Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

Church doctrine and personal theology
I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:


 * Dear all,
 * I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph.
 * Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it.

Of course the creation of the subpage makes it more complicated. Maybe we should put in some passage here, distinguishing the two. Str1977 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine with me. Though I do apologize if this sub-page put a wrench in anyone's plans, but if yall want to link to the main page in the various passages, thats cool with me. I am mainly just watching the page for vandalism. Zscout370 (talk) 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear all again, I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right. Str1977 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Controversial Uganda Study
Dear all,

I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.

This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Wikipedia is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ipse dixit.

Condoms and Moral and Ecclesiastical Law
The BBC tried questioning Primate Cormac Murphy O'Connor before his journey to demonstrate at Edinburgh recently, about the Catholic church's attitude to prevention of Aids through the greater use of Condoms His unsatisfactory , nigh evasive , answers provoke  a further questioning.

Humanae Vitae states that no member of the church can possibly deny that the church is competent in her magisterium to interpret natural moral law. The encyclical further states that God has wisely ordered laws of nature. However ,as we all know, there is a new biological "law" of infectivity which states that human bodily intercourse can of itself be a death sentence. God's law previous to this new law of cause and effect might have or did appear to be wisely ordained, but the situation now is completely ovetaken by what presumably (in inversion of God ) would be classed as a 'devilish' law but which medically is recognised as being an infective human immuno-deficiency syndrome.

We know that in fact this infectivity is not limited to humans. We know that the result of the infectivity is mortal destruction, irrespective of morality or belief , or, indeed, species. We know that the church's response thus far is to solely countenance abstention from intercourse between humans as solution, whereas we know that the simplest of protective plastic film is enough to protect life ,already in existence ,from this mortal  danger.

Here we have a plain contradiction in the natural law trumpeted under the aegis of the Magisterium by Humanae Vitae and ,doubtless, throughout this faith's teaching. The natural law has changed ,however a faith may wish to deny this - the mortality is present and its virulence exceeds any inverse of God's will (such as the fallen Angel's name earlier mentioned  describes-but which we should not use except in this particular  theological analysis ).

The belief in Hum. V. is that each man through the exercise of his conjugality  is not the master of the sources of life  but rather  the minister of the design established  by the Creator. Indeed so, and irrefutably, the design is subject now to AIDS (whether through God's will or not is in comparison a theological as opposed to real discourse). The church -which has always insisted on the inverse of God -the unrepeatable name, is well-placed to therefore recognise that a duality exists now within natural law.

However it appears that the members of the church Hierarchy are in natural and hence, from the above, moral confusion. As natural law has changed and the duality has entered within the very chain of ministry that is conjugality, we see that there is a complete up-ending of the socio-moral order of society. Death is overtaking wide sections of humanity, simply because of their natural adherence to the previous natural order. Marriage is no bar to infectivity, intention is no bar. The Primate's only advice is towards abstinence by all from the most instinctual  natural functions of the body , which is an equal up-ending of the natural law , and one which we see financially bankrupting the church following the human failure of its own ecclesiastics  even with their magnificent support system of the  Mother Church, providing them with nourishment and care  to the grave.

It is not here the intention to simply point to hypocrisy, because this will not further understanding or provide advance. Nevertheless I have to relate this central subject of world concern back to a similar moral problem, that implicated by the teachings of romans 3,8. This is necessary  because the central argument of  humanae vitae rests upon the same magisterial or divine law  tenets. These state that whilst a lesser evil may be tolerated to prevent a greater evil, that yet , evil shall never be chosen in order to promote a good. HV states though it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good ,"it is never lawful even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it ,-in other words to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order...even though the intention is to protect ... an individual .. or society in general .

Laudable injunctions, which I note at length  throughout the relevant pages, were broken by  Pope Pius XII, Hitler's Pope and his  predecessor Pope PIus XII. That is a subject of dispute here on wikipedia and elsewhere. It appears to many historians that indeed the Catholic Church as led  at the time, chose actively (in  1932 and 1933 ) to consider Nazism a lesser evil than Communism and was therefore culpable in upending the moral order of society.

The church, in so far as it can operate to defend itself from the accusations and the historical realities (through apologists ) should now recognise that just as it chose then  to avail of the lesser evil policy  , now it should see the damage  considered resultant upon the use of protective condoms to marital structure and promiscuity and actual conception  to be clearly the lesser evil  given that God  (let us use the word) has now inserted  the dualism of death into this conjugal ministry of life.

(Ye who would cavil at my use of these pages to raise these issues, as those who cavil at the additions to the historical pages, should deeply consider the morality of your complaints before carping at these words...) FAMEKEEPER SOMETIME SOMEDAY

FK, those that cavil are those wikipedians that don't consider themselves above the (wiki) law. But I digress. Apart from the fact that your evaluation of the Pius XII situation is wrong, now you are also inconsistent: Only a few lines above this post you called on BXVI to go to the UN make what you call "the Law" a.k.a. as the principle "don't do evil to achieve good", to make this principle international binding law. I considered this simplistic, unrealistic and unpractical. But now, in this post, you are calling on the same BXVI to do the complete opposite, namely to declare an evil, though a lesser evil, good. Yes, I agree using condoms are a lesser evil than spreading AIDS and IMHO the late and the current Pope agree. But it's still evil, according to Catholic morality - and I hope you can muster enough tolerance to at least let us be and follow our consciences.

Very confusing is your remark that "natural law has changed" - no, natural law has not changed, it cannot change, otherwise it wouldn't be natural law. And natural law doesn't change because of the appearance or spreading of a disease. There were other STD here before anyone could spell AIDS.

However, for those you seriously consider the Pope responsible for the spreading of this pandemia, please read the following, non-Catholic articles:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA993.htm

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/7406.shtml

Str1977 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sir, you have reverted a post which was a reply to your question . You add that it is factually inaccurate . Please specify the inaccuracies , and justify your statement  that it was. Famekeeper 15:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FK,
 * 1) your post was not a reply to my previous post ("...those that cavil"). There was no question that needed an answer and you did not touch upon any of the issues I referred to in this post or related to the section title. Hence, your post was off-topic.
 * 2) your posted exactly the same stuff (save for a introductory paragraph) over at Ludwig Kaas. Hence your post is a double post.
 * 3) your claims about Hitler being "recommended as a good in himself" and about Pius XI and Pacelli's "anti-semitism" are unsubstantiated and clearly untrue. Hence your post is factually inaccurate.


 * Zut ! OK so have I got to drag it all in here- if you say so . The good in himself  was short for what Pius XI  said to Franz von Papen, quoted  prsumably out of the Nuremburg Trials , we had that  one before . Now the antisemitism , from what you say I must produce  this .  That'll involve  a lot of website links , so , OK . I'll present them as is.
 * 4) again you're using a wiki talk page of an unrelated entry as a soapbox to spread your message. At this law-abiding wikipedians (not just me) cavil. Hence your post is mis-use of talk page.
 * I hope that's enough. Str1977 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Touche, but well I'm back in the black on that , the questions are on topic now , seeing  the  legal clauses  in the Enabling Act . What I want to know now is this:-


 * Is there a Reichskonkordat ?
 * With what legal entity  was it made ?
 * Can it be made with an illegal entity ?
 * What's it been worth per year  in turnover?

Theology of the Popes
Perhaps similar articles - including perhaps the political aspects -should be written about some of Benedict's predecessors. How did John XXIII's and Paul VI's theological/political positions affect the development of Vatican II; or Pius IX's self-designation as the Prisoner in the Vatican might be starting points. Jackiespeel 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet One More Request
I am probably being far too naive in asking for another summary rather than simply concluding that Famekeeper has nothing to say. Famekeeper does say that war was inevitable. If he realizes that war (between communism and fascism) was inevitable, then exactly what is he saying should have been done differently, either by the Catholic Church or by democratic states?


 * I have never said that war was inevitable- I have said that Brok immediately felt it were so, once Pius XI's wishes for the Centre Party to enable Hitler were relayed by Pacelli and Kaas .Famekeeper 05:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper appears to be saying that there was a tragedy in the works. That is absolutely correct. He also appears to be saying that the Catholic Church could have prevented the tragedy by superior wisdom and actions. Exactly what should have been done differently? Robert McClenon 01:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Church should not have tilted the balance, and not have added its seal of respectability to the murderous intent . You should remember that Germany was not re-armed at 1932 , rather subject to specific international controls.

Example of the Principle of Double Effect
The full related example can be seen here, without copyright notice (the text is marked to reveal integrality of outside-copyright use . I place the relevant part here below . It relates to the  Christian theological reasoning why or why not condoms can be used between  even , here, couples beyond the  age of fertility . Acknowledments to William .E. May, Prof. of Moral Theology , JPII Institute for Studies on Marriage & the Family at The Catholic University of America


 * Nonetheless, as I argued in a brief essay published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1988), pages 1-2, it would, as I said in that essay, be morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effect but it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.

Prof. May then explains why not.


 * I do not understand the relevance of this example. I disagree with the conclusion as to the use of condoms because I disagree with Humanae Vitae, which I consider to be a philosophical error.  It is a valid example of double effect if the original conclusion that the use of condoms is morally illicit is accepted.  The Nazi issue is entirely different.  Robert McClenon 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the moral error you have formulated for HV-perhaps that would be relevant on the HV page discussion.

Bureaucratic Removals by Editor
Nothing's really gone from this page - it's just brushed under the carpet, to stink  in a digital cupboard. All is relevant despite this cleaning, condoms are relevant to Hitler by way of church law, and all things are countable and sourceable. BXVI knows well. The war against Islam is the war, not that against Buddhism(that was jealousy) and do deaths of violence perturb ? Against all teaching of kindness and love war was embraced by the beatific Pius XII. Now in the formulation of the struggle for the Church as Islam, BXVI will take the appropriate measures. We shal not know the out-come, but we certainly know the out-come of Pius XI's measures  of Reichskonkordat. Theological interpretations will have to be most agile to deflect the coming storms of arrows from the past, but the moral and heavenly consequence of error for the present will presumably be there for those involved. The present pope's relations with the Right in this present axis are plain for all to see  in this brave new cyberworld. This is what bureaucrats do not understand. Incisions into my posting will not help them. Abraham Lehrer lives now on the wikipedia, where the reference he made about his dear Mother, should reside just as the words of the surviving Roman deported to Auschwitz should reside forever in cyberspave beside the  personage of Eugenio Pacelli. Jimbo was told to know, & he knows. He just hasn't worked out if there's a policy required or not. I have spent remarkably little time on chasing the Chicago mob over all this history. Why do we not focus now on the connections through to the markets, and be even handed about this older axis ? It ain't hard to read todays quid pro quo of interests .Famekeeper 22:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Urgent attention for this page?
Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is one of the world's foremost theologians. He has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles. This page doesn't really have ANYTHING about his contribution to theology.

Is there anybody familiar with his work who could try to summarise his achievements?

STOP The links to doctrine and dogma is sort of broken. STOP
 * Absolutely. This page lists a bunch of hot button issues, but says pretty much nothing about Benedict's theology.  He just issued an apostolic exhortation that reiterates that the Mass in the center of Catholic life, but as far as I can see, it is mentioned neither here nor the main Benedict page.  This article needs to be refocused away from what the mainstream media creates through soundbytes and on Benedict's actual positions on Catholic doctrine.  --Sephiroth9611 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow us to pull this article to half decent standard before demanding that we update everything, we are getting there, dont worry! Gavin Scott 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pope says hell and damnation are real and eternal.
An interesting analysis in this link. This Wikipedia article seems to miss how Pope Benedict XVI understands Hell so really needs expanding. Personally though I feel that as a concept hell is a rather brutal approach to managing society but then Richard Dawkins does equate aspects of what religion does to people (and especially children) as abuse. (Which is my way of saying that I'm now interested in this Pope and the related articles). Ttiotsw 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you brought that up, I have just realised that this article isn't the Theology of Pope Benedict, more the Politics of Pope Benedict! We don't mention his views on the Virgin Mary, Original Sin, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory etc etc...we will have to work these things into the article! Gavin Scott 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

where is he living rihgt now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.199.121.8 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)