Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive21

No new discussions should be archived to this page AFTER the 25 of August when the rolling archive process finished.

Habemus Papem

The election of Pope Benedict the XVI was accompanied by unusual Revelations related events that were both predicted, then witnesses by the entire world Habemus Papam

Such as?85.20.110.148 14:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Dan Pride —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanPride (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Habemus schizophrenic delusions of grandure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.185.23 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

why no section on all the controversy that have surrounded this pope?

I agree with you. I tried to add it to the Italian section and I was censored and insulted by local Administrator, who simply refused to talk about the subject, cutting away my post from the Discussion Section. I had a long exchange of mails with the Italian Board, but they refused, too, to discuss the subject, though in a more civil way than the Administrator, saying it was only an opinions matter, but not receiving the complaint that they reported only the opinion of right-wing side! This man Ratzinger is nowadays the most hated person (together Bush) in Liberal Italy, but all medias, included Wikipedia, are controlled by Right-Wing powers,so we normal people from free world have no chance to freely express our opinion about. I'm now planning to appeal the World Board of Wikipedia (if such a board exists), but I've previoulsy to talk with my lawyer (now on holydays). Surely, this voice is not neutral: writing about a so controversial person, enemy of progress, culture and civilization, as if he was a normal one, and enemy of nobody, is a non-sense. I feel myself personally insulted by him, an absolute ruler of a foreign state and an absolute head of a private organization alien to me, who pretends to establish what laws my country can do or not! Valerio from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.116.23 (talk • contribs) date

Mr. 82.51.116.23, it's difficult to understand how someone who speaks upwards of 8 languages, and can read 2 or more ancient languages, knows European history better than you ever will, has travelled the globe more than you ever will, has met more Presidents, Kings, Queens, etc. than almost anyone, is an 'enemy of progress, culture and civilization'. Have you ever been to Rome? Obviously not, or you would know how foolish the above sounds. Would you like to debate the issues? I would gladly engage you if you want.. I am one of those backwards anti-progress people who is a 'Papist' (and who happen to be Phi Beta Kappa, Ivy League educated, etc. -- Princeton University). Who is your idol, 82.51.116.23? Let's see if there is a 'controversy' section on him/her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refreshing29 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering your own question, 82.51.116.23. If your idea of an appropriate addition to the article is to label Benedict as "the most hated person" and an "enemy of progress, culture and civilization", then I applaud whatever Italian Board you refer to. I think it's best to keep your POV comments to yourself, or your blog. They're not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Anietor 17:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that Ratzinger systematically was in charge of a policy that covered up child sex abuse within the church, and behaved more like a criminal than a "moral compass"? He was clearly more concerned with damage control, than what was right for the children. The Vatican did this by moving pedophiles to different parishes, instead of holding them accountable, and Ratzinger knew this very well, and was compliant in its cover up. A "controversy" of his papacy, and the Vatican in general, if there ever was one. If that is not mentioned, I do not know what else is important. July 13, 2008

Controversy should, in fact, be a part of the encyclopedia. Controversy exists, and it would be inaccurate if you didn't mention it at all. Instead, you must show both sides of the controversy equally. 134.29.6.7 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Although you have to admit, he doesn't seem as trustworthy as Pope John Paul II. There was quite a lot of buzz about him when he was elected as the Pope. I've heard everything: from that he stole food from Ethiopian shipments to him being a former Nazi Youth member. If a controversy section must be written, the information included must be from both sides: the alleged scandal or accusation followed by the Vatican's or Papal Council's response. It's a good place to start Gabriel Texidor 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Nazi Youth claim, I've not verified it myself (so I'm not adding it to the page), but I've seen a citation referring to Ratzinger's 1997 autobiography "Salt of the Earth". The citation claims that in said book, Ratzinger admits to having been a Nazi Youth member. This should be fairly easy to verify and is simply a matter of fact, although there may well be a controversy surrounding what it MEANS for a leader of a 1-billion-strong religion to have been a member of a fascist organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.62 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is everyone's right to ask what it MEANS for a leader of a 1-billion-strong religion to have been a member of a fascist organization. However, they must be presented with all of the facts. At the time period, membership was manditory for all youths. Furthermore, military conscription was later manditory. The Nazi regime was notoriously brutal. Their abominable treatment of dissidents was equivilent to duress. Nobody, especially a young man with a promising life ahead of him, should be expected to defy such an omnipotent, malevolent regime. We should therefore judge him not by acts under duress, but use personal events in his life as evidence of where his sympathies lie. His cousin was euthanized by the Nazis because he was mentally retarded. That is an example where his opinions would be shaped, not by guns. Duress doesn't make its victim sympathize with it, but rather just do what it says. So, his membership probably should not be used as evidence of his sympathies, or, at least, it should be taken with a huge grain, nay, rock of salt. We needn't focus on those with believable moral convictions. To root out Nazism and Fascism, we need to look to the fringe of society, where the hate so often lies. There you will find more real hatred, which needs to be eliminated.

So, in a nutshell, make sure to allow readers to have their own opinions of where they think his symathies lie. When events are taken out of their context, even the greatest of people can be painted as evil. Take George Washington's slaveowning for example.JosCol (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the scope of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime were not something fully known until after the Allies invaded and occupied Germany; indeed, control of information (aka, propaganda) was and is a hallmark of any would-be totalitarian regime. Given that the majority of German youth from his era were "members" de jure, this really amounts to trivia. But of course, today the name "Hitler" has a posteriori become synonymous with "evil," and therein lies the agenda here. LotR (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Every other major article about an important person has a criticism/controversy section, so there should be one here too. Let's be neutral and fair to all sides. Malick78 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I came back to this site after a long time, just to see how this controversial man was dealt with in the English-speaking version, and I wondered to discover a note of mine I forgot at all. Nowadays I don't write such notes because I realized how unuseful it is, expecially in these sad times of new medieval darkness we are complelled to live in. I think, however, it's correct to reply to peoples so kind to take care of my note. First, you can go to the site of Humas Rights Watch, where you can find that Mr Ratzinger was appointed n.1 in the list of Human Rights enemies for 2007: tha matter, of course, is his medieval behaviour towards unmarried peoples living together, towards gays, toward the freedom of states to establish laws they want, also if they are not in line with catholicism. This man, in a few words, still thinks, as his medieval predecessors, that everyone in the world must be compulsory catholic and that he has the right to establish what peoples must do and do not, and what states must do and do not, all according to his personal will and direction. I'm a civil person and was uccostomed to respect and tolerate everyone, but I pretend the same respect and tolerance by others. Mr Ratzinger doesn't think so. Being the head of catholics (an absolute head, by the way, such as the last absolute sovereign in Europe)he has the right to teach to his peoples, but he has no right to take part in the establishing of laws in the Italian state, which belongs not only to catholics but to all citizen, who have the right to have the same laws about Civil Unions that ALL other European countries (but Albania, I seem, and Vatican City, of course)have. And I think that he must be controlled in his teaching to catholics, too,for matter of public order, because his medieval ideas are dangerous and already provoked problems in Italy, such as the suicide of a teen-ager gay boy, insulted by school fellows who followed Ratzinger's medieval teachings. All this stuff is absolutely out of world, out of civilization and out of a normal way to see life and social relations. I heard that the man also declared that Illuminism was a failure! This means to directly come back to the Middle Age! The first reader wrote very ingenous things, such as the number of languages spoken by the man, and the fact he normally meet other power peoples, as clues of his being civilized and cultured. My friend! Civilization is in the way we look at others, in the way we RESPECT others, not in the number of languages we know. And I surely don't understand what you mean when you say that I probably never was in Rome. I'm in Rome, I was born here and here I live. I'm Roman and we Romans are usually very skeptical towards peoples in general and to power peoples in particular, and we are very close to Vatican and normally hear about all its dirty clothes! If you want to know more about Vatican reality I suggest a good Italian publisher called Kaos Edizioni, whose books are usually very good and well documented, but, for what I know, they aren't translated into English, so you need to read Italian. Also a number of Vatican officials collaborate with it, under the nickname of "Disciples of Truth" to protect their identity. I didn't read the true biography of this man Ratzinger, who doesn't deserve a longer attention by me, being head of a state alien to me and of a private organization alien to me, too, but I read other good ones. Nowadays, however, I dedicate my days to something more useful than power peoples crimes and don't want to know more about them. I'm writing this note just to be correct with peoples who read my old one. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the delay. Valerio from Rome, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.114.164 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

this article reads like its from the vatican PR department. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.103.158 (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid that in many ways I have to agree. If nothing else, his involvement in what some perceive as the cover-up of sexual abuse cases is significant enough and well-known enough to deserve mention in this main article--the discussion of it in the article on his time as Prefect devotes almost half the article text to that subject, a balanced sentence here would do some good. I've taken a stab at that, but I welcome discussions about improving NPOV in general. --Joe Decker 23:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (Note: as of 3 March 2007 I think the NPOV problems I was concerned about have been corrected. The comments below (or at least many of them were made before I added this note. --Joe Decker 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC))

I agree, the first thing that should be mention about any former Nazi is that there were a nazi, his time fighting for Hitler should be front and centre in any biography, and its blantant bad form to bury it half in the article under earlier life, as if fight for the Nazi regime was the equivolent of a gap year. those of you who have hidden such acts should feel ashamed, if this pope had been success in what he fought for an institution such as Wiki such as the Internet would not exist. can anyone tell how you get someone banned? because those that have sought to hid this man past should ban from such rampant progandaing to the extent that the ministry of truth would be proud, i have place an NPOV tag on the article until such time as it more accurately represents the life of this man. Capt Jack Doicy 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

what exact part do you feel i'm missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 February 2007.

The part that forbids posting of unsourced negative material about living people, and says that editors can be blocked for doing so. ElinorD (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

how exactly is it unsourced? he was a member of the hitler youth and fought in the Nazi military? or are you disputing that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 February 2007.

Doesn't it also say it shouldn't be positively biased which this article clearly is the section on his anti islamic position shunted off to a side article, and fake references for example on judaism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt Jack Doicy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 27 February 2007.

Making comments like the pope was "fighting for Hitler" and other unsourced ( not be mention factually inacurate and, well, silly) material is what is troubling. In addition, saying that editors that don't agree with you should be "banned" is not appropriate. The article mentions that Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth (as was legally required). It lists other sources under "criticism" that lay out other negative opinions on him. The article is not biased, and certainly does not warrant a NPOV tag. The article is regularly edited, and there are quite animated and lively debates that take place in this discussion section. Because of the nature of the topic, as is the case with any religious figure or religious orgazination, there will never be universal consensus, and someone will always think it goes too far one way or the other. It seems like the "agenda" being pressed is by...well, I'm not sure who, since you didn't even sign your comment...but please don't place the NPOV tag on the article because of what appears to be a rather personal issue you have with the subject matter. --Anietor 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is blantantly Biased, it attempt to gloss over a large part of this man past, if he was in the german military he swore a personal oath to fight for hitler until his death. as for it being legally required so how come so many didn't join such as the eidelweiss piraten? it is warranting a NPOV tag i will continue place it. and the reason i asked about banning is yet again proven to refer to the soldiers who fought against this man as silly is offensive. i do not care one way or the other about the papacy, i came across this page when reading up on the turkey proposed membership of the EU. but the same with any former nazi even despite they current claims of unwillingness is that they were a nazi, and this a fact you do not deny. the first thing most people know about this pope is his nazi connection yet no mention of this is made in the opening para, until such time that this doesn't read like a bio from his agent i will continue to place the NPOV.Capt Jack Doicy 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Captain...here's the difference: Stating young Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth is fact. Stating he swore an oath to fight for Hitler until his death, that he actually fought for Hitler, that the first thing people know about the pope is that he's a Nazi...those are not fact. You provide no source, legitimate or otherwise, you discuss the eidelweiss piraten with no explanation of what that is, and your comments are a clear violation of WP policy (and arguably libelous). I suggest you review WP:BLP. --Anietor 16:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

he served in the German military correct? all service men had to swear an oath of personal fealty to hitler upon entering, since these are both true then he did indeed swear an oath to hitler you see its simple logic. Just because you support this man doesn't erase his past. as for libelous i doubt that will stand up in court but what exactly is libelous? "that the first thing people know about the pope is that he's a Nazi...those are not fact" type Nazi Pope since thats the quick link i use to check up on you. ultimately you shouldn't try to bury history however shameful as not only is wiki about unbias truth but you dishonour all those who fought against him and his fellows in the last war and that just makes you a dispicable human being.

Capt JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.141‎ (talk • contribs) February 27, 2007.

the Piraten where one of the many groups of kids who refuse to go into the hitler youth. you dishonour them too, there is always a choice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.141‎ (talk • contribs) February 27, 2007.

He did join the Hitler Youth and eventually fought in the German military but not by his choice. He was forced to or he would of been put in prison thats how it was for many of the soldiers in the German army at the time. Many of them did not agree with Hitler or Nazism. I agree that it belongs in the article but he was not by any means a Nazi. Jayorz12 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is always a choice you can choose to resist or consent, he consented, Burke once said "all evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing" he not only did nothing he helped for fought for the regime and against the allies. but on a far more technical note the Hitler Youth was the junior wing of the nazi party thus he was a member of the nazi party, making him a nazi however much you wish it wasnt so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.110.246 (talk • contribs) March 2, 2007.

As has been said, many young germans were compelled to join Hitler Youth. Now, can anyone seriously expect any child, even a future pope, to make a courageous moral decision to resist a violent regime? It would be certainly heroic of a child to do so, and some have, but this article is not claiming that Joseph Ratzinger was a heroic child. To use an analogy, millions of adults werre compelled to join the Werrmacht, and fight for Hitler. Some refused to do so. Most did not. Are those who did fight to be labelled Nazis? No one would seriously consider that. We should also be mindful that because of Nazi propaganda, many if not most Germans were unaware of the true nature of the Nazi regime. Indeed, Herr Hitler was, before the war, being praised by many leaders of democratic regimes, patently unaware of what he was actually doing. This article has stated that Joseph Ratzinger was a member of Hitler Youth. It is right to do so. It is also right not to interpret this fact in a negative way. 'Nazi pope', he has been called. If we actually look at what Ratzinger, as priest, cardinal and pope, has said about human rights (and this is well documented) we will see that is patently and absurdly false. If editors wish to infer Nazi sympathies in Benedict XVI, they must demonstrate this by referring to Ratzinger's own speeches, writing and deeds.--Gazzster 08:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Millions did resist, and you attempt to excuse the crimes of wehrmacht as being forced, is offence and is a complete misrepresentation of history, most joined willing wanting to restore Germany pride so perhaps you should read up on the subject. of course those that didn't fight for the nazis aren't labelled Nazis. thats a blatant lie it has been proven that most germans were aware and even if this were not the case the article claims his own cousin was murdered in the eugenics campaign so to claim he was unaware is laughable. many leaders in democratic regimes? please provide references since i can't imagine Churchill or FDR saying anything like that, and as for chamberlain it would of been a lie to buy time while Britain rearmed but i look forward to your proof. It is also right not to interpret this fact in a negative way? i'm sorry what do nazis get a bum wrap in the media. His own deeds? he sided with the nazis in the most terrible war in history and will forever be brand as such as will anyone who fought for such evil, it is a sin that can never be washed away. and as the head of the catholic church a church thats supposed ideology is about standing up for whats right no matter what suffering, it should be mention for the spiel of a well know "theologian" that this man stood shoulder to shoulder with the most evil regime in history. Capt JD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.110.246 (talk • contribs) March 2, 2007.

OK. I think you should read again what I said. I have not tried to 'excuse', as you put it, the undoubted crimes of the Wehrmacht. And I'm not trying to whitewash the Nazi regime so please do not read intentions that aren't there. And I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of the regime, as I'm sure most other editors don't either. I am merely pointing out, that being compelled to join Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht does not necessarily make Josef Ratzinger a Nazi sympathiser. If you know otherwise, and wish to use that knowledge to edit the article, you must cite references. An inference is not enough. The fact of being a being a member of Hitler Youth and of the Wehrmacht is not in itself enough. I doubt any of the editors have Nazi sympathisers, but this is an encyclopedia. We cannot draw inferences without citable facts. And can I suggest you create an account if you haven't already? If so, please sign your contributions. Cheers.--Gazzster 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The article does discuss his involvment in the Nazi Youth Party and requests citations for his personal oppositions. The article is quite clear in several places about his support for traditional Catholic issues that many in the west disagree with. Editors are encouraged to include relevant or negative information, as long ias it is sourced. I will remove the NPOV tags. The article seems fair. --Knulclunk 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What specific evidence do you have that he was compelled? you making an inference. being in the Hitler youth or the nazi army doesn't make you a Nazi? someone should of told my Grandfather that? oh don't worry the army aren't nazis just because they're murdering millions of people, don't bother liberating Europe its all a lie? couple of question if popeboy side had won do you think the world would be a better or worse place? given the catholic church "sterling" record on opposing the nazis how many of the editors here are catholic? The article seems Biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.233 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 March 2007.

I think that it's a good article but I also agree that the mention of his service in the German military during the second war deserves to be expanded. If I recall correctly, he actually deserted from the German army, but I have no source for this. 38.100.34.2 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to delist this article from the Good Articles. While admittedly not exceptionally biased, it certainly fails in my view to meet a good NPOV standard. The use of expressions like 'moving' referred to the pope's speeches, together with an unbalanced weight of each section and of the information given, are clearly good reasons NOT to consider this a good article in its current stage. Opinions?--#fhmit# 14:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think delisting is necessary. If you see a "moving" here or a "touching" there, feel free to edit it and make it more neutral. It is inevitable that an article on a religion, or religous figure, will have material that many will consider biased. However, indicating what the pope believes, or what a particular church teaches, does not make the article biased. If someone wants to learn about Benedict XVI, he will want to know about his beliefs, philosophy, writings, speeches, etc. That is informative....it doesn't make it catechetical. This article is constantly edited and monitored, which is one of the reasons it is a good article. So edit any biased material...but let's not throw around tags and delilstings and such things. We've been down that road too many times in here. --Anietor 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reads Greek

Which Greek language does the Pope read? It says Ancient Greek in the article. I don't have any information to the contrary but it would seam much more likely that he reads Koine Greek, (as Wikipedia calls it) which is a later version of Greek and the one the New Testament is written in. I'm guessing someone confused the two, or didn't know there was a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.210.4.149 (talk) 15:00, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Joseph v. Josef

Should Benedict XVI's birth name be listed as Joseph of Josef? It is inconsistent not only across various articles, but within the main article. A recent set of edits to change the Josephs to Josefs were reverted, with no explanation. What is the Wikipedia guideline on this? There should at least be some consistency within the article, whichever way it goes. --Anietor 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If Joseph is used, for consistency, should it not also then be Aloysius? If Alois is to be used, should it not then be Josef?HarvardOxon 05:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The consistency is with the name he himself uses/used. See his signature as cardinal on documents here or look up the Annuario Pontificio (any year since 1978). Lima 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Why does this article need a "criticisms" section? If the article is supposed to have a neutral point of view, it seems inappropriate and odd to have a section with links to articles that are critical of Benedict XVI...referring to him as a Nazi pope, a heretical pope, etc. If a neutral article has a criticisms section, then it would also need to have a supportive section, with links to pieces on how he is a good pope, etc.(I'm not advocating that, by the way). Now before the usual small yet vocal crowd of Benedict-detractors responds, please note that I'm not saying that there can't be any valid criticisms of the pope. I'm saying that having them in the article may not be very encyclopedic. So please don't respond with a list of why you think Benedict XVI is a bad guy. That's not what this discussion should be. I would, however, welcome comments on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of having a list of criticisms in an article. For instance, is there a WP guideline on it? What is the practice in other articles, etc. Let's keep it focused and civil. Thanks! --Anietor 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent question. I'm unaware of a policy on criticism sections per se, but I do see quite a number of them in WP both in the context of biographies and other sorts of articles. The bio of Noam Chomsky, for example, contains both a section and a link to an external article which focus on criticisms of the subject. So, there's certainly some precedent. But how does that fit in with WP:NPOV, and what does WP:NPOV mean? I'm gonna take this question pretty philosophically.

First, I'm not suggesting that WP:NPOV means "equal time to all ideas". So I don't believe that a criticisms section necessarily requires a supporters section. Since I believe that neutrality should be looked at over an entire article (or, in the case of examples like Noam Chomsky, over a couple articles, since it makes sense to break up the articles into different secionts), not on a section by section basis.) I judge POV questions broadly, not tit-for-tat. WP:WEIGHT goes into this better than I can, it's worth a quick read.

Second, I'd say that there is a fairly natural tendency in most biographies to, in their attempt to describe a person, focus on the actions they take and the beliefs that they hold, to focus on the "what the subject of the biography believes". In some articles this can lead to an inherent pro-subject bias in biographies, WP or otherwise.

I think the question of "how to restore balance" when that is the case is really a matter of what style makes for better communication. I think if an article describes a long political philosophy of a bio subject, that it might make sense to provide the contrasting views in-line in that section if the opposing view is quickly described, if the thesis of the contrasting views involves arguments that are complex enough that it gets confusing to present both points of view simultaneously.

Of course, either or both points of view are only appropriately included if those views are notable, documented, etc.

As I came to this article, at the time I first looked at it a couple weeks ago, I noticed one piece of pro-subject bias that bothered me, it was my sense that the controversy over Benedict's relationship to the so-called priest-abuse scandal was, at least in terms of publicity, the most noted part of his time as Prefect, I felt that it was notable enough to warrant a mention in this article, it's likely the only element of his career before becoming Pope that was the focus of a BBC documentary.

Anyway, I've blathered too long, but I don't think a criticisms section is bad in and of itself, only if it forces "undue weight" on criticism into the article (or related groups of articles). *shrug* --Joe Decker 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One more example, sorry if I'm overexplaining, but this is kinda funny. I note that the WP policy page on NPOV contains a section entitled "Common objections and clarifications" here, which could have easily been considered a "criticisms" section on the subject of NPOV. [1] --Joe Decker 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much concur with "Joe"'s general points on criticism sections. I do not know of a policy that there must be such a section, but there is always NPOV. And given that no human being is perfect, and given that people can have valid disagreements with other people, the idea of such a section seems to have evolved as a convention to (attempt to) assure NPOV. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm glad to see that meta-NPOV is alive and well. ;-)

Anietor is exactly right. When's the last time you opened a World Book and saw a "Criticisms" section. Wikipedia is a joke. I cannot believe how big it has gotten. More Post-Modern waste of cyberspace. 69.37.41.41 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

link to critical video report

While I'm here, Joe may be wondering why I removed the video link from this article. There are two reasons. First, the technical one from WP:EL stating that sources should not be browser/system dependent, nor should they require additional software to view. Given that at least one other editor has pointed this out in edit summaries, it seemed safe to assume that my problems with the source were not isolated and that it was indeed in violation with that policy. Second was WP:BLP which states that controversial material must have a good source. In the absence of a alternate source I would not have removed it on BLP grounds (although I felt it still could be justified therein), but given that there already is sourced mention of the same document, and especially after the recent revelations about the BBC from its own execs, this seemed a pretty obvious BLP violation. Note that BLP would not apply to the fork article about the abuse scandal itself—one way of plausibly referencing that video might be to have a link on the main scandal page to a page that has perhaps an abstract of the video and then a link to it. The standards for sources on pages other than living biographies is lower. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Baccyak4H, thanks. I hadn't realized (had missed?) that there was a technical problem with the link, but yes, I agree that's a serious concern, I had no such trouble myself. Was the problem with the YouTube instantiation of the link, or the BBC one? (I'm also unfamiliar with the BBC-specific stuff you mention, I'll poke around that a bit.) At any rate, thanks, a little calm discussion is always an unexpected joy in working on controversial articles. --Joe Decker 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I never checked the YouTube one, I always assumed (perhaps wrongly, but other editors also claimed such) that it would be a copyvio. When I removed it now I distinctly recall it being the BBC one, so that's the one that didn't work. Have fun with the BBC stuff - all I'll say is "you'll know when you've found it", and that "ya can't make this stuff up". And thanks for your final sentence—I am reading that as a compliment. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You read me correctly, and you are very welcome. --Joe Decker 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that this link (the Google version, alas) has been returned to the sources list. Apart from the probably copyvio which could be eliminated in principle, there is still the 500 pound gorilla of WP:BLP to deal with. I have found this from highly respected vatican reporter John Allen, who points out "The documentary, part of the prestigious BBC "Panorama" series, nevertheless exhibits a striking callousness with regard to the facts, especially concerning [Crimen Sollicitationis]". Given the high standards for reliability of sources under BLP, I cannot justify keeping this link.

I reiterate that it may be plausible to include it as another external link at the main abuse scandal article (if it isn't already). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Why does this article need a criticisms section?" Are you serious? That is the least it needs. At most a small criticisms section. Pope John Paul II has a criticism section! This pope has ties to the nazis and it has been documented in what wiki calls "reliable sources". I think someone needs to take a nice long look at the vatican backers and fans editing this article and apparently riding roughshod over anyone who gets in their way.

--Art8641 (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

length and NPOV

my problems with the Length I don't think what the pope wears is that important, his title couldn't that just be in the page on the pope rather than this specific pope. his election is too long i know that in the british media there was alot of speculation that an african bishop would become the first black pope and Benedict was seen as a conversative choice. i think alot should be condensed and forked like relations with other religions have a general overview. whereas his political views, should be put under one section, similar in line with other WW2 veterans (as this is the most important event in history) should be expanded where was he stationed , what battles did he participated in etc. overall there is too much emphasis place on catholic curosities, rather than in the same relation to other world leaders.

as for the NPOV there is quite clearly dispute among you guys, i know lots of ww2 veterans were angry and ever jew i know was also anger. however i think any current figure is going to have divided opinions especially when you involve the war, on the matter of his Nazism i'd have to suggest that a mention he was affliated with it but he has since renounced such connections and include any evidence he was personally force to join. but by issue with the NPOV is that the article reads like its aimed at catholics, so he reformed the curia there's no mention of what that is or why its important, i think more emphasis should be placed on politics and less on religion, since he has become vocal in the EU debate on Turkey, His Anti Islam views, and his social conversatism, also how his views compare to predacessor, does he belief in the wealth state or free market? i think issues like this bear more universal relevance. Bobus Builderus 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to length, I pretty much agree. Sections on clothing choices, political opinions and interactions with other religions seem particularly strong places to summarize-and-fork. I'm going to spend more time thinking about the NPOV stuff and rereading the article before I reply to that, since it's a longer topic. --Joe Decker 19:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps length is an issue. I think that the way articles link to other more detailed articles is one of the best features of Wikipedia, and I would be in favor of using it more, including in this article. But I disagree on the pov comments that keep popping up. You have to recognize, Bobus Builderus , that an article about the pope is going to have a lot of discussion of religious issues. He's the pope! I disagree with your position that the article should have more emphasis on politics and less on religion. His "noteworthiness" and justification for inclusion in Wikipedia is his role as spiritual leader of a billion Catholics around the world. The article is going to have to focus on the religious nature of the topic. You can't secularize the article (then it really would be an article about his fancy robes!). It has to inform readers on issues of faith, doctrine, etc. to present an image of what he stands for and teaches. Perhaps the line between informing readers of his positions and sounding like a catechesis is a thin one, but the article does a good job. Based on the comments from many editors (usually anonymous IP addresses), the POV that must be guarded against is an anti-pope one; where editors change headings to "Nazi-pope" and write about young Ratzinger pledging to die for Hitler. It would be silly, if not for the risk of readers coming across the edits before watchful eyes can revert them. Fortunately, this article clearly appears on many editors' watch lists. --Anietor 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And even if we were to emphasise only the political aspects of the pope's reign, we would not avoid having to deal with POV issues. It's a very arguable point that politics can be separated from religion. Every political stance comes from a political theory that is by its very nature moral and ethical. As soon as we stray into morality we confront religion and POV. I believe that the docrine of the separation of church (or religion) and state is nonsensical and nowhere exists in a truly practical state. But that's one of my pet ideas, and I don't mean to start a discussion on that. However, if we use this page to argue in a reasoned, civilised way, we should be able to resolve all POV issues. If the 'Nazi-pope' advocates would only be willing to reason, instead of dictate, we could resolve that amicabally as well.--Gazzster 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

After rereading the article, I have to say that while I think the folks who want to insert "Nazi" in fifty places in the article are pushing POV, I *do* think that it'd be appropriate to explain the "Hitler Youth" issue in a little more detail here, with appropriate sources. The issue itself is notable—far more covered than many discussions in this article, there's no lack of sources for describing it. This would include, in my estimation, a note that he was in the HY, that he was legally required to do it and resisted doing it (which is what the sources I have found seem to say), and a taste of what he's said about it since. Not much more than it says now--this doesn't have to be five paragraphs, but I think the current coverage might contribute to a more negative POV for the man than not. --Joe Decker 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I'd suggest something like this. Plain text is current article text, bold is additions: Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth (a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party) — membership being legally required after December 1939[2] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[citation needed]. In his 1997 book Salt of the Earth, he writes "“But when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later as a seminarian I was registered in the Hitler Youth. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back." I'm not entirely sure the comment which follows the above text in the current article, which refers to his father being an enemy of the Nazis, is actually on-point, I might remove that, or not. Etc. --Joe Decker 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

his own autobiography? thats not going to be biased at all is it, have you ever known anyone to go o yes i was a nazi. his a reference Frank Capra's your job in germany, the german people are nazis do not trust them, whos more reliable the Allies? or a former nazi you decide? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.106.233 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 March 2007.

An autobiographical statement still counts as a reference: an important one, in fact. It is not for us as editors to assume motives for the statement. We report and reference it. No-one is saying we must 'trust' Ratzinger.But at the same time, we must not distrust it either. Not without justification. Some of us are pointing out that the fact of belong to HY and the Wehrmacht is not in itself justifiction. These facts do not, in themselves, make Benedict XVI a Nazi, anymore than a forced obedience to the Communist Polish government made Karol Wojtyla a supporter of a tyrannous regime. Or a Kurd in pre-war Iraq swearing obedience to a dictator with a gun to his head made him a supporter of the tyrant. Editors should be open to the possibility of Nazi sympathies in Ratzinger, but only when proof has been presented and argued on this page. The Nazi-popers have failed to do so.User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I got to say i can't see how an autobiography can be called a reliable source particularly on the matter of being a Nazi since no one in there right mind would ever admit it, particularly if they want to continue playing a part in public. as for the quote i don't think it belongs on two grounds the second being there's no evidence he personally was compelled. theres a law here in the UK that says every school has to provide communal christian worship each morning, most schools don't however a local catholic school does, do you think they are compelled by the law or do it through choice? and pope john paul was hardly Jerzy Popiełuszko or Józef Tischner, i think its rather bad taste to compare those to the Nazis they were a unique evil in history, which believes shows an incredible about of biased on your part Gazzster, the Pope may or may not have been a Nazi i think to would be truely hard to know either way now, but to compare the nazis to anyone else shows either a Bias or a disgustly bad understanding of history, as such i think you should seriously consider whether its in wiki best interest for you to be editing articles.Bobus Builderus 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Catholic v Politics thing i appreciate there should be stuff on his religious belief but as it stands this article is solely of use interest to catholics or scholars of catholicism. I don't want to have trawl through how he felt that when reading St Uthena verses on the divinity of trees, within the frame of St Athena discourse on the Divinity of grass gave him a new persceptive on the divinity of Bush and scattered throughout are his various opinions on political matters. why can't they just be a section where its list his views? such as his view against the EU enlarging to include muslim and orthodox countries, his attempt to get so sort of special recognition for catholicism and christianity in the EU. this should be in its own concise section. it would make it alot more readiable. Bobus Builderus 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bobus Builderus, I guess I should be pleased that you make it so easy to discount what you say. Your insistance on using insulting language towards other editors is not acceptable. Telling an editor who makes good-faith suggestions that he has a disgustingly bad understanding of history and that he is bad for Wikipedia is not appropriate, so please keep your comments civil. Remember, rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength. You have presented yourself as Exhibit A. It is unfortunate, yet expected, that discussing religion brings out strong emotions. But let's think of what's best for the article, not what's best for our egos. You actually do make some good suggestions...like having a section in the article on positions the pope has taken on political issues. Keep your comments to constructive suggestions, and even I will support you! --Anietor 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC

It this simple you fight for the Nazis you are a Nazi, just like people who say they committed a crime under durass are still tried and convicted. and don't say the AA crews in 45 didn't do anything because i'd have 2 grandfathers instead of one. so since none of us fought in WW2, someone who did could offer a definitive opinion, so tomorrow i'll get my remain grandfather who fought in the Royal Navy to come here and post whether or not a member of the Hitler youth etc is a nazi

and remember every one of them fighting against us slowed us down from getting to those camps one day one hour one second sooner, can that even be measured in human lives.Capt Jack Doicy 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your ancestor worship is irrelevant and your Fox News melodrama isn't valid. Your granny was trying to kill German citizens, they're entitled under international law to kill invaders. The "unique" nature of Nazi "evil" is only unique if you have no knowledge of history. Bomber Harris was a war criminal who destroyed Dresden deliberately targeting population centres. Hitler didn't raze Paris to the ground. German U-boats tended to the needs of survivors of ships they'd sunk until the Americans targeted U-boats involved in such missions. Your uneducated biased view is what allows the likes of Bush Jr. to get away with his atrocities because he doesn't stand in front of a swastika. Your simplistic worldview is for amusement only and worth nothing.

My thanks to Anietor. Bobus Builderus, I appreciate that this is an emotive issue, especially if our families were affected by what was no doubt a horrible war and a despicable regime. And there are very few families that weren't affected. Mine included, by the way. I'm an Aussie. Australia was attacked by the Japanese. We were bled dry in Europe and the Pacific. And half my family are English. My mother was born during the Blitz. We contributed to both wars far out of proportion to our small population and were almost destroyed by it. Both my grandfathers (and grandmothers), Aussie and Pom, did their bit for their countries and suffered for it. So no arguments about the horror of the Nazi regime. That madness must never be repeated. There- I hate getting down to subjective argument in this forum, but I do that to demonstrate my personal sympathies, since you seem to make them an issue. But, we are in an encyclopedia. We have to be objective. In private, be as emotive as you like, but not here. Now, you accuse me of being biased. Please point out to me where I am biased. I have not said Ratzinger is a Nazi. I have not said Ratzinger is not a Nazi. In fact, all I have said, is that this article requires a referable source to say that he is. That is perfectly reasonable, and is, in fact, Wikipedia policy. I did not make up that rule. And in fact, if you'll remember, I said 'Editors should be open to the possibility of Nazi sympathies in Ratzinger'.--Gazzster 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My accusation of bias has nothing to do with your opinions on the Pope. It has to with this lamentable slide were people think the unique evil of the nazis is comparable, you compared it both the Soviet Polish Regime and that of Saddam Hussein, now they were terrible, but they were nothing to and should not be compared to the Nazis, its simply unacceptable. I recently saw Condi Rice compare the regime of Saddam Hussein and the following Insurgents to the nazis as if it in someway justifies the war. Anietor where exactly have i been insulting someone made a reprehensible comparsion, the sort of thinking that starts to allow the Holocaust to be thought of as just the same to any other kind of oppression. Bobus Builderus 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On the matter of him specifically being a Nazi as i said thats not my main concern is it being only readable by catholics and having to much focus on trivality. however this being said if a WW2 vet tells me is one whom i disagree? i didn't fight in that war. perhaps the best solution would be in either his early life section or the opening paragraph be there is much debate over whether or not he is a Nazi or something like that. Bobus Builderus 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm Jack's Grandfather, survived in the Battle of the Atlantic, and others beside. anyway everyone one of them was a cold hearted bastard they'd never pick up survivors, just left them to drown they'd only attack civilian ships like cowards. then when we saw in the films what the had down we should have wiped out every last german soldier no one does that, no one fights for that whatever the orders your accountable to your own conscience first, every last one of them was nazi scum if i had my way they all of had a long drop followed by a short stop. if they shot at us they were nazis be they Ukrainian Dutch or German, evil is evil you fight for that it stains your souls, thats why we fought its why we stopped them. he was one of them and as the old saying goes in for a penny in for a pound. Pat Doyle RN (ret)

Wow, talk about off-topic. Jack, there is no need to march in a string of WWII vets to rail against Nazi combat techniques. I'm sure your grandfather was an honorable soldier (as was mine). But you are really making your arguments about this artice weaker with all this irrelevant info (unless he remembers seeing a young Ratzinger on a U-boat). There is an article on Naziism. Perhaps you would prefer to edit that one? --Anietor 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anietor did you fight in WW2? he did, if he says he's a Nazi then he is. until you've fought in WW2 i don't really think you've got the right to disagree. Capt Jack Doicy 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Every editor in here has the right to disagree, Jack. Under your bizarre rule, I guess nobody has the right to comment on any event before he was born. That would sure make for a small pool of people to comment on any historical events. In fact, I wonder who wrote the articles on the Civil War, the Renaissance, George Washington, or dinosaurs. So as much as you don't like to hear it, I will repeat what most editors have rationally concluded...Benedict XVI is not a Nazi pope, he did not pledge to die for Hitler, etc. This is an encyclopedic resource that we should monitor for accuracy and format. Your anit-pope views belong in your personal blog, not here. --Anietor 00:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting that so well, Anietor. ElinorD (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

His name is Joseph

His name is Joseph, not Josef!

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/index.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.59.71.85 (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

This is an issue I raise a few weeks ago (see above). I think the article uses "Joseph" except to note that he was born as "Josef..". I think it is appropriate to note his name as given/born (Josef), and then use the English version "Joseph" in the rest of the article, which I think is how it currently is. Good source material, by the way! The Vatican website uses Joseph. --Anietor 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Joseph" is not just an anglicized version. Both "Joseph" and "Josef" are used in German. The German wikipedia article also calls him "Joseph." His name appears to be "Joseph Ratzinger," not "Josef Ratzinger." john k 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the German page on the Vatican website, which also calls him "Joseph." john k 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess it comes down to what appeared on his birth certificate. Was he born Joseph of Josef? --Anietor 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But if Joseph is used, should it not then be Aloysius? If Alois is to be used, should it not then be Josef?HarvardOxon 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for all this discussion. Just use the form (Joseph) he himself uses/used. See his signature as cardinal on documents here or look up the Annuario Pontificio (any year since 1978). Lima 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pope TV

I thought it might be relevant to mention that the Pope is launching his own tv channel after denouncing most television as socially destructive. Bobus Builderus 08:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, the Vatican is planning a new television station (H2O). The Pope did recently criticize the media for its destructive influence. With this new station, the Vatican hopes to guide the media "to promote family values, human dignity and the common good". As to where to put it, I think it would fit better in the Vatican or Roman Catholic Church articles, not this one. It's not "his own tv channel", and it's probably more appropriate to discuss it in the institutional articles. --Anietor 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be relevant, as i assumed this was an Idea of the pope which would show the tone of his papacy, but it was only a sidebar in the paper which seemed to present it as his own brainchild, a way to hit back against decandent culture. Bobus Builderus 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point, since the Pope did make comments about the media, and the announcement from the Vatican followed so closely behind. Also, I think we can safely assume he supports the idea of the new station! --Anietor 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacramentum caritatis

I added a few sentances to the just released post synodal exhoration Sacramentum Caritatis. Everyone else --- jump in!!DaveTroy 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

upcoming change

this probably isn't worth adding yet since its a leak/rumour, but you may have heard is it true the pope is preparing to reverse the Catholic position on contraception? Bobus Builderus 15:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobus, near far as I can tell, and from what was in L'Obervatore Romano here in Italy, the Pope has asked about condoms in marriage when one or the other spouse has contracted AIDS. The distiction is important as one of the goods of marriage is children. Therefore, a whole hearted OK to contraception (artificial) would be theologically impossible. In this case, the issue being examined is the relationship natural to marriage (sex) when the very act itself can cause death (via AIDS). The topic is currently under study at the Vatican, and I doubt we will see a document any time soon.DaveTroy 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proseline

Being an anon, I can't fix this, but the "Political positions" looks like a case of Proseline. The timeline-ish bits of information should probably be removed, and the general gist of his politics should be put in instead (possibly with a new article like Timeline of Pope Benedict XVI's political activities, except with a better name). --88.111.173.197 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Catholic" vs. "[people] who describe themselves as Catholic"

Thought about this for a while, but I came to the conclusion that this edit I reverted did more to promote a POV than it did to remove one. (I will also note, then move along, that I don't consider the change a "minor" edit.) In the end, one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia is that we (attempt to, at any rate) work from sources, and to avoid original research. A quick review of coverage by news organizations shows that these organizations typically describe Sullivan's religious beliefs as "Catholic", rather than including weaker language. As I personally found little sourced information questioning the Catholicism of Sullivan, I feel that that's the fairest rendering of the sources. All this having been said, this is a fairly nuanced question, and I intend no disrespect to people who come to different conclusions, so long as those conclusions stem from Wikipeida policy (e.g., WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. --Joe Decker 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy Intro?

Am I the only person to think that the intro is way to long it appears to me that most of the info after the first paragraph would be better placed under the pre-papal carrer section

ChrisLamb 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long. The purpose of an intro should be to give a summary, and I think the article does this rather well. He has had a long and prominent life. I rather suspect the first author of the intro took some time to consider what information he would leave out of the intro.--Gazzster 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible source

[2] may be a source for the "particularly insidious obstacle" quote. Is it suitable? Eiler7 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

What sources do we have for his date of birth? A person has sent an e-mail to the unblock list querying his age? He claims that the current pope is 80 not 79 which is incorrect if his date of birth is April 16. I would be grateful for a response so that I can reply to him.

Capitalistroadster 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Benedict was born at 4:15 in the morning, not 8:30, that's the time listed in the church records. --a user from Germany --84.191.128.58 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vatican website is a good source...He turns 80 tomorrow, April 16, 2007. [3] --Anietor 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does Pope Benedict have Jewish ancestry? He has a very strong resemblance to Madeleine Albright. 81.152.87.36 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Small Typo

Just happened to be surfing along and noticed that "no-nonsense" is spelled wrong under the "Tone of papacy" heading. I'd fix it myself, but I'm not sure what my creds are for Wikipedia and don't really care to set up an additional account at the moment.

-- McD

24.2.172.3 05:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for catching it! --Anietor 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter letter to China

Did Pope Benedict send the Easter letter to China or not. The article need an update. GoodDay 21:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice

I notice there is no mention of this charge. Any objection to my adding it? I will not say that the charge has validity, just note that it has been made and by whom. [4] is my source Eiler7 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of this "charge" because none has been filed. I don't think it would be appropriate to include this in the article. If we include every derogatory comment and opinion about the pope made in a newspaper or by people with a gripe against the church, it becomes a forum for anti-pope extremists, as has happened here before. I also think it violates WP: Biographies (check out the criticism section). --Anietor 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I have just given the story another read. As it stands The Observer is only reporting that lawyers said that the letter signed by the Cardinal obstructed justice. The Observer is not saying that its legal experts have confirmed that obstruction did result or that obstruction was intended. Given this, I do not plan to change the article. Eiler7 23:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone of papacy

I have significant reservations about the following passage from the "Tone of papacy" section:

Pope Benedict, expected by many to be a no-nonsense Pope due to his background and career, has confounded the expectations of many in his papacy by his gentle public persona and his promise to listen.

I can't see how that isn't interpreted as a matter of POV, nor do I think this section is overall objective enough. The only substantiation for his "gentle public persona" is a small matter from his inaugural mass - hardly enough of an indicator to make a sweeping generalization about his approach to his role as Pope. --Falkan 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And I can't see how that CAN be interpreted as a matter of POV since it is something everybody could have noticed. The strict cardinal has been replaced by a much gentler pope! It's so easy to see. It's ever so obvious! So what's POV about it? --Maxl 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely an issue of POV. Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant - it's simply the case. How can it accurately speak for what it purports is the "expectations of many", to say nothing of purporting that his papacy can be objectively judged as characterized by a "gentle public persona" or a "promise to listen"?

Regardless of your view on them, it *is* the case that he - since becoming Pope - has made statements that have caused considerable controversy both in the Muslim world and Latin America and refused to make apologies for those statements, which hardly fits a "gentle public persona" or a "promise to listen".--Falkan 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For being a humble servant of God

He sure likes nice expensive shoes! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10016674/site/newsweek/

I wonder what Saint Francis of Assisi would say about this.

Well, respecting the apostolic simplicity, I think the Pope will more likely wear Prada rather than some kind of Chinese forgery :) --Brand спойт 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Prada shoes" bit was just a rumour, which has subsequently been disproven. Anyway, I don't think that using things fit for a head of state (as he is) is in contradiction with his religious role. For example, the Pope lives in the priceless Apostolic Palace, yet it can hardly be called a life of luxury: when you look at his strict schedule of prayer, study and official duties, I doubt many lay people would want to switch places with him! I certainly wouldn't. 87.13.192.69 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Weimar Republic"

Guten Tag. In the article there is written that Benedict XVI was born in the Weimar Republic. I am not very familiar with usual names given to Germany by anglophone geographers, but to me as a German the term 'Weimar Republic' as a name to identify the country Benedict (or anyone else) was born in does not make any sense. E. g. you will find no map where the country is called 'Weimar Republik' comparable to 'Belgium' or 'Tuvalu' or 'U.K.'. Correct names are rather 'Deutsches Reich' (though really a republic) or simply 'Germany'. 'Weimar Republic' is unofficial. I do apologize that my English is not perfect. Monsventosus 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I speak for all authors in saying that I respect the sensibilities of the German people. English speakers certainly do not believe that Germany between the Second and Third Reich was called the Weimar Republic. It is however our custom to name periods of history after names. For example, we call Britain between 1837 and 1901 'Victorian Britain', after Queen Victoria.In the same way, we refer to interwar Germany as the 'Weimar Republic', after the city where the constitution of the republic was instituted. It is used in all standard English texts. Thanks 4 your comment. Your English is great.--Gazzster 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I am very relieved! But as it seems, your friendly answer does not really fit my objection. I dealt with the details presented in the topic box in the main article. E.g. in the article about Winston Churchill the country of his birth is not 'Victorian Britain' but 'Oxfordshire, England'. It is less a matter of respecting sensibilities but of precision of geographical terms. Monsventosus 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point now. Yes, I agree. The information box should refer to a geographical location, not a political one. And yes, we would certainly not write in an information box that Churchill was born in 'Victorian Britain'. I have changed 'Weimar Republic' to 'Germany'. Thanks for pointing that out.--Gazzster 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

news story citation

I have deleted the link to the story about the minor security scuffle in early June. I thought it rather unencyclopediatic and minor. However, if further discussion warrants it back, here is the link wikitext:

*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060600543.html Spectator tries to jump in Pope's Jeep] - June 6, 2007 incident in Vatican City

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag for one of the photos

This may seem fickle but I was wondering in the photo with Habermas and Ratzinger the tag is:

Ratzinger debates with German philosopher Jürgen Habermas at the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, Germany in 2004.

Now when I go to the Habermas WIKI page it says that Habermas is speaking with Ratzinger. So where they speaking or debating? I think the term "debating" is highly subjective yet critical to the understanding of their relationship. It looks like a discussion but hardly a debate. I think the term speaking is probably more appropriate. Unless there is some other information about this encounter that I don't know. The previous unsigned text was posted on June 20, 2007 at 10:37 a. m. by an anonymous user with the IP number: 58.169.216.171 --Maxl 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Küng

Under Academic Career: "It is even believed that he contributed to the eventual silencing of Küng..." Is "silencing" the appropriate way to express what happened? It does not agree with what I read in the Küng article, which states that Küng was not forced to even leave the university, let alone cease publishing or speaking or meeting or etc. 157.91.44.1 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Küng has not been silenced at all. I have often read interviews with him or articles by him in the Italian press, for instance. It's possible that what the author of that passage had in mind was the church's revokal of Küng's authority to teach Catholic theology, following his statements contrary to Catholic doctrine, but this does not deprive him in any way of the ability to speak in public, and he has continued doing so. Therefore, that passage should be changed or removed, as it currently contradicts fact. 87.13.192.69 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other Christians

It is blatantly offensive to assert that members of the Society of St. Pius X are "other Christians" and not Roman Catholics. This needs to be changed. Even if one thinks that Archbishop Lefebvre and his four bishops were excommunicated, this excommunication does not apply to each individual member of the society. Countless curial figures have stated that one can fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending a Mass offered by a priest of the society.

I can understand the outrage of the last poster. However, the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Society of Saint Pius X to be in full communion with the pope. Not since it was declared to be in a state of schism with the Roman Church in 1988. If editors wish to dispute the state of schism, can I refer them to the Society of Saint Pius X talk page, where this is argued at length. But in the end, Wikipedia has to recognise a state of schism as defined by the Roman See, as it is the right of Rome to determine who or who is not in communion with it. Wikipedia does not get into theological arguments. It is true, that according to the understanding of the Roman See, individual members may be still be full members of the RCC. But then, so might members of the Orthodox communion, generally considered to be in schism with the West. For the sake of convenience an organisation is defined by its leaders. If the principal leaders of the SSPX are excommunicated, their followers are also defined as not being in union with Rome. --Gazzster 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph could be renamed to "Lefebvrians" or "Society of Saint Pius X", though. 87.13.192.69 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about "[Ecumenical efforts vs the] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" should be removed

The invitation of Mitt Romney to the elevation of Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley to cardinal obviously has to do with the fact that he is the Governor of Massachusetts, rather than with his religious persuasion. The presence of civil authorities at such ceremonies is customary. Nothing suggests that this invitation represents an "ecumenical effort" by Benedict XVI; in fact, if such an effort were to be made towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it seems reasonable to assume that it would be directed at Mormon religious leaders, rather than at some politician who just happens to be a Mormon. Finally, having this paragraph under the "Ecumenical efforts" section implies that the Catholic Church has recognized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a christian community (otherwise it would have to be filed under "dialogue with other religions"), and that seems dubious, at best. Therefore, the paragraph can be seriously misleading, on top of being irrelevant. For these reasons, it should be removed ASAP. I cannot do it personally because I don't have an account and the page is locked. 87.13.192.69 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Romney invitation does not qualify as an "ecumenical effort", unless there is some reliable source that indicates that it was meant as such by the Church. However, as with most edits to this article, the removal is likely to cause some strong opinions. So I would like to get some pre-deletion feedback. I favor the removal. Any other thoughts? I can't remember if this came up before (although the issue of whether Mormons should be included under christian communities has been debated here....but let's deal with one issue at a time!) --Anietor 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section on Romney from the article because the invitation was most likly for Romney as the Governer of Mass. and not to an LDS official. I will undoubtly get some flack for doing this but I will stand beside my edit because this section is clearly irrelevent ChrisLamb 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin Mass

Let me explain that I added the Latin Mass section that was moved to Tridentine Mass; I was the one who was FIRST in inputting the BBC breaking news of Pope's non-restriction of Latin Mass compared to John Paul. As it is now, it was just a sentence. Hence there is a need to further add another sentence to magnify the occassion.

--Florentino floro 07:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for inserting the information into the article. I'm not sure why you included the comment above, but if it is regarding the change from Latin Mass to Tridentine Mass, I made that change. The reason is that there is a difference between the two. The use of Latin is only one characteristic of the Tridentine Mass. However, Mass can be celebrated in Latin without it being a Tridentine Mass. In other words, there can be a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in Latin. Several parishes have these (such as the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C.). So it was not accurate to title the section Latin Mass, since Benedict's actions had to do with lifting restrictions on the Tridentine Mass. I hope that clarifies it. As for the length of the section...I don't know how much larger it needs to be. In the grand scheme of the article, a couple of sentences on the Tridentine Mass seems to be sufficient. It's a relevant current event, but let's not fall into the trap of "recentism." --Anietor 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're on Latin Mass: In the main article, under the section "Motu proprio on Tridentine Mass", it said that the cover letter did not permit bishops to refuse to say mass in the local language. I changed that to priests and in that form (i.e., the Novus Ordo). What the cover letter said was that priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. "Communities" here refers to organizations of priests who normally say only the old mass, or Vetus Ordo. Although that is their usual form, and even though in fact they might never say the Novus Ordo, they cannot exclude on principle the possibility of saying it. As for the "local language", the official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin, just as is that of the Vetus Ordo. The requirement quoted above in no way requires a priest to celebrate any mass in the local language.Jm546 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kidnapped Fr. Bossi

I have to include this major papal concern, since this major event bothered the Pope, daily.

--Florentino floro 14:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate page for information about current events. There are numerous kidnappings, murders and other crises affecting members of the church (or non members) every year, and while I'm sure the pope prays for their sake, and may speak publicly or take other actions as required by each event, it would not be appropriate or encyclopedic to list them all on this page.

Given the present scale of the event, I recommend removing the paragraph about Bossi's kidnapping from this page, and putting that information on Wikinews instead. 87.12.220.88 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be deleted from the article. Nobody disputes its accuracy, but there are plenty of crises about which Benedict comments, prays, etc. This one doesn't seem to warrant the position it has in the article. I'll remove it.--Anietor 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

Shouldn't he be identified as the head of the "Roman Catholic" rather than just "Catholic" church? Other churches (esp eastern orthodox) refer to themselves as catholic without accepting papal authority. Epeeist smudge 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.It seems to be Wikipedia convention and only fair.--Gazzster 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, he is the head of both the Catholic Church as well as the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church represents only one of the seven Catholic Rites in which the followers are in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). The seven rites of the Catholic Church are as follows: Roman(also known as Latin), Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean, in which all of the followers of these Catholic Churches are under the leadership of the Pope. Therefore to simply recognize him as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is to be incomplete, since he is also the head of the Byzantine Catholic Church, Alexandrian Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church and so on. Therefore being identified as the leader of Cahtolic Church is a much fuller and accurate recognition.--Ngalia2 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And the Catholic church holds its doctrine to be orthodox as well. Yet, if you say "Catholic Church" or "Orthodox Church", nobody is going to be confused as to which church you're referring to. It's not like this is a "favor" to Catholics, either: the term this church most commonly uses to refer to itself is simply "the Church". However, "Catholic Church" is the most widely used term when it's necessary to distinguish between this church and others, and so it's used here. --87.16.194.120 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pope is the head of other Catholic Churches as well-- Tolkien1138 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And, nevertheless, is not automatically "the" head of "the" Catholic Church, as many Protestants would readily testify to (especially in light of recent current events.) 74.134.59.45 18:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think "Roman Catholic" would denote just the Latin Rite at the exclusion of the Eastern Rites that are in communion with Rome Tolkien1138 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart the problem of excluding the Eastern Churches that form part of the Catholic Church under the Pope, it is worth noting that the term "Roman Catholic" is a derrogatory expression created during the instauration of Anglicanism in England. It is offensive to Catholics to be reffered as a "Roman Catholic", and the Catholic Church never refers to herself as "Roman Catholic Church".

It was used by the Anglicans, true, but not as a derogatory term. They used it to distinguish Christians in communion with the bishop of Rome from Christians in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who also refer to themselves as Catholics. Wikipedia must recognise that the term 'Catholic' is used by many Christians, and yet must distinguish them. Roman Catholic is a convenient term that is universally recognised. I doubt that many, at least in the English-speaking world, are so offended by the term. Some even accept it as a badge of honour.--Gazzster 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Roman_Catholic#Terminology the Catholic church DOES refer to itself as Roman catholic in relationshipe with other chureches. This statement is referenced although I haven't chased the reference down. Epeeist smudge 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest, here is one rather thorough discussion of this issue.The.helping.people.tick 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that link is of interest. It seems to conclude that the Roman should be dropped, but the Wiki convention seems to include it, see Roman Catholic Church and the CC disabiguation page. Both terms, RCC and CC seem to be strictly inaccurate as we have a bit of a venn diagram situation- not all the Pope's "reports" are strictly Roman, and not all people who claim to be Catholic report to the Pope. I suppose agnosticism towards the terminology is the only way. Epeeist smudge 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, progress

Good old Papa Ratzi. A voice of forward-thinking modern progressivism! Just as Islamists thought they had the monopoly on wanting to return us all to the 13th century, Now we have a Christian in on it too. What a world. C'mon people, evolve!

Wikipedia is not a chat room. Make actual contributions or go away. Also, sign your posts. Algabal 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bavaria

Can anyone please explain why there has to be a Bavarian flag underneath his picture? I mean, none of the profiles of other foreigners I have seen carry the flag of their province or land or whatever you call the respective administrative sub-region.--Asdirk 17:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who "foreigners" are, but you'll find some English and Scottish flags in Wikipedia, and in effect England and Scotland are "sub-units" of Britain. Millbanks 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure really how much sovereignty an administrative region has to have to qualify for being mentioned here (with a flag in the box), but at least England and Scotland have separate national teams.(I know, a weak argument, but please, come forth with a better one.) BTW: "Foreigners" was supposed to capture everyone but Americans, since wikipedia.org seems to be contributed to by Americans mostly and for the ones I checked, most Americans did not have a flag symbolizing their nationality.--Asdirk 09:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section?

This Pope has made many controverisal statements, and I was expecting a section to list his controversies in this article. For instance, his latest statement of belief that only people belonging to the Catholic faith will go to heaven, that no other church is the "true church," and that everyone who is not part of the Catholic church are damned--even other Christians. These other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. [5] Of course this "one true church" kind of belief goes way back, but this Pope asserting it has stirred up a lot of criticism and controversy among other Christians. Does this article need a controversy section about this Pope, and if not, how are all his controversial issues reported on within the article?Giovanni33 04:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the recent statement that I believe you refer to does not make any of the alarming statements that you mention here, although it was indeed frequently presented that way in the news. As far as this wikipedia article goes, I would hope that any controversy presented on the statement should probably focus on what the original statement actually says, and not what some person who never read it is angry at it for supposedly saying. Mlouns 05:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't? I didnt read off of it but to me it says exactly the above, and thus the media is reporting it accurately. For instance, I note this from your source: "Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church." I just skimmed through the document, but I agree we should report this accurately. We should also rely on secondary and tertiary sources so as to avoid OR. We want to let others to the synthesis for us, and report on what they say, ie. reputable sources, including news sources--along with the crticisms. If the news article is mischaracterizing, and mis-interpreating what was said or meant, we can cite other sources that state such is the case (again to avoid any OR on our own parts).Giovanni33 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mlouns. Put another way, every statement by this or any pope (or any religious leader) can be interpreted as controversial by someone...as demonstrated by the originator of this discussion. Having a "controversies" section seems like a particularly bad idea. It will turn into an endless exercise of edit wars and POV soapboxing. Save it for the blogs. --Anietor 06:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree insofar as anything anyone says can be interpreted as controversial by someone else. Whether current events can be rated as "controversial" is something better left to historical analysis, after enough history has passed to at least give some credibility to whether something is historically controversial. Or left to Wikinews. But this does not mean that all Papal articles therefore cannot, or should not, have controversy sections. Even this one, after enough time has passed for a potentially 'controversial' idea or statement. Though I'd agree that we're not there yet, also. 74.134.59.45 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit to add: And any such "controversies," historical or not, should have appropriate independent reliable sourcing documenting that the "controversy" is indeed "notable," however those standards are defined (and be consonant with other WP:POLICY.) 74.134.59.45 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when does covering up lots of pedopriest became a thing to be left to historical analysis in regards of controversial? And what about using massive lobbysm and censorship? Try to ask some free man living in Ireland or Italy...--3YE

Giovanni33: Nowhere in the document is any quote remotely like "only people belonging to the Catholic faith will go to heaven" or "everyone who is not part of the Catholic church are damned." Not only are such statements not in the text (or anywhere else in official Catholic teaching, for that matter), but the actual statement says something essentially the opposite of such bogeyman paraphrases when it says non-Catholics "are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation."

At any rate, I don't want to engage in a chat room discussion here. My point is that if there is a need for a controversies section in this article (and I'm not convinced there is such a need), then its material should respond to actually extant material rather than non-existent alarmist paraphrases. Mlouns 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've not studied the question or the source. I just skimmed it, and Im not even sure if that is the document in question. I only came here because I've been reading and hearing this reported in exactly how I've presented it above, in the mainstream media, and wanted to see what this article said about it, if even even mentions it. I suspect readers will come to this article based on all this media coverage, so it makes sense to have some section that reports on significant controversies in a NPOV manner.Giovanni33 06:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Gio, you should have done it before raising the issue. And you can always ask me, your old acquaintance. ;-)

As for the press, it simply doesn't Get Religion, to quote a certain blog.

Not only did the new short document (which is actually not a document by this Pope but by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which he used to be the prefect. But it echoes the 2000 CDF document Dominus Iesus, penned under the then-Cardinal Ratzinger's auspices) not say that "only Catholics would go to heaven" but it explicitely stated that other Christian churches and communities do possess means of salvation, albeit not in fullness.

"that no other church is the "true church," - the document said that the "Catholic Church founded by Jesus and referred to in the creed" in only ONE and that it subsists in the (Roman) Catholic Church headed by the Pope and the other bishops. It says of those Christian communities not in communion with the Pope, some are indeed truly Churches in the proper sense of the word though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, while others are not Churches in the proper sense of the word (despite being called so colloquially)

• "that everyone who is not part of the Catholic church are damned" - I have read both this document and Dominus Iesus and nowhere doe the issue of "being damned" ever occur. It is in inference from the inaccurate statement "only Catholics go to heaven"

That the Church considers her own way true and other ways, in as much as they contradict her way, false should come as no surprise. Everyone who has an opinion (aside from issues of taste) on anything thinks this, whether conciously or not.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Str1977, my old aquaintance. More than an acquaintance, I should say. Indeed, I did think of you for this matter but did not want to disturb you with questions. Still, no doubt you are an expert on this subject, and I come here only sheepishly asking based on media reports that no doubt lack the required sophistication to get it right. Its just amazing that so many media blurted those things I mentioned in all the front page headlines. Not very fair, if unaccurate. Be well.Giovanni33 03:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the news article: "The new document — formulated as five questions and answers — restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation."

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document released as the pope vacations at a villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in Italy's Dolomite mountains.

The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles — and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said."Is this news article wrong? Can we find a news article reporting on this that gets it right, then? I don't think we should look at the original document and draw conclusions from them ourselves, but report on what reliable third party sources say.Giovanni33 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The news report you refer to sure looks like it is discussing the same document I link to above. However, the disparaging quote about non-Catholics and their being denied the "means of salvation" is simply not in the actual document! Look it up -- the phrase "means of salvation" is nowhere, and the closest it gets about mentioning non-Christians in that context is the positive quote I give above and another positive one saying "the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [non-Catholic communities] as instruments of salvation." I suspect the news article is probably reporting in good faith, but it looks to me like just another example of lazy journalism, the reporter not bothering to check facts before writing a jazzy story.

I don't know what this means for wikipedia. The Original Research rule makes sense, but unfortunately, so many of the news reports are written by journalists probably out of their depth who just get their facts wrong, especially about complex topics (e.g. medicine, technology, religion). Pointing to other sources to refute misquotes seems like a tiresome exercise as well. I do think that it makes a lot of sense for Controversy sections to wait a good long time, perhaps at least a year, before reporting on them. So much of the first reports are just not right. Mlouns 19:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Would not attributing false claims about what the Pope said constitute a violation of BLP, even on the talk page, and shouldn't it be removed? Algabal 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a tricky one, Algabal. I think it would have to depend on the claim and the context. What specifically are you referring to...anything in particular from the discussion? If you are referring to some of the statements made by Giovanni33, I think we should assume good faith, especially since his statements appear to stem from some mainstream media reports. Now if someone comes into the talk page and says that Pope Benedict said he saw flying saucers over the Vatican, or says his positions underscore how he is the antichrist and must be destroyed, or something so obviously from the realm of nonsense, then that can be deleted in accordance with WP policy. But if it's a colorably legitimate discussion ABOUT an interpretation of what he said, I think we should be a little more tolerable in a discussion page, while at the same time being vigilant about erroneous interpretations and claims creeping into the article itself. --Anietor 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of Giovanni's original comments, stating inaccurately that the Pope had said that only Catholics could go to heaven (totally untrue). Perhaps I overreacted, it just disturbs me when people misrepresent the statements of someone try and defame them. Algabal 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding BLP, I think that false claims definitely should be kept out of the article and should be contradicted where they appear on the talk page. We shouldn't delete erroneous but good faith posting as long as they were in reference to the article's content and not merely spam.

Regarding controversies: We have a large section and a main article on the theology of B16. Either also includes controversy generated. I think that is enough. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin Mass ruling

So what exactly did the pope rule about Latin Mass? I'm not Catholic, I'm just wondering.--71.155.171.158 21:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See Summorum Pontificum. ElinorD (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

library resources on /of the pope

Maybe we can include this in the article: 709 objects on or of "joseph alois ratzinger" Greetings, Fleurstigter 08:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for addition of External link

Since the article is protected from editing could an Admin add the following link to the External links section, It is a news feed from the day that Ratzinger was announced as the new Pope of the Roman Catholic Church taking on the name Benedict XVI.

The link is as follows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9tpHzBIBjA

Thank you. 141.150.116.231 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Teachings

What exactly is the "teachings" section? Is it only for official documentss? Or for his views? What about documents signed by him as prefect of the CDF? Current Dominus Iesus (penned by him) is badly covered while the recent follow-up (merely approved by him) is given too broad a treatment. And maybe this should be somehow included among Ecumenical relations (as it propounds the theory underlying the actions.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is starving for references.

Really, it's SCARY how much some of this stuff is uncited. Even in the intro, I see problems. "One of the best-known Catholic theologians since the 1950s " Best known according to what? "Benedict XVI is viewed as" by whom? I imagine if I took all the unreferenced statements that need sources, I'd have enough text for three Good Articles! I'm going to make a sandbox page in my user space for this, but really, this is unacceptable --|L^ie! 01:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Partially done, at User:L/Popesource. Feel free to add to it and use it to help --|L^ie! 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Superlatives

I don't want to litter the artice with "citation needed" templates, please supply all phrases of kind "the most influential" or " the best-known" with the appropriate attributions ASAP. `'Míkka 21:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reminder. I unerstand he is greatest and all, since he was elected to this position. However wikipedia has its rules, IX./Allah/Budda regardless. Who's here from papal chancellory, please work it out, or on Monday I am starting serious trimming. `'Míkka 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mikka -- trim if you wish, but take care. Some acknowledgement of what makes this pope significant is appropriate. Joseph Ratzinger actually was an internationally heavy hitter intellectually and politically when he was elected pope. He is one of the major theologians of the 20th century, and he taught many influential churchmen. Why do these things matter? Because this pope's pastoral mission is turning out to be teaching, especially the "simple" people about whom he cares quite a bit. For a major theologian and world player to be making that his mission is significant.

Those things are true. Problem: just because a newspaper article or website says it won't make it so, nor will it be good attribution. Now, I think the best approach here is to "show" the point rather than merely saying it. Maybe the question we should ask is not whether a superficially offending sentence needs a cite, but whether the statement is actually true. If it is, find a way to make it authoritative such as with additional facts or a really good cite, such as to a serious biographer or theologian.

There would be more valuable ways to spend drafting time on this article. It could use development about his theological contributions -- most of the "political" section would be more appropriately developed in context. Differentiation between his work as Prefect for the CDF as opposed to his work as a private theologian would be well-taken. Jesus of Nazareth is a best seller. His major publications (let alone the minor ones) are not listed. His founding of Communio, if mentioned, is buried. Tons of biographical material is available in his three book length interviews. He has many more important "views" than those listed in the article. Example: while there's nothing wrong with mentioning his view on the Iraq War, his far more significant political contributions involve Europe and Islam, which are disproportionately undervalued here.--Morsefan 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad layout

Since I reorganised this article about six months ago it seems to have acquired even more sections with one sentence in them. Can I point out that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a chronicle of everything Benedict does? Some of these sections need to be badly merged, and NOT created again. Next time anyone wants to add to this article, can they please work it in with the text, rather than creatinga new section and just dumping it (relations with tibetan buddhism comes to mind). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, stuff has been deleted, merged, moved around and buckets of free images have been added. I think it looks much better, though of, course, it would SOOO beautiful if someone could just go through it and make it good prose. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dev920 should not edit everything on this page alone. He posted this comment and then edited everything without a real discussion.Cmmmm 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD, Cmmmm, I don't have to discuss every edit is detail before doing it. And you can't deny it doensn't look better for images, copyediting and a bibliography, can you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There certainly were a lot of changes made, and I do wish Dev920 brought them up here first...it might have saved a lot of time and grief. However, that alone does not seem like valid grounds to revert everything Dev920 did. I tried to go through all the changes, and frankly my head is pounding after trying to trace it all and keep track of what was added, deleted, and moved around. Cmmmm, can you provide some specific problems with the changes made besides a general "there are too many" or "he should have consulted us first" complaint? At this point I take no sides here, but let's see if we can't sort through this without an all-or-nothing edit war. --Anietor 22:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, I deleted stuff about the dalai lama and the curia, because while they were relevant two years ago, they aren't anymore. I deleted much of the external links for that same reason and arranged the references as they are on John paul's articles because it made more sense. I readded stuff about islam and his bibliography, reworked his dialogue with other christian and religions, and added images. I certainly hope that nothing of note has been lost, most of it should have just be rearranged better to be easier to read. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I only oppose to the edits which he made in the dialog with other religions section. I think that the version before was better. Particularly I oppose to the changes he made in the pope and Islam section. He writes there only about the controversal speech of the Pope and does not recognize the many other opinions of the Pope in the Pope Benedict XVI and Islam article.Cmmmm 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmmmm (talk • contribs)

That's because that article has no lead section, and is fairly badly cobbled together. I added the lead section from the Pope Benedict Islam controversy. And to be honest, I went to some length to ensure that section read smoothly - the sections were an eyesore. This is something of a problem on this article - there was actually a section entitled LGBT social movements without anything in it at all! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

deletions of Cmmmm

In edit comments he wrote: "I explained why I prefer this version on the talk page". I don't see any explanation why the content he deleded is false or otherwise unsuitable for the article. The arguments "I oppose" and "another version is better" are not valid reasons. `'Míkka 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

At the same time his layout of the section "Dialogue with other religions" is reasonable and immediately shows that the section was very poor collection of factoids. It is clear that each of the "sub-subsections" requires serious expansion. `'Míkka 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they can't be. The sections on Buddhism and native american religion can't be expanded because Pope Benedict has never paid any attention to them - if you notice the buddhism section simply refers to the Dalai Lama saying "Hey, I'm here" two years ago, and he's never said anything since. The Native American thing is just Benedict saying something rather tactless about Catholicism. Benedict's not very into inter-religious dialogue, that's why I merged it all in the first place - it's never going to be very extensive. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted section

The following subsection was deletd.

Interviews and media appearances

In August 2006, the pope granted an exclusive interview with the German TV station ZDF. It was aired on August 13, 2006. In this interview, he revealed a surprising and unexpected perspective in his thoughts, making amicable remarks about the Protestant churches, emphasizing the role of women in church, and said that "church is not an accumulation of prohibitions, but a positive option." He also stressed several times that the church was a way to guide people, particularly in questions of AIDS and overpopulation, and therefore strong morals should be proclaimed. He also stressed that humour is a good way to cope with stress, even for popes.

Reasons

We cannot list each and every interview: Wikipedia is not newspaper. The contents of interviews must go as references to the sections which describe views, policies and positions of Pope. This is how wikipedia articles are organized: by topics, not by chats. `'Míkka 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is reasonable; this article actually used to look much worse this way, lots of proseline. Certainly a sentence or two of that material might be reintroduced into an appropriate part, if not already done so, but this type of organization, as you mention, is not attractive. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary paragraph of papacy in lead

I reverted back the third paragraph of the lead for the following reasons: 1) It actually was sourced: Weigel's book and many of Benedict's own writings support the general gist of this paragraph, and many other sources here and absent do as well (some, like other Weigel writings, to a fault). 2) While noted as a summary of material already present, it provides a very concise summary of his papacy in the lead; such a feature is consistent with article leads in general and is a very useful feature for someone just perusing the top of the article.

One issue which it does have: there are quoted passages which should be directly sourced. If not directly, they should be paraphrased so that some source can back the content up (which they would). Until the exact source for the quotes is noted, reworking them would be OK. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

References to Dominus Iesus and 2007 clarification

The article, at the moment, describes Dominus Iesus and/or the 2007 clarification thereof, in at least three places. Whether this is undue weight or not, I don't claim to say, but the way things were (before my edits of 4 Sep 2007) it isn't even clear that all three sections refer to the same document (especially the former wording under "Protestants"). I'm not sure how best to address this: "as mentioned above" seems doubtful in an article which is as heavily edited as this, but repeating long titles like "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the church" outside footnotes is likely to be cumbersome. I have taken one small step by tweaking the Protestants section a bit to link to Dominus Iesus and refer to some of the same footnotes as the other sections. Just by way of general caution: beware of Wikipedia:Recentism - Dominus Iesus itself is probably more notable than the 2007 document, and Ratzinger was involved in both. Kingdon 18:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dialogue With Other Religions - Judaism - Clarification?

I was wondering if there could be clarification about the article that mentions shock from the Jewish community, when Pope Benedict met with a Polish priest who made anti-Jewish remarks. Was this a casual meeting? Perhaps a meeting to reprimand the priest? Just curious in what respect this meeting appeared to be controversial. Thanks. Yobbo14 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe the priest needed help with turning light bulbs. 165.230.46.151 (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New section on Driving

Is this really relevant to this article? I think that this statement was issued by some organ of the Vatican bureaucracy, in which it is no more by B16 than a new OSHA regulation belongs on the George Bush page. I know that the press reports anything from the Vatican as if it were a personal edict of the Pope, but I don't think we should make the same mistake. Mlouns 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention new letter from Islamic leaders?

Should the section on relations with Islam mention the new open letter from 138 top Islamic scholars and clerics to Pope Benedict and other Christian leaders? I've added mention of it to Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, but I wasn't sure whether it was significant enough to add here. (I see that the previous open letter isn't mentioned, and I wondered whether that was a deliberate decision or just an oversight.) I ask because the overall section is titled "Dialogue with other religions", and dialogue usually implies conversation in both directions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Newly published in 2007

Benedict XVI, "Christ and His Church – Seeing the face of Jesus in the Church of the Apostles", ISBN 978-1-86082-441-8.

20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The above mentioned book is a compilation of texts from his General Audiences during 2006-2007 on the subject "Christ and the Church" and was published in the UK in a paperback edition.

The texts of all the Audiences has been published in the US under the title "The Apostles" (this is the title given on the dust jacket, whereas on the title page the full title is given as "The Origins of the Church – The Apostles and Their C-Workers"), author: Pope Benedict XVI, ISBN 978-1-59276-405-1, hard back.

13:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy Father

Just reading through and i noticed that the title for the Holy Father on the orange section on the right hand side says Holy Fucker, maybe it would be a good idea to correct that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.120.65 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC) i love the pope!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.29.137 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Skeptic

Please add him to the category. [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.235.203 (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious as it may be to see the Pope suddenly becoming skeptical on any subject, you should take anything you read in the Daily Mail with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.103.36.49 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

topmost pic of Benedict XVI

I rather doubt that the picture actually showing at this time is the one the authors of the piece intended.

164.107.45.121 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Phil Viton

La Sapienza

I think, this should be added. Abdullais4u (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should not be added. It may be relevant to the Sapienza Università di Roma article, but how is it relevant here? --Elliskev 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be added. It's another example of WP:recentism. Made a good news story yesterday, but the significance of the event is minimal. --Anietor (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in Schauen auf den Durchborten

The correct spelling is "Schauen auf den Durchbohrten"

Help re:pedophilia cases reference

Hi, I figure someone might have a good source. I'm having problems sourcing a factual dispute. With the "pedophile priest" scandals Ratzinger was accused of being responsible for investigating the allegation since the 1980s, however it's been pointed out the he wasn't charged with that until 2001/2002. Does anyone have a WP:RS for that? The article Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has a citation but it doesn't seem to support that assertion. Does anyone have a good reference for this? Benjiboi 15:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a different infobox picture

The picture currently in the infobox needs to be replaced. It's not a licensing problem, it just scares me. And I don't think the Pope is supposed to look scary in the first picture anyone sees of him on Wikipedia. 71.220.215.234 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations for statements on his childhood

This is all I could find online:

[7] Talks about his cousin being a casualty to the implication of eugenics in Nazi Germany.

[8] Explaining how his father was anti-Nazi, but not how he considered it against Catholic morality.

JanderVK (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You will find a lot more information in his autobiography "Milestones". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have not read his biography. As a history student, I am soley interested in his life during WWII, and how it has effected his life. If you have read the biography, could you please verify the uncited claims. Thanks!JanderVK (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shoes versus Slippers

Could someone modify the caption under attire, where it says the Pope wears red slippers, where in fact he wears red papal shoes. If you click on the link in that caption it will explain the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.214.88 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IRAQ

Michael Griffin, Catholic Peace Fellowship, From Houston Catholic Worker, 2005

"As a Cardinal, the new pope was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. "Certainly not," he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…" The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Even after the war, Cardinal Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S. violence and imperialism: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction...It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

Yet perhaps the most important insight of Ratzinger came during a press conference on May 2, 2003. After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.229.21 (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

see also: http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/f/popes_on_iraq.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.115.13 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TV reference

This page was referenced several times by The Colbert Report last night, notably the "Interests" section. Joshdboz (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Surname

What is the etymology of the surname Ratzinger? Rootsweb says the following:

MapQuest lists 8 towns/villages in Bavaria named 'Ratzing'.

"Ratzinger" means someone from Ratzing

The "-ing" usually indicates a settlement named for the root word. Since "Ratz" can refer to any of several small mammals; skunks or polecats, ferrets, hamsters and, of course, rats, the logical source of the name is that when the town was settled there was an abundance of one of these animals in the area...of course logic isn't necessarily truth. "Ratville" could mean there were a lot of rats or, idiomatically, the place is fit only for rats.

We don't seem to have any WP articles on any of these places named Ratzing.

Badagnani (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazi youth addition

I would recommend that the addition "though 10-20% did disobey the rule", be excluded from the section on Joseph Ratzingers youth since it is obviously rooted in bigotry against this pope. Just because a source can be cited, does not mean that the source is a worthy enough source to be included. That inclusion was obviously meant to be mean spirited against a tennager who was forced into doing something that he was deeply against, as "Rabbi David Rosen, the international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, said the choice of Ratzinger as Pope would bring continuity to Catholic-Jewish relations. “He has a deep commitment to this issue. And his own national background makes him sensitive to the dangers of anti-Semitism and the importance of Jewish-Catholic reconciliation,” from the Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ratzinger.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngalia2 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The citation by the way does not give any support to this claim, but merely states 80-90% of Germans at the time were members of the Hitler Youth. There were various reasons why children and teens got exception from actively participating in the Hitler Youth movement, most commonly physical deficiencies, remote location of their home, other commitments, ... that "10-20% did disobey the rule" is complete nonesense. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Including the '10-20%' comment is a perfectly fair comment. His defenders say he had to join the Hitler Youth, he detractors say he didn't. Let's show both sides of the story. NPOV. Malick78 (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

http://blog.emanuele-gentili.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ratzy_nazistabmp.jpeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.43.121.227 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, but has anyone seen the other half of that photo...is it not possible that both his arms are outstretched rather than just the one...? Gavin Scott (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The photo looks at though both hands arms are raised. However, the raising of a single hand was (pre-Nazi era) and still is in many countries, used when conferring some form of blessing.Collincentre (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

10-20% didn't join, or 80-90% did join? Is the glass half empty or half full :P? Although I'm certainly no fan of Old Man Ratty, if the source indicates the majority of able-bodied kids joined up, then perhaps we should show that. Ngalia2, please don't assume that this edit was meant to be a "mean spirited" attack, you cannot verify what the motives of the editor were. --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Languages

How many languages does the pope speak? Which languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.37.235 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (the part of homos and birth control might have bin added and might be fake.......just to tell u....^w^thnx for ur time)

Saint_Benedict_Joseph_Labre

please add to CHOICE OF NAME ratzingers birsthday 16 april is the saint day for Saint_Benedict_Joseph_Labre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.144.222 (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting portion of talk page

I am deleting an addition to the talk page that was just a rant, of extremely dubious veracity, which did not raise meaningful points for discussion regarding the article, and about which the article already contains a discussion. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hitler Youth

First off, apologies if this has been discussed before. Instead of making what would unquestionably be a controversial edit, I'm bringing it here. Is there a reason why this page hasn't been included in Category:Hitler Youth? faithless (^speak) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because he has stated that he was forced into membership and that it was not his own free-will choice. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't provide a definitive history, but just this week someone added the HY cat, and I removed it. As I explained at the time in my edit summary, I think the category (standing alone) is mis-leading. If there is a cat for "people forced to be members of HY" (or something similar) then that would resolve at least my concerns. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand both of your concerns and, while I disagree, I won't push the issue. Just to clear the air, I've nothing against the Pope or the Church, and my only concern here is the accuracy of the encyclopedia. If memory serves (I haven't read the article), he did desert and later renounce the Nazis, but the fact of the matter is that he was a member of the HY. Again, if the majority decides it isn't warranted, that's fine by me. I imagine it's adequately covered in the article text anyway. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Difficult point. Yes, he was forced to join the HJ, as everybody else from 1939 onwards by law. So, basically the category:Hitler Youth mostly includes people that were forced to join the HJ by law. That he did not join by his own free will doesn't change that the category fits. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The category fits. Anyone who finds him there will learn a little about the historical time he lived in. They will then learn that he was forced to join and deserted. Are we against people learning? Malick78 (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We must remember that being in the Category Hitler Youth doesnt actually mean anything other than you had an involvement with the group. It does not mean you are a proponent of naziism and it does not mean you joined willingly or even joined at all. To not include the Holy Father in the category is to try and smooth over the events which some might feel are embarrassing- to the detriment of the article and the project. Pope Benedict does not hide the fact that he was a member of the Hitler Youth, nor should we- it is a FACT. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to briefly point out that the Pope never "renounced" the Nazis - he was totally opposed to them from the start because he was hyper-Catholic and uninterested in their attempts to dehumanise people. On the category, I think it's a bit of a dumb one because it covers all adult Germans who were between the ages of 14-18 from 1939-1945, but the Pope does fit into that and if the category can be applied, then it should be. Anyone reading this article I'm sure would be immediately aware that he wasn't actually a Nazi, as most of the HJ members weren't. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as there only 28 article in the category and only around 10 persons from whom 8 were leaders of the movement, 1 was a "fanatical member" according to his article and 1 is Pope Benedict he should be removed from the category. Virtually every German male born in 20s and 30s was a member of the "HJ" (even my Grand uncle who was in a Catholic resistance group at the same time) so a "member" category is quite useless unless you include any ordinary member and not only one. --Saint-Louis (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the category to include only notable members. Pope Benedict does not fit that category, so that should be fine now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Christians and Muslims

Hi, what about this: [JOINT DECLARATION OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE (VATICAN) AND THE CENTRE FOR INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE OF THE ISLAMIC CULTURE AND RELATIONS ORGANISATION (TEHRAN, IRAN)] or [For Christians and Muslims, faith and reason do not conflict and are nonviolent] or should this be in anathor article? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship of Relativism

In this subsection is the rather matter-of-fact text, with the reference being his book Truth and Tolerance (emphasis mine):

He said that this self-amputation of reason leads to pathologies of religion such as terrorism and pathologies of science such as ecological disasters.[37]

So what exactly does that mean? Science is causing ecological disasters? Does he say that?! I looked in the book: ecology comes up in two places in the whole book, one of which is a footnote about feminism. So, the other one is page 159:

[earlier: Any thinking...that tries to look at reason in itself...is contrary to the scientifc method and therefore rejected....] Ecological disasters could serve as a warning to us, that we may see where science is no longer at the service of truth but is destructive both of the world and of man.

This statement takes three pages of his book, it is not easy to compress into a single sentence as is done here in the wiki article (or as I have just done above). It is a major theme and summing it up in any form like this is so overcompressed that it is the equivalent of saying that newton's gravity just says that things fall. Is it so obvious, what sort of ecological disaster, he is talking about? (Because hurricane katrina pretty much fits, as does global warming, but the recent quakes in china and the cyclone in myanmar don't — unless we have technology no one knows about =) ) Perhaps it should be removed? It is leading pretty inevitably to misrepresentations, such as on the Agnosticism page (which led me here). — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Robbiemuffin, :) Ratzinger is a theologian and philosopher. Thus he speaks in the abstract most of the time. If he actually said this (ecological disasters are obviously pathologies of science), then we cannot do much about it, because what is important is verifiability and the authority of the author. Marax (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just read this entry, and perhaps by "ecological disaster," the Pope means things such as nuclear holocaust, environmental destruction, human cloning, human embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc., i.e., things really or potentially detrimental to ecology, which is counter to the objectives of scientific advancement? LotR (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

@LotR Yes, that's about my take on it too. I think he means... like in the case of global warming, no one went about intentionally polluting the air, as someone might do if they were later to sell the clean up to others ... but rather that it happens naturally, because we blindly adhere to the principles of science (in this case, mostly engine sciences), without thought about their consequences in a larger arena. He is more interested in the social effects, of course. But the ecology one seems a pleasant mirror for his purposes.

@Marax Nonetheless, that's a paragraph or two, just to hint at it. It certainly doesn't do to misrepresent anyone's ideas. In its current form it reads as if he is saying that scientists busy themselves creating ecological disasters... that is not a relic of his unfortunate word choice, it is a relic of our unfortunate mischaracterization. We must be sure to actually use what is verifyable from the source, and not simply twist his words for the comic relief. Honestly I know that isn't exactly what has happened here, but if you take a step back ... it's kinda funny. =) On a personal note, it is funny to me to find myself defending Catholicism in any way ... but he has a subtle and rather beautiful argument which here is being manhandled and parroted. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resemblance with Palpatine

Benedict XVI's notable resemblance with Palpatine should be mentioned somewhere in the article, probably in the missing section "Benedict XVI in popular culture". --Sum (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think people have forced the resemblance upon them and thus people think they do actually look alike. Yet, look at this [picture]. The clearly have different noses and chin and where the emperor has two large bumbs on his forehead the Pope has none...the only similarities are a tight smile and eyes with bags under them...the clincher tho seems to be that the Pope has no eyebrows...something I only just noticed. So do they look alike? Not really...however, I would love to hear the Pope say "I find your lack of faith...disturbing." Oh, should there be a popular culture section? Sure if it doesnt just become a list of trivia facts...should Palpatine be mentioned...maybe, just maybe. Gavin Scott (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:-) Sum (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Munir Fasheh's Letter

I'd like to discuss removing his "Open Letter To Pope Benedict From A Christian Palestinian" from the article. It's really all about America, Britain, and anti-Zionism, it really isn't the kind of scholarship that we should list as a "Criticism" of the Pope, isn't relevant, and I'd like to add that our articles on Palestinian Christianity provide no support for his claims that Palestinian Christianity developed without an undergirding "institution"-type church. It's just really a weird letter. 74.192.36.131 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to its removal- I too really don't get it.Gavin Scott (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

language

If you read this interview of Benedict XVI, he himself says he does not speak Spanish and declined to answer a question in Spanish. The portion of the Wikipedia article which states that he knows Spanish fluently should be revised. - Adam T.

His understanding of knowing Spanish may be different from the common (North) American understanding. The Pope can recite written texts in Spanish, and has a basic understanding, but for a European he does not speak it. In other words, he isn't fluent, so he would not say he speaks it, but we North Americans might say he does. Pop6 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication of the so Called Pro-choice Catholics

In 2004, when he was a cardinal, he said that pro-choice people who claimed to be Catholics should be excommunicated. What is correct stance in the issue ? I ask someone to show if he talked more recently about the issue.82.154.80.140 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Gavin Scott (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article, "Catholicism and American Politics" : "It reported that on March 13, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued "Sacramentum Caritatis" a warning that respect for life is a "non negotiable value" and one who receives communion but is "unworthy" to do so, is guilty of the blood of the Lord and "eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." This has been interpreted much more specifically, as in an article at www.catholicplanet.com, dated May 223, 2005 (edited on November 10, 2007) and authored by Ronald l. Conte, Jr. who writes: "Any Catholic Judge who rules in favor of abortion commits an objective mortal sin. Any Catholic judge who uses his legal power to permit a woman to obtain an abortion, or to permit someone to pay for an abortion, or to permit someone to assist a woman in obtaining an abortion, or to permit someone to perform an abortion, when it is in any way, shape, or form within such judge's power to prevent or restrict abortion, commits an objective mortal sin. Furthermore, any Catholic judge who, in work or deed, expresses his belief that abortion is over ethical or moral, or that it should be legal, is a heretic and is automatically excommunicated under Canon Law. All Catholic judges are morally obligated to deny or restrict abortion whenever it is within their capability under the moral law."

The pope seems to forget that the current Portuguese President Aníbal Cavaco Silva, even being a practising Roman Catholic and a pro-life supporter, had the chance of vetoing twice the law that allowed abortion without any restrictions in Portugal, in 2007. Anyway, the Catholic Church never threatned to excommunicate him if he didn´t vetoed the law, and he didn´t. Would he haven´t vetoed it if the Catholic Church threatened to excommunicate him ? The Church in Portugal is a farse, but many people were expecting the Vatican to be more firm. Recently the pope recieved Cavaco Silva at the Vatican in a private audience, like nothing had happened. Does this pope lives in our world ? We all know the Church prefers to excommunicate women that abort then catholics who support abortion. These hypocrites all claim they are against it but totally support. Even in USA, many of the "catholic" politicians aren´t only pro-choice, as they support partial-birth abortion, that is infanticide. If they don´t mind going to Hell, I´m sure they should be excommunicated.85.240.19.196 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In practice most popes tend to be pragmatics when it comes to politics. But that aside I'm concerned at the tone of some of the comments on this board. We must focus only on the article and avoid bringing in our political views. "partial-birth abortion as a form of infanticide" and politicians "going to hell" are highly speculative and subjective comments and really have no place in this discussion. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think nowdays Catholic Church is a monument to political correctness. As for partial-birth abortion being a form of infanticide, all physicians know that a 6 months fetus is a totally developed human being, and there were already prematures of this age that survived. I think to call it infanticide it's simply stating facts. Of course nowdays media manipulate people to not find such a fact shocking. Catholics who support abortion also should know that for that fact, according to the Catholic Church, they can go to Hell. 213.13.246.177 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expanding Section 4.5.8 : Consumerism

There was request to expand the section of Pope Benedict XVI's teaching on consumerism.

On Thursday, 17 July 2008, he gave a speech in Barangaroo, Sydney Harbour, including the message: "Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption."

Reference: Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI

Personaljay (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart Controversy

The editor 110010011 changed the "Interest" section of the article to point out the minor controversy which surrounded the Pope's favorite composer Mozart identified in the following source- [9]. The article states "links between the pope's favorite composer and the Masons make some Catholics nervous." While this is ofcourse not ground shaking stuff it does warrant a mention (a whole sentence as it happened) in the article. The source does go on to state that there is no need to be concerned over Mozart's membership of the Masons but the fact they had to say that proves the controversy existed- that and a Cardinal claiming that Mozart was not a Mason at all...Anyway, the edit made by 110010011 was reverted by User:Theloavesandthevicious who stated "the claim has caused precisely zero controversy". I however, re-read the source and then edited the article to show that some controversy had indeed existed but also pointed out the sources opinion that "Mozart's membership never stopped him from being a true Catholic." Anyway, that was done. However, Theloavesandthevicious reverted my edit and stated "Gavin needs to learn how to read" As much as I am trying to assume the Good Faith of that comment I can't help but feel an edit war could easily break out over this. So I wonder if any of the other editors would mind this version of the Mozart Paragraph being put into the Interest Section as opposed to the current edition.

Pope Benedict is known to be deeply interested in classical music, he himself being an accomplished pianist with a grand piano in his papal quarters. The Pontiff's favorite composer is Mozart, this caused a minor amount of controversy amongst some Catholics since Mozart belonged to a Masonic Lodge which was forbidden by Pope Leo XIII, however it was deemed that Mozart's membership never stopped him from being a true Catholic. On the topic of Mozart the Pope said: "His music is by no means just entertainment; it contains the whole tragedy of human existence." Benedict also stated that Mozart's music affected him greatly as a young man and "deeply penetrated his soul"

Gavin Scott (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Let us present the whole of the sentence you quoted in part. The entire support for the assertion that there is a controversy is one sentence, stating: "One understands, therefore, why links between the pope's favorite composer and the Masons make some Catholics nervous." This sentence, of course, does not identify the supposedly nervous Catholics. In context, it comes as a light-hearted follow up to a recent reiteration of the necessary antipathy between Catholics and masons. The point would have been precisely the same if the author had stated "One understands ... why links ... MIGHT make some Catholics nervous." To conclude, as Gavin and the binary username have done, that (1) there are in fact nervous Catholics and (2) that these nervous Catholics amount to a minor controversy, is entirely over-reading the statement.

The article, even on a superficial level, is about Cardinal Schonbron's statement; the status of Mozart as a mason vel non; and (a little bit) why the status as a mason might matter. Read with a bit more perception, we see John Allen had to fill a certain amount of space in his paper in the midst (or shortly after) the long Vatican vacation. There is no controversy here. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I think Tlatv is right: there's just not enough there there. You'd need more on this, especially as this is a long article. Tlatv, you argue your point well, though you could be a wee bit more civil in the edit summary. IronDuke 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure what it adds but here is another source [10] Its an interview with the Pope's brother Georg. After discussing what the Pope has to say about Mozart the article states "All this will inevitably scandalise those who regard Mozart primarily as a Freemason, and The Magic Flute principally as a piece of Freemasonic symbology, both true enough in themselves." Interestingly Georg Ratzinger says this "The issue of his Freemasonry disturbs me insofar as he was not only an ordinary member, but attained the rank of Master, and wanted to found his own lodge. Freemasonry was obviously fashionable at that time in Vienna. Certainly he hoped for material gain from his membership. Whether he reflected on the theological implications I don't know." Again, its all rather interesting I think...Gavin Scott (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That still fails to show the presence of a controversy, or anyone being troubled by the coincidence of "pope" with "Mozart lover." As the article you cited notes (in editorial, not reportage mode): "No thoughtful Catholic will have difficulty distinguishing Mozart's music from his Freemasonry, any more, for example, than separating Bach's work from his Lutheranism. If we were to dismiss every human work that had been created by a sinner, there might not be much left standing. I was once taken to task for leading a congregation in a 'Protestant tune', to which I replied, 'which note was Protestant, the E-flat or the B-flat?'" theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mozart would not have been the first prominent practising, even devout Roman Catholic to join the ranks of the Masons. And certainly not the last. I agree, it really isn't all that controversial. The Roman Catholic Church uses his music in their liturgies without scandal to themselves, as well as the Masses composed by Bach, a Protestant. Similarly, hymns written by Church of England divines and even the 'arch-protestant' himself, Luther, are used frequently. No-one except fringe traditionalists raise an eyebrow.--Gazzster (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad there's another vote for not mentioning it in the article. (Is there a time at which this poll will close, or have we effectively already made a decision?) But I disagree with your first sentence. And the rest is dubious and in any way irrelevant. No Roman Catholic, of any level of devotion, can join the masons. A devout one could not be so oblivious as to be ignorant of this fact. Joining the masons incurs excommunication and, presumably, eternal damnation. As for the music to be used in liturgy, it would depend upon the piece. If the piece by Luther used a non-liturgical text of his own devising, its orthodoxy must be examined. If it proves heterodox, then it would be a grave sin to use it. One need not be a "fringe traditionalist" to recognize this fact. But Mozart's liturgical music were Mass settings, not hymns. The texts are not dubious in the way that Luther's texts would be. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have consensus on this issue, should it be archived? Gavin Scott (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)