Request Information

Request made by: Bernie Radecki 19:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Where is the issue taking place?

Francis Schuckardt article

Who's involved?

An editor named Fra. John (He is now Athanasius303) and myself, Bernie Radecki. (Others also have been consistently accusing Fra. John of bias as can be seen on the article's Talk page.)

What's going on?

I believe Fra. John is giving an extremely small minority view undue weight. He is a religious brother in Francis Schuckardt's small religious group. In many instances, he does not adhere to the NPOV due to his bias that Franicis Schuckardt is the only living bishop of the Catholic Church. I was a member of Francis Schuckardt's church from 1969 to 1984. I once believed that he was the only real bishop of the Catholic Church but now I agree with the majority view that he had created a destructive cult in Spokane Washington in the late 60s and continues those cult practices in the Seattle Wa. area today.

What would you like to change about that?

1. There is a sentance in which Fra. John links Denis Chicoine's death and his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt to a footnote that insinuates that Denis Chicoine is now in Hell. Since it is an extremely minority view that Francis Schuckardt has the power of a bishop of the Catholic Church to excommunicate, I do not think the footnote is proper. There is a discussion on this particular point in the Talk page. Fra. John has reverted it 3 times so I am seeking an outside opinion from the cabal.
2. I would like the term "Catholic Church" to be used in the article in the way that the vast majority of people use it and the way it is defined in the Wikipedia article titled "Catholic Church". Fra. John writes that the teaching prior to Vatican Council II represent the Catholic Church and Francis Schuckardt is the true representative of that Catholic Church. I beleive the solution is to use the term "TRLCC" (This is the leagal name of Schuckardt's church) when refering to the beliefs of Schuckardt and retain the word "Catholic Church" to apply to the generally accepted definition.
3. It is possible both Fra. John and myself are too biased to edit this article. He writes as though he is an expert on what the Catholic Church teaches even though his education is limited. Additionally, Francis Schuckardt is his religious superior in that he has taken vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to Francis Schuckardt as a brother in his extremely small religous group. I beleive Fra. John's view represents an extreme minority and my view represents the majority. However, Fra. John wins the revert wars because I don't see any use in reverting. I beleive either the article should be removed if Fra. John cannot accept that the majority view needs to be given either precedence or at least equal footing.
4. My knowldege is limited to living in Schuckardt's church and therefore knowing first hand of many of the activities that many regard as those of a destructive cult. Many others have posted information on the talk page relating to first hand knowledge of TLRCC practices dating both to the 1970s and 1980s and to the last few years. For instance: Schuckardt's claim to have been mystically crowned pope. Fra. John removes these first hand accounts from the talk page on the grounds that they are "personal attacks". I believe that the fact that the TLRCC has not published the beliefs that they have been orally telling others over a period of more than 30 years is an indication that views of the TLRCC are held by a tiny minority .
5. Fra. John has written a long section in which he writes to refute the accusations against Francis Schuckart made in the press and national news shows and by former members. I just want your opinion on whether that is appropriate based on the fact that this is giving undue weight to an extremely small minority view that would not interest readers.
6. There is a wordy section under "Blue Army" in which Fra. John explains Francis Schuckardt's thoughts on how he came to the conclusion that the Pope is a heritic. I think this is "original research" and doesn't belong in the article. There is already a Wikipedia article on "Sedevacantism" which details this issue. Fra. John insists that this is not original reseasrch and he reverted back to include it in the article. I asked him just to reference some published data to support Shuckardt's opinion, but he ignored that advice. The Talk page for the article has this information on this difference of opinion.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

I can be reached at -- BernieRadecki | (talk) I hope someone picks this case up. I promise to behave. It has now been 29 days! Bernie Radecki 05:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I am finishing Nursing School so I do not have the time. Thank you for the opportunity. Perhaps when I finish.

Mediator response

Evidence

Compromise offers

1. I suggested to Fra. John that he pull the original research from the Schuckardt article and put it on Schuckardt's personal webpage at www.bishopschuckardt.com. Currently, the article in Wikipedia has considerably more information than their own website. A link to their website could be put at the bottom of the Wikipedia article if someone wanted to see their minority view. Bernie Radecki 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. If a mediator believes the majority view on the topic of Francis Schuckardt is different than I think it is, I am willing to remove this request and to stop my participation on the article. Bernie Radecki 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. I am willing to accept the mediator's recommendations as though they were completely binding.I am willing to pare down the list of areas for arbitration if that would help the mediation process. Bernie Radecki 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Concerning (1), I think if Fra. John is amenable to it, it's a possible solution. Concerning (2), I think we're making slow but clear progress. You've both been very respectful to me, and I appreciate that greatly. I think this can be resolved peacably. (3) I will again remind you that my job here is not to decide who's right or wrong. My job is to facilitate consensus and restore good will :) Again, I think we're making progress. Danny Pi 09:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments by others

Discussion

Response to Mediation:

My name is Fra. John and I do have a few comments to make. Since I’m not sure exactly how this process works, please do not consider these comments as my final say in this matter.

If I may, I would suggest that you read not only the article in question but also the Talk Pages. In doing this, I believe you would have a much better grasp of the areas of contention and a clearer insight into who is or is not burdened with bias. I would also ask you to please take the time to read some of the recent deletions from the Talk Pages, both by Bernie Radecki and me. I believe this will give you a better idea of the unabashed hostility of Bernie Radecki and friends. I’m sure you are very busy and I apologize for asking you to take so much time to review all of this material, but I believe that without doing so, you will only get, at best, a partial picture of everything that is in play.

I would also like to make a few comments on what Bernie Radecki wrote above.

• I have never stated that Bishop Schuckardt is “the only living bishop of the Catholic Church,” that is a fabrication on his part.
• Catholic religious for over 1,500 years have taken the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to GOD. It is patent nonsense that I or any other religious take vows to a man. I don’t know if the comment comes from ignorance or if it was an attempt to disparage the Bishop and me, but I have to deal with these are the kinds of things all the time with him and his friends.

• Many traditional Catholics refer to the modern Catholic Church as the post-Vatican II Catholic Church to distinguish it from the Catholic Church prior to Vatican Council II. Bishop Schuckardt frequently uses this term and since the article is about him, I think that his position is best explained by stating it the way he explained it, i.e., the modern Catholic Church is the post-Vatican II Catholic Church as opposed to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Using these terms also eliminates any favoritism toward one side or the other and is historically accurate.

• Bernie Radecki knows next to nothing about my educational background and calling it “limited” is just one more of what has become a litany of personal attacks hurdled at me by him.

• Regarding the answers to accusations and the explanation of how Bishop Schuckardt philosophically arrived at where he did and how he did it: I believe that in explaining this process and showing the reasons which motivated him to do it, not only makes the reader better informed, but that it is also in keeping with editing recommendations and in full compliance with Wiki policy and guidelines. These policies and guidelines have been stated, in part, in the Talk Pages, but I would appreciate an opportunity to expound on them further if you are considering assigning this portion of the article as falling under the “undue weight” argument.

• The article on Sedevacantism contains factual errors and does not adequately represent the position of Bishop Schuckardt or of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. This article is about Bishop Schuckardt, and relegating his beliefs into a one-size-fits-all article on Sedevacantism would do neither him nor the reader a service.

• Lastly, Bernie Radecki left his email address for you to contact him by. I would ask that the differences we are trying to iron out here not be done behind closed doors, but rather in an open format so all can see all sides of the argument and how resolution was finally achieved (hopefully).

Thank you. Fra. John 3/17/06 Athanasius303 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

My early additions to the talk page that have been deleted were written when I was unaware of Wikipedia guidelines. I have spent some time reading Wikipedia's guidelines and have changed my ways. Thus, I agree that reading the Talk page is an excellent and necessary step, but wouldn't consider it useful to read parts that have been deleted. There is enough items to advise on as is. Bernie Radecki 05:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments by Rose - April 2, 2006 Fra. John Athanasius has unfairly removed comments by others on the talk page claiming they are personal attacks, vandalism or against wikipedia policies. However, if another editor used the same claims and deleted one of his entries, he would revert back and then use threats and name calling - he labled a number of the editiors as anti-Schuckardt. He has stated a number of personal comments that are not true or are hurtful such as his comment about the young boy who was raped by several of the members of Schuckardt's group - John Francis said that this young boy was a willing participant. When is a young child a willing participant of such abuse - children trust those who are older and in positions of authority. If they go along with the abuse, it is only because they are afraid or don't understand what is happening. I would remove this comment by John Francis but he continually threatens me and others. This is why I am writing my concerns on the mediation page. John Francis also said that the 80 year old women taken by her family was to make her renounce her faith. Again, this is not a true statement. John Francis has never once talked to the husband or children of this woman since she suddenly disappeared in Francis Schuckardt's group over 14 years ago with only a note and then all communciation was cut off from this family to their mother by this group. Again I would delete this statement by John Francis on the talk page because it is biased and untrue. If it is OK for him to state this, then I deserve a fair chance to state my side which I tried to do but which John Francis deleted. I don't believe Fra. John can be an unbiased editor in this article because he works for Francis Schuckardt. Besides this, the group believes that lying is OK to protect Francis Schuckardt; they call this "mental reservation". ( I know this as a fact because I lived under Schuckardt for 11 years - this is what we were taught to do) We need a third party to view this article. I would like to see the section on the counterclaims removed as it is John Francis' version of what the Schuckardt faction believes and there is no verifable written evidence to support his opinion. I can write a statement and then quote a law to support the statement but if subsequent actions do not support that statement, then that statement is merely a smoke screen of words. Thank you Sincerely Rose

Mediator

Hello everyone involved. I've been assigned to mediate in this case. First, I should let you all know that I have no prior knowledge of Francis Schuckardt. This means on the one hand that I'm totally unbiased on this particular issue. On the other hand, I am not particularly well equipped to decide what is or is not NPOV vis-a-vis the facts. If that's unsatisfactory to anyone, you may feel free to request a different mediator, and I'll pass on that info. That said, I'm not here to decide who's right. I'm a college student, final exams are approaching, and I don't have the time to learn everything there is to know about Francis Schuckardt. At any rate, we can't be sure that in reading about Bishop Schuckardt, I wouldn't pick up my own fair share of biases. My job, rather, is to try to help the conversation approach something like consensus.

Now, this dispute seems to have a rather long and contentious history on the talk page. Let me start by advising no one to delete entries (no matter how libelous) from the talk page without general consent. The discussion page is where discussion needs to happen, and if we start messing around with that, it disrupts the very communication necessary to resolve this debate.

Now, I'll try to address the points being brought up by Bernie Radecki for mediation. Athanasius303 and others may feel free to append this list with further disputes. Firstly, with regards to footnote 65, I can see both how this is factually relevant and POV. I think the belief that "excommunication entails eternity in hell" warrants mention, since the significance of the information is lost without. On the other hand, the way that this is presented, it suggests that Chicoine actually IS in hell, which isn't necessarily true if you don't subscribe to Bishop Schuckardt's teachings. I would suggest that the information be rephrased (not in footnote form) to something like, "Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt had never been revoked, which, according to Catholic dogma, entails an afterlife in hell." Or something like that.

As to the second point, it seems to me that perspicuity should be considered key here. For example, in the sentence, "The TLRCC labelled the Pope Paul VI the "arch-heretic of Rome" and referred to the post-Vatican II Catholic Church as 'the Church of the Beast,'" it seems key to mention that Schuckardt objects to the post-Vatican II church. At the same time, I do think it's confusing to call the TRLCC the "Catholic Church," which generally refers to that organization based at the Vatican. I haven't read enough of the article to tell for sure, but there may be some cases where mentioning "Post Vatican II Catholic Church" is meant to degrade the legitimacy of that church. It seems to me that in cases where "Post Vatican II" is informative it should be included. In cases where it implies that the current church is illegitimate, it should be removed. Of course, if the statement only asserts that Schuckardt CONSIDERS the current church illegitimate, it could be included. The important thing is that the article does not respresent that viewpoint (since objectivity means that wiki HAS no viewpoint).

As to the RV wars. That really isn't terribly constructive, AND it's against wiki rules. I don't intend on rummaging through the history to report violators, but from here on out, if you think that your edit MIGHT inflame other editors (it doesn't matter if you think they're wrong), discuss the change on the talk page prior to editing. Try to form something like a majority opinion before making changes. And if you find yourself in the minority, you definitely shouldn't make the changes unilaterally. But if you do believe that you're right on the matter, you should request a third party opinion from that resource.

As for the "destructive cult" comments, I don't think it would be NPOV to call Schuckardt's church a "destructive cult." However, it is NPOV to point out that "Some people consider Schuckardt's church a cult." And then you can feel free to cite evidence. That evidence should establish that some people consider Schuckardt's church a cult- NOT that it actually is a cult, which would be a case of expressing an opinion (which wiki does not do). Namely, it would be an opinion to say that TLRCC is a cult. It is a fact that TRLCC may be considered a cult to some people (providing that this is true).

As to the "Counterclaims and Answers to Acccusations [sic.]", I would first suggest correct spelling with regards to "Accusations." :) The length and nature of that section seems to me a little on the POV side. But even if it weren't, it seems to dwell on the minutia of theology, media relations, and history that really aren't consistent with the scope of the rest of the article. Perhaps the fairest thing to do would be to have a "Controversy" subsection, and limit its length to no more than 500 words. Then the arguments and counterarguments (supported by works cited) could be nicely contained. It seems like these disputes should be mentioned, but the current listing does strike me as being a little bit POV and a little too detailed to be useful to readers.

As for the stuff in the "Blue Army" section, I think that a lot of that content is useful, since it tells me exactly what Schuckardt's reasoning is. But the wording often seems a little bit biased. For example, "Since Christ Himself appointed St. Peter, he was obviously a true pope." That seems to me to assert a belief rather than report a fact. Also, this sentence: "He further argued that popes exercising infallibility cannot contradict one another in matters of faith and morals and that in applying the doctrine of papal infallibility, only one plausible explanation could be found for the contradictory doctrines being taught by the post-Vatican II popes, i.e., that they could not be true popes." seems to skirt the line of reporting what Schuckardt believes and what actually IS logical. I'm not disputing whether Schuckardt's logic is correct or incorrect- merely that wiki articles cannot assert either. It can only assert that Schuckardt claims that something is logical.

So these are not my final words on the matter- and anyway I have no authority to declare by fiat what is or is not fair. I'm just trying to suggest ways of resolving the conflict, and in certain cases offering my 3rd party opinion. I feel like we can all agree on a solution if we talk through this. Danny Pi 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Response by Bernie Radecki

Thank you for mediating this article. I appreciate your points on the importance of maintaining a NPOV in the article. I will do better. Thank you for the comment regarding not deleting entries on the talk page. Most the people involved are newbies to Wikipedia with strong feelings on the subject of Francis Schuckardt and are learning the ropes slowly.

I agree completely with what you wrote regarding the term 'Catholic Church' retain its common meaning - the current Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI. I agree the term 'Post Vatican II Catholic Church' needs to be explained (as it is in the beginning of the article) and that that phrase could be used in a few places to explain Schuckardt's POV. (I still think a link to the Wikipedia article on Sedevacantis (or however you spell it) would be sufficient since it details the point of view regarding the legitamacy of the 'Post Vatican II Church', but I accept your suggestion.) I agree that the counterclaims section needs to be slimmed down and look forward to that happening in an organized fashion. I would not mind if Athanasius303 took first stab at that task.

One area that I do differ with you is regarding Chicoine's excommunication. Here are the facts as I see them. Chicoine was Schuckardt's underling and he forced Shuckardt out and Schuckardt excommunicated him from Schuckardt's church. However, Chicoine reorganized the congregation under a separate church after the excommunication to differentiate it from Schuckardt's organization. After Schuckardt was forced out of Spokane, Chicoine was elected Superior General of the CMRI congregation of brothers and sisters. He was re-elected to that post in 1986 and held that post until his resignation in 1989. At that point, he did missionary work for the church in New Zealand until he became sick in 1993. He died at Mt. St. Michaels in 1995 and is buried on consecrated ground at Mt. St. Michaels in Spokane Washington. Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, the then Superior General of the CMRI congregation, celebrated the burial Mass on August 16, 1995 at Mt. St. Michaels. He continues to be held in high regard by many. So although he was excommunicated from Schuckardt's church at the time of his death, he had been a active member of this other church for 11 years. He died with the last rites from this other church. So although a person who is excommunicated from the Catholic Church and dies in that state suffers eternal punishment according to Catholic teaching, I do not consider that it is appropriate to have a sentance implicating Chicoine suffered that penalty since: 1. Schuckardt is not a bishop of the Catholic Church so his excommunications can not positively carry the penalty that the Catholic Church's excommunication carries and 2. Chicoine was an active and respected member of what he considered to be a fine Church at the time of his death. 3.It is possible that, if some examining body of the Catholic Church were to look at the situation that led to Chicoine forcing Schuckardt out, that action may be considered justifiable and the excommunication not appropriate. (Remember, the vast majority of members remained with Chicoine so they presumably agreed he was justified.) 4. I frankly do not see the relevance of even mentioning Chicoine's death in this article and I personally find it offensive to imply that he is suffering the Catholic Church's penalty of excommunication because he did not reconcile with a man who many believe had terribly misused his post. For these reasons, I feel that the mention of Chicoine's death should be either removed or just shortened to stating the date of his death. It is obvious from the article that he never reconciled with Schuckardt so stating that he may be in hell appears terribly vindictive and a personal attack on Chicoine on the part of Athanasius303.

Your timetable about Chicoine’s excommunication is off. Bishop Schuckardt formally excommunicated Chicoine just a couple of days after his revolt on May, 1984. He had this excommunication published on June 30, 1984.

Your statement that Bishop Schuckardt is not a bishop of the Catholic Church needs clarification. He is not a bishop of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, but both he and Chicoine believed/believe that he was/is a valid and licit bishop of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Since at the time in question (the excommunications) neither Bishop Schuckardt nor Chicoine acknowledged the validity of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, that Church’s position is of no relevance to this issue.

An examination by the post-Vatican II Catholic Church regarding the conduct which resulted in Chicoine’s excommunication is of no relevance either. Both they and us agree that we belong to different Churches; we reject their pronouncements about us, just as they reject our pronouncements about them.

Excommunications are the Catholic Church’s highest penalty and have been treated by historians as something of relevance. When Pope St. Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth I, (who by the way, was not a Catholic at the time, but an Anglican) it was treated as something of relevance. When Martin Luther was excommunicated, history treated it as something of relevance. Within the scope of this battle between Bishop Schuckardt and Chicoine, the imposition of this penalty is both relevant and verifiable. Making the argument that posting this fact is “vindictive and a personal attack,” if applicable, would have to be made against all the accusations posted against Bishop Schuckardt as well. I have not sought for their removal because they have some relevance to this story. You can’t have it both ways, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Resonse to Fra John: (I must not have written clearly. I agree with you as to the date of Chicoine's excommunication.) I do agree that the excommunication happened and is relevant to the article. The point I disagree with is the footnote that implies Chicoine is NOW in Hell due to that excommunication. I feel the semantics are tripping us up. Let us agree to use 'Catholic Church' in its common meaning: The current institution composed of the living, hierarchial structure with the Pope in Rome at the head. NOT as a judgement call as in 'the One, true, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church and all its teaching founded by Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation'. If we agree on that, and I think we should, then we can agree with the phrase "Schuckardt is not a bishop of the Catholic Church". Does that make sense to you DanielPi? If we don't get the terms straight now, we will be talking at cross purposes and it surely will impair our ability to move forward with the article. I do agree that Chicoine was excommunicated from the TLRCC to which he belonged in 1984 with Schuckardt as his superior. But can we be certain that Schuckardt had the authority as bishop of the TLRCC actually send his soul to hell for eternity?. I did take a few minutes and peruse the Wikipedia websites on Martin Luther and Henry VIII. Their excommunications are of course mentioned in the respective articles as they should be since it was a factual histroical occurence, but there is no footnote implying that they are in Hell! I am sure some of the 1 billion memebers of the Catholic Church may consider them in to be in Hell on the authority of the Pope's excommunication of them and their failure to repent, but still this POV doesn't get mentioned in the articles on them. How then can the POV of the several hundred members of the TLRCC be allowed to get presented in the matter of Chicoine's eternal resting place? I won't write anymore on this issue right now since my earlier points above cover my POV in sufficient detail. I'll wait now for DanielPi to comment and I agree to comply with his suggestion in advance as an indication of my willingness to cooperate with this mediation. Bernie Radecki 19:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Slight Change to original response

Sorry to reneg a bit on my initial response. I just reread part of the Schuckardt article and realized that Athanasius303 has used over 300 words to explain Shuckardt's views on sedevacantism. I think this is too much original research and should be replaced by a link to the Wikipedia article on Sedevactantism or else cite a published source in which Schuckardt's analysis is contained. (This would also be a necessary step to prove that Schuckardt really did believe this at the time.) I realize that you, DanielPi, did find this information to be useful in understanding Schuckardt's POV, but Wikipedia does not codone articles containing original research and this topic is handled in more depth in the Wikipedia article on Sedevecantism. As this section of the article currently stands, I get the sense that it is a lecture. I would appreciate a little more discussion on this matter. Bernie Radecki 04:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Mediator Response

Bernie- Glad to hear you agree with most of my points. As for the Chicoine death issue, I understand your objections. Would you be satisfied if the article specified that he would "burn in hell" according to the TRLCC, and that he had received last rites from a bishop of his own church? Upon reflection, if we did make that change, it would seem to inflate the Chicoine issue unduly. Would you (athanasius303) be willing to strike mention of Chicoine's death altogether, or do you consider it absolutely essential? If you do consider it absolutely essential, would you be amenable to allowing the other POV? Danny Pi 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Danny Pi: I think Chicoine’s death and the penalty he incurred is essential to the article, just as crimes, penalties and punishments are generally considered relevant to almost every story. If Chicoine is relevant to the story at all, then it seems to me to be POV to include his revolt and leave out the consequences of that action. I don’t think I would oppose another POV on this matter, but I say that tongue-in-check, not knowing exactly how that POV will be written. Thank you. Athanasius303 16:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

The consequences of his 'revolt' was excommunication from the TLRCC. This is verifiable and agreed on by both parties. The point in contention is whether Chicoine is spending eternity in Hell as a consequence. How can anyone know if Schuckardt has that kind of authority? It is apparent that Athanasius303 believes Schuckardt's pronouncements have that authority. This stands to reason since Athanasius303 is a member of Schuckardt is his ecclesiastical superior, but should that point of view on such a serious matter dictate what is written? Let us stick with verifiable, reported facts that can be cited. Chicoine's resting place does not qualify.

Thank you, Danny, for the hard work you are putting into this mediation. I believe Chicoine's death should be dropped from the Schuckardt article. The two religious leaders went different ways in 1984. Chicoine died years later. Instead of going into Chicoine's death and the excommunication, the article should continue into what Schuckardt has done since that split. I once belonged to the group led by Schuckardt and Chicoine. I left it more than 15 years ago. The group has the characteristics of unsafe and destructive cults as outlined by the Rick A. Ross Institute and Margaret Singer, clinical psychologist and once Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. Am I allowed to list the defining factors of an unsafe cult and then connect the dots? Just trying to save others from what happened to my family. I haven't written anything in the article - Most of what I wrote on the talk page was deleted by Fra. John. Thank you again.(Laurie Pipan)

To the mediator (et al):

Holy Week and Easter Week are extremely busy times for someone like me who is involved with Church ceremonies. I am just know learning of your assignment to mediate this article (thank you) and ask your indulgence to give me a few days to enter into this debate. As I write this paragraph I have not even had the opportunity to read any of the discussion above, so please do not construe my silence as consent to any debate that takes place; my silence would simply mean that I have not had a chance to respond. Again, thank you for your volunteer work on this project, I hope it does not turn out to be an unpleasant experience. Athanasius303 19:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Bernie- I'm at school right now, so I can't really look into your addendum, but it is duly noted, and I will give it consideration as soon as I have the time. Laurie Pipan- thank you for the kind words. I understand your concerns, and it may very well be that TRLCC is a cult. Honestly though, I am in no position to assess such a claim. Nor do I think Wiki is a particularly appropriate place to voice those opinions. And anyway, the cult issue is, in fact, mentioned in the article. But one man's cult is another man's religion (or woman's), and who am I (or anyone for that matter) to judge? I'm sure your motivations are entirely admirable, but again, wiki is supposed to be neutral to a fault, and calling a religious group a "cult" is perhaps a bit too POV. I'm glad you've refrained from editing the article itself. Your contributions to the talk page, however, should not (in my very humble opinion) have been deleted. You have my respect and sympathy. Fra John- take all the time you need. I won't close this case until you've explained your side of the story. I look forward to a civil and constructive resolution. Danny Pi 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Editing Proposal

I would like to put out a proposal that I hope will be acceptable to all.

My time constraints right now are very demanding and I only have time at the present to deal with one issue at a time. This time constraint may only be temporary, but right now it’s a reality I have to deal with. I think it is in everyone’s best interest to see to it that this article is edited well, not necessarily quickly. It’s not going anywhere. Since the excommunication issue seems to be on the top of the list, I propose addressing that topic first. After having hopefully dealt with that, then we can move on to another point of contention, etc. Any objections? Athanasius303 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Adherence to Mediator's Suggestions

Bernie Radecki: You've edited the article, despite the fact that I requested that you not do so until I had a chance to weigh in. On the article talk page you that you reverted, you stated that the changes made were not in areas of contention. You are mistaken in that assessment. Danny Pi posted the following just a few days ago:

"but from here on out, if you think that your edit MIGHT inflame other editors (it doesn't matter if you think they're wrong), discuss the change on the talk page prior to editing. Try to form something like a majority opinion before making changes. And if you find yourself in the minority, you definitely shouldn't make the changes unilaterally."

We waited a long time for a mediator (I requested one in January) and now that we finally have one I strongly suggest that we do him the courtesy of complying by his recommendations. In the interest of time, please be up front and tell us up front whether you intend to comply by his recommendations or not. If the answer is no, then we are all wasting our time and should move on to arbitration.

Athanaius303: Of course I am going to adhere to the recommendations of the mediator! Regarding the change to the article, the main change was to correct the chronological flow which was not an area of contention. If you look at that part of the change, you will see that I changed very, very little and it is almost entirely a series of cut and pasting in order to greatly enhance readability. I did take a stab at implementing the mediator's suggestion regrading using the common meaning of the term 'Catholic Church'. This change also was very minor. I changed terms like 'modern Catholic Church' and 'Post Vatican Council II Catholic Church' to Catholic Church except where Schuckard't POV was being stated. We all need to get our terms straight so we can communicate. The mediator suggested this change and since it was so minor, I implemented it. Remember, in the common usage, Catholic Church does not mean 'the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church'. The term refers to the existing, living institution. I just point this out so that it might aid you in seeing the common viewpoint on the term. Using the term 'Catholic Church' does not need to imply anything other the current, heirarchial church structure in union with the Pope Benedict XVI. I am reverting the article back to encompass my changes and I believe the reason I stated on the talk page of the article and these few sentances here should justify that. I will, out of courtesy, not edit the article again until you can respond more. We are going to need to learn to work together without becoming inflamed. Remember, your arbitration request was denied in January. Bernie Radecki 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Bernie: Here is the bottom line. We agreed in late March to leave the article alone, pending your mediation request. I kept to that agreement. We finally got a mediator and on day one he asks us to refrain from posting any changes that might inflame other editors. You have since posted a change that inflames this editor. It seems to me that the proper and right thing for you to do here is to voluntarily remove those changes, discuss them of this talk page, and see if we can reach consensus. This seems so reasonable to me that I cannot understand why anyone would have any difficulty with it? Making a unilateral change than inflames an editor and then telling that editor to learn to give a little I believe is a recipe for a failed mediation process.

I do agree with you that we need to get our terms defined and if you want to tackle the "Catholic Church" issue first, that is fine by me. But as I stated yesterday, my time constraints right now are high and I simply do not have the time to dedicate myself to multiple issues at once. Name the issue, and I'll do my best at reaching consensus with you on it. Athanasius303 17:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Athanasius303: I discussed the changes I made on the article's talk page. I am sorry to have inflamed you and I won't make any further changes as I stated on the article's talk page. My intent was to clean up the chronological order and implement DanielPi's recommendation on terminology. It really was a minor change and of course can be edited at any time, but I don't think just reverting it is beneficial since I did the terminology change first and then the readability change. Regarding the order of addressing the topics up for mediation, I am waiting for DanielPi's response primarily on the topic of the appropriateness of the article implicating that Çhicoine is eternally in Hell. I read your initial response and I believe it helped clarify the issue. My response further localizes the issue so I am hoping DanielPi can offer some guidance at this point on that specific topic and we can move the process along. I think expressing our arguments succintly will allow us to make progress. There is no need to write volumes on this issue. I consider the short paragraph I wrote yesterday to wrap up my position. Regarding the semantics of "Catholic Church", I do think it is hard to discuss any topic until we can understand each other's terms. For that reason, yesterday I added a few more sentances on that topic, but I was hoping we had concensus on the appropriate use of the common meaning of the term for a Wikipedia article. When you get a chance, take a look at what I wrote because I do think it clarifies the issue. I've asked DanielPi to weigh in when he has a chance. I got a few nursing clinicals coming up that are pretty time intensive and then a test on Friday, but I'll try to check in. Hope your Holy Week ceremonies are fruitful. Bernie Radecki 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay guys. I think you're actually handling this pretty well. How about this for an approach: We'll just RV the thing, and Bernie can make reasonable changes ONLY to the use of "Catholic Church". Then, Fra. John does not RV, but instead goes through and corrects what he believes are inaccuracies on Bernie's part. Then, you come back to this page with specific passages where there are any disagreements. My guess (and hope) is that if we proceed in a constructive step-by-step fashion, you guys won't actually have that much to disagree about after all. Danny Pi

Okay. I'll do that today. Bernie Radecki 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay. This page is getting a little hard to follow, so let's try to keep our comments at the bottom of the page. Regarding excommunication, I think there are two equally viable options: 1) Remove any mention of hell. The justification for this would be that we can't "know" that Chicoine is in hell, which anyhow presumes that hell exists. Therefore, mentioning this statement expresses the POV that there is a hell and Chicoine is in it. However, 2) It IS a fact that followers of Schuckardt BELIEVE that Chicoine is in hell. And perhaps that is relevant after all. I somewhat suspect that this is implicit in excommunication, but perhaps it needs to be made explicit. In this case, I think the wording should state SPECIFICALLY that according to TRLCC doctrine, excommunication entails an afterlife in hell. The phrasing on that is pretty tricky, and I'm not quite sure how I'd edit it if I were making the change. Between the two options, I slightly favor (1), since theological discussion about hell and the technicality of church authority, etc. could digress to the egregiously off-topic. Nonetheless, I think that one CAN make a valid argument vis-a-vis relevance. My intuition on the matter is that Bernie et. al. would be agreeable to mentioning afterlife consequences provided that such statements are qualified and properly contextualized. Also, that Fra. John feels very strongly that this detail is crucial. So, option (2) seems the more viable one. So we mention hell, but we also mention the scope of excommunication, limit it to TRLCC, and note Chicoine's move to another institution. Again, that seems a bit detail-heavy on the topic to me, but what do you guys think? Danny Pi 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Additional note: this time of year seems to be a busy one for all of us. Regarding my contributions, there is no option here, I'm going to be a bit sluggish. Since you are both being quite patient and constructive (and also since you two also seem very busy), I take it you don't object to a stepwise, constructive (i.e. slow and steady) approach. Danny Pi 09:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps Athanasius will see the strength of the argument that since the Wikipedia article on Martin Luther and the Wikipedia article on Henry VIII (didn't check on Elizabeth I but I'd bet there also) do not reference their being in Hell in the view of the Catholic Church due to their excommunication by the Pope, then there shouldn't be reference to Chicoine being in hell due to his excommunication by the Bishop of the TLRCC. I thought this argument would sway DanielPi to more strongly encourage removal of the reference completely because it gives such wieght to what the TLRCC believe and doesn't follow a NPOV; but, to move this along, I will agree to any of the following options. If Athanasius303 does not agree with any of them, would he please write what he would accept as a comprimise.

1)Removal of all reference of Chicoine's death 2)Leave the sentance 'Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt had never been revoked.' but remove the footnote. 3)This one I do not like at all but would accept so we can move along: 'Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt having never been revoked. Members of the TLRCC believe one who dies in this condition goes to hell. Bernie Radecki 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

A few comments, before I put forth my proposal.

Your points Bernie are well taken about narrowing the focus of what is actually in contention and clarifying terms so that everyone is arguing from the same point of reference. I think that in doing this, we can avoid a lot of useless baggage.

I don't believe the excommunication issue is being properly framed. The belief that excommunicates, who die unforgiven, go to Hell is not simply the belief of the TLRCC. This doctrine has been held by the Catholic Church since apostolic times (I don't know if it is held by the post-Vatican II Catholic Church). That is why when I referenced that comment with a footnote, the footnote referenced Church law prior to Vatican II.

Now to the article. The statement that those who die excommunicated go to Hell is correct Catholic theology, but it is the "final consequence" of an unrepentant excommunicate, not the "actual penalty" incurred by the excommunicate. Therefore I propose the following, which is correct Catholic theology but at the same more accurately addresses the actual penalty of excommunication (versus the final consequence) and is which is certainly less inflamatory:

"Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Bishop Schuckardt having never been revoked. According to traditional Catholic theology, the penalty of excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful." Athanasius303 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Counter Proposal: :"Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Bishop Schuckardt having never been revoked." This proposal would allow the interested reader to follow the excommunication link if they so desire. The Wikipedia excommunication article covers this issue in depth including "exclusion from union with the faithful". I believe this solution shows no bias one way or the other and reports the uncontested fact in a non-judgemental manner. Bernie Radecki 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Your proposal of removing a short sentence explaining the traditional Catholic Church’s teaching on excommunication by linking instead to a Wikipedia article covering multiple views of excommunication, seems to me to be a overly burdensome way to communicate what a simple direct sentence can convey. I think the reader would be best served by my latest proposal with the inclusion of the excommunication link you included, this would allow easy access to any reader who wanted a more in-depth look on the topic of excommunication without disrupting the reading of the article by those who don’t. If it’s agreeable to you, I’d like Danny Pi make the final decision on this. Athanasius303 07:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

To Athanasius303: What I do not like about your suggestion is that it implies that Schuckardt's excommunication carries the weight of the Catholic Church's excommunication. Your phrase 'According to traditional Catholic theology, the penalty of excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful.' does not define who the faithful are. It surely cannot be the faithful of the Catholic Church since Schuckardt has never been recognized as a bishop of that institution but rather labelled a schismatic by members of its hierarchy. I would accept the sentance if it read soething like he is excluded from the communion of the TLRCC and those in union with Bishop Schuckardt. I would like DanielPi to reply to the paragraph found uner the 'POV debate' heading below. Bernie Radecki 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The article clearly demonstrates that both Bishop Schuckardt and Chicoine believed themselves to be Catholics, as you yourself correctly quoted above: “He [Bishop Schuckardt] insists that this is not a "new church," but the same Catholic Church that existed for over 1,900 years prior to the changes imposed by Vatican Council II.” Nowhere does it state that an exclusion in that belief when it came to Church penalties.

The subject of the excommunication and the person imposing the excommunication both believed they belonged to the Catholic Church, everyone else is outside of the equation. Whether or not either one of them are truly Catholic or not is beyond the scope of this article, and any judgement so stated would violate NPOV. You seem to want to transform this biography into a debate page over Church membership, but that is not the purpose of a biography. Athanasius303 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

The critical question is can you prove Chicoine is in hell now due to Schuckardt's excommunication? I must admit, I am not following your thought process. As I stated before, the articles on Martin Luther and Elizabeth I discuss excommunication but have no extra verbage about there being in hell or separated from the faithful. Now that both Athanasius and myself have written a lot on this topic, I would welcome the mediator's input greatly. Bernie Radecki 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think Fra. John is explicitly saying that Chicoine is in hell, which would be POV. It seems to me that there is the whisper of implication that he is in hell, which is, correspondingly, a whisper of POV. If you are requesting MY feelings on the matter, I think a link to excommunication is a workable solution, since 1) it directs readers to a fuller exposition on the matter in a more appropriate article for the topic, 2) it removes the controversy from this article, and 3) it is inarguably NPOV. That said, I should reiterate that my suggestions are merely suggestions. I don't want anyone to feel like they've been overruled here. I also think it would be NPOV to mention the excommunication and its entailment ON the page, provided: 1) We mention that Chicoine was excommunicated from (specifically) TRLCC, 2) The wording carefully avoids implying whether or not Chicoine is actually IN hell. I am also curious: is it not possible (according to Catholic dogma pre-Vatican II or otherwise) that good people, who have nonetheless been excommunicated, may still gain entry to heaven? Isn't that the point of the good samaritan parable? Isn't that why Dante (admittedly not a Church official) put Aristotle in purgatory in the Divine Comedy? To wit, does excommunication "necessarily" or contingently entail eternity in hell? In the case of the latter, it seems to me logically unnecessary to mention it at all. Danny Pi 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

My understanding in a nutshell: Catholic Excommunication does put one "outside the communion" of the Catholic Church. There are varying types of excommunication, some are more formal than others but all put one outside the communion of the Church. If a person reconciles with the Catholic Church before death, then the excommunication would be lifted and the threat of punishment in hell is removed. If the excommunicated individual refused to be reconciled with the Catholic Church during life, the Church considers they died in a state of grave sin cut off from the union of the faithful and suffer punishment in hell. It is for this reason that I oppose Athanasius303's suggestion that the sentance in the arcticle contain the words "According to traditional Catholic theology, the penalty of excommunication is a censure by which one is excluded from the communion of the faithful." Tying Chicoine's death and his exclusion from the communion of the faithful together necessarily implies that Chicoine died outside the church and therefore is condemned to hell. Athanaius303 has used softer words, but the implication is the exact same: That Schuckardt's excommunication has the same consequence that a bishop of the Catholic Church's does. He and the 300 or so members of Schuckardt's church are welcome to it, but he should not put it in the article because it is not only against the policy of NPOV but also a tiny minority view! The Catholic Church's view on purgatory is that it is temporary so Aristotle would eventually goto Heaven. Did not Dante write of Pope Sylvester being in hell due to his collaboration with the Roman emperor once the empire converted to Christianity? Bernie Radecki 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I would accept: "Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Schuckardt having never been revoked." or "Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication from the TLRCC having never been revoked" Bernie Radecki 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not really satisfied with this, but in the interest of making headway and in the spirit of compromise, I’ll give way and implement the excommunication issue as Danny Pi suggested. One down, ... Athanasius303 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Thank you. Danny Pi 16:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

POV Debate

To DaneilPi, here is something I need you to weigh in on since I am beginning to be frustrated. Millions and millions of Catholics have believed and continue to believe that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has the authority, given to them by Jesus Christ, to excommunicate individuals from the Catholic Church. These millions agree with Catholic teaching that an unrepentant person who dies in this state risks the loss of his soul to hell. My argument is that Schuckard does not have the authority of the Catholic Church so he can't inflict the penalties detailed by the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, my opinion should not matter to Wikipedia just as Athanasius's opinon should not matter. That is what NPOV means, isn't it? To write that Schuckardt's excommunication carries the effect of an excommunication from the Catholic Church shows the bias that Schuckardt has the authority of the Catholic Church. Memebers of the TLRCC believe he does (I call this the Tiny Minority View.). I have never seen any documentation written by the Catholic Church that accepts him as a bishop having the authority of the Catholic Church. There are articles from Catholic Church officials that name him as a schismatic and therefore by definition stripped of the authority of the Catholic Church. Millions of Catholics do not believe Schuckardt's excommunication carries the penalty of the Catholic Church although they do believe in excommunication and its penalties (I cal this the Majority View). As I see it, Wikipedia seeks to assure a NPOV by insisting that articles include citations from published sources. Unless Athanasius can supply current documentation that directly substantiates that Schuckardt, by name, is recognized by more than just the 400 or so members of the TLRCC as a bishop of the Catholic Church, then it is unwarranted to give such a minority view equal mention. I need an answer from you on this argument of mine that Athanasius's POV is an extremely tiny minority and should not be treated as the majority opinion is. I need clarification on this because much of the article is written supporting this tiny minority point of view ie. the 3000 word Response to Accusations section. In the 'Compomise Offers' section of this mediation page, I wrote that "If a mediator believes the majority view on the topic of Francis Schuckardt is different than I think it is, I am willing to remove this request and to stop my participation on the article." I will stand by that. If you cannot answer this question or get an answer to it, let me know. This matter is really the key point as I wrote on March 28th under the first thing that I wanted changed in the article under the 'What would you like to change about that?' section. The article takes on the flavor of a vanity piece if Athanasius is allowed to write what Schuckardt teaches and believes with no citable substantiation of this being Schuckardt's teaching. Where are the citations from published writings of others that this is Schuckardt's belief? Have other people written newspaper articles or books about his beliefs regarding the state of the church? When you google Francis Schuckardt do you get articles that bolster the claim that Schuckardt is recognized as an authority in the Catholic Church? When I tried to put into the article my firsthand experiences with Schuckardt's group, Athanasius rightly pointed out that first hand reports are not citable sources and should not be added to the article. As the article now is, there is a great deal where Athanasius writes what Schuckardt teaches but this is just according to him. This too is just firsthand eyewitness reporting and is not proper for Wikipedia. Bernie Radecki 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I had only an opportunity to skim the above and ask for your patience. But I think we need to stay on track as to which guidelines/policies control here. This is a biography about a person and his religious beliefs. Under Wikipedia's overriding policy of NPOV, under the section of religion, it states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape." Athanasius303 05:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Wikipedia articles aren't autobiographical. They should be biographical - the examination of the beliefs and practices are from published, verifiable sources. The fact that there are not published, third party sources supporting the contentions of Francis Schuckardt by name makes this problematic. Wikipedia is not the place for original research detailing what his beliefs are from his own perspective or the perspective of one of the 3 or so religious brothers who have him as a religious superior! This is clearly detailed in numerous Wikipedia guidelines. I am not going to cite the many sections that support my argument unless DanielPi thinks that would be beneficial. What I would like is for my argument to be assessed by someone who has more experience than Athanasius303 and myself in the area of Wikipedia policy. (For your benefit DanielPi I will hazard this comparison: Schuckardt's beliefs, as spelled out in the article by Athanasius303, could be compared to an individual who claims to be the legitamate state senator from Indiana even though he was neither elected nor ever recognized by the US Government as such. The only basis the man has for declaring himself the real state senator and declaring the duly elected and recognized state senator to be illegitimate are his personal interpretation of a smattering of laws from the colonial times. There is no published material that discusses this topic of his personal claim although he has 300 ardent supporters. Wikipedia would not allow such an individual to present his case in an article. If his claim were newsworthy enough to be taken seriously, there would be published sources that detail his case. There is a good deal of published material on Francis Schuckardt, but it is almost exclusively negative in tone. Google him. I apologize for the length of this. I want you to realize that I see this issue of Schuckardt having a tiny minority view as being my core issue. Resolving it resolves my request for mediation. ) Bernie Radecki 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Egads. Here's my thinking on the Schuckardt article in a nutshell: I think it should explain what he believes, why he believes it, and what happened to him, what he did, and what he's doing. The article should be free from judgment and criticism, and also, it should not in any way endorse his views. So we have an article. There are disputants. I'm trying to get you guys to pinpoint exactly which specific phrases/placement in the text about which you disagree. Then, I'd like to experiment with various ways of relocating or rephrasing these disputed sections that will be amenable to both parties. This process will cycle until we have no more disputes to mediate, and everyone will be happy and peaceful. So far we have a list or disputes. Thus far, we have tentatively "solved" two of the points of disagreement. Implementation may be a little difficult, but we have, in theory, a solution. I'd like closure on those, and I'd like to move on to the next problem areas. Danny Pi 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To DanielPi: I realize I wrote a bunch above, but I beleive it to be key to resolving the conflict between Athanasius303 and myself to answer the questions I raised. I beleive it is imperative that the article detail the belíef's and actions of Schuckardt but only by using verifiable, published accounts - not in his own words or the words of his subordinate because this constitutes original research. Therefore, please re-read what I wrote in the 2 lenghty (I am sorry but I wanted to be clear) paragraphs above. If it is confusing to you, let me know what part I did a poor job of explaining. It may be a topic beyond your level of expertise since it details with a lot of Wikipedia policy information. Perhaps you can contact Fasten or Turnbull or one of the mediation committee chairpersons to address this one topic. Getting this clarified now will make this process much easier. I suspect that this may be a straightforward task for one of them since the terms 'original research', 'tiny minority', etc. all have special definition in Wikipedia policy and they could probably breeze right through it and give a third party opinion. I would really be appreciated and frankly I really need this to be done. Bernie Radecki 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

To All: After reading the dispute above, I am in agreement with DanielPi. The article would have to be re-structured and a lot of uneccessary rhetoric removed. One section comes to mind - Counterclaims and Answers to Accusations. This section is written primarily as a defense of the TRLCC, not as an objective work. I suggest that the section should contain a very simple sentence, "The TRLCC denies all accusations" or something close to that.

George Wagner 27 APR 06

I don't have time to address this issue fully right now, but I did want to make a few initial comments. This article is about Bishop Schuckardt, not about the Catholic Church. It is suppose to inform the reader about him, his beliefs, etc. It is not the proper place to debate the changes in the Catholic Church. That debate, if it happens, should take place on an article about the Catholic Church, not in an article about Bishop Schuckardt.

I believe we need to come to agreement on the proper terms to be used so as to distinguish what in his mind is the actual Catholic Church (St. Peter through Pius XII, or pre-Vatican II) and what he considers to be no longer the Catholic Church (post-Vatican Council II). My original thought was to use the terms pre/post Vatican Council II Catholic Church, but there may be a better way of identifying them than this.

I have been wanting for some time to include something in the article to more clearly define his beliefs and hopefully to alleviate some of the confusion about the "traditional Catholic Church," the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church," "the post Vatican II Catholic Church," ...

I think something perhaps as simple as this might do the trick: "What Bishop Schuckardt believes and teaches is really quite simple. He believes in all the teachings of the Catholic Church from the time of Christ until the death of Pope Pius XII. He firmly believes in the papacy, but he does not believe the present claimants are true popes." Any thoughts? Athanasius303 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Bernie's response Athanasius's Proposal on the term Catholic Church

The article currently addresses Schuckardt's point of view, or at least Athanasius303's POV on Schuckardt's POV on this subject with these 389 words:

• "Schuckhardt was an early proponent of Sedevacantism, a theory which holds that, as a result of their alleged personal heresy, Pope Paul VI and his successors are not valid popes and therefore the Holy See is vacant."

• "Schuckardt came to the conclusion that Pope Paul VI was a false pope based upon what he said was the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the Church's dogma on Papal Infallibility [2] which states that when a pope speaks "ex cathedra" and "defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church," that such doctrine in infallible and must be believed by all Catholics under the penalty of excommunication. Schuckardt argued that all the popes from St. Peter through Pope Pius XII taught one set of doctrines on faith and morals and that the popes since Vatican Council II have taught a different set of doctrines. He further argued that popes exercising infallibility cannot contradict one another in matters of faith and morals and that in applying the doctrine of papal infallibility, only one plausible explanation could be found for the contradictory doctrines being taught by the post-Vatican II popes, i.e., that they could not be true popes. He also argued that since logic does not allow for two contradictory things to exist at the same time, you could not have true popes infallibly teaching contradictory doctrines (it is also an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that doctrines can not change with time, but remain forever fixed)[3]; someone had to be wrong. So logic told him that either the first 261 popes were right and the recent few were wrong, or vice versa, or they were all wrong. These were the only three possibilities. Since Christ Himself appointed St. Peter, he was obviously a true pope. And since the 260 that followed after St. Peter taught the same doctrinal teaching on matters of faith and morals, they too must be true popes. That left the Vatican II popes out of the equation of being true popes."

• "He insists that this is not a "new church," but the same Catholic Church that existed for over 1,900 years prior to the changes imposed by Vatican Council II. His followers refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the "mainstream Catholic Church" or the "Post-Vatican Council II Church"."

If Athanasius303 is suggesting removing these parts of the article which currently detail Schuckardt's mind on what is the Catholic Church, then I am 100% for it. I agree to implement it. I will put it right in the first paragraph of the article so Schuckardt's point of view is clear to the reader right awya. Just one small addition. How about "What Bishop Schuckardt and the members of the TLRCC believe is ... exactly what Athanasius wrote ..." This way, when the term 'TLRCC' is used in the rest of the article, the reader will know what that means and will not get it mixed up with the term 'Catholic Church' when it is used in the article to mean what the dictionary says it means. Bernie Radecki 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Here is the problem : Schuckardt started a church because he did not want to follow the decries of Vatican Council II. Is he A) the bishop in good standing with the Catholic Church or is he B) a bishop of a Schismatic Sect witch calls itself Catholic. The answer to this is easy. Schuckardt broke away from the body of the church (history defines this) making him a schismatic. If he does not answer to Rome, he is not Catholic. Now, he may see himself as the only Catholic bishop, but that does not make it so. My suggestion is to make a reference along the lines that he broke away and that he THINKS he is Catholic. George Wagner 21 APR 2006

To Danni Pi

You may have read my commentary on the Talk Page. My time is limited so I'll get to the point. I think that Fra. John is too involved with Schuckardt to be editing it. If you look at the article, just about all of the information has been added by him. We have not been able to add anything because he would revert it. Even now, I seriously doubt that he will comply with any issues that you rule on. You mentioned that if the majority came to a consensus it needs to be added or changed. All of us have come to an agreement to add things, but Fra. John deletes it. The Bottom Line is I feel he is breaking WIKI POLICY by being involved in the article. If he isn't please show me.

George Wagner 21 APR 2006

(George - there is something wrong with your Wikipedia account. When I click on your name to get to your talk page, I get a different George Wagner.) As I wrote earlier, I would accept Athanasius303's proposal as detailing how Schuckardt describes his veiw of reality. This of course would not preclude including text on how others perceve Schuckardt. I think sticking with citable material is the key, for both sides. Let us just take little steps for now and hope for the best. Bernie Radecki 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have added Athanasius's suggested text to the article with the slight modification I mentioned and I have deleted 2 of the three sections that I highlighted above. I left the third area in place since it was succint and was in an area which was explaining the motivation for his action. Bernie Radecki 07:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Radecki: This is starting to get a little old as you continue to act in a unilateral fashion and ignore both my input and the mediator's recommendation. I've reverted your changes. Athanasius303 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Athanasius303: I have been patient but I must admit that 3 days between your reply is aggravating me. What I did was implement your suggestion as you see I am in agreement with it. I am distressed that you spent your time with the long ramble below that serves no purpose. I have reverted the article as a protest to the lack of commitment you are showing. Bernie Radecki 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I’m afraid you are being disingenuous about your conduct. Nowhere did I make mention of removing any of the existing text. I simply stated I want to include something to help clarify Bishop Schuckardt’s beliefs. There is no way anyone could read that brief paragraph and conclude that I wanted to extract existing explanations.

You have also been disingenuous about only changing the adjectives describing the Catholic Church. You have in fact done more than that, among other things you erased a portion which voiced doubt about the validity of the Thuc progeny (as your bishop is from the Thuc progeny I’m sure that was no accident) and then you added a new sentence referring to the TLRCC: “Thus they freely acknowledge they are outside the Catholic Church.” That of course is false and you know it. Athanasius303 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

If anything about the Thuc line got erased, I apologize. It was unintentional. The sentance about being outside the Cathoilic Church is true is it not if you agree that the Catholic Church means the institution with Pope Benedict XVI as its head and the bishops, priests, and layity in union with him? This is how the general public use the term Catholic Church and how it should be used in the article. I will admit that I was disappointed in that you suggested adding even more original reasearch explaining Schuckardt's position when there is already plenty. The term 'Catholic Church' should mean what the dictionary and the general public consider it to mean. Otherwise, the reader will be confused. The statement 'Schuckardt is outside the Catholic Church' is accurate even by your standards (not that that should be given any weight in the article just like my opiniion should not.) DanielPi: We are going in circles here. Can you weigh in? But Athanasius303 and I have written enough I expect to state our sides and I know I could use an unbiased opinion now. Bernie Radecki 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

All right, I thought we had something approaching consensus here, but perhaps I was mistaken. I thought we had agreed that the term "Catholic Church" should refer to the thing in Rome with the gold ceiling tiles administrating the ostensibly Catholic churches in the world. The term "TRLCC" would refer to the church that respects Bishop Schuckardt and his teachings, which rejects the Vatican II modifications to church dogma. Only in cases where "Catholic Church" caused confusion would we specify "Post-Vatican II" or "traditional" or any other such qualifier (as appropriate). The phrase (not in the article), "Bishop Schuckardt opposes the Catholic Church" would cause some confusion, and in that case, we should certainly specify that: "Bishop Schuckardt opposes the Post-Vatican II Catholic Church." I imagine, however, that in most cases the distinction would not require qualification, and the distinction of terms should be fairly clear without any modifiers added. Now, the plan was that Bernie would make changes to the use of "Catholic Church" and Fra. John would edit the changes, and any disputed changes would be laid out in a clear list. Now, I'm not seeing any list of disputes (vis-a-vis this change) and I'm reading more discussion on the topic. Can you both please explain where we are on that process and if it has stalled- why? Lastly, I hope we can all please not make accusations and comments about each other. Please keep discussion focused on the article and changes/edits to the article. Danny Pi 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Fra. John’s editing opponents – just who are they?

George Wagner is seeking to have me banned from editing this article on the grounds of personal involvement. I have purposely tried to keep out of the fray of this issue because I thought it would degenerate into personal attacks or some other useless distraction. But as it appears that they are not willing to let it go, I will now address it.

On the very top of the Discussion page, I identified myself so everyone would know who I am and where I am coming from. My opponents here have yet to do that regarding themselves, so I will do it for them.

Bernie Radecki, Frances Radecki, George Wagner, Laurie Pipan and Rose Offenhauer are all former members of the TLRCC under Bishop Schuckardt. The three women are all ex-Nuns of the Congregation founded by Bishop Schuckardt. All of them at one time adhered to the very beliefs this article is expounding about Bishop Schuckardt, but sided with Chicoine in 1984 and have since adopted a new set of beliefs. Most, if not all of them, currently belong to the Church established by Chicoine in 1984.

This puts them in a neutrality dilemma, because to justify their current stance, they have to justify siding with Chicoine in 1984. Demonizing and denigrating Bishop Schuckardt gives their position credibility; demonstrating the reasonableness of Bishop Schuckardt’s position calls into question the justification for Chicoine’s revolt and erodes the credibility of their position. They are not neutral. They have a personal stack in all of this.

Furthermore, I believe their actions demonstrate their personal involvement; a simple read of the article’s Talk Pages should convince any objective person to the truth of this. Here’s an example of how partisan at least one of them is. On 5/12/03, George Wagner sent an email to one of our clerics, which said in part: “I will stop at nothing to see you crumble because your very existence is mocking God and tarnishing the Traditional movement.” Sounds like personal involvement to me.

Why is any of this relevant? Because they want to remove my input on the grounds of personal involvement. But because they themselves are personally involved, removing my input would simply allow their form of partisanship to win the day, and that would do violence to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. A NPOV is better achieved by opposing parties working out their differences, rather than by removing an opposing party from one side only and allowing the other side free reign to edit at will.

Wagner also intimates that because there are 5 of them and 1 of me, that they somehow have a monopoly on consensus. I could easily go out and solicit others to partner with me, achieve numerical supremacy, and then claim consensus for my editing as well; but I have refrained from doing this because it seems to me that the more editors that get involved, the more convoluted and bogged down this whole process becomes. Radecki and I are the only two who requested mediation and we’re having a difficult time enough right now trying to work out our differences. I’m fearful that this whole process will come to a grinding halt if more partisans get involved. I’m not trying to silence them, but I would ask that they hold off for now and give this mediation a chance to succeed. If after the conclusion of this mediation process they are still dissatisfied, then they of course could at any time raise their issues.

Athanasius303 - This is off topic. I doubt if any admin cares enough about this to ban anyone. Spend time on the mediation topics. Bernie Radecki 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Belzak (Athanasius303, Fra. John) First of all I belong to the Catholic Church, figure it out. I do not live with Schuckardt nor do I live with any CMRI affiliated parish. YOU are a highly esteemed member of his group and live with him. Secondly, the cleric you mentioned about sending the e-mail to has LONG since left your group. Gee, I wonder why?! Thirdly, you are the MINORITY, thus what ever the majority holds you need to follow. You are engaged in a mud slinging campaign to discredit all who oppose your bishop. We have facts and documented material that is the truth, but you won't allow it to be entered. I have sat back long enough reading this preposterous notion that Schuckardt is a bishop in good standing with the Catholic Church; that he was unjustly ousted from power because Fr. Denis wanted control. Maybe if your saintly bishop weren't guilty of all the previously mentioned allegations you wouldn't be in this mess. Just be thankful in light of the Church abuse scandal you guys aren't drug into court. One last thought and this is for DanniPI. Read what it means to be a member of the Catholic Church. Then, read what it takes to lose membership in the same Church. Schuckardt, by receiving orders from a schismatic bishop incurred an IPSO FACTO (by the fact) excommunication and all who follow him receive the same. You have to be brought back into the church by proper authorities. If you read the reasoning why Schuckardt left, it is not justified according to church law. Many times in history after councils groups have broken away, thus starting new religions. Please, weigh in your thoughts on the article. George Wagner 24 APR 06

My job is to help people find common ground and compromise. I am in no position to dictate who is right or wrong, much less who is or is not walking with God. I am, of course, flattered that you think I have the power to determine who is burning in hell at the present time. I wonder if I shouldn't start up a church of my own. In all seriousness, though, I don't particularly care what Fra. John's affiliations may be- nor do I particularly care what anyone else's affiliations happen to be. It would be an easy solution to the problem to ban a handful of disputants from the article in question, but I don't think that would be either in the spirit or best interests of wikipedia. Danny Pi 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• "Catholic Church" will refer to the current church in Rome except in the instances where such a term would be confusing.
• We've come up with three very promising compromise possibilities to how to deal with this NPOV.

Are we agreed on this? Danny Pi 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. George Wagner 24 APR 06

I agree but here I have shown an excerpt from the article below to examine so we can see if this agreement holds up in practice. Here is the excerpt as it now reads in the article:

The act of episcopal consescration without a mandate from Rome is considered an act of schism [12] by the Catholic Church and results in automatic excommunication of those consecrated and all those who support the schismatics as can be seen in the decree from Rome in July of 1988 regarding Marcel Lefebvre's consecration of four priests without papal mandate.[13] This is considered a very grave matter since it opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops in union with him as is detailed by Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Die[14]. But since neither Bishop Brown nor Bishop Schuckardt any longer acknowledged the Catholic Church, they dismissed any charges of schism or excommunication by it. They argued that one cannot be in schism against or excommunicated from a Church to which one does not belong.[15]

I wrote the first two sentences which represent the view of the Catholic Church and Athanasius303 added the last 2 sentences which represent the view of Brown and Schuckardt. For the sake of clarity on a point that both of us now agree on, I want to add this sentance to represent the majority view: "Thus they freely acknowledged being outside the Catholic Church." Without this sentence, it sounds like they were excommunicated but they are not really since they don't agree with the excommunication. That is fine for them to believe it, but the majority view must be shown. Does Athanasius303 accept this new sentance? Bernie Radecki 19:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Danny Pi: The above is a classic example of the dishonesty I have frequently encountered in trying to work with Bernie Radecki. He must either be incompetent or dishonest; whichever one it happens to be, the end result is the same.

Radecki states that I added these this sentence to the article:

"But since neither Bishop Brown nor Bishop Schuckardt any longer acknowledged the Catholic Church, they dismissed any charges of schism or excommunication by it."

The truth of the matter is that I added this sentence on March 1: “But since neither Bishop Brown nor Bishop Schuckardt any longer acknowledged the POST-VATICAN II Catholic Church, they dismissed any charges of schism or excommunication by it.” When Radecki attributed it to me he used the version he edited on April 18, in which he excluded the “Post-Vatican II” terminology. The result of this extraction is of course very significant.

As noted above, he added just a few days ago this sentence and false attribution to our Church: “Thus they freely acknowledge they are outside the Catholic Church.” He also tried to quietly erase a statement calling into question the validity of theThuc progeny; coincidentally, his bishop is from the Thuc progeny.

I petitioned for a mediator in January of this year and am very grateful to have finally gotten one. I sincerely want to edit this article so that it represents the truth and at the same time is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. But it seems to me that there has to be an honest effort put forth by all editors to achieve that end. In the absence of that honesty, how can this process ever proceed to success? What would you suggest that I do? Thank you again. Athanasius303 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Bernie wrote on 4/25 and modified on 4/26: I am so confused. I thought DanielPi counseled me to go through and use the agreed upon term 'Catholic Church' to mean the church in Rome with the tiles and everything in places not dsealing with Schuckardt's personal views. So I did that I think in only three or four places. This is one of those places. I meant no malice. (I think the Thuc folks are schismatics too by the way but really truly if I deleted something it was a complete mistake when I was doing what I thought was that moving around of sentances to correct the chronoligical flow. (Didn't I already apologize a week ago about the Thuc thing.) DaneilPi suggested to revert that so we could stick to just one thing at a time so I thought I did. I am not devious at all, but maybe incompetent. Sometimes days go by without any input from Athanasius303, through no fault of his own because I understand he has a situation with time constraint right now; but I guess I sometimes make assumptions about where we are in the process.) I guess this does indicate that there is still disagreement on the terminology. I'll let the mediator wiegh in here as it is a good opportunity for mediation on a specific part of the article. I don't want to muddy things. Bernie Radecki 03:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Bernie wrote 0n 4/26: I have an idea. The problem started when I added text relating how the Catholic Church views episopal consecrations that it does not sanction. So it was sitting in a part of the article in which Athanasius303 was relating events. After my 3 sentence addition, Athanasius303 added his 2 sentences as a counterclaim which leads me to want to add the additional sentence to try to clarify things. I see now that this is problematic. One solution to this would be for me to move the stuff that I added about his consectration being a schismatic act to a section titled something like 'What others think of Schuckardt's episcopal claims'. That way, published accounts detailing Schuchardt's beliefs and actions relating to his consecration as he sees it could remain in the area in which this topic is currently being treated and a seperate section would contain published accounts detailing the opinions of others regarding Schuckardt's beliefs and consecrations. This seperation I am sure would go a long way avoid the confusion in terminology. Does this sound viable? Bernie Radecki 18:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Bernie wrote a little later on 4/26: I just got what I consider a fantastic idea. We've been debating the terms "Catholic Church", "pre-Vatican II Catholic Church", and "post Vatican II Catholic Church". Most people think all three terms mean the Catholic Church with the tiles on the ceiling in Rome as DanielPi wrote. Schuckardt and others who oppose the changes of Vatican II have a need to differentiate between what they teach and what the Catholic Church teaches. Well, there is no actual institution that the public agrees represents the "pre-Vatican II Catholic Church". The Catholic Church still has all the same buildings and hierarchial structure and the Pope etc. The alleged difference then is in the teaching. So the phrase should be "Pre-Vatican II Catholicism" and "Post-Vatican II Catholicism" when refering to the teachings themselves. This phraseology doesn't demean anyones view right? Then, the term "Catholic Church" in the article can be reserved for the dictionary meaning. BTW, my dictionary (Websters II) defines Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church which it defines as "The Christian church that is characterized by a heirarchial structure of priests and bishops in which doctrinal and disciplinary authority are dependent apon apostolic succssion with the pope as the head of the episcopal college." It defines Catholicism as "The faith doctrine, system and practice of a Catholic Church esp. the Roman Catholic Church". See the difference? Beliefs vs institution. I think this is the perfect solution. Bernie Radecki 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This whole issue is getting too complex and confusing. I think this article needs to be worded in such a way that it targets our audience – the common man. Your distinction between Catholic and Catholicism seems to be splitting hairs and I find it confusing. I don’t think the common Joe is going to get it.

Why not try to implement what Danny Pi suggested with this one proviso: in referring the to present day institution commonly known as the Catholic Church, to simply call it the “present day Catholic Church.” This is in no wise derogatory, but it still gives it a degree of separation without having to delve into definitions, etc. I don’t believe this will cause any confusion to the reader, and if after trying it, and neither one of us is satisfied, we can always revert and try something else. Athanasius303 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

I don't like it. The Catholic Church should get to be the Catholic church. You and Schuckardt have names for it like 'present day Catholic Church' or 'Post vatican II Catholic Church' or 'modern Catholic Church' but most of the inhabitants of this earth call it the Catholic Church. I agree to go with what DanilPi suggested. If you are citing Schuckardt's own words to explain his beliefs, then it is acceptable to use his terms, but lets limit it to only those instances. I am going to go ahead an implement the change I wrote about above so that 1 paragraph doesn't contain 2 opposing viewpoints. That means I'll be excising 2 of your sentences as I move my 3 sentences to the new section. I'll add to this section with time. I also moved a paragraph out of the accusations section since it was not part of the accusations against Schuckardt but rather reports on his views using cited material. I do not think anyone can object to this. It did not belong where it was and needed to be moved. Nothing malicious. This improves the flow. Bernie Radecki 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Here’s the problem. This is the statement as you changed it: “The TLRCC continue to not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.”

That sentence is not verifiable, (nor is it true). The TLRCC does not recognize the authority of the “post-Vatican II” Catholic Church; it recognizes the authority of the “pre-Vatican II” Catholic Church and follows her teachings, laws, … This is why there has to be a delineation. Without a delineation, the statement is both erroneous, POV, and non-verifiable. The one-size-fits-all approach here does not work her. The ultimate purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not to misinform, which is what this statement does. I’m reverting it until we can find a workable solution. Danny Pi suggested a reasonable approach to the problem, I’m all for trying it out and see if it’s acceptable to everyone.

You new section “Opposing Viewpoints” contains only a single viewpoint and seems to me to violate NPOV policy. I plan on adding balance to that section.

I shortened that paragraph you added about Matthews and the Old Catholic and provided instead a link. This is more in keeping with the NPOV policy. Athanasius303 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Fra. John reply

I removed the sentence in question from the article since it is a needless addition and it is causing contention. The previous sentances in the article describe the view of the TLRCC regarding the Catholic Church. It is always better to let quoted material demonstrate a point. I hope this is satisfactory. Bernie Radecki 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your removal of significant text in the "Opposing Viewpoints" section. I have reverted it for now (I only reverted that part, not the other edits you made.) In the previous section on Schuckardt's consecration, you have text that purports to tell why Brown became an Old Catholic although you give no evidence whatsoever that the reason you state is the actual reason that he did it. So it appears to me that you presume a reason and then you give a reference regarding that reason (You reference a book that relates that Old Catholic consecrations are valid or something.) This is the type of thing that I find untenable. (Incidentally, let's not get off on a tangent right now, but this is exactly what you have done with the Aryan Nations allegation. But let's save that for next.) The "Opposing Viewpoints" section does reflect multiple views, although opposing Schuckardt ultimately, from published sources. One is historical, one is from the Catholic Church from a global perspective, one is from the Bishop of the Spokane diocese giving a local perspective. I plan on adding 2 more that relate to Francis Schuckardt by name and his position in the church. One is from the major traditionalist organization in the world and one from a recognized Marian organization. I believe this section is a fine example of presenting information from published sources without commentary from me. I believe this is how Wikipedia proposes a NPOV is maintained. The editor of the article doesn't get to write what he thinks, he must provide independent, third party material. Athanasius303 and I need to come to an understanding of what using verifiable, published material means - not that it is necessarily the 'truth' that all must believe, but rather that enough people believe it that it was worthy of publication. The additions to the article I have been trying to make over the last few months have, in the main, been supported by current, relevant published material. I think I should be commended for doing the work to find this material. Additionally, my footnotes provide links directly to the complete article that I am referencing. Take a look at the letter from Bishop Welsh. The link to it is in the footnote. The same is true of Pope John Paul II's letter Ecclesia Dei. I think obviously this is excellent work and it should be emulated by Athanasius303 instead of deleted by him. There are so many places in the article that he has baseless accusations that he expounds on that need to be addressed. But I write too much here. DanielPi, would you take a look at the new section and give us your opinion on it. Bernie Radecki 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Radecki is off base and I'll demonstrate how in the next day or two, once I have more time. Athanasius303 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

I hope this doesn't mean you are going to use your limited time to lawyer against the 3 paragraphs I added! Let DanielPi weigh in on rather the 3 new paragraphs meet Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and NPOV. If I may be so bold, a better use of your time would be to find the third party references to substantiate some of your accusations in the article. For instance, in the "Counterclaims and Answers to Accusations" section, you wrote that Chicoines "primal greed and lust for power" "spawned" Chicoine's "revolution" and that it was "common knowledge in Bishop Schuckardt's inner circle" that Chicoine and his adherents were "both incompetent and untrustworthy". All of this is hearsay and written in a tabloid style. You have consistently argued over the last 3 months about additions that I have made to the article for which I have supporting documentation and yet you refuse to address egregious examples of unsupported and malicious editing such as I have cited here. Somehow you have cowed George Wagner, Laurie Pipan, myself and others into a fear of removing text such as this. Another area is the creation you have of Schuckardt fleeing due to a plot between Chicoine and the Aryan Nations to kill him based on testimony that "there may have been occasions when the Butler group, or Butler himself had been on the property" at Mt. St. Michaels. Bernie Radecki 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The items you bring up are all fair game. My consistent request is that let’s take care of one thing at a time. I thought that was something the mediator had suggested and that we agreed to.

Speaking of agreeing, the mediator requested that if anything any one of us intends to add to the article might inflame another editor, to seek consensus first. All of your recent additions inflame this editor. Again, for the second (or is it third) time, you should do the decent thing and voluntarily pull these additions. I have been abiding by this recommendation, but I will not sit by and allow you free reign while I constrain myself. There are changes and additions I want to make as well.

A plot between Chicoine and the Aryan Nations to kill the Bishop? I think this is what is referred to “reading something into it.” Athanasius303 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Another item just occurred to me. Athanasius303, have added a 4th paragraph to the 'Opposing Viewpoints on Shuckardt's Consecration' section. Hmmm. First, Schuckardt's viewpoint on his consecration has been previoiusly addressed in the article. If he doesn't accept Vatican Council II and the next 5 popes and calls the Catholic Church the "Church of the Beast", I am sure the reader can realize Schuckardt will dismiss any charges of schism or excommunication from it. This section is for opposing viewpioints! Don't put redundant and out of place information in it. Secondly, your reference for your paragraph is "Catholic Dictionary, 1997." The whole thing? Follow my example with your referencing and the article will benefit greatly. Thirdly, and least important to me, I am not sure how many people can understand what you mean by what you wrote. I should be able to delete your paragraph without argument. However, we need to learn to edit together by coming to agreement on things like this, so I would like our mediator's impression on this as a third opinion to aid in our mutual learning. Bernie Radecki 16:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The two sentences you referenced, you deleted (without consensus once again). I reinserted them in the new POV section you started. I am not sure what the reader would or would not realize, let's put the facts out and not make presumptions regarding any reader's private conclusions. Again, I believe this whole section should go, it’s a POV section where you not only want to add redundant material, but you want to exclude “opposing views” that you object too. All relevant points of view should be mentioned in a format that does not favor any particular POV. Athanasius303 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra.John) reply

I just read the article again and I feel we should start paragraph by paragragh. The article has too many irrelevant facts and personal attacks against Fr. Denis not to mention the wording is derogatory. This article is about Schuckardt and should reflect the events in his life, starting from his early days and ending with his current state of affairs. This is not an article to defend or defame, but rather, an article to inform the reader to the real life events that unfolded. Is anyone in agreement?

George Wagner 24 APR 06

I feel for DanielPi being embroiled in what I consider to be a 'Flat Earth' argument. I think if I could get clarified some of the guidelines of Wikipedia, We'd be in a better position to know how the article should be amended. If the article should be written about Schuckardt from his POV regarding his beliefs and actions, then it is in decent shape. If it should be written about what published sources have said about Schuckardt, then it needs work. Take a look at the section 'POV Debate' above in which I entreat DanielPi to either provide guidance on a number of Wiki policy guidelines or run it up the flagpole to get a coordinator's input. Added by Bernie Radecki

You are correct that original research isn't really permitted on Wiki. I'm reluctant to open this particular can of worms, since it just adds another issue to the debate that doesn't really address specific changes. I'm also very reluctant to start a complete rewrite, since that would entail a great deal more effort, and we'd be working from tabula rasa. Nonetheless, you *are* correct that original research isn't really permissable. And if that's the case you'd like to make, I'm somewhat obliged to follow up, I suppose. Before we continue then, let me direct a question to Fra. John- namely, can you provide references to support your various edits? I realize there have been many over a period of time. However, if you could go through the article and include (reasonably many) footnotes to sources, that would greatly ease the debate. The question is, could you (and/or would you) be willing to do that? I would also point out that if the article says, "Schuckardt believes X", you needn't provide an independent source. It would suffice to find someplace where Schuckardt clearly expressed X, which you can cite. If you're forced to say, "I heard him say X myself," then that would count as original research, and unfortunately, I don't think it would be permissable. It's just not intellectual fair play to cite yourself as a source. Danny Pi 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Danny Pi: I can reference probably most if not all of the material in question. But as I mentioned right from the get-go, I'm pressed for time and referencing all of this is definitely going to take a considerable amount of time. Again, I must beg for everyone's patience. I will get to it.

This requirement has to cut both ways as well. There is definitely some material on the other side of this equation which also needs to be supported by verifiable sources. Athanasius303 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Fra. John: Good to hear. I don't think there's any particular rush to this, but the sooner you can get to it, the sooner this issue will be resolved. I'm very busy these days as well, so I understand the time issue. Danny Pi 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a question. Encyclopedia articles represent a persons life, what happened and I suppose why it happened. Why does this article represent a minority view? As Bernie mentioned above, GOOGLE Schuckardt and tell me what you find. The majority consensus will prove to be much different than what is written.

I have a problem with the Aryan Nations bit in the article, because it proves nothing. I think Athanasius is using it as a tool of defamation. Just because they were seen up on the property doesn't mean they were invited. The Aryan Nations have thier marches in downtown Couer d Alene every year, but, does that mean that they are accepted by all the citizens and City Council of that city? People of questionable character come into Catholic Churches all the time but the church does not endorse thier lifestyles. My point: Unless it is a proven fact that they were INVITED to watch over the marches and to pose a threat to Schuckardt, it should be removed. It is useless to the life of Bishop Francis.

George Wagner 27 APR 06

The Aryan Nations is an example of a part of the article that has no independent support. Due to the controverial subject matter of this article, it has been agreed that information in it requires substantiation from published sources. This is basic Wikipedia policy and I am sure it will improve the balance of the article. If Schukardt's view is a tiny minority view, Athanasius wil not be able to find third party articles supporting Schuckardt's practices except for things that he himself published which I am not positive fits the guidelines. Anyways, I am in the process of gathering information relating to Schuckardt's consecration that should serve as an example of what I consider providing a verifiable source. Bernie Radecki 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I keep repeating myself regarding this issue, but I will do it again.

It is relevant and offers an explanation as to why the Bishop fled. It informs, that what encyclopedias are supposed to do.

It is a direct quote taken from a court transcript and as such meets Wikipedia’s policy requirement for verifiability. Wagner’s argument about whether or not the Aryan Nations were invited or not has no relevance and isn’t an issue. Athanasius303 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Biographical Guidelines Should Control Here

Here is where I think Radecki is off. Simply because some material is well-sourced does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in an article. Identifying the type of article in question seems to me to the first step to be taken. This then allows all editors to follow the same policies and guidelines regarding all aspects of the article and it also goes a long way toward avoiding fruitless debate about non-relevant issues. The arbitrary application of even valid policies and guidelines, without first defining of the scope of the article in question, can lead to confusion and endless debate.

This article is titled “Francis Schuckardt” and is clearly a biography. Wikipedia policies and guidelines governing biographies should be the standard by which all contributors are held to in this article.

Webster defines the word biography as follows: “1. The histories of individual lives, considered as a branch of literature. 2. [pl. Biographies], an account of a person’s life, described by another; life story.”

Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies of living persons states this important point: “Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.”

I think this guideline fits Bishop Schuckardt’s critics like a glove. Radecki’s latest addition to the article, under the section he created: “Opposing Viewpoints on Schuckardt’s Consecration” demonstrates this very thing. It reads more like a historical critique about Catholicism than a biography about Bishop Schuckardt. Substitute one word in the guideline quoted above and you get this: “to have a criticism section in the article Catholicism is encyclopedic, but a critique of Catholicism on the article of each individual Catholic figure is not.”

The article already clearly states that Bishop Schuckardt and the post-Vatican Council II Catholic Church are at odds, disagree, and condemn one other. Going beyond this in a biography seems to me to be pushing a POV, especially when put forth by the Bishop’s critics.

If we can establish these facts: a) the article is a biography, and b) Wikipedia’s biographical guidelines should be controlling, then I think we are on the right track to solving a lot of present disputes that have been waging.

Can you please weigh in Danny Pi, when you get the chance. Thanks. Athanasius303 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

To Athanasius303 Right now, you do not have third party references on Schuckardt's beliefs and motivations and when I or others have tried to add them to the article you revert them and call us vandals! The unsubstantiated, first-hand additions make the article auto-biographical instead of a biographical. The majority view always deserves to be written and NPOV via third hand published sources is the cornerstone of ensuring NPOV. I'll wait for DanielPi to wiegh in on my addition although I don't think anyone could see the 3 paragraph addition to the article as a "historical critique about Catholicism"! Even the Wikipedia article on Tom Cruise references published subject matter relating to his homosexuality and this is a minority view! Contrast what I have added to your tenuous connection between a quotation that some white supremist group may have been seen at Mt. St. Michaels and that this is the reason Schuckardt fled Spokane. I should be able to remove that right now since the connection is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated. Similarly, the portions where you defame Chicoine with the "primal greed" and "lust for power" concoction. These instances are what I consider "straw man" arguments that will need to be addressed eventually. I hope DanielPi's third party opinion on this can help us to come to an agreement about the standards of NPOV, verifiability, and cited sources in any article. Bernie Radecki 14:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fra John: According to your addition above, we should add all of Schuckardts homosexual misconduct as it is a historical fact, not to mention that it is a probably a current fact. I haven't done it to this point, but if you pursue this avenue, I will gather the credible information for this addiion. George Wagner 01 MAY 06

For the benefit of those interested: I would be in a position to provide evidence of Fr. Chicoine's homosexual involvement, on account of which he was given a dishonorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps. Why would I do so? As a former Marine officer, I would prefer that this information remain private, but not at the expense of the right to reputation that every American possess, for which I fought in Korea, Vietnam, and for the first Gulf War; namely, the right to be and to teach whatever he or she stands for, regardless of the small mindedness of people like George Wagner. George, do you want to take me on? You sound like a little dog yapping at the heels of those who are much bigger than you. And it shows. Lay off the rhetoric, little man, you don't have the balls to attack men who have stepped up to the moral challenge of leading mankind to moral rectitude, as Francis Schuckardt has. No one is perfect, and it takes a man of genuine conviction to step up to the moral challenge of leading men to a righteous life, and accept the potential of weathering attacks from those in the cheap seats, such as yours. Can you think of nothing positive to advance the moral condition of mankind, of which you fancy yourself the champion? Or are you content with seating yourself in the peanut gallery of the morally and mentally deficient? You disgust me.

Semper Fi -- You don't deserve to know my name.

Oh great. Bernie Radecki 13:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr. Semper Fi: If you were a marine corps officer then ACT LIKE ONE. Oh, I forgot, you are trained to be full of yourselves. But, that is neither here nor there. You mentioned something like taking me on? Bring it! I am a Navy recruiter in Spokane. You sound like you have an axe to grind... Well, don't do it here. Your addition is not justified, it is merely a personal attack on me and more than likely slanderous lies. However, I will investigate the accusation you make. I care not that you make such poor analogies, that you served in foreign theaters, and that you were an officer. So PLEASE, keep your unwarranted opinions to yourself.

Mr. Semper Fi, prove to me you were an Ex officer in the marine corps... I seriously doubt who you claim to be. As for Fr. Denis I'll dig up the info....

Oh, by the way Mr. Semper Fi, have the b**** to state your name, everyone else has. George Wagner 03 MAY 06

Back Soon Information

I've got finals. Will respond by Saturday. Apologies for the delay. Danny Pi 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Something has come up which will limit my input for a while. If Danny Pi or anyone else weighs in, please allow me to respond before going ahead with any implementations. Thank you. Athanasius303 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

I cannot agree to delay improvements to the article. Hopefully, DanielPi does respond soon to give his opinion on how to support entries in the article using third party sources. I hope he can take a look at my edition from a few weeks ago and give an opinion on its acceptablity. It is my hope that Athanasius303 and I can agree on the standard of citing published material in the article. If an understanding on this point could be reached between Athanasius303 and myself it would allow the mediation to be closed in my opinion. This would allow for the deletion of fabrications or hearsay material. It would also allow the addition or reformating of existing material in the article. I think I will have time this week to do some of this. As a courtesy, I will start with my own additions instead of removing segments that are unsupported. I have considered using a template that I have seen used in other articles that can be inserted into various parts of an article to flag the content as needing verifiability from a reputable, third party source. Bernie Radecki 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Bernie: I agree, there is so much material that needs to be verified by another source, otherwise it is just hear say. As for Mr. Semper Fi, I believe he is a liar and is someone from the group posing as an EX Marine officer. Just another way to discredit the truth. George Wagner 06 MAY 08

Just as I thought.... Wagner has been losing sleep after getting his ass chewed. If you can dish it out you should be able to take it. But that's right -- you're only a swab. Go ahead and stay awake at night trying to figure out why old leathernecks like me can't stand around listening to guys like you using our hard won freedom for your own little personal soapbox. Get a useful hobby. Semper Fi.

You want to talk to Wagner? Get his email address and take your discussions offline. Your additions thus far do not appear useful to the mediation process. Wagner himself stated that he would be interested in any documentation you have regarding what appears to be a basely accusation you made against Denis Chicoine. This shows some quality in Wagner's character. If you can harness your energy into constructively aiding the mediation process, please do. Fra. John appears to be running short on time and perhaps could use you to step in to take his place in the mediation, but there are certain standards of decorum that must be complied with. Personal attacks against editors is considered bad form especially coming from an anonymous source. I am sure Fra. John would concur. Bernie Radecki 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Semper Fi: I am not going to get in a war of words. If you want to speak with me my e-mail is george.wagner@navy.mil. If you want to get into a discussion on this page state your name. Also, I haven't lost any sleep over this. I started a web site to let the truth be told, so victims of this cult can voice their experiences. As I stated before, I doubt you are who you claim to be and I doubt your accusation. You seem to be embattled with this notion of Sailor vs. marine. Well, this is not the forum for that. Please contribute factual evidence of your claims and or experiences. If you can't then get out!

George Wagner 06 MAY 09

To Semper Fi: After researching the issue, I have found out the truth to your accusation. The discharge part is correct, but, you are spreading lies as for why. As stated before I seriously doubt who you are. I believe you are a member of the group posing as Father's former officer. Who else would know the information you claim. Unless you can prove your identity, you are a phony. Please add credible input to help the article. George Wagner 06 MAY 09

Sorry for the delay. Final exams got quite out of hand. If you don't believe me, try to prove that the integers mod 25 are not isomorphic to the direct product of the set of integers mod 5 and the set of integers mod 5. Anyway, I'm going to catch up on what you guys have written and respond ASAP. Again, my apologies for the long delay. Danny Pi 05:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am afraid I gave up on you. For this reason I have edited the article. I have paid careful attention to adding material that is substantiated by verifiable, third party material. Some is published sources, some is public letters that were widely distributed. Absolutely none is hearsay. As I have stated previously, I firmly believe that this is the only means to ensure a NPOV. I have spent a good deal of time and energy to obtain both newspaper articles and correspondence that date back to 1971. All of it deals with Francis Schuckardt by name. Unfortunately for those who hold Schuckardt in high esteem, the material published then, as now, is not flattering to him or his church. I remain willing to work through mediation, but will insist that the material I added remain until reviewed by a third party tro judge. Bernie Radecki 06:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Copied from Discussion Talk Page - need to keep arguments together: Information

OK Schuckardt Cronies I've had enough. Bernie adeded verifiable, sourced additions to the article and you delete them because the truth hurts. If this continues I will delete the whole article!!! George Wagner

I have not removed your input and I know that you are not going to be banned! Read the article before you edit! I have added third party, citable documented comentary to the article. I have flagged the areas in which you write what Schuckardt beleives without any citable source. How is the public to know that this is what Schuckardt believes! What if I started writing what Schuckardt beleives! It would be choas. In what I added, I also added material written by Fr. Alphonsus Barnes. I have the letters of both Fr. Chicoine and Fr. Alphonsus. By citing the extant documents themselves, a NPOV is kept. In all these months, I do not recall you adding anything documenting the other sides point of view. Yet, I have done this repeatedly. Due to the fact that this is a controversial article, the only way to proceed is to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of ensuring a third party opionion by citing sources. This I have done. In all decency, you must not delete these additions. Surely you can see that additions, such as what the Roman Catholic bishop of Spokane wrote about Francis Schuckardt are relevent! Do not just yank this material out! Please do go through the article and find third party material that supports your statements of what Schuckardt beleives. Surely he has written something on this topic so that you do not have to create first person dialogue as to what he believes. My additions are in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and DanielPi's input. DanielPi is probably not coming back, but I do think that we both learned that the only way to proceed is to have documetatrion backing up the material in the article. I have docuentation for my additions. I welcome you to provide the same. I will raise the flag with the mediation committee that we have appeared to lose our mediator, but let us show a little restraint. Bernie Radecki 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The mediator got agreement from us not to edit the article until consensus was reached. You have since violated that agreement (I know, none-binding) four times. You requested mediation and then you killed it because it was not necessarily going your way. Be that as it may, here are the applicable guidelines for why the material you added was properly deleted and why the material about Bishop Schuckardt is properly there.

This is a biography, about a controversial living person, with necessarily heavy religious overtones. Wikipedia set policies and guidelines to regulate all these of these issues. It is my belief that I am in conformity with these policies and that you are not.

A biography can use as source material the person’s personal website. I am sure you must be aware of the Bishop’s site and have probably read it. But whether you have or not is immaterial. A good deal of the material in this article is derived from that site and therefore properly sourced.

All three sections (biographies, controversial articles and religion) state that the biographical article should express the views, opinions, … of the subject. You have for some time now been complaining about this article representing a minority view. What do you think a biography is? Of course it represents a minority view, a view of one. That’s what biographies are all about and these views are proper here.

Biography guidelines also state that the article is about the subject, not his critics. You are without question a critic of the Bishop and clearly want to turn this article into something that represents your personal antagonistic bias. You add nothing new, you just keep adding more and more of something that the article already states. The critics view should not predominate a biography.

The material you added was not properly sourced. The burden lies on you to source your edits with proper references, especially when the material is detrimental to someone’s reputation. A loose letter written by someone, if challenged, does not stand up to scrutiny.

I say this not to attack, but to state the case. I find you to be disingenuous. What you say on these talk pages and what you do are two different things. You are agenda driven and so am I, but with this difference: My editing is not aimed at ruining someone’s reputation, your editing is and that in necessarily POV and not what an encyclopedia is all about. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid or a forum for people to peddle their bias. I would sincerely like to work to create consensus, but despite your claims that you would like to do the same, I don’t believe you will. It seems to me that binding arbitration is the only solution here. Athanasius303 05:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Stop removing my sourced material! Stop trying to make the article an autobiography. I have left a note with the chair of the mediation committee that we appear to have lost our mediator. Perhaps we will get another one. I think it is critical to get a third party view here one way or another. If you want to ask for binding arbitration, that would be ok with me. The major point we do not agree on is what a biography is and the use of independent, third party sources. You seem to want the article to be an autobiography and you do not even provide sources for what Schuckardt believes! For all the public knows, you could be making things up. What you are adding is original research. This is where we do need an arbitrator. I like the website you made. That is the place for original research in my opinion. You should not be adding more original research here! You definitely should not delete my sourced material. If you would like to dialogue about it, that is welcome; but don't just cut it out! You leave me no choice but to revert. We could do this until a third party input is once again available: you don't delete my sourced material and I won't delete your original research (which is terribly out of place). Bernie Radecki 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK. I have reverted back so my improperly deleted material is once again in place. I looked at what you added and out of courtesiy I was going to paste it back in but I fear the references would not match up and I might not get it the way you want. You are of course welcome to paste it back in and get it formatted the way you want, but don't remove my material. Once again we have a very significant disagreement. You see my third party, sourced material as improper for a biography. I see you have added a lot of material and provide no source whatsoever documenting it as something Schuckardt taught in the 1980s. No sense getting into an argument about Wikipedia policy with you since we've been down that road and it is futile without outside guidance. Hopefully, we can get some of that soon. I must say that I am as exasperated with you as you appear to be with me. I have put requests on both the mediation chair and deputy chair talk pages. If a mediator weighed in on a few policy type issues, such as the use of third party material and how much of the biography should be in the subjects own point of view, we may be able to make progress. The caseload for the mediators is lighter than it was previously. However, if you want to go to arbitration, no one can stop you. Bernie Radecki 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Where to start? Let’s start by not mudding the waters by misrepresentations. To call this article autobiographical is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. No person in his right mind would write and publish such defamatory statements about themselves. This article is biographical, not autobiographical; mislabeling it does nothing to further the process at reaching consensus and a NPOV.

So far you have violated the mediator’s recommendation of not editing in any fashion that might inflame another editor. You have unilaterally done that 4 times before I gave up and started to edit as well. My question to Radecki is this: what is the purpose of further mediation if you have no intention to give the process a chance? If you are going to do your own thing regardless of the mediator’s input, then I don’t see how further mediation is going to be a benefit.

The info you added fails to meet Wikipedia citing sources guidelines. Some phantom letters not available to the general public having essentially only you for their authenticity, is of course is not acceptable. Wikipedia places the burden of proving verifiable sources upon the shoulders of the editor making the addition. Furthermore, there is the question of relevance once again. We raised that question on the mediation page, but have not yet received any input from the mediator. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy condemns the notion that an autobiographical article should focus on the critics, and not the subject. Since your additions really don’t add anything new, but simply give more verbiage to your undeniable bias, I don’t believe they belong in this article.

Regarding removing the material I added, you have once again violated Wikipedia policy in doing so. I would be good for you to do your homework before you just recklessly removing anything that does not fit into your own prejudices. The website of the subject of an autobiography is a valid source. You should not be removing material that Bishop Schuckardt’s website supports.

You really need to go elsewhere to peddle your bias. Any review of the talk pages clearly reveals that your sole object here is to trash the Bishop and you’ve been trying every policy/guideline loophole possible to obtain that objective. Encyclopedias are not for that purpose. They are designed to report facts and allow the reader to form their own opinions. (Fra. John)

After you removed my well sourced additions, you added new material. As I stated, I would have left your new material alone, but to add my well-sourced material back in and get your new material formated correctly was problematic. I have expended a good amount of energy to obtain newspaper articles and correspondence that was widely circulated over 20 years ago. Once again, I should be commended. NPOV relies on cited, third party material. I have the letters. I have the newspaper articles. Even the newspaper articles mention the letters. Through much personal effort, I have obtained the past and document it here. What is more, I have more. As I wrote three months ago, it is difficult to find material that speaks favorably of Schuckardt, but the opposite is not true. Bernie Radecki 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Non-compliance with policy/guidelines

Wikipedia’s verifiability policy states: “Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn’t mean Wikipedia is the right place to publish it.” Wikipedia’s biography guidelines state: “Any negative material about a living person that is not sourced to a reliable publication should be removed both from the article and the talk page.”

Much of what Radecki added is not only not sourced to a reliable publication, but it isn’t sourced at all. He makes unsubstantiated claims about some “letters,” as his source; this wouldn’t even meet muster with a tabloid, let alone an encyclopedia. That only leaves some newspaper extracts; are these legitimately in this article? I don’t believe they are based upon Wikipedia policy and the fact that some of these are 30 years old, if they are even legitimate.

Wikipedia’s biography guidelines states: “In borderline cases, the rule of thumb is to ‘do no harm.’ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalists, or to be the primary vehicle for the spreading of titillating claims about people’s lives.” It further states: “[Critics] views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject’s notability, is based upon reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critic’s material.” “The focus of a biographical article should be about the subject, not their critics.” Radecki’s additions do not meet these standards and therefore are rightly excluded from this article.

I think a clear indication of just how bias he is, is that much of negative material he added cannot even be directly traced to Bishop Schuckardt. His obvious intent is to disparage the Bishop by the law of association. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy states: “Verifiability requires direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership of an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization.” Again, I think Radecki should take his POV bias elsewhere and stop using Wikipedia to advocate this bias.

Lastly, this bias has resulted in conduct that is considered to be vandalism. The removal of the external links to the Bishop’s personal website and the Catholic Encyclopedia are unwarranted and again show how he wants this article to reflect his own prejudical views. Athanasius303 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK. Once again you have wantonly deleted third party, sourced material and then added your own, unsourced material. I would leave your unsourced material if it were easy to put the other material back. So if you want to add your material, stop wantonly deleting mine. Let DanielPi weigh in. I am not going to cite here a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines for you. I think everyone knows the three pillars that Wikipedia stands on. You need to bring your material up to the standard I am following. You add material saying that Schuckardt thought this and Schuckardt felt that, but you give no proof of it. Then you complain of my use of newspaper articles because they are old? I am referencing things that happened 20 or 30 years ago, of course they are old!! And the letters. This may confuse DanielPi so I'll elucidate for his benefit. It was not uncommon during the 70s and 80s for people who left Schuckardt's church to get a hold of the church's mailing list and send a letter stating their position to all the people on it. The letter of Chicoine and the letter of Barnes were two such letters that were mailed to hundreds of addresses in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington areas. These were public, open letters detailing the author's point of view. Portions of these letters appear in the newspaper articles and were also used in one or more of the Alientation of Affection lawsuits brought against Schuckardt's church. This is the practice you need to utilize when you add material: get something that is published on Schuckardt detailing his beliefs. I have added many direct quotations from Schuckardt. (The removal of the reference to the Catholic encyclopedia was the one that I mentioned in the mediation page where you just cite the entire encyclopedia to justify a sentence that really makes no sense.) Bernie Radecki 13:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fra John: You claim to not defaming someones name? Well read the article ! You are destroying a good mans name, Father Denis, and elevating your bishop. The letters Bernie is referencing will be published on my web site. You are beig severely bias in you editintg. You simply want it your way. You can't prove any allegations against Father Denis other than your point of view, and I know yo can't. So either prove your case or I will remove it. George Wagner 13 May 06

The “three pillars” are abridged policies of Wikipedia. They do not trump the more detailed policies expounded by Wikipedia. We don’t live in a one-size-fits-all world and neither can something as massive as Wikipedia be reduced into a one-size-fits-all encyclopedia.

Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability states: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.” It’s not for you to post an edit in dispute and then claim the right to keep it posted until proven otherwise. The exact opposite is the case. Disputed postings are to be taken to the talk pages for resolution. I dispute your additions and we have a mediator once again. The talk pages are the proper place for this discussion and I will continue to remove this material until you follow policy guidelines; I do this per policy guidelines.

The material I added and revert after you delete it IS sourced. Again, you should not be recklessly removing material that opposes you point of view. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy allows “self-published sources in articles about themselves.” It specifically mentions a subject’s personal website as one such source. The footnotes and the Bishop’s website fulfill this source criterion, thereby making these materials proper to the article.

In addition to the material being properly sourced, it is also relevant. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy states: “One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape.” This is exactly what my recent additions do.

The Arbitration Committee recently ruled: “[I]n favor of showing mercy to the subjects of biographies…” Wikipedia’s biography section says: “Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs, or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view.” I believe this is exactly what you are doing by giving undue weight and attention to the negative material about Bishop Schuckardt; it does not belong here.

The reason I have gone through the trouble to quote of all these policies and guidelines is because Wikipedia, like any organization of considerable size, must be regulated by rules and laws, and the rules and laws must be taken as a whole, because the arbitrary applications of certain ones only will defeat the very purpose of an encyclopedia. I believe these policies and guidelines are the basis which all editors here must work from, otherwise we will be hopeless deadlocked and will never reach consensus.

I am copying these recent additions to the talk page to the mediation talk page because I think that is a more appropriate spot for them now that the mediator is back. Athanasius303 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John) reply

Yow, you trying to overwhelm DanielPi? I had no idea you would copy stuff from the talk pages to here. Let him weigh in before you deluge him. It may well be that he knows a thing or two about Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. I'll hold off until DanielPi weighs in. I have no doubt as to whether you or I have a better grasp on what is acceptable material for inclusion to a Wikipedia article. I look forward to DanielPi's third party point of view. Bernie Radecki 20:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

OK. I have reverted the article to get my well documented material back in. I have also pasted back in the over 2000 words of original research that you put in. So now we both have something to object to. Be reasonable and stop reverting! Give the mediator a chance or go to arbitration, but stop reverting. It is senseless for you to remove my material and it is equally senseless for me to remove your material. I would value a thrid party view on the topic of the validity of cited material and also the validity of original research. I am very skeptical that a circular reference to the webpage of the topic of the article is a viable way of getting around using cited material. Of course I can provide Wikipedia policy that supports my view. Bernie Radecki 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I've stated the policies and guidelines whereby I removed your additions, so I don't know why we have to go around and around on this issue. I will state it again in case it didn't register for some reason: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion..." - Wikipedia: Citing Sources. Your edits are vigorously disputed and I am following proper procedure by removing them from the article. Athanasius303 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop reverting! I strongly oppose the 2000 words of original material you put in without any reference that shows that Schuckardt ever believed a word of it. We need another voice's input, but in the meantime, reverting solves nothing. It will be interesting to see how long this goies on. You know the meaning of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and thinking that the outcome wil change. Bernie Radecki 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

DanielPi, the policies of Wikipedia seem clear to me and yet Athanasius303 and myself have been unable to convince one another of our arguments despite trying. I don't see any purpose to quoting policy for Athanasius303 since it falls on deaf ears. The 3 main policies of Wikipedia are NPOV, Verifiability, and No original Research. Perhaps he disputes that and we can work through it with a mediators help. The pages that describe these three policies are replete with mandates that support my POV on policy. It is so obvious, I would feel like I was insulting people's intelligence to cut and paste it here. Bernie Radecki 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply