Jump to content

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→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 4 September.

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 [[1]] . 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 , [[2]]

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.

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 .Famekeeper 08:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Political Reasons for Excommunication

No, Str1977 is not being disingenuous. He is simply stating that 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. 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 Famekeeper has to do with intent, and with what they expected would be the results of their actions. 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. 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 priests" . I have equally sourced other writers from the early nineteen thirties .

A reader might note that having centred on the bizarre nature of canonical 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 ecclesiatics 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 ;
  • '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 sacrements ;
  • 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 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 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 Jews that which the Church of Rome had been trying to do without success for over 1,500 years ;

Timelines include many more revelatory references , pronouncements , arrests of many priests , 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." 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. 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. Flamekeeper 22:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) 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. 83.109.142.197 18:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at Summary

For the benefit of any reader of this talk page who has been fortunate enough not to go through the tedious exchanges with Famekeeper, I will try to summarize. I am sure that Famekeeper will respond at great length.

It appears that Famekeeper is stating that there is an ongoing conspiracy by the Catholic Church to suppress the truth that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII were guilty of moral error in allowing Adolf Hitler to accede to absolute power in Germany, and that they either knew or should have known that this would result in the Holocaust. If that is not what Famekeeper is saying, then maybe he can restate it, but I would suggest that any restatement be short.

If 83.109.191.234 thinks that Famekeeper is a troll, I would suggest that he first create a signed-in account, and then endorse the article to which he refers, which is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. I am not interested in signatures from anonymous users. Robert McClenon 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wasting my time on the ongoing dispute with Famekeeper, I'm just simply going to revert any vandalism he makes to this article. 83.109.142.197 18:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
McC - read it a few times. It is unclear- I thought it was an attack on me for a while, but then I thought in fact it was an attack on you . By the way I do not say there is a cover up , as I believe it may have escaped understanding . Excommunication is termed occult when it is known to no one or almost no one . Famekeeper

Flooding of talk page

It is very disturbing that User:Famekeeper keeps flooding this talk page with massive amounts of text.

I quite agree- I shouldn't have had to . I am finished in providing a repetition of the canonical analysis required by the other user . I congratulate this anonymous user on his four posts , all here . I wonder what manner of internet provider he has , and whether he is not wasting his own ammunition by announcing his feelings under this mumber . He is very liberal in his qualifications , and I am glad if he should remain happy at this my departure . I note that no one has removed Abraham Lehrer , and do hope that I shall not have to return . Of course the other question remaining will be to do with the course of the Federal Lawsuit - which will be fascinating , but presumably that will really hit the press , and even the WP . Famekeeper 11:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I have worked on this article long time before he became Pope. I welcome newcomers if they want to make actual contributions to the article, but it seems to me that you only want to flood the article with conspiracy theories, original research and alleged wrongdoings of the Catholic Church in 30s and 40s (what these events have to do with Benedict XVI am I not able to recognize). 83.109.146.40 08:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Famekeeper is not a newcomer. The flooding of talk pages with text containing original research and conspiracy theories has been going on for nearly a year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Robert McClenon 13:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Famekeeper is providing an inaccurate summary of his history on these talk pages. He says that he shouldn't have to flood these talk pages. That is true. However, I did not request what he considers the canonical analysis. This filibuster of the talk pages was going on before I became involved, and has largely been archived. What I requested was a summary. I have not yet seen a satisfactory summary, but I think that is because Famekeeper does not know how to provide a summary.
I do not understand whether Famekeeper is trying to intimidate the anonymous user. By the way, his Internet Service Provider is telenor.net. Robert McClenon 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Funny-McC says he accepts my summary on related discussions at the linked Theology of Pope Benedict XVI .Famekeeper 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing inconsistent about accepting one summary and not another, if one is accurate and the other is not. Robert McClenon 13:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
What is inaccurate :prove it . Or is it another mistake you would own up to , McC, when confronted ? I have told you and posted openly ,that you are at best foolish and that I have irrefutable proof of your bad-faith , placed in discussion on your User Rfc. Foolish , disingenuous or ouright-dishonest . You yourself claimed foolish ( a mistake , man !) , so am I to apologise for getting it wrong , and according you more brains than you yourself apparently use , user . Oh, and yes , I agree with the word bully , and I prove that there as well . Now, grow up .
I reserve the right to correct the WP until I am slung out, as a pure favour from me , due in view of the extra-ordinary ahistorical sycophancy towards a deeply shameful papacy , which will remain so as long as this praticular pontiff evades his responsibility . Let it all go to court, as mentioned in another of my edits upon this article . Get behind me , as was once said . Famekeeper 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sad, FK, that you are staying true to your past behaviour. When confronted with contradiction you resort to personal attacks. At least you don't show favoritism - you shout at anyone deviating from your rule one inch, even if they agreed with you in general and in the beginning, like Robert did.
And as for your quoting scripture: do you think you're the Messiah?
History is history and courts are courts! They are not the same - and in court your claims would suffer an even worse fate than in historiography.
There's probably no point in kindly asking you, but I will try once more: please refrain from your un-Wiki and un-civil behaviour.
Str1977 09:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Because of FK's flooding of the talk page I just had to create three new archives. Please, FK, be more concise. Str1977 09:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the inaccuracy? Did I include total war related death, and is that the inaccuracy . By the way Wyssie suggests I 'Start apage on Kass @ , which is back to square one . Listen Str , I agree with everyone that this length is ridiculous. I am resolving myself down to McC's question as to whether Double Effect changes the character of the approbation/collaboration of 32 & 33 . I refer you to both there and to this pop's Theology page . I refer you particularly to the teachings of Pius XI presented on the former , and to extra-ordinary gap between that and Brok's tears and Pius's comment to Goering . I'm soprry and shouldn't rise to McC's bait , but he is quite truly irrefutably as I show on his Rfc discussion and repeated here . I am sad about the history of the collaboration/approbation, sad that it appears that the christians involved fell from the protection which that name provides , in their falsity towards the innocent. Short as I can be . Famekeeper 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Famekeeper, not everything that is accurate gets into the Wikipedia. It is necessary but not sufficient. At a fundamental level, it appears the proposed edits relect either a misunderstaing or rejection of what this article is about:
  • Filling in the significant details from the past events in Pope Benedict's life which previous editors may have missed.
  • Tracking the significant events of the present going forward in his life.
The test for significance is simple: what other sources of biographical information have considered to be significant in Pope Benedict's life.
It is not for original research, argumentation, speculation, or propaganda. You are free to publish material that I and other editors have objected to in your own blog or in an open discussion board, but you are not entitled to insert your own original material into this article when it is contrary to Wikipedia policies and the article's editing consensus. patsw 23:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Vaya! Abraham Lehrer is a fact . The Federal Court case , fact . And here's fact from the contradiction within the WP , for your interest/knowledge/POV . It represents , possibly , the deepest challenge of all .Listen to you , if your crowd had done to my mother what the papacy is throughout history books accused of aiding by approbation , that would be fact . Or your mother. Abraham Lehrer spoke of his mother and the tattoo number on her arm . Fact . Let's see about the following fact or not fact , eh? Just because a bunch of ante-diluvians wish to limit the wikipedia to out-dated encyclopedic concepts, from out-dated means (paper)- does not trouble me or Jimbo, I'd say , one little JOT . You do what you wish , and justify yourself-now ,get off my back and stand up straight by yourself .I'm busy doing articles a service .Famekeeper 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer my question , McC and stop ad hominem . I can pri=ove , do prove on your Rfc my qualification of you . I adhere to it too

Comment on Abraham Lehrer is not verified with a link in the article. It's therefore subject to being deleted.
The lawsuit, Alperin v. Vatican Bank, merits a neutrally worded sentence and a link as a pending legal case. patsw 01:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree. At most, it merits a sentence in an article on international relations of the Vatican state. I don't see the relevance in a biography of the current pope. It could however also be mentioned with one sentence in the biography of Pius XII. 83.109.131.140 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to remove Flamekeeper's irrelevant POVing on this page

FK's behaviour here and elsewhere is along the lines of "I'm going to force my views on everyone and you can't stop me." Maybe it is time this farce was stopped. These antics, here and elsewhere, are turning talk pages (and articles when he gets the chance) into his personal pulpit to push his opinions, no matter how irrelevant to the subject matter. Any suggestions of dealing with him? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Onecould as easily ask for suggestions for dealing with the opposite ?The point is that I am accused of inaccuracy , but entirely without specifics. Is that right behaviour . DO I call you a a liar , Mr Fear ? Famekeeper 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Block this crackpot troll. No need for more discussion, IMHO. 83.109.131.140 20:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

New Chrstian Right , Condoms and Africa

The BBC reported on the UN AIDS programme disquiet at the rise in percentage population of infected persons in Uganda today . A link is clearly made between this rise and the new ,right wing , fundamentalist American Church policy . This policy , fostered by cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict , is to fught the spread of AIDS by abstinence , and todeny that condoms are a help towards reduction of infection. The report stated that due to pressure upon the American government from this christian right , the cost to users of condoms in Uganda had risen three-fold, the supplies had been drastically reduced and the level of infection had quickly rebounded upwards from the earlier achieved 5% of population . I have in my own smalll way referred to the canonical situation of the church's teaching and AIDS , and I suggest people of good will, as opposed to dogma should join where possibly some good could be done to help save lives and prevent suffering. One is tempted to believe that the church rightists would prefer people to die , than to live . This is a grave error , entirely like all the scandal of Vatican involvement in the rise of Nazism . I see that this is on topic...Famekeeper 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Soapboxing and Filibustering

Jtdirl asks how to deal with Famekeeper. There are two ways that he can be blocked. First, if he engages in any obvious violation of Wikipedia official policy, he can be given a short-term block by an admin. That would include personal attacks. However, any such block should be short-term, and if it is for anything other than 3RR (which he does not do), it may be controversial. The alternative is to present a case to the ArbCom to block him. Anyone who wants to do that may visit the user conduct RfC against him and either sign it, or add their own signed opinions to it, or add their own diffs to show improper conduct.

Famekeeper has been demanding arbitration by Jimbo Wales for months because he thinks that the truth is being suppressed. He has not filed a Request for Mediation or a Request for Arbitration. Unfortunately, if his flooding of talk pages continues, the arbitration will be whether to ban him. Robert McClenon 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive_15&oldid=1051717975"