Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

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 June 23-July 17, 2005.

Beatification under Pope Benedict XVI .Divine Law and the United Nations General Assembly

Not wishing to be the bearer of bad tidings but the catalyst for good I refer you to all my posts and edits under all my usernames . I see that a State may propose a questioning into a contentious issue between states before the General Assembly of the United Nations. I feel sure that the pontiff would relish the chance as the Head of State now to ask for such an advisory opinion available to him as such concerning adoption of magisterial law , particularly that of romans 3,8 . And that He ask for this christian injunction to be incorporated as soon as practicable into the drafting of International Law such that further loophole injustices such as those seen at Nuremberg concerning this very issue of law , be closed . I repeat the earlier call for pontifical resolution of the cases of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and here I add Franz von Papen , who availed of this loophole at the Nuremberg Trials .Famekeeper 13:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, that Schacht and Papen were acquitted "as charged". Helping Hitler to power was not a crime tried at Nuremberg and I'm not sure that a law court is the place to deal with such things. However, they were convicted during de-nacification.

As for your other point, Church law is not penal law, it mostly works "internally", i.e. appealing to the individual conscience. You cannot apply it as penal law unless you want a "tyranny of virtue" à la Robespierre.

Apart from that, I guess, such a move would be called "fundamentalism" or "interference in the public order" by many people.

But I'd applaud any move of any state of bringing legislation more in line with natural law.

Str1977 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)

Transcluding

Ok, looks like I opened a door I should not opened. What do people think about what I have done with the transcluding? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Official photographic portrait

When is the official photographic portrait of Benedict XVI going to be placed in the article? See John Paul I and II articles (wearing red with the stole of Peter; photographic pose; neutral/subdued background). To be honest it is not clear what the official portrait is as of yet but I don't think it is the one currently be used by Wiki, showing Benedict seated in the Sistine Chapel (looking slightly bemused). The home page of the Vatican has a couple possible contenders. Any thoughts? [June 26, 2005]

We tried to get some, but the Vatican is not really helping things out. We need to wait and see, though I think what we have now is great. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reigning link

Can anyone explain the rationale behind wikifying "reigning". Str1977 29 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Because some people, particular those who do not live in political cultures or in religions whose heads reign, don't understand what the concept of reign is. It is normal to link words that may not be universally understood, to an article that explains it. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 2 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Str1977 3 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

How about this: in the US, we call the reign of a pope a "papacy." We can create a page called Papacy, redirect to reign, and put a small note in the reign article that the term used to describe the length of time the a pope held a position is called a papacy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

But isnt't "pontificate" a more accurate term? With "papacy", I think about the whole institution. Str1977 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Not sure, I heard the latter used more often in the US press. Plus, I found out Papacy redirects to Pope. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 3 July 2005 22:03 (UTC)

Actually papacy is an office. reign is the period in time a monarch holds office. One can talk of the Pope's reign, but not the Pope's papacy. Pontificate is more akin to reign but linking to reign is best because they'll see the same term used in other articles on monarchs. And while one can talk about a pope reigning, one cannot talk about a Pope pontificating (well, one can, but it means something totally different in that contact!! When someone is described as pontificating one can be taken to mean by some people that "they are showing off and acting as if they know everything". It is a POV term so not a term Wikipedia can use. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 3 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with FearÉIREANN. In fact, I was just entering this comment, but it got caught in an edit conflict with him. I would prefer pontificate to reign or papacy when referring to the period of a pope's reign. However, although the Oxford English Dictionary does allow it, I'm not comfortable with pontificate as a verb. "Pope John Paul's pontificate lasted from 1978 to 2005" is fine, but I don't like "Pope John Paul pontificated from 1978 to 2005", as it carries connotations of being pompous, etc.

The official Vatican translation of a document written by a pope would normally end with something like, "Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 7 April, the Second Sunday of Easter, the Feast of Divine Mercy, in the year of our Lord 2002, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate." (Earlier popes wrote, the 5th (or 6th, or whatever) year of our pontificate.) Pontificate on Wikipedia redirects to Pontiff. I don't think "pontificate" is important enough to warrant its own article. What about leaving "reign" wikified, but editing the article Reign to say something like, "In the case of a pope, the word pontificate is also used"? I'm Irish, and I'm not very familiar with the use of the word "papacy" to describe the period of his reign. I won't say I've never heard it, but pontificate comes to mind far more. Like Str1977, I think of papacy as referring to the institution. Ann Heneghan 3 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Links

As one has to sign in for the "... lover of cats..." article, is it an appropriate link?

? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Possibly not. The "fondness for cats" was in the article some time ago. I took it out, as I thought it was a little frivolous for an encyclopaedia article. However, someone put it back in again, and I didn't want to ruffle any feathers, since it wasn't a terribly important issue. As the article stands right now, the "cats" reference is a footnote to Georg Ratzinger's statement, "Our father was a bitter enemy of Nazism because he believed it was in conflict with our faith." Do we need that particular statement? (I'm personally in favour of it.) And, if we need it, do we need the reference? Ann Heneghan 3 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

The article about cats was this (or in other location) and the link is long gone. I am quite sorry to see this unusual information being dismissed, but that's not the point. Conf 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

Condoms and Moral and Ecclesiastical Law

The BBC tried questioning Primate Cormac Murphy O'Connor before his journey to demonstrate at Edinburgh recently , about the Catholic church's attitude to prevention of Aids through the greater use of Condoms His unsatisfactory , nigh evasive , answers provoke a further questioning .

Humanae Vitae states that no member of the church can possibly deny that the church is competent in her magisterium to interpret natural moral law. The encyclical further states that God has wisely ordered laws of nature . However ,as we all know , there is a new biological "law" of infectivity which states that human bodily intercourse can of itself be a death sentence . God's law previous to this new law of cause and effect might have or did appear to be wisely ordained , but the situation now is completely ovetaken by what presumably (in inversion of God ) would be classed as a 'devilish' law but which medically is recognised as being an infective human immuno-deficiency syndrome .

We know that in fact this infectivity is not limited to humans . We know that the result of the infectivity is mortal destruction , irrespective of morality or belief , or, indeed, species . We know that the church's response thus far is to solely countenance abstention from intercourse between humans as solution , whereas we know that the simplest of protective plastic film is enough to protect life ,already in existence ,from this mortal danger .

Here we have a plain contradiction in the natural law trumpeted under the aegis of the Magisterium by Humanae Vitae and ,doubtless, throughout this faith's teaching . The natural law has changed ,however a faith may wish to deny this - the mortality is present and it's virulence exceeds any inverse of God's will (such as the fallen Angel's name earlier mentioned describes-but which we should not use except in this particular theological analysis ).

The belief in Hum. V. is that each man through the exercise of his conjugality , is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator . Indeed so, and irrefutably , the design is subject now to AIDS (whether through God's will or not is in comparison a theological as opposed to real discourse) . The church -which has always insisted on the inverse of God -the unrepeatable name , is well-placed to therefore recognise that a duality exists now within natural law .

However it appears that the members of the church Hierarchy are in natural and hence , from the above, moral confusion . As natural law has changed and the duality has entered within the very chain of ministry that is conjugality , we see that there is a complete up-ending of the socio-moral order of society . Death is overtaking wide sections of humanity , simply because of their natural adherence to the previous natural order . Marriage is no bar to infectivity , intention is no bar . The Primate's only advice is towards abstinence by all from the most instinctual natural functions of the body , which is an equal up-ending of the natural law , and one which we see financially bankrupting the church following the human failure of its own ecclesiastic's even with their magnificent support system of the Mother Church, providing them with nourishment and care to the grave.

It is not here the intention to simply point to hypocrisy , because this will not further understanding or provide advance. Nevertheless I have to relate this central subject of world concern back to a similar moral problem , that implicated by the teachings of romans 3,8 .This is necessary because the central argument of humanae vitae rests upon the same magisterial or divine law tenets. These state that whilst a lesser evil may be tolerated to prevent a greater evil , that yet , evil shall never be chosen in order to promote a good . HV states though it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good ,"it is never lawful even for the gravest reasons , to do evil that good may come of it ,-in other words to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order...even though the intention is to protect ... an individual .. or society in general .

Laudable injunctions, which I note at length throughout the relevant pages , were broken by Pope Pius XII, Hitler's Pope and his predecessor Pope Pius XI . That is a subject of dispute here on wikipedia and elsewhere . It appears to many historians that indeed the Catholic Church as led at the time , chose actively (in 1932 and 1933 ) to consider Nazism a lesser evil than Communism and was therefore culpable in upending the moral order of society .

The church , in so far as it can operate to defend itself from the accusations and the historical realities (through apologists ) should now recognise that just as it chose then to avail of the lesser evil policy , now it should see the damage considered resultant upon the use of protective condoms to marital structure and promiscuity and actual conception to be clearly the lesser evil given that God (let us use the word) has now inserted the dualism of death into this conjugal ministry of life .

(Ye who would cavil at my use of these pages to raise these issues, as those who cavil at the additions to the historical pages, should deeply consider the morality of your complaints before carping at these words...)Famekeeper 7 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

FK, those that cavil are those wikipedians that don't consider themselves above the (wiki) law. But I digress. Apart from the fact that your evaluation of the Pius XII situation is wrong, now you are also inconsistent: Only a few lines above this post you called on BXVI to go to the UN make what you call "the Law" a.k.a. as the principle "don't do evil to achieve good", to make this principle international binding law. I considered this simplistic, unrealistic and unpractical. But now, in this post, you are calling on the same BXVI to do the complete opposite, namely to declare an evil, though a lesser evil, good. Yes, I agree using condoms are a lesser evil than spreading AIDS and IMHO the late and the current Pope agree. But it's still evil, according to Catholic morality - and I hope you can muster enough tolerance to at least let us be and follow our consciences.

Very confusing is your remark that "natural law has changed" - no, natural law has not changed, it cannot change, otherwise it wouldn't be natural law. And natural law doesn't change because of the appearance or spreading of a disease. There were other STD here before anyone could spell AIDS.

However, for those you seriously consider the Pope responsible for the spreading of this pandemia, please read the following, non-Catholic articles:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA993.htm

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/7406.shtml

Str1977 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Space Pope

This "vandal" version should definitely be stored in some kind of humor archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Benedict_XVI&oldid=18563853 Torfgeist 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Benedict and WWII

Is Benedict the last political figure/person in the news who has a link with WWII?

This comment can be incorporated in the main article if appropriate.

Hard to say. There are still lots of people (political figures) alive with some sort of "link with WW II", anyone of them could appear in the news the next day for some reason, for example Robert McNamara (helped to plan the 1945 bombing of Tokyo). Gestumblindi 18:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Was he in the german army at all ?

Lawsuits, Saints ,Infallibility and Heresy

How can the editor wish away a federal case , if the vatican lawyers themselves cannot ? A federal court has denied immunity in a case to do with this partly beatified , part-saint . Is it true he has been put in the deep freeze for 50 years by Jewish outrage ?

Since you're referring to me, FK, here's my answer:

I cannot wish away this suit and I'm not trying to - look, it's still in article as it should be (though I'm not sure about the section, but I don't have an alternative and don't want to change it). Though your eyebrows should rise at a "Srebrenica-denier" issuing such a suit ... in ac court that is not concerned - but we have seen this before in Athens, in Belgium and in the US.

Who the blank are you to belittle this man Bill Dorich ? It is most unsavoury of you to do so . He is not a anything -it is rude and shocking given the subject: priests killing and competing with fellow [[Ustashe[[ to kill personally without bullets, up to 1500 a night. You really should consider when to make slight of a man , who represents his own blood and family as well as others. Why do that , Sir? Why even defend an institution which ran the gold-teeth of these dead into a rat-line to save these damned Nazi souls ? I have tried very hard to help you and your church(your claim) out of this moral catastrophe, and here your actions seem instinctively protective despite the moral crisis this American suit will entail......extraordinary .

In German we would say "Es ist ein starkes Stück" of you to hurl accusations, insults and other things at other people - living or dead or editing here - while you are so sensitive as regards your person and those that you cite for your cause.

But please read this: http://so-cal-cetniks.tripod.com/bosna/dorichsrebrenicamyth.htm

Or go to this aticle http://compuserb.com/wtimesad/srbflgwh.htm and have a look at the main page

Yes, "Jewish outrage" has delayed the proceedings on the beatification of this saintly man - outrage voiced by some for forty years. But don't forget the praise for Pius XII from Jews voiced since sixty years (the NYT times back then, Golda Meir, Pinchas Lapide, the Rabbi of Rome etc). Fortunately, this delay only concerns us down here and not him up there with Him.

They did , but their diplomatic stances do not let your churchman off the hook. You have shown by the use of the word "soul" by his close friend and associate that an enormous contumacy existed in Kaas and the responsibility lies with the Hitler's Pope pair of pontiffs . Argument and denial is not the way forward for the church , repentance precedes forgiveness. Your faith is apparently blinding you to understanding the seriousness of the issue. That is has been covered up and has suckered these diplomatic individuals hitherto is not going to stop this volcano blowing. They will have to be removed from the crypt under St. Peters following the canonical repair if the scandal . You yourself should be outraged' at their still remaining . You yourself should wish the preservation of the good by this rooting out of contumate evil . Help the church ....

they certainly weren't talking just as diplomats. Pinchas Lapide acted as a diplomat yes, but he didn't write "Rome and the Jews" as a diplomat. And back then the NYT still was the paper of record. Such a long time ago.

Also see this: http://www.geocities.com/frjimlloyd/piusxii.htm

As for "soul": once again you are over- and misinterpreting a quote, this time hooked at a single word. But I will give reply my reply over at the other page.

And once again I am outraged at your, yes and stop uttering it if you don't want to hear it, impiety.

I read 50 years , if you confirm that , add it . I didnt put it in beacause you'd have demanded the source and 'they' weren't named but 50 years is mentioned as is the location of the disquiet , obviously .

What are you talking about fifty years?

Pius XII has been smeared and slandered (before you ask I don't think you a conscious slanderer, just the messenger) ever since Hochhuth's crackpot play. That was 1963, 43 years ago. But I don't want to argue about such trifles. I don't understand what you mean by "add it".

That the vatican agreed a 50 year shelving of the beatification .

I never heard of this. It'd be a bad thing to do.

Oh, and thanks for fixing my typo. :-)

Str1977 17:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear man , you are exceeding the normal here but as you always have been doing . Would you kndly re-insert my addition relevant to the topic of as yet partial -beatification ... I removed most reference to you whilst you were busy and if you read it you will see . The facts are as YOU quoted them : answer the question and cite the german and the source for these words of Kaas's to do with soul? I cannot be responsible for your regret at implicating the church in this . Put it back as it is 'on topic' just as you have admitted within the inch above.

I only smoothed out your post a bit without removing any substance.

There is no such thing as partial beatification. Pius XII is not yet beatified. Once he is, he is. Until then, he isn't.

If you were talking about your alleged "case proven" post:

The reference to me was only part of the problem. It is worse that you are once again resorting to your strange pseudo-legal reasoning. But I will answer this at the other page (and will provide the German quote once I get my hands back on that book)

The whole thing was off-topic here.

I advise , otherwise, to see discussion :history, Mr. Dorich . Famekeeper 18:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop producing nonsense links and learn to walk the "blank". And stop moving my signature line.

Str1977 20:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:207 etc. (anonymous) has added a very pertinent qualification that brings this old subject (and widespread editing conflict) into the subject of fallibility . It would suggest the impossibility of sainthood being conferred on any of these popes before their lawyers have recanted their mis-found beatification scrutiny (in the reign of JPII the chief lawyer having been the previous Alois Ratzinger) . What is canonically wrong, as proved by my old friend and the canon law I quoted , cannot remain as infallible /doctrinally sound and in complete agreement with catholic doctrine , is in fact not free from heresy but is unabashed contumacy against the magisterium . JPII was ill-advised . However as in the case of Mowrer and Pius XI in 1928 the simple solution is that BXVI say that of course he was wrong about Pius XII , and that his infallibility now is intact with this qualification . However , that would be to leave JPII hanging out to dry . The church is skating on very thin ice here and BXVI might begin to feel nervous about his position given what the anonymous editor finished with "heresy bars one from any position in the church , such as bishop pope and especially saint ." Thanks to the anonymous editor .Famekeeper 19:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh my,

1) look up infallibility and learn what it means (I'll give you a clue: faith/doctrine and morals if ex cathedra, beatifications) 2) look up at this very page what the pope's former name was. 3) unfortunately, the reasoning provided by 207... (is he your "old friend"?) is to my knowledge wrong. AFAIK all writings of a candidate are checked for heresy in the beatification process, i.e. the checking of JPII's writing starts now and must be positively concluded before his being declared "venerable". Also this refers to his writings (books, encyclicas etc) not to his infallible decisions. He has made no ex cathedra definition but beatifications are also protected from error. These are es sese correct. But there is no such protected beatification by JPII (or any other Pope) of Pius XII. So even if your claims were true, if Pius were the villain you make him out to be, even if his being declared venerable were wrong, infallibility is not concerned in the least.

Ok here, fair enough .

Another possibility is that BXVI, if he ordered what 207... stated, was plainly wrong (Again: infallibility is not the issue here). And 207..'s conclusion from this also wrong. BXVI cannot just declare everything doctrinally sound like that. Well he can declare that, but also I can declare this and that. Neither of these declarations are infallible in any way.

I move 207... addition to the talk page, if someone knows better than me:

"By opening the cause for Pope John Paul II, Benedict is declaring that ALL of his writings and speeches are doctrinally sound and in complete agreement with Catholic doctrine, since Pope Benedict XVI ordered that no canonization cause be opened, until all documents have been reviewed and been found to doctrinally sound and completly free from heresy. Heresy bars one from any position in the Church, such as bishop, pope and especially saint."

Str1977 20:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue what is going on here. I've been asked to have a look, and this thread is mindbogglingly confusing. From what I see from the article history, everything is ok, and editors seem to be getting along well enough. The best sense I can make out of this thread is that someone, perhaps FK?, feels that Pope Benedict XVI may have Ustashe ties, and thus will have trouble being canonized as a saint after his passing. If that is true, I would strongly recommend alerting local or Vatican catholic authorities to this matter. If I am mistaken, could someone please try to explain (carefully ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

After more investigation, it would appear that it is Pius XII who has the alleged ustashe war crime culpability, and theoretical complication to his canonisation. Is this correct? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Sam, not actual Ustashe ties. There were ties between the Ustashe and the Croatian clergy and this clergy than had ties with the Pope of course. This is the justification for the lawsuit.

However, I see no disagreement about the actual article here. The reference (beatification and law suit) is in the article, maybe it still needs clarifying if it misled you at first. Str1977 23:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No . There are several disagreements in progress here that amount to revert war on at least three pages, Centre Party Germany reverted 3 mins ago , Hitler's Pope and here on this discussion page . i'll tell you what this is really about now .

We end exactly as in this section, whereby Ratzinger okayed the 'venerable' for Pius XII legally , now that has to be rescinded(like sometime before the end of the papacy according to St Malachi , shortly) because the Federal case is going to blow the head off the denial engine in Rome OR , the Str1977 german (presumably) quotatation I have recognised as contumacy in Ludwig Kaas is the danger : it is an internal danger because it relates to all my analysis of the canonical law broken by Kaas ,Pius XI and Pius XII. That was the overturning of heaven by accedance to the destruction of the moral order in backing Hitler . These arguments are all cited history and law , with thrown into the pot the report by the Chicago Daily News hard-bitten foreign correspondent. He remembered and accused and that accusation relates to these words of Kaas' about soul .The point is Kaas was okayed by Pacelli (Pius XII later from c1938) indeed Pacelli was either leading the thoughts of his boss, Pius XI or defining them , but both were aware of what Nazism was (there were endless reports to them from Germany )and Kaas was aware that this , his recommendation , in the suicide of democracy votewas against the soul which is the holy spirit etc. The suit by Dorich concerns as STr1977 says but furthermore it connects to the Vatican Bank . It claims that the war loot torn from the victims bodies not only entered the Vatican Bank but that it was then used to finance the rat-line escape of an unknown large number of murderous nazis and ustashe and Franciscans who evaded capture and trial( one priest was hanged) . This further allegation is a real can of worms and goes deeper into conspiracies which are like as to the vatican as a mouse is to an elephant . User: Famekeeper 23:33, 14 July 2005

Again, FK, verbosity and no substance.

"Ratzinger okayed the 'venerable' for Pius XII legally, now that has to be rescinded"

You might think it has to be rescinded, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

"sometime before the end of the papacy according to St Malachi"

Go on resorting to fabrication from the Renaissance, go on

Good, I'm glad to hear that , Sir.

I hope you noticed the irony.

"because the Federal case is going to blow the head off the denial engine in rome"

I guess the Vatican people are all shaking in their shoes.

Don't suppose they relished the triple judges throwing out their appeal.

I think they did neither

"analysis of the canonical law broken by Kaas, Pius XI and Pius XII."

Yes, your allegations and claims, all unproven.

"He remembered and accused and that relates to these words of Kaas' about soul."

No, it doesn't Mowrer has no word about Kaas referring to "the soul of the party" - that was from the published minutes of a Centre party meeting.

Not what I said , I said it related , not that Mowrer used soul, really , steady .

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

"The point is Kaas was okayed by Pacelli"

Claim without proof. What was okayed?

I have already proved to you that hierarchy would have ordained all the close political relationship between the Vatican Secretary of State and the Centre Chairman Kaas. And Kaas ' activities as chairman . I have done this canonically , do you deny the canons or something ?

If you're saying that all clergy back then needed approval of their superior to get involved in politics you are right. No one disputed this. Kaas got this, but had to give up his academic chair. However, that doesn't mean that a cleric must get approval for everything he does as a politician.

Pointing out the error in your conclusions is not denyingthe canons. Let me illustrate:

If I claim that my neighbour fell from his chair yesterday and give as evidence Newton#s law of gravity, someone may point out that my neighbour did not actually fall from his chair at all. I cannot respond to that by asking: "Do know deny Newton's findings?"

"(Pius XII later from c1938)"

It's 1939.

Thats why I put circa- couldnt give you the slightest ammo ...

Sorry for overlooking (but you could have also given the exact date) Never mind.

"indeed Pacelli was either leading the thoughts of his boss, Pius XI or defining them"