Talk:William Levada

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

Organization and editing[edit]

Added a very short intro. Didn't use the style "most reverend" because I don't know what's going on with that policy. If anyone wants to add it back in, I've no objection. But last I saw, it looked like no style had a slim lead at this vote. --User:Jenmoa 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse issues[edit]

I understand there's some controversy over his handling of the priest sex abuse scandals when he was SF Archbishop. Perhaps someone who knows more than I do could put something in? Maltaran 18:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I added a brief sentence. I don't know that there are any spectacular characterizations of his record in this, but if there are I'm sure someone will add more data! Lawrence King 09:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your sentence that some critics have voiced uncertainty about how Levada handled priests who had committed sexual abuse in Portland and in San Francisco, since I think that if there was criticism about Levadas handling it should be substantiated with more than just a statement that there is/was uncertainty among his critics. Gugganij 21:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back and added a link to an article about abuse coverups under his administration.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 23:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Gugganij 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite reasonable. Lawrence King 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that "Portland became the first Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy." This seems rather irrelevant as is; he left Portland nine years earlier. If there is a legitimate reason to post this, it isn't provided. Could someone with a user account either substantiate or delete this point? Thanks a bunch. 67.181.184.238 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. As the suggestion was that he was involved in the bankruptcy, I've removed the point. Hopefully someone will clarify if there is a reason for making the connection. - Bilby (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism on site[edit]

Half the text on this page is copied literally from this Biography of Archbishop Levada on the Archdiocese of San Francisco website. Should this be fixed? Lawrence King 23:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - please do. Aloysius Patacsil 00:44, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I also cut some of the fluff at the end -- the biography included a lot of "rah rah" material that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Lawrence King 09:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aloysius Patacsil 04:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I restored the items on the episcopal consecrations of Msgri. Wester and Wang and added a snippet on the gay and lesbian parish known as Most Holy Redeemer Church. These items are definitely related to Msgr. Levada's episcopal ministry and belong in Wikipedia. Aloysius Patacsil 23:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think this page is volatile, because in an encyclopedia we don't need all biographical information, but only important info.... but at this point, we don't know what's important! If Levada's job in the CDF involves issues tied to sexuality or sexual orientation, this will be very important; if it doesn't, this will end up a footnote. Time will tell!

Aloysius, two questions for you:

1. Do you mind if I delete the "titular bishop" phrases? Auxiliary bishops of SF are important; the titular bishopric is just an oddity of the Catholic hierarchy that isn't relevant, even in a much longer page.

2. I'm leaning to deleting this entire sub-section of the Talk page, since there is no longer any plagiarism and the title could be misleading. What are your thoughts on this? Lawrence King 05:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, with regard to item (1), no I don't mind. With respect to item (2) I have no strong feelings on the matter. Thank you for asking. Aloysius Patacsil 00:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming this page?[edit]

Should this page simply be named "William Levada"?

Google gives 4120 hits for "William Levada" and 269 hits for "William Joseph Levada". This suggests that he doesn't usually use his middle name, but it's not unknown.

Middle names are not used in the main titles of most biography pages. See Bill Clinton, Bernard Cardinal Law, etc. Even John F. Kennedy only gets an initial in his main page's title.

Of course, we could just leave it as-is until he gets a red hat, but that could be more than a year from now.

How about William J. Levada? Although, considering his new position, he'll probably be getting a Cardinal's hat soon, we'll probably have to be moving it to William Cardinal Levada any day now. RickK 21:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, someday, it may be moved to Pope Buster I. Aloysius Patacsil 00:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
As long as we have a redirect from William Levada and William J. Levada, it doesn't matter. As a general rule, full names are used by other encyclopedias when possible. I think it should be the same on Wikipedia, unless someone is known notoriously by a nickname, as is the case with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. On Wikipedia, it's common practice to use the name registered on the ordination records of the Vatican for those in the episcopacy, which for the most part is the first-middle-last or first-middle-patriarchal family name-matriarchal family name (for Latin American and Spanish people) format. When they become cardinals, the most frequently used format is first-Cardinal-last, dropping the middle name. Of course not everything is set in stone.
The Catholic-Hierarchy website uses ordination records for their listing of people who have achieved episcopacy. They list William Joseph Levada as the official episcopal name. We should respect the format, just as how we would respect the consecrated names given to the Queen of England and Princes of Wales upon their Church of England investitures. --Gerald Farinas 03:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wearing Two Hats[edit]

Note that,just as Pope Benedict XVI became Prefect of the CDF in November 1981 and stepped down as Archbishop of Munich in February 1982,Archbishop Levada currently holds BOTH jobs...he is already Prefect and has not yet stepped down as Archbishop of San Francisco.See the recent Vatican bulletin on his meeting with the Pope.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

infallible statements[edit]

The section Levada's views on theology and society states: However, in 1995, Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae did contain infallible statements regarding murder, abortion, and euthanasia. It is quite possible that Levada's views on the issue of moral norms being infallibly taught has been updated since that time. Who says that those statements in Evanglium Vitae are new, infallible statements? I presume that might be contested by theologians. Gugganij 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

First, it is clear that it was the Pope's intention to state that these were infallible teachings of the church. They are not examples of papal infallibility -- rather, they are infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium. According to Lumen Gentium § 25, such teachings are infallible if all the Catholic bishops worldwide concur in this as authoritative teaching, and JP2 sent out a survey to every bishop in the world asking if they did indeed concur, and they agreed; this led to the Pope's encyclical. The three statements in question are in Evangelium Vitae §§ 57, 62, 65. The footnotes on each of these sections refer to the section of Lumen Gentium that describes this infallibility.
Moreover, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself stated that these teachings in Evangelium Vitae are infallible in its "Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei" published 6/29/1998 and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone.
Among the theologians who have written about infallibility, every one of which I am aware agrees that the three statements in EV about these matters are infallible. These theologians include "liberals" (Richard Gaillardetz, Hermann Pottmeyer), "moderates" (Francis A. Sullivan, who was Levada's advisor for his doctorate), and "conservatives" (Mark Lowery, Lawrence J. Welch). Of course, radical theologians who disbelieve in the whole concept of infallibility, such as Hans Küng, would not accept this as the case. But within the context of the article on Levada, I think it's reasonable to treat his views within the mileiu of non-dissenting Catholic theologians.
Given this, do you think this point should be rephrased (e.g., "However, in 1995, Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae did contain infallible statements regarding murder, abortion, and euthanasia, according to the Pope himself and the vast majority of Catholic theologians")? Or is this unnecessary? - Lawrence King 7 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
P.S. The near-unanimity about the infallible teachings within Evangelium Vitae is in stark contrast to the question of Ordinatio Sacerdotis, John Paul II's letter stating that the Church has no authority to ordain women priests. It appears that JP2 intended this, too, to be seen as an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and the CDF stated this clearly. However, there was no "survey" of the bishops done for this letter, and there is a tremendous number of theologians who have stated that they do not believe that the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotis meets the requirements for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (or at least that this is an open question). Lawrence King 7 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

The article states: "On whether specific moral norms fall within the scope of infallibility, Levada's position changed between 1971 and 1995." Is there any evidence that this change actually occurred? The first statement discusses non-scriptural norms of natural law, whereas the second statement concerns the Fifth Commandment against murder. I don't see that the two statements are at all contradictory. -- Cat Whisperer 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! I have actually been searching for a copy of his dissertation for a while now. Can't find any copies at any of the usual online places, and the library at the Graduate Theological Union (usually very complete) doesn't have a copy. For all I know, there are only three copies in existence, and the only public copy is at the Gregorian. Moreover, the quotation that I put there was from a class handout that included quotes from his dissertation, and so I don't know the exact context within the paper.
Thus, the question of how much weight to put on the word "non-scriptural" isn't something I can answer. When I read the quote posted here, I read it in the context of Francis Sullivan (and others) who argued that specific moral norms cannot be taught infallibly (regardless of whether they are scriptural); many authorities who held such opinions retracted them after EV was released.
So I think it's unclear what he means. When he says "non-scriptural", does he mean "not explicitly stated in Scripture", or does he mean "not part of the revelation entrusted to the Church", or something in between? If he means the former, then these two statements do in fact contradict each other, because the immorality of abortion and euthanasia are not explicitly stated in scripture.
How do you think the page should be edited? At this point, I'm leaning towards simply deleting the entire 1971 quote, and rewriting the introduction to the 1995 quote to avoid discussion of a possible 'change'. - Lawrence King 04:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion sounds good. I would definitely reword to avoid disscussion of any change. I don't have a problem with the dissertation quote, though. -- Cat Whisperer 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I object to the dissertation quote per se; my short collection of quotes from this paper is valuable to me in my own work. But if you and I cannot, by studying the passage, figure out exactly what he is arguing, then surely it's not something that will convey much import to the average Wikipedia reader. So I don't see what it adds to the page at this point. - Lawrence King 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal[edit]

Well, as far as I know, he WILL be created cardinal at the next consistory on March 24, 2006. Currently is NOT a cardinal Gugganij 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Gentgeen 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once this happens, should this page really be moved to "William Joseph Cardinal Levada"? Six months ago, cardinals on Wikipedia had "Cardinal" in their page names, but more recently it seems most of them don't. For example, Walter Kasper isn't "Cardinal". OTOH, Roger Mahony has gone through a series of edit wars about this!
I would vote against it. We don't use President Bill Clinton or Bishop Sean O'Malley as page names -- we use Bill Clinton and Sean O'Malley. The only except I know of is that we use "pope" in the page name for popes, but that's because if you remove "Pope" what remains is not their real name.
But I certainly vote that we remove "Joseph" from this page title! I never see him referred to as "William Joseph Levada" in the press. Lawrence King 05:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many cardinals don't have "Cardinal" in their title because about two weeks ago, a single user moved them all to titles without "Cardinal", and I havn't finished moving them all back yet. He also unilaterally changed the naming conventions without disucssion, but it was then changed back. When I've been moving articles, I'm generally moving them to simpler titles, like Bernard Cardinal Law, rather than Bernard Francis Cardinal Law, so I would support William Cardinal Levada, rather than William Joseph Cardinal Levada. Gentgeen 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. My personal preference would be to not use the word "Cardinal" in the title, but I respect naming conventions, so if using "Cardinal" is the established way that's perfect! After all, we have redirects in case people type in something else. Lawrence King 08:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titular diaconry vs Titulus[edit]

Hi Panairjdde, as far as I know those titular churches, where Cardinal Deacons are assigned to are called titular diaconries, aren't they. Gugganij 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Cardinal Deacon" and the titular church should not be in the introductory section. This is a bit of trivia that has no actual impact in the Catholic Church. Not one Catholic in a thousand could name the titular church of any American cardinals, and not one scholar in a thousand would find it worthwhile. Lawrence King 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wouldn't exactley call it trivial, but you were certainly right to move it from the introductory section - it's not that important. Gugganij 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. No discussion emerged, but relisting would be policy wonking. Presented arguments look plausible.

William Joseph Levada → William Levada — This individual does not use his middle name, and almost all news articles referring to him do not use his middle name. Because "William Levada" has a non-trivial history only an admin can make this move. Lawrence King 10:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Survey[edit]

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.


  • Support: See the discussion section below for my reasons. - Lawrence King 10:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion[edit]

This page was just moved from "William Cardinal Levada" to "William Joseph Levada", per the new rules at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Cardinals. However, this page should not be named William Joseph Levada, but simply William Levada, because this person is universally referred to by his first and last names alone -- always "William Levada" or "Cardinal William Levada" -- never "William J. Levada" or "William Joseph Levada". So his middle name should not be in the page title, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people).

I attempted to move the page to William Levada myself. Currently, that page is a redirect to this one. However, its page history, while short, is more than a single item [1] and therefore only an administrator can make this move.

I think this is probably uncontroversial, but since I can't be 100% sure, I am following Wikipedia policy and listing it as a possibly-controversial move request. - Lawrence King 10:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) Some statistics from Google:

  • On the entire web, there are 63,300 hits for "William Levada", 20,200 hits for "William J. Levada", and 31,900 hits for "William Joseph Levada".
  • On sfarchdiocese.org, there are 34 hits for "William Levada", 119 hits for "William J. Levada", and 1 hit for "William Joseph Levada".
  • On vatican.va, there are 9 hits for "William Levada", 4 hits for "William J. Levada", and 81 hits for "William Joseph Levada".

Statistics from newspaper searches:

  • An archive search at the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) shows 436 hits for "William Levada", 436 hits for "William J. Levada" (presumably its engine equates the two), and zero hits for "William Joseph Levada".
  • An archive search at the New York Times (nytimes.com) shows 5 hits for "William Levada", 15 hits for "William J. Levada", and zero hits for "William Joseph Levada".

Conclusion: Levada was in charge of the SF Archdiocese, and therefore it seems reasonable that his name was displayed on its website per his preference. That suggests "William J. Levada". On the other hand, "William Levada" is by far most common on the web as a whole. And the Vatican website is the only place where "William Joseph Levada" is at all common. - Lawrence King 01:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opinions[edit]

On the ordination of women. It seems to me that a decree issued by a vatican office, even with Levada's signature, should not be taken to be his individual opinion, but rather simply as Vatican policy. There is a difference, right? maxsch (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, the author's creation of an article, does not signify in any manner, his or her own opinion about the subject or persona. In Church dogmas, laws and official decrees, the Pope is supreme. He is infallible, that is, by our Catholic faith, his actions ex cathedra, regarding church teachings, are to be obeyed and by sheer disobedience thereto, sanctions like excommunication of heretics, burning them in the patio or at stakes, would result. But, but, but, when his Princes, the Cardinals, would author or sign a decree, his own thesis, opinion and teachings, in accordance with canon law and church established jurisprudence, become the law of the case, or in this matter, the decree becomes his own ponencia. It cannot be otherwise, since, any Cardinal who is not assigned on this, can voice any opinion. This matter of ordination of women priests, had been here for centuries. Take this case: the previous Popes criticized Sister Faustina, but Polish John Paul II did all to make her a saint of Divine Mercy. There is really no difference at all, regarding Levada's and the Vatican's latest anti-women decree. The decree and Levada's soul are like Florentino Floro and Angel of Death. There is no utter distinction. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics insertion campaign[edit]

Will the anonymous editor who seems to have recently gone from London to Ireland please indicate on what grounds he feels justified in conducting his one-man campaign to change from the established form to a form of his personal preference the way in which cardinals are referred to in Wikipedia articles? Platia (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bourgeois decadence run rampant in "views" section[edit]

The views sections reads like it was authored by a stoned sociology professor from UC Berkeley and doesn't really show Wikipedia at its best. The article would be vastly improved by whittling down the number of subheadings to more succinct ones such as "social views", etc to avoid bourgeois liberal attempts to demonise his positions. I realise this man had the misfortune of being the Archbishop of San Francisco, but having little subheading like "opposition to gender inclusive language" (for, err, following what is written in the text which his religion is based on) is really beyond parody. And of course, the pro-homosexual political lobby is represented in force in Contaldo's renamed "opposition to LGBT rights" section. The "opposition to abortion" section goes without saying since all Catholic bishops are opposed to executing children as a basic tenant of their religion, this could be covered far more briefly. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Levada&oldid=1208155313"