Talk:Richard Joseph Malone

Successor
successor: A person or thing that immediately follows another in holding an office or title. Scharfenberger does not hold the office of "bishop of Buffalo" nor does he have the same powers as an ordinary, and he will not be considered a successor when the next bishop of Buffalo is installed. Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is imprecise to speak of him as "temporary replacement" for Malone. He has special administrative duties to hold down the fort until a successor can be appointed. Also, "The Vatican" is a political entity and is not the one issuing appointments, it is Pope Francis, or the Holy See. Elizium23 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Catholic-hierarchy has been vetted as a reliable source by Wikipedia editors, for example. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I made my first comments on reversions/changes/'copy edits' to my edits on this article at Elizium23's talk page, 'passing in the night' with the above comments. Bmclaughlin9 has now reworked all the relevant edits and with one exception has achieved a presentation I can live with; thanks to all; I'm no expert in this realm and am learning a good deal as I go.
 * The exception is on use of the term 'emeritus'; it seems now that it's probably a routine designation for a retired bishop; however it means 'with merit' more or less and I would say given the circumstances of the resignation that the usual cannot necessarily be assumed. The 'Catholic-hierarchy' webpage was cited in an edit summary and defended above as backing for use of 'emeritus' in this article, though it's not been introduced as an on-page citation; I can't say the reliable-source link above feels convincing to me and for something non-routine -- as I'm arguing this case is -- I for one would reject the reliable-source designation without further, more definitive assurance. Without further assurance, I would revert to former from emeritus in this article.
 * Before responding here I also did some upgrades to Roman Catholic Diocese of Buffalo on the succession and in part incorporated some of what I was learning on the 'emeritus' subject, there. It's only plural emeritus (a singular word in Latin) bishops that are allowed via the infobox template there. (In the infobox on the individual-bishop page here it's a simple text header, easily edited and clear once edited.) Given the plural/singular issue(s) on the Diocese page, my current solution there isn't perfect even if my basic argument is accepted. I'm open to further work there if it's wished. I dislike the idea of full reversion, of course, and can live with it as it is now. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. The original meaning of emeritus isn’t relevant. It just means retired. It implies no merit at all (unless we’re speaking Latin) and it’s perfectly routine. I know of only one case ever of a bishop who left a diocesan post and wasn’t emeritus. In that case he had refused to resign when ordered to. So to prevent him from being emeritus the pope made him a titular bishop, that is, bishop of a defunct diocese somewhere in North Africa. Instead of being Bishop emeritus of his old diocese he was Bishop of his new fictional one. And just FYI, the plural is emeriti—the kind of thing you’ll only see in ecclesiastical or university contexts.
 * 2. I have my own objections to Catholic Hierarchy as a reliable source (esp for older info, esp for the diplomatic corps), but the consensus accepts it. I’ve adopted the posture “trust but verify”.
 * 3. We do have a source. Malone's own statement to which I’ve seen no objection. He wrote: "I intend to continue to live among you as Bishop Emeritus, and to be available to serve in whatever ways that our Apostolic Administrator and new bishop determines is best." The full statement is HERE. And he signs the statement with the title. And that has been noted and widely reported, including by the Associated Press HERE.
 * 4. Another standard expert source is GCatholic. And you’ll see Malone is labeled emeritus there as well in the entry for Albany. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And without doing too much research you can find this statement from the US bishops about dealing with bishops removed like this that uses "emeritus" throughout. HERE.


 * I appreciate all the work on the word. I don't accept the work as rationale in this instance and stick by my preference:
 * 1) My Mac dictionary says 'having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor'.
 * 2) As such it's the church itself that must do the designation, I would say. Maybe that includes jumping through hoops (creating a fiction for example; that's a rich one, thanks for it) to designate the former bishop with 'honor'. Malone's self-designation in this context to me is worse than nothing, he's the culprit here, forced to resign; 'resigned with honor'? maybe but I don't see that anywhere. The 'allowed to' means not the individual but the governing institution. If you like the self-designation I think it ought to be cited accordingly in the article not just here in Talk but I still so far favor disallowing the use of the term. Maybe you can find some book of church law that says 'everybody resigns or retires in honor' i.e. 'emeritus', with a citation for the article.
 * 2a) This last also brings up the distinction between 'retire' and 'resign' which I'd say is not meaningless, here. 'Retire' is the word used in all definitions I've seen. The word's used nowhere in the Malone article.
 * 3) The 'standard use' by a couple of websites of course doesn't impress me either. This is not a standard case, not a standard retirement, and they are not the institution itself. Further, as I said above re: the 'Catholic-hierarchy' website, "I can't say the reliable-source link above feels convincing to me"; there's no summary statement that 'the ayes have it' and I for one, after a scan, couldn't state such a conclusion.
 * 4) I have upgraded the Wiki 'Emeritus' article definition to include the explicit 'allowed' concept ('permitted', there) with citation. I will, in the Malone article, link the use of the word to that article.
 * As stated, with all that, my vote stands. Swliv (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, you don't get a vote, you can have an opinion, but it is against policy: verifiability which is a pillar of Wikipedia. Now, I need to address the central problem here, and that is a few editors seem to think that Malone was forced to resign or removed from office or under such a big cloud of scandal that the Holy Father smacked him down. You have no evidence of the causality here. Yes, there's a cloud of scandal in the diocese (I am sure it predates Malone's tenure). Yes, he retired a smidgen early. But the retirement is totally routine. He tendered it and Francis accepted it. He has not undergone a trial or been found guilty of canonical crimes. I'm here in these United States of America, where we have a novel concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Sure, a TV station has done an investigation, but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. There is a canonical investigation and the results I have not seen. But I am confident that one of the results was not that Malone is censured and placed under penalty and removed from office. That is the only way you'd get to argue against his title of "Emeritus". All the sources and all the evidence are against you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)