Talk:Thomas Paprocki

Paprocki

Not sure if we now have the bishop himself editing this article. If it is indeed the man then I'd like to inform him that he needs reliable third party sources for any material he adds to the article - whether he personally knows it to be true or not. Likewise the article will be more useful if it focuses on significant facts as opposed to every marathon the bishop has ever run - which is worthy, yet dull - along with the opportunity to plug his charitable work and a book. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we clarify please whether the editor going under the name of tPaprocki is the bishop himself or someone employed or is closely associated with the bishop. The level of personal (unsourced) detail added suggests a very close connection. This raises concerns for me around neutrality - there are rules to be followed when an individual edits their own article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote issue

Source # 16 does not have a quote proving that "When remarking about who was responsible for the sexual abuse crises in the Catholic Church, Paprocki said that the devil was the principal force behind the lawsuits". In the article there is a following quote:

“Today in North America and elsewhere, the law is being used to undermine the charitable works and the religious freedom of the Church,” Paprocki said four years ago. “This attack is particularly directed against bishops and priests, since the most effective way to scatter the flock is to attack the shepherd. We must also use our religious discernment to recognize that the principal force behind these attacks is none other than the devil.”

This quote does not clearly and directly support the statement that "Paprocki said that the devil was the principal force behind the LAWSUITS". Whoever wrote it should correct it, no need to misquote people.

Source #16 doesn't reference anything about the lawsuits. Were you intending to bring up a different source, perhaps? Strikerforce^Talk 14:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at it again and see what you're bringing up. Let's back it up one paragraph in that source - "In 2007, Paprocki told a group of judges and lawyers in Michigan that monetary awards to victims of sexual abuse by priests were excessive and that the legal system needed reform." In order to have monetary awards, lawsuits must be filed and the defendant(s) must be found guilty or liable, correct? The "attacks" to which the Bishop refers are the lawsuits. Context would appear to support the statement within the article as being correct, wouldn't it? Happy to discuss if you're applying OR or SYNTH here. Strikerforce^Talk 14:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality

Can a Catholic bishop be "opposed to homosexuality"? The catechism teaches that those with a homosexual orientation should be accepted with compassion. I think it's only true to say that he might be opposed to the "expression" of homosexuality ie sex. Can I also clarify whether he is opposed to the articulation and protection of rights for those that are homosexual? He might be opposed to homosexuality but accept that their rights should be enshrined in law. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No-one has addressed this so I'm changing. It is manifestly wrong. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No Catholic can be justly "opposed to homosexuality" because for Catholics, this means a same-sex attraction or "orientation". Unfortunately in the debate, the attraction and the actions are conflated in the use of "gay" or "LGBT movement" or "LGBT rights" and so the distinction is lost on our audience who can tell the difference between wanting a piece of carrot cake and eating a carrot cake for dinner. It is unfortunate the Catholics such as Paprocki are hated when they accept homosexuals with compassion (and no mention of that acceptance is available for Wikipedia's purposes, because it doesn't make headlines.) For example, I believe there was a New York Cardinal who was fond of ministering to AIDS victims incognito, but people threw condoms on his floor, so guess what the headlines say? Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit

@Contaldo80:, please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Specify what you find objectionable and let's reinstate the rest. There is clearly much that was uncontroversial in my edit, such as capitalization. It is unjust to discard good-faith work done because you found an objectionable particle in it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure - ok. If restored some of the changes that you've made. I've specified otherwise that I wasn't happy at the suggestion of NPOV and copyedit without further detail on why. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)