Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 9

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 from 13 May to May 16.

Archive
Sorry folks about the archive. The page was about 118 kb, and needed to be archived. I don't really have time to create subject-specific archives now, but if anyone wants to, feel free. Thanks, Bratsche talk random 03:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

When you can, please can you make one for the Question of the Law , as it keeps recurring ,  called Pope Question. What is really needed  is  to refer links to the plethora of more thorough questioning and commentary  on the actual  article page  but  I do not wish a revert war at that level ......hence all discussions are lengthy  only to overcome  POV resistance. Of course ,I deny that I am POV. The wikipedia actually cannot contain the disperse information on the edge  and everywhere  and  non-POV /POV link inclusion would save all the proving, disproving. The wikipedia needs  to provide the directory to elsewhere with a balanced advisory guide  as to the various POV  but it is rather an uphill struggle, Cerberus the hound seems to have the doors covered  always. Discussion is perhaps educative but, more   tedious  and combative  as it gets more  controversial between POV and  POV. Certainly with archiving it warrants even less effort so the greatest interval  possible is required .Flamekeeper 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Pius XII
I have taken the liberty of deleting the long topic being repeatedly copied from the Talk:Pope Pius XII page. Conf 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And I take the liberty of inserting this relevant statement by user John}}[[K "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."


 * Conf, can you shed any light on posthumous excommunication, by any chance ? Flamekeeper 09:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What has all this got to do with discussion about an article on Pope Benedict? Ann Heneghan 09:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It has to do with Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term 'complicity with Evil' in 2004 and his being  the Prefect in charge of everything .The theological injunction comes from the Prefect  .  He is in charge of the above . But, were the possibility of excommunication to arise concerning the above  then the article would indeed have to include a report that would answer the questions raised . A first question would be that if a Pope could, because he should ( debateable)  , excommunicate a Pope (two here  in this case ) posthumously , then  would  the legitimacy of the living Pope not be called itself into question ? It is just as well that the Pontiff  is still the Prefect  ,or, maybe theres a simple way out . To assert that this is speculation  is contradicted by the Prefectoral re-iteration  and by the above authors , if the user:JohnK report is correct . Flamekeeper 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't provide much knowledge regarding posthumous excommunication. (The other talk pages where connected issues arise are Talk:Centre Party (Germany), where the quote comes from, and Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.) Conf 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper. in this place you stated I had written "that it would be that a declaration of automatic excommunication would be declared under latae sententiae" At this time let me just state I did nothing of the kind. A fuller answer will follow.


 * Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing."
 * Your previous but one  sentence had dealt with Hitler  and latae sententiae.
 * "True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."


 * Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward, less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute  assertion in the  article would mitigate  this  quality of frustrated attention  we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section  perhaps on the Theology page  and doubtless agreement   would follow what  be  the  simple bases of the laws as  relevant to all the issues  upon this  current page .  [User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line  when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page. However there is much  remark that there was an episcopal rebellion  in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy, including Avery Cardinal Dulles'  assertion  that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs. The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line  as is the entire history  and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to  Cardinal McCarrick  which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret. There is in this subject ,known  in the U.S as the communion controversy  a revealing theological evolution, the suggestion that in Rome  juridical disquiet existed at the application of a  2002  text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion  , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually  as having been advantageous to the Republican Party. The theological differences are nuanced and  revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness   on the part of a public figure, such as the  otherwise devout  John Kerry. In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised, to that which  Cardinal Dulles feared and that which   is of such  perfectly  scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius  XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid. Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 * canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;
 * part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2, or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity.
 * section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated  in section 1, part no. 3.

Other subsequent Canons refer back to  Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the  Question of the Law raised under  Pope Pius XII


 * Canon 1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence, and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties  or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.
 * Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence, accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished  with ferendae sententiae penalties.

Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement  whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic  penalties  incurred by the more serious classes of offences which '''do not require the judgement of a Superior judge. It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers  terming  this  the great scandal of history it says in
 * Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity  of the violation requires it  and necessity  demands that scandals be prevented or  repaired.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see [] and it is stated  that excommunication is the spiritual sword  and is not merely the severing  of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also  the severing of the  forum internum'' or internal bond  to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth  is ratified in heaven  affecting and binding Souls. Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas  penalty in foro interno is  close to the subject of the above  American communion controversy. The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative  measure, that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 )  a difference between ,however, this  minor corrective penitental measure , as  in the denial of the Sacrements   and real  major excommunication as in the sword. Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged  either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that  he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence  ipso eo and therefore relates to this case  of the law  raised in virtue of the actions of  1933 through latae sententiae. No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed  if it is the case  as contested  under Humanae Vitae.

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's  can be quoted, follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and  therefore the relevant law would   have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant. A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication, or , indeed , be absolved.

It seems rather contra-dictory, considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven.

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure  overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of  Jesus Christ.

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence, the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law  and of  the penalty of the law ( [[Contumacy]].

In relation to defence in the accusation, a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as  excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful  than to the status of the excommunicated, a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful. Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained, and , presumably less so  in this case.

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition, and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial. They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that  necessary jurisdiction. In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be  able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes.  Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be  or is  safe . On  discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining  at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is  weakening its  very Magisterium  or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity  is to mankind , not  to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this  'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible  on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and  as well as in  multitudes of  personal genealogical tables.


 * Readers if they are not aware already, should know that the open-source and open-exit  Wikipedia is now a battleground  for  faith-based wikipedians  who are constrained  by their religions  , as with Str1977 . Their canonical law requires them to act as they do , which is to plug every possible little hole in the great dyke of avoidance of Church loss of face. As the Church everywhere interacts with history , the battleground is visible on all sectors wherein the  Church  relates . I leave it to serious Wikipedians  to be concerned-it is tangential to this  particular legal concern . Get off your asses  wikipedians or , as  the Church is harmed by themselves , so will the Wikipedia harmed by the dishonesty  of its' own wikipedians . It's true - Str1977, you are very good but it is faith-based editing not pure  history  that you are good at.


 * Surely, you are referring to dike as opposed to dyke? Just checking.  Aloysius Patacsil 23:50, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Josef or Joseph
I can't see where this is discussed, but the Vatican website (German section) spells his name as "Joseph". Kind regards, jguk 09:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The vatican calls him "Joseph" and a google search indicates that "Joseph" is how it's spelled on Geramn sites as well. Jeltz talk  12:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But this CNN article notes that the car registration says "Josef Kardinal Ratzinger" VViki 05:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that how he wrote his name, or just the way some random car registry bureaucrat wrote his name? The CNN article doesn't say. Uppland 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have often seen "Joseph" - "Joseph" can be a proper German spelling. john k 07:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am of Austrian origin, and I can assure you, that a) both spellings are correct and b) the bearer of the name (or of course his parents) determines which spelling in his case is used - thus, in official documents, media reports etc. those two versions cannot be interchanged arbitrarily. Ratzinger's birth certificate shows Joseph. IMHO it is clear that in German Joseph is the right spelling in Ratzinger's case. Gugganij 13:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * May I ask how you came to access his birth certificate? VViki 11:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a copy of his birth certificate which is shown in the museum of local history in Markl am Inn (a village close to the Austrian border). Gugganij 12:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's spelled with "ph", if you search the german booklist, all his books are published "Joseph" Ratzinger. And John is right, in german, you can spell names either with "f" or "ph" (Stefan or Stephan; Joseph or Josef, etc.) both is correct, the spelling only depends on what version your parents preferred when they named you Pharlap 12:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I've listed this page on Requests for comment. The issues being discussed on the page have been, if I'm not mistaken, debated several times since this man has become Pope. &#38738;&#12356;(Aoi) 09:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Conclave Presidency
Removed the "over which he presided" comment regarding the conclave. No one really "presides" over the conclave...the three panels of three cardinals that perform its important functions are rotated continuously. However, if anyone is said to "preside", it would be the Cardinal Camerlengo, not Ratzinger as Dean of the College of Cardinals. --MikeJ9919 04:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Benedict, or rather Cardinal Ratzinger, did preside over the conclave, over the election proceedings, though of course helped by two other Cardinals. The Camerlengo, on the other hand, was responsible for the more administrative duties around the Vatican. Str1977 07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected with regards to the Camerlengo. Having reread Universi Dominici Gregis, I still believe that there cannot be said to be a "presider" in Conclave. The only mention of the Cardinal Dean acting in an executive capacity is this: "The Cardinal electors, after reciting the prayers found in the relative Ordo, listen to the Cardinal Dean (or the one taking his place), who begins by asking the College of electors whether the election can begin, or whether there still remain doubts which need to be clarified concerning the norms and procedures laid down in this Constitution." --MikeJ9919 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Allright, I know what you mean. If you can think of a less 'presidential' wording please change it. Str1977 21:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you think? I think this solution has the elegance of including his former position as Cardinal Dean in a compact form.--MikeJ9919 04:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"officiated ..."? that's ok by me. Str1977 20:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Preside simply means "sit in front", i.e. chairman. That's the only function the Dean has during the conclave, besides the convocation of the electors. Thus, it is perfectly normal to say that Benedict presided over the election, because sitting in the front of the college is exactly what he did. Pmadrid 05:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, both the Latin and English translations of Universi Dominici Gregis use preside in reference to the function of the dean in two instances:
 * The general congregations, and
 * The conclave
 * but I'm going to use chair in order to avoid the confusion between being presiding officer and executive officer. Pmadrid 05:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Universi Dominici Gregis said he "presides over the College", not the Conclave. I do think "officiated" was the most reasonable factual representation of the Dean's role. However, it really is a rather minor point and I'm willing to let it drop. --MikeJ9919 01:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Blessing video of pope.
It goes so quickly it's just a blur. Just a thought maybe a slower video would work or something else? --Contrib 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Surely we can find a better picture of Pope Benedict that that truly dreadful one currently being used. It really is appallingly bad. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just like with the last photo I put on here, this one is not that great. I am hoping I get some PD/Fairuse photos soon, but I do not think it will come for a while. I am not going to pay the Vatican for any photo, so we are kinda stuck, in my POV. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to using the picture that we used before this one? I have it on my computer still. --User:Jenmoa 23:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the last one we used before this one also came from Vatican.va, which also still has the goldish background. I know others complained about that. Man, I am about ready to go to Requested_pictures and put in a request of PD/GDFL pictures of the Holy Father. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The infobox photo was replaced by a photo that was used later on in the article. The photo is also copyrighted by the Associated Press. Is that legal for us to use? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

shame on the power trip speeding cannonization
QWhat the hell are you doing pope. Are you going to portend you're predecessor is more hearchycal than even mother theresa. WOW!!! Who will be here when mother theresa dies. HUH! Already the german pope fucked up! According to the good st. Malachy...what the fuck u doing little worm nobody. Is HE gonna have to kick the pope out of Rome. HUH!!! Who hath come to hiss... ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Family planning, and God created woman to be Man's companion. Got the picture?! Don't make me get into this dead predessor. No wonder all the chatholics are leaving the church. You a perverted abomination...HUH!!! Little nobody pope. son of a bitchssssss (Comment was made by IP 68.253.117.209).


 * I take it the Pope is answering the calls of the Faithful, who wanted JP II to become a Saint. I know the process will be long and hard, but I hope it makes it through. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, though I don't know why I'm even commenting on this...JP II waived the waiting period on Mother Theresa, too.--MikeJ9919 03:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And there were other popes that probably did that too, but we just never heard about. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What does hearchycal mean? 66.238.96.241 06:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

On anti-Ratzinger sentiments
Should there not be some discussion of the objections held by many to Ratzinger's history and politics, and of the fact that he was a Hitler Youth? Exploding Boy 00:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think those were discussed earlier, I would check the archives. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, there is something about the Hitler Youth thing. I missed that before. But I don't see much about opposition to him. Exploding Boy 00:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You might see some opposition in the Theology section. If some sections get to long, we break things up. I know there is opposition to the Holy Father and I think we should document it. However, I just do not know where. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)