Talk:Leo Cushley

Still waiting for the press release
I'm going to expand the article using the Scottish Catholic Media Office's press release of 24 July. This has been circulated by e-mail but has yet to be posted on their website. These edits will therefore remain unsourced until such time as that happens Mark.hamid (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on archbishop-elect
This article by Catholic correspondent and analyst Rocco Palmo (qualifies for WP:RS due to his credentials) explains that bishops-elect are entitled to the styles "Excellency" and "Most Reverend" as well as elements of episcopal vesture. So please do not change the honorific-prefix back to "Monsignor". Elizium23 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Monsignor is not a thing or a job description. It is just a title for a high ranking priest (until September when he is HG!). And, in the way one does not include an honorific in the title of articles about Knights etc, it gets included in the lede describing them. EG entirely at random Timothy Fetherstonhaugh. And? Brendandh (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I just explained, he is already entitled to the style "His Grace" as it is the British equivalent of "His Excellency". Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, he is not, yet. In England and Wales and Scotland, only Apostolic Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates are recognised to be entitled to the style of "His Excellency". "His Grace" and "My Lord" (which are in fact unofficial and officially unrecognised in secular British law) are for consecrated and installed archbishops and bishops. The Home Secretary (Secretary of State for the Home Department) had apparently ordered the Home Office (Home Department, Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department) to produce a semi-official guide for internal Government consumption (and not entirely free of errors and omissions) back in the 1970s, judging from the fonts, and is available at here . The most authoritative guide to all of this in the United Kingdom, but primarily for England and Wales, is in fact unofficial (but with obvious Royal and Government patronage and involvement), from Debrett's, at  and . - 212.50.182.151 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first one is a government document, so it doesn't have any real legal force for the Catholic Church, and furthermore I don't see where any of them exclude bishops-elect or mention consecration or installation. Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that, unlike H. H. the Pope, the style of "His Grace" goes immediately before the "job" of "Lord-Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh", rather than immediately before his name. The correct style that goes immediately before his name ought to be "the Most Reverend", with or without the title of Monsignor. There are, however, some obscure examples from newspapers and archived letters from laymen, largely from the 19th. Century, showing that archbishops-elect, both Roman Catholic (from "The Tablet") and of the Church of England, were sometimes incorrectly, improperly or informally accorded by laymen, as a matter of courtesy, the title of "His Grace"   . There is such a bereft of additional examples or modern precedence that one wonders if it could ever had been a correct and proper historical use at all. - 212.50.182.151 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The Tablet article of 21 September 2013
I have restored the information from The Tablet of 21 September 2013 about the numbers of priests and church members. Although the wording of the editor who included it could have been more precise, the subsequent claim that it was somehow "synthesis" appears to be highly dubious. Referring to the Tablet article is perfectly acceptable. All that was needed was improving the wording, not removing the information altogether. If anyone disagrees then make a case on this talk page instead of just attempting to invoke a policy without any apparent justification. Anglicanus (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The reliability of the sources is not the issue in a case of synthesis, it is the cobbling of them together to make a point that neither of the sources make. The Herald ref says "Mgr Cushley said he had very little ­knowledge about Cardinal O'Brien's situation. While denying the church was at a low ebb, he said people within the Archdiocese were anxious to move on from the scandal." So Cushley is referring here to the scandal's effect on the church, denying it has brought it to a low ebb. He does not refer to numbers of priests, proportions of Catholics in the population or any additional and entirely separate matter that could be interpreted as indicating that the church is at a low ebb, only the O'Brien matter. The Tablet article makes no reference to this view of Cushley on the effect of the O'Brien scandal bringing the church to a low ebb or not (unless I've missed it), neither in support or opposition. To place the fact that Cushley does not believe the O'Brien scandal has brought the church to a low ebb alongside some stats regarding entirely separate matters (which are actually not stated in the source to be other factors which may have brought the church to a low ebb, despite such an interpretation being arguably reasonable) is plainly synthesis of two separate sources to advance a conclusion that neither of them makes. I hope that clarifies the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Poverty
I searched with Google for evidence of what Leo Cushley is doing about poverty relief and found little. Are other Wikipedians more familiar with Scotland and better able to find information? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)