Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 18

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers discussions inactive since June 2006.

Reign
Is it is correct to say "Pope Benedict reigns" or is it more correct to say "Pope Benedict is". I don't mean in the sense of whether the word reign fits in a dictionary sense of the word but is it the best word to describe in a verb what the Pope does? Does the Vatican itself use that word routinely? Is there some style guide out there that's assigned the word reign to the activity of the Pope? patsw 03:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As the Pope is an Elected Monarch and Vatican Head of state for life (unless he abdicates/resigns), then yes he does reign. GoodDay 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

265th Pope or 266th?
About a week ago, I noticed that the article had been changed to read that Pope Benedict was the 266th Pope, rather than the 265th, which it had previously claimed. I noticed the edit, but didn't get round to looking it up. We should sort this, as it is of great importance and needs to be accurate.

Today, I checked on p.590 of John A. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary (Robert Hale Publishers, 1980). It gives a full list of Popes, in order, with numbers, from Peter (no. 1) to John Paul II (no. 264). I'm therefore assuming that Benedict is number 265, and I have edited accordingly. I have also inserted an invisible request not to change this without discussing on the talk page. I understand that there may be different ways of counting them, perhaps including or not including a pope who was elected but died before being installed. So if anyone has any reliable source contradicting the numbering I've given, please quote it on this talk page. Thanks. Ann Heneghan (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The official Vatican count is 265. Some sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, count an extra one, Pope Stephen II, who died before being consecrated.  This is likely where the 266 comes from.  See List of popes and the archives of Talk:Pope John Paul II for more information, as I recall we had a discussion about the numbering there before.  JYolkowski // talk 16:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing those references. I haven't looked at the archives of Talk:Pope John Paul II yet, but have looked at List of popes, which said (when I looked at it):
 * On that basis, the current Pope Benedict XVI is the 265th pope. However, Benedict is commonly recognized as the 266th pope, since in 1978, the Vatican acknowledged the legitimacy of the papacy of Stephen II.
 * However, when I went back to it a few minutes later, I found that the second sentence of that extract had been deleted by another editor.
 * I then looked at Pope Stephen II, and found that it says:
 * The Holy See does not consider Stephen II as a pope (and, in 1959, deleted his name from its official list of popes), but many historians do.
 * It said nothing about the Vatican acknowledging the legitimacy of his papacy in 1978.
 * My Hardon book, referred to above, says that he died "before his consecration as Bishop of Rome, which, according to the canon law of that day, would have marked the beginning of his pontificate."
 * My preference would be to stick with the official Vatican count, and to leave it as 265. Ann Heneghan (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article on Pope-elect Stephen, formerly called Stephen II has been corrected and details added. I am currently renumbering all the pope Stephen pages. Švitrigaila 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this sounds flippant about a serious subject, but is it really true that the Modern Catholic Dictionary was written by a guy called hard-on?? What a laugh !!! JackofOz 08:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

St Peter and his "official" visits to a synagogue
We keep seeing this absurd claim being returned to the text. The concept of the papacy as we know it did not develop for some centuries after Peter's death. We count Peter as the first pope now, but he was not known as "Pope Peter" during his lifetime. There are surely no records of any of his "official" acts as pope, because he never did anything in his official capacity as pope, because for all intents and purposes there was no such thing as a "pope" in Peter's day. If anybody disagrees with this, please advise (1) what synagogue(s) he officially visited, (2) the dates of these visits, (3) what form of recognition he was given as pope, and (4) the source of this information. The point I was making in my earlier revision is that, as a Jew, he certainly would have visited synagogues in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the Holy Land, but simply as a private member of the Jewish congregation, and such visits are no different from the visits that any pope may have made to a synagogue in his private capacity before becoming pope. JP2 and Benedict 16 are the ONLY popes who have ever officially visited a synagogue. Unless there is some compelling evidence for retaining the claim about St Peter, I'm going to remove it. JackofOz 00:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now removed all references to St Peter officially visiting synagogues from the article. JackofOz 02:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack, there is a problem with the word "official", but that Peter visited synagogues is a fact, even if we don't have the dates (as we don't have dates for a lot of things). But read Acts and you will find some occasions. Furthermore your statement on my talk page, that "the office of Pope was unknown in his times", that the "concept of papacy is a more recent creation" and that "Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either" is just plainly POV (notwithstanding development in form and name of that position).

However, I want to suggest a compromise: what about saying B16 was the second pope (after JP2) to visit a synagogue since St. Peter (this is how it is usually reported). Str1977 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Compromises often work well, and I'm always open to the possibility of arriving at a win-win solution, however on this occasion I'd like to really, really encourage you to understand the futility of the position you're holding on to.  All popes, before their election, did all manner of things, some of which we know about, some of which we don't.  Some of those pre-pope things were notable events in their own right, some were not.  Some we have documentary evidence for, some we do not.  I bow to your greater knowledge of the Bible, and I am quite prepared to accept (as I've already admitted) that Peter, as a conscientious Jew, visited synagogues many, many times during his life.  I have no argument with you on that point.  But this bit of the article is not about popes who happened to visit a synagogue at some time in their lives.  I'm sure that dozens, or more, of the 265-odd popes visited a synagogue at some time in their lives.  But this article is making the point that Benedict is only the second pope, after John Paul II, to have undertaken an official visit to a synagogue in his capacity as the reigning pope, and where he was welcomed not just as a member of the congregation but accorded the respect due to him as the holder of the office of Pope.  Whatever visits to a synagogue Peter may have made during the course of his life, NONE of them was an official visit in his capacity as the reigning pope.  As I pointed out earlier, the very concept of Peter being a pope was not something either he himself, or anybody alive at that time, had any knowledge of.  I don't quibble with the fact that he is NOW considered to be the first pope, but he was never attributed with that dignity during his own lifetime.  Even if he did visit a synagogue after the death of Christ, when he is assumed to have "become the pope", we have no knowledge of any specific visit to any specific synagogue on any specific date.  The records simply don't exist that would support such a claim.  If you say that Peter was the first of 3, why stop there?  Why not also include Linus, Cletus, etc etc.  Why only Peter, and then nobody at all until John Paul II?  I'm sorry to go on at such length, but I want to make my point as plainly as I can.  To mention Peter at all in the context of official papal visits to synagogues simply does not hold water.  If you have any evidence to the contrary, please respond here and we can have a chat about it before deciding how to use it.  My very best wishes.  JackofOz 12:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've amended the main article because it was ungrammatical and needed fixing.  I've now said that Benedict is the 2nd pontiff who is "known to have" made an official papal visit to a synagogue.  This allows the possibility that earlier popes such as Peter may have made such a visit, but we have no specific evidence of them.  I think this is something we might agree on, no?  Cheers JackofOz 12:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, Jack, since you didn't like my compromise I propose another which restricts the issue to modern times (basically since the 16th century). This leaves out the Peter issue alltogether (in regard to which I still have to disagree with you). But I don't know what others will say about that. All right?
 * Peter has to count as first Pope, since the Pope is the successor of Peter. You might think papal claims invalid oder the later papacy a corruption or aberration but that doesn't justify rewriting history.
 * "If you say that Peter was the first of 3, why stop there? ... Why only Peter, and then nobody at all until John Paul II?"
 * Because this highlights the fact that the relationship between Jews and Christians prevent this for almost 2000 years. But the "modern times" wording does the same.
 * "Why not also include Linus, Cletus, etc etc."
 * Because we don't have any evidence for such visits. They might have, but it's improbable since Jews and Christians had already parted ways by then. That's the difference to Peter's time. And Peter, when he still in Judaea certainly visited many synagogues there.
 * Str1977 14:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Str1977, I fully accept that Peter is reckoned as the first Pope, and I am certainly not trying to rewrite history. All I'm saying is, this title was conferred on him a long time after his death.  He was not known as "Pope Peter I" in his own lifetime, he still regarded himself as a Jew and not a "Catholic", he performed no acts in any official "papal" capacity, so by definition he could not possibly have made any official papal visits to anywhere at all, including to a synagogue.  Now, you say "Peter, when he still in Judaea certainly visited many synagogues there".  What is your source for this information? And please be specific; you've only made general unsupported claims so far, without any evidence.  Was this before or after Christ's crucifixion?  How many visits did he make?  Where exactly were the synagogues he visited?  What was the purpose and what were the circumstances of these visits?  Was Peter welcomed or acknowledged as a representative (or the leader) of the new religion founded by Jesus of Nazareth?  Did he preach Christianity during these visits?  I await with great interest.  JackofOz 14:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he wasn't called "Pope" or the equivalent in another language. However, your points do not hold. He was a "Jew" all his life (but not a Rabbinical-Talmudic Jew), he also was a "Christian" and since the Church was undivided then he also was a "Catholic" at the same time.
 * Despite lacking the title, he was the First of the Apostles. Now, the Catholic belief is that this office was perpetuated in the bishop of Rome, later on called Pope (at first this title was not exclusive to the Roman Pope. The head of the Coptic Church is still called Pope today - but that's merely the title.)
 * What my source is, is that it'd be unlikely for a Jewish Christian not to visit synagogues. Even Paul visited synagogues on his travels (until the people there expelled him). Of course, there is no list of dated visits, as it was nothing unusual at that time. That's the difference to later times and hence my "modern" edit is also valid. And I am talking both before or after the crucifixion. If you find out details, read Acts.
 * But, more importantly, are you content with my "modern times" compromise? Str1977 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are saying (and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you) is that Peter probably visited synagogues, therefore he must have, therefore it should go into the encyclopedia as historical fact!. This is what I would call creating history from a mere supposition (and who accused whom of "re-writing history"?).  Then you say "Of course, there is no list of dated visits, as it was nothing unusual at that time".  The point is that we have a date for JP2, and we have a date for Benedict, and we have proof that they made papal visits to synagogues.  The Vatican itself called JP2's visit the "first-ever official visit by a Pope to a synagogue".  If they had evidence that Peter had done the same, don't you think they would have said something about it?  You have provided only speculation that Peter did the same - BUT NO PROOF. History depends on evidence, not just supposition as in "he must have therefore he did".  That is why I changed the article to "known to have", because that is the historical fact.  This does not exclude the possibility that Peter and others may have done the same, but until and unless evidence is unearthed about such visits, they cannot be included in the known papal visits to synagogues.  If it makes you happy, I'm more than happy to say that it is considered likely that Peter visited synagogues, but there is no historical evidence.


 * Dear Jack & Str, I've been following this debate with interest, as I was always unhappy with the wording as it stood (though not unhappy enough to do anything about it ;-)
 * According to James Dunn in "The Parting of the Ways", the final separation of Christianity and Judaism probably took place over the first three decades of the second century. Peter is generally thought to have died in the Neronian persecution of 64 AD. So there's every likelihood that one or more of his successors will have visited synagogues (maybe even "officially", as the Christian community became more and more distinct.) But of course we have no documentary evidence.
 * My problem with the "modern times" phraseology is its vagueness. When are "modern times" supposed to have started? 135 AD (the end of the second Jewish revolt and Prof Dunn's terminus ante quem), or 1000, or 1800 ...?
 * If we can all accept (1) that Peter should be reckoned as the first Pope (even if he wasn't then, he is now!) and (2) we simply don't know what other early Popes may have done, can I suggest that we use Jack's "known to have" compromise, but include the reference to Peter (omitting however any mention of "official" visits), i.e.
 * Benedict is only the second pope (after his immediate predecessor John Paul II) known to have visited a synagogue since Saint Peter.
 * Since you two have been making the running on this, I'll leave it in your capable hands ... Vilcxjo 15:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See my above response to Str1977. Re your suggestion: Benedict is only the second pope (after his immediate predecessor John Paul II) known to have visited a synagogue since Saint Peter..  If there were only 2, and neither of them was Peter, why mention Peter at all?  This is what I've been trying to get across.  What does Peter have to do with papal visits to synagogues?  Without evidence, nothing.  Without evidence, Peter is a red herring.  We know the line of Popes extends back to St Peter, but that's irrelevant.


 * In my book, modern history starts around 1500 - 1453 the earliest and 1517 the latest.
 * I'm uncomfortable with "official", since distinguishin between private and official is a rather recent thing. (Unless non-official means secret and then we don't know about it anyway)
 * But at a second look, I like your suggestion - what do others think?
 * Str1977 21:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, Jack, fair challenge, so let's nail this once and for all. First of all, what is a synagogue? According to my dictionary, it is (1) "a building for Jewish religious services" and (2) "a congregation of Jews who assemble for worship or religious study". Prior to its destruction in AD 70, the principal "building for Jewish religious services" was the Temple in Jerusalem. Peter's visit there is recorded in Acts 3: "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer ... And leaping up, he [the lame man] stood and walked and entered the temple with them [i.e. Peter and John] ...". That is the most explicit reference to Peter visiting a synagogue, in the sense of a building for Jewish worship.


 * There are also several other references in Acts to Peter visiting a synagogue in the sense of a congregation of Jews who assemble for worship or religious study (see, for example, Acts 15), which visits may or may not have been within a building designated for the purpose. The likelihood is that they were, but in any case it's immaterial, as the term "synagogue" covers both meanings.


 * I hope that that is sufficient to meet your demands for evidence. BTW, your question If there were only 2, and neither of them was Peter, why mention Peter at all? misses the point that both Str and I have been trying to emphasise, i.e. that there weren't only two! In an attempt to clarify the point, I will move the qualifying phrase (since St Peter) closer to the expression it is qualifying. Vilcxjo 02:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that contribution. I just think it's drawing a really long bow to include Peter in this category on the basis of this.  But I've well and truly made my points, and I don't think there's anything to be gained by prolonging this exchange.  As a farewell gesture, I predict that someone who's not been aware of this interchange of views is going to read Benedict's article and remove the references to Peter and the whole issue will get debated again.  It is just so inherently contentious.  But there you go, I guess that's what Wikipedia is about.  Now, I'm off to find some other cerebrations.  JackofOz 03:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to point out that the Temple was not a synagogue! A synagogue is indeed somewhere that Jews meet for instruction, but it doesn't follow that anywhere that Jews meet for instruction is a synagogue - by that definition any Jewish household would be one. Perhaps more importantly, whatever the book of Acts may say about Peter visiting synagogues, you cannot assume is necessarily true. Our knowledge of what Peter did is sketchy at best, so quite apart from whether it's legitimate to call him a "Pope" at all, it's best just not to assume anything about him. I agree that it's better just not to mention Peter at all in this section. 137.132.3.7 09:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

137, we have to stick to sources (including Acts) and to what is probable - it is likely that Peter, who was born a Jew and never quit being Jews, visited synagogues (and no one here is talking about the Temple). But we have a stable wording right now and hence there's no need at all to stir this up again. Str1977 09:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Papal Clothing
This section needs citations. I found sources for the ermine-lined velvet mozzetta, but none for the double elbow-length simar. Also, is there a proper name for the red cape? Finally, although the article said that he revived the use of the papal slippers, in fact he revived the use of the red papal shoes, not slippers. Monsieurtode 09:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Have sorted this section now - a lot of research! A reference and a pic for the cassock would be great! Nainfa 00:10, 14 December 2005 (GMT) Nainfa


 * The guy used the camauro. I bet that next year he'll wear the tiara!!!&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 18:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope so!--&#39;s-Gravenhage 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope not!, the tiara is too arrogant a sympol. I hope the Pope stays with the tradition carried out previously by Paul VI, John Paul I & John Paul II. GoodDay 23:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect him to start wearing it. The claim that it "too arrogant a sympol" (sic) is nonsense. It is simply a standard papal symbol which Pope Paul in his Apostolic required his successor to wear. John Paul I didn't after a major row. John Paul II said the claims about it were popycock but that so soon after John Paul I's death he would not be crowned. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt that he will wear the Triple Crown (Papal Tiara)as he choose not to use it in his Coat of Arms. Also, note that he did not elect to be crowned as Pope, nor even invested (though this makes sense in light of Canon Law 1983 Code), but rather choose to call it a "solemn inauguration."  Further breaking with tradition, he choose a variety of people to offer obdience, none of which notice was a head of state.  Part of the symbolism of the Papal Tiara was not only Papal Temportal power, but Papal Spiritual power over the State.  In light of Vatican II and the Church's teaching on the just Autonomy of the state, the symbol would make no sense.  But who knows, I may be wrong.DaveTroy 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jtdirl, I agree that in itself the Tiara was not too arrogant a symbol but its revival would be seen this way. Note that neither JP1 nor JP2 did wear the Tiara ever and B16 went a step further by issuing a non-tiara coats-of-arms. That all has nothing to do with Vatican II. John XXIII and Paul VI did war the Tiara and any supremacy over secular powers that might be implied in the triple crown is not incompatible with the Council's definition you quoted. But still, I don't think the Tiara will return. Str1977 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather more interested in the white tuxedo he seems to be wearing under the red tabarro. That's something new, isn't it? ProhibitOnions 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's the grecca, and it's an overcoat...--Samuel J. Howard 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pope seems to have expanded the use of the ermine-trimmed mozzetta. He wore this in the Consistory on 24th March 2006, which seems to be well outside the winter season - correct me if I am mistaken. --&#39;s-Gravenhage 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Current picture
Could do with more contrast - shadows on face and black background.

First Encyclical
I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that the Pope signed his first encyclical, titled Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), on December, 2005. It will be published in mid January. I think we should start looking up info on it and look into which section of this article we will place it. For now, I will start the article regarding the encyclical. Deus Caritas Est &lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Names in languages
Where the heck did all the language versions of his name come from? We don't include stuff in biographies. All we use are English (obviously, as this is English Wikipedia) and the relevant language(s), which here are Latin and perhaps his own native language, German. French, Polish, Italian etc etc are irrelevant on this page, unless we want to list 200+ language variations!!!! FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I actually think that even German is not relevant -- just English and Latin. Maybe a case for Italian, as the working language of the Vatican, but I'd still lean against it. Mlouns 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only ones relevant are Nothing else should be there. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) the language of this WP which is English, and
 * 2) the official language of the Holy See, which is Latin.

A number of websites seem to think that Italian is at least an official language of the vatican city if not the Holy See itself.--Samuel J. Howard 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to keep other languages out. Apologies if this is undesirable necromancy. I once asked a seminarian in Rome I know why he recited the Divine office in Italian and not in his native English. "Because," he said with a smirk, "it's the official language of the Church". It was a jest. I think those working in the Holy See use whatever language is most convenient for the task in hand. The language used for drafting the new Catechism was French. As for the language of the Vatican City: I would guess (having been in the tourist parts several times) that the language you are most likely to overhear in the Vatican City is Italian for the simple reason it is in Italy (tour guides and all that). None of this is reason to have BXVI's name here in any language other than Latin the official language of the Body which gave him such prominence as to warrant an article) and English (the language here). Stroika 13:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Beatifications and Canonizations
It looks like people are planning to insert every Canonisation and Beatification as and when they happen. Most of the Beati/ae and the Saints are red-linked. Therefore the only reason for interest in them is that they happen to have been raised to the altars under the first Pope elected after the creation of Wikipedia. For example there is no page for Blessed Christian of Spoleto (not even at the Italian wikipedia). This is silly, there is no reason for BXVI's entry in an encyclopedia to become a news blog. It is beginning to read like George Weigel's biography of JPII (blow by blow account of every single official engagement).

I propose: (1) delete most of them. (2)Include any who already have a page, IFF that page is in an advanced state (i.e. there is interest in the individual other than he or she happens to be amongst BXVI's early activity) (3) refer to the reversion to earlier policy in the matter of delegating beatifications to Cardinals. NB the communiqué by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints

I'll do this myself in a few days time unless sufficient reason against presents itself.

Stroika 21:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, what about that section on 'Pastoral Activities'? The pontiff every single day carries out some kind of pastoral activity!!!!! That section should also go.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just deleted a paragraph explaining how the beatification process (in general) affects JPII. Not necessary in an article on Benedict XVI. It's the first of a number of cuts I plan to make to this part of the article. I am less sure about deleting the content of the section 'pastoral activities'. Continuity (or not) with the practice his predecessor seems to be to be relevant. But I wouldn't squeal if you deleted it. Stroika 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now deleted all reference to the other Beatifications. I reckon once the main piece of information is conveyed - that BXVI has restored the older custom of getting a Cardinal to beatify - none of the others are particulalry relevant. A Blessed - by definition - is only of local interest. Unless an individual is particularly famous or the Beatification ceremony is particularly notable (owing to an unusually high number attending or whatever) it has no place in this article. The story about Leon Dehon although important I think can be safely deleted. I have moved the reference to the Washington Post story to Fr Dehon's article Stroika 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Religion according to reason
It says the Pope views Christianity as the religion according to reason. Has he expanded on this anywhere? It would be interesting to know how he finds this to be true. On the other hand, if he has not written on this, that would also be an interesting thing to note in that section. How does the Pope see the activity of God in the world? Is it clearly visible or hidden? Eiler7 10:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it was there when you posted this but there is now a note taking you to the text of a lecture Cardinal Ratzinger gave the day before JPII died. That's where the phrase comes from. Stroika 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think it would be a good idea to add some more text to explain that the kind of reason endorsed by the Pope is manifested in the crucified God as love. Maybe it would be worth saying that the Enlightenment does not put forward that kind of view of reason. Eiler7 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No criticism in article
This article presents only the Catholic POV of issues relating to BXVI. There are lengthy quotations introduced with the weasel words "Benedict XVI says" but with no opposing viewpoints also presented, even where BXVI says something contentious or even inflammatory.

Any potential criticism is handled from the Catholic POV. For example, "His defenders argue that it is to be expected that a leader within the Catholic Church would forcefully and explicitly argue in favor of the superiority of Catholicism over other religions. Others also maintain that single quotes from Dominus Iesus are not indicative of intolerance or an unwillingness to engage in dialogue with other faiths, and this is clear from a reading of the entire document. They point out that Ratzinger has been very active in promoting inter-faith dialogue. In defending Dominus Iesus, Ratzinger himself has stated that his belief is that inter-faith dialogue should take place on the basis of equal human dignity, but that equality of human dignity should not imply that each side is equally correct."
 * I suspect this is because non-Catholics consider the whole notion of the leader of a single branch of a particular religion as some sort of universal religious leader to be arrogant hogwash. As a non-Catholic, non-Christian, non-"Believer" in the most basic philosophical sense, it would not be worth my time -- or that of most other non-Catholics -- to add to the discussion of Catholic theology. --Michael K. Smith 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is only the Catholic POV. There are no critics, for example women ordination, homosexuality and catholic priests, homosexuality and marriage. In Germany are many people who dislike Benedict because he is too conservative. For example in Germany still leave each year thousands of people the catholic church. And in europe many countries opened the marriage for gay people or voted for a civil union (against the words of Ratzinger). The european people are voting in some moral questions different than the Vatican--GLGerman 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)GLGerman


 * The problem with any 'criticism' to be placed in this article is that secular members of society often fail to understand that the Catholic faith (like any faith) is under no legal or other obligation to adapt its teachings according to the mores of the secular society. Hence 'criticism' of the Pope's stance on homosexuallity / abortion / women in the priesthood is likely to be almost completely irrelevant in the sense that the answer would always be the same - the Church is not the World. One doesn't generally find encyclopedic articles about world faiths condemning or criticising that faith's religious teachings, but rather the articles tend to merely lay out those teachings.Iamlondon 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT any other encylopedia. There is a very strong policy called WP:NPOV. Futher, the Pope (any Pope) is also a Monarch, political figure and so on and, as such, is an inherently controversial figure. As I have often said elswhere, you do ni In any case, there are Catholics who critize the conservative views of the current Catholic leadership under THIS Pope. More generally, as I have argues elswehere on different matters, criticism and the presnetation of differnt views does not harm the subject in question. The Pope is a big enough and intelligent enough man to handle a bit of criticism in his biograophy!! Leaving out criticism, on the other hand, gives an impression that I don't think you would really want to convey about the Catholic Church. In any case, you can do what you like, but you won't make it through FAC that way. These comments are intended to help!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I started looking for things which should be included in a brief "Criticisms" section. I have sought and found verifiable cites for these criticisms, made by groups or persons, so this is not my OR criticisms of him. I feel the article would be improved by a brief section of criticisms in the body of the article, rather than the few websites presently in the "Criticisms" at the end of the article. The criterion is not whether the criticisms are true, just that they are real and verifiable and represent the views of significant sectors of the church or society. There were many criticisms when he was elected, based on his actions as  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: he was called "God's Rotweiler," and was criticized as too conservative, and too harsh in actions toward theologians who veered away from orthodoxy, and for his harshness in fighting liberation theology.  He was also criticized for not stopping sexual abuse of minors by priests. Subsequently he did not do the many things his critics feared, such as rolling the church back to pre-Vatican II. I would distinguish these initial criticisms for his past, all the way back to WW2, from criticisms of his actions as Pope. As Pope, he was more pastoral than his critics feared. He did not unite with the followers of LeFevbre, restore the Latin mass, or any of several other feared actions.   Some conservatives have criticized him for NOT being conservative enough. Then he was mildly criticized for not being as charismatic as his predecessor, not globetrotting and doing masses before millions of third-world youth. He was criticized by Jews for not speaking out strongly enough against the Holocaust and missile attacks on Israel. He has been criticized recently for seeming support of Intelligent Design and rejection of Darwinism. He forced the resignation of an editor of Catholic magazine for criticizing church positions. He is criticized for the church's positions on homosexuals, divorce, birth control and role of women.

Please comment on the list of criticisms above, if placed in a brief "Criticisms" section much like those for the articles on Pope John Paul II or Pope Paul. In those articles the major criticisms are presented, without a big debate over whether they are true. It is not a "Point-Counterpoint" section, and the criticisms would be presented without elaboration. Edison 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Benedict XVI on Islam and the West
Look at http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/01/01-week/index.php#000962

Father Jospeh Fessio:Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, '''the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there's a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it''', whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was...I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that's why he's Pope and I'm not, okay? That's one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning. (This contribution was made by 84.146.247.61 on 23rd January 2006


 * Caution! These remarks were made in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. Fr Fessio has qualified them in a | letter to the Washington Times. In particular note the following:
 * "The meeting was an informal one of the Holy Father and his former students. The presentation and the discussion were in German, and the Holy Father was not speaking from a prepared text. My German is passable, but not entirely reliable. My later remarks in a live radio interview were extemporaneous. I think that I paraphrased the Holy Father with general accuracy, but my mentioning what he said at all was an indiscretion, and my impromptu paraphrase in another language should not be used for a careful exegesis of the mind of the Holy Father."
 * (My emphasis) Stroika 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Benedict XVI is hardly the first person to propose this patch for the "infallible" fallible bible. I hope this arselicking POV will not make it into the article: "but his seeing that distinction [...], it was stunning." 202.128.124.15 02:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate page for early life? Don't keep adding to this one!
Was there discussion about whether to create a separate page for BXVI's early life? Well somebody has created just such a page. Can we delete the relevant section on this page? It would be a wearisome business comparing the two and making sure nothing important gets lost. Stroika 19:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I got bored waiting for replies and did it myself. I hope no toes were trodden on. I'm going away for a few days so can't stop you if you revert back to that cumbersome unnecessarily redundant mess. Stroika 20:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone fancy pruning the teachings section?
I certainly don't but it is the other obvious place to cut content. Stroika 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Important" Dates
We say he: "celebrated his Papal Inauguration Mass on 24 April 2005, and took possession of his cathedral, the Basilica of St. John Lateran, on 7 May 2005." Do these dates really deserve such prominence in the lead para? They may have been news in April/May 2005, but that is not the case any more. We don't give corresponding dates for any other pope (that I can find). These dates could appear in miscellaneous information about him, later on in the article. The concept of "taking possession of his cathedral" is not explained anywhere, and it would be little known even to most devout Catholics. JackofOz 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has answered JackofOz but nobody has acted on his suggestion either. Here's my defence of keeping mention of taking possession of the Lateran. The Pope is first and foremost Bishop of Rome. This is the starting point for all the claims about the particular charisms or gifts (authority over other bishops, infallibility etc) that are made on his behalf. No Catholic ever denied the Pope was a Bishop, the argument was always about what powers did this particular Bishop have that other Bishops lacked. The Lateran Basilica is the Cathedral Church of the Bishops of Rome. What St Patrick's is to Denis Hart (JackofOz is from Melbourne) the Lateran is to Benedict XVI. His taking possession of this Basilica is therefore significant - more so than his taking possession of the other Patriarchal Basilicas. (If that ever formally occurred). The Lateran has the inscription "Mother of All the Churches" on it - which explains why the wikipedia article on the Lateran claims that it is more important even than St Peter's. By contrast, any mention of Benedict taking possession of the Papal Appartments in the Apostolic palace (which was huge news at the time I recall) could certainly be left out. I admit that the significance of a Bishop taking possession of *his* Cathedral Church is not explained anywhere obvious in wikipedia. Apologies for the necromancy but I wanted to ask a question myself and it seemed rude to leave the most recent question unanswered Stroika 19:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. Now I'm wiser about what taking possession of his cathedral means, but I'm none the wiser about why Wikipedia considers this an important date for the current pope but not for any of his predecessors.  JackofOz 09:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no opinion on the matter whatsoever, it is down entirely to the editors and the information at their disposal. We have reams of Press releases for BXVI and JPII. The Vatican site also has a very full timeline for JPII. It is easy to get dates right for those two and to source them properly. That's all. If I could source the dates for Pius XII et al. I would put them in. Mind you lack of a source doesn't seem to stop people round here. Cheers.Stroika 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Photographs
(1) It seems that a lot of the edits to this page are swapping photographs back and forth. Is there some private joke I am not getting? I notice from the archives that there has been some kind of discussion. Was there any conclusion? If not I back.

(2)Can someone who knows how to do this sort of thing please place the two photographs illustrating clothing better?

(3)Do we really need the photograph of him signing the Encyclical?

Stroika 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody just replaced the current photograph with a presumably copy-vio photo (it has a water mark!) so I reverted it. Whether a copyright violation or not it was a much worse quality photograph. Talk please before changing again. Stroika 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not use this picture? Coojah 08:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the one that was there is nicer. AnnH ♫ 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps inserting that hideous "official" portrait? It makes him look like the ugliest of the Munsters! I know the guy isn't what you would call attractive. But he should sue the photographer who took that so-called official portrait for visual defamation. You can practically hear the Darth Vader breathing when you see it. I've just eaten. I'm surprised I didn't bring my dinner back up. We can't give little children nightmares every time they see the page with the 'Munster picture' on it!

BTW - yes, we do need the image of him signing his first encyclical. It is rather newsworthy and important as it is the guy's first one. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Images
The portrait in the begining of the page is not his offcial portrait. Someone needs to upload his offcial portrait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoolKid2006 (talk • contribs)
 * What is the official portrait. There are that many official looking ones (confused by the use of many different pictures by parishes), has there even been a definitive one yet?
 * The portrait in th begining of the page is a reversed (mirror) photo. The Pope's hair flows over to the right side of his forehead Not the left side (see other Papal photos in article for proof). GoodDay 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wide of the mark
The article says "such an interpretation is wide of the mark as Benedict XVI is far from being a fundamentalist" What is the source for this conclusion? If there is no source, I think the response to the criticism of Sullivan should be removed. Eiler7 22:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need a source. It's as wide of the mark as a descriptipon of BXVI as a Jain, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. Fundamentalism is a particular expression of *Protestantism*. The Pope is (surprise surprise) a Catholic. Stroika 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia page on Fundamentalism does not limit it to Protestantism. If the article is to respond effectively to the criticism by Sullivan, it needs to take on board exactly what Sullivan was saying. If Sullivan was condemning the Pope for being a Protestant, it seems to me that he would just come out and say so. But this kind of speculation is not appropriate. We need to establish the source of the criticism and then we can determine the best way to respond to it. I have checked the article and the web in general. I have not been able to find a web page where Sullivan talks about "a form of fundamentalist edict". If anyone can supply one, that would be good. Otherwise, I will look at updating the article in line with what Sullivan has said on his blog. He said something like "a fundamentalist triumph" when the Pope was elected and also came up with other criticisms. Eiler7 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In a Christian context, the common meaning of Fundamentalism is belief in the The Fundamentals. It is always incorrect to refer to a Catholic as a Fundamentalist. (see ).  A Catholic profession of the faith is "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."  The term Catholics use is "faithful" or "professing". patsw 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Weekly Collaboration
Would anyone be interested in beginning a Roman Catholic Collaboration of the Week? There exists such a wide array of topics dealing with the Roman Catholic Church that I feel there should be a weekly collaboration dedicated to it. If there is an expressed interest, I would love to assist in starting such a collabortaion. Message me or express your interest at Talk:Roman Catholic Church if the idea appeals to you. --Caponer 19:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Middle Name
I read in the book "We Have A Pope! Benedict XVI" by Matthew Bunson that his original middle name was Aloysius not Alois... does anyone have anything else supporting this??? 68.175.27.35 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Aloysius" is the Latin form of the German "Alois". His name is German. (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think either could be used, many different sources do use the variations in spelling. The German nationality does not necessarily mean he has to have a German name rather than Latin. It is possible, considering some naming conventions in Germanic languages and the Catholic faith, that either could be legitimately used. --&#39;s-Gravenhage 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fatima
I removed the following for the article:

During many years even Vatican officials like Silvio Cardinal Oddi and theologians as close to John Paul II as Mario Cardinal Cappi had claimed that the content would contain a warning, that heresy and apostasy in the Church would "begin at the top" and "in the hierarchy".

I really think that this needs to be cited if it is to be included. -- Psy guy Talk 17:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter Sunday (2006) & the Pope
I wonder if we could mention (in the article), that the Pope's birthday is on Easter Sunday (April 16th)? GoodDay 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I myself don't find it relevant. A neat little trivia fact for some, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. If Easter was on that date every year, it would be worthwhile to mention. OsFan 20:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean. GoodDay 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant, especially for the faithful. He was born on 16th April, which was Easter Saturday back in 1927. I think it is an important point to make, and many people do like trivia on Wikipedia, and often use it to find some. --&#39;s-Gravenhage 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Category: Hitler Youth
An anon removed Category: Hitler Youth here with the explanation "remove POV vandalism". Nothing could be farther from the truth. The category is for members of the Hitler Youth, which Ratzinger was. The article does a pretty good job of explaining that he was forced to join, and in truth most of the people in this category were (because it consists of members who went on to get famous). Being as it is already stated in the article that he was a member, removal the category seems more likely to be "vandalism" to be. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We already had this discussion last year, and the category for HJ members, which was initially created for the sole purpose of smearing the Pope, was deleting following vote (at cfd if I remember correctly). A category which includes every German males of a given age (8 million in total) and has nothing with their own decisions in life to do does not make any sense. I fail to see that the creation of such a category to put the Pope in can be the result of anything else than anti-Catholicism, and given that the question is already sorted out, any readding of such a category will be removed from the article. 83.109.161.130 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with 83.109.161.130. This was discussed last year. AnnH ♫ 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where I come from, this is called special pleading. --Michael K. Smith 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Former members of the Hitler Youth was deleted on May 9, 2005 following vote at categories for deletion log discussion 83.109.161.130 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it got deleted. Yes there were 8 million members, but there are only a handful notable enough for Wikipedia articles. I don't see how this is smearing Ratzinger. The category isn't called "People who wanted to join the Hitler youth". It's fine to explain in the article that he was forced to join, but its quite another thing to try to erase history. Nominate the category for deletion if you want, but I think its inappropriate to only remove it from certain articles, while leaving it in the articles of other former members. savidan(talk) (e@) 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Hitler Youth should be a category for articles primarily associated with the HJ (leaders etc.), not random people who when they were 14 years old were forced to join, and by the way never were active members. 83.109.147.221 08:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And for that purpose other "Nazi leader" categories suffice. Str1977 (smile back) 09:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is notable that he was a member though; though most German youth of that age joined, as was stated before, only a few are Wikipedia worthy; however, I'm not sure if he belongs on the list. On the other hand, he was a member of Hitler Youth, so it might apply. I don't think it is a slur or defamation to have some link to it in some manner. Titanium Dragon 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass adding of "citation needed" templates for already referenced facts
The user Dominick is on a vandalism spree, adding a lot of stupid "citation needed" templates in the early life section for a bunch of obvious facts, which are already referenced in the long version of that section, the Early life of Pope Benedict XVI article. When removed, he keeps reinstating it. That is blatant sabotaging of the article.

There was a reason some stuff was moved to a separate article, and we don't need to double it all up. 83.109.147.221 08:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I didnt add those, I reverted the removal of those citations that were requested. Removing valid citation requests is suspect. They were also not on the subpage. Adding them is not a bad thing. If it is true, then in an encyclopedia, they should be referenced. Dominick (TALK) 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=49172869&oldid=49172610

Your edit: "According to one of Ratzinger's biographers, the National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen, he was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings."

THERE IS ALREADY A CITATION IN THE SENTENCE: "According to one of Ratzinger's biographers, the National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen".

You find the reference to Allen's book in the literature list.

Your edit: "His father was a bitter enemy of nazism, because he believed it was in conflict with their faith."

Referenced in the main article (Early life of Pope Benedict XVI). Reference number 3

Your edit: "In 1943, when he was 16, Ratzinger was drafted with many of his classmates into the Luftwaffenhelfer programme."

Uncontroversial and undisputed fact, no citation needed. You can read it in any of the biographies listed in the literature list.

Your edit: "After his class was released from the Corps in September 1944, Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in the Hungarian border area of Austria in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive."

Same as above.

Your edit: "His unit served at various posts around the city and was never sent to the front.{fact}"

Same as above.

Footnotes are not encyclopedic standard and should only be used for facts thay may be controversial or disputed. It is pure nonsense that every sentence containing a fact need a reference. That's why we have a general literature list. Adding a "citation needed" template implies you dispute the fact, and obviously: adding such templates to every fact you find in the article may well be considered trolling and constitutes damaging of the article.

An article like the following is nothing but extremely unhelpful, and violates Wikipedia policy: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.


 * "Pope Benedict XVI (Latin: Benedictus PP. XVI), born Joseph Alois Ratzinger (born April 16, 1927) is the 265th and reigning Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and sovereign of Vatican City State. He was elected on April 19, 2005 in a papal conclave, celebrated his Papal Inauguration Mass on April 24, 2005, and took possession of his cathedral, the Basilica of St. John Lateran, on May 7, 2005. Pope Benedict XVI has both German and Vatican citizenship."

83.109.168.150 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV/NPOV
There is no way that this wikipage is not going to inextricably become involved with the POV of many thousands of Wikipedians, particularly active Catholic apologists like Demiurge.

It is incumbent on administrators to monitor this site to ensure that propaganda, censorship, etc. are dealt with quickly. 216.194.3.89 01:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert! Got another IP address? I noticed your edit broke the WP date style again - why do you do that? Furthermore, please stop spreading rumours about other editors. If you want this page to be NPOV, then please work *with* other editors instead of simply inserting your POV and then getting into a revert-war. - Ali-oops✍ 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Papal Arms
so that was Marini's idea, not Ratzinger's.... and we wondered.....: 3.7. Papal insignia

''Separate mention must be made of the proposal to reform papal insignia. Since Pope Paul VI renounced the tiara, the Bishop of Rome uses a mitre similar to that of other Bishops during liturgical celebrations. This expresses better the bond of communion and unity which exists between the Successor of Saint Peter and the College of Bishops. The pallium, on the contrary, has not changed with the liturgical reform; it has retained the shape adopted in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Office intends to introduce a modification of the pallium which takes into consideration both its earliest forms and its mediaeval symbolism, in order to express more clearly the ecclesiological and christological significance of this insignia, which was of great importance in antiquity. For the ring of the Bishop of Rome, the traditional anulum piscatoris (‘ring of the fisherman’) will probably be reinstated, to be consigned with the pallium to the new Pope on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of his pastoral service.'' + PIERO MARINI Titular Archbishop of MartiranoMaster of Papal Liturgical Celebrations Anchorite 16:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

sedevacantist link
I don't think it would be inappropriate to include a link to a sedevacantist website in this article. The article offers many statements critical of Benedict XVI from an anti-Catholic perspective, but very few from a sedevacantist/traditionalist perspective. - Adam

Travels
Saying the pope will visit "Latin America" instead of "Brazil", it means he will be in more than one country of Latin America, but he will visit only Brazil. Fsolda 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)