Talk:Blase J. Cupich

Resignation, appointment and installation of Bishops

Comment on this page:

Is it true that the Cardinal's highest degree is just an M.A? That cannot be right. He is supposed to be a theologian. A theologian in the Catholic Church must have a pontifical degree in theology, the S.T.D. If he has no real theological degree than this should be pointed out when his theological views are quoted since he has no real standing to speak as a theologian. By the way I think his views are just great, so this is not a political comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.139.110 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A few things about recent edits:

1. Msgr. Cupich is no longer Bishop of Spokane, his office ended today. Press Office of the Holy See clearly says "finora Vescovo di Spokane" - "until now Bishop of Spokane". The Diocese of Spokane is now "sede vacante". Source here.
2. Cardinal George is no longer Archbishop of Chicago, his office ended today. Again, Press Office of the Holy See says that "his resignation was accepted". He is now "Archbishop emeritus of Chicago", see here. He will, however, remain a Cardinal, as it is a lifelong title.
3. Msgr. Cupich is now Archbishop-elect of Chicago, and will remain so, until 18 November, when he will take posession of the Archdiocese, according to Can. 382 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law.

Varro (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about Spokane. I do know that catholic-hierarchy is WP:USERG and not a WP:RS. It shows bishops who have not yet attained their posts by installation. Which brings us to the issue of Chicago. Cupich is not yet archbishop of Chicago. That happens upon his installation, not his appointment.

http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0017/_P1G.HTM

Can. 418 §1 Within two months of receiving certain notification of transfer, the Bishop must proceed to the diocese to which he has been transferred and take canonical possession of it. On the day on which he takes possession of the new diocese, the diocese from which he has been transferred becomes vacant.

§2 In the period between receiving certain notification of the transfer and taking possession of the new diocese, in the diocese from which he is being transferred the Bishop:

1° has the power, and is bound by the obligations, of a diocesan Administrator; all powers of the Vicar general and of the episcopal Vicar cease, without prejudice to can. 409 §2;

http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0017/_P1D.HTM

Can. 382 §1 A person who is promoted to the episcopate cannot become involved in the exercise of the office entrusted to him before he has taken canonical possession of the diocese. However, he is able to exercise offices which he already held in the same diocese at the time of his promotion, without prejudice to can. 409 §2.

§2 Unless he is lawfully impeded, one who is not already consecrated a Bishop and is now promoted to the office of diocesan Bishop, must take canonical possession of his diocese within four months of receiving the apostolic letters. If he is already consecrated, he must take possession within two months of receiving the apostolic letters.

§3 A Bishop takes canonical possession of his diocese when, personally or by proxy, he shows the apostolic letters to the college of consultors, in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who makes a record of the fact. This must take place within the diocese. In dioceses which are newly established he takes possession when he communicates the same letters to the clergy and the people in the cathedral church, with the senior of the priests present making a record of the fact.

§4 It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be performed with a liturgical act in the cathedral church, in the presence of the clergy and the people.

Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This news source, The Catholic Sun, speaks of Spokane in the present tense. "Archbishop Cupich, 65, has been bishop of Spokane since 2010 after having served as bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, since 1998." Both can't be right. Two things are certain: He is not Archbishop of Chicago and he can't be "bishop of nowhere" because bishops are always consecrated to a particular see. All things being equal, logic dictates that he must still be bishop of Spokane. Elizium23 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have accordingly added the {{disputed}} tag to this page because the infobox is wildly inaccurate along with other points such as the lede section. Elizium23 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/next-chicago-archbishop-aims-to-nourish-faith-95074 reads: Pope Francis has named Cupich, the current Bishop of Spokane, Washington, as the ninth Archbishop of Chicago. He will be installed on Nov. 18 at the city’s Holy Name Cathedral. Elizium23 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your changes were reversed by an anonymous user. You should just undo that change and add a note to the infobox and maybe the lede telling editors to read this discussion before making changes. The disputed tag is far more than what's required IMHO. There's no dispute here as far as I can tell. At least not until Varro replies, and s/he hasn't. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since news outlets, however reliable in general, may not be precisely accurate on this question, I offer a more authoritative source.

So I think right now it's setting up the whole transition, both in Spokane and in Chicago. I think that's my priority right now. I'm not going to make any major decisions about -- the cardinal is in full power as the archbishop until the 18th. -- Blase Cupich

http://ncronline.org/news/people/exclusive-chicagos-new-archbishop-talks-about-stepping-unknown

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, perhaps, an equally authoritative statement that does not contradict what Cupich said above, but says that what's happening in the case of Chicago is not normal practice. Rocco Palmo -- if you don't know him, check his bio here: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/in-chicagos-wake-riding-wave.html

The last paragraph:

In an exceedingly rare arrangement granted by the Holy See ... neither George nor Cupich immediately became administrators of their respective dioceses when the appointment was announced. Until the installation on November 18th, each will retain the full powers of office as archbishop of Chicago and bishop of Spokane. (emphasis added)

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, normally when an appointment like this is announced, the Holy See simultaneously announces its acceptance of the resignation of the outgoing bishop, making him an emeritus. Cupich would, as you can see from the Canons I quoted above, attain the powers of Diocesan Administrator of Spokane. But he would still retain the title of Bishop of Spokane even though his canonical status had slightly changed. Important to know going forward as other appointments come out. Elizium23 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this article be moved to either Blase Cupich or Blase J. Cupich? Both of these names seem to be used more commonly than the current title. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Either of your suggestions is fine but he seems to use the middle initial more often than not. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no objection.....Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

request

Someone please change "archbishop-elect" to "archbishop-designate." Cupich was not elected to the position, he was appointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.183.9 (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources are about evenly split on whether he is "elect" or "designate". I believe that "designate" here is the correct term, because he is already a bishop. If a priest is elected a bishop then he is known before his episcopal ordination as "bishop-elect". This is because bishops are indeed elected, by an electorate of one, the Pope. Cupich was elected to the Archdiocese of Chicago, which resulted in his appointment by Pope Francis. These things are not necessariliy mutually exclusive. Thank you for your interest. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

John L. Allen Quote and Criticism of Blaise Cupich

I think the quote of John L. Allen assumes a point of view that can be seen as very arguable, for those who know Pope Francis style as cardinal-archbishop of Buenos Aires: "Cupich is clearly a moderate, clearly upholding church teaching on all the hot-button issues in the wars of culture such as abortion, contraception, and gay marriage, but like Francis, he tends to shun strong rhetoric on those matters. Instead, Cupich has been identified with the wing of the American bishops that's tried to steer the church down a less confrontational path, and tends to place special emphasis on the social gospel, meaning concern for the poor and for social justice." The quote is very arguable because Cupich can be seen easily as a follower of political correctness, unlike former cardinal Jorge Bergoglio. Anyone can see that Pope Francis used a "strong rhetoric" on controversial matters like abortion and same-sex marriage, even by Wikipedia entry about him, while Blaise Cupich seems to prefer quite in the opposite a "political correctness" style that is nothing new in american contemporary Catholicism. I think the quote should be removed or balanced with another critical quote of the nomination.Mistico (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source which comments on Allen's quote. This edit is pure original research without it. Elizium23 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

John Allen quote seems biased to say at least. I think it should be removed. By his own words, John Allen took a new approach to Cupich nomination in this article: [1]Mistico (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Crux is a bad source in general. It is pretty much the National Catholic Reporter under a new veneer. Dissent and criticism of the Church. Allen, formerly of NCR, is actually the most centrist and reliable reporters there. Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a National Catholic Register story that might assist your quest for appropriate material. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that Allen style is so manipulative and politically correct that he is still a bad source, except to see how the liberals view the unexpected Cupich nomination, who seemed to have pleased mostly people who are in opposition to the Catholic Church doctrine. Allen tends to see everything through his own "politically correct" lenses, we just need to read what he wrote about the recent Synod in Rome. Nobody would believe it was so controversial through his writting. The comparison with Pope Francis is abusive, to say the least, their styles are miles apart, because Cupich seems to be more in the heritage of Joseph Bernardin, a political liberal who still took strong stances on controversial issues, like abortion and euthanasia. I have a friend who lives and studies Theology in Rome who told me that he doesn't like Allen because he isn't trusthworthy, but there are two Vaticanists that are "giants" and are worthy reading everything that they write, Marco Tosatti and Sandro Magister. This article definetely needs improvement. I can remember that the conservative site Catholic Vote took a moderate critical view of Cupich nomination. I will try to find better sources to improve the entry. I would have removed Allen references but probably they would be reinserted.Mistico (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Blase Cupich Interview for "Time" Magazine

I think this interview that Elizabeth Dias did of Blase Cupich to "Time" magazine sheds light on his profile and views: [2]Mistico (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blase J. Cupich. 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/20110926130318/http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/ to http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Vigano material

The material as was, was bloated and undue, for this BLP, and it is not about child abuse, nor about clergy, it is about a letter about one man McCarrick, by another man Vignano, that is not even the subject this article (Cupich). Mostly irrelevant emphasis and length, but also presented like tabloid sensationalism and at length scandalmongering. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with shortening the opening paragraph; but you removed the two most important pieces of information there: the allegation that Francis covered up for McCarrick and the call on him to resign. We could include both by adding only one more sentence. The paragraph summarizing the actions of the different bishops isn't even very long. It just looks longer because the numerous citations take up a lot of space. The paragraph only contained four sentences. That doesn't seem like undue weight. The fact that a journalist confirmed well before Vigano's letter came out that McCarrick did indeed orchestrate Cupich's appointment is clearly relevant to the subject of the article. This sounds a little bit like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This is even more evident by the fact that, while you removed the information about a journalist confirming Vigano's allegations, you kept Cupich's response explaining that he didn't need one person to be his advocate. We have to present both sides, but your edits thus far suggest that we should only present one. Display name 99 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC

No. 'this man' is associated with 'that bad man' via a 'third man', by a 'forth man' is stretching the word 'vital' to unrecognizable (it is rather called 'guilt by association'). And, no, that thing about the journalist is a waste of space - we do not need to use this article to examine Vignano and the details of his claims against the Vatican (apparently a whole host of people going back decades, including himself -- that's already covered at length in more relevant articles). That thing about Francis is also a waste of space, here, this article is about Cupich, not the sins of Vigano, not of Francis, not of the Vatican, nor of McCarrick. So, Vignano has his say and Cupich has his say, and that's all that's due, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We only examine his claims against the Vatican if they concern Cupich. It's not a matter of guilt. Any information revealing how he may have come to occupy his position is important and relevant. You wouldn't object under normal circumstances to content showing how an archbishop came to be appointed to his office. You only object in this case because the facts seem to reflect poorly on the particular person involved. How about I move the journalist's claim out of the Vigano section and into the Archbishop of Chicago section? That way, we make it not about McCarrick or Vigano but instead about Cupich specifically and his tenure as Archbishop of Chicago as a whole. It will be harder this way for someone to misinterpret the text by thinking it is specifically intended as a poor reflection of Cupich. Display name 99 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I wouldn't object to what? I'm not seeing any effort, here to give a real account of how Cupich was appointed, it is all presented and used as rumor. One may find rumor titillating and fun but it is not how we treat BLP's. I have to go now, so we can talk later if you have more you want to discuss. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not simply rumor. It is the report of a well-connected Vatican journalist at the time of Cupich's elevation, long before the Vigano hullabaloo, which lists two cardinals who were involved in recommending McCarrick to his position. The fact that one of those two happened to later be exposed as a sex abuser does not justify excluding the content. At the very least, I don't see why we couldn't add a sentence like "A report by Vatican journalist Sandro Magister shortly after Cupich's elevation claimed that his appointment was recommended by cardinals Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga and Theodore Edgar McCarrick." It is neutral, it is verifiable, and it is not original research. Display name 99 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not rumor? "Claimed", you say? So, it is worse, it is speculation, the beginning of rumor. What your reporter actually "claimed" is "it is thought", making it speculation, stated in passive-aggressive voice. And the blog you rely on (which should be replaced in the article by ref to Cupich's actual statements[3]) calls it all, "relatively mysterious". And the reporter's essay you tout is specifically all about "conservative" and "traditionalist Catholic" anger and attacks on others by rumor and speculation, because of political motivation. BLP prohibits this stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I say "claimed" not because it is mere speculation, but simply because it's what one journalist says and so there is no need for us to treat it as absolute fact. The Catholic Herald is not a blog. It is a high-quality reliable source. The article from the journalist who made the claim discusses the conflicts between liberal and conservative Catholics, yes, but you have no evidence that the "speculation" that McCarrick and Maradiaga engineered Cupich's appointment was because of political motivation, especially since this was all before the public knew about McCarrick's activities. At the time it would not have seemed as startling. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What? That Herald piece calls itself a blog. And yes, the other's, "it is thought" does mean it is speculation (and passive aggressive construction to boot, thought by whom). I said nothing about McCarrick and Madriga, it remains that essay you tout is all about conservatives and traditionalist Catholics political opinions in anger and even "depression". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Some nice whitewashing being done here. The Banner talk 17:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Headings should comply with WP:NPOV even if describing a controversy. Elizium23 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)