BenedictKJS

Hello BenedictKJS, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Encyclicals and Vatican info

Hi, the discussion on the other page was diverging beyond the scope of that page, so it should really take place outside the Index talk page.

Regarding Levada, that was exactly my point. He is, for better or worse, in charge of enforcing things. He is no longer called the "enforcer" as his predecessor was, but he does have power to flex religious muscles. And there is no point in enforcing laws when the laws are NOT clear. That is how Wikipedia is now filling a "huge void" left by the Holy See. How on earth is a Roman Catholic in the pews supposed to know the exact position of the Holy See on the Index? In my mind, the very fact that you had to add 3 paragraphs to clarify it within Wikipedia means that Cong for the Doctrines is not doing their job to my satisfaction. The fact that you had to go to great length documenting that there is a debate about the translation from Latin to English etc. means that they should make a clear statement on that tomorrow : yes or no. Simple. Why not put it up on the web site? In the end, they are "employees of Christ" and need to do their job right. Wikipedia is filling that gap now.

On that note, if you wan to do something useful, it is to get "solid" references on EXACTLY which Marian apparitions have been approved and add that to the appropriate apparition pages. A year ago, the Marian apparitions page was total chaos and included a list of apparitions which had already been denounced, e.g. Our Lady of the Eucharist [1], where the Bishop who approved it has since been reduced to lay rank, and now calls himself "ordained by God". I have cleaned up many of the fake claims from the Marian apparition page now, after much effort, but that could have been easier if the Holy See had a list themselves. It would just be "one web page" with a list of 12 or 13 items. Very simple to do. As is, Wikipedia is their surrogate website.

What the Holy See website needs is a "clean and clear list" of which Marian apparitions have received approval. In the meantime, Wikipedia is doing that job. As is , I have no solid reference as to whether Our Lady of Pontmain is really approved. Do you?

And the info you added regarding Direction For Our Times was another example, where Levada's office should have informed the gullible about that. I was thinking of getting taht page deleted because it is pushing an org that asks for donations, but then I thought your info was needed to warn the potentially gullible.

Regarding your other question, Wikipedia is a non-profit org so no one "owns" it. I do edit a lot of pages, but as en editor like any other. Philosophically, I am in a world in between: I am/was physicist so as a believer, I can give the scientist or non believers a really hard time if they attack valid religious items e.g. recently on Crucifixion of Jesus and try to get the balance from the super religious who may think the Congragation for the Doctrines has everything neatly organized. For that is clearly not the case, and they have left "huge holes" that Wikipedia is filling now. As an example, look at the article I just finished on Rosary and scapular and I had to do much research to figure out which scapulars have been approved and which have what indulgences. The Holy See website could have had that as a simple page. To this day, I am not sure if the Scapular of Our Lady of Guadalupe is approved. The "employees of Christ" in Rome need to create a webpage that says that. Why not? Why not inform the public? For now, Wikipedia is doing that job. That would be a "positive Index" of what has been approved, rather than a "negative index" of what not to read. So all this debate about an ancient index is really beside the point when there are several very questionable scapulars, reported interior locutions, etc. around with no clear Vatican info source. For now, Wikipedia is doing that job for free.

Now, given that I am in Europe this year, I should stop, for the Swiss Guard is too close.... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BenedictKJS Response

Thank you for your discussion and revealing a little more of your own heart and intentions. I can tell that you are simply trying to be a good man and do some good for the Church and the world. May the Lord truly bless your efforts. I see that you are a fellow-worker in the Lord's vineyard when it comes to alleged private revelations and I am indeed glad to meet someone else willing to take up some of the slack in an otherwise long and arduous battle against falsehood. I truly believe that our combined efforts would be of much use to people on Wikipedia.

I would like to respond to some points you have made and please forgive me if I sound heavy-handed.

"Regarding Levada, that was exactly my point. He is, for better or worse, in charge of enforcing things. He is no longer called the "enforcer" as his predecessor was, but he does have power to flex religious muscles. And there is no point in enforcing laws when the laws are NOT clear."

Cardinal Levada is in charge of enforcing doctrine, not Vatican Internet layouts. I am not sure which one you are speaking of.

"That is how Wikipedia is now filling a "huge void" left by the Holy See. How on earth is a Roman Catholic in the pews supposed to know the exact position of the Holy See on the Index?"

Maybe the Vatican, in its shrewd Italian politics, is getting everyone else to do its dirty online work.... :)

Seriously, though, in all charity, History2007, researching the old-fashioned way is not an outdated mode of finding information. One can look up the original Notification in a book such as the Holy See's official Journal, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The document is also available in at least four other publications that are conveniently listed on the CDF's web page on the Vatican's site (I cited the page in the actual ILP article).

Personally, I find it more dangerous when people start thinking that the "Information Superhighway" is going to have all the answers. This is not to say that you think this, but I do wish to raise it as a point of concern. The Holy See does not jump at the beck and call of people who just want information now without any regard for the work, time, effort and finances necessary for such undertakings. Remember, you are dealing with an Institution that is 2000 years old with a protocol all its own. You must take the Church on its own pace and not vice-versa. Though even Pope Benedict has publicly stated in the past few weeks that the Vatican has underestimated the Internet, you can not expect Rome (no pun intended) to be built in a day. So, with your work on Wikipedia to help the Vatican, let me encourage you to do it in charity.

I can also tell you that the Vatican is updating its web site. Prior to April 25th of last year, there was no mention of the 1966 Notification on the CDF's web page. After that date, the document was listed (though not provided, yet) on the page. I know this because, you'll be happy to know, I documented this fact last year before we met.[2]

Please also consider the following. Why the CDF has not provided the full Latin text and translation online (yet) may be due to the number of transcriptions that have to be done. There was no copy/paste and MSWord back in 1966. Furthermore, you have to find a translator. The June 14, 1966 Notification was not translated back in 1966 into English. It was promulgated in the Latin language and, far as to my knowledge, that is the language the document remains in today. N.B., The Latin/Italian discussion I gave on the ILP page was about the heading as stated on the Vatican's web site, not so much the actual document itself.

Simply put: give some consideration to the nun who runs the web site as well as the Vatican's translators. They have enough to handle as it is. Again, you are working with an Institution that is 2000 years old. You can not reasonably expect the Vatican to have everything it has ever written up on its web site and available in every major language of today and in nice, neat "acceptable" format/layout.

If you are fluent in a foreign language and can help the Vatican, may I suggest that you volunteer your services? You seem to be helping the Vatican for free anyway, so you might as well be official with it. I know someone that might be able to help you with such an honorable desire, especially if, as you say, you are already in Europe.

Let me be very blunt but charitable too in order to summarize the above: Just because the Vatican does not move fast enough "to your satisfaction" does not mean the Vatican deserves rebuke.

"In my mind, the very fact that you had to add 3 paragraphs to clarify it within Wikipedia means that Cong for the Doctrines is not doing their job to my satisfaction. The fact that you had to go to great length documenting that there is a debate about the translation from Latin to English etc. means that they should make a clear statement on that tomorrow : yes or no. Simple. Why not put it up on the web site? In the end, they are "employees of Christ" and need to do their job right. Wikipedia is filling that gap now."

History2007, the reason why I added those paragraphs was because of your insistence on the word "abolish". You fought with me (because you had a "reference" and Wikipedia's rules backing you) when I tried to state the Index was not abolished in 1966 based upon the original Notification. The official and canonical Latin text does not mention the word at all. You rejected my original edits last year because, you claimed, I had not referenced myself, though I had referred you back to the original Notification. Have you considered the possibility that your references might have misunderstood the 1966 Notification?

As a side note, it is a general rule that I do not take seriously what any media outlet or organization (including some "Catholic" ones) says about a Catholic document until I can examine the situation myself (i.e. read the document/statement). I make a lot better sense of the documents reading them on my own than what most of the liberal media will ever be capable of doing so long as they hold to their hatchet jobs. This is personal preference, but a preference that has saved me from a number of embarrassments over time and allowed me to hold to the integrity of the Catholic faith against religious fanatics that try to sway me to their cause. You will find a perfect example of my skepticism and rebukes to liberal media on my blog:[3] and [4] and [5]

Thus, then, the extra paragraphs were meant to satisfy your desire for references and to counter-balance straight "abolition" terminology with the original document upon which this entire discussion hinges. Remember also that in the Catholic Church, there are very precise legal terms that are employed. These words mean something in Catholic life and practice. If a Vatican document does not mention the word "abolish" then it is not right to say the Catholic Church abolished X, Y, or Z.

Let me offer you another example of the above. Pope Paul VI never juridically abrogated the so-called Tridentine Liturgy when he promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass. We know this because the document does not say such and thus a legal question arose. It arose to such a pitch that two Popes had to step in on the issue--Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Benedict's Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", settled the question once and for all by confirming the fact that Paul VI never juridically abrogated the Tridentine Liturgy, thus every priest can still celebrate that Liturgy.

Many Catholics just don't know about and also don't care about the Index. It is a dead issue, settled in 1966. Catholics no longer suffer canonical penalties for reading/disseminating bad books, though they are bound under the moral law not to do so as they will answer for their actions before Almighty God at their judgment. The Notification says all this (albeit condensed). No one has questioned the Notification on this level, so the Vatican has not clarified anything. There is no need and so bigger projects take precedence. It is just that simple and I hope that I am communicating myself effectively, albeit charitably.

The Index of Forbidden Books still enjoys moral authority in the Catholic Church, though it is no longer updated or binding under Canon Law. It was relegated to the status of a historical document that reminds Catholics of their duty not to spread matter contrary to faith and morals. Far from stricken from the record, it remains a historical milestone that Catholics should reference in their teaching on moral obligations under the natural law.

Catholics knew about the above back in 1966 because the Vatican DID tell them (read: Cardinal Ottaviani and his secretary, P. Parente). It has not been a major issue since, so the Church has not felt any need to clarify its position to the larger Catholic world. She has more immediate and pressing issues to deal with (a media-storm over the Pope's lifting Williamson's [et al's] excommunication comes to mind...).

"On that note, if you wan to do something useful, it is to get "solid" references on EXACTLY which Marian apparitions have been approved and add that to the appropriate apparition pages."

Back in the day, Jim Drzsmala's web site apparitions.org used to be a very helpful tool. Now, however, he has since discontinued the site. I rejoice to tell you, however, that you can find it still available via the Internet Way Back Archive machine.

"As is , I have no solid reference as to whether Our Lady of Pontmain is really approved. Do you?"

That is going to depend upon what you mean by "approved." In the Catholic Church, all that is needed is the local bishop's authorization of the messages for a claim to apparitions to be considered authentic. The Vatican usually does not become involved in cases unless it is asked to do so (again, matter of law and practice...). Meanwhile, the ever-reliable Donal-Anthony Foley provides the reference you seek: [6]

"And the info you added regarding Direction For Our Times was another example, where Levada's office should have informed the gullible about that. I was thinking of getting taht page deleted because it is pushing an org that asks for donations, but then I thought your info was needed to warn the potentially gullible."

Barring a complete deletion of that page, I am glad that you have otherwise left it alone. I would have fought you tooth-and-nail if you altered anything in the "Controversy" section that I did not personally know to be validated and/or fully referenced. My good name is involved in that case, History2007.

I have gone on long enough. As I have said previously, History2007, I will work with you, not against you. I like you and think you are a decent man just trying to do some good in this world. God bless you for that. I look forward to further discussions.

BenedictKJS (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok great. The blog items were very interesting. I still think that if they gave me 5 priests (they have plenty of those in Rome) to double check facts, and do some translations, I could do a much better job of the Vatican website in 6 months. And each item would have been double checked by 2 of the priests. But I know that is not their way at the moment, but I think it should be. Maybe Pope Benedict XXX will get to do that in the future. They will be all web-oriented some day, and if they get requests that day will be sooner. I will try to send a few people there a few emails suggesting it... it can not hurt. It would have taken very little effort to gather the 13 letters for the Holy See approved apparitions, scan them and put them up. That would end a lot of debate about the fake apparitions - and there are plenty of fakes out there, as you know. One of the funniest (or perhaps most tragic) one were those from Carmelita Rivas whereby she had taken training manuals for seminarians (word by word) and reported them as interior locutions. And she used to give lectures to huge audiences in South America. She had a reference in Wikipedia, but I cleaned that up now. And thanks for the Pontmain reference. I will use that.

Anyway, moving on to practical issues if you teach Religion, perhaps you could help Wikipedia in clarifying some definitions as we go along. Today, someone introduced the term sensus Ecclesiae in an article, but it has no definition and the Cath encyclopedia just has a brief mention.[7] Do yu know what it is "exactly" and if so could you please type a few sentences to build the page? Else if you have a solid reference I will build the page. Cheers History2007 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BenedictKJS Response 2

I am glad that you liked those links to my blog. Again, if you think you can help the Vatican, I say offer your services. Let me know if you think this is a possibility. Especially after Pope Benedict's recent admission, they might just have a help wanted sign up around somewhere.

I wish to remind you that the Holy See does not "approve" apparitions. That is the job of the local bishop. The Vatican does not need to put a list of "approved" apparitions on its web site. Granted, it would make my job--and those of my fellow investigators--a lot easier if such a master list were in effect, but we can not reasonably expect that from the Vatican. I have heard of Rivas and she is popular here in my Diocese and I am somewhat informed on her case.

I could help with "sensus Ecclesiae", though I would really have to devote myself to study of this question but will do what I can.

BenedictKJS (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparitions

Hi, actually this is another thing they need to clarify on the Holy See website! The Cong. of the Doctrine can tell the local Bishop to give a first level approval, and may a couple of centuries later itself form a commission.[8]:

"The congregation will then direct or approve the investigation conducted by the local bishop and if necessary, carry out a new investigation. If it carries out a new investigation, it can appoint a commission especially established for this purpose, if it chooses".

And as Zenit said:[9]

"Father Salvatore Perrella, from the Pontifical Marianum Theological Faculty, explained in L'Osservatore Romano how the Church determines the legitimacy of apparition claims..... The priest said that after meticulous examination of the facts surrounding alleged apparitions, the Church has "approved during the course of history 11 apparitions out of 295 proposals for review, among them, the 12th is that referring to Our Lady of Laus."

In fact Our Lady of Laus was recognized by the local diocese in 1665 and was the subject of approved devotions, but obtained approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith only in 2008.

But Zenit did not list the 12 items. And I gathered the list only after much research last year. Now Wikipedia has a more complete and well researched list than anywhere else I have seen. But that is exactly what is needed: this list of 12 items needs to be more readily available. I bet if you went to 5 local Catholic churches around you and asked, the parish priests could not give you the list of 12 either. Try it. Anyway, I think you know what I mean by now. Cheers History2007 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kathryn Ann Clarke.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kathryn Ann Clarke.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)