Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive20

Reorganization

I have done what I think is a pretty major reorganization of this article: adding or renaming headings, moving subsections around to under other sections, breaking long paragraphs into shorter ones, etc. I know this is a lot, but I do note I changed/added/deleted almost no content, so hope all the editors who have done good work here approve. My main motivation was that the article read like editors were adding sections in at the end sometimes that had better logical fit within already written sections. I admit there is still good work to do. Baccyak4H 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Yes, I am also doing some gnomish edits as well. Feel free to discuss any of them, small or large, here. Baccyak4H 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for continuing what I began. The article is much improved for your efforts. I would suggest a peer review may now be in order. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Early years

"His mother's family was originally from South Tyrol." This statement is a mistake, even if Joseph Ratzinger (probably erroneously) wrote so in his biography. In the meantime it is officially confirmed, what has been researched by a local bavarian archivist: Undoubtable documents say, his mother, Maria Ratzinger (maiden name: Peintner) is born in Mühlbach, nowadays a town-part of Kiefersfelden, but definitely not in Mühlbach in the Puster Valley ("Pustertal"), South Tyrol. --217.233.4.246 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• There are other deliberate mistakes in his profile, such as the omission that he was not in the air force corpe but in the Hitler youth. and the stories of his brother are highly criticized as fictitious, called a "hoax to earn sympathy and distract from his being a member of the Hitler youth " Roxanne Edits 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War, And Assorted Remarks

I don't suppose anybody thought to mention his stance on the war in Iraq?

I looked; maybe I missed it. This article is more bloated than a tick, and what's ironic is that people are going on and on about how much Benedict hates Muslims. What seems to be ignored is that while Benedict may have said harsh things about Islam, he was adamantly opposed to America dropping bombs on Muslims.

Which is more than you can say about, say, Tony Blair.

Does NOBODY think it significant that the Vatican was opposed to Bush's "Operation: Iraqi Freedom", which is the most defining element of US foreign policy today?

I.e., the Pope's remark that "the doctrine of pre-emptive war is found nowhere in the catechism of the Catholic Church."

I think there is a very simple-minded binary narrative at work here among both the pro-Pope and anti-Pope editors, a narrative leading you folks to gloss over some not-insignificant matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.103.70 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To Clarify

My point is that

A) American Catholics are pro-war, and hence they gloss over the Vatican stance because they don't want to dwell on the fact that they are opposed to the Pope on such a major issue.

B) Liberals are anti-war, but they hate the Pope and hence are loath to admit that they agree with him on anything; so they too gloss over the Vatican's stance on Iraq.

So there is endless nitpicking about un-P.C. theological remarks on how many mujahadeen can dance on the head of a pin several centuries ago, but Benedict's position on a very real war in which very real people are dying RIGHT NOW is left in an utter, complete blind-spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.103.70 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that "American Catholics are pro-war" is factually incorrect and an idiotic generalization.HarvardOxon 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Same for point B. Jimp 07:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do remember that this article once mentioned it and that we discussed this on this talk page (months ago). If it has been removed since, some reference should definitely be restored. A small reference, not a big one.

As for your clarification: American Catholics are not per se pro-(this-)war; some are, some aren't. Those that are do downplay the Pope John Paul's opposition (and by now the issue is moot, so no point in making a big fuzz about the stance of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger) and they are right that the Pope's position on this was not binding on anyone. Whether American Liberals are that shy to use the Pope on this, I do not know. German liberals (to use that American expression) were not above that, even if they are otherwise anti-Pope.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, to say that "liberals are anti-war" is a false and sweeping generalization. Hillary Clinton, a so-called liberal and a democrat, has very often expressed her belief in the legitimacy of the recent Israeli-Lebanon war, saying that "Israel has a right to defend herself." Many other "liberals" and democrats (Bill Clinton included) also supported Israel's attacks in the past and present, to say nothing of Iraq. 72.244.64.193 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Visit to Turkey

This section suffers from recentism. Anyone is invited to help reducing it. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I reduced anything that could be removed without changing the meaning (with the exception of unreferenced additions to the Hagia Sophia visit. However, it is still much longer than the other visits and hence can be trimmed further. I also added some fact tags:

• "He prayed with Mustafa Çağrıcı, Grand Mufti of Istanbul in the mosque" - we must be careful to word this correctly. I guess he silently prayed alongside the Mufti, not with him.
• "his decision to face Mecca" - he certainly did not face Mecca (why should he?)

Just to note, according to the BBC, the Pope did indeed face Mecca when he prayed in the Blue Mosque. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6199350.stm 63.3.13.3 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Commentators noted that ..." - this statement was without a reference, as the BBC link did say nothing of that sort.
• "conducting religious ceremonies[citation needed] in their respective churches" - I don't doubt that he did this, but would like to know what he did exactly.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I change/remove the problematic tagged bits. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str1977. What I understand when I read Wikipedia:Recentism is opposite of what you did with the section. Turkey (November 28 to December 1, 2006) I kindly ask you to tell me your POV. Thank you. CeeGee 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Articles accused of recentism need not be deleted; they should be revised to become more balanced and timeless. The aim should not be to remove information about recent events (see wikipedia:deletionism and wikipedia:inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events. If an article becomes difficult to use because of its length, that should be countered by structuring the article better. Wikipedians are reminded that in-depth information on current events more properly belongs on Wikinews."

What I meant by recentism is that recent events are covered in relatively more detail when compared to events of the more distant past. Just compare the size of the sections on the various papal visits and you will see, even after my shortening of the Turkey section, that the latter still is considerable larger than the other ones. That is the problem I wanted to address. Up until now I have not removed anything that would change the meaning, except in the cases where the separate issues of POV and verifiability and factual accuracy where involved. Remember, this article is about the Pope in his entirety, from his birth until now, with his academic and eccleasistic career, his views and writings, and his actions, including his visits. For all this stuff to fit into one article, things have to be kept concise and short. If you think that this is not feasible in this case, we would have to start a separate article on the Turkey trip. However, I don't see any need nor any precedent for that. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Whoever inserted these, nobody cares about Istanbul's airport, or about the names of city districts etc. Please stop the bloating. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Papal Numbering== There's a discussion on the 'talk page' of Ludahai about Papal numberings. The debate: is Benedict XVI, the 265th Pope OR the 263rd Pope. If anyone can help, please join in that discussion at that page. GoodDay 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Major detail missing

The article doesn't talk about Ratzinger's application of Crimen sollicitationis.--BMF81 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxism comments in address on relativism

This is a discussion moved from my talk page to here for wider consensus building. It concerns the intended (or not) addition of the sentence

"In a 1996 address[1], he indicated that he regarded Marxism as a scientifically based system and that its failure could lead people to total relativism."

to the "Dictatorship of relativism" section. I thought this was going to be a no-brainer, but apparently not. Here is the discussion: Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I see you reverted a change I made about Marxism back in August (See my contributions for the diff). The source is in one of the links referenced by the section. Before I put it back, I would like to have your thoughts on why the location of the change is bad. It was a change related to relativism -"Marxism could lead people to relativism". Eiler7 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me which Pope article, or is it a Pope section in Marxism? I'd be happy then to clarify. But if it was a Pope article, and based on your description of the context, my first thought is that I thought the info was simply not relevant enough (too detailed). But I reserve the right to change my explanation when I see exactly the edit made [smile]. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it. It sounded like that reference to relativism was really a secondary comment on a (much older) discourse on Marxism. So 1) it really would not be that notable a source for Ratzinger's opinions on relativism proper (there are a plethora of more recent sources where relativism is the main topic, heck read his new book ;-); 2) it actually could be read to suggest he supports Marxism, which is either plain wrong or contextually misleading. Since it is a weak source for the point of that section, and since it has other problems, the article reads better without that info there than with it there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have looked at the web page and found nothing to suggest the Pope supports Marxism. He does say "For the moment, we cannot be but perplexed: The failure of the only scientifically based system...". I must say I found your comment above a bit vague. The article certainly seems to me to be improved by notable facts about the 1990 address. Given that my change is supported by the reference and I see no other objections to it, I plan to restore the remark. I made no observation that the Pope currently supports Marxism (see the diff). Please can you think about this further and let me know (with more specifics) if you have further objections. For example, if his new book is relevant to the point about Marxism, please can you justify your view with quotes from the book.Eiler7 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1) If the ref doesn't suggest he supports it, then its use as a ref should not suggest he supports it either. Your proposed wording comes close (unacceptably, IMO) to doing just that.

2) The ref may support the formal truth of your content, but my point is that putting it where you propose to do so doesn't really help the article. The section is on his stance on relativism, not Marxism. The ref's informativeness on relativism is secondary, so its usefulness as a source is diminished. Since there are far better ones, the use of a weaker one that could be misleading should be discouraged.

3) You missed my point about his book: it is not at all about Marxism but rather (among other things) relativism, so it would be relevant to that section. To be fair, I have not read it in its entirety yet, so am not quite ready to provide it as a source. It's on my agenda though.

4) A couple of alternatives I can suggest. Move the content based on chronology rather than topic. The section there is on relativism. Moving it to the era might provide context to disambiguate it. Or, reword it altogether. There I can help, let me see what I can do, so watch this space. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, you are reading between the lines. A encyclopedia just gives the facts, in this case that the Pope did make the claim about Marxism being scientific system in 1990. If the reader chooses to jump to the conclusion that the Pope supported Marxism in 2006, then I would suggest that the reader pay closer attention to the actual text.

Regarding point 2, the Pope did think that the failure of Marxism could lead people to relativism. As such, I would not agree that the relevance is "secondary".

I hope you and I can reach a consensus. I will not alter the article just yet in the hopes that we can talk this through. I would like to see your suggested rewording. Eiler7 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can. Here's a start: "In a 1990 address, he indicated that the failure of Marxism, a scientifically based system, could lead people to total relativism, through rejection of the concepts of knowable and demonstrable truth." Here the otherwise missing logical step where the knowability of truth is rejected due to the demonstrated failure of one particular means to arrive at it is made clear. Of course this can be tweaked. But it overcomes my main objections. There are still better refs for his relativism positions, and this merely states a general concern of his regarding the progression of history. Does the ref support this statement (and could you provide it to me, it is not cited specifically, only that there was an address in 1990 was reported. Thanks)? I am also still keen on looking to move it somewhere else in the article, but one thing at a time. (BTW, an encyclopedia does not "just give the facts" [emph mine]. There are too many to give! Choices have to be made, and the criteria, as you know, include not only verifiability but also tone and neutrality.) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The source is footnote 21 of the current article.Eiler7 15:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I note the address was in 1996, not 1990. That can be important because it means there was more hindsiight available. This is also born out in the rest of the paragraph from whch your quote is taken, as well as the previous two. I have no doubt we can reach consensus now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I messed up the year. Not sure I like your current wording. It suggests that the article is stating that Marxism is a scientific system whereas we only want to report that that was the Pope's view. Eiler7 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, earlier in the ref a paragraph up or so, he hinted he did not think it scientific, or at least not good science in some way. If you read those three PPs it is pretty clear that your content was not his own personal views but rather his belief in what others' views are or were and the consequences of those views. Given that, I think neither of our proposed wordings are adequate. Context is everything; the teapotted tempest that was Regensburg should have taught us that! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it really is not clear whether he was critiquing the scienceness (or lack thereof per his perception) or rather just critiquing Marxism proper by being sarcastic. Either way, as I point out below, it so doesn't matter. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote "The fact that the presumption was based on what was apparently a strictly scientific method that totally substituted faith with science and made science the praxis gave it a strong appeal. All the unfulfilled promises of religions seemed attainable through a scientifically based political praxis.". All this seems to indicate that it was the Pope's view. There is no qualifying "but now we know it was not science". Also note "For the moment, we cannot be but perplexed:" - if Marxism was not science in his view, why be perplexed? Can you supply a quote which shows that the Pope had rejected the idea that Marxism was scientific? Eiler7 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That suggests an obvious improvement: drop reference to "scientifically based system". He said that merely to show the support and perceived promise Marxism had (not necessarily by him), and thus the nature and degree of direness in the potential consequences of its failure. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

About really being science and what he thinks that answer is, it doesn't matter. He was clearly saying there was "a strong appeal" due to its perceived scientific basis. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See this; there is a difference between belief X and a belief about belief X. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to speculate in the way you suggest. It is POV. The evidence shows he announced himself to be perplexed and this is only possible if he himself saw that Marxism had failed to live up to it promise. He did not say "Other people thought it was scientific and were subsequently disappointed". He said "We are perplexed". Unless you can establish from the facts that some other interpretation holds, I suggest we record his perplexedness in the article. If the Pope had deviated from the idea that Marxism was scientific, there would be no cause for being perplexed. Eiler7 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What I suggest is not speculation; it is simply honest reading of the source. Also in that vein, I can be very honest when I say his perplexedness might not be only possible if the promise failed (as in, he expected it to succeed for whatever reason, scientific or not, and was wrong), but also perhaps because the consequences themselves in Latin America of that failure were not as dire (to him) as he might have predicted (as in, say, becoming as relativistic as today's Holland). Neither interpretation contradicts his direct quote directly, and perhaps there are others that don't either. But in the presence of any reasonable amount of historical and theological context (which could include the entirety of the source preceding your quote), it is very difficult to defend the former interpretation over the latter.

Either way, after reading and rereading the source, that particular line is actually quite trivial in comparison to his discourse in much of the rest of the article. Choosing that one particular point to make from this whole address, seems extraordinarily odd, at best; I reremind you of the dangers of reporting isolated "facts" without context (see Regensburg). Especially since the context here (the rest of the address) seems so much more relevant to relativism proper (eg. the title).

I am going to move this discussion to the article's talk page, rather than the relative vacuum [smile] of mine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is not trivial. It would reflect badly on the Pope if he accepted the idea that Marxism was scientific. (I am wondering if you are Catholic.) I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk page. I also suggest that when you do, you propose a wording that you would be happy with (covering the perplexedness and the scientific nature). But please bear in mind that any proposal must conform to wikipedia policy including Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have provided my source which says that the Pope was perplexed. You have not provided your source which says that the Pope was merely dismayed about the fact that other people had got it wrong or that it was something to do with Latin America outcomes. Thus, the verifiability criteria strongly favours my version over yours. I understand that you are fairly new to wikipedia but you should be aware that wikipedia should not censor facts just because they might make people look bad. The article already has the fact that the Pope was in the Hitler Youth Eiler7 12:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not only trivial but irrelevant in the context of his positions on relativism. It may not be trivial elsewhere but it is in that context. (aside: I disagree it would reflect badly on him, and find it informative that you feel it would. And describing being in the Hitler Youth doesn't make him look bad either, unless it simultaneously misconnotes his attitudes towards it or otherwise his participation.) Frankly I will propose nothing about scientific nature there since it simply doesn't belong there, and that sentiment gets stronger with every reading of the source. (There still might be something salvagable, but much more likely content the rest of the address, or the address as a whole, has a lot more going for it.) As as to my source, it has indeed been provided...by you. That was my point last time—it is the same source. The entire first section of his address, up to and including that last line, supports that he was talking about the aftermath of failure, and quite strongly so. Actually, a third interpretation is indeed possible: neither I, nor yourself, can rule out that that sentence was just a rhetorical flourish (eg., "For the moment,") to segue to the next section.

Please assume good faith. If you like to include content about the his positions or comments about Marxism, please feel free to do so. Perhaps you could make a section about it, if there is not one already. But if you pretend that it is really content about relativism, I and others will be more than willing to bring the article back to reality, as we should be. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying I am out of touch with reality. This is a personal attack. Please stop this. It is not in accord with policy Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. You ask me to assume good faith and then attack me, very poor behaviour. I think it may be time to take this to arbitration since you have once again failed to justify your opinion. You have cited the source but not the sentence which shows that the Pope was not puzzled or perplexed. I have given my source and it says that he was. I will look into getting some arbitration.Eiler7 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you accept my other clarifications. Now, I doubt arbitration would even look at the case without wider discussion on Talk first. So here we are:

My next attempt at a reword: "At a 1996 address to the presidents of the Doctrinal Commissions of the Bishops' Conferences of Latin America, Ratzinger suggested he had been concerned the failure of Marxism could lead to relativism." Points in no particular order: 1) "could" rather than "would", as he also suggested nihilism; 2) adding audience suggests (as does the source) that he was referring, at least in part, to Liberation Theology; 3) "concerned" and "could" rather than "perplexed" (or "puzzled") and "didn't", as the latter would require adding nihilism back in, making this point even more ancillary in this section; 4) "suggested" rather than "stated" is a weaker action per the ambiguity obvious per presence of current discussion; 5) explicitly omitting "science" stuff per lack of any verifiable material in source as to why that's relevant to why he believed relativism might be subsequent (note it could be reverted if another source does make that clear); 6) "failure" certainly is not immune from someone with a good Thesaurus, but it is the exact word from source; 7) no mention of nihilism as per above comment about diminishing relevance. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that the position on Marxism being scientific is important to include in the article even if it does not find its way into that particular section. I think his reasoning was something like "science failed, so people might turn to relativism". If he wanted to fight this tendency, then he could have cited his view that Marxism was not scientific. The fact that he does not do so and only speaks of Marxism as "apparently scientific" indicates to me that he was happy to go along with the idea that Marxism was scientific. This is I think significant. My initial suggestion would be something along the lines of "In the address, the Pope accepted the idea that Marxism was scientific". I imagine you will disagree with this wording. You may have some questions for me. Failing that, it seems we may be at an impasse. Perhaps someone else might have some ideas on how to resolve the conflict. Eiler7 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't (yet) read the discussion but since I know the quote from the context I may shed light on it: the then Cardinal was talking about how in the "age of ideologies" people were shifting one ideology to another, naming nationalism, fascism, communism among others. The fall of communism, the last of the big ideologies, came a new notion, that of relativism that rejects all "quests for a greater meaning" etc. See e.g. Fukuyama's (now recanted) idea of an "end of history" or the way some former left-wing rebels acted when in government (as a German I am thinking of Gerhard Schröder, but there are also other examples). It was this stance that Ratzinger criticized. As for Marxism being scientific, he did say that Marxism claimed to be scientific. Hope this helps, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes from the source. "The fact that the presumption was based on what was apparently a strictly scientific method" and "Therefore, it seems probable to me that new forms of the Marxist conception of the world will appear in the future. For the moment, we cannot be but perplexed: The failure of the only scientifically based system for solving human problems could only justify nihilism or, in any case, total relativism". Given that he said "we" just after "me", it is clear to me that the Cardinal was including himself in the feeling of perplexedness. I doubt that the wider scientific world ever endorsed Marxism as scientific. So, I feel that the Cardinal revealed himself to be out of touch with the general view of Marxism. He also said "The fact is that when politics want to bring redemption, they promise too much. When they presume to do God's work, they do not become divine but diabolical". So his view would seem to be that science cannot save us. God can. Eiler7 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Papal Tiara

Think you guys ought to see the picture of the Pope with Patriarch Bartholomew I (currently showing at http://www.ecupatriarchate.org/), where the Pope is using his personal coat of arms with the tiara above it...! Nainfa 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the photo on the balcony: that's no tiara but a mitre. However, a tiara can be seen in the top header, between Benedict's hand and his mitre. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in my excitement (and wishful thinking), I thought the mitre was the tiara... :o( Nainfa 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti Islamic statements

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.[2]

I think the above is a opinion of a anti-Islamic person. Islam is EVIL. by his own words, can you say this about Jews? what would this be called? --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think peoples contributions should be erased without discussion. I would like to see how this is explained away. All around the world he is viewed by muslim communities as a Anti-Islamic person Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy clearly words like evil etc are not words of "i dont agree" these are strong words of hatred. Can you say Black people are evil and inhumane? no, it is the language of a bigot, further more he needs to look into how his religion was spread, the cheek.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He quoted an emperor from the 14th century in a longer discussion regarding forced conversion and jihad, a small portion of that quote discussed the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) but are clearly not his own opinion. You should try to read some of his other statements regarding Islam and cooperation between faiths. That quote, which was not his own, hardly makes him anti-Islamic. None of his other actions indicate anything which could even proove such an accusation or merit him being included in such a category. To put the quote in greater context:

“ In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death… ”

Clearly, these are not his own words nor does he pass judgements on the quotes. He even reminds us of Surah 2, 256.--Strothra 05:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So the entire Muslim community was wrong? Thats what you are now saying, the point is his is viewed as someone with Anti-Islamic sentiment. some would say yes and cleary you believe no, but it is valid based on the international Islamic community.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on the subject already mentions that many took his quotation out of context. It looks like "the entire Muslim community" does not even agree with your assessment on this page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

please dont soapbox me, further more it would be fair to say most muslims agree hence its inclusion.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 14:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not generalize the entire international Islamic community and attempt to act as if you represent it. The quote was taken out of context, this is established when you read the rest of the speech and understand the way in which the quote was being used. --Strothra 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the entire Arab media is wrong have a look [2] doesnt matter your whitewashed opinion, what matter is reality and it has caused an international problem and mistrust between religions.FACT.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By your own standards Hala, you are anti-Islamic. After all, you quoted an anti-Islamic statement made by someone else several centuries ago and clearly stated that it was not your opinion, but only a quote. So you are just as anti-Islamic as the Pope, by your "reasoning."

I understand, but i am not the Pope, no one care what i think, i dont pretend to have a direct line to God. didnt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‎ do some quoting of his own? 2 rules i guess--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I appologize, I was not aware that we had merged the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Pope Benedict XVI articles.

Can some other Muslim here please reply to Hala because obviously all of 'us' non-Muslims are wrong, according to the 'entire Muslim community'. Anthony Permal 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism

how come nothing about Popes comments on buddhism is mentioned? http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0882-0945(1998)18%3C221%3ACRCOB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,1089,0,0,1,0 Its and interview said to have been published in L'Express in March 1997 under the title Le Testament du Panzerkardinal, and includes condeming buddhism as spiritual autoeroticism - that some strong wording indeed? --83.131.148.195 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Titles

A recent edit by Msl5046 inserted all of the official titles of the Pope in the first sentence. It seems a little too crowded up there, especially since there is already a section (5: Titles) specifically on the official titles. Any consensus on deleting all the titles up front? Msl5046, did you notice that the titles are included in a lower section?--Anietor 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I haven't been watching this article for long. Freder1ck 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Freder1ck

I've removed them. Using the main honorific is acceptable, but any others is verging on POV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I now agree, the titles shouldn't all be there, however, I was trying to make this page uniform with the Bartholomew I page (the Ecumenical Patriarch), because that page has all of his titles right at the beginning. Perhaps those should be removed instead of these being added though. --Msl5046 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a good idea, especially for consistency. However, some friendly advice: in case the issue gets addressed in the Bartholomew I talk page, you may want to avoid starting off with anything like "but that's the way it is on Pope Benedict XVI's page." You may throw back ecumenical progress a few centuries... --Anietor 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the titles should be all in one place, if for no other reason than clarity of the article.85.20.110.148 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue with Other Christians

In section 4.8 (Dialogue with Other Religious Traditions) a few editors keep changing the heading of Christians to "Protestant and Orthodox Christianity". The problem is that Protestant and Orthodox Christianity is too narrow a heading. For instance, the section has a whole paragraph on Mormons, which don't consider themselves Protestant or Orthodox. They do, however, consider themselves Christian (although others may disagree). Someone may want to add a sentence or more on other interactions between the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian groups that are not really Protestant or Orthodox. Therefore, the title "Other Christians" seems to be the best way to keep it broad enough to include these churches. If someone wants to have a specific section for just Protesetant and Orthodox Christianity, that would be fine...but then you need to creat yet another section for Mormons and other Christian churches that don't fall within those groups. --Anietor 06:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind renaming it was because naming it Christianity made it seem to that specific editor that this meant Catholicism was not part of Christianity - as it was in the "other religion" section. Perhaps renaming it from Christianity to "Other Denominations" or even what you named this section, Other Christians would be a solution. This way it both shows its other christians, without making it appear as though Catholicism was something other than christianity. ~Rangeley (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that changing it to "other denominations" is sufficiently broad enough and that Protestant and Orthodox Christianity is too narrow. While there may not be an ability to list each one individually, a broad enough summary may be incorporated with the creation of sub articles. --Strothra 06:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Rangeley. Frankly, I really didn't think that the original title "Christianity" would have made anyone think Catholics were being called non-Christians (I mean, it's a section about Pope Benedict XVI's dialogue with other religious traditions!). But I agree with you that something like "Other Christians" addresses everyone's concerns. --Anietor 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Catholic myself who once lived in an area dominated by southern Baptists, I believe that there is a reasonable concern over the marginalization of Catholics and concern that some would have us labeled as non-Christians, even today. I once walked out of mass one day about 10yrs ago to a parking lot filled with cars that had been pamphleted with papers about how Catholocism was not Christian. --Strothra 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This was very interesting, Strothra; I had no idea that (some of?) the southern Baptists have such ideas about the Catholics. At least this is not the case in the Orthodox world. Though there are many Christian denominations and the Catholic Church, as been the largest, has relations with all of them, I do not think that a header 'Other Christian denominations' is the appropriate one... I would propose two sections: 'Dialogue with other Christian denominations' and 'Dialogue with other religions', so as to make clear the distinction between them, and not use the "weird" term 'religious traditions'. Then, we can make subheaders about each Christian denomination and each religion in the respective sections. I do not have particularly something against the Mormons (i do not even know much about their beliefs), but 4 lines about a Mormon governor (note: not even a religious leader!) is not enough to support a rename of a quite long section that talks about the Orthodox and Protestants. This way we underestimate the steps made towards the reconciliation of the Churches (the Pope's recent trip to the Ecumenical Patriarchate illustrates this perfectly) and the dialogue with the Protestants (especially the Anglicans, by the Archbishop of Canterbury), as well as the Pope's own will, since he has publicly declared that the approach with the Orthodox is a primary goal for his papacy. Hectorian 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, relations are certainly better in the United States between Catholics and Protestants than they have ever been in the past although historically. However, anti-Papism has reared its head in the U.S. many times throughout its history and there are still many individuals who hold those sentiments. Not to mention its unique relationship to racism in the U.S. - the KKK has always held both racist and anti-Catholic views. I agree with the idea of those two sections instead of just the one. --Strothra 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. If there will not be any objections, I will make the new headers and subheaders. Hectorian 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work. I'm glad I got so many responses to the topic! It was interesting to read, as well. As a Catholic growing up in New York, I never had to deal with what Strothra talked about. Anyways, the proposed change seems to be a good compromise. My only concern would be that it kind of made sense to have one uber-heading for Papal/Catholic dialogue with other faiths (other Christians, Islam, etc.), with subsequent sub-headings. But we can try it as suggested above and see how it looks, and modify it in the future if necessary. Looks like Hectorian is going to change it. If not, I'll do it later today. --Anietor 19:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes. I hope this helps a lot. I have placed the Mormons under "Other Christians", hoping that there will be more info added in the future about other denominations, but believing at the same time that there will not be much info to create separate subsections (as for the Orthodox and Protestants and the other religions-however, i may prove to be wrong on this). For the Orthodox, i strongly believe that there could even be a separate article, since the available in the web info could support such a creation. Hectorian 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 88.107.146.244 regarding removing the language about the Orthodox churches not accepting Anglican orders. (see Jan. 28 revision) Whether it is true or not isn't the point...it doesn't seem appropriate for a section about Pope Benedict's actions towards inter-christian reconciliation. I find the word "totally" to be particularly out of place, non-encyclopedic and POV. Hectorian, you reverted the edit, but I didn't understand your edit summary. Can you explain? Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Anietor 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, issue resolved. Hectorian agreed, and reverted his previous revert.

Joining the Hitler Youth

I'm reading Richard J Evans' Third Reich in Power, which states unambiguously that membership of Hitler Youth was made compulsary for children over the age of 10 in 1939, not 1936 as the article claimed. In 1936 Hitler Youth was given an 'official monopoly' on the provision of sports facilities/activities, and there was massive pressure on children to join - but it wasn't yet compulsary. I changed it accordingly. - Inebriatedonkey

VANDALISM!

It appears that in lieu of a main image for the Pope - an image of Palpatine from Star Wars VI has been used. While personally I find this funny -- it is vandalism and so I've taken the liberty of removing the image, but I suggest the page be locked and that an image be found!! 68.145.128.30 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) anonymous user, January 23 2007

OK, I reverted further back, in order to re-add the image that originally was there. Hectorian 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you see vandalism, please post a warning to the person's user profile. See Wikipedia:vandalism for instructions on how. It's important to keep track of who vandalizes, so more of them can be blocked. --Anietor 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to be a "fairly regular" event (and I think Uncyclopedia uses the image). Jackiespeel 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

splitting off

I spun off the apostolic journies section because it was getting rather long. It is now at List of journeys of Pope Benedict XVI. Someone may wish to take a look at the summary I left behind, which is a bit rough, and perhaps tidy it up a bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Papabili

If someone has been elected pope already, is it correct to say he's no longer papabile? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be correct, since the word suggests someone who MAY become pope, as opposed to someone who IS pope.85.20.110.148 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)