Talk:Mother Angelica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Mother Angelica is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 current discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Is it just me, or is this article incredibly biased? I mean, I can understand being vaguely positive toward a subject - obviously you have to be interested enough to write an article. But presenting alleged miracles as facts? Come on.

This article does indeed seem to have a lot of bias.

I like this article and was happy to see wikipedia finally has something on mother angelica. I do not think it is biased. The world is full of miracles, scientific and otherwise. Suggestion: eliminate the word "terrestial" which hits like a lightening strike. Otherwise, it's fine.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Pirate Nun 3 Cite 4 Vandalism 5 New comments 6 Feud with Cardinal Mahony 7 Mother Angelica vs EWTN

[edit] NPOV

I've made a lot of edits to try and clean up the biases. . .probably still needs more work. I've also shortened the article a bit and added more headings to make it more readable. Other suggestions? TMS63112 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel this page is far too pro-Mother Angelica and perhaps even comes offf as preachy. There is far too much religious detail and it comes off as preachy. I've tracked most of it, such as the unnecesary capitalization of the word WALKED as if to prove to Wikipedians that Mother Angelica truly is miraculous, to a shrine's website. It only seems to be made out of things coming from supportive sites. I fear that this most certainly is not appropriate, as Mother Angelica is still certainly a controversial figure as her Wikipedia used to say, and it is wrong for whoever originally did this to gloss over without even addressing it with words lifted from other websites. I've attempted to shorten it and also removed a lot of the extra adjective in front of words that give the article an overly-religious flair (such as Most blessed sacrament, Good News of Jesus, etc.) I still feel this article is too long and contains far too much detail. Vartan84 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't tangle with Pirate Nun. --205.146.141.238 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire "Miracles" section seems biased toward religious beliefs, rather than actual fact. --Jeames 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire article suffers from NPOV problems. I am adding the {{NPOV}} tag. Mike Dillon 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps you could say "while some suggest it is a miracle others insist is it scientifically possible." And perhaps offer some sort of scientific explanation if you have one rather than just saying it isn't possible, when people have seen it. I am a little offended that anyone would argue that these were not miracles. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't mean they are not miracles. That's fine to present the opposing views. But do not talk about the miracles as if they are non-sense fairy tales.IamAng12 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a way to be fair. Any miracle is inherently unbelievable to non believers. THere is no need to put in wild phrases like, "some claim this was not a miracle." It is simply enough to state what happened from an outside perspective, then say that Mother Angelica felt it was a miracle. Instead of saying she had a miracle, say she suffered this leg problem, it went away. She claims it was a miracle. That's it. Neutral. Basejumper 09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirate Nun

More information should be presented about her alter-ego, "The Pirate Nun." Most people who have seen her only because of her wearing an eye-patch.

She had a stroke. This might not be a well-written article, but this is just mean. Like making fun of people in Category:Amputees as having "Pirate alter-egos" and then laughing at their misfortune--T. Anthony 15:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite

I really should learn how to do this but for right now I do have the source needed for the comment that she is arguably the most influential catholic woman in america. It's on Time's archive and the links here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983275,00.html 65.12.135.63 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations need to be added or the article could be in violation of Living Persons by having unsourced info. Basejumper 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So your issue seems to be you own disbelief of miracles as such? Are things not neutral, because they contain mentions of things you can't lend your credulity to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by {{{User}}} ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of balance on the external links, this article should also reference the NCR article which a different link attacks.

Title: Angelica, EWTN push Disneyland church http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v30/ai_15630810

[edit] Vandalism

The vandalism is GREAT! I will be back to do it every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.81.228 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there something we can do about this moron. I am so sick of having to undo his vandalism. Can we have it permanently locked? Dumbot keeps removing the protection so this vandal keeps hitting it over and over gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DumbBOT is not removing protection. It is removing the padlock icon when the page protection expires. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what do we do to prevent 71.166.81.228 from vandalizing the article time after time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominate the page for semi-protection. I tried yesterday and was declined. Your mileage may vary. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New comments

NEW COMMENTS: Mother Angelica is a deply conservative Catholic whose definition of 'Catholic' 'Fidelity' and 'Holiness' is not universally shared. She was named as 'the closest thing Roman Catholics have to Rush Limbaugh' (Insight on the News, May 23, 1994, Rod Dreher). Dreher quoted Sister Mary Collins, who chairs the department of religion and religious education at the Catholic University of America: "I think that she is in fact dangerous, because she does not know her limitations. She's really quite ignorant of Catholic tradition, both in practice and theology."

Two very striking examples of the conservative nature of her work and theology are readily apparent on EWTN. Firstly, the guest list is deeply conservative, without contrasting views to the entrenched far right theology presented by priests like John Trjillo and Bob Levis (in a recent edition of Web of Faith Levis told his viewers that large tattoos were mortally sinful). Secondly, the manner is which the liturgy is celebrated in ultra-conservative. One obvious example is the practice of most communicants genuflecting before receiving communion and all receiving communion on the tongue, not the hand. There is an overwhelming focus on Christ's presence in the Eucharistic species, and a much lesser sense of his presence in the People and the Word.

EWTN in general, and Mother Angelica in particular, are for many the public face of the Catholic Church in the United States. It is far from representative of that great Church across the nation. It is a far right, deeply conservative, uncompromising, unforgiving and often mocking face that tolerates no diversity within the Church. There is little doubt that EWTN has been a powerful force within Catholicism but Mother Angelica is as divisive for some as she is unitary for others.

By way of comparison with the secular TV world: EWTN is the Fox Network of religious broadcasting. In the world of religious TV, there is little to differentiate EWTN from the Islam Channel in terms of being doctrinaire, authoritarian, narrowminded and ideologicaly-driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimbarak (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of balance on the external links, this article should also reference the NCR article which a different link attacks.

Title: Angelica, EWTN push Disneyland church http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v30/ai_15630810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimbarak (talk • contribs) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything on her show that is bad theology. She is faithful to the magisterium of the Church which is all that matters in the end. As much as academic theologians think that their observations are law, they aren't. The academic theologians would like to think that what they produce is binding; it isn't. They are not like scientists and researchers whose findings are binding on the rest of the world of science and academia. They are more like law professors whose opinions mean nothing unless they are picked up by higher authorities (in the case of law professors, its the legislatures and the courts while in the case of theologians its the heirarchy). The academic theologians are angry and sore because she rejects any teaching authority they fraudulently claim for themselves.

Secondly, the purpose of the Mass is the eucharist. To paraphrase the Vatican II documents, Christ is present in the Word, in the assembled, in the person of the priest who acts in persona Christi; however, Christ is most profoundly present in the Blessed Sacrament. The Church never changed its belief that Eucharist is at the center of the Mass. It is only lay liturgists and those who want to be Protestants that read that equality into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.99.97 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feud with Cardinal Mahony

Both this article and the article on Roger Mahony, the Cardinal Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles refer to a "feud" between him and Mother Angelica, but neither article describes the factual basis of the feud nor indicates how it was resolved. Such information would be helpful. 130.13.1.20 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.20 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point; it seems to be covered here if anyone wants to incorporate it. --CliffC (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Angelica vs EWTN

With founders, it is sometimes hard to separate out what belongs in her bio and what belongs in the EWTN article. I think there is too much here that belongs to EWTN and should be removed. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)