Talk:Stanisław Wielgus

A Few Details

He was appointed to the post by Pope Benedict XVI on 6 Dec 2006. He took the "oath of fidelity" and took canonical possession of the Archdiocese on 5 Jan 2007 (see Canon 380). The "installation" scheduled for 7 Jan 2007 was to take canonical possession of the Cathedral (which is also a Basilica). So, he should be properly styled as Archbishop Emeritus of Warsaw. His resignation was accepted on 6 Jan 2007 but wasn't announced until just before the 7 Jan 2007 event.

Cardinal Glemp was named Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese upon his retirement until such time as a replacement is installed (which occurred on 5 Jan 2007). Cardinal Glemp was re-appointed Apostolic Administrator upon the resignation of Archbishop Wielgus and will remain so until he resigns from that position or a new Archbishop is installed (see Canon 430).--Dcheney 14:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote "... videly (sic) expected to be created Cardinal at the consistory in the summer of 2007" gives a very false impression. Some people might have thought that was a possibility. However, there is no consistory scheduled for the summer of 2007. Further, a succeeding archbishop is usually not created a Cardinal until after his predecessor has either died or turned 80 (thus losing his right to vote if a conclave is needed). Cardinal Glemp is alive and well and just turned 77 last month. So while its possible that Pope Benedict XVI was considering Archbishop-elect Wielgus for that honor, it seems quite unlikely that it would have occurred as suggested.--Dcheney 13:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean up a bit, but please feel free to correct all which still seems incorrect to you; it seems you know quite a lot more on this than the article currently contains. :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up some minor graffitti on the page. Darkmind1970 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About Monsignor Wieglus' taking possession of the Warsaw See, isn't that something that occurs when he takes the Cathedra in the Cathedral? I'm confused about the specifics with that.J.J. Bustamante 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyviol from New York Times

• diff, source: New York Times on-line

--F. Cosoleto 17:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since I'm supposed to be accused for copy-vio, I'd like to point out that, for this article, I have personally only used Polish and Catholic new sources, not The New York Times. --Camptown 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is word by word copyright violation. Both articles are published in 5 January (22:34, 5 January 2007 CEST in en.wiki). I think sooner in USA. Do you want accuse New York Times? --F. Cosoleto 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Differents forms of copy-violations unfortunately occur when news develop quickly, and even the flagship paper of The New York Times has not always proved to be white saint when it comes to ethics in general, see e.g. the Jayson Blair case. , regards Odengatan 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This text is a word-by-word copyright violation by Wikipedia or by news agency (if not NYT). I keep on thinking is Wikipedia that printed text not compatible with GFDL. Copyviol parts (diff) are to rewrite. --F. Cosoleto 17:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the body of the text on "Cooperation with the Commmunist Secret Service" to address the plagiarism and to simplify the entry. I'm not very experienced at this and I hope that I rewrote it in an appropriate form, without distorting the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crestodina (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Rating?

Why does this have a rating of "Top"? On the WikiProject Catholicism examples, they list as examples of top priority articles like The Pope and The Catholic Church. Under that is a high rating and the examples of that are Thomas Aquinas and College of Cardinals. This SHOULD NOT be a Top Rated article for the WikiProject Catholicism. JelloSheriffBob 04:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)JelloSheriffBob

You are right, and the "Top" priority rating may be changed aný time. In this case, the priority rating is certainly just temporary and given in view of the controversial, yet serious, topic which involved the Pope persoanlly. It gives a clear signal to the Catholic work-group to keep an eye on the continious editing of the article. --Camptown 12:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this subject is critical, not only because it involves The Pope, but equally inportantly because it clarifes political and religous events in Poland that can have ramifications throughout the Catholic Church and the European Union. The ongoing "lustracja," or review of documents of the former communist secret police files is a dramatic and serious set of social and poitical events, which appear to be spilling out of the realm of politics into the politico-religious sphere. These events are demonstrative of the intersection of the religious and political forces in the events leading up to and following the fall of the Berlin Wall. --Crestodina 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an important current topic. And if the rating is meant to alert those on the project to be alert, that is understandable. At the same time, overall, in the scheme of all of Catholicism, this topic is either High or Mid. (I believe the current rating at which I set it is Mid.) So perhaps temporarily it should be bumped up a little bit, but I still think "Top" was too high.

JelloSheriffBob 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)JelloSheriffBob

NPOV

In the last paragraph, particularly:

"Now, the Catholic community faces demands also to deal with questions of guilt and betrayal within its own ranks." 62.135.34.44 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Awkward sentence in "Aftermath"

The sentence "For those priests and Catholic intellectuals who demanded a robust stance by the Church towards its weaknesses and failures during the communist era, having such a bishop as the head of one of the most important archdiocese was unimaginable." is a little clumsy. I would respectfully offer as a substitute:

"For Catholic intellectuals and clergy who favored robust church opposition to the excesses of the Communist state, it was unimaginable that such a symbolically important archdiocese be headed by a bishop who cooperated with the Security Services. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.83.220 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC). --67.173.83.220 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Highest Ranking?

This is misleading. He was only a priest when he worked with the secret police, and so wasn't very high-ranking within the Roman Catholic Church. That line in the introduction is very misleading. poopsix 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but he was the archbishop when he finally admitted that he had colaborated with the secret police.--Camptown 22:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Move

I took the opportunity to move the page (Stanisław Wojciech Wielgus) to Stanisław Wielgus, which is used in most Wikipedia editions, including the Polish. -- Bondkaka 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal?

I'm a little confused with why there's so much controversy with the Archbishop. He "collaborated" with the Communists, but what does that really mean? Did he spy for them? There's an insinuation that he did by one Polish newspaper, but is it at all accurate? I don't know whether or not the Polish media is trustworthy, or if it's as bad as it is in the West. Also, did the Archbishop lie to the Holy Father, Cardinal Bertone and the Congregation for Bishops? Or was he forthcoming to them? The Vatican statements are confusing. The first one says that the Pope knew of it all and trusted the Archbishop; later, it was implied that the Holy Father asked him to resign after finding the stuff out. "What did the Pope know, and when did he know it?" I'm falling under the impression that the controversy in Poland about this really was just because there was so much stigma attached to the Communists that anyone who associates with them whatsoever is deemed bad; it's as if the Archbishop didn't actually do anything wrong. I don't know, it's hard to really verify this stuff since I don't speak Polish and I don't have access to the documents. I really only care about this because I'm sure this issue will come back in the future with people complaining that the Church was deceptive. I just want to be prepared to refute those claims and explain what happened in an honest, rational way. J.J. Bustamante 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation Collaboration

"Wspolpracowac" in Polish rarely translates as "cooperation" in English (it's often a false friend) and should be translated as "collaboration" here. The use of "cooperation" is a weasel word since the whole point of the allegation is that he "worked for the enemy". (Alleged) "collaboration" is the right expression in English. Malick78 (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stanisław Wielgus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606054057/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22598 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22598
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606054105/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22446 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=22446
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123023/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23324 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23324

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)