Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Question

Should this be re-named to Archbishop of Philadelpia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellygrape (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 November 2004

The common practice I have seen on Wikipedia has been that "(arch)bishop of ____" gets a pointer to the (arch)diocese. So the answer to your question is no. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You misspelled Philadelphia...

Yes! You did! Yes, you did! Do you want your belly scratched? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geohound Ryudo (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 January 2006

I am seeing the above 12_1/2 years (and 3_1/2 months) later. I don't know where the misspelling was. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I've cleaned things up a bit such as spelling mistakes and things like unneccessary spaces. I also fixed some of the labeling with the ethnic parishes. Not all the parishes that are ethnic parishes are clearly labeled on the archdiocesan website. You have to look at the description of the parish boundaries to find out, e.g. SS. cosmas & Damian, Conshohocken does not have anything mentioning it at the top of the listing, however if you scroll down to the "Parish Boundaries" section it says, "All Italian-speaking Catholics..." Miguel 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph should be re-worked. It is normal to define a diocese in terms of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction first and its serving bishop second. Sentence one should keep its initial beginning and incorporate the second sentence into it. Then the diocese hierarchy should briefly be delineated. Sentence one should then become sentence three. Please see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco as an example.--Morenooso (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you the suggestions. I have made the changes.--Jlivewell (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks better but the serving bishops was missed. I just changed the article status on two wikiprojects as it is no longer stub status. However, the rating for at least one project is a bit high IMHO as a rater. Normally a Mid is assigned to an article's importance to how vital it is to the knowledge of the subject. A diocese, while important to its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, city and maybe state, is not vital to knowing information such as on the eucharist. Even for the city project the same could be said. However, since I am not a member of that WP, that its members' call.

My further recommendations would be to flesh out each section perhaps with a small history. This would help to bring up article status to a B or FA status. --Morenooso (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Obvious Bias removed

The politics of the archdiocese was removed. Out of all the issues to post, one would post this? This was obviously done by anti-catholics out of prejudice. If you are going to list all of the archdioceses contributions please then list everything which would include advocation for the poor, dispossed, the unborn, perls against unrestrained capitalism aka the current Great Recession, war, etc. 99.33.94.134 (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement

• Add relatively current figures of parishioner, priests, etc. in history section and also the following:
• Cite a couple more unique facts in history that detail notability.
• List in prose form several important churches and slight history of cathedral.
• List in prose form important milestone celebrations such the 200 anniversary year observation. --Morenooso (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Additionally, the last link in External links section also has a diocesan history Archdiocese of Philadelphia This can used for the History section and citations weaved in. --Morenooso (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Size of the Archdiocese

I am trying to wrap my head around the current excitment about sex abuse. Can someone tell me how may priests the archdiocese has? I mean 21 outo f 2,000 is a smallish number, 21 out of 21 is huge. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this website, there were 619 diocesan priests in 2010, and 369 priest members of religious orders, for a total of just under 1000 in 2010. Rwflammang (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sex Scandal

This diocese has one of the most notable sex scandals of any in North America. The court cases and discovery have shown a real-live coverup with documents being destroyed and molesters being moved to protect them. While I agree that my entry on the subject may not be the best (it provides no sense of order IMHO), the scandal needs to be addressed on this page. That said, I seem to be in a revert war with a nameless editor somewhere. Could I ask other interested editors to review and improve my work in this matter and keep an eye on it? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would move your post to the following page "Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia." then you can have the header remain and then link to that article. Jlivewell (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about notability. I live in Pittsburgh, and we hear very little in the secular media over here about our own metropolia, apart from the flurry of coverage for the new archbishop. We hear a lot more about Boston, LA, and Baltimore than we do about Philly. Rwflammang (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is quite notable, the first time a (bishop? monsingor? somebody) faces actual jail time for destroying documents to pervert the course of justice. Do we have a page on the sex scandal? If we do I shall be quite red faced. Other diocese articles deal with the scandals on analogous articles to this one. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Jlivewell's suggestion (above) that the disputed text (including the names of the removed priests) be moved to "Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia". A brief summary could then be placed under the header ("Sexual abuse scandal"), with a "Further information" link to that article. In a similar way, Pennsylvania State University has a brief summary of and link to the article on the "Penn State sex abuse scandal". Also, I know from reading the contemporaneous news articles last year that some of the 30 or so priests removed from ministry and listed in the disputed text of this article had already been in retirement (and thus no longer in active ministry) when they were formally placed on administrative leave, but that fact is not noted in the said list. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jiminey Cricket, we already have a wonderful article on the subject. Gosh Darn it. I am busy at the moment in the Real World, but anyone who has time is welcome to replace my poor writing with a simple comment and a redirect. Many thanks to you all. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Newly-announced bishop-elect who has served in Philadelphia

Today, it was announced that Nelson Perez, a priest of this archdiocese, will become an auxiliary bishop of Rockville Centre diocese (suburban Long Island, NY). So he is to be getting an entry here as a bishop (serving elsewhere) who was previously a priest of this archdiocese.

Incomplete information

This article lists only Harrisburg and Scranton as suffragan sees when Philadelphia had just become archdiocese in 1875. However, Pittsburgh and Erie dioceses also existed at that time, and Catholic-hierarchy site does list Pittsburgh as having its metropolitan changed from Baltimore to Philadelphia at that time. Question regarding Erie's metropolitan is pending with Catholic-hierarchy webmaster, and I am waiting on that before making changes here regarding the suffragans of 1875.

I am also seeing that the Philadelphia diocese used to have part of NJ, but this article doesn't have the removal of NJ from this diocese. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)