Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

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 discussions inactive since October 2005.

Anti-vandal warning

This is inappropriate for several reasons, the key ones being:

• Not Wikipedia policy
• Trickle-down effect - by specifically prohibiting vandalism on this one page, vandalism of other pages is implicitly endorsed
• Insignificant effect on vandals
• Waste of bandwith --84.9.88.149 15:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Not nearly as much of a waste of bandwidth as the edits you have made on this article. The warning would not have been put there if you had not vandalised the article to start with. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The motive for the placing of the warning is irrelevant, and you haven't replied to any of the three major points I made. --84.9.88.149 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe this action was taken before on articles such as George W Bush. However, I will address you points. While people who want to vandalize will still vandalize, even if we lock the article, the talk page will still be vandalized. While bandwith is not a problem, I still think it would be pointless to have the warning. I will, suggest, that if any person who comes across this in the Recent Changes should put this article on their watch list so vandalism could be reverted quickly and swiftly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh - I think you're in agreement with me, actually ;) - If I didn't make myself clear, I'm against the anti-vandal warning. But can't do anything about it for a bit thanks to DJ Clayworth's jobsworth application of the three revert rule (I don't belive it to apply as different people were doing the reversions, but it's a moot point now...) --84.9.88.149 23:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Style Box

Following from the discussion several paragraphs above, and the comment text in the article, could it please be pointed out just where this overwhelming consensus to abandon honorific style as part of the name, in favour of the box, is to be found. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I just haven't yet found it in the various parts of Wikipedia where this topic has been debated. Thanks. Arcturus 20:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, not much discussion took place over here. The creator of the style box came to my talk page asking for it's approval and use. I said I had no problems with it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The pope is a reigning sovereign monarch. The standard is clearly established that royals, monarchs and nobles are referred to by their honorific title in the beginning of the article (as a minimum) - see the main entries for Queen Elizabeth II and members of the British royal family, as well as for the royal family of Nepal. Certainly the monarch of Vatican City State should be afforded the same courtesy here at wikipedia - after all over 180 nations have diplomatic relations with the Vatican and afford him that courtesy. To do otherwise is to single popes out for special - lesser - treatment because some people don't like the fact that the Catholic Church's leaders is also a sovereign monarch of a city-state with influence both the secular and religious sphere. The Vatican invented the diplomatic corps and even today the ambassador from the Holy See in most countries is given the courtesy of being the ranking ambassador due to this fact. 64.110.90.2 07:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, we already know about the Palpatine problem, and personally, warning or not, people will just do it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Ok how about I say it this way, get the damn picture off the article, before Wikipedia becomes a laughing stock.

The UN knows how to address a pope - and uses the honorific "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI", as do the wikipedia pages for other persons who by tradition, custom or protocol are afforded such honorifics. It is blatant POV and bias to afford honorifics to some who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Queen Silvia of Sweden, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, the entire British royal family, the entire royal family of the Netherlands, etc.) on wikipedia pages, but to deny them to others who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Catholic cardinals and popes). It does not matter how many times people vote or claim consensus or make other excuses - the cold hard fact is that Popes reign as absolute monarch of a sovereign state - as well as Bishop of Rome. Honorifics should be used in equivalent fashion for all persons of similar and widely known and accepted status. Blatant POV to do otherwise. Please explain how it is wiki in any way to discriminate against just one globally recognized (by the UN and almost 200 nations) sovereign throne. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• The following statement was issued in April 2005 by the Spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan:
  • "The Secretary-General congratulates His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on his assumption of the papacy. His Holiness brings a wealth of experience to this exalted office. The United Nations and the Holy See share a strong commitment to peace, social justice, human dignity, religious freedom and mutual respect among the world’s religions. The Secretary-General looks forward to the contributions His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will make in strengthening those values. He wishes Pope Benedict XVI every strength and courage as he takes on his formidable responsibilities." [1]

Because people do not necessarily know what a style box is, or what the curt info contained there is about, and because popes are referred to as "His Holiness" in informal and formal settings by Catholics and non-Catholics, including at the UN, including all documents issue by a pope, this ought to be explained in the text - and it will be. Putting this common usage to the side as if everyone understands it and it is not worthy of mention is simply POV to an extreme degree. I will be adding it back unless someone comes up with some exlanation as to why such important information must be sequestered to a sidebar. Referring to someone by such a lofty title is odd - it ought to be explained. 214.13.4.151 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's your reason: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution. You can also see Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing for an incomplete list of how honorifics are handled in other organizations. Now please stop adding it in (and changing the in-article comment noting the compromise). Lastly, do we really need to add "the UN" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? --Quasipalm 13:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You have made up a new rule that is NOT part of the style manual link you point to regarding this controversy. The rule in effect starting August 2005 simply does not allow the article to begin with the honorific, and adds a style box. It does not demand that the article cannot discuss the nature of the honorific and when it is used in the main text. That is your preference, but not the wiki rule. I presume you did not intend to misread the rule - but you did misread it. I will be adding to the article a discussion of the honorific and when, why and how it is used. I know you may not like it, but the unique way a person is addressed every day of their lives, and a form of address that is so lofty, is certainly something to ignore or cast aside in a style box. 214.13.4.151 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from the style section you pointed to:

• Because of major controversies over their usage in pages on royalty and popes, as of August 2005 a new policy was agreed following a discussion.
  • Styles would not be used to open articles on royalty and popes. So the article on Pope Benedict XVI would no longer begin "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI . . . " nor the article on Queen Victoria begin "Her Majesty Queen Victoria . . ."
  • Instead a special graphic known as an infobox, giving the official, spoken and alternative versions of a style for a member of a royal family or pope, would be included in the article.

Dialogue with other faiths

I thought other people were going to take this on. The facts of the paragraph were recast to be netural and a little more coherent. The bit about Jewish critics of Dominus Iesus or Cardinal Ratzinger or Catholic doctrine (choose any or all) was omitted because it followed the very vague "critics say.../leaders offended..." template. If there are identified Jewish critics who specifically opposed Cardinal Ratzinger (oppose Pope Benedict), that might be mentioned and linked to.

Catholic liberals, by the way, do not constitute another faith. Perhaps Hans Kung, Jacques Dupuis, and Paul Kittner merit their own section -- call it Dialogue with Catholic dissenters patsw 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to perpetuate an odd misunderstanding from over 8 years ago. It has been deleted for reasons I explain below:

...critics remembered that in March 1997 Cardinal Ratzinger predicted that Buddhism would over the coming century replace Marxism as the main "enemy" of the Catholic Church. Some also criticized him for calling Buddhism an "autoerotic spirituality" that offered "transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations"

Benedict XVI: Ratzinger's positions on issues facing the Catholic Church International Herald Tribune, April 21, 2005.

The deleted text included this possibility:

...,though that might be a mistranslation from the French auto-erotisme, which more properly translates to self-absorption, or narcissism . Also the quote did not address Buddhism as such, but rather about how Buddhism "appears" to those Europeans who are using it to obtain some type of self-satisfying spiritual experience.

"Pope Benedict XVI's Buddhist Encounter," Dharma Forest, April 20, 2005.

Donald Mitchell, review of John Paul II and Interreligious Dialogue, by Pope John Paul II, ed. Byron L. Sherwin and Harold Kasimow, Monastic Interreligious Dialogue, March 2000.

The linked IHT article no longer exists and while there's 290 Google hits on Ratzinger autoerotic, none appear to have a usable, verifiable, citation.

The Wikipedia should be accurate and not propagate this unverified quote through this article. While not addressing Buddhism directly, Aspects of Christian Meditation published by the CDF when Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect covers this territory from the Catholic perspective and certainly more accurately reflects his views. Finally, if there is verifiable evidence that Pope Benedict regards or regarded Buddhism in its authentic form as fulfilling one's own sexual needs without a partner, that could be included in the article. patsw 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Subsection on teachings

I just added a subsection on teachings. The truth is this is a Pope's most important role (aside from celebrating Mass which for Catholic theology is absolutely the most important activity of a priest, much more a Pope).

Together with a pre-existing paragraph on sexual matters, I added two paragraphs, which I deem as two of the most important paragraphs so far in his papacy:

1) one on jesus Christ himself. Of course, Jesus Christ is the main topic of any teaching in Christianity. So how he deals with this topic is very important.

2) tyranny of relativism. Very many writers, both Catholic and non-Catholic commentators, have said that Benedict is to relativism and secularism as John Paul II is to communism. He is for fixing the West as John Paul fixed the East. So whatever he says about this is VERY IMPORTANT.

Later we can come up with some more teachings, but those will have to go to a break-out article. Marax 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• AT LONG LAST!! I've always wondered why there is a general tendency among Wikipedians to hesitate in putting in religious teachings. I've seen some people comment that it is not NPOV. That's a general mistake that has to be corrected--and corrected firmly.

NPOV does not mean non-religious, non-theological because then we should not have any Category in the Encyclopedia on Religion, Christian Theology, etc. That's a body of knowledge that has a tremendous amount of literature available. In some libraries it has the biggest section.

NPOV just means neutral--not taking sides. The encyclopedia does not adapt the religious views but just expresses them and informs about them as being said by this or that Pope. And if they are very important the more they should find space above the usual trivia that is splashed in many articles of Wikipedia. R Davidson 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Papal Moto

Whats benedicts papal motto?? This site [2] claims it is 'Be CO-workers in the Truth. If this is correct, whats the traduction in latin and were should we put it in the article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The motto of the then-cardinal Ratzinger was "corporatores veritati" and it was part of his crest as archbishop and cardinal. (a small version can be seen here: http://www.erzbistum-muenchen-und-freising.de/EMF074/EMF007342.asp)

Maybe it could be included at the stage when he became archbishop or cardinal, e.g. "Since then his motto is ..." or something like this. Str1977 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Election - Habemus Papam

Around the middle of May, we had a long section on election to the papacy. There was an extract which went like this:

Before his first appearance at the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica after becoming pope, he was announced by the Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez, protodeacon of the College of Cardinals. Cardinal Medina Estévez first addressed the massive crowd as "dear(est) brothers and sisters" in Italian, Spanish, French, German and English — each language receiving cheers from the international crowd — before continuing in Latin. He announced the decision with the words:

Fratelli e sorelle carissimi; queridísimos hermanos y hermanas; bien chers frères et sœurs; liebe Brüder und Schwestern; dear brothers and sisters:

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:

Habemus Papam!

Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum,

Dominum Iosephum,

Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem Ratzinger,

qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedicti decimi sexti.

Which translates to:

Dear brothers and sisters,

I announce to you a great joy:

We have a Pope!

The most Eminent and Reverend Lord,

the Lord Joseph

Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church Ratzinger,

who has taken to himself the name of Benedict the Sixteenth.

At some stage, someone cut that section. I was disappointed, but didn't protest, as the page was already very long, and as I felt that my attachment to that bit might be due to the huge excitement I felt on 19 April — and I realized that the fact that it was an overwhelming moment for me didn't necessarily mean it should go in the encyclopedia.

However, I have noticed recently that that section (Election) looks a bit unprofessional, because there are three photos plus Jtdirl's styles box, and not enough text to balance — so there's a big gap in the page. What would anyone feel about having the Habemus Papam reinserted? Alternatively does anyone have the technical knowledge to reformat those pictures, so as to avoid the blank parts of the the page? Perhaps some photos could be resized, or even moved, and I'm sure the styles box could go to another part of the page. (But I would prefer to have Habemus Papam back again . . .) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I say to add it. It is certainly more relevant to Pope Benedict XVI than the other arguments that have been on this talk page. Robert McClenon 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it, but if others object strongly, I'll be prepared to revert myself or have someone else revert me. I agree with Patsw above that not everything that's accurate should be reported in an encyclopedia. I also moved the styles box up higher. I'm not entirely happy with the look of where it is now, but I think it's better than where it was. Further modifications would be welcome. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

As was pointed out at the time by the user who removed it, the whole "Habemus Papam" pronouncement is a routine formula used at all papal elections, and so is of little interest or relevance to this particular election. It is given in the Papal election article - at most, a reference to that article might be justified here, not wholesale replication. (The only distinctive aspect to the pronouncement for B16 was the multi-lingual "brothers and sisters" introduction.) Vilcxjo 00:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

For accuracy you might want to watch a video replay and insert all the ellipses where there were unusually long pauses on the part of the Cardinal for dramatic effect. He probably was aware at the time that this might be the only time in his life that there would be a million cameras and microphones pointed at him. patsw 01:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a routine formula used at all papal elections, but that doesn't mean it's of little interest. Before television was invented, it would have been seen only by the crowds in St Peter's Square. And Pope John Paul's reign was so long, that many of our readers weren't even born at the time he was elected. For many people, the election of a pope is far more exciting than the crowning of a new king, etc. Everyone knew when George VI died that he would be succeeeded by Elizabeth II; there was no suspense. In this case, millions of people were watching in suspense, so I think that particular moment deserves a fuller coverage. I admit that I'm using the fact that there wasn't enough text to balance the pictures as an partial justification for putting it back in. Have you any other suggestions about how to get rid of those big gaps in the page where there are pictures at the side but no text in the main body? Thanks for the link to Papal election. I notice that links to Habemus Papam. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 08:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I've rv'd you on this because I don't think it makes sense to go back on a previous consensus just because the pictures need to be balanced out with text. I say lose one of the pics instead - I suggest the one with Sodano.--Transf1o 02:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Transf1o, I don't think it was a "previous consensus"; it was just a previous edit. Somebody removed it, and – as far as I remember – nobody commented either to agree or disagree. Sometimes things are slow here, and nobody seems to be editing or commenting, and sometimes the article changes so quickly that you can easily loose track of the changes. Anyway, I'm interested to see what others think. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 03:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: with each Pope for the first month of office have the full version of the Habeamus Papam text, then refer to the HP article, with a mention of if/how the present Pope's version differed from standard (apart from name). Ditto an explanation of how to address the Pope.

I suggest we keep the Habemus papam text, and I also strongly oppose removing the image with Sodano. 83.109.166.58 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I meant "the full text within the Pope's biography...' and then make a cross reference to the HP text.

In reference to the earlier comments on the two Piuses: perhaps if the person raising the issue were to create articles on "Theology of Pius XI" and ditto Pius XII the issue might be resolved - and what could young Ratzinger have done to alter their actions? (Another case of the benefits of hindsight).

Vandalism

Someone had changed "John Paul II" to "John Paul Scally" various places in the article. There may be more vandalism which has escaped our attention.

Reverted for now.

I looked over the last 100 or so edits. Remarkably little to show for it. Perhaps two-thirds are vandals and reverts. They all seem to be caught.

The only thing that I saw that requires a little discussion here is the back and forth between American and British usage (i.e. honor/honour). The majority of editors are using American usage, please leave it as American usage. The style guide has more on this point. patsw 02:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

One of those edits that was reverted was my addition of succession boxes for the cardinal sees. I thought that that information was very pertinent because it showed his elevation through the orders of the cardinalate. I understand the need to keep the page short and readable; could we maybe have a collapsable box a la Javascript [+] ? --Mm35173 13:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a native speaker and writer of American English. However, I would suggest that on a truly international article, the compromise should be the use of British English, which is the older defined version of the language. However, the manual of style allows it be done either way.

This article is one of the most vandalized and most frequently reverted articles. I think it illustrates that vandalism is a continuing problem with high-profile articles, but is dealt with quickly. Robert McClenon 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia Request

I am a recorder for the Spoken Wikipedia project. I think that the reason that this article has not yet been recorded is that there are several non-English words that many of us do not know how to pronounce. I am a cradle Catholic and can pronounce any of the Latin words and abbreviations in the article, but many can't. I, for one, do not know how to say the German words. Taking these steps will significantly improve the chances the article will be recorded, but these should be done anyway for readability for English-only speakers:

• Expand all abbreviations. For example, the first line might read Pope: Benedict XVI (Latin: Benedictus PP. XVI [Pastor Pastorum Sedicem] born April 16, 1927 as Joseph Alois Ratzinger in Marktl am Inn, Bavaria, Germany)...
• For the German words, it would be nice to have International Phonetic Alphabet descriptions. Otherwise, the recording will be crap.
• If you feel like expansions and pronunciations will clutter the page, put a pronunciation guide at the bottom of the page.

Additionally, it would be nice, considering that this is an English encyclopedia, to add something like this to near the top of the page:

If the authors can help me pronounce the words, I will record it. --Mm35173 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's Benedictus Sextusdecimus and not Sedicem. Gugganij 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: When I first saw the request for the Spoken article, this article was very unstable. I haven't been following this one too closely of late, but I suppose it's calmed down. I'm sure you don't need the reminder, but just in case: make sure the article's not changing drastically all the time. /unnecessary reminder ;) --User:Jenmoa 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it "pastor pastorum" or simply "papa"? A previous discussion can be found here: Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive10#Latin Str1977 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's very confusing as Princeps Pastorum is not a title of the Pope but the title of an encyclical by Pope John XIII where he immediately refers to its long historical usage as title of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Most reference works define PP as Pastor Pastorum or pastor of pastors patsw 18:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I read quite a while ago that it was princeps pastorum from a wiki source - which I will attempt to find and correct. I changed the comment above (since Google is picking it up, I do not want the masses to be confused.) I am sure, however, that XVI is sedicem. --Mm35173 14:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Encylopedia PP. just stands for Papa Gugganij 08:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why should "XVI" be "sedicem" in Latin?

Maybe this pronunciation is Italian and maybe even for "60"

The "habemus papam" said "Decimi sexti". This is the genitive case, hence the nominative case should be "Decimus sextus".? Or "Sextus Decimus"?

I will edit the pron guide in regard to this and "papa".

Prototypical pronunciation guide (needs to change to IPA):

Gay Rights

AFAIK, this pope is strongly against gay rights and gays in general. Shouldn't there be something about this in the main article? 134.58.253.131 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He's certainly not against gays. He upholds the constant teaching of the Church that homosexual intercourse is gravely sinful. (Actually, he also upholds the constant teaching of the Church that all sexual acts outside of a valid, lifelong marriage are gravely sinful. That doesn't mean that he's "strongly against" heterosexual people in general.) As to whether he's against gay rights, that depends on what is meant by gay rights. He would certainly support their right not to be attacked or persecuted. He obviously doesn't support their right to engage in acts that the Church taught were sinful before he was even born. And the article does say that he upholds the Church's teaching on homosexual acts.

Benedict XVI's views appear to be similar to those of his predecessor in maintaining the traditional Catholic doctrines on artificial birth control, abortion, and homosexuality while promoting Catholic social teaching.

and

In office, Ratzinger usually took traditional views on topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and inter-religious dialogue.

Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't honestly compare a ban on gays ever having a loving relationship with a ban on heterosexuals engaging in pre-martial sex. Apples and Oranges if I've ever seen it. Lastly, I think if the Vatican changes it policy on ordaining homosexuals (even those who are chaste) under B XVI, then it certainly would merit mentioning on this page. This will be one of his first acts as pope, and as such it should be noted on this page. [3] --Quasipalm 14:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone here suggests that the pope's views and actions are "against gay rights and gays in general". Yet the Catholic position he affirms explicitly advocates love of those who have homosexual tendencies, but a hatred of their sinful choices to have immoral sex (as with all sin). Similarly, the pope advocates, explicitly, that persons with homosexual tendencies have the exact same rights as all other human persons! No disrimination at all is adcvocated. No one has a moral right to be ordained. No one has a moral right to put a penis into any rectum (male or female), or to engage in oral-genital sex (regardless of the genders involved). Everyone is able to enter into a voluntary marriage with a person of the oppostie sex - even persons who are homosexual can do so. There is no denial of rights. The attempted manufacture of new "rights" associated with sexual behavior or the choice to engage in certain sexual acts may result in civil law changing, but has no effect on moral laws. 214.13.4.151 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's certainly the usual defense of the Roman Catholic position. But the plain facts are that someone who considers proclivities rather than acts when making a decision on ordination is in fact discriminating even if he says he isn't. It's not a matter of "using the wrong hole", but rather one of affectional preferences, that will debar you from being a priest. Of course, it's not news that the Roman Catholics discriminate in terms of gender and marital status. And to our foul-minded anonymous friend: neither actual oral sex nor a desire for oral sex stands in the way of ordination. - Outerlimits 03:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Out, your comments indicate that you are ignoring most of what I wrote (other than thinking that what homosexuals do to reach orgasm is "foul-minded"). No man has a right to become a priest. People with the right diposition are, perhaps arbitarily in the eyes of some, invited to ordination by those with the authority to do so. Sadly, many heterosexual males have been refused ordination because certain seminaries had a gay power clique that would not allow doctrinally and morally sound candidates to be ordained (i.e. if you would not join in the gay hijinx or at least give it your blessing, you got kicked out of the seminary). By the way, educated persons understand thaat rational persons discriminate all the time. Its part of life. Discrimination is usually good. Its when there is no morally licit basis for the dicrimination that it is correctly deemed reprehensible. In other words, when I looked for a romantic interest, I discriminated and ruled out all persons of my own gender. This is an example of good discrimination. And when I went shopping, I went to the checkout line with the cashier who is always very warm and friendly - discriminating against the other cashiers. I think my point is clear. The millenial moral taboo against homosexual acts (and the celebration thereof, aka "gay culture" or "gay pride") remains for many - and those people have not been (and won't be) bullied into embracing such immorality as if it were good or even neutral. 214.13.4.151 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Again on the soap-box 214... Try to keep comments about the article. We're not here to listen to you drone on about how holy you are and about the "evils" or homosexuality -- we're here to talk about the article. Keep that in mind; keep it topical not POV. Now, on to the article -- If this bill is passed, it will be the first catholic law that forbids gays from participating in the church. It shows that catholics do not "love the sinner, hate the sin" but in fact "exclude the sinner, even before he has sinned." As such, I don't think you can make the case that such a law isn't inherintley anti-gay. However, catholics can be as anti-gay as they want to be (within the law of the land) -- but wikipedia should call a spade a spade and make clear mention of this law, if passed. p.s. 214, do you really work for the Department of Defense? --Quasipalm 14:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First, there is no bill to be passed. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Again, no one has a right to be ordained a priest (and this tradition is as old as Christianity). Church leaders invite people to be ordained. Not everyone qualifies. Those who have a tendency to commit perverted acts that can never be holy and are always evil perhaps are not qualified - its up to the Church leadership to decide that. Orthodox Jews are not chastised for "discriminating" against women by treating them as unclean during menses. Vegetarians are not chastised for "discriminating" against people who eat meat. Blacks are not chastised for refusing to let whites join their special race-based organizations. Of course, you, Quas, can save special chastisement for the pope and everyone will know you mean well. After all, good intentions are what's really so important... In case you did not notice, I generally ignore comments about where I work. Its fun to watch you get your knickers in a twist about such things. My employer is SOOOOOOOO not relevant to this article. 214.13.4.151 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now gay people are evil and perverted? Thanks for letting us know how you really feel. [This is very disingenous of you to mischaracterize what I wrote - even Outerlimits understands the elementary difference between evil people and evil acts (perhaps, Quasi, your family never taught him the phrase "hate the sin but love the sinner?). As all faithful Catholics realize, homosexual acts are evil and such an idea is not at all controversial. Its only people with an agenda who try to pretend such sins are holy.] You truly are a piece of work, 214. By the way, it turned out that the new church policy is not going to ban gays from becoming priests today: [4]. Nice to see your faith hasn't been over-run with hate-mongers. The reason I asked about the DoD is because it would be nice to know if my tax dollars were paying for your constant POV additions to Wikipedia. Since the church didn't act to pass a bill (or decree or whatever monarchs pass) banning homosexuals from the church, then there is no addition to discuss and nothing more to talk about here. --Quasipalm 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

He's probably in charge of the "Don't ask, don't tell" section <g>. Being bigoted against gays isn't something you have to hide at the DoD. Though I'd like to think the DoD would hire people smart enough to conceal their IP by adopting a username! In any case, 214.13.4.151: a tendency to do evil is -by Catholic doctrine- part of human nature. It is a consequence of original sin. As all humans are sinners, and all humans are tempted to sin, so all priests are sinners, and all priests are tempted to sin. As Milton said - and in this case he was not at all at odds with Catholic dogma - "Evil into the mind of God or Man may come and go, so unapprov'd, and leave no spot or blame behind". - Outerlimits 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Its funny that anyone would think that advocacy of Catholic moral values is anything to "hide". Your notion that such ideas must be kept hidden speaks volumes about your extremism. 214.13.4.151 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't hide behind the church on this one, 214. The church just decided to let gays continue to be priests. Meanwhile, you're on record calling those gay priests "evil" and "perverted." That's your opinion, not the church's. --Quasipalm 19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Quasi, your new version is ok in regard to "No Personal Attacks." Sorry, I removed it all but on the other hand, I'm not sure whether "meddling" with another editor's post is so good either. And you no doubt had the chance to repost a "cleaned up" version.

As for, 214...

Could you please stop using her "IP status" against her. Yes, I'd prefer her to sign up as well, both for reasons of identification and of communication, but ultimately WP rules allow her to remain anon.

Also, I'm not sure you have not misinterpreted what she said:

"Church leaders invite people to be ordained. Not everyone qualifies. Those who have a tendency to commit perverted acts that can never be holy and are always evil perhaps are not qualified - its up to the Church leadership to decide that."

Yes, it's a bit difficult to understand, at least yours truly non-native speaker had to read it twice, but what she meant I think is:

"commit perverted acts that can never be holy and are always evil"

I think the "are always evil" refers to the acts and not to those commiting them.

However, the wording is a bit ambigious and I can understand why others got mad at it. But please show "good faith".

As for comparing "oranges and apples". No one is banning homosexuals from "having a loving relationship". It is homosexual intercourse that is (among other things) considered sinful not the relationship. I don't think canon Jeffrey John is sinning by living with his chaste boyfriend.

It appears that the alleged changes (brought up first by Quasipalm) are not happening.

Whether such a move would have been wise or not is a different matter which could be discussed, but not in the manner it has been brought up here, unfortunately.

Str1977 10:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess, unlike the Catholic church, I don't seperate gay people from gay thoughts and actions. To me this is a technicality that the church uses to get away with spreading homophobia while pretending to stay within Jesus' teachings about love and tolerance. To me, saying "I love gay people, just so long as they do nothing gay" is like saying "I love catholics, just so long as they don't go to church or pray." --Quasipalm 14:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The point that Str1977 is trying to explain to you is that not only does the Catholic Church separate "gay people" from "gay thoughts and actions", but that it also separates "gay thoughts" from "gay actions", unlike evangelical churches. The Catholic Church considers homosexual conduct to be gravely sinful, as it considers heterosexual conduct outside of marriage to be gravely sinful. It does not consider homosexual desires or thoughts to be gravely sinful. Robert McClenon 17:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Quasi, you seem to misunderstand the principle "hate the sin, love the sinner" - it is not about "loving someone, just so long as they do nothing bad" it is loving someone even though they do something bad, while still considering that action bad.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is one of the most basic principles of Christianity and indeed of civilization. Or why is it that even a murderer should be treated in a humane way? Because we distinguish betweem the person and his actions.

I strongly object to your loose usage of the term "homophobia". However, if you consider it to be that, than don't spare Jesus who loved the sinner and hated the sin. Str1977 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Str1977. However, I don't minunderstand the principle "hate the sin, love the sinner," I just find it mis-applied in the case of homosexuality. I don't object to your idea of hating murder but loving the murderer, but lets compare apples with apples here. Many gay people (almost as many as straight people by % -- it would be higher if gays were allowed to marry) are in loving, stable, and healthy relationships. Comparing their "sin" to murder is absurd. Perhaps you should compare it to some of the other sins of the Bible that are more-or-less forgotten today, like, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2-12. Should we love the female teacher, hate the teaching? --Quasipalm 14:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Quasi, I am not equating murder with homosexual acts. Both are sins in my book, but they are way apart from each other (and that is my comparison). And murder is not only a sin but a crime, while I wouldn't adovocate criminalizing homosexual acts, despite the risks they involve.

But a murderer might see things diferently (and talk about his "sin") and I would tell him exactly the same thing.

The "women teacher" quote is clearly a directive given by Paul and should not be easily set aside but it also needs to be interpreted in regard to the context. (And yes, as a good Catholic should, I am against female priests or women preaching in Mass.) The main word here I think is "usurp" - usurping I think is wrong by definition.

In regard to the teaching woman - we should love her, and we should take the substance of her teaching for what it is (approve or disapprove according to its own merit), but we can still disapprove of the fact of "usurping".

Anyway, this ordinance is not really in the same league as the consistent biblical prohibition of homosexual acts (among other things).

As for misunderstanding the principle "hts,lts" - unfortunately Robert has blurred the issue. It is not about what is considered a sin and what isn't (and it's not that easy with the desire, but at least he's right in general). Changing standards of sin is what I call the "liberal" or (maybe better:) the "modernist" answer to the problem of sin (note this is not to diss any people, but to highlight a tendency in human behaviour): it is declaring some sin to be not sinful and hence no need to show forgiveness and mercy, while still being merciless and unforgiven in regard to the remaining sins (and newly invented too) - the Christian answer is to absolutely stick to the moral principles and not waver in doing so and even radicalise them (as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount) but at the same time love those who fail and to always keep the door open for them by action and prayer.

(A parallel issue similar to that is the different understanding of tolerance, but I won't get into this now.)

Str1977 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Restatement of doctrine on homosexuality

I think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is easily misunderstood because it is seen by "gay rights" advocates as similar to that of evangelical Protestant churches, when it is not. Evangelical Protestant teaching on homosexuality is very different from Catholic teaching. Catholics see Catholic teaching on homosexuality as differing from both evangelical teaching and "liberal" teaching.

Catholic teaching distinguishes between desires and action. As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching only does with respect to heterosexual desires, but not to homosexual desires. In Catholic teaching, homosexual desire, like heterosexual desire, is not sinful, unless it goes to the point of "lust". Sexual action outside of marriage is sinful.

As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching is that homosexual desire is sinful. Catholic teaching does not say that. The conflation of desire and action leads evangelical teaching to condemn humans who have homosexual desires. Catholic teaching, which is more nuanced, does not lead there.

Catholic teaching is that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. It is also that sins may be forgiven, but that persistent sin is a deeper problem.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why men with homosexual desires cannot be priests. There is also no reason why men with heterosexual desires cannot be priests. Regardless of their desires, they are expected to sublimate them.

In Catholic thinking, the concept of "don't ask, don't tell" is deeply flawed, because it does make the statement of homosexual desires a subject of condemnation. However, "don't ask, don't tell" is a very deeply flawed compromise between two extremes that did not consider a more nuanced middle position, which would distinguish between desires and actions. No one should be punished or condemned for what they feel or think. It is only actions that are a subject of rules.

I don't really understand the "liberal" position, which appears to be that society should encourage all forms of sexual desires and actions.

When compared to other Christian religious leaders of the early twenty-first century, Benedict XVI is very much of a "moderate". He neither supports church-sponsored gay marriage (which he is very much against) nor urges the Church to condemn homosexual desires and the people who feel them. Robert McClenon 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you don't understand the "liberal" position -- I'll explain it for you: freedom. No liberal has ever said that society should encourage all forms of sexual desires and actions. Never. I've never even heard a gay person say that. However, most liberals do believe that freedom is a universal human right and that if two men or two women fall in love and want to be together, that is a right that the state should not restrict.

Again, while you focus completely on sex -- try to understand that what we're really talking about here is love. Yes, love and sex go hand in hand, but the broader idea here is that the catholic church roundly condemes gays in loving, healthy relationships simply because god made them gay. --Quasipalm 14:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The focus in this discussion is on sex since that's what is debated. No one here, I think, would argue against love if sex weren't involved.

How can "freedom" be a universal human right. You first have to clarify what the freedom is about. Otherwise ... If two people fall in love? What if they are siblings? Are you saying the state should not restrict this? (And I recently heard about such a case having reached US courts). I'm just asking for consistency's sake, not equating the two. If you would restrict it, then you cannot argue for a absolute freedom. But this isn't restricted to sexual issues.

If you, Quasi, advocate freedom (without encouragíng all forms) than we are basically together, at least in regard to the legal sphere. Of course, I guees you wouldn't advocate legal freedom for all sexual forms (think children, animals, violence).

The encouragement part however is a different matter and unfortunately many homosexual activists are demanding just that.

And a homosexual "marriage" would play into that "encouragement" field as well.

The Church only condemns the homosexual acts ... or rather, not even that: she calls a spade a spade (as she must in accordance with what she has been given by her Lord) and ministers God's forgiveness to repentant sinners (whatever the sin). That's all.

Whether "god made them gay" (and note now you are not talking about the acts but about the inclination) is another question alltogether. Are you saying it's genetical? That's unproven. Or is God the author of all conditions of man, including the bad ones? Are you considering the "falleness of the world"?

Str1977 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. A few more words from me:

• I advocate freedom when it doesn't infringe on another peoples' freedoms or harm other people. The reason siblings should not be allowed to marry is because of the real harm they can bring to their children. No such reasoning exists with gays -- homosexuals having sex, living together, even getting married in no way hurts any other individuals. (In fact, it can HELP other people to allow this. I went to school with a woman raised by two gay men -- she loved them both and was a very balanced (and yes, straight) person. It also would help public health to have gays married in legally binding, socially solidified marriages.) Of course I'm talking about the political/legal sphere here -- Catholics are certainly free to make their own rules about sex, however much I might disagree with them.

-Thanks. Not everyone nowadays unfortunately grant us Catholics that.

-Sure "harm to others" is the absolute minimum of legal infringment on freedoms (i.e. the state is obliged to interfere here, even it wants to be as liberal as possible) - I was only here argueing against the idea that there can be no such limits as some think (not you, as I see). Where to set such limits further is a question of debate.

• Where we differ: Allowing marriage does not encourage homosexuality. Would you become gay if it was legal to marry? I don't know if being gay is genetic or otherwise (or as some now think, it may be related to the hormones present in the womb) but the idea that people choose their sexuality is absurd. If you can't choose to be gay, it only follows that gays can't choose to be straight.

-No, I wouldn't turn homosexual. I also don't think this would encourage but it would be a sort of endorsement. If you want to create some legal framework for homosexual couples than that's ok, but just don't call it "marriage". The question what kind of interest the state has in recognizing such union is another question.

-Well, the choice is not so much the inclination/tendency/orientation, but acting on them. And this is were morality comes into play (and hence I wasn't pleased when I heard that "celibate homosexuals" were planned to be banned, fortunately that isn't happening).

• I'm not a christian, but yes, by the christian view, I think that "god is the author of all conditions of man" would have to be true by the pure nature of god being all powerful. If god created man, then he is the author of love, hate, war, friendship, homosexuality, etc. If god is not the author of these things, (according to religious believers) then he is implicitly responsible for them because he has the power to change them but chooses not to. And I don't buy the notion that god has simply "withdrawn" from the world to allow humans to do what we will because god in the bible was totally different; always hanging out on the planet, telling people what to do, buring evil cities to the ground, etc. etc.

-You are certainly right. God hasn't withdrawn but he still leaved human beings very much leeway, sometimes interfering but not always noticable to everyone, especially atheists. And he is, IMHO, not causing any specific condition. He certainly allows them, as parts in his big plan, but not everything that happens is in line with God's active will. He certainly is not the author of truly evil things. Evil is the absence or the perversion of good and comes from man's bad choices. Remember, according to the Christian view, this world is wrecked by sin and its consequences, only to be healed when HE returns.

• To anyone that is wondering what this has to do with the article -- very little; I apologize.  :-) --Quasipalm 17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

-Yes, and hence I'll stop the preaching. Thanks, Quasi, for this thoughtful and amicable encounter. :-) Str1977 12:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

With hang-ups on sexuality separating the left and right, I would like to find some common ground here. Has anyone any thoughts on asexual candidates for Holy Orders? I think the ideal candidate would be chaste and holy, and free from genitalia of any sort. Aloysius Patacsil 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "left" and "right" are appropriate here. In regard to your questions: I would object to "asexuals" being ordained. I wouldn't even object to "physical eunuchs", though a case could be made against this from scripture and also this was used against Origen, when he was illicitly ordained. But I don't think "free from genitalia" would be part of any ideal -chaste (which is more than just "continent") and holy however, yes. Str1977 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Another modest proposal

This talk page reverts to the subject in question (ie BXI). The Catholic church's attitudes towards various sexual and other positions (if you will accept the pun) belongs to a separate page - and there should be a brief mention on the main BVI page about *his* particular attitudes towards such matters. Most people find other people's slanging matches (anyone care to create a page on that?) boring at the very least.

Sorry to bore you, but

1. this is a talk page -- so expect some talking.
2. all of the topics above do deal directly with Benedict XVI (at least at first) before they go off-topic.
3. you don't have to read it -- so there's no reason for you to be bored.
4. Benedict XVI is now the monarch of the Church, so his personal views and the views of the church should be nearly identical. As such, these discussions are well placed.
5. Please sign your talk page entires with --~~~~

--Quasipalm 15:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussions do tend to wander off topic (discussion group messages with several "re:s" tend to bear little relationship to the titular topic of discussion). I was referring to such items as the one immediately preceeding this one - and once a topic gets to such a length, perhaps it deserves an article of its very own. It was the slanging matches that I was defining as boring.

Added teaching on Christianity as Religion According to Reason

I just added one of the most important texts (if not the most important) of Benedict XVI on the most important battle he is waging, which is the battle against secularism in the West. Hope you like it. It's one of the most beautiful he has written and one of the most logical thing that strikes at the very root of the issue. Moreover, it shows his view of the religion of which is the leader. Lafem 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Robinson and Benedict

Perhaps something from the discussion above could be transferred to the Interfaith page, where it may be more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.83 (talk • contribs)