Talk:William Levada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WikiProject tags 2 Organization and editing 3 Sexual abuse issues 4 Plagiarism on site 5 Renaming this page? 6 Dual Citizenship, Prosecutorial Immunity and Controversial Churchmen 7 Wearing Two Hats 8 infallible statements 9 Cardinal 10 Titular diaconry vs Titulus 11 Requested move 11.1 Survey 11.2 Discussion

[edit] WikiProject tags

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Organization and editing

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. --Jen Moakler 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual abuse issues

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)

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)

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)

That's fine. Gugganij 12:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite reasonable. Lawrence King 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism on site

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Renaming this page?

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)

[edit] Dual Citizenship, Prosecutorial Immunity and Controversial Churchmen

It is my observation that Levada's sudden rise from a metropolitan archbishop to pro-Prefect of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith is remarkable. While Levada will reside in Rome under dual citizenship of the Vatican City State and the United States, the sexual abuse issues under his administration will continue to follow him - but to what extent? Can the U.S. courts subpoena a citizen of a sovereign nation? Dual citizen, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, former President of the Vatican Bank and closely entangled with the Banco Ambrosiano appeared to be beyond the reach of the law while in Rome. Similarly, disgraced prelate and dual citizen Cardinal Bernard Law now resides in Rome as archpriest of the patriarchal basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, a haven from cantakerous court officials in Boston. Will soon-to-be dual citizen Levada enjoy the same reprieve? My question then, to anyone who may know, is to what extent does a dual citizen enjoy immunity from prosecution when not in the country seeking to prosecute such a citizen? Aloysius Patacsil 03:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt His Grace would be prosecuted for anything. Anyhoo.... International procedures have been set up through a series of treaties dictating matters of criminal justice of dual citizens. Generally, professing dual citizenship doesn't automatically give a person reason to declare himself immune from prosecution should he be charged by a nation of which he professes citizenship. What does matter is whether one nation has extradition treaties with the other. The United States does not have one with the Holy See. But it does have one with Italy. Hypothetically, if Levada or Law were charged and summoned to the courts of the United States, they can refuse, be charged with contempt and given a warrant valid internationally in countries that have formed treaties allowing it. Since the Holy See doesn't have such a treaty, they cannot be touched as long as they are within the boundaries of the Vatican City State. The Holy See, as the principal agent for one of the host states of which Levada and Law claim citizenship, will probably do all it can to protect them as long as they are in Holy See territory (including all its embassies worldwide). But if they step beyond the border into Rome, they can be detained and extradited to the United States. The United States does have a treaty with Italy governing such scenarios.

What if they denounce their American citizenship? It doesn't matter. The crime took place in the United States and while they were in the United States they were subject to American law. Breaking American law means facing consequences, no matter your citizenship. A Filipino boy commits murder in Atlanta. He will be prosecuted under American law even if he holds sole Philippines citizenship.

Levada will have one thing that Law doesn't, though, that will change these dynamics. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has diplomatic status, if I'm not mistaken. That means he'll have immunity, even in the United States, during his term of service. He loses that immunity when he loses his appointment and can be prosecuted for any crimes he may be charged with having taken place before becoming a curial prefect. --Gerald Farinas 04:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerald, for a thoughtful response. :-) Aloysius Patacsil 04:30, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Finally! An international relations education at Loyola came in handy! Hehe. --Gerald Farinas 04:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the U.S. Foreign Service, or perhaps, a career with the Vatican?  :-)... Aloysius Patacsil 04:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have considered the foreign service. The Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus have also been trying to persuade me to join their ranks. I stopped Jesuit discernment last year but it's still an open option for me. I'll stick to political consulting for now until God tells me to do otherwise (I worked for former U.N. Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes — there's something written about me in that article somewhere, even a photo or something). In the meantime I will be substitute preacher this summer at Edgewater Presbyterian Church while its pastor, Rev. Barbara H. Cathey will be on sabbatical. I'll be the first Roman Catholic to assume the pulpit at this Presbyterian house of worship. This is the only reason Jesuit priests will be attending Presbyterian services this summer in Chicago — to see me. How scandalous! (After all those centuries battling Presbyterians during the Counter-Reformation....) Its up in the air as to whether or not I'm the first Roman Catholic to take the pulpit of any church in the Chicago Presbytery or Lincoln Trails Synod of the Presbyterian Church (USA). People are checking into it. The obvious significance of this ecumenical move will be expressed in my first sermon on July 17, 2005 entitled, "Come to the Water." "Venite ad aquas" or in its entirety "O omnes sitientes venite ad aquas" happens to be the spiritual motto I chose for myself during Jesuit discernment. "Let all who thirst, let them come to the water." --Gerald Farinas 05:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wearing Two Hats

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)

[edit] infallible statements

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Cardinal

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)

I fixed it. Gentgeen 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Titular diaconry vs Titulus

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Requested move