Talk:Peter Comensoli

Date mismatch

As at 24 July 2014, page starts "Peter Andrew Comensoli (born 25 March 1962)", but the data in the sidebar lists DOB as 25 March 1964.

121.45.175.244 (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Bishop Peter Comensoli

Copied from User talk:3abos:

Your edits to the article for Bishop Peter Comensoli are erroneous.

I refer to Canon 409, specifically §2.:

Can. 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.
§2. When the episcopal see is vacant and unless competent authority has established otherwise, an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar while the see was filled until a new bishop has taken possession of the see. If he has not been designated to the function of diocesan administrator, he is to exercise this same power, conferred by law, under the authority of the diocesan administrator who presides offer the governance of the diocese.

— Canon 409

Thank you, James ^{(T • C)} • 7:35pm • 08:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thanks for your message.

the Canon says

an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar

as a vicar general or episcopal vicar, he never had the power to make appointments anyway. Only a Bishop of a diocese can do that.

Also, please see [| this ] from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis saying

The administrator is also prohibited by canon law from naming pastors of parishes. However, he is given authority to appoint pastors if no archbishop is named within a year of Archbishop Buechlein’s retirement.

3abos (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rector or Vice-Rector of the Seminary was approved in advance. All of his other appointments have been to appoint assistant priests and administrators of parishes, not parish priests. He has not named any pastors. James ^{(T • C)} • 11:13am • 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I have the document he signed which addressed the appointment of a new parish administrator in MY OWN parish. He states, quite clearly: "As Apostolic Administrator, I have no power to appoint parish priests as such. Therefore, my appointment will need to be confirmed by the new Archbishop when he is appointed." James ^{(T • C)} • 11:15am • 00:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See also this:

Until 1983 an apostolic administrator was seen as one who administrates a diocese in the name of the Pope. In instances where the local diocesan bishop was not capable of governing his diocese for a long period of time, and the duties to be fulfilled were more demanding than the office of a vicar general (a Catholic bishop's second in charge) the Pope, as supreme Pastor could appoint an apostolic administrator who would govern the diocese, not as diocesan bishop but rather on behalf of the Pope.

-- http://catholic-church.org/church-unity/apos_a_e.htm

And this:

"Unless it be otherwise stated in the brief of appointment, the administrator apostolic has full episcopal jurisdiction, although in its exercise he is bound by the same laws as the bishop himself. "

-- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01143a.htm

James ^{(T • C)} • 11:20am • 00:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And Canon Law:

Can. 427 §1. A diocesan administrator is bound by the obligations and possesses the power of a diocesan bishop, excluding those matters which are excepted by their nature or by the law itself.

§2. When he has accepted election, the diocesan administrator obtains power and no other confirmation is required, without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in ⇒ can. 833, n. 4.

-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1H.HTM

James ^{(T • C)} • 11:23am • 00:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Were Bishop Peter acting in contravention of Canon Law, the Bishops Conference would have made a statement and the Pope would have summoned him to Rome. None of these have happened. The Catholic Weekly and similar Catholic news organisations have made no such reports. James ^{(T • C)} • 11:36am • 00:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Finally, this press release: http://mediablog.catholic.org.au/?p=2584 James ^{(T • C)} • 1:36 PM • 03:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please cease spamming my talk page. the ACBC has nothing to do with the function of the diocese. 3abos (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the fact that these appointments are not illicit. Not only have you failed to address the Canon I have quoted, you have also failed to show you understand Canon Law. I will not violate WP:3RR and thus have requested administrator help. James ^{(T • C)} • 1:52 PM • 03:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Admin comment: Adding negative unsourced opinion to an article on a living person violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Interpretation of documents have no place on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No original research so it not a matter of who is correct in their interpretation of the Canon, but that there are links in the article to Wikipedia:Reliable sources which say that Comensoli's action are inappropriate or illegal. Only if there are such sources which comment directly on this particular situation naming Comensoli can the information be included. Editors are forbidden from making negative assumptions about any living person on Wikipedia, and can only make negative statements when they are supported by multiple, reliable sources which comment directly and clearly on the incident and the individual. Repeated attempts to make accusations against Comensoli of illegal activity without appropriate sources will result in a block from editing Wikipedia. My suggestion is that 3abos seeks confirmation from another editor, such as M.O.X / James, before attempting to re-add that material, even with sources.

I am copying this discussion to the article talkpage so it is a matter of record. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)