation, Bishop-designate Conlon will be the fifth Bishop for the Diocese of Joliet " But it is not my opinion, I've provided numerous PRIMARY and SECONDARY sources showing that the title of "Archbishop Designate" is standard in the US---with one (the press secretary) going out of her way to correct herself. This is not opinion; it is fact.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody denies that there are many United States sources that use terms such as "Bishop Designate" and "Bishop Elect" with regard to people who are already bishops. That is proven and accepted. There is no need to add yet more evidence. I have pointed out that there are also United States sources that call a bishop the bishop of the diocese to which the Pope has appointed him, even before the bishop has actually taken possession of his diocese. That is proven. Is it accepted? Do you accept it? I'm not providing opinion, I have provided concrete United States sources wherein United States bishops and dioceses refer to newly appointed United States bishops as bishops (not bishops designate) of their dioceses before they take possession of their dioceses – their dioceses. The ceremony of taking possession consists precisely in the presentation of the letter of appointment, which you tell me Monsignor Lantheaume will do in Yakima for its new bishop. Without the letter of appointment (which, by the way, is hand-written on parchment, not paper, and is individually composed in Latin, not a form letter differing from others only in names filled in) there can be no taking possession.

When the Pope transferred Chaput from Denver to Philadelphia, Chaput ceased to be Archbishop of Denver. (There is now no Archbishop of Denver, but in canon law the see is not vacant – a situation that would trigger the process indicated in canon 419 – because, ever since the transfer of the Archbishop to ..., it is in the care of the diocesan administrator of Denver, who is now Archbishop of ...) When Chaput will take possession of the see "to which he has been transferred" (canon 418, which you have quoted) – not to which he will be transferred – what will be recorded is the event of taking possession of the see by presenting the letter of his appointment, not any supposed beginning to be once again an Archbishop of somewhere. It has been far more than sufficiently shown that many United States sources speak instead of such events not as taking possession of one's see, which is the official term, but as becoming bishop of the see, which is certainly an unofficial term, even if common in the United States. The canon you have quoted shows what is the official term. And I have shown that not only is it the official term, it is a term used by some United States sources (including dioceses and bishops). That is proven. Is it accepted? Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we are slowly reaching some accord, althought I'm not 100% on the specific "spiritual" chronology. But until the official cerimony, Chaput does not posess any more cannonical powers or privledges in Philadelphia than he would as a visiting Archbishop. Those rights and responsibilities are granted to Rigali and are limited. Similarly, Chaput in Denver's rights and powers are limited.

There is undoubtably a difference between the rights and priviledges of Bishops in the new diocese until their official installation. In fact, unless the new bishop is serving as Administrative or Diocesean Administrator of the new diocese, Cannon Law basically orders the Bishop to return to their old diocese/job until they canonically take possession. From looking around, other English speaking countries seem to use the phrase "Bishop-elect" (even when its a bishop who is transferred) The installation of a Bishop (even if they are already a bishop) is supposed to be a big deal and I susepect that as we get closer to Sept 8, more and more sources will use the Archbishop Designate title. This is especially true if Chaput's press secretary continues to introduce him as "Archbishop Designate". The English language is such and abused as such that people will often call people by their new title even when the title has not officially occurred. I disagree with the notion that he "is" archbishop "of" phily; Chaput has repeatedly asserted that it is not official until Sept 8th. But that many sources will call him that even if he hasn't been installed---which why I'm not overly worried about the use of Archbishop in the article. There we have mention of his appointment and official installation. I just think in the info box, we should follow the precident established by ArchDen, ArchPhila, numerous other US Diocese, etc. If you can live with "Archbishop designate of Philadelphia" in the info box, I can live with Archbishop of Phily in the text (with a few minor tweaks). You will notice that ArchDen and the Denver Catholic Register (an official newspaper of the Archdiocese) use the phrase archbishop designate exclusively now (and as the official paper in which Chaput has traditionally had a strong hand, I don't think they'd use a title without his approval.) And so far, despite the length of this debate, we haven't had any edit warring over language ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that, while our views on correct terminology may differ, we agree on the concrete realities. Until Archbishop Chaput takes canonical possession of the see of Philadelphia, he has no power whatever in that archdiocese. The Code for the Eastern Catholic Churches, of which there is no good published English translation (the unofficial English translation available on the Internet is quite inaccurate) says that before enthronement "a bishop is not to interfere in the governance of the eparchy (diocese) neither personally nor by proxy nor on any title whatever" (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 189 §3). This rule is not given explicitly in the Code for the Latin Catholic Church, but it holds there also. While Chaput is already offically Archbishop of Philadelphia and holds that title, he has as yet no say in the running of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. As a result it is quite natural that, until he does take over, many will see him as not yet Archbishop of Philadelphia, meaning that he is not yet the person actually governing the archdiocese. Many must have thought of John Magee in the same way when he still held the title of Bishop of Cloyne but no longer governed the diocese, the governance of the see being in the hands (as it still is) of the Archbishop of Cashel. Those people must have thought of him as no longer (practically speaking) Bishop of Cloyne. (When Magee later resigned as Bishop of Cloyne, the see continued to be governed by the Archbishop of Cashel and so did not become vacant in the sense given to this term in the Code of Canon Law, although it is vacant in the sense of being at present without a bishop of its own, a bishop with the title "Bishop of Cloyne".)

Unfortunately, we two still disagree about the info box. I am convinced that Wikipedia should give Chaput's official canonical title, not a non-canonical title no matter how commonly used. Can we perhaps agree on "Archbishop of Philadelphia (awaiting installation)", his correct title plus an item of information? Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching you two for awhile, and I'm finally ready to enter the fray, after some hesitation. My alternative to your suggestion of "Archbishop of Philadelphia (awaiting installation)", is "Archbishop(-designate) of Philadelphia". Do either of you like it? Or maybe you can at least agree in disliking it :P carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I could go along with Archbishop (designate) or ArchBishop Elect (as other non-US English speaking countries) do. I think the language the Church in the US has adopted is to use the "designate" to indicate "awaiting installation." That we should use the language used by the two diocese in question and to US Conference of Catholic Bishops. We have reliable primary sources affirming that usage. "Awaiting installation" in the title would be a true senergism.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Carl, thanks for intervening. No, I'm sorry, but the only title for Chaput valid in canon law is Archbishop of Philadelphia, just as Bishop of Cloyne was the only valid canonical title for Magee when, without resigning the bishopric of Cloyne, he let someone else do the governing. Magee was still Bishop of Cloyne, though no longer governing the see; and Chaput is already Archbishop of Philadelphia, though not yet governing the see. Calling Chaput Archbishop designate (even with "designate" in parenthesis) suggests that he is not yet Archbishop. He is Archbishop. "Archbishop Elect" is even more out: "(Arch)Bishop Elect" is the term for someone who has not yet received episcopal consecration. Being in bishop's orders, Chaput can no longer in any country ever be called (Arch)Bishop Elect. I'll see tomorrow if there is any progress.

I see that Balloonman has hidden ZENIT's "new Archbishop of Philadelphia", that I naughtily drew attention to. Well, I did tell him to edit at will, and I agree that, as long as this disagreement lasts, it is better to hide it.

It is a pity that Balloonman could not accept "Archbishop of Philadelphia (awaiting installation)". Esoglou (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I didn't HIDE anything. I didn't think it was appropraite to say that he was speaking as the Archbishop of Philadelphia while the discussion is ongoing.

Second, I just relistened to Chaput's Denver press conference. And this is what I think should actually go in there. At the 3:30 mark of his press conference, Chaput explicitly states, "In the meantime, [between the annoucement and Sept 8] I am the Diocesan Administor for the Archdioces of Denver and the Archbishop Elect of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia."[21] Designate or Elect are both fine by me; designate seems to be more common in the US and is what ArchDen and ArchPhila use.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman that "Archbishop of Philadelphia (awaiting installation)" is a "true senergism" [sic]; I myself would call it clunky and a novel term. So for my part, I will exit the conversation and remain sufficiently happy with the status quo. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On Balloonman's first point: I agree and have already said that, while the discussion is ongoing, it is inappropriate to put in the article what ZENIT called Chaput and that Balloonman was right to remove it. I am sorry that he found my use of "hide" rather than "remove" offensive, and so I apologize for using that word.

His second point shows that Chaput was not using precise technical language. In the proper sense, "bishop elect" is used of someone who has not yet received episcopal consecration. The Code of Canon Law, which has to employ precise technical language, uses "elect" in this way in canon 1014. Surely an encyclopedia should use precise technical language rather than a loose expression.

On "Archbishop of Philadelphia (awaiting installation)" as a synergism: It is not "a term", as Carl called it. It is a term + an item of information, and I suppose it can thus be called a synergism. I would prefer if Carl did not "exit the conversation", but stayed to help.

A question for Balloonman: Wasn't Magee still Bishop of Cloyne when he ceased to govern the diocese? So you don't have to be actually governing a see to be, in precise technical language, its (Arch)Bishop. Only over a year later, without any change in his governing or not governing the diocese, did Magee, in precise technical language, the language an encyclopedia should use, cease to be Bishop of Cloyne.

Another question for Balloonman: Have you no comment to make on the fact that even United States reliable sources (bishops and dioceses) do sometimes use the precise technical terminology rather than (or as well as) loose expressions? Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I emailed AB Chaput about this last night. He forwarded the email to a "member of his staff" who will respond (he doesn't want more mistakes on WP than necessary) and that the staffer is somebody who will be able to answer the questions correctly.

As for Magee---I'm not familiar with him, I'd have to look him up.

By precise technical langauage, are you talking about "Bishop elect" as compared to "Bishop designate? If so, then I've already agreed that we could use either term. If you are saying "Archbishop of" instead of "Bishop Elect/designate" then I think the former, not the later is the is the imprecise term. There is a reason why whenever you look at a Bishop's page they show the appointment date as well as the installation date... there is a distinction there as to role and title. And I believe the title includes the "elect/Designate". (I suspect that we use the "designate" in the US, because we "elect" our politicians. The phrase "something-elect" means something different here in the US, so I suspect the US Bishops chose to go with dynamic equivalence rather than formal equivalence in translating the term. Dynamic equivalence meaning to pick a word that means the same thing as the original language, while formal equivalence is to use the specific word even if the meaning isn't the same---but that is speculation.)

Hopefully, I hear back from the ArchBishop's aid and once he does I'll share what I can insofar as he allows. (Or if he responds here directly, I'll confirm that it is the person Chaput referenced in his email.) Either he will agree with you, in which case I'll back down and won't even have to say a word except "you're right" ;-). He'll agree with me, in which case you'd have to decide if you trust my private correspondence. Or he'll agree/disagree with both of us ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On Magee see the Wikipedia article already linked above: John Magee (bishop). It is enough for you to read the last section, John Magee (bishop)#Clerical child sex abuse inquiry. By precise technical language, I mean "Bishop of Cloyne", "Archbishop of Philadelphia", the expressions used in official Church documents of the highest order (I mean documents like the Code of Canon Law, not mere press statements and the like), not loose expressions like "Bishop designate of ...", "Bishop withdrawn of ..." (or whatever other title you would impose on Magee in the period when he had given up governance of his diocese but had not yet resigned from the diocese), and of course not "Bishop elect", which does have a precise technical meaning, one that cannot be made to fit anyone who has already been ordained a bishop. Magee's situation was only one example of the kind of situation in which you have bishops who have taken canonical possession of their dioceses but later are not actually governing their dioceses, often through no fault of his own. The Code of Canon Law has a section dealing with that kind of situation. Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mcgee is a completely different story. He was Bishop until his resignation was accepted; it was possible that the Pope could have come back and said, "No, I don't think so." McGee turned in his resignation and then stepped aside. So the section of CCL you cited would apply there. But it wouldn't apply with Chaput/Rigali. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Rigali resigned, but his resignation was just accepted. Chaput was appointed. The next section would thus apply, [The Vacant See http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1H.HTM]. This section gives to points that I think dispute your notion. First, the title of the section is 'the vacant see.' The see is vacant due to death or resignation accepted by the Roman Pontiff, transfer, or privation made known to the bishop So, upon the acceptance of Rigali's resignation, it was vacant. Section 418 deals with what happens to the new bishop---and nothing there says that he immediately assumes the new title. In fact, it says that his old see does not become vacant until he takes canonical posession of the new. That to me implies that he remains the titular holder of his old diocese until he assumes the new role (within 2 months of notice.) If he became the titular holder of the new diocese upon the announcement of the transfer, you would think that the old diocese would become vacant at that point and the new one would not be vacant. But the new one is the one that is discussed as being vacant as far as Apostolic Administrators are concerned later on in the sections 419-422. Heck, it even states that the renumeration is to be in accord with that of a Diocesan Adminstrator, not the new role or even his old role (although I suspect that there is no pay cut for those 2 months.)

But I'm with Carl, we have primary and secondary sources (including Chaput's own words) explicitly stating that designate or elect is correct. I can live with either term, although I think in the US Designate is more proper. We ain't edit warring over this. Let's just leave it until I get a response probably next week. If you are correct, I'll let you know. If you are wrong, we'll go from there.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think far too much ink has been spilled over this issue. But this is on my watchlist and if something happens that moves me, I'll jump back in. I just feel as though this has been going in circles. In addition to ABC's aide, I can ask one of my deacon friends if you two like. He is the most knowledgeable guy in the seminary about these sorts of formal titles and whatnot. I believe he has a book on ecclesiastical titles, heraldry, etc which might address the issue.

My stance right now is that even if AB-designate is imprecise, it is the most commonly used term in RSs, and should be preferred on that basis. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish Balloonman would answer the questions I put. 1. Is it not a fact that some of what he calls reliable sources, United States ones, use the terminology that accords with the highest-level official Church documents instead of or as well as the expressions that he prefers, so that there is no justification for presenting one of these inexact terms, even though in common use at that level, as the title to use in Wikipedia? 2. Does not the Code of Canon Law show clearly that one can be bishop of a diocese without ruling it? (The Magee case is only an example. Magee, who after being ordained Bishop of Cloyne (not Bishop of Nowhere) by Pope John Paul II in Rome on 17 March 1987, afterwards travelled to Ireland and took charge of his diocese. On 7 March 2009 he relinquished charge of his diocese, but remained its bishop. Only on 9 March 2010 did he offer his resignation from the post of Bishop of Cloyne and the Pope's acceptance of his resignation, which was what made it effective, was published on 24 March 2010, on which date, and not before, Magee ceased to be what he had been since 17 March 1987: Bishop of Cloyne. He did not "turn in his resignation and then stepped aside". He stepped aside from the running of the diocese without resigning his position, and only a year later turned in his resignation.)

Chaput "has been transferred" and Rigali's resignation has been accepted by the Roman Pontiff, but when this was done each of the two archdioceses was immediately governed by a diocesan administrator, so that canon 419 didn't apply. When Chaput takes canonical possession of Philadelphia, Philadelphia obviously will not require actuation of canon 419, but Denver will. It should be obvious that being Archbishop of one see is no obstacle to being administrator of another, like Clifford in Cloyne, like Rigali in Scranton recently and in Philadelphia now, and (let me add) like Chaput in Denver now! :) Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, this is Wikipedia, we don't have to have it at the highest level because we ain't all canon lawyers. But we do have plenty of primary and secondary sources supporting the use of Bishop Designate. I trust the Diocese, the Archbishop, and the USCCB to be primary sources with knowledge on the proper terminology. I do not expect the CCL to be comprehensive on every term used in every placea.

We agree, McGee put the diocese under the control of a Diocesan Administrator (CCL 414) in his absences, that is covered under the section of "the Impeded See." He stepped aside because he had lost moral authority and because of questions about his leadership while waiting for the Pope to accept his recommendation. Note: the person who serves the Impeded See is a Diocesan Admnistrator per CCL.

We are not talking about an Impeded See, we are talking about a Vacant See. Where the steps and process are discussed in detail.

1. (CCL 416) Pope accepts resignation/notifies bishops of transfer, at that moment, the Archbishop is no longer ArchBishop. The new Seat is Vacant.
2. (CCL418.1) Incoming ArchBishop has 2 months to take cannonical possession of now Vacant See---section 418 deals with the incoming AB and his relationship to his old and new dioceses. A ArchBishop does NOT automatically become the Diocesan Administrator of his old sea until the new AB takes possession. While this is often the case, it does not happen automatically. Rigali is NOT the Diocesan Administrator of Philadelphia; he is the Apostolic Administrator, because the Pope appointed him to fill that role until the transfer occurs. This was done in accord with 419 because the See if Vacant as defined in 416.
3. (CCL 418.2) Between time of notice and time of possession, the incoming AB goes back to original diocese and continues his old job but with the title of Diocesan Administrator. Why the new title? Because the church does not want to old bishop to do anything that would tie the hands of the diocese. The Diocesan Administrator cannot buy or sell property, ordain new priest, sign long term contracts, etc.
4. The CCL (419-421) then discusses what should be done at the vacant see which is the new See.
5. The CCL explicitly states that the old see does not become vacant UNTIL the transferred bishop takes canonical possession of the new. If your premise were right, the CCL should state that the new see is placed under apostolic administration until the new bishop takes possession AND that the transferring bishop returns to his old see which is now vacant to serve as Diocesan Admnistrator until he officially assumes control of the new diocese. But that is not what the CCL says. The CCL explicitly states that new diocese is the one that is vacant and that the old diocese does not become vacant until the act of the AB taking posession of the new.
6. Rigali is not a diocesan Administrator, but The pope has appointed Rigali as Apostolic Administrator with all of the responsibilities of archbishop until the Chaput's installation.[22][23] And according to ArchPhily, The Holy Father has appointed Cardinal Rigali to serve as Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese until the Installation of Archbishop Chaput. Cardinal Rigali announced that as Apostolic Administrator he will serve with all the responsibilities of Archbishop.[24] Again, note Rigali was appointed Apostolic Admnistrator by the Pope, this is done in accord with 419. Chaput's becoming Diocesan Administrator of Denver occurred automatically per 418. This is because (as I read it) Phily is considered vacant, while Denver's See is not vacant until Chaput takes possession on Sept 8.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have answered my first question. Perhaps it's best to repeat some of the links I gave. The Archdiocese of New York states that Timothy J. Dolan "served as Archbishop of Milwaukee since he was named by Pope John Paul II" (not "since he took possession of his office"). Bishop Clark of Rochester spoke of Archbishop Dolan as Archbishop of New York before Dolan took possession of New York Archdiocese. Archbishop Sheehan spoke of Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix in the same way. EWTN says that "on April 4, 1996, he (Salvatore de Giorgi) became archbishop of Palermo" (April 4 being the date of his appointment, not the date of taking possession) and, as you know well, the ZENIT Catholic news agency already calls Chaput Archbishop of Philadelphia, as did the well-known "Vaticanist" Sandro Magister as translated by an American; and the USCCB calls him "newly appointed as archbishop of Philadelphia", even if, you tell me, it also calls him archbishop designate/elect/whatever of Philadelphia. Newspapers: the Yakima Herald described Bishop Tyson as Bishop of Yakima before he took charge of the see; the Orlando Sentinel did the same for Bishop Ricard of Steubenville. Even apart from sources that reflect usage in other countries, there are reliable United States sources that do use the expression "Archbishop of the see" when speaking of an Archbishop who has not yet taken possession. So there seems to be no reason for claiming that "Archbishop Designate" and no other is the correct form to use on Wikipedia.

On my second question, perhaps – but it is unfortunately unclear – you have accepted that the Magee case and the Impeded See section of the Code of Canon Law do show that one can be bishop of a see without governing the see. The Magee situation was not a case of impeded see with the bishop of the see "not able to communicate with those in his diocese even by letter". As you rightly point out, in cases of impeded see, it is a diocesan administrator who takes over; in the Cloyne case an apostolic administrator took over. Unfortunately, you begin by saying "We agree, McGee put the diocese under the control of a Diocesan Administrator". It was not in Magee's powers to appoint even a diocesan administrator, and even in the case of an impeded see a person holds that position by virtue of canon 413, not through being appointed by the impeded bishop (except in the sense that, in the absence of a coadjutor bishop, the diocesan administrator is whoever happens to hold top place in the list that the bishop should draw up soon after taking possession of the diocese). And as the title "apostolic administrator" itself indicates, Archbishop Clifford was appointed not by the Bishop of Cloyne (he doesn't even belong to the Diocese of Cloyne) but by the Pope. As Apostolic Administrator of Cloyne, Clifford was and is in the same position as Rigali was when Apostolic Administrator of Scranton. Esoglou (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RE Dolan--- You've FINALLY provided a first person source that makes your argument!

RE Sheehan and Olmsted... look at how Sheehan first addresses Olmsted, "Bishop Elect." From that point forward, he call him the new bishop, but the first usage is as bishop elect. But all that does, is it support the notion that they are Bishop; but not that the are bishop in a limited capacity where elect/designate would be appropriate. In fact, the entries on every bishop that I've ever looked at indicates both a notification date and and installment date. So, the question, I have is why? What is a bishop/archbishop called between the date they are notified and the date they are installed?

Various secondary sources calling somebody the Archbishop of a place---as you yourself tried to argue, those are all media outlets and use language imprecisely. We have news sources that call elected officials by their title the day after a vote, even though they do not official take their position/seat until. Hell, knowledgable people might do so; that doesn't make it so... I've provided several reliable primary and secondary sources that have explicitly statated that designate/elect is the proper suffix to define a bishop during this period of transition. Several of which are from the ArchBishop himself.

Mcgee is still a separate issue entirely.

Finally, I'm gonna wait until I hear back from the aid, this debate is getting tiresome. Right now, we have a sourced term---with multiple primary and secondary sources explicitly indicating that it is the correct term to use. Nothing that you have provided negates that fact. So, I'll wait until the AB's aid responds. I don't know if the aid will respond with "X is right" or cite specifics, but if the aid says you are right, I'll concede. If he doesn't then I'll stand by what we have explicitly cited/sourced, that designate/elect is the proper way to differentiate a bishop/archbishop between the time of notice to the time of possession.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear you still refuse to answer my two questions.

The sources I have repeated were all given earlier, so why did you say that I had "FINALLY" produced something? I have not claimed that none of these sources contain loose expressions. I have said that the exact technical expression does appear in every single one of them. And that there are therefore no grounds for saying that one of the loose expressions and no other expression must be used in Wikipedia even for United States bishops only. It wasn't just "media outlets that use language imprecisely" that I cited: I quoted the Archdiocese of New York, an archbishop, and a bishop. Sort of reminds me of the kind of sources that you have cited for the loose expression(s).

Magee is, you say, a separate issue entirely. But it is an issue that shows that one can be bishop of a diocese without governing it, is it not? And the section of the Code of Canon Law that deals with who is to govern a diocese when the bishop of a diocese is unable to govern it himself also shows that one can be bishop of a diocese without governing it, does it not? Esoglou (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And the answer I've given previously, is that I am not opposed to the notion that Chaput might in fact be the Archbishop of Philadelphia in some theological sense. I am not convinced of it, but I am not opposed to that possibility. Yet, the fact remains that with one exception that you cited (a 15 year old example where online sources are limited) the term designate or elect was used (usually by primary sources) to distinguish that time period between appointment and installation. My premise does not exclude that possibility and thus McGee's status is of absolutely no bearing. My premise is that we have primary and secondary sources that have EXPLICITLY stated that until the bishops installation that designate/elect are the proper terms. One of those sources dealt with Dolan, and explicitly stated that it he was officially designate until "the letter from the Pope is signed and notarized".News Again, my premise has NEVER been that they are exclusive, but that when we have sources saying "the proper term" or "more accurately" or "my title is" and those proper/more accurate terme and title include the designate/elect, then those statements have to be taken with credence. Those statements are made in explicit contrast to off the cuff comments... statements to which we have proper documentation from primary and secondary sources that explicitly state what is correct.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that, after this very long discussion, we can both agree that a Roman Catholic bishop can be Bishop of the Diocese of X without actually governing the Diocese of X, and that the correct way of referring to him before he takes possession of his diocese is not necessarily "Bishop Designate of the Diocese of X". Is this your assessment also, and can we say we have reached a conclusion?

The Fox News link you give is unfortunately dead. I would have loved to see how it pictured the papal bull ("the letter from the Pope"), which is signed by the Pope before being sent from Rome and which is not in fact signed by anyone else afterward, being "signed (by whom?) and notarized". Canon law requires notarization (by the chancellor of the diocesan curia, not by a notary) of the 'presentation of the bull to the college of consultors, not notarization of the bull itself. Esoglou (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another link to the article, where it says A quick point of clarification. Timothy Dolan does not *officially* remove the "Designate" in front of his title of Archbishop until tomorrow, when the letter from the Pope is signed and notarized by the Chancellor of the Archdiocese. Make no mistake, that letter is here now; and everyone here (including priests) now refer to Archbishop Dolan as Archbishop Dolan. (What else would we call him, he was Archbishop in Milwaukee) But the College of Cardinals will not officially recognize him as such until tomorrow.

I am still not sold on the FACT that he is Archbishop OF Phily; I've always said that is a possibility. Whether or not he is, has little affect on whether or not the proper title should include designate during this period of transition (before he has taken canonical control). The bearing that it does play is that if we use Archbishop OF Phily and he isn't technically AB of Phily, then we are wrong. If we use it and he is, and the sources are correct that it is proper, then we have used the title properly. But let's look at worse case scenario, EVEN IF YOU ARE 100% correct and the American use of the term is categorically wrong, then we are still supported by primary and secondary sources.

What I point to are the uncontested facts that 1) ArchDen lists his title as ArchBishop-Designate of Phily, 2) ArchPhily list his title as ArchBishop Designate of Phily, 3) his press secretary in his presence introduced him "properly" as the ArchBishop Designate, 4) He explicitly said that his title was Archbishop Elect and Diocesan Administrator (and has repeatedly said things to the effect that his becoming AB of Phily doesn't "become official" until Sept 8, 5) That we have primary and secondary sources that agree that until his installation the use of designate is correct. 6) I'm willing to concede that "designate" might be an Americanism; I believe it is still the proper form to use as the US Council of Catholic Bishops and the various diocese use it; but I am willing to go along with Elect which appears to be more common in other countries. So basically we are down to the old addage on Wikipedia, which I never thought I'd write, but this debate has gone on long enough, "Verifiability not truth." I have shown numerous primary and secondary sources that verify that the proper usage is the inclusion of designate/elect. Again, if the email I get from ABC's aid says that I'm wrong, I'll accept his stance. But until then, this discussion is getting us nowhere. We have the primary and secondary sources that explicitly say "ArchBishop designate" is correct---sources that aren't just using the phrase, but do so in an explicit manner. The only source that we've seen that says it is wrong, is from a letter complaining about improper English in 1890 England (and thus is more probable related to the Church of England!)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the existence of reliable sources, even from the United States, that use the title "Archbishop of", I don't see how you can maintain that "Archbishop Designate of" is "the proper usage". The principle of "verifiability not truth" is not being respected. If only you said "a proper usage", there would be no problem: the strictly-speaking inexact expression will in any case disappear from the Wikipedia article on Chaput in a few weeks. And the unverified claim that you are making would not be established as a principle. Can you accept that use of "Archbishop Delegate" is not obligatory or at least that its obligatory character has not been proved? If you can, I am satisfied. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, I grow tired of this discussion (and I'm sure you have too 70KB of back and forth). Whether you are right or wrong about the timing of when AB Chaput becomes AB of Philadelphia is irrelevant to whether or not the use of Designate/Elect is more accurate. You have yet to provide any source showing that the Archbishop/diocese/etc are wrong to use it, but I have provided sources (primary, secondary, and Chaput's own words) which have gone out of their way to state that designate/elect is more proper than the absence of the modifier. I'm not going to waste more time going in circles on this. Like I said, I contacted the AB's office and asked for an answer and referenced this discussion. The person who Chaput referred me to has indicate lat week that he would try to respond on Monday or Tuesday. So let's wait a day or two, see what he says.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a pity. I thought we could conclude the discussion with some sort of accord: that, without abandoning our convictions about what is the correct expression, we could reach a common agreement that what we consider objectively wrong may nonetheless be put in Wikipedia. I am not insisting that what is in the article be changed, and so I am accepting that it is wiki-permissible to use here the "Archbishop Delegate of" expression that seems to have no basis in canon law. (Wikipedia articles are not authorities on canon law.) I hoped that, in view of the reliable United States sources that use the expression "Archbishop of", you would likewise accept that the "Archbishop of" expression is wiki-permissible, content with having your preferred expression in the text here for the few weeks that it makes any difference. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard from them yet, but I'm not going to rush it... I'll wait a few days before following up. I may also be a little less active as a family emergency is making it harder to get online. But, if you are fine with the use of designate/elect in the info box, I'm fine with the article as it now stands. I have no problem with phrases like "new archbishop of" or "appointed archbishop of"---those seem to be widely used. I'm not sold that they are correct, but I think Sheehan's example with Olmsted is fine. Mention of the elect/designate is fine, then move on.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish you had stated acceptance that Wikipedia may use (not must use) the expression "Bishop of" a see before formal possession of the see is taken. As things stand, I will have to withdraw acceptance that Wikipedia may use the non-canonical expression "Bishop Designate of" a see. As if by the rite of episcopal consecration one priest is ordained Bishop of Titularsee, but it is impossible (outside the see to which he is appointed) to ordain another priest Bishop of Residentialsee, and he can only be ordained "Bishop Designate" of Residentialsee! But let us give it a rest. Prayerful best wishes with regard to your family emergency. Esoglou (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to hear anything from the AB's office. Based on the communications that I got, I do expect them to respond, but I also expect them to be incredibly busy, so I'm not rushing it. I will contact them again on Monday if I don't hear back before then, but wanted to let you know that I'm still waiting.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Still haven't heard back yet... I want to know the correct answer, but if we ain't edit warring over the info box/wording, I'm not going to press it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you get no answer, how about making peace on the terms I proposed: that each of us, while holding to our opposed convictions about the correct expression, accept that the other expression may be used in the imperfect world of Wikipedia, which is all that really concerns us here? At present I do not accept that, even in Wikipedia, it is permissible to say that someone cannot possibly be the bishop of a see until he takes over its administration, and presumably that he ceases to be its bishop when he is no longer administering it - the falsehood of which is demonstrated both by the Code of Canon Law and by concrete cases such as that of Magee. Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if we've reached an uneasy truce. MaGee is an entirely different story entirely (apples and oranges) and your read of the CCL differs from my read. IMO, you're reading the wrong section as the section that I'm reading specifically says that the old see only becomes vacant upon his being instilled instilled in the new see. About a week ago, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops had an article written by Archbishop Chaput, the prefix to the article states, "Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver (soon to move to Philadelphia) will be a bishop catechist in Madrid."[25] An explicit statement related to his current status from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Still, I have no problem with the current wording, so long as the info box indicates "elect" or "designate".---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no truce, unless by that you mean that I have never even begun an edit war with you, in spite of your putting your view into the article. I disagree strongly that "Archbishop Designate" or "Archbishop Elect" is a correct term for someone who is already an archbishop. (Is it perhaps because of being unable to admit that a mistake was/is being made that the priest whom you consulted keeps silence?) No amount of point-avoiding talk about apples and oranges can cover up the clear fact that one can be bishop of a diocese while not actually governing it, as shown by concrete cases such as that of Magee (do you want other concrete cases also?) and the Code of Canon Law. You have so far avoided saying whether you do or do not accept that clear fact with respect at least to the situation that follows the bishop's initial taking possession. Your claim that a man becomes bishop of his see only when he begins to govern it has no basis in the Catholic Church's law or liturgy. According to the Church and in spite of what people may loosely say, Chaput, now that the Pope has transferred him to another see, is no longer Archbishop of Denver and is only acting with the power of a diocesan administrator of that see, and he is Archbishop of Philadelphia, though still awaiting the day when he takes charge of his new see, the see to which he has been transferred, even if for some reason he should happen to be unable to take possession of it either personally or by proxy within the canonical time limit for him to carry out that duty. Will you at least admit, even while maintaining your preference for what I consider the incorrect expression, that it is legitimate to refer (as some people actually do) to an ordained bishop as bishop of his see before he takes possession of it? Then there would be a truce. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Spoke with the ArchDen Official

Well, after the near personal attack and assumption of bad faith from Esouglou above, I decided to shoot an email to the contact that ArchBishop Chaput referred me. (He is not a priest, but is a leader in the church.) The contact was travelling so he called me directly and we talked for about 20 or 30 minutes. He asked that I not identify him by name, but I can say that he was referred to me by ArchBishop Chaput and he is a licensed canon lawyer.

That being said, this would still be “Original Research” as I can’t provide specific sources; the question becomes does my 5 year reputation on WP warrant indicate a person who would obfuscate the facts or to be true to the facts even if they differed from what I believe? Have I ever appealled to personal knowledge or private correspondence before? No.

So here is what the ArchDen Official told me:

1. Technically, Chaput is still the Archbishop of Denver. He will remain the Archbishop of Denver until the tranferrance occurs on September 8, 2011. While he is technically the AB of Denver, he is now called the Diocesan Administrator because his authority in Denver is now limited per Canon Law 418.
2. Rigali is not the ArchBishop of Philadelphia. His resignation was accepted by the Pope and that takes effect immediately. He has been appointed as the Apostolic Administrator of Philadelphia until Chaput takes over.
3. Chaput becomes the AB of Phily only when the letter is read and recorded. Until that point in time he is not the AB of Phily.
4. The contact then told me that the issue is often convoluted because people will speak of Chaput as the AB of Phily, when in fact he is not. He said that this could include Chaput himself or other people who are speaking from positions of authority, but that according to Cannon Law this is not the case.
5. He used a specific example of an Italian Newspaper (Chissa or something like that) which “incorrectly” reported that Chaput was now the ArchBishop of Philadelphia. He specifically identified that Italian Newspaper because apparently the incorrect information garnered some traction (I got the impression that he was dealing with the fall out of that incorrect report.)
6. When I asked about Designate/Elect, he said that both terms are used by “Long Standing Custom” in the United States and “elsewhere.” I asked about the terms not being used in the CCL, and he said that “Father” wasn’t used in the CCL either. He indicated that this is “long standing custom” and practice of the Catholic Church.
7. He said that Designate is used when dealing with a Bishop/Archbishop who is making a lateral transfer from one location to another; while elect is used when dealing with a person who has not been consecrated Bishop/Archbishop. (I was unsure if elect/designate should be used when moving from bishop to archbishop.)
8. I asked him if there were any sources or anything related to the terms, and he said that (if he remembers correctly) the USCCB published a media guide a while back, but indicated that it would not cite anything specific. But that designate/elect are "long standing traditions" and reiterated that Chaput is NOT the Archbishop of Philadelphia.
9. I asked him about MaGee, and he said that the Magee case has absolutely no bearing on this. “We’re not dealing with an impeded see,” he said. This is a completely different issue, this is about transferrance of title/roles, not about a see being impeded. The applicable section for transferance and to ArchBishop Chaput's status is the one dealing with the Vacant See, not the preceeding section dealing with the Impeded See.

In other words, he endorsed my read completely. At one point in the conversation, I mentioned how the person I was debating "appeared to be more knowledgable on Catholic Law than I", he responded with "not on this subject." I also asked him if he might be mistaken, and he said, emphatically "No."

So this is not a case my "misinterpretting" or misreading materials, this is talking to a legal source at the ArchDen whom ArchBishop Chaput referred me. The only real question is, now that I've confirmed that I am reading the correct section properly, is do you accept the fact that I spoke with whom I claim and that he is knowledgable on the subject? Is it OR? Technically yes, I wouldn't use the conversation as a citation in an article. But I call it overkill as it simply affirms what substantial primary and secondary sources explicitly state. You're primary source is a misapplication of Cannon Law relative to an Impeded See and an implication that you are correct. But I've shown in the CCL that the correct section, and provided primary and secondary source. I'm sorry, but before I suspected you were wrong, but was open to the possibility that Chaput MIGHT be technically AB of P, but now I know your interpretation is wrong!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for giving the impression of making "a near personal attack" on you. You probably don't know how lightheartedly I have been discussing the whole matter. You should take it that anything I wrote, I wrote with a smile. The same holds for what I am now writing. I will not cast doubts on the accuracy of the information given you by the canon lawyer you spoke with. At least in part, because I have come across canon 191. I am prepared to take it that the already cited American (and other) sources that speak of someone becoming bishop of a see from the date of appointment or being bishop of a see "since" that date are plain wrong. I am prepared to accept as plain wrong the American statement that Raymond Burke "ceased to be archbishop of St. Louis" at 5 a.m. Central Time, corresponding to noon Rome Time, the moment when his transfer to a post in Rome was announced, obviously some time before he took possession of his new post. And I am prepared to take it that Charles J. Chaput is still Archbishop of Denver. To prove it, I will change the indication in the article that describes him instead as Archbishop-Elect of somewhere else! And I will not repeat my question about whether, after a bishop has taken possession of his see, he can still be bishop of his see without actually governing it. Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While he isn't partaking in the discussion, the authority from Denver is apparently monitoring this discussion. Before I logged onto WP, I had the following note in my email account:

One distinction between Burke leaving St. Louis and +cjc leaving Denver is that Burke doesnt have to be installed or take possession of the Signatura, he merely accepts the post and its his. The function of diocesan bishop requires taking canonical possession, but no such action is required when a person takes a curial job. So the statement that Burke lost his job immediately is not incorrect, it merely refers to a categorically different reality

When I saw that, I came here immediately ;-) (The part I took as a near personal attack was when you referenced not responding since I couldn't admit an error. I wasn't pressuring the guy from ArchDen because it appeared that we had an uneasy "non-edit war" and were both willing to live with the current wording. Now that I've talked to him...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand what you thought was a near personal attack on you. Perhaps it was such on your canon lawyer acquaintance. So it is to him I should apologize. I should have added some sign like ;) or :). Pity he didn't join the discussion, logging in by some such name as "Revned". (Don't split this into "Rev. Ned"; just read it backward.) If Revned is right that curial officials become such immediately on announcement, someone should raise the question with those who are putting in Wikipedia an "enthronement" (!) for people like Tarcisio Bertone, "enthroned" on 15 September 2006, although appointed on 22 June, and who are setting the automatic counting of years and days in office from the "enthronement" date, not from the date of appointment. This is a recent campaign, pushed perhaps largely or mainly by an editor who prefers to work anonymously except when starting a new article. I disliked it from the start, because I believed that, for instance, Bertone was Secretary of State from the moment of his appointment. Revned confirms that that's when a curial official's years and days in office begin, although Revned also says that a bishop transferred to another see isn't even in name bishop of the other see until he takes possession of it. (I am not questioning either of Revned's statements.) If you feel up to it, do something about the campaign. Having had to accept that the other side was right in our discussion here, I have no appetite to start another on a similar matter. Esoglou (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never WikiDiscussed before, so please excuse me if I do it wrong. The "enthronement" language is definitively non-canonical. Possession of a curial office takes effect merely by certain notice of transfer or appointment. Thank you all for your service to the Church through these discussions.  :) Revned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.253.169 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stroke?

Does anybody know if Chaput has ever had a stroke? I've been watching a number of his interviews and the left side of Chaput's mouth doesn't move in harmony with the right side. This is often (but not always) an indciator that somebody has had a stroke.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Purported descent from Louis IX

The claim that Chaput is descended from Saint Louis IX, King of France, is not confirmed by the reference provided. Said reference offers only that his claim of descent inspired a color field on his coat of arms. Descent from medieval royalty is easy and commonplace to claim, but hard to prove. I think either proper documentation should be provided or the claim deleted. Adamgarrigus (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Archbishop Chaput's Views are Conservative and Controversial

Dear Elizium23, I disagree with your decision. My additions to Charles Chaput page were completely neutral. I added the words "Conservatism and Controversial Views" because that is more precise. The Archbishop's views are conservative and controversial. Abbotjohn (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to be so specific with a section header, which should be a concise description of the entire section below it. Why constrain the section to "conservative and controversial" views? What if he is found to have some liberal views (conservative and liberal are political terms not applicable to Catholic belief.) What if some of his views are not controversial? To whom do his views appear controversial? Not to me, not to the Vatican, not to the Pope. Therefore, it is introducing a POV unnecessarily. Please read WP:NPOV, which also discourages article sections exclusively about criticism or controversy, which is what you are trying to do. Also, these terms are not sourced or supported in the article. Nowhere does the article say anything about "controversy" or "conservative". What you will need to do first is to establish the validity of these terms by writing prose in the article and supporting it with reliable secondary sources which explicitly use these terms. But you will need to use strong sources because this is a WP:BLP and you are trying to make contentious claims. Good luck. Elizium23 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it expresses a "point of view" that we work hard to avoid on Wikipedia. In addition to the items mentioned by Elizium23 above, it also implies that "conservative" views are also "controvesial" and that is really a matter of opinion or point of view. Now, if you have an abundance of sources that state his views are conservative and controversial, that might play a little different.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

In this edit DBD effectively proposed that this article be moved to Charles Chaput.

The Charles Chaput page has significant history before it became a redirect. It was once a separate article, merged into Charles J. Chaput after discussion. In light of that history I am declining the speedy deletion tag and not performing the suggested move from Charles J. Chaput to Charles Chaput until a consensus develops after discussion here. see Requested Moves for procedure. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles J. Chaput. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804220254/http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/mar1999p7_374.html to http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/mar1999p7_374.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723140353/http://www.archden.org:80/index.cfm/ID/273/Coat-of-Arms-/ to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/273/Coat-of-Arms-/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927161552/http://www.zenit.org/article-33165?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-33165?l=english
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=43971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041124064800/http://www.archden.org/images/nyt_transcript.pdf to http://www.archden.org/images/nyt_transcript.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles J. Chaput. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723234244/http://archphila.org/press%20releases/pr001822.htm to http://archphila.org/press%20releases/pr001822.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724074310/http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/272/Archbishop%27s-Biography-/ to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/272/Archbishop%27s-Biography-/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/bensalem/next-philadelphia-archbishop-promises-changes/article_847fb578-4479-5cf6-855a-5e2a6841d541.html?mode=print
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/273/Coat-of-Arms-/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204504.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Against LGBT rights"

ThomasCalvin (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Against LGBT rights" is the current sub-section title in Archbishop Chaput's entry under the section "Views." It demonstrates a clear bias against the Archbishop, as it portrays him as a homophobic bigot rather than as a prelate of the Catholic Church who tries to apply the Church's teaching in his capacity as Archbishop of Philadelphia. I have attempted to change this section title to "Against same-sex relationships," as this both conveys Chaput's views while also avoiding the sort of pejorative language that the section currently displays. "Against same-sex relationships" does not have to be the section title - but the section title should be modified either way. ThomasCalvin (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether the reader perceives him to be a bigot or not shouldn't really be a concern. We should present the information from a neutral point of view, and any assertions about him should be backed up by reliable sources.

He doesn't think LGBT people should have children, enroll them in Catholic school, or work at Catholic schools. It seems pretty clear that he does indeed speak out in opposition to LGBT rights so I don't see how using the phrase "opposition to LGBT rights" could possibly be biased. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree. Contrast Chaput's approach with that of Pope Francis. There are more eloquent ways of upholding Catholic teaching. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored it back to "Opposition to LGBT rights" after ThomasCalvin made an undiscussed change to "Opposition to same-sex marriage" and then to "LGBT Issues" Meters (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I included an explanation when I changed the section heading to "Opposition to same-sex marriage." Your characterization is therefore inaccurate, and I will change the heading back to "LGBT Issues," again with an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasCalvin (talk • contribs) 03:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

And I've restored the agreed upon header again, pending consensus. Your explanation in a summary does not supersede the apparent consensus that was reached on the talk page. Meters (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging the other editors from the original discussion since this is being reopened : user:Contaldo80 and user:ChiveFungi . Meters (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Opposition to LGBT rights" is still an unsuitable section heading, for the reasons I gave in November. Contaldo80 insisted in November that it's not clear "how using the phrase 'opposition to LGBT rights' could possibly be biased," yet two of the cases he cited were about LGBT people's relationship to schools run by the Catholic Church. But, that's precisely what's at issue here. The Church certainly wouldn't agree there is a "right" for LGBT people to work for the Church in an educational capacity, and the Supreme Court made a similar argument in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. It was a unanimous decision for the evangelical church in the case. The government cannot compel a church to hire a particular person as an educator, thus there is no legal "right" for LGBT people to work as teachers in Catholic schools. ChiveFungi, on the other hand, said of Chaput's rhetoric that "[t]here are more eloquent ways of upholding Catholic teaching." What does that have to do with the section heading? Furthermore, has Pope Francis taken a stance on same-sex marriage or the family that is fundamentally incompatible with Archbishop Chaput's? Unless ChiveFungi knows something the entire world doesn't, Francis has not taken such a stance. Thus, the section heading still needs to be changed.ThomasCalvin (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@ThomasCalvin: Please stop edit warring. You've now made three reverts within a 24 hour period. One more and you'll be violating WP:3RR. If you're here in good faith, you'll stop edit warring, and we'll have a discussion. If you're here to edit war, you'll be banned and you won't be able to put your position forward. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I definitely support "opposition to" rather than "issues". The section is about his positions on those issues, not the issues themselves, and Chaput is most definitely in opposition, The sources in the section show (as ChiveFungi pointed out six months ago) that Chaput's against gay marriage, he's against gay relationships, he refuses to allow children of gay partners to attend Catholic schools, and he supported a Catholic school that fired a teacher for a legal gay marriage (eight years after she was hired and with the school's knowledge of her marriage). And "Opposition to same-sex marriage", the other title attempted, is not sufficiently wide. It's more than just gay marriage. Meters (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Meters. Can we just call a spade a spade please - Chaput may think it's legitimate to oppose LGBT rights, he may not even think there are rights, but it is true (nevertheless) to say that he does oppose LGBT rights (which is a thing by the way, even though some Catholics may not believe it). Contaldo80 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to LGBT movement

Can someone please clarify what the "LGBT movement" is please and how Chaput is opposed to the "movement"? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)