Talk:Anglican Province of the Southern Cone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Anglicanism
Anglicanism Portal
Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

The article lacks some basic detail and focusses on present controversy. I think it is quite incomplete and needs to fill in some facts while only mentioning the controversies. Fremte (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Uniform format proposal

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobia claim

I'm getting pretty fed up with the anonymous editor(s) who keep(s) calling Bishop Venables 'homophobic', saying that part of the church is not in communion with him (he's the Presiding Bishop) and linking a blog. It'll be treated as vandalism unless there's discussion here. — Gareth Hughes 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He is going around saying that his Christianity is the ancient, Biblical, unchanged Christianity passed down from Christ, unaltered, to the modern day; whereas the Anglicans who show any support for homosexuality are post-modern liberals who haven't stayed true to the ancient Christianity. Sounds somewhat like homophobia (as pop culture has decided to define it) to me. --24.141.153.56 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum hominum is Latin for argument against the man as opposed to actually dealing with what the person says. Name calling such as 'homophobic' is clearly in the category of argumentum hominum and has no place in Wikipedia. The term 'homophobia' is heavily value-laden and is used in pop culture to demonize those to disagree with the accuser. I agree with Garzo|Gareth Hughes that it is strictly vandalism. John.honsberger (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Should this article be moved to Anglican Province of the Southern Cone? That's the version I have seen almost universally in English sources such as [1] [2] [3] etc. , though the official name is in Spanish. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - If the official name is in Spanish, then that's where the article should be. A redirect from the English name to here is fine, however, IMHO. Ringbark (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The cited links are clear on English usage. — AjaxSmack 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for Name? and couple of other things

I realize that this church province is topical b/c of current controversies within the denomination, but I'm thinking in different directions - about some simply facts. Why for instance, is it named "Southern Cone" - that's a pretty odd name. Is there some meaning to the name? An additional question is whether the "presiding bishop" should be entitled "archbishop". I have seen only the presiding bishop title for USA bishops (but this may be my limited exposure to the area), with others places calling them archbishop. It might be good to explain or link to something saying what "presiding bishop" means. Finally, I see there is controversy about the present "presiding bishop". It would seem to me that this might belong in an article about this man versus the church province. Kindly and respectfully, Fremte (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: I think this is more properly a mid-importance class of article. Why is it assessed as high? Fremte (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Southern Cone" is a not-uncommon geographical designation, as the southernmost third of the continent of South America resembles, on the map, an inverted cone (commonly used as shorthand for the nations of Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile in aggregate; here, clearly, somewhat expanded). "Archbishop" is the title of a man who presides over an archbishopric; the diocese of Argentina is not an archdiocese, nor is the Southern Cone: the office of chief bishop of the province could, I think, be passed next to the bishop of Chile, say, or to the bishop of Perú. Further, when introduced (to me, at least), Bishop Venables is accorded the title of "bishop", not of "archbishop"; the Anglican church differs in styles of address from the Roman church or the Lutheran. Firstorm (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All the national churches were assessed as high. If you disagree, feel free to join the project and help with assessments. -- SECisek (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place in society

I'd find interesting any informed commentary on the place of the Anglican church within the societies and culture of the Southern Cone. My impressions (from extended visits to the Southern Cone, as a Spanish-speaker but North American) are that Protestant churches there generally occupy much the same position as the Roman church in the United States -- a minority denomination, viewed as more than a bit foreign and as a resort of the poorer and less well-educated -- but, curiously, that the Anglican church is (at least in Argentina and Chile) accorded more respect than the Roman, except, perhaps, by the aristocracy of those countries, in part because of the high regard in which English entrepreneurs and technocrats are or have been held.

Has anyone else an impression formed from actual experience? Might anyone know of any study or analysis of this apparent phenomenon? Firstorm (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

It is illegal under the canons of the Province of the Southern Cone to exercise jurisdiction outside of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. The article suggests that jurisdiction over a diocese in the United States is somehow legal or unproblematic. What do editors think? fishhead64 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)