Jump to content

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 13: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m archive 13
 
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{aan}}
'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''


Post replies to the [[Talk:Pope Benedict XVI|main talk page]], copying the section you are
Post replies to the [[Talk:Pope Benedict XVI|main talk page]], copying the section you are
Line 60: Line 60:
== Women as preists ==
== Women as preists ==
Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it only be noteworthy if he allowed women to be priests? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it only be noteworthy if he allowed women to be priests? --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|<sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)</sup>]] 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, or this can be noted as an example of Benedict holding up the beliefs and policies of JP II. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, or this can be noted as an example of Benedict holding up the beliefs and policies of JP II. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Correct... perhaps just an example of the continuation of tradition, etc. from JPII and Benedict. More of the same, or something. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Correct... perhaps just an example of the continuation of tradition, etc. from JPII and Benedict. More of the same, or something. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] [[User talk:Lord Voldemort|<sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)</sup>]] 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


== Pictures ==
== Pictures ==
Line 118: Line 118:


===Vandalism===
===Vandalism===
The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked ''indefinitely''. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked ''indefinitely''. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. [[User:Jtdirl|<b style="color:#006666;">Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">''ÉIREANN''</b>]][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:I put the image he used to vandalize the article with up for speedy deletion. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:I put the image he used to vandalize the article with up for speedy deletion. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. [[User:Jtdirl|<b style="color:#006666;">Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">''ÉIREANN''</b>]][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:Just calm down. Though I know it will be annoying, but this is something we have to do for now, especially since of the news report I mentioned above. It will have it's time, then it will go away, just like the Snape kills .... fad. Plus, you will get some more admin help once my RFA is over. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
:Just calm down. Though I know it will be annoying, but this is something we have to do for now, especially since of the news report I mentioned above. It will have it's time, then it will go away, just like the Snape kills .... fad. Plus, you will get some more admin help once my RFA is over. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
::Since I completed my streak of vandalism on these pages, it has brought me much amazement and satisfaction seeing the amount of discussion and work that has been put in by the wikipedia community. I take pride in what I have done to the articles. Though I am retired for good from vandalism, I set back every day and reap the rewards from my actions. By the way, its nice to see that I am an official wikipedia asshole. That has a nice ring to it. Though, I could come up with a few more to describe me. Keep up the good work, and may the force be with you. [[User:Adamwankenobi|Adamwankenobi]] 03:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
::Since I completed my streak of vandalism on these pages, it has brought me much amazement and satisfaction seeing the amount of discussion and work that has been put in by the wikipedia community. I take pride in what I have done to the articles. Though I am retired for good from vandalism, I set back every day and reap the rewards from my actions. By the way, its nice to see that I am an official wikipedia asshole. That has a nice ring to it. Though, I could come up with a few more to describe me. Keep up the good work, and may the force be with you. [[User:Adamwankenobi|Adamwankenobi]] 03:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Line 127: Line 127:
I'm going to see if a picture can be ''locked'' into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.
I'm going to see if a picture can be ''locked'' into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.


[[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Jtdirl|<b style="color:#006666;">Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">''ÉIREANN''</b>]][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:We can request for page protection, but I think the page will be stable for a while. IMHO, if it were not for the Reuters report, we would not be facing this problem. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:We can request for page protection, but I think the page will be stable for a while. IMHO, if it were not for the Reuters report, we would not be facing this problem. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Line 148: Line 148:
Is there any reason why [[His Holiness]] is in italics? It doesn't match the format for [[Her Majesty]] Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there any reason why [[His Holiness]] is in italics? It doesn't match the format for [[Her Majesty]] Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


:No. One user proposed the idea. (I forget who. I think it might have been [[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]], or maybe he just came up with the idea of linking HH, HM etc to articles explaining the style.) It might be a way, though, of NPOVing the use of styles, by highlighting that they aren't being used but explained. Until Wikipedia changes policy on styles, italising and wikifying them might be the best way to go. But if I go near any pages to do that, the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse, so someone else should do it. I think ''[[Her Majesty]]'' [[Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom]] or ''[[His Holiness]]'' [[Pope Benedict XVI]] is more neutral visually than simply [[Her Majesty]] [[Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom]] or [[His Holiness]] [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:No. One user proposed the idea. (I forget who. I think it might have been [[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]], or maybe he just came up with the idea of linking HH, HM etc to articles explaining the style.) It might be a way, though, of NPOVing the use of styles, by highlighting that they aren't being used but explained. Until Wikipedia changes policy on styles, italising and wikifying them might be the best way to go. But if I go near any pages to do that, the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse, so someone else should do it. I think ''[[Her Majesty]]'' [[Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom]] or ''[[His Holiness]]'' [[Pope Benedict XVI]] is more neutral visually than simply [[Her Majesty]] [[Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom]] or [[His Holiness]] [[Pope Benedict XVI]]. [[User:Jtdirl|<b style="color:#006666;">Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">''ÉIREANN''</b>]][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


::Well, I'm very happy to put italics in all of them. But, one question first. Am I mistaken in thinking that something was said here about not using His Holiness for ''dead'' popes? Actually, I've just had a look, and many of Benedict's predecessors are now marked as Servant of God, or Venerable, or Blessed. I had to go back as far as [[Pope Pius XI|Pius XI]] to find one who started without anything (other than "Pope") before his name. But what about deceased Kings and Queens? Looking at Wikipedia articles on British monarchs and princes, etc., it seems that deceased monarchs have His/Her Majesty at the beginning, back as far as Victoria, stopping for William IV, starting again for George IV, and stopping again for George III. There's also some inconsistency in that we have '''King George I''', but just '''George II'''. Deceased consorts (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) or Royal Highnesses (Princess Margaret) don't seem to keep their styles on Wikipedia. I'm happy to make them all consistent, but I'll wait a day or two to see if their are any objections. I'm not anxious to ruffle any feathers, but I would like all the articles to be consistent. What does everyone think about italics, no italics, styles for deceased popes, monarchs, and princes? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
::Well, I'm very happy to put italics in all of them. But, one question first. Am I mistaken in thinking that something was said here about not using His Holiness for ''dead'' popes? Actually, I've just had a look, and many of Benedict's predecessors are now marked as Servant of God, or Venerable, or Blessed. I had to go back as far as [[Pope Pius XI|Pius XI]] to find one who started without anything (other than "Pope") before his name. But what about deceased Kings and Queens? Looking at Wikipedia articles on British monarchs and princes, etc., it seems that deceased monarchs have His/Her Majesty at the beginning, back as far as Victoria, stopping for William IV, starting again for George IV, and stopping again for George III. There's also some inconsistency in that we have '''King George I''', but just '''George II'''. Deceased consorts (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) or Royal Highnesses (Princess Margaret) don't seem to keep their styles on Wikipedia. I'm happy to make them all consistent, but I'll wait a day or two to see if their are any objections. I'm not anxious to ruffle any feathers, but I would like all the articles to be consistent. What does everyone think about italics, no italics, styles for deceased popes, monarchs, and princes? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Line 162: Line 162:
religious style=Holy Father|}}
religious style=Holy Father|}}


Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to ''use'' infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, [[HRH]]s, etc. [[User:Jtdirl|<font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\<sup><font color=blue>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(caint)</sup><font color=black>]] 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to ''use'' infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, [[HRH]]s, etc. [[User:Jtdirl|<b style="color:#006666;">Fear</b><b style="color:#FF6600;">''ÉIREANN''</b>]][[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of ''using'' the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... '''support.''' --[[User:Jenmoa|Jen Moakler]] 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
:I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of ''using'' the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... '''support.''' --[[User:Jenmoa]] 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
::Support (btw, Jtdirl, please email me). [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
::Support (btw, Jtdirl, please email me). [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Line 213: Line 213:


[[User:83.109.154.100|83.109.154.100]] 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[[User:83.109.154.100|83.109.154.100]] 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

==Apostolic Presence in the German Synagogue, 19 Aug 2005==

Upon Benedict XVI's visit to only the second synagogue ever visited by a pontiff ,
a demand by one outspoken Jewish representative/leader for this pontiff to open the wartime vatican archives is widely reported by the media today .

This leader would do well to ask for the archives relating to [[1932]] and [[1933]] to be opened , as these would relate to both the wartime pontiff's machinations against the holy [[magisterium]] and those of his predecessor , Pius XI .

I have pointed out that both pontiffs availed however of purely verbal instruction in the most controversial matters . Yet the reference to a letter from Cardinal Sec. of State Pacelli relating the wishes of Pius XI to the [[Centre Party Germany]] should be recorded from May [[1932]] . These related to the papal wish to see [[Hitler]] empowered .

I repeat that these matters of interference in [[democracy]] at that time represent the most serious challenge possible to the Church , which must repair the resulting fracture of the magisterium . This is far more than a question of turning a blind eye to war-time genocide - it is the overturning of the divine order both here on earth and above in the realm of divinity .

I refer all readers to the copious sourcing and exegesis undertaken upon this gravest matter , to be found in archives here, on [[Theology of Pope Benedict XVI]] on [[Pope Pius XII]] and on [[Hitler's Pope]] as well as the Centre Party discussions . Readers should understand that prior to magisterial repair , all of this is still being obscured, and that here on the [[Wikipedia]] every attempt is made to hide and to neuter those facts that are known . This is a purely misplaced defensive reaction , a minor reflection of the vatican's inability hitherto to assume its true magisterial responsibility . I would urge the pontiff to avail of those sanctions which exist within canonical law , recognise the cataclysmic error , and recognise the self-excommunication of these two previous pontiffs mentioned . See under section discussion Canonical Law Hitler's Pope and Pius XII . Urge ''your'' priest now to demand repair to this upending of heaven and earth .[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 21:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Ann Heneghan in good faith should study the edit under my strong contention upon the [[Hitler's Pope]] page , and see that the user in question is closely followed . It is shocking that the WP is not able to follow published source , but purely symptomatic of all the actions which I have throughout protested . Certain users are acting contrary to the principles of the [[Wikipedia]] , and something should be done . As arbitration is not possible , or rather since arbitrtation has no power , locking of these article would be more appropriate . Lulu of the Lotus Eaters may be beginning to realise just how pernicious the situation is become , others should ask themselves if they can accept clear violations without protest .

:::The pontiff should accept canonical law and repair the scandal referred to in the Cologne Synagogue . Since this reference was publicly made , it should be included in the article , by whichever editor of good faith , is my answer .[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 10:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

::::I suggest we simply block [[User:Famekeeper|this trollish user]] (check out user page and request for comment page). Any edit he makes to this article should probably be reverted. [[User:83.109.191.234|83.109.191.234]] 02:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

See above for corroborating links justifying my re-inclusion of this fact . Do not vandalise or abuse good faith by removal . [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:Famekeeper, what is the news value or encyclopedic value of this request by Abraham Lehrer? Was he the first person or the first rabbi to make such a request? And if it was so widely reported why isn't there a ''link'' in the article to ''verify'' it?

:It is not the first time that someone has been ''mistaken'' that the Vatican has hidden the papers of Pope Pius XII from the public. On the contrary, scholars have had access to the papers of Pope Piux XII after the start of World War II. You can just see how many books have been published based on the examination of these archives inside the Vatican by looking at Amazon's description of the recent books. Even one of the Pope's harshest critics, [[John Cornwell (writer)|John Cornwell]], was given access and acknowledges it on page viii of [[Hitler's Pope]] which you including in that article. (I'm sure some ''wiki-copyright-cop'' will investigate if the length of your extract violates ''fair use'' of Cornwell's copyrighted text by the way.)

:I've spoken with the authors of two book on Pope Pius and discussed with them how they obtained access to the papers. The archives exist and are accessible but what's not been '''completed''' is the task of ''indexing'' it which will be completed in a few years.

:As you can see from this [http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050805-121412-2931r.htm Washington Times article] even the United States goverment has not yet released all of its World War II archives, and the United States has a lot more resources to manage and index archives. Pehaps when we see a link, Lehrer's request of the Pope regarding the 1939-1945 archives might be regarded as factual &mdash; but ''not every fact belongs in the Wikipedia''. What's unique about it? What's significant about this request beyond similar ones made earlier by the [http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4525_96.htm Anti-Defamation League], for example? Is Lehrer's ''premise'' correct &mdash; that the Vatican hiding the archives? At least, the ADL correctly acknowleges that the archives have been opened and is asking for '''more'''. This is my good faith reason to remove it. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

::Hi Patsw, welcome to the problem - We can start all friendly . I am pleased that you bring out your concerns upon the discussion pages rather than like some editors , who simply rub out that which they consider offensive . Let us please keep it so .

My understanding is that Cornwell was allowed access to papers concerning the early 20's and to the wartime era , but not to the lte 20's and the 30's . Access meaning he could ask for particular papers .
My understanding is that papers concerning the actual war years have been in part made available .

My understanding is that Abraham Lehrer's request was the first such public face-to-face request, and therefore highly noteworthy for no other reason. My understanding is that archives are not open , but whether they are available for the war years or not , the news reports said that Lehrer himself thought they were not and that was the basis of his request .

The article Hitler's Pope was constrained by other users to be no more than a Cornwell thesis , which is ridiculous . I was forced to accept this , and their constraint was the only reason that I firstly transcribed Cornwell to avoid copyright prtoblems. However since I was then serially accused of being a liar-type , I was further forced to use the original . I believe that fair educational use , given the enormous educational property of this organ the WP , is necessitated . Your contention and warning may be justifiable on copyright , but morally it would be interesting to follow . I would doubt that either vanity Fair or Cornwell himself would object , given the morality and the educational need for balance . If you wish to focus upon this issue , you might surmise from my involvement that a bust-up on this one issue would not serve the best interests of either the WP or of the Catholic Church : it would become a publicity gift against both , bringing us out of this rarified atmoshere and into a more immediate and therefore more dangerous secular area . You will be aware that there is already a considerable body of obfuscatory editing history within this organ which would become evidence one way or another . You could also delve into the earliest historical positions written into the relevant articles and see how relatively un-educational their positions were .

Your suggestion is that Cornwell was already known to be scandalised by the papal history when granted his access whereas this does not seem to have been the case . I am well aware that there are a plethora of books written on the general subject , and claim no knowledge of any . I am glad that you seem to have such intimate accesss to writers that you can say here that you have actually talked to several such authors . Doubtless this means that you will be concerned to support the broadening of the article , or its linking to other articles both for and against , such that a truly educational relation become effected . Certainly I for one welcome your suggestions that the archives are in fact open , save for the problems of indexation , however as you will also be aware from my history , my concern has never been with the wartime archives.

I am on record as believing that the narrowing of focus to within that era by the Church authorities is a demonstration of bad faith in itself, that this limitation is in fact designed to minimise the far greater historical scandal to do with papal policy from c 1928 onwards . I see the argumentation as to whether or not Pius XII was anti-semitic ''apropos'' the Holocaust to be symptomatic of this evasion . Anti-semitism is in fact a side issue historically , and more easily rebutted than the primary one , which is the natural papal desire to defeat atheistic , nihilistic Russian Communism , and the resultant 'quid pro quo' with Adolf Hitler.

I would go so far as to say that Abraham Lehrer by narrowing his request to the watime archive may be not only mistaken (as you suggest) but counter-productive . This would be an unfortunate situation , though a very natural one given the Jewish experience , and his own family's experience . He would appear to have very usefully fallen into the same bear-trap defense to which I refer above , leaving aside the true origins of the ''quid pro quo' of 1932-1933 .

My experience here is that the focus is shifted against myself in 'ad hominem' attack , whereby my good faith , my interpretation and my motives are all sundered in attempt to discredit the essential historical reference to this 'quid pro quo' . You will note that I have over the course of my intervention provided fairly un-exotic sources, from hitherto respected if aged historical commentators . I imagine that if you are in contact with writers , that you will not fall into similar denial .

I would bring your perfectly honourable concern , stated upon your user page , to my necessary relation of Canonical Law . This you will find links to upon my own Rfc page . I should like to think that you would concern yourself sufficiently as to read these , as the canonicals deal very clearly with the situation , btoh political and ecclesiastical . I should also like to think that this your honourable concern , will enable you to allow myself some reasonable lenience of respect , such that you will not simply view me as a disruptive anti-moralist , anti-christian . I consider myself to be acting entirely within the spirit of Christianity embodied in these Laws .

I may be mistaken in having concluded that the only way to defend the down-trodden of history and to open the apparent can-of-worms to dis-infection , was to have quoted these very same Church laws . It was my honourable belief that hypocrisy would not be able to prevail against such clarity . However thus far all I have garnered seems to be continuously creeping criticism , which considering these laws and the faith of my accusers , is contradictory .

Lastly we come to the contemporary reality , which apart from Lehrer's impertinence , involves Class Action Lawsuits against the Vatican . As you will be well aware , hitherto the Vatican has been able to avoid prosecution for apparent misdeed by virtue of its position as a sovereign State , but I believe that now , for the first time , that this has been denied upon appeal . Doubtless this will be counter-appealed , and possibly again the history will be avoided . However I suggest that those who seek to defend against serious accusation ,should pause to consider that when the defence becomes impossible , settlement shall be required . I have , very sincerely , provided canonical guidance toward such settlement , and should be seen , not as an attacker , but as a defender of the faith in Jesus Christ . yrs etc [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


== Time of birth ==
== Time of birth ==
Line 275: Line 223:
Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:What I can suggest is to add a link to the relevant information to the bottom of the page at the External links section. While it gives your astrology friends something to look at, the article will still conform to standards. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
:What I can suggest is to add a link to the relevant information to the bottom of the page at the External links section. While it gives your astrology friends something to look at, the article will still conform to standards. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==The Synagogue and Pope Benedict XVI==

Repeating a point from his synagogue visit, the pope said that "there can be no dialogue at the expense of truth." He said efforts for closer relations must be pursued "in fidelity to the dictates of one's conscience."

Progress has been made between peoples, but "much more remains to be done," Benedict said at the synagogue. "We must come to know one another much more and much better."

The visit did bring out some of the troubled history between Catholics and Jews.

In welcoming the pope, synagogue president Abraham Lehrer urged Benedict to fully open the Vatican's World War II archives — a period during which some Jews claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough to stave off the Holocaust. The Vatican denies that and has begun releasing some documents.
Taken from- [[http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050819/ap_on_re_eu/pope_world_youth]]
:and

Jewish leader Abraham Lehrer called on the Vatican to open up its war time archives so the world can understand the controversy surrounding the Pope at that time, Pius XII, who many claim turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out against Jews.

"You grew up in Germany during a terrible time," Lehrer said. "We not only see in you the head of the Catholic Church but also a German who is aware of his historical responsibility."

Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth at a time when membership was compulsory.

"On her lower arm you can see the number with which she was tattooed in the concentration camp,” Lehrer said referring to his elderly mother. “In 1944 in Auschwitz she had neither the strength nor the power of imagination to think that one day in 2005 her son would officially greet the Pope in a Cologne synagogue."

Taken from - [[http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050819-012/page.asp]]

*I'm convinced, but I wonder how we could word this into the article. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To explain my reverts:
I'm not opposed to including this but only against including this detail over against all the other stuff left out - both from the synagoge visit as from the Muslim talk as from the WYD, which after all was the prime event of the visit. If we can elaborate more on all these points wihout inflating the article (after all, there will be more journeys in the future), then I'd agree. Otherwise, I'm afraid, it looks like pet issue pushing to me.
[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::Leave it where I put it , as there it will cause less heartache that where it should be , which is in an analysis of the outstanding issue . I resent Str's suggesting I'm dishonest in his editing description . I'm pleased you seem saner . This was reported throughout Europe, and only the heads listening to bad music in a mudless field didnt get the message . Abraham Lehrer made this come to everyone's attention . I tell the bosses again, listen up or get it worse later. Do yourselves a favour and come clean . No one says old Pius XII wasn't devoted to all knds of good and holiness, but that equally doesn't mean he didn't break the [[magisterium]] . Str and his ilk are close to actual contumate sin here in this cover-up policy and will have to answer to their Christ when they do fly out of the mud . They know what to do , as you should if you have read the canonical discussion Str dragged out of me . It is quite plain - the canonical offence was such that they (pius XI, XII and Prelate [[Ludwig Kaas]] and the catholic [[Franz von Papen]] , (and indeed it would seem most of the German hierarchy )all excommunicated themselves . [[Canon Law]] stipulates that the two pontiffs must be dug up and removed from their presence under St. Peter's Basilica , where they are destroying the truth of Jesus . There is no forgiveness for this heresy under [[latae sententiae]] , only repair of the scandal by acknowledgement , and removal from the sanctum a.s.a.p . Leave it where it is , which is where it is true : BXVI's Apostolic mission'''is''' to repair the scandal : ''romans 3, 8 - thou shalt not do evil to achieve a good '' is the [[magisterium]] . This Str- is being rude to the survivors of the [[Holocaust]] what you have added on this page . I'm deeply revolted old fellow. It is outrageous ad hominem and outrageous morality - you evidently didn't learn any contrition on the banks of that slimy river . [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

:::The only reasonable thing I could suggest is perhaps having a paragraph about the World Youth Day and this meeting in a summary paragraph, then fork the article where this is discussed in it's entirity. While trying to call people sinners for trying to do what you say is considered a personal attack and we do not allow those on Wikipedia at all. The issue is important, but I believe we should report on what was made in the press. While, I admit, I have not heard about this at all in the States, it might have been heavily covered in Europe or in Germany, where WYD took place. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm quite astonished. I provided a reasonable argument (and no ad hominem) for my reverts. But Mr FK answers with a diatribe of his wrong canonical reasoning (including his - dare I repeat it - impious calling for digging up graves (this should be only taken referring to this "request")), dipping into issue of a religion he himself - as he said - has no part in, complaints about alleged personal attacks (when in fact I said nothing of the kind), complaints about alleged rudeness to Shoa survivors/victims (when in fact he was minimising somewhere else the importance of Jews as victims).
:::As for the word "pet issue pushing" - it is true that FK has basically posted two things on WP:
:::1) his "Church is the culprit of Nazism" and
:::2) Spanish four-letter words (only recently)
:::As for the press. I have not heard of this in Germany (but I was only one of these "heads listening to bad music in a mudless field" that "didnt get the message")
:::Judging from a quick internet search of leading German papers, I find nothing on that: "Spiegel" (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,370478,00.html) doesn't have it (and their Church-hatred is well known), the FAZ (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub21DD40806F8345FAA42A456821D3EDFF/Doc~E1B5457BA5AE74A7C909B9AED0F1576EE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html) doesn't have it and the "Welt" (http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/19/762344.html) does quote Mr Lehrer but without including the statement in question.
:::That doesn't mean that he didn't say it. On the contrary I think he said it but I guess it was one sentence in a longer speech which included the request as well as positive evaluations of initiatives of reconcoliation. Hence, a reference exclusively to this one sentence is giving a wrong picuture of the whole occasion. Hence my complaints.
:::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::I only posted an RfC against [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that [[Pope Pius XI]] and [[Pope Pius XII]] be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::::::See below.[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

::::Hm....and I have heard of Spiegel before...and it seems it was not covered much inside Germany. But, if this is a true debate, a true issue, we have to present it somehow in a NPOV way and without bringing in original research. We, should not, discuss of what should happen, we should discuss on what actually happened. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 23:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::: I have to explain-im sorry about the length.... Frankly the insult and lack of good faith in this particular discussion began with the tag "if it's true" . But you will note that Str did not post into the discussion at all to justify his removal , has now re-removed something of world importance (hence the reporting ) and continues in the ad hominem attack on my good faith . I have always found this editor to be damantly trying to claim that all sources I use , I misinterpret, even when I quote verbatim, he knows that I find it more ridiculous than he does to continue revert war . The fact is that in the WP situation , where users do not know one another, that people who adfhere to a faith obviously can stand together. he would get Robert mcClenon in here behind him , and they'd together grind me down. You will note that my editing of this is done in good faith, using sources , but that nevertheless protection of the Church is far more important than truth . I have been outraged on many occasions , and Str will seem to be reasonable , only to surreptitiously revert (as does McClenon , and I advise you zscout to follow the discussion on his Rfc ). Hitherto I have not found someone with the balls to help me save the WP from these insidious edits , not even jimbo himself, tho that is understandable . In this present case however you will see that no interjection is justifiable because Str finds a clear logical reasoning : this is a minor detail , on a par with nonsense or whatever said to the other faiths , therefore he can claim the right to remove . However of course neither of the other faiths he mentions come near to having this clear beef that they stood out for a demand . Hence it is not the same .

::::I feel you in America should know these things, this thing . Just because Str , who acts as a filter against trouble for the Catholic Church , does not know it does not make me a liar pushing a pet issue . I push this issue , as he calls it, because I have found a very complete set of corroboration for the general thesis of collaboration by these popes with [[Nazism]] . Str didn't exist until I began posting these facts on the WP , and has only appeared to relieve the resulting pressure . I suppose that If I ask you Str if you actually are a priest , you would be bound not to return a denial . I have asked you if you are paid to do this censoring , and you denied that , but I believe priests are paid well , and so I suppose you couldn't have denied the truth then... I have accused you blatantly of acting as an agent of the vatican by your continuous defence in this argument . I note that you have never denied being an agent of the vatican despite these accusations . I am still amazed at the manner in which you (and now McClenon too) have constantly rubbished historians I have quoted-and I dont mean [[John Cornwell]] but Shirer and Wheeler-Bennett and Toland and Klemperer . You are as much of an outrage to me as I evidently am to you .

:::::As for my appearance. I first signed in (I edited some stuff before that) after our current Pope was elected, and contributed a bit to his article. I had never heard of you, or looked into Pius XII or Centre party, when some barely comprehensible comment, unrelated to Benedict, appeared on this talk page. That was your "Question of the Law", cross-posted everywhere. This annoyed me and I reacted to this post and had a look into Kaas, Centre, Pius XII, Brüning. Which got you shouting.
:::::Also it is not true that I have only posted on Pius-related articles. I've had a hand in Abortion etc, Merovingians, German Monarchs etc and more - well you can see for yourself on my contributions list.
:::::Good day, Mr FK.

::::I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on : this '''is''' the pontifical battle against liberalism , here , now , on the [[Wikipedia]] , and just try taking a look at the way the various articles were before I came along . I am hounded outrageously by this man , pretty much off the WP , which is why I appealed to Jimbo . Now as far as I know Zscout, you are another such bent user-I do '''very much hope not''' . If you are not you will be happy to hear that , given your sanity as a rationally motivated editor , that I will be happy for this detail so called to be inserted somewhere else on the page . However as this is only the second (as I think this reference to st Peter's synagogue visit is stupid given that Jesus was in and out of them all the time) -only the second visit by a pontiff in 2000 years, and the president of the synagogue demands view of secretive archives held by this upstart faith concerning it's culpability against the earlier faith- I consider this rather more than a detail and thereby completely worthy in our secular world of inclusion upon the WP . Now don't you, Zscout? And if you do will you revert this user's flagrant action here and now prior to positioning elsewhere in the article. see where you get on that-please try for the love of justice. Again I am forced to rant and filibuster so called to justify a short but awkward truth . I am totally alone in this , and were it possible for me to be completely erased , I would be so erased . howver fortunately the evidence of erasure remains. the Church is well aware of the Wiki software dangert, but they are stymied by this last capacity . My pet issue is that as yet I have not rolled over and succumbed . Look at Jimbo's discussion page to understand the full import of this , in fact remind him that I'm still getting beaten up down here in his frontline trenches . Please, Zscout , be a human being and help me just on this one revert which would take you 2 minutes. '''Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me''' Please understand that what is labelled my pet issue is none other than why members of all our families died- that I ma putting the history straight , and that I have always sourced correctly- I stand by every source, even the canonicalone's , and yes , the church in the person of str are trying to block these sources from history. Not research but in the library, in the schools , evreywhere , but not allowed here in public and easily google-able . '''Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me''' .....[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

::::No, FK, the synagogue president did not push your issue. He does not go around Cologne's streets shouting this sentence, like you do with your issue on WP. He just made this one remark in the context of a longer speech which included many other things. But you pick this one and include it into an article. This is what I call pet pushing.

:::::Come off it- no Jewish leader ever did this to a pontiff before-didn't partly have a chance , did it because the pontiff is a german pontiff, served in the war , albeit as a boy. He's no boy now, he's ex-commander of the [[Inquisition]] or [[CDF]] , he knows the truth . You are wrong- this was a most shocking confrontation , a huge embarrassment , and one that opens the crack in the door that very much publicly wider . Tell your priest-if you need one , to call for rectification of the scandal, as that is the only salvation for the pontiff . But NO ! You can't because this stupid infallibility issue boxes you in and you cannot admit to error . No wonder Pius XII used infallibility- he knew the code, knew he was sunk spiritu-canonically , and knew that thereafter never could he be divested of his contumate error . But it is bad for christians , bad for the church , bad for christ .

::::Your argument based on my one remark "if" is quite overblown.
::::I haven't argued ad hominem. But you again are in danger of falling back into including me into your conspiracy fantasies. Please stop this before it's too late.

:That in itself is ad hominem, [[Abraham Lehrer]] asked for the archives to be open to uncover the full story . Too late for what do you mean - is that a threat . I may tell you that I have posted insurance .

::::And also please spare Zscout your condesenscion ("I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on"). I think he's old enough to think for themselves like many other editors. Why is it that hardly anyone complained about my edits in these pages and mostly any issues could be settled quickly.
::::But I must warn Zscout as well. FK means business. If you don't agree with him on the last tittle of his edit, you will suffer the fate of Robert McClenon, who came in into our discussion as leaning towards FK's side but had to endure distrust and abuse from FK.
::::Again, FK, please respond to my argument I made four times (twice as edit summary, twice on this talk page) - do not hide behind conspiracy fantasies.
::::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::I answered that below-it aint a detail like you claim , that's why its plastered all over the shop as my sources showed . It was widely reported because of a) the visit and b) the demand for Church [[glasnost]].

That should read "Church is the culprit '''for''' nazism", actually . And Church no , nor church which with small c means the flock . Church means the bosses. And within the bosses there are two factions , vatican 2 and the traditionalists referred to as being pyramidal :this is the faction of JPII and now BXVI, who are going to destroy the church with adherence to infallibility and monarchical structure. Perhaps I should let them go ahead un-molested?
.....[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

:Let me get this straight....you want my help but call me a bent user at the same time. No way you are getting my help. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::Thats an easy way out for you , I said '''if''' you are a bent user , then you wouldnt help. Easy way out then, though surely you have a conscience . Never mind , you didnt help hitherto , so why would you now ? Good is as good does , good faith is as good faith does . [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

::I didn't mean to sound condescending- Zscout hasn't been in this huge loop of discourse you and I have fought in. If you have taken me as assuming you are bent, well I also capitalised that I very much hoped not . it doesnt seem like you want to take this as eriously as the media who reported it, or the president of the synagogue . you probably think I write too much too. I did it in good faith , but evidently it is not wise. Too many words , but its a cop out really innit , uh ? Never mind , all will be revealed in time , and if you don't touch me , you won't catch the disease so quick . Dis-ease .[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

FK, how about - just for a start - let me go unmolested. Then maybe you can let all Catholics go unmolested and stop calling for our "control". Also please stop covering this by false distinctions, which are not even true in the English language despite the prevalent "capitalisation" issues. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::Let you go where- of course you are very exhausted. But you are also very busy on WP rectifying the scheme of things . Must have been a long flight or something . Sorry I try to help you with the language , won't again. But let you go where- No !- because I ,who am just an unwashed, unbaptised member of this species wish to help you poor misguided one's , whose very fabric has been torn by your leaders . C'mon Str no one doubts in history what I write , what I write is what they have already doubted. You can get some rest , but its still you and me . I get more use out of you on the WP than trying to bleat about removing you . You might get sacked by the faith at this rate for being incapable of the argument and making a fool of the faith , by not succeeding in YOUR overturning of history . The magisterium lies in ruins here, and you want also to leave the history in ruins . All that is happening is that just like the WP, history does not forget . [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

::I end by explaining that this argument is here purely because of the revolution epitomised by the Wikipedia and the internet . Eventually everything will be known and understood and forgiven , and then we will all be better off . Wars which create so much real suffering will hopefully not suck in us poor souls, and we shall join with the Cherubim and the Seraphim , with the spirit in this Earth and with the Trees and with the Fishes and the Animals and with the Insects and the Birds , we the Mankind shall rejoin the station of all life in a great disembodied freedom .-St Thomas . It could be Nuclear War , so if you fear this freedom , pay good attention to history , and get you glasnost quick . I who represent the side of secularism , call like the Pope should, that we should repent . He who claims this leadership , should repent first . [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 01:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::No, FK. It is not true that "no one in history" (I guess you mean in the field of history) what you write. I guess you would even have a hard time finding many who would agree with you. Probably you would shout at them as you did at Robert or Zscout.
::The magisterium cannot be shattered by anyone not following it. That has happened countless times before.
::I don't mind you bringing up capitalisation issues for the article text, since it is supposed to be clear English. (However, standards at talk pages are more lenient), though I don't like the whole thing. But it's part of the language. There are things I don't like about the German language too (e.g. the third person "Sie" as a formal address over against second person "vous" or "you" in French or English resp.), but I have to bear with it. My complaint here was that your claimed distinction does not exist. The actually one is: "Church" = the Church = RC Church (or Church of England) vs. "church" = a church.
::I prefer New Heaven and New Earth to disembodiment, but never mind.
::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::It ia nice (ie small or fine) difference as in the difference between Catholic and catholic . Catholic relates to the official teaching say , and catholic to someone who follows that as best they can . The Church relates to the formal hierarchical body , and church relates to the body of following faithful . The vatican as it relates to an area is a small v , but as it relates to the orders emanating from the Hoy See , then V. All of this pales in importance compared to sticking with or sundering ''romans 3,8'' .[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]]

:::Mr FK, I appreciate your capitalisation efforts, but what you write is not true.
:::"Catholic" refers to Roman Catholic, whereas "catholic" is the word in the literal meaning: universal, as it is used by non-German Protestants using the Nicean creed or the Anglican Church, or to catholics outside of the Roman church, e.g. Anglo catholics.
:::The "Church" is referring to one specific body, mostly the RCC, sometimes the particular state church (England, Sweden, Scotland (but that'd be Kirk), or maybe the Church in general that Protestants consider to be invisible. "church" however means "a church", either a body or a building.
:::I don't know about this regarding Vatican vs vatican. A native speaker could help.
:::Anyway, this is only an issue in regard to the English language (and sometimes taken to absurd extremes, e.g. "Truth" vs. "truth"). A native speaker could help to clear the last one up. Of course you are right that this pales in regard to other issues, no matter how we see them. That was my point from the beginning: I don't want to argue about capitalisation.
:::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 12:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::::The word "Vatican" is a proper noun referring to a palace in the Vatican City, and therefore is used as a figure of speech for the papal bureaucracy that has its headquarters there. Proper nouns are capitalized in English. No amount of attempting to argue that "vatican" is ever correct will make it correct. Since [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] cites Cornwell, who is [[English]] and a native speaker of the [[English language]], I challenge him to find a single use of "vatican" in anything written by Cornwell. On this point, as on most points of capitalization, there is no difference between [[British English]] and [[American English]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] 12:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

==Words to avoid: ''claim''==
I just noticed a revert for ''claim''. This bit of POV is covered in the Wikipedia: ''how to'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#.22Claim.22 Words to avoid].

If you can cite evidence that there is reason to believe that Pope Benedict XVI has lied about his lack of Nazi fervor, it could validate the use of the word "claim", otherwise it doesn't belong. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Is this post intended to help the editors in their discussion on how to improve the article on Pope Benedict XVI? [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] [[User talk:Ann Heneghan |<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::Personally, whatever those popes have done is not going to reflect on Benedict at all. Plus, most of the papal papers and notes are usually burned after the pope dies. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

:::This post was intended to justify reference within the article to the concerns expressed in the Cologne Synagogue . I am quite sure that any ayyempt by me to insert such , will be jumped upon , therefore I post also to explain to interested editors and readers that the situation exists '''in reality''' . I am still most disturbed by the un-academic defensive faith editing of all these pages , and I refer to my qualification of a certain user's actions against the [[Hitler's Pope]] article . User Zscout could be right , however he could be wrong , given the close involovement with Cardinal Ratzinger throughout the beatification process for Pius XII . Zscout is right that personal papers are burnt(though BXVI took it upon himself not to accede to [[Pope John Paul II]]'s express will that this be done ).

==Excommunication , Loss of burial right etc==

I am required by user McClenon in the second Synagogue section above to explain the law pertaining to sanctified burial rights of the figures who (history notes) desired the empowerment of [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[1932]] and [[1933]] . I have dealt with this under talk section "canonical Law" for [[Hitler's Pope]] , however let me try and clarify more simply . I refer here to the guide published at [[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm]] . Readers should pay particular attention to sections (2), (3) and (4) under "Kinds of excommunication".

To try and be short (2) :''Excommunication is either ''a jure'' (by law) or ''ab homine'' (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication.'' . The crime was to have contumately broken the injunction of ''Romans, 3,8 ...which forbids any truck with evil to promote a good . This being a part of the [[magisterium]] .

(3)''Excommunication, especially ''a jure'', is either ''latæ'' or ''ferendæ sententiæ''. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge ; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]"'' .

(4)''Excommunication ''ferendæ sententiæ'' can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication ''latæ sententiæ'' may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. '''On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one.''' The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. '''The practical difference is very important'''. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), "a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty". Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum.''

In determination of the sanctified burial section (5) relates : ''Public excommunication in ''foro externo'' has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (''vitandi'') or tolerated (''tolerati''). However this case is as in section (2) ''a jure'' , by the law and (3) ''latae sententiae'' , by reason of the offence against the law , and resting in the ''forum internum'' .

''Apropos'' burial and absolution part (IV) "Who can be excommunicated" states ''As the baptized cease, at death, to belong to the Church Militant, the dead cannot be excommunicated. Of course, strictly speaking, after the demise of a Christian person, it may be officially declared that such person incurred excommunication during his lifetime. Quite in the same sense he may be absolved after his death; indeed, the Roman Ritual contains the rite for absolving an excommunicated person already dead (Tit. III, cap. iv: Ritus absolvendi excommunicatum jam mortuum).'' This gives some hope against the necessity of re-burial but ''it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Just as exile presupposes a crime, excommunication presupposes a grievous external fault. Not only would it be wrong for a Christian to be punished without having committed a punishable act, but justice demands a proportion between the offence and the penalty; hence the most serious of spiritual chastisements, i.e. forfeiture of all the privileges common to Christians, is inconceivable unless for a grave fault'' .
Yet ''Note, however, that by external fault is not necessarily meant a public one; an occult external fault calls forth occult excommunication, but in foro interno, as already seen.''

Lastly ''Considered from a moral and juridical standpoint, the guilt requisite for the incurring of excommunication implies, first, the full use of reason; second sufficient moral liberty; finally, a knowledge of the law and even of the penalty. Where such knowledge is lacking, there is no contumacy, i.e. no contempt of ecclesiastical law, the essence of which consists in performing an action known to be forbidden, and forbidden under a certain penalty. The prohibition and the penalty are known either through the text of the law itself, which is equivalent to a juridical warning, or through admonitions or proclamations issued expressly by the ecclesiastical judge'', which relates clearly to the text ''romans 3,8'' .

'''I was earlier asked by user McClenon to determine whether this was a '''grave''' fault (sin ?)''' , or what . One can understand why he asked . My assumption- my first - is that the contumate overturning of the biblical injunction could not be more grave , as it strikes at the heart of the christian magisterium . I enumerated the definitions of guilt concerning circumstances and contumacy previously . There does not appear to be any extenuation whatever .

''If we consider only its nature, excommunication has no degrees: it simply deprives clerics and laymen of all their rights in Christian society, which total effect takes on a visible shape in details proportionate in number to the rights or advantages of which the excommunicated cleric or layman has been deprived. The effects of excommunication must, however, be considered in relation also to the rest of the faithful. From this point of view arise certain differences according to the various classes of excommunicated persons. These differences were not introduced out of regard for the excommunicated, rather for the sake of the faithful. The latter would suffer serious inconveniences if the nullity of all acts performed by excommunicated clerics were rigidly maintained. They would also be exposed to grievous perplexities of conscience if they were strictly obliged to avoid all intercourse, even profane, with the excommunicated. Hence the practical rule for interpreting the effects of excommunication: severity as regards the excommunicated, but mildness for the faithful. We may now proceed to enumerate the immediate effects of excommunication. They are summed up in the two well known verses:''

::''Res sacræ, ritus, communio, crypta, potestas,
prædia sacra, forum, civilia jura vetantur,''

''i.e. loss of the sacraments, public services and prayers of the Church, ecclesiastical burial, jurisdiction, benefices, canonical rights, and social intercourse.''

(4) Crypta

''This word signifies ecclesiastical burial, of which the excommunicated are deprived. In chapter xii, de sepulturis (lib. III, tit. xxviii), Innocent III says: "The canons have established that we should not hold communion after their death with those with whom we did not communicate during their lifetime, and that all those should be deprived of ecclesiastical burial who were separated from the unity of the Church, and at the moment of death were not reconciled thereunto." The Ritual (tit. VI, cap. ii, n. 2) renews this prohibition for those publicly excommunicated, and most writers interpret this as meaning those whose excommunication has been publicly proclaimed (Many, De locis sacris, p. 354), so that, under this head, the ancient discipline is no longer applicable, except to the vitandi. However this does not mean that the tolerati can always receive ecclesiastical burial; they may be deprived of it for other reasons, e.g. as heretics or public sinners. Apropos of this leniency, it must be remembered that it is not the excommunicated the Church wishes to favour, but rather the faithful for whose sake communion with the tolerati is allowed in the matter of burial as well as in other matters. The interment of a toleratus in a consecrated cemetery carries with it no longer the desecration of said cemetery; this would follow, however, in the case of the vitandi. (See BURIAL.)''

We see a return here to the definition of ''vitandi'' and that Excommunication is not only External .

''In the first Christian centuries it is not always easy to distinguish between excommunication and penitential exclusion; to differentiate them satisfactorily we must await the decline of the institution of public penance and the well-defined separation between those things appertaining to the forum internum, or tribunal of conscience and the forum externum, or public ecclesiastical tribunal; nevertheless, the admission of a sinner to the performance of public penance was consequent on a previous genuine excommunication. On the other hand, formal exclusion from reception of the Eucharist and the other sacraments was only mitigated excommunication and identical with minor excommunication (see below). At any rate, in the first centuries excommunication is not regarded as a simple external measure; it reaches the soul and the conscience. It is not merely the severing of the outward bond which holds the individual to his place in the Church; it severs also the internal bond, and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven. It is the spiritual sword, the heaviest penalty that the Church can inflict (see the patristic texts quoted in the Decree of Gratian, cc. xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, C. xi, q. iii). Hence in the Bull "Exsurge Domine" (16 May, 1520) Leo X justly condemned Luther's twenty-third proposition according to which "excommunications are merely external punishments, nor do they deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church". Pius VI also condemned (Auctorem Fidei, 28 Aug., 1794) the forty-sixth proposition of the Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia, which maintained that the effect of excommunication is only exterior because of its own nature it excludes only from exterior communion with the Church, as if, said the pope, excommunication were not a spiritual penalty binding in heaven and affecting souls. The aforesaid proposition was therefore condemned as false, pernicious, already reprobated in the twenty-third proposition of Luther, and, to say the least, erroneous. Undoubtedly the Church cannot (nor does it wish to) oppose any obstacle to the internal relations of the soul with God; she even implores God to give the grace of repentance to the excommunicated. '''The rites of the Church, nevertheless, are always the providential and regular channel through which Divine grace is conveyed to Christians; exclusion from such rites, especially from the sacraments, entails therefore regularly the privation of this grace, to whose sources the excommunicated person has no longer access.'''''

I do not see that abbreviation of law adds to it's understanding . I hope this clarifies the law , and claim this transcription necessary for educational fair use purposes ( the good of the Catholic Church and of its faithful ) and fully acknowledge the authorship of the italicised excerpts from A.BOUDINHON (transcribed by Douglas J. Potter) who dedicated this to the ''Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ'' , from , again , [[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm]]

[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 11:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

FK, two things:
*Even if excommunicated people are not buried that doesn't mean that they are dug up again if they are posthumously found out to have been excommunicated.
*You have not proved at all that the people in question were excommunicated during their life time.
[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:This user is being disingenuous . You know Str that is not what the text relates , you knew before , you know anyway because you were clearly aware of all the relevant law even before I came along to reveal it. No one '''was excommunicated''' , no one can be excommunicated after death . The law clearly states that ipso eo, they excommunicated themselves at breaking ''romans 3,8''. As [[Ludwig Kaas]] did when he chose to lose the [[Centre Party]]'s and his soul (by his own words that you published) and as Pius XI did by approving Hitler to von Papen etc . '''Please''' do not be disingenuous in this serious matter . The bottom line is ''a jure, latae sententiae'' excommunication .[[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 08:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

==Political Reasons for Excommunication==

::No, [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] is not being disingenuous. He is simply stating that [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] has not proved any of the allegations that he is making about excommunication. Merely being able to shout louder than one's critics does not prove a case. [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] has not proved ''any'' of the assertions that he has made, whether it is that any of the priests in question violated Romans 3:8 or that they violated any particular canon. Everything that [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] has to do with intent, and with what they expected would be the results of their actions. [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] has done a good job of providing historical timelines of facts that no one disputes, but the sequence of events does not prove causation, let alone intent. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] 11:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In terms of proof the only thing that I , FK , have noted which is not widely known and reported upon comes from the memoirs of [[Edgar Ansel Mowrer]] , an american foreign correspondent in Berlin , removed by [[Hitler]] as almost his first demand after the industrialists and right-wing handed him the chancellorship on January 30 th [[1933]] . I include it at the bottom (please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope/Archive1
to read it), as it predates these relevant timeline suggestions towards proof by a year, into [[1932]] and heavily implicates those that McClenon arfully calls "these [[priest]]s" . I have equally sourced other writers from the early nineteen thirties .

A reader might note that having centred on the bizarre nature of [[canon]]ical law being my personal gambit , user McClenon now resorts to further claims which he cannot support . I refer readers again to their standard historical texts , all of which point to the central issue here enumerated . I refer readers to all my attempts at reasoning which I have undertaken at such great length . This vast length has been required purely because throughout my attempts at clarifying the history , two particular users have constrained me by constant disingenuous reverts . As has happened on this page , in respect of the [[Cologne Synagogue]] leader's demand . Therefore the record needs to be put straight . Until the letter referred to by Mowrer is produced , or the [[vatican archives]] are opened , as [[Abraham Lehrer]] demanded , we can only take a reasoned attitude towards all this, as well as hoping that a contrition for this vast mistake might now be forthcoming from this new [[German]] [[pontiff]] .

These are the apparent historical facts as known . I have dealt with [[canon law]] in relation also to political interference and moral order , see discussions following on my "[[Question of the Law]] in discussion pages (which apologists have not succeeded in banning me from ) relevant to the [[ecclesiatic]]s Kaas and Pius XII , and previously on this page and Benedict XVI Theology . [[Judge]] for yourselves if you do not feel you should know what was done , and whether or not the 2/3 majority for [[dictatorship]] and was not achieved through this connivance against atheistic [[Communism]] . Then reckon the body count resulting from the approbation and assistance given to the illegal Hitler [[Coup D'Etat]] . The count is circa 60,000,000 souls /bodies of pain and grief .

*a parallel apparent barter or ''quid pro quo'' of interests during Febuary-July 1933 between the [[Holy See]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] ;

* the personal representation of ''both'' those interests carried personally between [[Berlin]] and [[Rome]] by [[Monsignor]] [[Ludwig Kaas]] ;

* 'Working committee' meetings including [[Ludwig Kaas]] and Adolf Hitler from 16th March onwards ;

* 20 th March negotiations on-going between Hitler and [[Centre Party]] leaders , Kaas ,Stegerwald and Hackelsburger;

*Hitler snubs Catholic services at the 21 March official [[Reichstag]] opening day ,with a communique referring to the Hierarchy'' qualification of Nazis as unfit for the [[sacrement]]s ;

* the 21 st March illegal arrest of Communist [[parliament]]arians ;

* the collapse on 22nd March of the moral stance of the Catholic [[Centre Party Germany]] against Hitler consequent on promises made by Hitler to preserve aspects of [[Catholicism]] ;

* the vote of the Catholic Parties' altogether 15% [[representation]] by leader Ludwig Kaas providing ''en bloc'' the crucial 2/3 vote for the 23 March 1933 [[Enabling Act]] (of dictatorship by Hitler ) ;

* the u-turn reference to peaceful relations with Catholicism in Hitler's speech of 23rd march ;

*the immediate reporting of Kaas to Rome on 24 th March ;

*the close longstanding relations between Kaas and the Holy See's [foreign] Secretary of State , and future [[Pope Pius XII]] Cardinal Pacelli ;

*the return of the still Centre leader Kaas on 31 March for a private meeting with Adolf Hitler , of 2 April ;

* the fact that by this time such a private meeting with Hitler by a non-[[Nazi]] was remarkable ;

* the surreptitious meeting of Kaas in [[Munich]] with the then [[German]] [[Foreign Minister]] [[Franz von Papen]] ( hidden by Papen) on 8th April ;

* the journeying together to the vatican of 9th April secretively ( from the German [[press]]) ;

* the prior reception by [[Pacelli]] of Centre Party leader Kaas ;

*following Papen's 10th April interview with Pacelli , the 10 th April [[Pope Pius XI]] approbation of Hitler as a leader " uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and [[Russian]] [[nihilism]] in all its forms" to the Nazi minister [[Hermann Goering]] and Papen , undertaken with great honour ;

*the immediate revelation of this honour in the [[Italian]] press suggesting [[Concordat]] with Germany ([[Reichskonkordat]] ) forthwith ;

* the 15 th April Kaas and Papen meeting with Pacelli finalising that now ex- Centre leader(resigned) Kaas will draft the Holy See's Concordat ;

* the 18th April meeting between Pacelli and the pontiff concerning the Concordat ;

* the 20th April assurance by Ludwig Kaas in a birthday [[telegram]] to Hitler from the vatican , widely published in Germany expressing "unflinching co-operation" ;

* the statement on 26th April by Hitler to two representatives of the Catholic German Hierarchy that he is only going to do with the [[Jew]]s that which the [[Church of Rome]] had been trying to do without success for over 1,500 years ;

[[Timeline]]s include many more revelatory references , pronouncements , arrests of many [[priest]]s , complaints by the [[Hierarchy]] , yet on 2nd July 1933 final agreement on the Concordat is reached as Papen reports because: Pius XI "had insisted on the conclusion of the Concordat because he wanted to come to an agreement with [[Italy]] and [[Germany]] as the countries which, in his opinion, represented the nucleus of the [[Christian]] [[world]]."

The last relevant reference in timelines is to July 3 -Papen cables German foreign minister [[Konstantin von Neurath]], "In the discussions which I had with Pacelli, Archbishop Groeber, and [[Kaas]] this evening, it developed that with the conclusion of the Concordat, the dissolution of the Center Party is regarded here as certain and is approved." [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 20:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, dear reader, that FK rightly says "in terms of proof the '''only''' thing that I , FK , have noted" - it is the only real evidence he has given and it does not necessarily prove his conspiracy theory. It also fits the standard historical narrative included in the pages on [[Centre Party (Germany)] and [[Ludwig Kaas]], so there's not need to develop a conspiracy theory, unless in order to smear. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 09:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

==Memoria e Identida , the Holocaust and democracy (23 febuary 2005==

In answer to the calumnies thrown at me by the apologist editor Str1977 I insert the origin of my personal dis-ease with the present Holy See's shocking hypocrisy in the above matter . I go so far as to say that as a confessed catholic this editor is in as much danger for his soul as the ecclesiatics who traduced the good news of Jesus Christ . I do not resent the constant mis-use of my time brought on by his and Robert McClenon's persistently disingenuous reversion of factual report , but I am forced into this constant repetition . This is a major problem of honesty upon the [[Wikipedia]] . I have grown fond of the first accuser , and very often congratulate him on the assisduity of his apologetics. However it is quite unreasonable to expect me to re-iterate this ad infinitum , and is the purest demonstration of that which I have always recognised, and which I have brought to the founder [[Jimbo Wales]]'s notice-which is the infiltration of the WP by purely faith - based editors. Fortunately they are so far not of a high enough calibre to cause the history to be shaken . Nevertheless they are disgraceful , and were it not for the use they provide (in encouraging the riposte of reason against misused faith) , I should wish them to be excommunicated from the Wikipedia . Anyone who cares about the future of the world should recognise that the reason that I represent , must not surrender to this twisting of the good and the true . I therefore make no apology for my presence . Now hear this :
:The Pope has released a new book called 'Memoria e Identida' wherein he has raised the most serious controversy concerning the failure of democracy when in 1933 , the German Parliament voted the [[Enabling Act]] and gave [[Adolf Hitler]] his dictatorial powers . John Paul II has further likened this democratic sanction of evil to that of legalised abortion and further equated the evil of the resulting [[Holocaust]] with what women do with their own bodies . Apart from being casuistic & extremely offensive to sufferers of that evil , this shows a worrying reluctance by papal authority to take recognisance of its own involvement with that self-same abandonment by [[Democracy]] of itself . The facts as related on the [[Pope Pius XII]] wiki page(the [[Concordat]]) should have caused a righteous concern inside the [[Vatican]] . This argument in this book whilst directed against the very concerning issue of abortion , will nevertheless serve the other virtuous purpose of again raising the involvement of the Vatican in incontrovertible conspiracy which of itself resulted in the greatest human destruction yet witnessed on this earth . The papacy should clean its own stables thoroughly or suffer a growing clamour for repentance for its own direct culpability in that subversion of democracy , and remove unto itself it's own part of that opprobrium which is thereby generalised upon the German people . The part the Vatican played effectively tipped the balance in this subversion and this is one of the greatest errors that the church could have committed and it's reluctance to face up to it reveals that it itself recognises this . The vatican was of course playing a long-game against the [[Soviet]] threat and whilst it could with John Paul II be said to have finally won , it's coldness at sacrificing the safety of the Jews in particular , but everyone in the end , reveals clearly the extreme calculation that the Lambs of Jesus take unto his cause . The Wiki itself shows that humanity desires openness and clarity and that churches all must come cleanly into a future light or perish as institutions .These are facts requiring admittance or contestation. It is untrue and diminuishes them to say these "criticisms" are well-known . 'They' are not criticisms of this Pope anyway and the timeline of papal intervention as known to the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation's Holocaust timeline has been extended on the Wikipedia by one year back to 1932 . Please help , not hinder , truth . This book is claiming a corruption of democracy CAUSED by the Vatican as the prime example of the fallibility of democracy . This is much worse than an attack on democracy in a book and should be discussed in full because it is a subject for worldwide interest. [[User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 21:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:Fine. I cannot wait for you to stop spamming and flooding this talk page with your POVs and original research. [[User:83.109.142.197|83.109.142.197]] 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:48, 4 December 2021

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

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

This archive covers from 15 July to 29 August.

Sins of the fathers visited unto the generations following

Can someone point me to the theology under this concept ? I look to see the Biblical roots : how this relates to the Jewish faith , to Christian anti-semitism and to absorbtion (if it was or if it was not not ?) into Islam....Famekeeper 08:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should be replying to this, who knows what you are planning now, but hoping for Good faith I will anyway.
Look at Exodus 20, 5-6 (or parallel Deuteronomium 5,9-10)
Please take to include the second verse as well.
Also note, that in the first verse "pursue" doesn't mean "punish children for their father's crimes", but more "check whether the children are following the sins of their fathers and if they do, punish them". It's sort of a divine parole, stretching over some generations.
it's certainly part of the brothers Judaism and Christianity, as they share the OT, but I don't know what Islam says about this all.

Your reference to anti-Semitism is probably inspired by the often abused quote from Matthew 27,25. This verse has been used against the Jews in history, notwithstanding that not all Jews or their ancestors were present at that occasion. And anyway, anti-Semitism (including non-racial) goes against the basic principles of Christianity. Somewhere recently I have read the interesting interpretation, that the verse originally was referring to the Jews eventually accepting Jesus as the Messiah, hence bringing his (redeeming) blood on them - but for their salvation not their demise. This would of course been a thought in the Evangelist's mind, not in the mind of the actual speakers, but there is another example of such an "unintentional prophecy" (look John 11,50-51).

Str1977 11:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, my refrence is to the barrage of allegations in historians . You are hoever a great fund and as I explained earlier , your contrary position allows for a more complete airing of the issues . Don't let that be the reason for ever with-drawing . There's an old scots saying " Ye propose , and aye'll (?) contravaert " . We certainly have that . When someone brings the case , you'll happily put it into the BXVI article , I guess . But will you yourself take the case , as you are a christian and require the proof against doubt , against the historians allegations , against what you call the 50 year calumny . I ask you again , will you take a suit and if not , why not ?Famekeeper 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up a bit here, Exodus 34:7 quotes who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the sin of fathers on the sons, and on the sons of sons, to the third and to the fourth generation. which is fairly well-known, and is echoed in Jeremiah 32:17 You show loving-kindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their sons after them. Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his sons, because of the iniquity of their fathers, so that they do not rise.

Contradicting that stance are Ezekiel 18's Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all My statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. and Jeremiah 31's In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity: every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. -Sherurcij 19:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou-I'm most interested in this .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sherurcij gave the long story to the synthesis I gave above. Str1977 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Crown Copyiright

Good news folks, I found two photos from the Governor General of Canada's website: http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_01_e.asp and http://www.gg.ca/media/photos/2005/20050424_02_e.asp. We can use these photos under the Crown Copyright. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

questionbable.Geni 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The result of the last Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pope Benedict XVI was 11 support votes, 8 objections plus 1 "mild objection" to the style "His Holiness" (which was decided to use by a vote). How are we going to interpret this? Is concensus necessary for featured status? Also, most of the objections were really not that logic.

We needed more support votes, plus the votes about stability are logical: one of the requirements that a Featured article must have is that the content will be relatively stable, that meaning it will not change completely from month to month. And with the Benedict XVI being a current leader, this will fail the stability requirements. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Anyone care to put in a reference to the Harry Potter article in view of Benedict's comments on the subject: or to the list I put under Coincidence (and which I see as having no particular historical significance).

Post it here, in the talk page first. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

All I know is that there were reported comments in the newspapers for the former point (trawl enough through the writings of any person in the news and you will find something that shows them as batty/adopting strange political and other positions etc). As for the second point, one of my interests is the European microstates on which I have collected assorted information. User:jackiespeel 16:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NB - there is a comment on the HP group of sites about BXVI's comments, so the reverse connection should be made.

Newsweek had some comments too, but from what I read, Benedict made the comments before his election to the Papacy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Women as preists

Based from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050726/lf_afp/canadavaticanreligion, Benedict does not want women to be ordained as priests. We need to follow this event and see what actions he takes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? Wouldn't it only be noteworthy if he allowed women to be priests? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, or this can be noted as an example of Benedict holding up the beliefs and policies of JP II. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Correct... perhaps just an example of the continuation of tradition, etc. from JPII and Benedict. More of the same, or something. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Here is a large number of beautiful pictures. Enjoy!

http://www.freeforumzone.com/viewdiscussioni.aspx?f=65482&idc=3

(it would be nice if we could use a couple of them as fair use)

IMHO, some can be claimed as PD, because some of the pictures were taken years and years ago. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. There is also a picture of Benedict as a little boy there.
I doubt it is pre 1928Geni 21:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Pope Benedict Mass of Installation.jpg

Bumper sticker

Have you seen this: http://www.papalshop.com/images/bsticker-lg.gif

It's cute :) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Benedict and Paparazzi

As "Pappa Razzi" is Benedict's occasional (and logical) nickname would someone care to include it in the text (and if not, this mention here will suffice))

When did this nickname come into play? Who first mentioned it? It is it widespread use? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


I think it was an Italian newspaper which first used the term, but it has also appeared in some British tabloid newspapers - coming from the film reference. Mentioned here mainly so there is a record of it being used from the beginning of his papacy - and in case it were to become sufficiently widely used to mention.

(When does a factoid become a useful fact?)

We got mentioned

Jimbo Wales cited our article in a annoucement about new editing rules: "Citing a recent example of vandalism, Wales recalled how following the election of the new Pope Benedict in April, a user substituted the pontiff's photo on the Wikipedia site with that of the evil emperor from the Star Wars film series.

"The picture was only on the page for a minute. But whoever opens the article at this moment will get annoyed – and therefore doubt our credibility," he told the paper." See http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/20050805-1259-media-wikipedia.html. I know it is over a situation we do not like, but hey, thats something. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was also on CNN. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am glad that we had users who reverted it quickly and admins who blocked quickly. While I am also glad the article has stablized on the past few months, I hope we do not face the same problems with the article on Michaelle Jean, the new Canadian Governor General. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What Does The "Question of The Law " Have to Do with Benedict XVI?

I fail to see what this dispute about analyses of events between 1933 and 1945 has to do with Pope Benedict XVI. It is relevant to Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII. Robert McClenon 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Boss man rap : Bill Dorich . Uh Famekeeper 18:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh: I'll Delete if u want me to , but let it remain in the archive what I say here : this posting referred to The Question of The Law : the posting was a compliance of civility : Corecticus is the uh best friend to Josellin & Roman Law . The posting is quartered elsewhere . Famekeeper 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You require me to dig into the issue of how any of this relates to the BXVI article . It relates because there is an unfortunate historical conundrum apparent throughout the Wikipedia pages relating to the Reichskonkordat or Concorde reached in 1933 and in force still today . The WP reports throughout its relevant pages , upon the rise , accession, seizure , election or otherwise to power of Adolf Hitler . All these pages are comimg up now in cyberspace , taken to be the history and thereby informing the world at large what the WP classes as history . Indeed part of that history relates to the Concorde present ,still , with Germany , and thus brings alive into the contemporary arena that which is historical , or reported as historical - as well as that which is currently the province of BXVI . Repair to the portayal of history therefore will touch upon this existant legislation of accord . I may be alone in seeing the complete contradiction in the presentation of the history , but I claim that it exists . The WP is in historical error and is infecting the greater cyberspace with error . The fact that this error relates to the vastly more serious error actually being accepted by the vatican in this concord , and that BXVI has his own jurisdiction in the matter , does not cancel the error inside the WP . I can say that this is the chicken coming home to roost : the illegal activity by predecessors of BXVI is in fact still illegal , in so far as the Holy see has determined to continue adherence to an illegal Concord . The Concord is illegal because it was signed by an illegal Government , which illegality is the matter of historical error in the WP . The WP itself at present supplies nearly all the corroboration of this illegality in supplying translation of legalities from the historical period , namely the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act . I refer the reader to the questions arising on discussion page of the Reichskonkordat .

Despite the apparent contrarians on WP denying the entry of the Centre Party and the Reichskonkordat into the historical conclusions of John Cornwell , it appears in fact wrong , and that the evidence brought by myself on Pacelli are slight in comparison . Hitler's Pope in other words may not be artificially separated from these other articles , at all , not they from Hitler's Pope .Famekeeper 11:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

The asshole who keeps coming back under new identities to put 'joke' pictures here and elsewhere has now had his account blocked indefinitely. He seemed not have got the message that endless short blocks were sending. Maybe now he will go away, get out his crayons and play somewhere else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I put the image he used to vandalize the article with up for speedy deletion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Done that in the past with previous images he used, though as some were used in real articles they could not all be deleted. He has since come back on a dial up modem using AOL. A 15 minute block was imposed. Zeech. What a f***ing asshole he is. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just calm down. Though I know it will be annoying, but this is something we have to do for now, especially since of the news report I mentioned above. It will have it's time, then it will go away, just like the Snape kills .... fad. Plus, you will get some more admin help once my RFA is over. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Since I completed my streak of vandalism on these pages, it has brought me much amazement and satisfaction seeing the amount of discussion and work that has been put in by the wikipedia community. I take pride in what I have done to the articles. Though I am retired for good from vandalism, I set back every day and reap the rewards from my actions. By the way, its nice to see that I am an official wikipedia asshole. That has a nice ring to it. Though, I could come up with a few more to describe me. Keep up the good work, and may the force be with you. Adamwankenobi 03:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to see if a picture can be locked into an article so that this nutcase, and the other one who puts pictures of penises all over users' pages, can't use particular pictures from real articles to vandalise other pages. The penis picture has had to be deleted over 30 times from user pages at this stage, while the various Star Wars pictures have been used over 20 times on various papal pages.

FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We can request for page protection, but I think the page will be stable for a while. IMHO, if it were not for the Reuters report, we would not be facing this problem. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
we can lock an image out of all articles but we can't do it per article.Geni 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The locking only prevents the image from being replaced by uploading, so someone can still remove the image from the article. The only solution is to lock the article itself, and any changes can be suggested here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Papal tiara in coat of arms

see this:
File:Guard tiara.jpg
It is very official Swiss Guard standard (picture from May oath). So, I think, that we will see both forms, with tiara and without. What do you thik? How to present it in the article? Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Fjl 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a very special coat of arms, only used on the Swiss Guard Standard. The Vatican still uses the arms without the Tiara otherwise. But, what we can do is display the tiara-less arms first, then we display the tiara arms later. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not have picture, but "tiara CoA" is displayed in Vatican Gardens (made of flowers). Fjl 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant we can use the photo above. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

His Holiness in italics

Is there any reason why His Holiness is in italics? It doesn't match the format for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth etc. etc. I'd like to make them consistent. Was there some agreement that I missed when I was busy, or can I just go ahead? Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No. One user proposed the idea. (I forget who. I think it might have been Eloquence, or maybe he just came up with the idea of linking HH, HM etc to articles explaining the style.) It might be a way, though, of NPOVing the use of styles, by highlighting that they aren't being used but explained. Until Wikipedia changes policy on styles, italising and wikifying them might be the best way to go. But if I go near any pages to do that, the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse, so someone else should do it. I think Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is more neutral visually than simply Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm very happy to put italics in all of them. But, one question first. Am I mistaken in thinking that something was said here about not using His Holiness for dead popes? Actually, I've just had a look, and many of Benedict's predecessors are now marked as Servant of God, or Venerable, or Blessed. I had to go back as far as Pius XI to find one who started without anything (other than "Pope") before his name. But what about deceased Kings and Queens? Looking at Wikipedia articles on British monarchs and princes, etc., it seems that deceased monarchs have His/Her Majesty at the beginning, back as far as Victoria, stopping for William IV, starting again for George IV, and stopping again for George III. There's also some inconsistency in that we have King George I, but just George II. Deceased consorts (Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra) or Royal Highnesses (Princess Margaret) don't seem to keep their styles on Wikipedia. I'm happy to make them all consistent, but I'll wait a day or two to see if their are any objections. I'm not anxious to ruffle any feathers, but I would like all the articles to be consistent. What does everyone think about italics, no italics, styles for deceased popes, monarchs, and princes? Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles

Given the ongoing controversy over the usage of styles I have proposed that styles should be the subject of an infobox rather than used in the opening sentence. That way all factual information can be conveyed, but we can end the rows all over the place on the inclusion or exclusion of styles. I have an infobox for papal pages. In the case of Pope Benedict it would look as follows: (don't worry about the papal tiara, BTW. For visual unity crowns were used for each of the monarchical pages. Even if, as now in the papacy, the crown is not worn it still is a symbol of the office.)

Papal styles of
Pope Benedict XVI

Don't worry right now about the detail. The issue first of all is whether to use infoboxes instead of the current system. Please don't insert the draft infobox yet. This needs to be done by consensus, so all the draft infoboxes are protected and not yet live. If a consensus exists to go down that road, then issues like content, layout and colourscheme can be explored. I'd welcome any comments here or on my own page as to what people think about the infobox idea. The box can easily be slotted into any biographical page. There are identical boxes proposed for British monarchs, Austrian monarchs, presidents, HRHs, etc. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of using the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... support. --User:Jenmoa 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Support (btw, Jtdirl, please email me). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Locking

To stop the vandalism and to stop the reverting, I locked the page. So, whatever issues that everyone seems to have with the page, let's talk about it now instead of reverting left and right. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Per-Article Blocking

There is a proposed policy to provide the capability to block particular editors from editing particular articles. This article is an example of the need for such a policy. Particular anonymous IP addresses that have either vandalized this article or made dubious edits should be blocked, rather than having to protect the article. Robert McClenon 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made some further comments on this issue near to the bottom of the page --84.9.88.149 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Vandal)

BJAODN Nomination

Ann Heneghan reverted a comment from this talk page, referring to it, correctly, as offensive nonsense. I would suggest that rather than being simply deleted, it should be archived at BJAODN. Robert McClenon 15:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

No matter what it is, because of thise comments, this page is still staying locked. And it looks like the annon that was trying to get a revert war started has not come up with the evidence I was asking for. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that, unfortunately, as a temporary measure, the page needs to be locked. Locking a page is never desirable, but is less undesirable than having a revert war. I agree that the comment about the importance of a previous Pope was an opinion and as such was POV. (If a historian had made that statement, a reference to that statement would be a fact.) The deletion of that statement was not vandalism, and labeled it as vandalism was inappropriate. Robert McClenon 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how it can be locked, but it will stay locked until enough people flood my mail box asking me to unlock it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratzinger and Fatima

In this section the word "Portuguese" should link to Portugal, as Portuguese is a disambiguation page. Dr Gangrene 20:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

The following section needs rewriting:

On June 19, 2005, Benedict XVI beatified Father Wladysław Findysz, a martyr of the Communist regime, Father Bronisław Markiewicz, the founder of the Congregation of St. Michael, and Father Ignacy Kłopotowski, the founder of the Congregation of the Sisters of Loreto. Benedict XVI delegated Józef Cardinal Glemp of Warsaw to preside over the beatification liturgy in Warsaw's Piłsudski Square. The beatifications, originally scheduled for April 24, 2005, were delayed due to the death of Pope John Paul II

Is it that JPII started the process and B XVI completed it, or did Benedict-as-Ratzinger have control over the whole process? Jackiespeel 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

JP started it, but B 16 completed it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Point clarified in text. Jackiespeel 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

First Apostolic Journey

Someone, please begin writing of adding pictures of his first apostolic journey. This should be essential on a pope's article, especially since it is a current event. User: Coburnpharr04

You mean his activities during the World Youth Day? I unlocked the article specifically for that event but it had to be locked again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
If you unprotected the page I guess I could write some about it. But I'm afraid Wikipedia has no free license pictures of the Pope from this event (see Commons:Category:WJT 2005), so we have to use one or two fair use images. We need to stop that Palpatine idiot, he cannot force us to have this page protected forever. 83.109.154.100 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One of two

I would like to make a change to the following paragraph of the section "Early church career (1951–1981)"

In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, and one of only three of those under the age of 80 and thus eligible to participate in that conclave.

Cardinal Sin was unable to attend, and Benedict was one of only two cardinals appointed by Paul VI who participated in the conclave (the other was the American Cardinal Baum). So it should be:

In the consistory of June 1977 he was named a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. By the time of the 2005 Conclave, he was one of only 14 remaining cardinals appointed by Paul VI, one of only three of those under the age of 80, and one of only two who participated in the conclave, the other being Cardinal Baum.

83.109.154.100 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Time of birth

As long we have the date of birth, I do not think we should add the time of birth too. Plus, I doubt his birth certificate is even available to see online. If so, still do not add his time of birth in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of astrology sites which mention his birth certificate (=Geburtsurkunde) whose data was requested at a register office (=Standesamt). The time he was born was 04:15 local and 03:15 GMT. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but IMHO, his time of birth is not relevant for use in the article. We do not have the time of birth for most people on here anyways. Usually, exact time of events is more useful in events such as 9/11, 7/7, 3/11. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, but to a lot of astrology fans and fans of the pope, the information can be relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What I can suggest is to add a link to the relevant information to the bottom of the page at the External links section. While it gives your astrology friends something to look at, the article will still conform to standards. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive_13&oldid=1058593786"