Jump to content

Talk:Pope Francis/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Contraception & the New Yorker

Regarding this edit: The passage being cited in the New Yorker is discussing the reception of Holy Communion by couples who have attempted remarriage. The author also doesn't mention the "internal forum" here, so there is no corresponding source here which that concept could have been drawn from. (It would be preferable to actually use sources which are reliable for Catholic doctrine, and not sensational American newsy outlets, like this article from a dissenting, pro-contraception priest who writes shocking things for a skeptical audience.) Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Does this say more about your own leanings than about The New Yorker magazine, which appeals to educated people, and is well known for "its rigorous fact checking and copy editing,[6][7] its journalism on politics and social issues". And the author here, James Carroll. is a notable author who has published twenty books. Thanks for your note, though, and I will redo the reference in accord with what I find. Jzsj (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It is no secret to any Catholic that when it comes to the mainstream media, 'alternative facts' are preferable to what the Holy Father actually says. But hey, who am I to judge? Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that Pope Francis has respected the sensus fidei and is sympathetic to the fact that by 1993 only 13% of Catholics accepted Church teaching on contraception. Jzsj (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Welp, I dunno - in the interview you're quoting, he called it 'evil' Elizium23 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A search of the article does not turn up the word "evil": where are you referring to? And please note that the article is largely about Humanae Vitae and what the author says is largely justified by the quotes from Amoris Laetitia, which I now quote directly. I hope this satisfies. Jzsj (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, now you are performing original research on primary sources. And again you have synthed it into the contraception section when the New Yorker is still not referring to that issue in that part of the article. So now it's worse than when we began. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The article from the start is speaking about the inpact of Humane Vitae on the Church since its very publication, and the way that Pope Francis has responded to this. The inclusion of quotes is because you objected to how The New Yorker synthesizes these quotes. Are you denying that an important point is being made here, that characterizes Pope Francis' approach to church teaching on contraception versus personal conscience? Jzsj (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's defocus a little bit. Let me bring up the poorly-named and likewise poorly-scoped Theology of Pope Francis. Why does this screed on "contraception being A-OK now" belong in this BLP and not the 'Theology[sic]' article? Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely you are aware of the frequency of main articles having a section on a topic that also has its own article. I would suggest that both should focus on Pope Francis in this case, and not just on where he speaks like previous popes. Jzsj (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

SteveMcCluskey, I am confused by your explanation for reverting my edit. You said that the reader may not be aware that criticism comes particularly from theological conservatives and that the article should state that. My version still states that criticism comes from theological conservatives; I simply took out the word "particularly" and added it in later in the sentence. Given my explanation, what is the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I reverted your edit because it focused the conservative criticism of Pope Francis to two main topics " particularly on the question of admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion with the publication of Amoris laetitia and on the question of the alleged cover-up of clergy sexual abuse." The critique of the pope "particularly from theological conservatives" has been much more wide-ranging and applies to almost every aspect of Pope Francis's teachings. See the section on Controversies for specific examples. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
SteveMcCluskey, I don't think you've read the sentence very carefully at all. Please try doing so again. Right now the content in question reads: "Since 2016, Francis has faced increasingly open criticism, particularly from theological conservatives, on the question of admitting civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion with the publication of Amoris laetitia and on the question of the alleged cover-up of clergy sexual abuse." The fact that the word "particularly" is absent from the final clause makes it seem as though conservative criticism of Pope Francis has focused not just primarily but exclusively on divorce and sex abuse. Transferring the word away from the the penultimate clause and to the final clause recognizes the fact that while Francis's teaching and behavior on divorce and sex abuse may have been the focus of especially high criticism (which is true), criticism of him is much more wide-ranging. It also recognizes the fact that, at least so far as I've been able to find, no significant criticism has been directed at him but from conservatives.
By the way, all of this would have been made clear if you'd read my edit summary, first before reverting and second before responding here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
To clarify the breadth of the conservative criticism of the Pope, on which we apparently both agree, I've made some further revisions in the lead. I hope these make the point more clearly. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It's an improvement over the original version. I suppose I can settle for it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Arabian Peninsula

Hi, the claim is made multiple times in the article that he is the "first pontiff to visit the Arabian Peninsula". The source, however, says it is the "first visit of its kind". So what kind is that? What of Roman Pontiffs who were born in North Africa? Are there really over 260 Bishops of Rome who never went to the Arabian Peninsula? Crusader Popes? Bishops of now-titular bishoprics who were elevated to the papacy? I think we'll need more sources making this specific claim before we can add it back here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

women deacons

Francis set up a commission to study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons in the Catholic Church, but after two years it maintained "sharply different positions" and disbanded.

The above is not true.

The Commission provided a report to Francis in June 2018. Following the Synod for the Pan-Amazon, Francis said he would recall the Commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.106.194 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

Addition of 12/17/2019 change to pontifical secrecy regarding sex abuse. The effect is remove the need to get permission from the Vatican to share evidence with authorities, though it does not mandate abuse reporting from the vatican itself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-lifts-secrecy-rule-in-sexual-abuse-cases/2019/12/17/6d321a2a-20c9-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html Deadletter (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any need for this page to be locked? It goes against the principles of Wikipedia.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

Change Mormonism to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In recent years the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has encouraged members of the church as well as non-members to use the full and proper name of the church in order to emphasize the church's focus on Christ. The article should reflect that. Taguchit (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sorry, we aren't run by the LDS, so we set our own rules of nomenclature. Sometimes we use "Mormonism" to refer to the new religious movement encompassing far more than the LDS church. Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

It is generally considered proper form to discuss infobox image changes, especially images that have been stable and approved by consensus. IMHO, the previous image is marginally better: background, no widget pinned to Francis' cassock, and more recent by one year. Other opinions? Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Either one would be fine. The Pope's appearance has not changed much in the last few years, so the image being slightly older by one year is not a vast difference. I do not see anything objectively negative about the current image, not indistinct or grainy, etc. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Жид, поп, Франциск, подло притворяется кашляющим. Тем самым поддерживает легенду о Коронавирусе. Воюет с верующими гоями: «Накажут Бог, бактерии или радиация». То, чего нет. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8061925/Pope-makes-public-appearance-following-illness.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812F:C1B6:C4BA:4BD1:E9DE:5B14 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Vigano allegations

Jzsj, please explain your recent edit removing mention of the fact that media reports described McCarrick has taking on an expanded role after the start of Francis's papacy. You have removed this information twice and have not provided a reason for it. I'm not sure what reason there could be. It's easily verifiable and relevant to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Display name 99 The only reference given to the "reports" was a dead URL. The article may be accessed through its name but is by Vigano himself, sourced to notoriously biased Life Site News, full of surmise and short on facts. This article gives a much different account of McCarrick's activities: "From 2008 to 2013, the former cardinal kept up a public profile that included preaching at high-profile Masses, giving talks and accepting awards." The facts in this second article are sufficient to impugn the account and motives of Vigano. Jzsj (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Jzsj, thank you for your information on the dead link. I should have checked the link before posting here. I can't access it as it seems the article was removed from the website. I would like to call your attention to a 2014 Washington Post article available here, which I believed was referenced in the dead link article, along with possibly some other material. A paragraph from it reads: "McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix, and busier than ever." The next sentence reads: "McCarrick in particular has been on a tear in the past year, traveling to the Philippines to console typhoon victims and visiting geopolitical pivot points such as China and Iran for sensitive talks on religious freedom and nuclear proliferation." That past year was essentially the first year of Francis's pontificate. The article then goes onto describe in detail McCarrick's travels during the first year and three months of Francis's papacy, also including various anecdotes about their relationship. Another part of the article later on reads: "He retired in 2006 and was sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed."
While we know that McCarrick did travel and make public appearances during the latter half of Benedict XVI's papacy, I feel that the Post article makes it clear that his activities increased dramatically under Francis, and that the information should be restored to the article with the Post article as the source. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99 Just click the first word "name" in my response and check the link to Vigano's letter. Know that there have been many articles about Vigano's "expose", its motives and (in)accuracy, and that the quote now in the article is as reliable as any: "Cardinal Marc Ouellet said that Benedict had imposed informal sanctions on McCarrick but denied that Francis had lifted them" (Footnote 524). This is the Cardinal of whom Vigano says in his expose: "Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops ... [others mentioned] were all aware by reason of their office of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick." I'm not going to subscribe to get access to the Washington Post article, but whatever it says cannot prove that Francis was fully informed and making decisions about the many cases before the Congregation for Bishops. It took Francis till February 2019 to get on top of the process of investigating and reporting cases against Bishops, and he wisely left it to his fellow bishops to take responsibility for others in their archdiocese. The conclusion I've drawn from the whole, drawn out process is that U.S. Bishops were negligent in speaking up against "their own" and Francis has not rushed to any conclusions or tried to rush to a solution, but over time come up with a chain of accountability and make it Church practice. The media is notoriously anxious to provoke emotions even when they do not have all the facts, and this includes the Washington Post. Jzsj (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Jzsj, you don't need to subscribe to the Post to see what it says; I provided all of the relevant quotations for you. I'm confused about the rest of your response. Was McCarrick's case before the Congregation for Bishops? I don't believe so. Our job on Wikipedia is to report what is reflected in reliable sources, and a reliable source says that McCarrick's activities increased dramatically after Francis's election. Does that automatically mean that Francis lifted sanctions imposed by Benedict? No, and we don't say that it does. But a crucal component of Wikipedia is to present both sides of the story. While you blame the media for being "anxious to provoke emotions," that cannot be the case here, for the Post article was written, as I said, in 2014, four years before the McCarrick allegations came to light. So the author of the article cannot be accused of trying to arouse hostile feelings towards the Pope. Therefore, I still don't see a valid reason for keeping this information out. Your own personal view that its implications are unfair to Pope Francis does not seem relevant if the information comes from a reliable source and is not taken out of context. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99 Given all the activities that McCarrick was involved in during the years immediately before Francis became Pope, I think it's inaccurate to say that Francis gave him an increased role. More likely McCarrick took advantage of Francis' preoccupation with other issues at the start of his papacy, and of Francis' ignorance of the full extent of his offenses, to increase his activities. And did the Washington Post take account of the number of gay priests in the Curia who may have been sending Francis mixed messages about McCarrick? Jzsj (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Jzsj, first of all, the Post article desn't talk about gay priests or sexual abuse at all, because again, it was written before the allegations against McCarrick were publicized. As for what is in the article that you cited, going to galas and concelebrating Masses is one thing. Brokering agreements with foreign countries is another, and McCarrick clearly did more of that during the Francis papacy. Here's where we stand now. We know that McCarrick travelled and did some things during the Benedict papacy after the sanctions were supposedly applied, but we have a reliable source saying that he travelled more and took on greater responsibilities during the Francis papacy. I haven't been able to find another mainstream source besides the Post article saying that McCarrick took on an increased role during Francis's papacy. So if you like, we could compromise and instead of saying "previous media reports described McCarrick as taking on an expanded role after Francis became pope," we could replace "previous media reports" with "a Washington Post article." Display name 99 (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to be circumspect on this issue. I intend to go to a library and see if I can access the WPost article there on their computer. My question is whether they establish that it was not his activity but his "role", with the implication that Francis himself demonstrably assigned him this increased role soon after Benedict left office. If the article established only that McCarrick's activity increased, and not that Francis was directly involved in causing this, then it would be more conscientious of us to say that his "activity" increased (as you yourself reword it above) or to leave out the WPost statement as a misleading summary of what they actually establish. In this regard, I can usually identify WPost headlines on internet because they tend to reflect an editorial effort to please their readership, moreso than the NYTimes or LATimes which are also left of center. The fact that Wiki guidelines permit us to lift an isolated statement out of an article doesn't mean that it is good to do so. But let me see what the WPost article establishes in its entirety. Another problem is that the criticism section is not chronological, so it's left unclear what anyone knew when some in the Vatican allowed McCarrick to take on new activities. Jzsj (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I can give you time to read the article in full. Here's one quote from the article: "Sometimes McCarrick’s travels abroad are at the behest of the Vatican, sometimes on behalf of Catholic Relief Services. Occasionally the U.S. State Department asks him to make a trip..." My view is that the article heavily implies that much of McCarrick's increased activity was at the request of Pope Francis but does not directly say so. I would be fine with changing the sentence to this: "However, a 2014 Washington Post article described McCarrick's activities as increasing heavily after Francis became pope." Display name 99 (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I would call this statement reasonable, but would like also to reorder the section on sexual morality since the charges of child sex abuse were not known to Francis until 2018, just perhaps the past history of sleeping in the same bed with seminarians. But amidst the "gay lobby" in the Papal Curia, they had no reason to pass on to Francis the record of this US bishop. If you read the section in Wikipedia on McCarrick's sexual abuses, and the confused record of its reporting even in the United States, it is most credible that Francis had no reason to suspect McCarrick of serious abuses until 2018, when Vigano timed his release to embarrass Francis as he began his visit to Ireland. Understand, Vigano had to be very hurt that Francis was reversing the policy of appointing mainly anti-abortion canon lawyers to the episcopacy, which he had helped implement. Francis from the start chose priests of the people rather than canon lawyers and placed all the moral issues on an equal plane. Jzsj (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I just learned that the article referenced here, "Globe-trotting Cardinal Theodore McCarrick is almost 84 and working harder than ever", is actually from the Religious News Service, carried also in the National Catholic Reporter, and says nothing about any charges against McCarrick. Isn't this WP:SYN, combining sources to arrive at a conclusion not stated in this reference, that the increased activity of McCarrick after Benedict's retirement shows Francis' lack of concern about sexual abuse. This is nowhere suggested in the article and later developments show it not to be true. Jzsj (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I forgot that the article previously came from Religion News Service and I apologize for this. I've said all along that the article includes nothing about any charges against McCarrick. The purpose of restoring this content isn't to portray Francis as not concerned about sex abuse but simply to weigh the evidence for and against Vigano. The evidence against him is that McCarrick travelled while supposedly under sancton. The evidence for him is that his activities increased after Francis became pope. Assuming that both of these pieces of information are covered in reliable sources, which they are, they both must be included in order to treat both sides fairly. It isn't WP:SYNTH because the article never says anything about Francis not being concerned about sexual abuse. I still propose restoring the proposed sentence, while saying "2014 news report" instead of "2014 Washington Post article. The fact that the report was carried in the NCR and WaPo still makes it notable.
I don't see a "Sexual morality" statement anywhere and am confused by what you mean. Display name 99 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I meant "sexual abuse". I can live with your mentioning McC's activities increasing in 2014, before Francis likely knew of his sleeping with seminarians. Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. I've done so. I'm still not sure what you mean about child sex abuse. This section of the article does not claim that Francis had knowledge of any accusations of child sex abuse against anybody. Display name 99 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam war > contraception?

Hi, I am curious about the parallels drawn between Francis' theological studies during the time of Vietnam and that war, to the release of Humanae vitae. It seems tenuous at best. If an editor had normally suggested it, we would call it WP:SYNTH. The referenced article is authored by the editor who added it, and it's behind a paywall this time. It seems odd, to me, to draw a line from an Argentinian cleric's religious studies to the Vietnam War and onward to contraception. There will always be wars raging somewhere in the world; Argentina wasn't particularly involved in Vietnam, so I don't see how Francis would be overly concerned with it in particular, as opposed to, say, the Dirty War. I propose removing the passage in question in favor of a better analysis of Pope Francis' attitude toward natural family planning and the finer aspects of Catholic sexual morality for married couples (which the Church has never been "preoccupied" with but merely responds questions raised by the prevailing culture.) Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • One studying moral theology during the turbulent '60s would not have been ignorant of the moral issue of the Vietnam war, so remarkably characterized by the very Secretary of State who was overseeing it: "US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara wrote: 'The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 non-combatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny, backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one'." The fact that one must go to a library to find an article, till next year when it becomes accessible on web, should not exclude an insightful observation any more than does citing a book. Perhaps the inclusion of the quote itself would be more helpful, and let the reader decide whether the remark in the article is relevant. No call for getting personal on such issues. As to "preoccupied with", Pope John Paul II's fixation on abortion and contraception in Communist Poland and then bringing this into his papacy, with the continued impact this has had on the Church in the United States (and election of Trump), is a matter of record. Pope Francis has been noted as having issues with the focus of the American hierarchy, and has removed agreement with Humanae Vitae as a litmus test for becoming a bishop. @Elizium23: Jzsj (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No mention here of the vast numbers of civilians murdered by the Marxists in Indochina - Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. As for Robert McNamara - even at the time it was clear he had no objective of victory, he was not interested in actually defeating the Marxists. The United States military (and other anti Marxist forces) were actually forbidden to attack key enemy military targets.2A02:C7D:B41D:C800:C1C:9A7F:3E45:FF69 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "This has been used to explain in part his differences with Pope John Paul II, who was a prime mover behind Humanae Vitae." It is clear that there is a major difference in these pontificates centered largely around the issue of contraception. Why do you insist on removing from the article a published explanation of the reason for this difference? Must more of the article be quoted? The clear and important difference in these papacies, one emphasizing sins of weakness and the the other sins of strength, is a clear difference that needs explaining. Jzsj (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Names in myriad languages

@LMorland: we do not put Francis' other-language names in the lede unless they are precisely relevant to him. German and French-language names are not relevant. His name is translated into all local languages for those who refer to him, and if we included arbitrary languages, then the list would grow without bound, so we keep it to the bare minimum. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

In the Papal documents section please add a reference to his third encyclical Fratelli tutti. Varjú (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Page needs trimming or possibly further splitting

As of earlier today, it is exceeding Wikipedia's template post expansion include size limit.

This means templates at the bottom of the page, like {{authority control}}, will not display properly.

Possible solutions:

  • Trim the article.
  • Trim sections that are already summaries of other pages.
  • Spin off longer sections into their own page, leaving a summary.
  • Identify opportunities to turn templates into modules.
  • Identify opportunities to change templates so their "post expansion include size" is less.
  • Eliminate unnecessary use of templates.

Probably the biggest "bang for the buck" will come from the 3rd one - spinning off sections that can be spun off. The 2nd one, trimming sections that already have "main articles," should help some too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

With any encouragement, I would be willing to trim to one paragraph the section on his teachings, linking to sections of the article on Theology of Pope Francis. Much of his teaching is already mentioned in the above section on his Papacy and in the section that follows on Controversies, which might be slightly embellished from the Teachings section. This would accord with the first three proposals above. The "Teachings" section is now 25% of the article. This article, then, would be organized around the history of his life and papacy. Jzsj (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Alternately, we could entirely eliminate the "Teachings" section, removing material there to the Theology of Pope Francis article, and including a bit more of it in the "Papacy" and "Controversies" sections. The controversies section could also be trimmed, since much of it is presently in the Theology of Pope Francis article; what is not could be moved to there. Jzsj (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose also that the sections on Ecumenism and Interfaith Dialogue be made into one separate article. Also that his early life be another separate article. This article would then be a detailed chronology of his papacy, followed by the current sections six (Controversies) and following. Jzsj (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The article has been cut by one third, or the former article was 50% longer than the present article. If there is a consensus that more paring down should be done, then please mention how this is to be achieved. Jzsj (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Before taking up this new appointment, he spent the first three months of 1980 in Ireland to learn English, staying at the Jesuit Centre at the Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin.[41] He served at San Miguel for six years until 1986[3] when, at the discretion of Jesuit superior-general Peter Hans Kolvenbachhe, he was replaced by someone more in tune with the worldwide trend in the Society of Jesus toward emphasizing social justice, rather than his emphasis on popular religiosity nand direct pastoral work.[42]

I wanna change 'nand' to 'and' because it's a typo. probably. The typo is in the Presbyterate section. Benjadams (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sentence from `Early Years' has mistakenly been moved to `Presbyterate'?

It seems that the sentences beginning `As a student at the Salesian school ..." have been displaced from `Early Years' to `Presbyterate'. 

As a student at the Salesian school, Bergoglio was mentored by Ukrainian Greek Catholic priest Stefan Czmil. Bergoglio often rose hours before his classmates to serve Mass for Czmil.[1][2]

Nick_cool (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick cool: The presbyterate section includes the years when he was in this school. Veverve (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Paul Vallely, Pope Francis: Untying the Knots, Bloomsbury, 2013
  2. ^ Shkodziska, Oksana (13 March 2013). "Patriarch Sviatoslav: Newly Elected Pope Knows Ukrainian Catholic Church, its Liturgy and Spirituality". Religious Information Service of Ukraine. Retrieved 15 March 2013.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

There is a spelling error in the second paragraph of the section "Presbyterate (1969–1992)". "...in 1980 he was named the rector of the Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel wjere he had studied." Please remove the 'j' from "were". 85.165.51.153 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done although I replaced the j with an h, because the intended word is "where". Thank you! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Direct reference to a source in the top

Can you remove the reference to the Irish times article in the top? It seems like the article is pushing an interpretation of facts that should not be displayed this prominently before the beginning of the article.

82.173.188.230 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Becciu scandal

@Peter39c: would you mind explain your changes? Veverve (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peter39c:: we are trying to hold this article to somewhere near the limit for length. The Becciu case is not a major event in Francis' pontificate, nor does it concern him personally but precedes his pontificate. Under the circumstances any pope would likely remove Becciu. Jzsj (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial... sure but Becciu scandal is real, and Pope Francis is victim like the whole Catholic church. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/world/europe/Cardinal-Becciu-Fired.html Please try to document yourself the section simply said that the Pope kicked Becciu out.--Peter39c (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Peter39c, as I posted to your talkpage, WP:COATRACK applies here. This is not personally applicable to Pope Francis but is a problem of Becciu and associates in the Roman Curia. The media is being sensationalistic about it, and always will. They are reporting on fragments and rumors. It is WP:RECENTISM to go reporting the blow-by-blow in any article, let alone this one. Let us proceed with prudence and caution and observe WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly not gossip to steal 200 million euros.--Peter39c (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

But this is an article on Pope Francis and already over length. It can't cover every Vatican scandal.Jzsj (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The Pope's action to preserve the Church, both financially and spiritually, cannot be erased from article. It is only 4 rows of the section and therefore the article is not stretched beyond way.--Peter39c (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the section. Veverve (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC) I rethought back to this section of the article, you did very well to remove the section I had added.--Peter39c (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Expand if you want the article of the Becciu Scandal on the page of Giovanni Angelo Becciu.--Peter39c (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal doctor, Fabrizio Soccorsi

La Croix also reports it, but is it a notable information? Veverve (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Veverve, it's so WP:DUE that it wound up on the nightly local news. It's already been added to the Vatican City COVID-19 article. I doubt a sentence would be out-of-place here; I would cover his tenure from the time of appointment until his death. Elizium23 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Spiritus Domini

I would suggest that any extended treatment of Spiritus Domini be taken up on the specific Theology of Pope Francis page and not this BLP, which is huge already; let's keep it focused here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, could you please explain why you replaced my "atrocious" — though perennial — sources with primary sources and government outlets?--JBchrch (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Tone sucked, sorry. Could you please explain to me why you replaced my sources?--JBchrch (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, the media sources that were provided are typically tone-deaf about Catholic doctrine and they have a poor reputation for reliability in this topic. I added (1) the primary source itself for simple reference; obviously that cannot be used to support analysis so I also included (2) a reliable secondary source of CNA, which I found to be the best source providing analysis and reaction to the motu proprio. As I mentioned on the main article's talk page, the CNA article was picked up by NCRegister and Catholic Herald, both independent sources, so I consider the CNA article equivalent to the AP wire service; and (3) the Vatican News source, which provides a view from Rome, more analysis and accurate description of how the law changed. I did not check the USA secular media to see how they reported, but so far, there is a French source and a NC Reporter source which have completely garbled and misconstrued the event, and I had to remove them from the main article. Now, can we talk about moving this out of this article entirely, please, as I said above. Elizium23 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So all of the sources claim that Francis "allowed women to distribute Holy Communion" and some of them refer to "Eucharistic Ministers" which are both errors. acolytes and lectors do not distribute Holy Communion. They are not called "Eucharistic Ministers" either.
The NYTimes claims that the positions "have formerly been reserved to men" which is ignoring the inconvenient truth that they weren't.
There is analysis claiming that "bishops will be unable to bar women" from the ministries, but that remains to be seen, I have seen no such compulsion in the wording of the law. Bishops have vast discretion to do as they please, and let their pastors do the same. Just because there is wishful thinking on the ground, doesn't make it so. The CNA or Vatican News have no such proposals.
Once again, the secular sources have amply proven that they are not up to the task of reporting on the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Civil Union comments

The Civil Union sections should reference the Vatican has said that the comments were taken out of context and were spliced from other interviews. Also it mentions that his statement is in favor of same-sex adoption, however he personally endorsed the 2015 Slovak same-sex marriage referendum which called for outlawing said practice. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this was clearly proven incorrect by the Vatican + he was referencing that homosexual persons shouldn't be kicked out of their family. It should be removed. Bear16767 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Can I mention that Francis is a Freemason in the biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XyzBen (talk • contribs) 07:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

He is not a free mason. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Break with Tradition

There has been a little back and forth here but for Religious perscuation the claims of break with tradition should be removed. The articles refers to opposition to the Gulf War as proof of a change, but this is inaccurate. The Vatican was aganist both Gulf Wars because they did not fit the just war theory, while intervention aganist ISIS did, thus the claim of a break is misleading. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Holy See is against most wars. And the source says this very clearly. Elizium23 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify this, but the most I can find is "His comments were significant because the Vatican has vehemently opposed any military intervention in recent years", but the only refers to the recent stance of the Vatican, and doesn't speak of tradition. There's also "Church teaching allows for "just wars," when military force can be justified under certain circumstances", but that is more related to tradition, but seems to say that this stance is in keeping with Vatican tradition rather than opposing it. Is there something I'm missing? - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
That is what I'm thinking as well. I think the tradition part should be removed and simply say in contrast to the previous gulf wars. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
After reading that article and looking up the meaning of the word 'tradition', I think it is appropriate to remove that phrase. Vikram Vincent 17:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is to remove the "tradition" phrase. Vikram Vincent 05:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Death penalty

We should have a section on the death penalty. Preferably under theological emphases (I think under morality is the best place) but under controversies (Theological disagreements) is also possible.

We should keep the section short and refer to (see also: Catholic Church and capital punishment to the contemporary section.)

It should say something like this:

Francis is against the death penalty. He has changed the Catechism of the Church to call the death penalty inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.bbc. In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti, the pope repeated his stance.catholicoutlook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:91BD:E178:5D4D:4D13 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be added. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Not unusual for a head-of-state of Vatican City. Per Capital punishment in Vatican City:

Exclude parents?

Hello, according to {{Infobox person}} documentation, the parents should only be included if they are "independently notable or particularly relevant". I don't believe this is the case for Francis' parents, so I believe they should be excluded here from his infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That would seem reasonable to me. Infoboxes are meant for "key facts" according to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Pascite Gregem Dei

I recently created a page for Pascite Gregem Dei. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, I wish you had spelled it correctly and used the article I had already created for you. I have filed for a technical move request. Elizium23 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

It would seem that "Pope" is also an honorific prefix, and so the complete "honorific-prefix=" parameter should be "His Holiness Pope" and the "name=" parameter should be "Francis" alone. This would bring this article into compliance with the consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually "Pope" is just as much a part of his name as is "Francis," since Francis is his papal name, not his birth name. So "Pope Francis" is his name and His Holiness is his honorific prefix, per MOS:HON. This honorific prefix is also consistent with all the other Roman Catholic prelates' honorific prefixes in the infoboxes of cardinals, archbishops and bishops. X4n6 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
X4n6, it's a title, not a name. Per His Holiness: The best-known title, that of "Pope", does not appear in the official list of titles, but is commonly used in the titles of documents, and appears, in abbreviated form, in their signatures as "PP." standing for Papa (Pope).[1][2][3][4][5]
From Pope (word): Pope is a title traditionally accorded to the Bishop of Rome, the Coptic and Greek Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, and some autocratic leaders of other ecclesial communities. Popes may also claim the title Patriarch. Both terms come from a word for father.
In the Eucharistic Prayer at Mass, the priest celebrant prays for "Francis, our Pope..." and per MOS:HON I have been removing "Pope" honorifics from articles where they should not be. Elizium23 (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
His papal name is Pope Francis. His honorific is "His Holiness." Every Roman Catholic prelates' infoboxes set up their respective honorifics this way. X4n6 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Read carefully. Read closer. Read for comprehension. You're wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ironic to tell me to read - after I gave you a link to read - which you clearly didn't. So telling me I'm wrong after that is just laughable. Oh and fyi, the Eucharist Prayer isn't definitive. Also, have fun in your quest to scrub the entire project of all those honorifics. Enjoy. X4n6 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please observe how this is handled in the infobox heading of all the other popes. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please observe how this is handled in the infoboxes of ALL other Roman Catholic prelates. Specifically, all other cardinals, archbishops and bishops have their honorifics included in the infoboxes. For consistency, this infobox cannot ignore the honorific of the bishop of Rome - especially, the singularly specific honorific of the pope. The infobox should not ignore the pope's honorific. Also please note how the BLP itself references the pope's "official form of address". If anything, his title is not the Bishop of Rome. It is Pope. And his honorific prefix is "His Holiness." X4n6 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You need to get a consensus for all the papal bios, in order to make the changes you want. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. As even Benedict XVI would tell you, we only have one Pope at a time. So for now, I'd be happy to just focus on this one. Especially since you still haven't explained where you think the honorific "His Holiness" should go in the infobox, or if the answer is nowhere, why it should be deleted there. Or if you can even agree that his primary title is the Pope and not the Bishop of Rome. Because that should be easy. X4n6 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you. Pope belongs in the infobox above the name Francis. The pope's name is Francis, not Pope Francis. PS: "His holiness" bit, is not required in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason to omit information from the Infobox which the readers expect to see. The Infobox says honorific-prefix? = "His Holiness." title? = "Pope." "name = Francis." That's it. His primary title is not Bishop of Rome. So why wouldn't the Infobox state the obvious? He is "Pope Francis" not "Bishop Francis." X4n6 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
He's the Pope because he's the Bishop of Rome, not the other way around. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The Bishop of Rome is a title he gets because he is Pope. X4n6 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You have that backwards. It's because he's the Bishop of Rome, that he's Pope. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your chronology is wrong. He is Pope because he was elected by the College of Cardinals in its papal conclave, of which he was a cardinal elector. He was not Bishop of Rome prior to being elevated to the papacy. He became Bishop of Rome upon his elevation to Pope. X4n6 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You don't seem to be grasping what I'm posting. Further, I recommend you bring your concerns to WP:Catholic, for a larger audience. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I grasp exactly what you're saying. You think the Pope isn't primarily the Pope so much as he's the Bishop of Rome. Likewise you thing that view should be reflected in the Infobox. Where you also believe, likewise, that millions of the faithful or whomever else visits that BLP, are doing so because they're interested in the Bishop of Rome, not the Pope. See, I categorically disagree with all of that. Perhaps I am reminded of all the titles he has. Like Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God... or in the Latin but still used there are Pontifex Maximus and Summus Pontifex. Or informal ones like Successor to St. Peter and Holy Father. But what I grasp is that the title he's most known by - indeed the title of the BLP - is Pope Francis. But I have your recommendation. X4n6 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Being Bishop of Rome, makes one Pope. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh are we still playing? Ok then, tell me how one becomes Bishop of Rome. X4n6 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I've already explained it to you. If you can't grasp it, that's your burden, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Too cute by a half. The answer is obvious - and it always has been. Even to you. X4n6 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
We'll have to wait for others to chime in. You & I are certainly not going to agree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Finally, something we agree on. X4n6 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
However, I do note with interest how many other editors have attempted to address this glaring omission. Even recently. As the guardian of the gate, that must give you pause. Perhaps once marshalled, consensus will go in a very different direction. X4n6 (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The top of the infobox, should match those of the other popes. The title Pope at the top, with the papal name, underneath. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The Infobox should say whatever consensus says it must say. X4n6 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
We'll wait for others to reply. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. More agreement. X4n6 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

According to Canon Law, he is elected Bishop of the Church of Rome. "the office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors , abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome." code of canon Law, Can 331. If he is not already an actual Bishop, he has to be ordained as one as soon as possible and the Bishopric he is normally given is that of the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Diocese of Rome. Canon law uses the official title "Roman Pontiff"(Can 332 S1) and uses the term Pope in the explanatory text as a shorthand. Although it has become convenient to use the word Pope in the way we use Queen , King or President, it began as an informal title or style of address, formerly applied to ALL bishops that was eventually reserved, in the Roman Church, to the Bishop of Rome. It is not the official title of the office, but the name commonly used of the holder of the office. We could consider it in the same way that Father is the commonly used title or style of a priest (eg Father Brown,) Mr of a male commoner and Sir of a knight. 151.170.240.200 (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments on TC

@LongIslandThomist914: you wrote: As of now the section makes no mention of criticism at all. I do not understand what you are saying. Either one make a short sentence about the reception on TC, or one does not mention the reception. It is too soon to find sources on the global reception of TC, therefore we should refrain from adding any comment. The main article is there to contain individual opinions from important people about TC. It must be noted that as of now the TC section on the Pope Francis article makes no mention... of praise at all! This is why I propose the comments be removed. Veverve (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve Yes but it’s not everyday that you have cardinals, members of the Curia under Pope Francis, openly criticizing the decisions of a Pope. In many ways I think this is more of an open controversy than the Document on Human Fraternity, I don’t really think many Catholics globally were aware of that document yet it generated enough controversy to make mention on this article. I think how it reads now is a good compromise position. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@LongIslandThomist914: please ping me next time you answer me. it’s not everyday that you have cardinals, members of the Curia under Pope Francis, openly criticizing the decisions of a Pope. So what? Filling a section with only criticism while the document was also praised really looks like a POV pushing. Moreover, the opinion of the former cardinal-bishop of Hong Kong is really unimportant, as it is not an exceptional position.
I don’t really think many Catholics globally were aware of that document yet it generated enough controversy to make mention on this article. So just find a RS which says the document created some controversy and how, and explain it in the arrticle. No need to give individual opinions outside of the main article.
I disagree with the current version. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: I mean is this not a section on controversies? I’m sure there were people who loved Amoris laetitia and the document on human fraternity as well yet they both generated controversy so they get a mention here. Like Amoris, TC also gets a mention in the Papal Documents section without reference to the controversy. I don’t think it’s a secret that many trads are upset with TC, even secular publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe have mentioned a lot of traditional Catholics are upset about it. I don’t know what about Cardinal Zen’s statements that makes them “not an exceptional position.” I think those reading this article should understand the severity of the controversy here, possibly the largest theological controversy of this Papacy LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@LongIslandThomist914: For Zen, see Talk:Traditionis custodes#Cardinals.
many trads are upset with TC there is nothing suggesting it as the section stands now. The controversy surrounding TC, from what I see written in the section, is that TC is "harsh", whatever that means, and cardinals are unhappy for vauge reasons. Veverve (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: what about their statements were “vague”? It’s clear they’re upset that people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend. I think any dimwit can see how that can at least be possible construed as harsh. Now if anything the section is less clear, and you also just ripped a quote straight verbatim from the Pentin article without attribution or block quoting. If you’re going to throw around your Wiki weight and publish whatever you want without consensus, you can at least have good syntax and take “Retired” off your user page. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@LongIslandThomist914: I would not mind quoting unprecise statements, but you are asking for those to be the presentation of the criticism of TC. I maintain that the cardinals' statements were vague, so allow me to look at each statement, and I will tell you what information I find in them.
"Cardinal Raymond Burke questioned the 'harshness' of the decree"
I do not know what information I could gather from that. In what way was it harsh? Was it the wording? No mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend.
Müller, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2017, also criticised the letter as "harsh" saying, 'Instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook.' He also contrasted the approach taken by Francis to curb the traditionalist movement with his failure to condemn 'the innumerable “progressive” abuses in the liturgy [...] that are tantamount to blasphemy.' "
He reproaches to the pope of doing such, but not such, is what I understand of this criticism. So again, no mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend.
"Cardinal Zen, characterised the document as a 'blow' to traditional Catholics who 'have never given the smallest reason to be suspected of not accepting the liturgical reform of the [Second Vatican Council].' "
So, Zen believes it is a "blow" to the traditional Catholics who never questionned the Mass of Paul VI. Now you bring questions of Vatican II, which is not introduced before, and is not explained later. Again, no mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend, simply that Zen believes it is mean to those people. By the way, as I said I am opposed to quoting Zen for the reasons given above.
Keep in mind that even if those statament were sufficient, you would still need to indicate that those quotes of cardinales represent all the reasons for which TC was criticised, and they do not.
I also would like to point you the following:
1) For now, it seems clear, when you read Catholic media, that those who attended the Tridentine Mass were disappointed. You would need to read news articles about Catholicism regularly to know that, which is not the case of the majority of people who read Wikipedia.
2) Wikipedia is for everyone, so we should assume that the people who will read the article about the pope know nothing about the history of the Catholic Church. Much like you - probably - would not know anything about Gelug when reading the article of Jetsun Lobsang Tenzin.
If you feel a "According to Edward Pentin" before his quote is necessary, feel free to add it. You can also paraphrase him, so that what he says will not be a quote anymore.
Lastly, I do not wish to use any Wikiweight. I felt the analysis of Pentin was a good compromise - it mentions the three cardinals' criticism and gives a good summary - between our two positions, and thus added it. I do those edits, because I deem them necessary.
I hope this a clarified some misunderstandings which may have arisen between us two.
Veverve (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Important

I am concerned with the article stating that Francis supports legal recognition of same sex couples. The quote is controversial, taken from an (initially) unpublished documentary movie, and is contradicted by later evidence like this and this --65.94.98.111 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between "supports legal recognition" and "supports church recognition". One can hold the first in the affirmative and the latter in the negative. The two that you note indicate that Francis does not support having priests bless or officiate same sex unions. That does NOT mean he doesn't believe that such unions should be legal. --Jayron32 17:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32: please, read the second source carefully. This is the quote:

The letter goes on to provide background on the incident, saying that over a year ago Pope Francis was asked during an interview “two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has generated confusion.”

Pointing to the pope’s assertion in the film that “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” the letter said this statement was a reference “to the pastoral need that, within the family, a son or daughter with a homosexual orientation should never be discriminated against.”

A reference was then made to paragraph 250 of Francis’s 2016 post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which states that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”

Families whose members include individuals with same-sex attraction, the paragraph continues, “should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.”

The letter then went on to explain that the pope’s remarks about civil cohabitation were made in response to a separate question about “a ten-year-old local law in Argentina on ‘marriage equality of same-sex couples’ and his opposition to them as the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires in this regard.”

On this point, the letter said Pope Francis in the interview insisted that “’it is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage,’ adding that – in that in the same context – he had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection.”

This, the letter said, is the context for the pope’s statement in the documentary that “What we have to have is a civil union (convivencia civil) law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Quoting a 2014 interview Pope Francis gave to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, as proof of the pope’s backing of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the letter said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” the pope said in the 2014 interview.The letter goes on to provide background on the incident, saying that over a year ago Pope Francis was asked during an interview “two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has generated confusion.”

Pointing to the pope’s assertion in the film that “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” the letter said this statement was a reference “to the pastoral need that, within the family, a son or daughter with a homosexual orientation should never be discriminated against.”

A reference was then made to paragraph 250 of Francis’s 2016 post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which states that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”

Families whose members include individuals with same-sex attraction, the paragraph continues, “should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.”

The letter then went on to explain that the pope’s remarks about civil cohabitation were made in response to a separate question about “a ten-year-old local law in Argentina on ‘marriage equality of same-sex couples’ and his opposition to them as the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires in this regard.”

On this point, the letter said Pope Francis in the interview insisted that “’it is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage,’ adding that – in that in the same context – he had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection.”

This, the letter said, is the context for the pope’s statement in the documentary that “What we have to have is a civil union (convivencia civil) law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Quoting a 2014 interview Pope Francis gave to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, as proof of the pope’s backing of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the letter said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” the pope said in the 2014 interview.

65.94.98.111 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the pope expressed support for gay secular marriage in this interview, and the Vatican decided to give the pope's 2014 opinion. Please try not to post a whole article. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: Well, it is far from non-controversial that he has. The documentary has been said to have asked two separate questions, and the Pope has since approved a document that states that all same-sex unions are a sin. I do not know why in the introduction we would say that the Pope supports same sex marriage, when this is heavily disputed. --65.94.98.111 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

The hyperlink for footnote 244 "A new saint for the Church and Fulton Sheen soon to be Blessed" currently redirects to a porn site. Instead it should be going to https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-07/pope-francis-sainthood-beatification-decree-sheen.html 2600:100E:BF16:E79:97E:61FB:E001:62 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Veverve (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

Mention that the Creative Society project received an apostolic blessing from Pope Francis. [1][2]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Add the text "The Creative Society project received an apostolic blessing from Pope Francis. [3][4]" or something like that to the article.Dohenbud (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: A blessing of a non-notable group not covered in secondary sources is not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://creativesociety.com
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXp7BzSLzgA
  3. ^ https://creativesociety.com
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXp7BzSLzgA

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

At the end of "Sexual abuse response" please add

\\ Nevertheless, Francis defrocked sex abusers // https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/16/pope-francis-theodore-mccarrick-vatican-defrock-sex-abuse/2890230002/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-defrocks-2-chilean-bishops-accused-sex-abuse-n919936

\\ and sought to end Church secrecy in such cases. // https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-canon-law-sex-abuse/2021/06/01/f4c3dff2-c2ba-11eb-89a4-b7ae22aa193e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-lifts-secrecy-rule-in-sexual-abuse-cases/2019/12/17/6d321a2a-20c9-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/vatican-sex-abuse-pope-francis-20210601.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-promises-to-root-out-sex-abuse-citing-case-of-defrocked-u-s-cardinal-mccarrick-11605100257 OveGjerlow (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude talk 10:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Hi, I would like to mention that the Document of Human Fraternity inspired the International Day of Human Fraternity, as acknowledged by UN Secretary-General in several occasions: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/02/1083832 https://www.un.org/en/observances/human-fraternity/messages

I think it would provide a new angle on the controversies on this document.

Thank you!

--Silence001 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Silence001 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ––FormalDude talk 03:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation about Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard

I cannot edit the article, but there is an error in it. In the "Controversies" section, someone wrote that the French prelate Jean-Pierre Ricard was created cardinal by Pope Francis ("Ricard, who was named as Cardinal by Francis, said that he committed "reprehensible" acts with the girl..." ). In fact, Ricard was created a cardinal on March 24, 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI. 2804:D84:2280:2400:F15A:CCFD:D381:EA1D (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right. This misinformation comes from this source. This is now fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Funny Interview With Univision When He Visited Argentina

I'm a former citizen of Puerto Rico. I remember watching the coverage of his visit to South America. In an interview with a woman reporter for Univision he had gotten to know, I'll never forget that he surprised her and us with his humor. He just casually asked her at a certain point if she knew how an Argentinian commits suicide! When, startled, she replied no. He just answered: "He just climbs up on his ego and jumps off! I'll never forget that. And, I was won over, if I wasn't already, by this guy fluent, like me and many Argentinians, in both Spanish and Italian! Godofredo29 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2023

In the “Public Image” section, change the sentence in the second to last paragraph from “ While visiting Hungary for three days, on 30 April 2023, Pope Francis performed Holy Mass in Kossuth square, Budapest, Hungary.” to “ While visiting Hungary for three days, on 30 April 2023, Pope Francis celebrated Holy Mass in Kossuth square, Budapest, Hungary.”

Roman Catholic clergy celebrate a Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, they do not perform a Mass. 68.132.31.33 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 21:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Francis's "humility"

The statement "Throughout his public life, Francis has been noted for his humility ..." needs to be corrected. A person's alleged humility is a subjective judgment on which many will concur, many will demur (as they do in Francis's case). Such a moral quality should not be the subject of an unqualified reference in an encyclopedic entry. Any reference to Francis's alleged humility should preferably be dropped but if it is to be retained a more accurate wording would be: "Throughout his public life, Francis has been recognized by some for his perceived humility, though others have seen, rather, a self-serving faux humility." The present wording is highly subjective and biased, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 2001:8003:1C26:DC01:F:95B9:34FA:5CA2 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The mere usage of the term "humility" does not meet the criteria of MOS:WEASEL. Subjective attributions are permitted on Wikipedia, so long as they are sufficiently sourced. The sources Allen, Rubin, Falasca, and O'Riordan are only a few of many examples which support this public image.
If you wanted to contribute an exposé that Francis' humility is falsely attributed, such as the argument ay be based upon credible testimony, this would be a permissible addition to the article. However, any such contribution would need to take care to use verifiable sources and neutral language, in the same manner that the present text is subject to scrutiny.
Without a considerate and proportional analysis of existing perspectives that may run contrary to the article's current tone, there is no reason to implement any ambivalent wording. Doughbo (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Title of Franciscus, PP

Dear reader,

I want to suggest the changing of the rather incorrect form of the latin title in the section Distinctions - titles and styles. Franciscus, Episcopus Romae, as stated in the text, is not the appropriate term and the translation of the english "His Holiness, Pope Francis" I offer few variations, which would be more correct according to the protocols of the Domus Pontificalis. - Beatissimus Pater Franciscus - Sanctissimus Pater Franciscus - Franciscus, Pontifex Maximus et cetera.

A full title would be, among others; Beatissimus Pater Franciscus, Papa, Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Romanus, etc

The latin phrase Franciscus, episcopus Romae is, indeed, not correct in this setting, for the phrase is Franciscus, Episcopus Romanus.

Thank you very much

die 18. junii Anno MMXXIII in virgilia s. Romualdi Granko man (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

when talking about the first non-european Pope, perhaps it'd be best to replace ethnically European with genetically european/ of european ancestry? 74.64.193.102 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest merging the articles

There are at least 3 Wikipedia articles that could be included in the main article "Pope Francis", to make reading easier. the articles are: Pope Francis and LGBT topics; Pope Francis bibliography and Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue of Pope Francis. I leave my suggestion here. 2804:D84:2280:2400:DC50:101F:E57F:D584 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Those three articles ars deliberately split from this article so as not to make this article too long. Veverve (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Deaconess

@KlayCax: It doesn't look like deaconesses are directly mentioned in this Wikipedia article's. Please understand that the lead follows from the body—make additions there first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @Pbritti:. The deaconesses wording wasn't added by me. It's been in the article for awhile. I reinstated the women priest wording - albeit it's been in the article for a much shorter period of time.
There's no need for personal attacks. KlayCax (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax: You're adding UNDUE material—that's not a personal attack. You're also right up against 3RR. Again, do not include material in the lead when it is not discussed in the body. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax: It should be added that the material you have add is not supported by the sources: "dialogue" does not correspond with the term "research", which is what the Deseret News article uses; "open" is not the lexicon used by the pope but an interpretation made by several outside observers. Both of these developments and matters should be accurately reflected in this article wherever they appear. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Age record

It should be noted that Francis is the oldest head of the Papal State in 283 years (Leo XIII was not a head of state, he was a prisoner). I think this deserves to be mentioned in the lead. --95.24.68.78 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Just need a reliable source that verifies this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The first Jesuit Pope

To be added in the incipit 176.200.119.68 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"openness" to blessing same-sex unions

The article states that the pope expressed what has been described as "openness" to blessing same-sex unions. It would be helpful to state what the pope actually expressed, instead of stating only how it has been described, especially because there is an important difference between the two in wheather the union or the persons are blessed. Since the pope previously has already confirmed that the Church cannot bless sin and that homosexual acts are considered and will continue to be considered gravely sinful, there can be hardly any doubt whether the pope is opened to discussion regarding blessing the disordered unions, which is not possible, or rather blessing the persons who had been involved in such unions but are seeking to be closer to God and live a better life. The pope's own words on the matter can be found here: rc_con_cfaith_risposta-dubia-2023_en.pdf (vatican.va) While it is absolutely true that what the pope expressed has been indeed described by an onslought of media outlets as opennes, even will to blessing same-sex unions, that does not change what the pope actually expressed. If the wikipedia article on the pope contains how his words were falsly described, it should also contain some reference to his actual words and their meaning. Nagyszakall (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

replace ' ' with ' ' 12.144.191.101 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus alone is the head of the Church

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is the head of the Church. Please correct this false statement 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:C14A:425D:1DC4:8D92 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

While you are technically correct–the best kind of correct–most reliable sources will describe the pope as the head of the Catholic Church (see Britannica). As he is the "Vicar of Christ", he is the functional head of the church. Worth considering an explanatory note, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Agree a note or slight edit to the intro line would help. You could say "Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church and the Pope is the head of the visible church on earth" you could also append the linked article which defines Catholic Church to show that the church is a mystical body and not just the buildings or faithful here on earth (for example the Church is made up of the Church Triumphant, Church Suffering, and Church Militant) 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:FBFD:CDFA:17EF:5007 (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll workshop such a note, but I would like to stay away from terminology like "church militant", as few other than apostolic Christians would understand the distinction. If you notice that I've failed to produce such a note by week's end, feel free to reply again and I'll expedite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough! I think you are right. T
Thanks so m for doing this and here is an article in case it helps on https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/is-the-pope-really-the-head-of-the-catholic-church/ 2600:6C52:4C00:2893:FBFD:CDFA:17EF:5007 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Pope Francis Allows Priests to Bless Same-Sex Couples

The New York Times - The Vatican said Monday that Pope Francis had allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, his most definitive step yet to make the Roman Catholic Church more welcoming to L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics and more reflective of his vision of a more pastoral, and less rigid, church. [3]. M.Karelin (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I think The NYT is a good source, right ?? M.Karelin (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm readding it. StardustToStardust (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    Fox News also describes it as blessing same-sex couples rather than LGBT individuals. In fact, the document wouldn't make sense if it were referring to individuals with same-sex attraction, as that was already permissible within the church.
    It's clear that Francis means same-sex couples can be "blessed" rather than blessing LGBT individuals. The Italian wording of the document is entirely in collective rather than individual terms. Words like "individual" or "person" or them" is never used - "persons" is used twice, "couples" is used 18 times, and "couple" 22 times. Reliable sources overwhelmingly also give the same interpretation.
    The only area of dispute to me is what a "blessing" necessarily implies. The fact that he's allowing same-sex unions be blessed shouldn't be controversial. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@ShirtNShoesPls: You are mistaken with your edit to the article: the union is not blessed. See this official Vatican source: "Although the couple is blessed but not the union". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
That's the viewpoint of one writer at Vatican News. It doesn't represent the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church or the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources. The document itself is clearly speaking in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@ShirtNShoesPls: No, that's the official stance of the official Catholic Church publishing arm. Also, you have a lack of understanding on the consensus of reliable sources. See Barron's and The Pillar (run by canon lawyers). Additionally, AP correctly refers to this as "blessings for same-sex couples", not their union. It should also be added that Pope Francis did not issue the statement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The Pillar isn't a credible source. It's a fundamentalist Catholic website that has engaged in the doxxing of LGBT Catholics. The Barron's source says nothing about it only narrowly applying to inviduals. It's also logically nonsensical. LGBT individuals were already allowed to be blessed by Catholic priests.
A single writer at Vatican News (whose positions are not the same as the Catholic Church's positions) isn't an infallible guide. The overwhelming consensus of sources is that it's in referrence to same-sex unions.
However, you are correct in saying that there's a dispute in what the language means. Traditionalists state it's a "God will keep the good parts of the relationship intact while making it so you turn from sin" while progressives see it as a "first step" to affirmation. (I however don't think that debate belongs in the lead.) ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
"It's a fundamentalist Catholic website"
And?, using that logic we could say that NYT and other sources are non-Catholic or secular websites, indeed, every source can be reduced to "a single writer".2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way, can you provide any evidence that they doxxed someone? 2800:98:122E:6691:2418:4DDF:B849:D11F (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: You are ignoring the official statements of the Vatican, canon lawyers (The Pillar reporting that a priest responsible for sexual morality rules is violating them is not "doxxing"), reliable sources, the USCCB, and other sources [4] [5] (Fr. James Martin's quote not withstanding), [6]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't an official statement of the Vatican, the large majority of canon lawyers have intepreted it in a collective sense, and Catholic churches have already started to widely "bless" the unions in this way. LGBT Catholics were already allowed to be blessed. If it was only on an individual level, why does the document always refer to it in a plural sense, and why even release a document about it? The USCCB wording just states that the Church doesn't see it as a same-sex marriage. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Most sources have aligned on using "blessing same-sex couples" over "blessing same-sex unions". Catholic official statements, independent reliable sources, and subject-matter experts (here's another) all agree: this isn't about blessing unions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Bishops throughout the world have begun to widely bless same-sex unions. Who do we believe? A few random canon lawyers? Or how it is being applied? This argument comes across as sophism. No offense. Even First Things applies it in the sense of blessing the union itself. The overwhelming viewpoint is that it applies to the unions: not just the people. The language is always collective. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
An opinion piece by a journalist carries substantially less authoritative weight than a statement published by the Vatican, the commentary of multiple canon lawyers, and the latter reporting of reliable sources. In your words, this is the opinion of one writer. You have failed to demonstrate that it factually applies to unions, even if that interpretation is common. Experts receive deference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
1.) Again, if Catholic archbishops are blessing the unions than a collective sense then the argument is entirely sophist. 2.) The Vatican commentary isn't an official statement. 3.) Even traditionalist sources are predominantly interpreting it to mean in a collective sense. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
ShirtNShoesPls, you seem not to see the point here and to try to push a POV.
Beside, The Pillar is used as a RS on many WP articles, there is no community decision that this is not a RS. Veverve (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It's POV-pushing to say there's a singular interpretation of the document. The liberal Catholic viewpoint needs represented. Francis ally and Jesuit James Martin stated that one should not be fooled into thinking the union themselves aren't blessing. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
No one is saying that there is one interpretation. Also, for what it's worth, the words of Fernández (who wrote the document and is head of the church's doctrinal administration) take precedence on topics related to doctrine over those of a priest with who worked in the papal PR arm. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Who decides that his words take precedence? Fernández was a writer. He wasn't the only writer. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If you can name another writer and demonstrate a difference of opinion, do so. Otherwise, you have no argument. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
The bishops. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShirtNShoesPls: The bishops? What which other bishops who wrote Fiducia supplicans, if they exist? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Francis is an Honorary Member of the Masonic Rotary Club

Sourced here 95.74.77.154 (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You may not know this, but Novus Ordo Watch is an WP:unreliable source. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. But as said above it's not reliable. And the Catholic Church, as far as I'm aware prohibits freemasonry. WizardGamer775 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Francis/Archive_6&oldid=1240642089"