Talk:Pope Benedict XV

Benedict XVI
Ok, that was a damn impressive edit - Benedict XVI was included only hours after his election. Now if someone who was familiar with the whole story of his relationship with Turkey and the statue they built for him could chime in we'd be even better off.

Benedict XV was not noted as an anti-modernist - certainly he was less anti-modern than his predecessor. If Ratzinger had wanted to show his anti-modernism, I'd have thought "Pius" would be the obvious name. john k 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard him described as one who was trying to run away from modernism and squash it in the church, but I could be wrong. Maybe some outside source could resolve this?--The Grza 02:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Our own article says he tried to moderate Pius X's anti-modernism. My impression of Benedict XV is that he was certainly a conservative, but not nearly so right-wing as his predecessor (or, I think, his successor, although I'm less sure of Pius XI). john k 04:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * An accurate assessment, worth adding to the article, might begin with a reading of his encyclicals, available at the link. --Wetman 04:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"His Holiness"
Childish edit reversions about whether or not to include the title do remind us that, though the current pope is so styled, "His Holiness" should not be applied to popes before the honorific was assumed, and that "Pope" is an anachronism when speaking of early bishops of Rome. BtW, I see we do not refer to "His Majesty Louis XVI" at Wikipedia. He was certainly so styled. Why do you suppose that is? --Wetman 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the agreed consensus, as part of a compromise to avoid a previous massive set of edit wars, to leave styles where they are right now. Whether you or I approve that is irrelevant. All I am doing (and will do as often as necessary) is uphold the compromise.

If you want start the edit war that users struggled to stop with the agreement ''leave in if in. Leave out if out'' on the issue to resume, fine. In which case, the pro-style group (who clearly won the original vote on whether to use style, and saw a second attempt to change policy and drop styles, fail to get a consensus for change, will no doubt simply return to their previous task of placing styles in monarchical and other articles. They simply never got around to putting it in to Louis XVI yet, I presume. But now that you have alerted them to the fact they no doubt will if the war breaks out again.

Both sides seem to read all the talk pages where this comes up, looking for someone to go around taking styles when the agreement was not to go near them until tempers have calmed and the issue can be discussed without another Wikipedia-wide edit war. Each side is looking for a reason to start the next war. If you want to turn hundreds of articles into edit wars yet again, do it. All I'm doing is enforcing the compromise that stopped it the last time: if they are in, leave in. If they aren't there, don't add. It was in here. Someone took it out. As per compromise I simply put it back to avoid the next round of warfare all over on the issue. Fear ÉIREANN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)  23:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Goodness. I'm not part of this childish edit war, not having contributed here since 27 April. I also knew nothing of such "voting". There's certainly no doubt that Benedict XV was styled "His Holiness". But it's a good thing editors like Jtdir have the leisure and inclination to police this stuff. Hats off to them, say I. --Wetman 00:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There have been several reverts of "His Holiness" on this page by User:Mike H. referring to the fact that this title only applies to the current pope. I have reverted this edit after learning that no, it doesn't only apply to the current Pope, it can apply to all Popes throughout history. Regarding the actual inclusion of this honorific, I refer to the Dalai Lama's page where he is referred to as His Holiness but not when labeled on the page. My revert was simply due to innaccurate facts on the part of Mike H. and an attempt to remove that false argument from the conversation, but I think that initially the title should be removed while used later in the article as it would vernacularly or in the titling of pictures.--The Grza 22:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Styles infobox
A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to this article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City?
How can this article describe Benedict XV as "sovereign of Vatican City" when no such entity existed during his reign, and he himself undoubtedly would have denied its existence? --Russ Blau (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be way off on this, but wasn't there something in the Lateran Treaty which backdated the existence of a sovereign Vatican state to Italian unification, since successive Popes had refused to acknowledge the Italian government's territorial claims anyway? It's been years since I read about this stuff so, as I say, I might be hugely off base. 81.104.160.179 16:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I had thought the picture of this pope in the hat similar to the one he is depicted in here (http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/media/5/56/pope_benedict15.jpg) had appeared in this article. I believe he is depicted walking wearing it. Oddly I could not find the image exactly (though the hat or similar hats was easy) in google images, I think it is the visual impression most people associate with him (indeed every time he shows up on the History channel it is some old reel footage depicting just that). If someone knows what I'm talking about I'd appreciate if that or a similar image appeared in the article. Reboot 08:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Antipopes
This page like many other catholic related pages using wording like "at the time it was not realized he was an anti-pope". It seems to me that the difference between a pope and an anti-pepe is a question of POV, and that clearly the whole terminology of "anti-popes" is a rather crude instrument to clean up history. Rather than using the phraseology "was not realized to be an anti-pope" all such instances should say "is now regarded (by the vatican) as an anti-pope."

The Holy Father's name -- Giacomo della Chiesa
I study some Latin but I'm not that well-versed in Italian, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't Giacomo mean Jack? So doesn't that mean the Pope's name was actually "Jack of the Church"? Weird, like he was born for it.J.J. Bustamante 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the article on Pope Benedict XV.
In the Wiki article on Pope Benedict XV, it says that he pretty much gave away his personal fortune to needy visitors to the Vatican to such an extent that money had to be borrowed for his funeral. As a head of state, it seems that he would certainly be entitled to a funeral supplied by the Vatican without having to go into his own pockets to pay for it. I've read elsewhere that he was equally generous with papal funds which leads me to suspect that he might have badly depleted the Vatican treasury during World War One, a massive opportunity to spend money if ever there was one, to the point where a decent funeral befitting this great and, in my opinion, sadly under-appreciated man might have put the Vatican in a tight spot financially.

Any light you could shed on this matter would be appreciated. Chris J. Strolin 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"During the First World War, pope Benedict XV had given away his own fortune and then the Holy See's ordinary revenue to repatriate prisoners of war and to afford succour to civilian refugees, so that by 1922 the Vatican Treasury consisted of the lire equivalent of ₤10,000 or roughly U.S. $19,000." (Michael Burleigh, Sacred Causes: The Clash of Religion and Politics from the Great War to the War on Terror, HarperCollins, 2007, p.70). This suggests, as you say, that he spent ths bulk of the Vatican treasury, as well as his own personal inheritance, on charities during the war. Perhaps the article should be changed to reflect this. User:Il Dottore 11:48, 10 December 2007

The Co-redemtrix Issue
Are we over stating it? The picture caption states that "Benedict XV supported the theology of Co-redemtrix of the Virgin Mary." But when we read the language cited from his pastoral letter, the language is quite tentative and qualified. He says that Mary "gave up her rights as the mother of her son ... as far as she was permitted to do," and that "one can say" that she helped earn our redemption, and so forth. Saying "as far as she was permitted to" is not the same saying "as far as Christ did," and saying "one can say" is not the same as saying "and I -- your Pope -- do so say, in the name of the entire Church proclaiming a doctrine that is held by every member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church of Christ, the Son of God," etc. In other words, the statement that "Benedict XV supported the theology of Co-redemtrix" leaves us an idea of unqualified papal support, whereas his actual words sound more like personal lip service, but without the trappings of papal infallibility pronouncing an essential dogma. 168.98.67.11 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Humani Generis was not about preaching!
It was about the teaching authority of the Church and the divorce of faith from reason, especially reason at the service of science. The whole section on Humani Generis needs to be removed or drastically rewritten. The footnotes to the text of the article do not correspond to the actual encyclical itself. If anything, there is a very remote connection between the education of priests and the refutation of error (Humani Generis Art. 31), but not from the pulpit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.135.7 (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, 5 years later, but if anyone sees this: Humani generis redemptionem of Benedict XV is not the same document as Humani generis of Pius XII, 1950.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point! Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 18:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) (aka someone who saw this)
 * !Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Benedict XV peace proposal (august 1917)
Is there some pic of this document? It would be great to include this photo in article. I was looking for it in several publication but I cannot find it.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of name
I noticed that the man's original name was given as "Giacomo [...] della Chiesa", but when the last name alone is used, it is written "Della Chiesa" with a capital D. Shouldn't "della" be uncapitalized in the short form if it is not capitalized in the long form? 138.16.18.34 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Benedict XV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708105049/http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1994-5/1994-5.htm to http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1994-5/1994-5.htm
 * Added tag to http://wcbstv.com/national/Pope.s.Name.2.251671.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Death and legacy
"Benedict XV celebrated Mass with the nuns at the Domus Sanctae Marthae in early January 1922 and while he waited for his driver out in the rain he fell ill with the flu which turned into pneumonia."

The above sentence is not reliably sourced. It seems improbable to me for more than one reason. Can anyone provide a solid supporting reference? 90.253.205.141 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Image of this pope in a Turkish magazine
I wonder if this image is already on the commons or not? From Servet-i Funun https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/529/PFSIF9170906A100.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)