Talk:Emmanuel Milingo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marriage

I replace the words "vow of celibacy" by "obligation of celibacy", because Catholic Priests do not take any vow (only the monks do), they simply accept to follow the recommandation of the Church not no marry.

About the Milingo topic, his marriage was never annulled as it was never recognized by the Catholic church in the first place. And as for him even "renouncing" the marriage, that is not accurate either. Any statements against that marriage or the Unification Church that the press accredited to Milingo are unreliable as they were all taken from a "ghost-written" book that was written "with" Milingo during his captivity by the Vatican. Then the book was released before he was let back out into the public. And during any public interview, even with his Vatican "minders" nearby, Milingo did not repeat any of the negative statements quoted from the book. About his wife, he did say "that I will always love her, as I love all people". [PFN] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.207.45 (talk • contribs)

I changed the second sentence which talks about his marriage. I think that as of now (August, 2006) the question is still up in the air. I'm sure my sentence could be improved by someone who knows more about Catholicism.Steve Dufour 16:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence fragment "despite the exclusion, by all Christian Churches whose separate identity arose more than a few centuries ago, of marriage for ordained priests and bishops." It does not acknowledge the Eastern Orthodox nor the Ethiopian churches' position, both of which are older than Catholicism. In addition it does not acknowledge that relative recently of the rule in the Catholic Church. Bejnar 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Called back to Vatican

Thanks exucmember. He did not need to be called back to the Catholic Church since he never left it or intended to.Steve Dufour 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Partnership with Dan Brown?

There's been some news in recent weeks about the Archbishop joining Dan Brown (the infamous Da Vinci Code guy). I just thought I'd mention it, in case if anyone here has taken charge of this article. Just a heads up, so you know to look for this info. I'm not sure if it's been confirmed for sure yet, but the word is that Archbishop Milingo is advising Brown for a novel about exorcism. It's pretty awful that Milingo is doing this, because it's only going to lend credence to Brown's paranoid fantasies against the Church. JesuXPIPassio 11:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoever told you Dan Brown has paranoid fantasies about the church? I have yet to see one shred of evidence he actually believes what he writes. This may surprise you, but many authors of fiction books don't actually believe the stuff they write in their books. For example, Terry Pratchett doesn't believe that there is a Discworld held up by turtles. Of course, some, like Michael Crichton do, but many don't. Nil Einne 10:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan Brown has been interviewed and it's clear he believes that what he's saying is true. Even if you'd just turn on National Geographic, you'd see parts of those interviews. And on the very first page of the Da Vinci Code, Brown says that the historical events, objects and places really do exist. He knows that the actual text he wrote was fiction (duh!), but he says that all the background stuff is true. JesuXPIPassio 22:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal remarks such as:

• paranoid fantasies
• the stupid are left out
• you get so worked up
• you're the one
• your argument doesn't even make sense

You both might like to take a glance at Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Thanks. :-) --Uncle Ed 14:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication

Altough my newspaper brought me the news of the excommunication, no source of this news can be found (yet) online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niels V (talk • contribs)

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5381888.stm. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication not declared yet

Under canon 1405 § 1, the Pope personally has exclusive jurisdiction over penal cases of bishops, which includes the declaration of an automatic excommunication of a bishop. The press release was from the Holy See Press Office which, although giving substantial evidence for the pope giving an eventual declaration, is insufficient in law (see canon 1406 §2) to establish the current declaration of an automatic excommunication. Pmadrid 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article introduction says he is an "excommunicated Archbishop emeritus." That sounds like he was an excommunicated Archbishop who retired. Is there a way to phrase this so there is no mistaking the sequence of events by which he gained the two adjectives? There should probably be an "an" before "exorcist" in that sentence.Edison 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

pic request

I would like a pic of him. Thanks. 134.114.231.38 23:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1355000/images/_1355126_milingo_ap300.jpg -- Beardo 03:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Effect of excommunication

This article , as written, leaves the impression that acts by the excommunicated Bishop, or acts he performed prior to excommunication in violation of church rules, do not have effect. This is misleading. If the man was once properly consecrated a Bishop or Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church, then does he not remain a Bishop until he dies?"the Code of Canon Law viz., once validly received, sacred ordination never becomes invalid (canon 290)."

If he violates the commands of the Pope or of church law, he can be excommunicated. But per [[Excommunication}}, "The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is held to be indelible." so any acts he performs as Priest or Bishop would have the same effect as before excommunication, excepting that the penalty of excommunication might be applied to him as well to someone he ordained, or to someone who knowingly received Eucharist he consecrated. But if he said the words of institution, does not Catholic theology hold that the wine and bread would be transformed to blood and flesh of Christ? If the unknowing worshipper receives the elements, is he not receiving the True Body? If the excommunicated Priest or Bishop performs a marriage, are the couple not married (though subject to excommunication) and if an excommunicated Archbishop consecrates Bishops, are they not in fact Bishops, although subject to excommunication? and per the Excommunication article, "Offenses which incur excommunication must be absolved by a priest or bishop empowered to lift the penalty."

Excommunication can be lifted by repentance, penance and absolution. In the Great Scism, Popes have been excommunicated since 1054 by the Eastern Patriarchate, and contrariwise, but since 1965 there has been amity and increasing cooperation between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and I have not sen any declaration that acts of ordination, consecration of Bishops, marriages, or the Eucharist by the two branches of the church are not recognized as legitimate.

Has not the Roman Catholic Church sought Episcopal priests to become Roman Catholic Priests, even though married? [1] These have the Apostolic succession of their ordination in the Episcopal Church going back to the 16th century, before Henry VIII rebelled against papal authority, as do ELCA Lutheran ministers and bishops. When the Roman Catholic Church accepted married Episcopal priests as Roman Catholic priests, it did not anull their Episcopal marriage, and it did not require the couple to remarry within the Roman Catholic church. The same has been true of Lutherans who became married Catholic priests. Edison 05:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

not sure why this is relevant to this article, but a) no, the RCC has not especially sought Episcopal priests, b) the RCC does not generally recognize Episcopal or Lutheran ministers as having valid apostolic succession or as being valid priests, and will generally ordain or conditionally ordain them, c) the RCC recognizes marriage between two baptized Christians even if they are not Catholic (as long as the natural conditions exist) so if they become Catholic they do not need to be 'remarried'. The RCC generally accepts an Episcopal or Lutheran minister into the RCC as a layman, and if he is married and wishes to be a priest, makes an exception in his case (as per the article you provide the link for). There have been some rare cases where the previous ordination was accepted, if the person in question can in fact trace a line of apostolic succession recognized by the RCC (eg Old Catholics, etc).Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excommunication details formerly in Introduction

Excommunication, which forbids someone to receive the sacraments or share in acts of public worship, is usually "ferendae sententiae", i.e. imposed as medicinal punishment by a competent Church authority. But some offences, including heresy, schism, laying violent hands on the Pope or procuring abortion, trigger automatic, or "latae sententiae", excommunication.(Canons 1312, 1331, 1364, 1370, 1398 of the Code of Canon Law) In Roman Catholic sacramental theology, ordination cannot be repealed. Accordingly, Milingo remains a bishop with a bishop's sacramental powers but is solemnly forbidden to exercise them. Milingo, however, challenges this interpretation of canon law.

• The discussion in the article body is better written than this. It is clear the ordinations were done without the permission of the Holy See which makes them schismatic. The discussion here is misplaced and the details irrelevant to the Milingo case.
• "Accordingly, Milingo remains a bishop" is a misleading statement. Milingo no longer has the authority of a bishop in the Catholic Church. Any "exercise" of those "sacramental powers" is unlawful in the Church. He is an excommunicated bishop, not a bishop.
• I failed to find any actual challenge made by Milingo to the excommunication. The challenge that he did not perform the ordination does not seem to possible, nor does the challenge that Pope lacks the authority to recognize that the ordinations were schismatic. patsw (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

His dramatic turnaround

Any more info on what may have caused his dramatic turn around? From Catholic traditionalist to a Catholic liberal? Nil Einne 10:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he considers clerical marriage to be a traditionalist policy.  :-) Steve Dufour 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Devil POV

Cut from article:

What Pope Paul VI actually said was that he felt the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through those who cast doubt on the Church's authoritative teaching.

If there is a dispute between named sources about what the pope really meant, we need to identify both sources. We cannot say 1 said 2 said A, but "what 2 really said was B". That endorses the POV that 1 is wrong.

Wikipedia never says anyone is wrong. It says rather that there's a factual dispute between two sources.

Say something like this:

• Monsignor Beppe Giovanni said, "Milingo misinterpreted the pope's words. The pope was speaking about rebellion and heresey, not about homosexuality or devil worship."

Otherwise, the article is taking sides, a violation of NPOV policy. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds remarkably like what Hugo Chavez said about speaking at the UN the day after George Bush spoke there. That was considered impolitic, rude, and entirely unacceptable. In an argument, the first one to call the other a Nazi is considered to have lost the rhetorical war. The same may be said to apply the the first one to call the other the Devil.Edison 18:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Gubudu

Is it perhaps worth note that Milingo recorded a pop album entitled "Gubudu gubudu"? There is a Wikipedia article for this in Italian, it would appear, and the album did sell circa 50,000 copies. Just do a Google search of the term "gubudu" or include his name; this does seem relevant.

Sounds like it would be worth mentioning. Steve Dufour 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd be interested to see a translation (well-sourced, of course). Elliskev 00:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added something rather basic and decently documented, not actually a translation of the Italian article but just basic information about the albums Milingo produced. Perhaps someone could provide a link to the song "Gubudu gubudu" itself in the external links section. Eccomi 22:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots more detail available

• Milingo rejected fears, frequently voiced in Rome, that if he were ever to fall back under the spell of Moon, the charismatic 76-year-old Zambian prelate might lead a breakaway congregation in Africa offering a married priesthood and drawing on traditional African religious practices, especially healing and the casting out of demons.

  "We have no ambition at all, in any way, to do anything of that kind," Milingo said.

• Milingo added that he was "very surprised at how the Catholic church has spread so much evil against the Rev. Moon," and that he would like to be an "intermediary" between the two religious bodies.
  • Milingo claimed that Moon's vision for global peace and the family are consistent with recent papal teaching.
  • He said he has been fishing three times with Moon, and was "very, very surprised" at Moon's "simplicity" and his spirit of "living for others." "I've seen what he has done," Milingo said.

Can't we expand this article, so it's not only about the most recent controversy? --Uncle Ed 18:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You could put in something if you like. Steve Dufour 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Zambia

In Spirit of Africa: The Healing Ministry of Archbishop Milingo of Zambia, Gerrie Ter Haar's basic premise is that Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda, although personally believing in Milingo's powers, felt he had to distance himself from the Archbishop in order to fulfil the role of a "modern" state leader. Ter Haar suggests that Kaunda equated political modernity with secularity. She suggests that Kaunda considered religion, healing and witchcraft to be antithetic to modern statecraft and national progress. [2]

Brief run-in?

What does this mean: "Milingo also had a brief run-in with the music industry"? If it means he produced a record why not just say that? Steve Dufour 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you hear the music, it was a wreck... er no... you do have a good point ;-)Balloonman (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"list of scandals of the Roman Catholic Church"

why is this here? Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, maybe it can be added when the article actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.166.237 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Married Priests Now

Beyond the press release announcing itself in 2006, a phone number, and a web site last updated in 2006, it there any activity attributed to this organization? patsw (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of unapproved consecrations

On October 20, 2010, User:StephenMacmanus deleted the unapproved episcopal consecrations Milingo has performed. I welcome Stephen's interest in the article, but would appreciate some explanation of the reasoning for deleting that information.

The edit summary describes the consecrations as "invalid", but I don't think that is quite an established fact. Since Milingo is de facto still a bishop, he is (according to Catholic teaching) still considered capable of ordaining a bishop, even though he is not authorized to do so. Or is there clear evidence that some of those particular consecrations are invalid? As a matter of opinion, it is possible that some of those acts might be invalid -- the cases of men already consecrated bishops previously; however, it wouldn't be proper Wikipedia procedure to just follow my opinion in the matter and change the article on that basis. -- Chonak (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, invalid wasn't exactly the right term, but the edit summary doesn't give much space. Happy to oblige with an explanation.

My objection was based exclusively on including the five bishops in the "Episcopal Lineage" table. The purpose of this lineage

is to establish the authority of the bishops to exercise their jurisdiction, because it demonstrates the apostolic succession.

But, their ability to act as bishops is precisely the point of dispute.

To draw an analogy, a person could hypothetically recite the oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, but it wouldn't be appropriate to

include them in a list of the presidents, particularly if the person who administered the oath had their citizenship revoked as a

consequence.

Since those five men don't have any ability to govern a diocese or ordain priests as permitted for other Catholic bishops, I think it is

misleading and contrary to NPOV to include them in the list as if they were no different.

Instead of deleting them completely, I'm moving their names out of the table and into a separate paragraph.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User Stephen Macmanus is not correct. In the Marcel Lefebvre or Ngo Dinh Thuc Biography, all the Bishops that they consecrated are listed, even those outside the Chruch, consecrated in a illicit ceremony (not invalid ceremony). Theses lists (Apostolic succession) is about the Bishops they consecrated, it is not only for the Roman Catholic Bishops, it can be use also for Anglicans and Orthodox. Even, in the other language of Wikipédia, they all list the bishops of Marcel Lefebvre and Ngo Dinh Thuc ans Milingo, even outside the Church. (The Church never said that the consecrations are invalid only that they will not recognised them... it is a big difference, it can be valid and it is valid according to the spokeman of the Holy See). User Stephen Macmanus wants to delete this fact, surely, because one bishop that Archbishop Milingo consecrated validly and licitly was appointed, this week, a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI ! [3] --English nol (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding about the consecrator data in WP seems to be the same as yours, English nol: that it only describes historical acts and is not limited by canonical or theological considerations. There was a little misunderstanding, but I doubt that StephenMacmanus had any intention of "wanting to delete this fact" as such. Thanks for clarifying. --Chonak (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• This issue resurfaced this week when an anonymous editor deleted the unapproved consecrations and added a statement that they were invalid. No documentation was provided, so I removed it as unattributed POV and reverted the edits. --Chonak (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Emmanuel Milingo.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emmanuel Milingo.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Info on Norwood consecration

In recent days (Sept. 2011), user haroldjn has added information about an additional consecration performed by Milingo: In 2007, he consecrated Harold Norwood to the episcopate conditionally.

• Since this is an article about a living person, we should be especially careful to find documentation for information stated in the article. Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources indicate that facts should be documented from independent, third-party published sources. A personal web site does not fulfill that requirement.
• User haroldjn has indicated in some of his edit summaries that he is Bp. Norwood, so I should refer him to Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest concerns, which apply when one wishes to edit information about oneself in Wikipedia articles. --Chonak (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I received the diaconate and priesthood <sub conditione> .The episcopal Ordination was not eceeived ,<sub conditione> but absolutely. Please see the certificates that I sent via your email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldjn (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that any new ordinations conferred by Milingo after Decemember 17th, 2009 ought not to be included because the Roman Catholic Church holds them to be INVALID from after the date inwhich he was reduced to the lay sate. cf. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34466444/ns/us_news-faith/t/vatican-defrocks-african-archbishop/ I know that this appears to be change of traditional doctrine - whereasa priest is always a priest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldjn (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Haroldjn, for correcting my misunderstanding about which ordinations were sub conditione.

I hope you won't mind if I take out the info on the priestly and diaconal ordinations, since they are really more detail than we need here in this article anyway; it is about Milingo and not primarily about those he ordained.

• The AP reporter's statements about invalidity (appearing on the MSNBC web site) did not state the Church's teaching correctly. If it helps any, the article cites a statement from spokesman Rev. Ciro Benedettini to the effect that further consecrations would be illicit but valid, since Milingo remains sacramentally a bishop.

• Incidentally, let me demonstrate how to produce italics in Wikipedia, since you had a little trouble at it:

Double apostrophes around a phrase, like this: -- ''sub conditione'' -- produce this result: sub conditione. That's how to get italics.

Using angle-brackets like this -- <sub conditione> -- makes the wiki software think you want subscript lettering, _{like this}. This is probably not the effect you want.

Best wishes.--Chonak (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Chonak,

I realise that you say the church has always appeared to have taught that once a bishop always a bishop and that the report I sent you was wrong what the AP reporter reported. Well here is another report from the most respected Vatican acredited reporter. He also confirms that the Vatican spokesman said that after Milingo lost the clerical state from December 2007 his future ordinations will be seen as INVALID. I can understand why you think it incorrect BUT just maybe the Church is reunderstanding the doctrine in another way. Some recent Canon Lawyers maintain the these that outside the church sacraments have no significance or meaning. Please see: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/last-act-milingo-story

You said: " The AP reporter's statements about invalidity (appearing on the MSNBC web site) did not state the Church's teaching correctly. If it helps any, the article cites a statement from spokesman Rev. Ciro Benedettini to the effect that further consecrations would be illicit but valid, since Milingo remains sacramentally a bishop."

But Actually the Rev Ciro Benedettini said that any further ordinations that he performed after his reduction to the lay state would be INVALID. Please see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34466444/ns/us_news-faith/t/vatican-defrocks-african-archbishop/ Thiose performed before his reduction to the lay state would be illicit. Clearly, the Church has now a different understanding that a priest or bishop reduced to the lay state cannot confer valid sacraments. They can grant only in danger of death absolution but it is the 'ecclesia supplet' and not the defrocked priest or bishop! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldjn (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Oh, man! And people call the Church an organized religion! Now we have a spokesman making statements that go against established Catholic theology. I have to retract my comment above about mistakes by the AP reporter, since Allen has corroborated the point.

• • Personally, I think this is just an error on the Vatican spokesman's part. The official text has a carefully worded official statement about how the Church is not going to recognize illicit consecrations now or in the future -- which is a policy statement about how the Church is not going to help illicitly ordained bishops by giving them recognition. The spokesman is going beyond that in his comments to reporters, to make an inventive statement about theology (about sacramental invalidity) -- that is, if something isn't being lost in translation. Anyway, the Holy See Press Office has had a record of blundering in recent years, and this may be one more case. Trust me: if the Church is going to announce some new clarification in doctrine about some previously ambiguous area, the clarification will come in writing, not in off-the-cuff remarks. But of course, I'm just giving my opinion here.

• • But let me get back to your original idea: that WP should not list any Milingo consecrations after his laicization. Even if the official teaching of the Church were that such consecrations were invalid, this need not affect Wikipedia, because Wikipedia does not have a policy of conforming to Catholic teaching on this matter. Wikipedia reports consecration rites as historical events without judging their validity from a Catholic (or any other doctrinal) point of view. --Chonak (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Chonak,

Thanks.

You said " the clarification will come in writing, not in off-the-cuff remarks". Those comments made by the official Vatican Spokesman exactly were NOT "off-the-cuff remarks". They knew what to say and they knew what they would be asked during the Press Conference. They knew what to say and what NOT to say. It wasn't like seeing the spokesman in a Bar drinking a beer or two and then shouting over to him "Ah. What do you think about the Milingo ordinations???" - Now under that circumstance it would no doubt be an 'off-the cuff-remark' !

But the Church does give recognition to illicit ordinations - the letter of Pope Beneict XVI with regard to the Chinese illicit bishops!

best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldjn (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• • It seems you put more weight on the Press Office's oral utterances than I do. Why, even the head of the office issued a statement in 2009 (after some other case of confusing messages?) to make clear that written pronouncements are what counts: [4]. As for the validity of ordinations, if there is any ambiguity, the office with the proper authority to rule on the question is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Anyway, I have added Benedettini's "invalid" remark to the article (even though I think he was incorrect), so thanks for pointing it out. --Chonak (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Chonak, I made a little change indicating that I am a Roman Catholic Bishop. And way not, as the Lefebvre bishops always maintained they are RC Bishops when they were episcopally ordained by lefebvre. Certainly, Milingo never ever was accused of schism unlike Thuc of Lefebvre. 'I was never a member of the Brasilian Catholic National church, I only received orders that I thought valid at the time through Dom luis Fernando Castello Mendez.'

Indeed the Chief Vatican Press Officier is correct.The Holy See makes its manifestations by way of Communiques etc and such the like. But remember that on December 17th 2007 such a Communique concerning Mons. Milingo was indeed issued. It was prepared and issued by the Press office (In the case of Thuc and Lefebvre their statements were issued by the CDF). Are we to give the same legal status to a document (unsigned too) issued by the Vatican Press office or to a signed document issued by the CDF)???? In any event the Rev Ciro, of the Press Office gave an explantion of the meaning and significance of that Communique Concerning Milingo. After all Fr Ciro had more than likely written (or cut and pasted) the published unsigned Communique so who then was the best to explain it ??? yes, its authur! And such an explantion given at the time of the publication of the Communique is the most reliable too. The Press officiers knew what to say and were prepared for all types of questions, questions they even wanted to be asked. They made it clear that Milingo was reduced to the lay state because the Church did not want him to ordain any more illicit bishops!

best wishes, Hraoldjn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.130.29.254 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Chonak would a photograph of my episcopal ordination by +Milingo be enough to get the cit. needed removed ? If so the photo is only for your own info and not to be published. You already have the relevant certificates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.83.143 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, the tag should remain unless/until some independent, third-party publication confirms the event. Indeed, if I understand WP's guidelines aright, it would be perfectly legitimate for anyone to delete the reported ordination altogether precisely because no one has presented any independent third-party publication to document it. WP's goal is that every fact reported in an article should be not just true, but verifiable from the independent publications cited. --Chonak (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Chonak,

I found a published third party source attesting to the fact on:

http://archbishopjohnsimmons.webstarts.com/could_he_ever_had_been_a_bishop.html

If you look at the bottom of the web page you will see an important copy of two emails!!!

haroldjn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.83.143 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is a Wikipedia page about finding reliable sources at: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Chonak (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)