Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange

Map?

Any thoughts on including a map of the dioces? TMLutas 16:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Halloween Mass

I removed the following:

Various liturgical abuses have arisen in the Diocese of Orange. The most publicized abuse is the "Halloween Mass" located in Aliso Viejo, where the presiding priest and the laity attending dressed up in Halloween costumes with the priest changing into a Barney costume at the end of Mass. After this incident was publicized and appeared on youtube, the priest wrote a letter of apology to Bishop Tod Brown, which is available on the Corpus Christi Parish website.

As we know, we have notability guidelines and sourcing guidelines. A youtube video, which is self-published, cannot be used as a source. I did a Lexis-Nexis news search for the past year for the word "Halloween Mass", and I came up with one article from the LA Times from 21 October 2006, entitled "Wandering Parish Is Going Home; Corpus Christi Catholic Church in Aliso Viejo joins other Orange County senominations with a new, artful structure built to order." with the quote Unconventional for a church? Absolutely, parishioner and development coordinator Ron Ploof said, but that's Father Fred. Since the church's inception Bailey has instituted, among other things, an annual summer margarita night and a costumed Halloween Mass in the fall. I searched other sources, and couldn't come up with anything but blogs mentioning this. I do not believe when someone is searching for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, one of the most notable things is a Halloween Mass held by one of the churches in the Diocese. I'm not convinced this is notable, and more importantly, I've yet to come across reliable sources that present this in the manner of the most recent edits. But I'm taking things here to talk to see if we can't work things out or find a common ground. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The source for the Halloween mass is mentioned on the parish website as I have shown via the priests apology for having it, youtube is video evidence for it taking place. It's one among SEVERAL liturgical abuses in the diocese, that is why it was mentioned--this event did not happen once and cannot be denied. IF it's not notable at all then why is it such a big topic for bloggers? The Halloween Mass was one of many that were going to be listed. The Halloween Mass was left up because it was the easiest to prove with out blogs. Why is okay to note the diocese troubles sexual abuse scandal but not the spiritual issues? God forbid Bishop Brown be presented as not favorable among the faithful. even in spiritual matters. By the way I can only assume someone will report on the testimony he made recently on the scandals. I live in his diocese and find only reporting the sexual abuses offensive to those in the diocese, when there is so much more wrong than just bad priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.206.21 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This might sound blunt, but I don't mean this is an accusatory fashion. It sounds like you are editing with an agenda. You said that you want to introduce several alleged liturgical abuses into the article because you live in the diocese and believe that there is so much more wrong. Wikipedia is not the place for you to air your grievances with your church. We can only summarize what reliable sources publish about the subject matter. While I can understand that you can personally be offended that the sex scandal gets more media coverage than a Halloween Mass, wikipedia is not the place to right that wrong. The media clearly has reported on the sex scandal. It is notable, not only because the settlement was the first in California, but also because it was the largest until 2 month ago. I still don't see the minor actions of one of the 50 odd churches in the Diocese should get mention here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor actions??Alleged??..how do things that are widely known and even VIDEO taped and documented by priests and the bishop himself constitute allegation? If its video taped and the priest apologizes for doing it on the parish website and in newspaper--it is fact not allegation, those are very reliable sources since they speak for themselves. These events have primary sources and witnesses. All of these "minor" actions put together make on giant mess. My reporting them is establishing the lack of proper order in the diocese and that sexual abuse is just one of among many issues. Wikipedia is where actual, modern events are document, not denied. Evidence was provided, the importance was established, whether or not the media chooses to report it is irrelevant, Catholic newspapers have reported on these issues and they are VERY relevant to the Diocese of Orange. As far as the secular media is concerned, if it's not the pope, a sex scandal, or some homosexual, chances are they will ignore the story or give it little attention. Especially since American media has traditionally had anti-catholic bias.76.173.206.21 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

References

High schools

Some of the high schools have connections which are mainly geographic to the diocese. The one in Silverado Canyon, for example, is run by a religious order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Crest of the Diocese of Orange County, California logo lg.gif

Resolved

Image:The Crest of the Diocese of Orange County, California logo lg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the logo rational on the image's description page. Gentgeen (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New diocesan coat of arms

As of November 2, 2012, (and likely earlier) the website of the Diocese of Orange is advertising a new coat of arms that differs from the coat of arms presented in this article. Link here: [1] I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards for presenting heraldry, nor how to properly construct an image even if I did, so I merely offer the link with the idea that someone who knows more than I do can create the proper image. GeoGreg (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I am also incompetent in this area, but you might try asking in WT:CATHOLIC or on User talk:Esoglou, they will know how. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is the coat of arms correct? It doesn't match the logo they use on their Facebook pages, their YouTube channel, and their web site. I raised the issue on a talk page for the image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Orange_(new).svg SlowJog (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A coat of arms is not like a modern corporate logo where the exact shade of color and the exact curve of every line is carefully defined. It is a representation of certain standard elements, which together identify the bearer, and there is a lot of variation possible. The arms used on the diocesan website and the one depicted in this article look different, but they are the same in that they contain the same elements in the same order (they follow the same blazon). As to whether the version used as the diocesan logo is preferable to the more standardized one here, I suppose that is a matter of opinion.-- choster (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. SlowJog (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Christ Cathedral Interior July 17 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

July 2021 Latin Church revision

As of July 2021, this article was modified to eliminate the nondescript term "Roman Catholic" in favor of the more precise distinction of "Latin Church" (the sui iuris church) and "Catholic Church" (the denomination). If you believe this edit to be in error or improper, please make the relevant reversion and open discussion on this talk page or my personal talk page. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)