Talk:John Carroll (archbishop)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relationship with authorities[edit]

The article ought to clarify what were Carroll's relations with the new Revolutionary government under Washington, and how he used those relations to get himself to the post of top American clergyman. And too, it must be specified the motives of Bishop Briand for his excommunication, which some have alleged were related to some prohibited or controversial masonic affiliation. ADM (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the role of Benjamin Franklin in Carroll's selection as superior to the entry. That may help to address your first point. Ericstoltz (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only bishop elected by the clergy[edit]

The article text says "Carroll was the only Roman Catholic bishop in the United States who was elected rather than appointed by the Pope." I added the "rather than appointed by the Pope" because I felt it was important to explain what the norm was. I made an assumption as to what the sentence was trying to say. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

I also note that, later in the article, the text says "Among the resolutions coming out of these meetings was a request to the Holy See that future episcopal nominations be made by the U.S. hierarchy, not by European prelates." What happened to this request? Have episcopal nominations been made by the U.S. hierarchy since then? If so, then perhaps my addition of "rather than appointed by the Pope" is not appropriate. Please clarify what we should be saying in these two sections. --Richard (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is good and helps to clarify the entry. The American clergy asked that their bishops be nominated by American bishops rather than foreign prelates because up to that point, as a mission territory, various European bishops had input into the affairs of the Church in theUnited States. This does not really have to do with the correct addition you made about the pope now appointing bishops; the question was who would nominate before the pope appoints. The current process is that American bishops compose a list of three candidates called a "terna," which is submitted to Rome (actually to the papal nuncio). The pope is supposed to select from those three for his appointment, but is not required to. And when he appoints someone not on the terna, it is often not taken well. This was a common complaint against John Paul II; he frequently appointed men who were not on the terna as bishops.
Ericstoltz (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that. I still have a few things that I don't understand. I assume that the "terna" is selected by the USCCB. Is the "terna" unique to the U.S. or is it used in other countries as well? I note that there is a disambiguation page for Terna but no article for the term specifically as used in the context of appointing Catholic bishops. The article on Appointment of Catholic bishops makes no mention of the term "terna"! If the terna is unique to the U.S., then it should be mentioned in Roman Catholicism in the United States. If it is not unique to the U.S., then it should be mentioned in Appointment of Catholic bishops. --Richard (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The terna is compiled by a rather flexible process. Often the metropolitan of the province where the diocese is located may head up the process, soliciting input from the other bishops in the province. If the open seat is for a metropolitan, then other bishops in the area get involved; if it is a major metropolitan see, the scope of input widens. It's rather informal as I understand it, and is not an actual function of the USCCB per se. I don't know if this process is used in other countries. The terna is actually mentioned in the article on appointment of Catholic bishops, but not by name: "The nuncio then decides on a short list of candidates for further investigation and seeks precise information on each of them... He will then send to the Holy See all the information that has been gathered on the three candidates that seem to be the most appropriate for consideration, accompanying the information with the conclusions that he himself draws from the evidence." Ericstoltz (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Position on slavery[edit]

An edit has been made by Contaldo80 noting that Carroll owned a slave and was supportive of slavery. While there is no citation, I can certainly imagine it could be true. But I wonder if this belongs in the section describing his ministry as bishop. Maybe there should be a separate section with more information on this topic. I can see undoing/redoing already taking place on this addition, and no doubt whoever removed it also thought it just didn't belong in that section. Ericstoltz (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same statement on a few other pages, including Christianity and slavery and Catholic Church and slavery; all of them without a reference. I agree it could be true, but it's not properly sourced for the 'pedia just yet. Gentgeen (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this edit should be undone again. A search indicated two documents of Carroll in an anthology. In one he denies ever having owned a slave but that he was caring for one of his sister's slaves. In his last will he bequeaths a slave (perhaps his sister finally transferred title to him?) to a friend on the condition that the slave be set free. As for supporting slavery, the only document I could find is Carroll defending slaveholders who were gradually divesting themselves of slaves, arguing against doing it all at once. That hardly makes him an advocate. It does not appear as cut-and-dry as the edit makes it seem. Ericstoltz (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've tried to provide some sources now and have nuanced the text. Not necessarily an 'advocate' he nevertheless tolerated the situation (as did many jesuits and clergy of the time). Agree it might go better in another section though so feel free to move. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've moved your edit to a separate section called Attitudes Toward Slavery. Maybe this might start a more comprehensive look at how he approached this issue.Ericstoltz (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on John Carroll (bishop). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on John Carroll (bishop). 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:

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) 08:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on John Carroll (bishop). 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:

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) 09:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned improvement[edit]

I plan on working on this article for awhile, with the aim of brining it up to GA status. Ergo Sum 20:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery[edit]

My good foe Eccekevin seems to be up to no good with his latest revert, of an edit I made (and he initially reverted) a while ago concerning Carroll's slaves. An award-winning, century-old student newspaper at Georgetown (print and online) claims Carroll had 100 slaves, but Ecce says it's only a "blog" and not reliable. I suspect bias, as with many of his edits trailing my own across Wikipedia. natemup (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you’re referencing is a caption of an image. The claim is not further explained, nor is it present in the text, nor are any sources added. Additionally, no scholarly sources mention this fact. Where is this information coming from? What primary and secondary sources is it relying on?
On the other hand, we have a multi year long research work by the university and scholars and researchers specifically did an in depth study on his relationship with slavery. It is very improbable that such a study would have identified by name and described the life of his two slaves, but then absolutely have found no trace of 100 (!) more slaves.
You need a better source. An unsourced and unexplained image caption in a student newspaper isn’t enough. Eccekevin (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better source than what? The source is the newspaper, which is in itself reliable. You say it's not good enough in this case simply because it's different information from a larger study. That doesn't seem particularly reasonable or encyclopedic to me. Besides, my wording only stated that the claim was made, not that it's true. Your contention seems to have to do with the facts rather than the claim. natemup (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this case. It is an article by a non-expert on a student newspaper, but most importantly the information is not presented in a proper manner. It is not even in the text of the article, but in a picture caption (the article does not mention Carroll). Where did this undergrad even get it from? It is unsourced. This does not seem like a reliable source on the topic, nor does this seem like a reputable fact. Student media can be considered reliable for its reporting on the local news on campuses, but not necessarily on expert topics like history. Where does this information come from? What is the primary source? The information is not just different, is completely incompatible with that of experts. All other scholars claim 2 slaves, while this non-historian undergrad claims a 500% increase in a picture caption, while not providing any documents, sources, or facts. If he had 100 slaves, surely you can find a scholarly source that says so. Eccekevin (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to side firmly with Eccekevin here. We have three, high quality sources saying Carroll owned two slaves and then one student publication saying only in the caption of an image, without citing to any source for that claim or any other in the article that Carroll owned 100 slaves. That is a huge disparity and given the fact that it contradicts apparently all the other high-quality sources, it is a dubious and unreliable claim. We would need a much better source to justify including it in the article. Ergo Sum 12:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Carroll (archbishop of Baltimore) → John Carroll (archbishop) – WP:OVERPRECISION. As far as I can tell, he's the only archbishop named John Carroll that is discussed on Wikipedia. Per WP:NCPDAB, we don't use "(Queen drummer)" when "(drummer)" would suffice. In this case, "of Baltimore" is also rather misleading, as his domain included much more than Baltimore. The article says that "Until 1808, Carroll administered the entire American Catholic Church." He is the only person in Category:19th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in the United States and Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Baltimore to have the specific location of his domain identified in the article title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. The John Carroll#Religion disambiguation page lists three bishops named "John Carroll", but only one archbishop. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "archbishop of Balitmore" is not misleading, as that was his actual title, just how today the archbishop of Balitmore oversees a territory that encompasses much more than just the city of Balitmore. However, it is overly precise and wordy without need. Ergo Sum 14:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "of Baltimore" is not needed to identify him. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Carroll_(archbishop)&oldid=1211943584"