Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Pope Benedict XVI. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers the last hours of April 21, 2005, and most of April 22.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive08. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk random} 21:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Youth

There's some debate in France about Ratzinger belonging to to Hitler's Youth at the age of 14. Ericd 13:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) OOooops, I've found a reference in the article. Ericd 13:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there surely is a lot of Pope bashing and hate propaganda against the Pope in France. Is this a surprise, when we consider that particular country's history in regard to religion?

Oh shove it you smug jerk. In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of controversy here in the states too. Wikipedia is no place for francophobia. --Quasipalm 21:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be a problem with germanophobia among some, also here at Wikipedia.

I think this is a controversy everywhere. Plus, with many of the cardinals up for the papacy were probably alive during this time period, so no matter who was picked, we would have picked at them and peered into their lives, souls, pretty much anything else we can look at. Zscout370 23:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be added to the Controversy section? I'm starting to see this everywhere.

The section is called "controversial views", not just controversy and IMO thís issue is more a campaign than a controversy, as the facts are not controversial. The note in the biographical section is all there is to say about that.

Str1977 16:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Hitler Youth information into its own section, because it is clearly a focal point of public discussion.

There is some debate going on about whether to use the active or passive voice in describing the Pope's membership in the Hitler Youth. Some clearly are taking the view that he actively joined (albeit recognizing the mandatory nature of membership at the time). I've read articles stating specifically that the school he was studying in began automatically enrolling its students in the Hitler Youth 2 years before the Pope was a member at age 14. (See NYT) Can we come to some compromise on the wording. I think both sides are trying to avoid the potential POV connotations the other's phrasing could have. - J

Yes please! The passive voice introduces an extreme POV here (unless someone can find a reliable citation that the enrollment was literally done w/o his consent or knowledge). Yes, not enrolling may have had (serious) negative consequences. But some people at the time chose to face those negative consequences rather than enroll; Ratzinger was not among them. I would not purport that he "enthusiastically" enrolled (absent evidence of such), but neither is it neutral to pretend he did not do so at all. How about a compromise of "formally enrolled?" Or even "enrolled under pressure" (though that leans towards non-neutral)? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:42, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

On checking, same article used as support for father's anti-Nazi belief is clear in use of active voice. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:15, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

The article from the NYT states that the school enrolled its students. This article (http://kyw.com/pope/pope_story_113150419.html), referring to the Pope's autobiography, isn't definitive but concludes that the Pope seems to indicate the same thing. My problem, Lulu, is that it started out with the "was enrolled" phrase, which is used by the other half of articles versus the "joined" phrase. Then it was changed to "joined" to expressly make it active, when it isn't clear that he did the enrolling, although I think it is clear that he was aware of it. Your mention of not choosing to face thos negative consequences (although maybe meant to be "factual") can easily read as a POV/judgment on whether his form of resistance to the Nazis was "heroic" enough of "acceptable". I can leave with either of your compromises. - J

Conservatism

From article:

His stance, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, should not be confused with those of conservatives in a political sense, because of his (also Catholic) opposition to the death penalty and preemptive war and his emphasis on social justice and opposition to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism.

This statement is rather surprising, because frankly, many European conservatives are against the death penalty and preemptive war, want (allegedly, but that is what they say) social justice, and are, although probably to a lesser extent, opposed to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism. So this either needs a thorough re-working, or (that was probably meant) an addition of "US" somewhere. -- AlexR 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. This seems to use American conservatives as the benchmark by which a conservative pope can be judged. Since Ratzinger is a European and a product of European thought and upbringing, this would seem like the wrong standard to use. He seems to me more like a conservative of the traditionalist kind, rather than the American free-market unbridled capitalism sort of conservative (what in Europe might be called a liberal). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Popes go he is a traditionalist, not conservative. Rangeley 17:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't use "traditionalist" because of the anti-council implication (see earlier discussion), but to describe his views or stances as "traditional" is ok. I was responsible for the wording criticized, though I only rearranged it. I guess there is some US reference in there, but still even if European conservatives are somewhat different, the distinction between Benedict's stance should in neither case be equated with political conservatism. Str1977 17:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, only it is the definition of conservatives that is the problem, not a description of the pope or the question how his conservatism differs (or not) from other conservative views. -- AlexR 19:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, I have worded it in a way, that cautions against equating Church's and Pope's stance with political conservatism in general (I think that's valid in every nation), but gave the too American examples as what they are, examples. Str1977 13:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Compliments to all (thus far)

It might seem odd but I wanted to let the Wiki contributors to the B16 entry that it is a fascinating read. Mowens35 17:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's getting there, isn't it? While there's still much to do I've enjoyed watching this article develop and it gets better all the time, with sources at last being cited for some of the assertions, and great expansion on what was just a couple of paragraphs a few days ago. Considering the very rapid pace of editing, and all the vandalism it's received, I think this is something Wikipedia can be proud of, and it's good to know we are now number one google result for Pope Benedict XVI. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that things will only get better with time my friends. Zscout370 18:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it truely is amazing how something really great can arise out of the complete chaos. Trial by fire, in a way. --Quasipalm 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate References

Could not find something about this in the guidelines; I see that References 4 and 6 are the same (to the same reprint in IHT of the same NYT article). Should these references be consolidated into one? 84.136.56.88 20:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is they are separate footnotes, ie separated by other notes. How would they be consolidated? Seems impossible to do that and still have the proper citations. Mowens35 10:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Youth

" National Socialist mathematics professor " Was the professor actually a Nazi, or merely a German required to join the party? I think the distinction is important. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there were very few cases where anybody was required to join the party. Granted, people have joined it to keep their jobs or for a better chance of promotion, but the sole exception for non-voluntary joining was AFAIK rather late in the regieme, when whole groups of the Hitler Youth were signed in as members on April 20th (Hitler's birthday). Those people, however, can be identified by the date of the actual joining. Unfortunately, can't find a reference now. I'd be carefull when encountering references to "involuntary membership" - lots of people joined for career reasons, others, because they agreed with parts of the program, and others still - well, because they believed in all of it. Besides, not every party member, even voluntary ones, were no brain-dead fanatics, so I can is no particular relevance as to whether that teacher was or was not a voluntary member of the NSDAP. -- 21:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for this, but didn't the Nazi party freeze membership shortly after the war started? --Quasipalm 21:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes ... but: They froze membership officially in April '33, because after '33 so many wanted to join; from 850.000 to more than 2,5 Millionen. (Most of those probably did not change their opinion so much as saw it as a career thing; that was already alleged back then.) However, that freeze was not complete, people were allowed to join in several cases, and it was lifted in '37 again, in '39 it had 5.3 mio members, and in 45 8.5 mio. [1] -- AlexR 00:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The description of the professor as a nazi goes back to Benedict's own report. He said something like: "my maths professor, although himself a Nazi ..." Str1977 08:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

condoms

"However, the use of condoms is permitted by the Church if one marital partner has HIV/AIDS."

Can anyone show me any sources for that? DKK

That statement is inaccurate. Occasionally you'll get someone with a degree in moral theology making that claim. You'll find some priests saying it. You may even find a bishop saying it. However, it is contrary to the official teaching. I hope it doesn't cause offence if I delete it. Ann Heneghan 22:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just reread my posting: I expressed myself badly. I meant that some priests, theologians, and even (though very rarely) some bishops may say or imply that it's okay for spouses to use condoms if one of the spouses is HIV positive. I did not mean that any priests, bishops, or theologians say that the use of condoms "is permitted by the Church" in such a case. In any case, the article makes it clear that Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ruled out such an option. Ann Heneghan 23:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Picture

Can't we use a different one in that box with all his details? His eyes look terrible, his appearance is awful, there must surely be some more appropriate pictures of him taken soon after he became Pope.

Yeah, we will change it, when they release the official picture tomorrow. Rangeley 22:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking about pictures, look at this one. Zscout370 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has any official portrait been released yet (sitting on a throne etc.)? The ones shown surely cannot be official- they are not regal enough! There was a BBC programme on today, and showed many pictures I have not senn and am unable to find. I assume they will be released shortly.--'s-Gravenhage 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to hurry with the pictures. He was only elected 5 days ago and inaugurated today. ;) --Maxl 19:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No official one yet, however this one is much better then that old one File:Pope050424 cp 7511577.jpg Rangeley 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sound

I just found this on the commons. It is how Caridnal Ratzinger's name is pronounced in German (created by User:APPER).[2]. Zscout370 00:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Divorce and remarriage

Regarding the following line near the bottom of the page:

"He has also rejected the idea that divorced people can remarry and said they have no right to receive communion."

The way the above line is stated could make it sound like Ratzinger was saying divorced people should be barred from the Eucharist even if they don't remarry. As far as I am aware, divorced Catholics who don't remarry are NOT barred from the Sacraments, so I'd like to see a cite on Ratzinger's actual words, and have the above sentence edited for clarity if need be.

Thanks... WhFastus 02:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 1994 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger) is probably the one you are referring to. You can find it [here]. As you can see, it says, "If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists. (Emphasis mine.) Thanks for pointing that out. I agree it should be edited for clarity. Ann Heneghan 14:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have edited it. However, I am not happy with the format of the footnote I added. The other footnotes on that page are raised. I looked at the "edit" page for other sections to see what a raised footnote would look like in the box, but still couldn't work it out. I felt it was better to submit it and have one footnote that looked different than to leave a sentence that might misrepresent the CDF letter. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to correct my formatting? Thanks. Ann Heneghan 14:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still Ratzinger?

I noticed in a lot of the article, it still refers to him as Ratzinger, when it should clearly be Benedict XVI. If you were to look in any other Pope's article, It was always John Paul II not Karol (except when describing his birth), And always John Paul I and not Albino. Why should it be any different for this pope? Rangeley 04:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every pope should be described by their own name for things they did before they became pope. Cardinal Pacelli, not Pius XII, signed the Concordat with Germany in 1933. Cardinal della Rovere, not Julius II, led the opposition to Alexander VI. And so on. Benedict XVI is bound to have a lot of stuff referring to him as Ratzinger, because he did a lot of stuff while he was Ratzinger. He's the most previously well-known pope since Pius XII, by far, and before Pius XII I can't come up with one who was equivalently important. BTW, the proper parallels to "Ratzinger" would be Wojtyla and Luciani, not Karol and Albino. john k 04:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the article, though, it appears that there were many instances where he should be called Benedict when he is still called Ratzinger. I'm going through and changing them. john k 04:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a long-standing tradition in papal history, though, of referring to popes by both their papal name and their original surname, particularly if their original surname is considered significant (either because they were well-known under it before they were created pope, or because they came from an important family). It is common with the Renaissance popes, who mostly came from noble families, so you will see them referred to, e.g., as "Leo X Medici" or "Pius II Piccolomini"; this was the practice of the popes themselve, as demonstrated most famously by the facade of St. Peter's, where the words over the door are "Paul V Borghese" (in Latin, of course). Someone as well-known as Gregory VII Hildebrand (who was very famous before his accession) is frequently referred to in history books simply as "Hildebrand", even with reference to things he did after he became pope. So in light of this, to refer to him as Benedict XVI Ratzinger, or even simply as "Ratzinger", is not unheard of. The use of the original surname is much more common, I think, in Europe than in North America - I have often heard Romans refer to John Paul II as "Pope Wojtyla".

Ratzinger's Mother's Occupation

Can we please get it straight? The occupation necessary is the occupation she had at the time of Ratzinger's birth. It seems improbable, not not impossible, that she worked for the German branch of Coca Cola at the time of his birth, but Wiki still requires a citation for this information. Most profiles of Benedict that I've accessed via Nexis-Lexis indicate that Maria Ratzinger (née Riger) was (a) a barmaid or (b) a cook. Again, this is at the time of his birth. If she worked for Coca Cola later in life, that information should be included. But it is important for someone to determine what her occupation was in 1927. Mowens35 10:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think his mother's occupation is that important. Most likely she was a housewife and mother at the time.

Palpatine

OK, folks. The Palpatine picture is amusing, but inappropriate. ~~I'm taking it down.~~ Looks like somebody beat me to it. Popefelix 14:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ingrid Stampa, the Pope's housekeeper

http://news.google.com/news?q=ingrid+stampa

AIDS and Uganda Reference False

New to the Wiki, so I didn't really want to make any changes on my own. I did, however, feel the need to at least point out that this paragraph:

The position is not arbitrary nor moralistic, but possesses a rigorous philosophical basis (See Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility). It seems that considerable weight can be given to this position, as abstinence promoted in the country of Uganda has reduced an AIDS population of 29% to roughly 6%, as opposed to other countries where condoms are promoted and the infection levels have either remained stable or increased.

Is not correct. This Feb. 24, 2005 article from the Washington Post reports quite the opposite:

Abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much-heralded decline of AIDS rates in the most closely studied region of Uganda, two researchers told a gathering of AIDS scientists here.
It is the deaths of previously infected people, not dramatic change in human behavior, that is the main engine behind the ebbing of the overall rate, or prevalence, of AIDS in southern Uganda over the last decade, they reported. ...
Wawer's findings come from a study of 10,000 people ages 15 to 49 who live in 44 villages near Uganda's border with Tanzania. Each year researchers have gone door to door collecting blood and urine samples and asking about health and behavior. About 85 percent of residents cooperate with the study, which over the years has grown to include AIDS treatment and prevention services as well as research. ...

Condom use, however, changed markedly over the survey period. In 1994, only about 10 percent of the men said they consistently used condoms with non-marital partners, compared with 50 percent in 2003. For women of the same age, the rate of condom use in non-marital sex increased from 2 percent to 28 percent.

I believe that this paragraph in the article should be removed, as I believe it is unrelated to the facts, attempts to add opinion (The position is not arbitrary nor moralistic) that is not supported, and is generally inaccurate.

However, I don't want to just hack away at someone else's work, and others may have a different perspective.

I don't personally believe that the first sentence is POV, especially since it cites a source for theological / philosophical basis. I would recommend retaining it, and changing the next sentence to something like "Some believe that the marked decline in AIDS infection in Uganda can be attributed to abstinence and sexual fidelity, though this is disputed by two researchers..." and summarizing and referencing your source. I'm glad you're making an attempt to discuss changes with others editing the article, but I would recommend you be bold. Keep in mind, though, that this is intended to be an article about Benedict, and we may not want to devote too much space to side topics. This info may be more appropriate in an AIDS article linked here. --MikeJ9919 16:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The claims cited in the washington post article are false, as well. There is a response that was published as one of the letters in followups to the article, stating that the study was carried out in the Rakai district, I believe, which only accounted for 2% of the population and was not representative of the population of Uganda. It can be argued that as it was left in its current format, the statement was quite opinionated as well, and decidedly pro-condom.

Pronouncation

I think the pronouncation link is outdated (he is surely not Cardinal Ratzinger anymore). Should it be removed (and replaced with just Joseph Ratzinger, like Pope John Paul II article's Karol Wojtila)?

I just stuck it there for reference sake only, so I request that it is kept there. Plus, I know he is not called Cardinal Ratzinger anymore, but I still think the link should be included to people can hear how the name is pronounced in German. Zscout370 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the pronouncation should be left in the article. I agree with Zscout370. --Maxl 18:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whole article seems rather slapdash, put together in several stages, in somewhat of a hurry. It could use some refining (and reducing in length - including the pronounciation). Perhaps there should be a section devoted to Him as Cardinal Ratzinger, with the sound file there, rather than in the main article. --'s-Gravenhage 19:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be right where it is now. It's the same with John Paul II. ;) --Maxl 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the length of the article I already made a suggestion below. No information should be deleted but some sections should be turned into main articles with leaving only short information in this article, especially the critics section. --Maxl 19:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe the pronunciation in the John Paul II article is only his name, not including the title "Cardinal." I believe it ought to be the same here, but until we can find such a file, the one we have should remain at the top where it is now. --User:Jenmoa 20:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

The current image look terrible. Couldn't we find some nice images?

Until the Vatican becomes nice and gives us a few, or if Wikipedians go to Rome and take pictures themselve, we are stuck. Zscout370 18:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- This is sooo frustrating, AP and others have numerous good images, but we have none. Have somebody mailed the Vatican? Could we perhaps ask some news agencies for permission to use a couple of their images?
  - I want to email the Vatican myself, but it looks like I have no where to send my request to. Zscout370 18:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Try using the 'greetings' section on the Vatican website. Send a greeting to the Holy Father on benedictxvi@vatican.va, and ask very nicely for a pretty picture at the end. It probably won't work...but I might try it myself. --'s-Gravenhage 19:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually sent the Holy Father a greeting, but got nothing back. I will try the Vatican mission at the United Nations, but I will wait until finals are over at my place. Zscout370 19:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just take it easy! They receive thousands, if not millions, of mails these days. It may take some time until you receive an answer. ;) --Maxl 20:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to the Vatican Press Office, asking when PD photos of B16 will be released. I am waiting for a reply in the next few days. Zscout370 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we don't need to hurry with the images. There's enough time to obtain them. (btw. I put that here before but it seems that my remark was deleted. I wonder why. --Maxl 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since he's very "in the news", many people want information on him (incl. images) now.

For that they can find lots of images in magazines, newspapers and on the web. I still say, we don't need to hurry. --Maxl 20:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But for here, we need Free Use/PD images, not steal anything from the AP or Reuters. Zscout370 20:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate ©opyright

Repetitions

Why are many of the sections repeated? I've removed the major repetition at the beginning, but there are still sentences repeated here and there.

Yes there are some repetitons. And I think the whole article has become too large. What about only giving the main infos in the article and put the more detailed info into additional main articles linked to this article? I think that may make sense as some people don't want such an in-depth information; and those who want it can move on to the detailed articles on each of the sections. --Maxl 18:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the information box with the short info appears twice in the article. ;) --Maxl 18:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous note

"Though the style His Holiness is used by Catholics and some other people, it is offensive to followers of some other religions."

This note is really ridiculous. It should be removed.

It's not really ridiculous but it's clearly irrevalant for this article. It belongs in an article where the relationship between the respective religions is discussed. --Maxl 19:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It is really ridiculous. It's one of the most stupid notes/comments I've ever seen in an encyclopedia. I doubt followers of any other religion find it offensive - why should they care? Perhaps the contributor who added this note can substantiate it. Even if he can, it should be removed because other religions are not forced to use this style. If no one else removes it I will do so after an hour (unless there are major and numerous objections). Arcturus 19:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure about that. At least I wouldn't give a statement like the above before having more explicit information on it. Though, I think only hard-liners from some religions might actually find it offensive. The remark can, however, be removed from this article because it is irrelevant here. --Maxl 19:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you believe it! Someone's already removed it. Hopefully it won't be put back. Arcturus 19:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I did remove it. As much as I appreciate Lotus' kind words elsewhere, he should watch out, since he has been banned before on this issue. Whether "His Holiness" might be offensive to someone is irrelevant - anything might be offensive to anyone. What's relevant is that it is

a) not in itself offensive, say insulting etc to somebody

b) factually true, and this form is used out there in the real world

c) in line with the wiki policy (style book) in its current form. Some want to change this and they should go ahead, but until then it is correct to include the form.

For my part, I'm neither in favour or against including "His Holiness", but the a disclaiming note along the line using "His Holiness" is a Catholic thing is factually incorrect and in itself POV.

Str1977 19:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dispute which continues to arise over the use of the style His Holiness has been discussed at length already, and is current Wikipedia policy. Some people think that the style is NPOV, others consider it controversial, but until and unless the policy is changed, it stands as is. With that having been said, I have proposed a survey that Wikipedians may wish to discuss regarding a change to the standing policy, so that the style might be included contextually within the article rather than at the outset. If you wish to participate in this ongoing discussion, please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposed Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in Biographies. Whig 19:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Style as "policy"

Some discussants and article editors have claimed that the style "His Holiness" is "Wikipedia style policy." But it was only added as style policy in the last couple days, and specifically by the same users who keep adding the style back in this article.

The truth, quite simply, is that the honorific is a Catholic POV, is offensive to some/many readers, and is at odds with the usage in all other encyclopedias, news sources, etc. The point of this article should not be "Vatican press release", but rather a NEUTRAL article.

However, I would not object to the usage later in the article, if it was accompanied by a contextualizing remark about the range of its usage. Much as the similar honorific was used for the Dalai Lama before some of the same involved people changed the Dalai Lama article to conform with their newfound "policy." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Lulu, is this NPOV good enough for you: " He is styled either as His Holiness [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#endnote_HisHoliness) or the Holy Father." This is later in the intro article, but I figured you (and many others) want this. Now, is everyone happy now? I want to put this issue to rest, just like many of you want to. Zscout370 03:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zscout370's suggestion is great. As was an earlier one for "formally addressed as." As would be anything else that mentioned rather than used the style. I absolutely do not want to dispute that the style is used, I just don't want to endorse it specifically (nor deny it either). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:46, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

First, it is not true that this has been wikipedia style policy for only a few days. It has been policy for at least several months. Secondly, the idea that this is a "Catholic POV" is absurd. Non-Catholics also refer to the pope as "His Holiness," and this style has nothing to do with whether or not the pope is holy. It is simply a style attaching to the pope. Is it a "Catholic POV" to refer to the Archbishop of Westminster, since Anglicans believe that this area is under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Bishop of London? john k 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Today, the Duke of Edinburgh, the husband of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, was clearly heard calling Ben "Your Holiness". The (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, called the Pope "His Holiness" on the BBC. And the non-Catholic King Carl XVI Gustav was also heard calling the Pope "Your Holiness", as did George W. Bush when he met John Paul II, the head of the Lutheran Church in Rome when he welcomed JPII to his church, and the (Jewish) President of Israel when he welcomed JPII to his country. So how then is it Catholic POV for wikipedia to use a form of address used by the Duke of Edinburgh, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the King of Sweden, the President of the United States, the head of the Lutheran Church in Rome and the President of Israel? And how exactly are we endorsing it by using it? Or were all the above endorsing it? Does that mean that the Duke of Edinburgh, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the King of Sweden, the President of the United States, the head of the Lutheran Church in Rome and the President of Israel are all secret Catholics or something? Pray do explain, Lulu. FearÉIREANN 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As this keeps coming up over and over here, I want to remind folks that the wikipedia style policy is under discussion for a proposed survey at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposed Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in Biographies. Please join the discussion there if you have any desire to be helpful in framing this question. Whig 04:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, thank you for those examples on the various people (and religions) who use the term His/Your Holiness. I personally use this term, mainly as a mark of respect for Benedict XVI (along with John Paul II). As for the policy itself, Whig, do you want to copy and paste what the policy states for everyone here to read?

As referrenced earlier, I did an edit to make some people happy with that statement. I made some happy, I know I upset many of you, but I am just trying to see what kind of "happy medium" exists here. I know I sounded harsh, but this is really starting to get me annoyed. Zscout370 11:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inauguration

There is nothing in this article as yet on the new Pope's inauguration that took place today. I think it was quite remarkably because people applauded many times during his sermon. And does anyone know if the Eastern Catholic churches were involved with any inauguration of a previous pope like they were this time? --Maxl 19:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The inauguration is discussed in the Papal Inauguration article. I honestly think that section ought to be moved here, because the other article should be on Papal Inaugurations in general. =\ --user:Jenmoa

You misspelled it! ;) But you're right, it should be part of this article, probably also as a sub article to this just as I suggested for all the major parts of the article before. --Maxl 20:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good god, no. Don't move it here. This article is too big already and will have to have things taken out, not more put in. FearÉIREANN 03:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

We should keep an eye on this page, http://members.tripod.com/romeartlover/cataloga.html to see when the new Papal arms has been designed for the Holy Father. Zscout370 21:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question mark

Does anyone know how to remove the question mark just after the soundbite of the name. I tried, but couldn't get it done. Str1977 22:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It cannot be done, since that links to a page that deals with Audio help. Zscout370 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What I did is I put the words (Audio Problems(or something to that effect)) before the question mark, but I will see how other pages did it. Zscout370 11:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current Image

File:Pope050424 cp 7511577.jpg Is this image fully sourced properly? Cantus raised doubts, I clarified sources further, but If we are missing anything else we might as well fix it rather then go back to that terrible picture cantus keeps putting up where he looks half dead. Rangeley 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image is from the AP (taken by Andrew Medichini). We are not allowed to use images from the AP in this article. Plus, this image was never given to the Vatican for republishing. So this image is a copyvio and must be removed from Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Aids

I'm curious about how truthful some of the information on AIDS is. There is a comment about abstinence being more effective than condoms, in terms of fightings AIDS. I find this hard to believe - is one pro-church example being used? I know, in Canada, we have sex education programs for children that have consistenly found more liberal sex-ducation more effecient.

It seems this information is false. See the Washington Post quote above, in the section "AIDS and Uganda Reference False".08:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is disputed by some, it is not necessarily false. And it is in the controversy section, where naturally controversial things are stated, but from both sides. Str1977 08:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that does not mean we should not say that studies show it to be false. Titanium Dragon 09:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

There are people who vandalise this page. The whole article is being removed and insulting texts (about the Pope and Christians in general) are put on the page instead.

Perhaps the page should be secured from edditing for a while.

Kind regards Allard, Mon 25 April 2005 10:28

p.s. I did restore the old page TWICE!, but for how long it will last?

I don't know if it's (technically) possible or in line with wiki rules, but how about restricting editing to registered users (vs IPs). I know that's not a nice thing to do, but maybe a way to substantially reduce the vandalism (I mean the extreme form), as registered users can be held accountable whereas IPs can't. Just a thought, I'm feeling uneasy about it too. Str1977 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it might not be possible, since how can you stop people with no name edit? Unless you lock the page, it cannot be done. Plus, I know people will come here and say "this is Un-Wikitutional," we are POV pushers, facists, etc. Zscout370 11:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abuse section

I moved the "abuse section" from the "cardinal" section into the "controversial views" section, where it was originally, but someone constantly moves it back to the "cardinal" section. I think it belongs to the "controversial views" section, since a) the paragraphs are discussing a controversy b) it is rather bulky im comparison to the rest of the cardinal section. If we want to put it there, we should be much more elaborate on other issues during his cardinalate. Another thing is the phrase "As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, such abuses were ultimately his responsibility to investigate ..." Can anyone give evidence fo that. The CDF is concerned with doctrinal issues and though abuse is a sin, it's not heresy. Str1977 09:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the last point, this was said in the Observer articles, and just to check, National Catholic Reporter says Ratzinger's "office is charged with processing sex abuse cases". [3] Rd232 10:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit of a pain, but I'm not altogether convinced by the National Catholic Reporter's statement. The NCR has been very anti-Ratzinger and very anti-John Paul)for years; some Catholics call it the National Catholic Distorter. I know my request is a bit unfair since I haven't come up with anything to say that the CDF is not charged with processing sex abuse cases. But, like Str1977, I feel surprised. Doctrine is such a large issue and so is sex abuse. I just can't imagine the same congregation being responsible for both. Could you provide a link to something less biased than the NCR? Thanks. Ann Heneghan 10:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The text on Ratzinger's role in relation to the scandal is largely about his behaviour as Prefect. It is not a "view", any more than his being born in Maktl am Inn is a "view". (The Views section is objectionable anyway, as it partially duplicates Theology and is something of a shopping list of things he's said that people have objected to. There must be better ways of putting the details of his theology/views.) Rd232 09:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the abuse section is too bulky. We now have two or three sentences about this cardinalate in general and then three paragraphs about the abuse, going very much into detail. And maybe the "views" is an unfortunate wording, and yes, it is sort of shopping for objections, but since people have put it in, I'm not the one to remove it. Str1977 09:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the "other faiths" section is definitely a view. Str1977 10:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger's advice to Cardinal Connell

I listened to the complete (fifteen-minute) radio interview (April 20 2005) with Cardinal Connell on RTE Radio (I'm Irish.) There was not one word about Cardinal Ratzinger advising him about to handle the the sex abuse case. I also saw Connell's (April 20) RTE Television interview. This lasted a little more than five minutes, and also was entirely silent about sex abuse cases. Both interviews can be found here [4] (scroll to the bottom). For the moment, I'm removing the statement that Connell says his approach to the sex abuse cases was guided by Ratzinger. If anyone wishes to reinsert it, please provide a source that can be verified. He did not say it in an RTE Interview on 20 April. Ann Heneghan 10:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the RTE interview (can't get the audio to work), but a if not the source for this is the Irish Daily Star. A copy of the article is here ([5]) and the headline can currently be seen at [6] (so presumably it's today's headline); I've saved a screenshot of it as well. Rd232 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Readability

The article is so full of hyperlinks I just want to run away screaming when I see it. Do we really need links for every single date mentioned, for example? Birth, yes. Key points of career, sure. Selection and inauguration, absolutely. But the rest?

And same goes for things that should be common knowledge, like "German", "World_War_I" etc. And come on, "family" and "marriage"? You just did that to piss people like me off, admit it. magetoo 11:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many users came to the page and put hyper links in there. However, what can be done is that if a link to the same page was mentioned once or twice already, then we can remove the links later on in the article. Zscout370 11:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Catholic POV

It seems pretty systematic that what many editors are inserting is an explicitly pro-Catholic POV (they may or may not be Catholic themselves, I recognize). There's a common conceit, I think, that the official Vatican position or language on any issue is the same as "neutral." But it's really just the opposite--that's the specific positions of the most interested party (not a disinterested encyclopedia). This comes out in pretty much everything I've tried to restore to NPOV. E.g., trying to get the offensive honorific moved to mention rather than use (Use-mention_distinction) (it's a fact that people use it, but it is offensive and would not be used by many other people--including me, FWIW, as an athiest).

Likewise with the attempt to falsely insinuate a greater passivity in Ratzinger's wartime activity than is evidenced or plausible. As if he was just as uninvolved volitionally in joining the Hitler Youth as is it were "he was struck by a meteor." If you have a strong POV, niggly language to try to absolve responsibility and involvement makes your case. But it just ain't neutral. Unfortunately, even with a source already judged reputable, the pro-Pope POV editors vandalize accurate, neutral language such as:

When Ratzinger turned 14, he "joined the Hitler Youth … shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941" ^[7]. According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. Ratzinger has mentioned that a Nazi mathematics professor arranged reduced tuition payments for him at seminary. This normally required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities -- however, according to Ratzinger, his professor arranged that the young seminary student did not need to attend those gatherings to receive a scholarship.

Very frustrating! The Vatican already has their own website, why can't Wikipedia be an encyclopedia instead? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel frustrated with the article. What edits do you believe should be made to make it more NPOV? The paragraph you quoted above states what seem to be the two material facts: Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth, and membership was compulsory. If there is some other material contribution (eg. he was active in it; he approved of it; etc.) then, with the appropriate verifying evidence, that should be added.

As far as titles go, I don't feel Elizabeth II is particularly majestic. But I don't have a problem with her being styled "Majesty". Slac speak up! 02:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to address this issue, this is not the place. Prefixed styles of address are current Wikipedia policy. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Revised proposal for comment if you wish to help us put together a survey on the subject. Whig 18:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger's advice to Cardinal Connell

I listened to the complete (fifteen-minute) radio interview (April 20 2005) with Cardinal Connell on RTE Radio (I'm Irish.) There was not one word about Cardinal Ratzinger advising him about to handle the the sex abuse case. I also saw Connell's (April 20) RTE Television interview. This lasted a little more than five minutes, and also was entirely silent about sex abuse cases. Both interviews can be found here [8] (scroll to the bottom). For the moment, I'm removing the statement that Connell says his approach to the sex abuse cases was guided by Ratzinger. If anyone wishes to reinsert it, please provide a source that can be verified. He did not say it in an RTE Interview on 20 April. Ann Heneghan 10:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the RTE interview (can't get the audio to work), but a if not the source for this is the Irish Daily Star. A copy of the article is here ([9]) and the headline can currently be seen at [10] (so presumably it's today's headline); I've saved a screenshot of it as well. Rd232 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source. I accept that the information appeared in the Daily Star, though I'd be very surprised to learn that Cardinal Connell willingly gave them an interview. It's a rather sensational paper - not very high brow - and the Cardinal is not really a man of the people. Anyway, it says it. But do we really want that in the Wikipedia article? Might it not be a bit biased and misleading. For one thing, people could pick up the impression that Cardinal Ratzinger advised Cardinal Connell to transfer paedophile priests, to leave children in danger, to deceive victims, to give the impression that he was cooperating with enquiries when he wasn't, etc. etc. etc. However, all that the article really says is that Cardinal Ratzinger advised Cardinal Connell to sell land so as to be able to compensate victims. I could have given him that advice; it wouldn't mean that I condone the cover up. The Daily Star article does not tell us what information Connell gave to Ratzinger, and the only advice from Ratzinger that it reports is the advice to sell land. Would it be NPOV to quote from a tabloid article implying that Cardinal Connell's disgraceful handling of the sex abuse cases was carried out with Cardinal Ratzinger's approval? What does everyone think Ann Heneghan 13:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abuse section

I moved the "abuse section" from the "cardinal" section into the "controversial views" section, where it was originally, but someone constantly moves it back to the "cardinal" section. I think it belongs to the "controversial views" section, since a) the paragraphs are discussing a controversy b) it is rather bulky im comparison to the rest of the cardinal section. If we want to put it there, we should be much more elaborate on other issues during his cardinalate. Another thing is the phrase "As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, such abuses were ultimately his responsibility to investigate ..." Can anyone give evidence fo that. The CDF is concerned with doctrinal issues and though abuse is a sin, it's not heresy. Str1977 09:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the last point, this was said in the Observer articles, and just to check, National Catholic Reporter says Ratzinger's "office is charged with processing sex abuse cases". [11] Rd232 10:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit of a pain, but I'm not altogether convinced by the National Catholic Reporter's statement. The NCR has been very anti-Ratzinger and very anti-John Paul)for years; some Catholics call it the National Catholic Distorter. I know my request is a bit unfair since I haven't come up with anything to say that the CDF is not charged with processing sex abuse cases. But, like Str1977, I feel surprised. Doctrine is such a large issue and so is sex abuse. I just can't imagine the same congregation being responsible for both. Could you provide a link to something less biased than the NCR? Thanks. Ann Heneghan 10:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about bias, but the Observer article (ref 26, [12]) says the Congregation is "the Vatican office responsible for investigating abuse claims." Also the whole narrative in those two Observer refs (25, 26) doesn't make much sense if it isn't. Rd232 12:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for that source also. I've been trying to find out about whether or not the CDF is responsible for investigating sex abuse cases. As I said, I believe the NCR is very anti-Ratzinger. That doesn't mean its claim is false, just that I'd like it verified elsewhere before I accept it. The Observer article doesn't exactly give me the impression that the writer is forced, very reluctantly, to accept it, but would have been much happier to discover that it was false! Also, The Observer might not be a very informed source, where Vatican congregations are concerned. So I looked at the Catholic World News. I can provide links, but since I'm a subscriber, I don't know which articles will appear fully to non subscribers, and which will appear as headlines only. Catholic World News is faithful to the magisterium, so obviously many wikipedians would not consider it an unbiased source. (I might add that CWN is absolutely scathing about bishops who covered up sex abuse cases.) This link [[13]] gives links to three articles. One is the Observer article referring to the "confidential letter" that has apparently just come to light ("it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret"). CWN then remarks that the "confidential letter has been on the Vatican website for years", and provides a link [[14]]. Unfortunately, the letter is in Latin. Any wikipedians here with good Latin? Finally, it links to its own coverage on January 7, 2002 of a letter [[15]] giving new authority to the CDF to handle cases of sex abuse. That CWN coverage was published long before Ratzinger became pope and long before they knew that he would be accused of ignoring the responsibility he had as Prefect of the CDF for investigating sex abuse cases. I hope people here can read it without subscribing. In case they can't it says:

Jan 07 2002 - Pope John Paul II has issued a new policy document, giving the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responsibility for handling the discipline of priests who commit "grave offenses" against the sacraments or the sexual abuse of children.

The policy is set out in a "motu proprio," which was published today in Acta Apostolica Sedes, the official annals of the Holy See. The four-page document, written in Latin and entitled "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," is dated May 19, 2001, and has already been conveyed to all the world's bishops by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The motu proprio has the effect of changing certain aspects of Canon Law, giving new authority to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

All the emphasis has been added by me, to show that the responsibility for investigating sex abuse cases has only been with the CDF since January 2002, or at the very earliest May 2001 (I think Vatican documents come into effect when they are published or promulgated rather than when they are written). The Vatican document giving this new authority to the CDF is here [[16]], but I'm afraid it's in Latin. I think the Wikipedia article as it currently stands is misleading in Section 4, where it says, without reference to date, that these abuses were his responsibility to investigate as prefect of the CDF (having just stated that he became prefect in 1981), and then by referring to The Independent (UK) report that he had, since 1997, ignored the allegations made against Fr Marcial Maciel. (Of course none of this proves that he was diligent in that matter since 2002, but if it is the case that he wasn't I'd like verifiable sources. Any thoughts as to how this could be made more fair? Ann Heneghan 16:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann,

though I agree with your expectation, that some people might not consider CWS an unbiased source - though without valid reason -, I'd encourage you to include it anyway. Can it be more unbiased than this?

Str1977 19:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may be building a case that isn't there on just the word "new". Certainly the Observer article ([17]) explicits contradicts your conclusion: "Ratzinger also oversaw the creation of Essential Norms, a 2002 document that reaffirmed the church's right to retain its authority over abuse allegations." It adds "The letter referred to a confidential Vatican document drawn up in 1962 instructing bishops on how to deal with allegations of sexual abuse between a priest and a child arising out of a confessional. It urged them to investigate such allegations 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'." Rd232 17:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My faith in CWN isn't helped by their misreading ([18]) of the relevant letter in at least one respect, saying "The Vatican will maintain records of all such disciplinary cases for 10 years, except in pedophilia cases, for which the files will remain open for 18 years." What the letter says is for ten years, but for paedophilia it's ten years from when the child reaches 18: "Notandum est actionem criminalem de delictis Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis praescriptione extingui decennio. Praescriptio decurrit ad normam iuris universalis et communis; in delicto autem cum minore a clerico patrato praescriptio decurrere incipit a die quo minor duodevicesimum aetatis annum explevit." [19] Rd232 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you are misreading it also. One needs to know not only ecclesiastical Latin but also have a strong background in canonistics to accurately understand the letter. The letter is setting a statute of limitations at 10 years but in the case of minors this 10 years is counted from the day the minor turns 18. This is similiar to how certain laws in many civil jurisdictions work. An analysis of the letter can be found in a Jesuit publication, America here[20]. It confirms the new jurisdiction of the CDF over cases of sexual abuse of minors citing canon law experts in Rome.

The text on Ratzinger's role in relation to the scandal is largely about his behaviour as Prefect. It is not a "view", any more than his being born in Maktl am Inn is a "view". (The Views section is objectionable anyway, as it partially duplicates Theology and is something of a shopping list of things he's said that people have objected to. There must be better ways of putting the details of his theology/views.) Rd232 09:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the abuse section is too bulky. We now have two or three sentences about this cardinalate in general and then three paragraphs about the abuse, going very much into detail. And maybe the "views" is an unfortunate wording, and yes, it is sort of shopping for objections, but since people have put it in, I'm not the one to remove it. Str1977 09:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the "other faiths" section is definitely a view. Str1977 10:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I question why we're quoting the Observer so much in the first paragraph of the Abuse section. All of the quotes seem to be of the Observer's interpretation of the letter. I realize that skill in Ecclesiastical Latin is somewhat rare, but I personally think it would make a lot more sense to cut out the middle-man and quote directly from the primary text, since it is available. Anyone? --MikeJ9919 01:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone rewrote it to make it sound like it was all in the Observer's mind. When the page is unprotected I'll fix it using the original letter as ref (see above). Rd232 10:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titles

Most style-of-address books give "Your/His Holiness" for the Pope, and the then Popes are referred to as His Holines in journals and newspapers of the 18th and 19th century.

Perhaps the discussion on titles should be transferred to the Pope-as-office article (and with references for other popes - Coptic etc) and/ or, as it is likely to recur each time a new Pope is installed.

The sentence in the main text about German Popes having fallen out of favour when Protestantism sprouted in that country, while creating an interesting image needs rewriting slightly.

Footnotes

The footnotes in this article don't work properly. When you click on some of the numbers, they don't take you to that number in the list at the bottom, and vice versa. I'm not sure what needs to be done to make it work. --John 15:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix them. The plus side of these footnotes is that, even if the numbers don't match up, you should still be going to the correct footnote (that is, the contents of the footnote should be correct for wheree you were in the text). The bad side is that 1) people don't seem to be following the instructions placed in the notes section (visible when you click Edit), so the numbers are getting out of order, and 2) external links within the body mess up the notes numbering. This article is something of a test-case for Footnote3, so, if you have any thoughts on how easy/hard they are to use, feel free to post at Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Test_case. — Asbestos | Talk 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI travel

Could their be a infobox about when the pope will travel to other countries and other places? --Contrib 17:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We will probably have a separate section that deals with his travels. Right now, he is meeting with German pilgrims. Zscout370 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- From Reuters: "The new Pope confirmed at Monday's audience that he planned to visit Cologne, Germany, in August for a Catholic World Youth Day gathering, but he said in his homily that John Paul's travels had been "truly inimitable." and "Benedict is expected to travel less than John Paul, whose years of globetrotting took him on 104 foreign trips." Zscout370 20:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Music and Languages

Is Pope Benedict XVI into any kind of music? What language's does he speak? --Contrib 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive03#Languages, English, German, Italian, Latin, Greek, French and possibly Spanish. Zscout370 17:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He is an accomplished pianist who enjoyes Mozart and Beethoven. --Oldak Quill 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of Pope Benedict XVI

People keep adding fake pictures to the article. If someone can think of a solution get back to me. --Contrib 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete photos (if possible) or put the images on IfD (if they are not used in other articles). Zscout370 17:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- To be honest, it is very hard trying to edit this page, since Wikipedia is being uncooperative and not loading the page on him. Plus, the image being used is from Star Wars, so we could just rename that image so it will be harder to use in the article. Zscout370 17:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think their are to many pictures of Pope Benedict XVI? With all of the vandalism this could be a problem but it's up to you all. --Contrib 18:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. One of the pictures is from the Vatican website (far-away shot of the balcony on the day of the announcement) and another photo came from the US Military (close-up of his face, but without anyone behind him). The rest we got from the AP or Reuters. Plus, I think places of his youth and younger pictures are fine in the article. Zscout370 19:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PD Picture: found one, from Wikimedia Commons: (see above) Zscout370 (talk) 18:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

Sorry for the duplication posts but it's getting really frequent on the Pope Benedict XVI page. Please take note. --Contrib 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking care of that problem as I type. Zscout370 18:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The duplication needs to be sorted out. --Contrib 18:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has been a problem, but it looks like it has been sorted out well. Zscout370 19:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

What holidays does Pope Benedict XVI celebrate? --Contrib 18:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about that one, either. Zscout370 19:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Picture

I thought we were going to get a new one after he had his mass of inaugaration. It's still the same horrible picture.

I know the picture sucks, but we do not have a PD photo yet. I have not heard word from the Vatican, yet. Zscout370 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major vandalism person blanked page

The person blanked the page and wrote some vulgar things so I deleted that but the page got blanked. Take note. --Contrib 18:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed. Your point being? --131.111.8.96 18:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This person who blanked the Pope Benedict XVI article should be banned and is causing vandalism all over wikipedia.--Contrib 18:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am taking this vandal to the Vandalism in progress page for reporting. Zscout370 18:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism to you, but to me it is the holy truth! --131.111.8.96 18:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should know better but obviously you like being a nuisence so get out of wikipedia and the talk pages. Zscout this person needs to be banned. --Contrib 18:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has been reported to WP:VIP as of 13:43 UTC. Zscout370 18:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person is question is now blocked. FearÉIREANN 18:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is the IP of Cambridge University, which is used by thousands. At least according to its info. Rangeley 23:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because of the persistence of the vandalism the only options were to protect the page and stop everyone accessing it, or block that IP. The blockage is time-limited. Hopefully the idiot doing the vandalism will have learnt their lesson and gone away. Any serious users who find themselves locked out in the meantime can always contact an administrator and request the block be removed. It is unfortunate that some idiot ends up screwing up so many others but because of the scale of the vandalism and its repeat nature a block had to be imposed. If they come back and start up again it may be necessary to temporarily protect the page to get the message through to the vandal that wikipedia is sending a collective f-off to him or her, but that is very much the last resort. Blocking was the lesser of two evils. FearÉIREANN 00:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We actually got blanked by the User:Wikipedia is Communism vandal. I know I had to revert this article a few times due to the blanking/vandalism. I think that it has picked up more recently in the past few days, but I thank God that it is not as bad as it was the day of his election. Zscout370 01:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did John Paul II want Benedict as his successor?

I'm thinking maybe through some sort of divine inspiration John Paul II knew that his Prefect of CDF would be elected Pope after him. Ratzinger twice submitted his resignation but was rejected by JPII, perhaps to keep him in the limelight and thus a more viable candidate. He also chose Cologne, Germany to host the next World Youth Day, a perfect homecoming for his successor.

Perhaps this picture tells it all:

http://www.fshcm.com/prophetic.jpg

Cardinal Ratzinger was very close to JPII, since he was the Dean of the College of Cardinals. Vatican law prohibits from the Pope hinting at naming a successor to the papcy. JPII might have kept Ratzinger for other reasons, but not as a successor to the papacy. Zscout370 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This pic is more prophetic than that one: http://www.nordicgiant.com/thelovehate/popehorns.jpg
- lol! Zscout370 23:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- nasty! 08:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HJV's Comments

Why use the word "Universal Church" in the first paragraph, when referring to the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (in short the Catcholic Church)? I believe that this organisation does not have churches in other parts of the universe than planer Earth, therefore not being a universal church. -- User:HJV 20:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er, "Universal" means covering all of humankind, as with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. FWIW, the Church's mission extends to human beings everywhere, so even if humans outside of Planet Earth aren't Catholic, "Universal" means that the Church should convert them :). Slac speak up! 02:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I put in Universal to begin with. I tried to render the titles and functions of the papal office properly (bishop of Rome, head of the whole Church, sovereign of VCC). I used terminology from the "Pope" page. I think the "pope of the Roman Catholic Church" given before that (though it's a bit of a clumsy description) already indicates what "universal" in the next sentence is supposed to mean.

Str1977 07:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course one could also remove all the further descriptions and strip it to just saying that he's the Pope - and the link to the pope page would explain anything else.

Str1977 16:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Universal here means "covering all humankind" makes it even more important to change the wording. Apparently the pope is not the head (or Supreme Pontiff, whatever) of the Lutheran and Orthodox (etc.) churches, therfore not being the head of any "Universal Church". Even if the Catholic Church is the most supported christian church in the "universe" it shouldn't still be called "the" Universal Church as there are various other universal churches. (Even if Universal Studios gets the priviledge to call itself Universal even though there are many other movie companies :P ) --HJV 17:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Protected

This page has been under attack all night (well it is night here in Ireland). It seems to have been besieged with vandalism in the last half an hour. I have temporarily protected it to stop this siege. Earlier attempts to drive away vandals by blocking them did not work. Protection was the last option to stop it. Apologies to all serious wikipedians inconvenienced by this, but it had hit a point where protection was the only option. FearÉIREANN 03:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most recent vandal has been blocked. However as there has been a spate of vandalism here I think it wise to leave this page protected for the moment. I am leaving wikipedia now for the night. If there is agreement among users that it is now safe to unlock this page, contact any administrator and request that they do so. FearÉIREANN 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Papal Coat of Arms of Benedict XVI

File:Pope Benedict XVI coa.jpg

http://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/archiv/iMA011/iMA01116001.JPG (source: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising website) moded

I will try to crop that image and send the jpeg of just the arms later on today, once the protection has been lifted. Zscout370 11:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Done. See the right. Zscout370 11:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actual Papal Coat of Arms?

[21] (Source: Yahoo! Images)

Isn't that the Papal Coat of Arms for Pope Benedict XVI? Obviously, this was taken when he emerged from the balcony after being elected.

No that was the arms of Pope John Paul II. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, on the Papal Installation Ceremony, a similar coat of arms appeared on the same place but instead of a navy blue shield, there is a white shield.

It was probably just a holding coat of arms - not Ben's yet, but not JPII's anymore.

When is The Vatican revealing his true coat of arms?

When they have a coat of arms to reveal. The man who did the coats of arms of John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII is now dead. So they are going to have to find a new person to do the design. That person will then have to discuss with the new pope what he wants in the arms (and that new pope is probably rather busy right now). Some research may also be done into Ben's family history to see if there ever was an earlier coat of arms - if there was, it could be used as the template for the new arms. Then versions could have to be done, another meeting with the pope requested, granted and take place, then a version picked, then if formally be approved by those who deal with papal heraldry (just to ensure there was no accidential similarity with an earlier pope's coat of arms), then the final official agreement on the new coat of arms, the preparation of a version for the papal website, etc.

He was elected seven days ago. Come on, guys! I know religion is in the business of miracles but seven days to do all of that? Some pope's coat of arms took months to be designed. Some really really quick one weeks. But never days. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arms that I presented was used on the programs at the Papal Investure ceremony recently held at the Vatican. From what I have been finding out, the image I sent might not be official, still. However, I think that image will be redrawn a lot once the official arms are released. Zscout370 (talk) 18:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- If anyone is even fluent (or knowing) of German, they can try to read this article. This crux of the article reads: "Rom/Freising/Regensburg, 25. April 2005 (ok) Papst Benedikt XVI. hat seine altbayerische Heimat in das päpstliche Wappen aufgenommen. Alle Elemente des Bischofswappens, das er schon als Erzbischof von München und Freising und dann als Präfekt der Römischen Glaubenskongregation führte, sind auch in das päpstliche Wappen eingegangen. Es wurde jetzt erstmals zur Amtseinführung des neuen Papstes in einem offiziellen Gedenkbild des Vatikans veröffentlicht, allerdings nur in einer skizzenhaften grafischen, nicht in einer farblichen Version." I think this is official, unless I am proven wrong. Zscout370 (talk) 18:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More info from Archdiocese of Munich & Freising Website

The archdiocese's website includes a card with the new logo as well as his signature. It may not be the absolute final coat of arms, but it seems like it's what he's using in the interim. moded

The Breaking of the Law ... or not?

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

(18) see Rom 3,8

This is the legal principle cited as the basis for the enciclical Humanae Vitae and is the basis for the entire teaching concerning human fertility .

I enquire of the Holy Father how soon will he choose institute a public enquiry of tribunal into the breaking of this law in direct intent by Pope Pius XI, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli the future Pope Pius XII and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas Leader of the Catholic Centre Party in Germany, against the moral order of the Church and of all societies in general Flamekeeper 09:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper, if the three people in question did break this law they are now out of reach for the jurisdiction of the pope. But I don't think they are guilty of that. It was the German people (and I speak as a German) that voted for Hitler (whose party nonetheless never attained a majority in free elections), not the Pius XI, not Pacelli, not Prelate Kaas. It was Germans like Hindenburg father & son, Papen etc that brough Hitler to power, not Pius XI, Pacelli or Kaas. Election statistics show that the two groups largely immune against NS were Catholics and SocialDemocrats/trade unionists. You might citicize Kaas' bargaining with the Hitler government, but what would you do if someone was about to take your car by force? Would you not try to sell it to him, if possible. That's what Kaas did, he traded in his (doomed) Centre party to get some guarantees. Or a you criticize the Concordate? It was a treaty between the Holy See and the German Republic, still under President Hindenburg. Before 1933 the Church would have loved to make a concordate, but there was no majority avaiable. Now, why should they blow this opportunity? If the Hitler government would be short lived, as many expected, why not use this opportunity? If however, Hitler were here to stay, so much more of a need to set up rules and to protect the Church under an upcoming tyranny. Or do you criticize Pius XI for issuing "Mit brennender Sorge"? Or Pius XII for protecting many Italian Jews? And what would you have done? Str1977 15:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me that I shall address the central issue .This is not the place for discussing the von Papens, who are also implicated in the connivance , again naively . No , the defence against the quid pro quo appears to reside in a Catholic League quote from Dr Joachim Fest such that even should they have willed it , the Centre Party would not have had the numbers to make a difference .

However this is not borne out by the figures . Without the Centre bloc vote by Monsignor Kaas ( that is , together with the offshoot Bavarian People's Party vote ) the Hitler - Nationalist DNVP totalitarian vote was 347 . With Kaas this was 441 . A moralist bloc of this Centre with the Socialist moralist vote (such as was registered by their leader in those terms) would have required a totalitarian doubling of that bloc (92 centre +94 socialists) of 186 votes , to 372 deputies for the Act to pass.

But , even had the Centre split, carrying off , for arguments sake, the 18 Bavarian People's Deputies ,then the totalitarians would have been required to beat a (doubled because of the two -thirds majority) 74 Centre + 94 SPD , of 356 Deputies .

The Catholic League claim would require that the totalitarian vote would have to have been bolstered by the Bavarian BVP(18), all the minor parties (14) making an exact maximum of 372 , as above . . However the total votes cast were 535 and the total Nazi-DNvP vote was only 347 ; and these requisite numbers do not arise to support this defence -unless the by then zombie Communist party could have helped with their proscribed 81, that were never allowed into contention.

Unless the Socialists had fractured , which it seems they did not ( though their vote was 94 out of 120 deputies elected on March 3, 1933 ), and such defecting Socialists had made up the totalitarian numbers , which they did not , then the defense against the quid pro quo seems as deficient elctorally as it is morally .

This defense addresses none of the accusation , which is of a several years long process of political influence , one ,though , which has s quite calamitous specific dual culmination . More fully , the question should encompass a parallel quid pro quo with the forces of capital, every bit more in need of attention from the Upholder of the Law . It is an equal accusation that large numbers of household-name corporations have completely evaded the penalties requisite upon their own devastatingly corrupting influence .

It is reported by the Catholic League that Cardinal Pacelli wished to exorcise Adolf Hitler- that he considered him to be possessed by the Devil Flamekeeper 02:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relevant link : http:www.//geocities.comvisplace/vatican10p2.htm explains the concerns of the Holy See , the Kaas importance and the monarchist factor in negotiations with the Centre (and the DNvP), and explains closely why there is a dearth of vatican documents.

The Postulator for Pius XII, Dr. Peter Gumpel SJ wrote in 1999 that John Cornwell was blinded by the writings of Heinrich Bruning , accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since Kaas worked with Pacelli.

Representation

Many of us Catholics feel misrepresented by the Church heirarchy and especially under Benedict XVI. Millions of us disagree with him, in principle and practice, on contraception, condoms and HIV/Aids, homosexuality, married priesthood, women priests, and covering up sexual abuse by priests - to name a few things, never mind the fallacy of many Catholic doctrines. But we are still Catholics. We are trying to give our side, the people's side, the poor's side to the current debates.

Catholics are represented very well by the Catholic church, except in the case of the abuse coverup issues. The church has lost reformation-minded folks in the past. Maybe, instead of pushing to change the traditionally conservative core of the church, you should look for a more liberal-minded church. Funny how you cling so devoutly to the tradition of saying you are Catholic, but think so little of other traditions.

Incidentally, your pandering at the end of your statement was blatant and sad. "The people's side? The POOR's side?" Seemed to me a bit on the "overdramatic side".plain_regular_ham 13:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, catholicagainstthepope, though I can understand where you're coming from (I once from there too) on the issues you named, you definetely completely lost it when you added the "fallacy of many Catholic doctrines". If you ignore so many Catholic doctrines what makes you think you are still a catholic?

Also, though your first answerer said that "Catholics are represented very well by the Catholic church", I should add, that the Church is not a representative democracy and the hierarchy on issues has to represent God's stance. And: Isaiah 55,8.

Str1977 15:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been better if I had said, "The beliefs of Catholics are represented very well by the Catholic church." I never meant to imply that it was a representative Democracy.plain_regular_ham 17:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ham,

No offense. Both of my posts were directed mainly to CATP, as she asked to be represented (as in a democracy). And actually, if the hierarchy represents God's stance and a Catholic accepts the church teaching (as he should) then the hierarchy also represents catholics (on the doctrinal and moral level of course - the abuse cover-up is different, as individual bishops can err just as much as any one can, it only makes more noise)

Str1977 18:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

media and the Pope

"For some reason, the media is treating Pope Benedict XVI almost exactly like they treat President Bush. They're turning him into some kind of boogeyman, while ignoring the fact that his policies and beliefs are virtually identical to his much-praised predecessor. The poor man is being demonized because he's a Catholic Pope who is, well, Catholic." (from Dummocrats)

Surely the man is accustomed to this. It is strange how some feel the need to attack the non-violent religious beliefs of others, but it is not a new idea. There are those who view shared spirituality as a character flaw in lesser people.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

It is scary to know what can happen when people decide to take action and help "lesser people", "for their own good". It is scarier that such attitudes still exist in light of the catastrophic genocides that have occurred as a result of such thinking. plain_regular_ham 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the Pope, but I think that beliefs can indirectly cause violence.16:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just think many in the media are just trying to see who this Ratzinger guy is and how will his views, actions, etc will affect not only the Papacy, but on the world. I am sure that after a while, it will die. We can see things like this again once this process happens again after the papcy of B16 is finished. Zscout370 16:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs can certainly have an indirect influence on violence. Theodore Kaczynski felt compelled to murder several people in the name of environmentalism. I don't believe that this requires fundamental changes to environmentalism. I do believe that this requires people to be aware when others cross the line between belief and radicalism. plain_regular_ham 17:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just happen to wonder about violence being seemingly subjective, that's all. I shouldn't have mentioned it here.18:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Going back to ancient pastoral symbols

Kudos to Pope Benedict for foregoing the papal coronation and going back to the use of the pallium (in the style of the Christianity of the Sub-Apostolic Age) and the ring of the fisherman... I do hope that the Vatican makes this his official portrait. Viva il Papa! Aloysius Patacsil 19:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Will a close-up of the ring be ok to use in Wikipedia? Zscout370 (talk) 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)