Talk:Thomas Roberts (bishop)

Major revision

I am working on a major revision of this article. It is taking me some time to get all the citations in order. I hope to upload the changes within the next month. I note that there have been a few edits in recent months. I will take account of them, but have difficulty with some of the sources, particularly the references to the New York Times which are available only to subscribers. I would especially like to read these as they do not accord 100% with my understanding of the position. Can user:bmclaughlin9 (who inserted them) please help to make these available? Exbrum (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am traveling at present, but will be able to help about 5 October. In the meantime, what do you mean by "the position"? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. From all I have read, I understand that Roberts believed that authority should be questioned (Black Popes is very much about that); indeed he held that one had a duty to question authority. He certainly questioned the church’s teaching on contraception, saying that he could not understand the logic of its being said to be against the natural law, but this falls short of 'welcom[ing] oral contraception as a component of nature'. He took his oath of obedience very seriously so I am also surprised to see that he allegedly 'reject[ed] the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) forthrightly'. Exbrum (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

First the two New York Times references.

1. and welcomed oral contraception as a component of nature.

The Times article is a lengthy weekend magazine article about the "fathers" of the birth control pill: Gregory Pincus, M.C. Chang, and John Rock. Specifically with respect to Rock it says: "Through his scientific arguments for the pill as an adjunct of nature, he has won the support of such theologians as Rev. Louis Janssens, professor of moral theology at the University of Louvain, Belgium, and Britain's Archbishop Thomas Roberts, formerly of Bombay". That is the full extent of the reference to Roberts. He is mentioned as one of two examples of people who accepted Rock's arguments. I've found no letter to the editor objecting to this characterization of Robert' views.

2. He was one of the few Roman Catholic prelates to reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) forthrightly, saying that its teaching "flies in the face of reality" and that Catholics no longer raised the use of birth control in the confessional.

This article catalogs reactions to the encyclical. The reference to Roberts is complicated by a typography problem that is best communicated if I replicate the layout of the text so you can see the odd repetition of "British Broad-" near the end. The sense is still clear.

Throughout Europe, the im-
mediate reaction of laymen to
the Pope's statement was re-
ported to have been largely
negative. But few highly placed
Catholics and church officials
were willing to criticize the
Pope.

An exception was Archbishop
Thomas Roberts, a Jesuit, paci-
fist and former bishop of Bom-
bay, who said in London that
the papal edict "flies in the
face of reality." On a news
program in the British Broad-
casting Company, he said that
program by the British Broad-
"are never mentioned in con-
fession now," there being a
"tacit agreement not to discuss
the matter.

Additionally, the Times obituary of Roberts is probably publicly available.

Some other things I've come across:

Roberts is reported to have experienced a significant change in his thinking about expressing his thoughts during the Second Vatican Council.

A simple biographical entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

A personal reminiscence by another peace activist, Richard T. McSorely.

The Times has another story you may not be able to access. This details a statement issued on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales. Quote 1: The Bishops said they could not "remain silent when so many voices are being raised to lead our people astray." Quote 2: The Most Rev. Thomas d'Esterre Roberts, a Jesuit, argued in the April issue of a Catholic newsletter, Search, that the laws of nature and of the church had undergone immense changes over the centuries. There is no certainty, Archbishop Roberts said, that the church's attitude toward contraception is not liable to change.

The article Roberts wrote in Search in April 1964 is available online. It makes for fascinating reading. That website cites a volume that reprinted Roberts' essay.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. The second reference is particularly interesting as it is after the publication of Hamanae Vitae, particularly the statement that he "said in London" that the papal edict "flies in the face of reality." Pity the NYT doesn't give the context: when he said it and to whom; not on the BBC, presumably, as with his less controversial statement about confession. Still working on it! Exbrum (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes

• What is From the Bridge? essays by Roberts? who published it and when?

Hope this is now dealt with. Exbrum (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• The source cited with a very incomplete citation as "An Extraordinary Jesuit Archbishop" is just a blog and not a proper source. No better source for the text of these remarks?

This should have disappeared in the latest version. Exbrum (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Letters and Notices lacks publisher and location.

This is an internal publication of the Society of Jesus in Great Britain, circulated to all members of the British Province, but available for consultation at the Jesuit archivist's discretion. The obituary in it could be looked on as almost the "official" Jesuit obituary for Roberts, so it would be nice to retain references to it. However, if you feel this would be against Wikipedia rules I am sure I can find other citations. See https://www.jesuit.org.uk/blog/archives-155-years-letters-and-notices. Exbrum (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Irish Times citation lacks a date.

This has been fixed. Exbrum (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Possible additional source: Gense, James H. (1960). The Church at the Gateway of India: 1720-1960. Bombay: St. Xavier's College.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and observations. I think it would be best if I bash on with my editing (still plenty to do) then return to deal with your comments (+ futures ones) in one go. Cannot spare time today: will be tomorrow at the earliest. Hope this is OK. Exbrum (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Now finished major work. Will now look at your notes and other errors that may have crept in. Exbrum (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Delation: list of Roman authorities.

Bmclaughlin9: you correctly queried the list of 5 Roman authorities. I have corrected this list and added a citation from Hurn. My error arose through my not understanding how Vatican works plus trying to finds the correct Wikipedia links for authorities which have changed their names. Please check out my list and the links to make sure they make sense. Exbrum (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Understandably confusing. The official names are unstable and then people use shorthand because the names can be so cumbersome. The first in your list is problematic. You have "Consistorial Congregation" linked to "Congregation (Roman Curia)". The later is not a department to which you could direct a letter but a WP article about a category within the Roman Curia. The Roman Curia has departments of different ranks, e.g., Secretariat, Dicastery, Congregation, Tribunal, Council.

The Consistorial Congregation is the pre-1967 name for the Congregation for Bishops. I’ll make the change. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishop Delegate to the forces

Hello again, Bmclaughlin9. I have been looking through the various amendments you made. In relation to Roberts being Bishop Delegate to the forces I had that he "covered American service personnel as well as British" which you amended to " visited American service personnel". It is not clear from the Dayton reference, which is looking at it from an American perspective, but it is clear from Hurn p 42 that his appointment was only in relation to the British (and British Empire/Commonwealth) forces. However because his American opposite number could not fly, Roberts ministered to American forces as well. I didn't put all this in as it seemed too much detail. Perhaps we should include a reference to Hurn? I tended to economise somewhat on multiple citations to avoid the article getting cluttered.

You also deleted "later" in respect of his work with American forces in Germany. I put this word in because the Germany business was after the war. Arguably this doesn't belong in the section on Bombay, but that seemed the best fit. Perhaps the Germany bit should be relegated to a note. Exbrum (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No-one has objection to these points of clarification, so I have now reinserted them with further clarification. Exbrum (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Term ended before he was installed?

In the info box,it says: Installed 07 December 1970. Term ended 4 December 1950. This must be wrong. The year 1970 is nowhere to be found in the article text, but was introduced to the info box in this edit. [1] --Hjordmån (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted: I had failed to notice that this date had been incorrectly changed in the infobox. I have reinstated the correct date. Incidentally, the date 7 December 1970 used to be in the article as the date Roberts resigned his Sugdaea appointment. The citation for it was already marked as self-published; I deleted it when I found that Roberts signed himself Sugdaea in a letter to the editor of The Tablet on 18 September 1971. I have seen nothing to suggest that Roberts ever resigned his Sugdeae appointment: after all, it was only titular. Exbrum (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)