Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 7

message: From article: 
:His stance, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, should not be confused with those of conservatives in a political sense, because of his (also Catholic) opposition to the death penalty and preemptive war and his emphasis on social justice and opposition to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism.
This statement is rather surprising, because frankly, many European conservatives are against the death penalty and preemptive war, want (allegedly, but that is what they say) social justice, and are, although probably to a lesser extent, opposed to the excesses of capitalism and consumerism. So this either needs a thorough re-working, or (that was probably meant) an addition of "US" somewhere. -- AlexR 16:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree. This seems to use American conservatives as the benchmark by which a conservative pope can be judged. Since Ratzinger is a European and a product of European thought and upbringing, this would seem like the wrong standard to use. He seems to me more like a conservative of the traditionalist kind, rather than the American free-market unbridled capitalism sort of conservative (what in Europe might be called a liberal). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, only it is the definition of conservatives that is the problem, not a description of the pope or the question how his conservatism differs (or not) from other conservative views. -- AlexR 19:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservatism

message: It might seem odd but I wanted to let the Wiki contributors to the B16 entry that it is a fascinating read. Mowens35 17:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting there, isn't it? While there's still much to do I've enjoyed watching this article develop and it gets better all the time, with sources at last being cited for some of the assertions, and great expansion on what was just a couple of paragraphs a few days ago. Considering the very rapid pace of editing, and all the vandalism it's received, I think this is something Wikipedia can be proud of, and it's good to know we are now number one google result for Pope Benedict XVI. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that things will only get better with time my friends. Zscout370 18:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it truely is amazing how something really great can arise out of the complete chaos.  Trial by fire, in a way.  --Quasipalm 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments to all (thus far) 

message: Could not find something about this in the guidelines; I see that References 4 and 6 are the same (to the same reprint in IHT of the same NYT article). Should these references be consolidated into one?  84.136.56.88 20:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is they are separate footnotes, ie separated by other notes. How would they be consolidated? Seems impossible to do that and still have the proper citations. Mowens35 10:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate References 

message: " National Socialist mathematics professor "
Was the professor actually a Nazi, or merely a German required to join the party? I think the distinction is important. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there were very few cases where anybody was required to join the party. Granted, people have joined it to keep their jobs or for a better chance of promotion, but the sole exception for non-voluntary joining was AFAIK rather late in the regieme, when whole groups of the Hitler Youth were signed in as members on April 20th (Hitler's birthday). Those people, however, can be identified by the date of the actual joining. Unfortunately, can't find a reference now. I'd be carefull when encountering references to "involuntary membership" - lots of people joined for career reasons, others, because they agreed with parts of the program, and others still - well, because they believed in all of it. Besides, not every party member, even voluntary ones, were no brain-dead fanatics, so I can is no particular relevance as to whether that teacher was or was not a voluntary member of the NSDAP. -- 21:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a reference for this, but didn't the Nazi party freeze membership shortly after the war started?  --Quasipalm 21:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ... but: They froze membership officially in April '33, because after '33 so many wanted to join; from 850.000 to more than 2,5 Millionen. (Most of those probably did not change their opinion so much as saw it as a career thing; that was already alleged back then.) However, that freeze was not complete, people were allowed to join in several cases, and it was lifted in '37 again, in '39 it had 5.3 mio members, and in 45 8.5 mio.  -- AlexR 00:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youth 

message: "However, the use of condoms is permitted by the Church if one marital partner has HIV/AIDS."
Can anyone show me any sources for that?
DKK
:That statement is inaccurate.  Occasionally you'll get someone with a degree in moral theology making that claim.  You'll find some priests saying it.  You may even find a bishop saying it.  However, it is contrary to the official teaching.  I hope it doesn't cause offence if I delete it.  Ann Heneghan 22:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reread my posting:  I expressed myself badly.  I meant that some priests, theologians, and even (though very rarely) some bishops may say or imply that it's okay for spouses to use condoms if one of the spouses is HIV positive.  I did not mean that any priests, bishops, or theologians say that the use of condoms "is permitted by the Church" in such a case.  In any case, the article makes it clear that Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ruled out such an option.  Ann Heneghan 23:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  condoms 

message: Can't we use a different one in that box with all his details? His eyes look terrible, his appearance is awful, there must surely be some more appropriate pictures of him taken soon after he became Pope.
Yeah, we will change it, when they release the official picture tomorrow. Rangeley 22:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking about pictures, look at this one. Zscout370 00:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has any official portrait been released yet (sitting on a throne etc.)? The ones shown surely cannot be official- they are not regal enough! There was a BBC programme on today, and showed many pictures I have not senn and am unable to find. I assume they will be released shortly.--'s-Gravenhage 19:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a need to hurry with the pictures. He was only elected 5 days ago and inaugurated today. ;) --Maxl 19:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: I just found this on the commons. It is how Caridnal Ratzinger's name is pronounced in German (created by User:APPER).. Zscout370 00:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound 

message: Regarding the following line near the bottom of the page:
"He has also rejected the idea that divorced people can remarry and said they have no right to receive communion."
The way the above line is stated could make it sound like Ratzinger was saying divorced people should be barred from the Eucharist even if they don't remarry.  As far as I am aware, divorced Catholics who don't remarry are NOT barred from the Sacraments, so I'd like to see a cite on Ratzinger's actual words, and have the above sentence edited for clarity if need be.
Thanks... WhFastus 02:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1994 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger) is probably the one you are referring to.  You can find it [here].  As you can see, it says, "If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.  (Emphasis mine.)  Thanks for pointing that out.  I agree it should be edited for clarity. Ann Heneghan 14:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited it.  However, I am not happy with the format of the footnote I added.  The other footnotes on that page are raised.  I looked at the "edit" page for other sections to see what a raised footnote would look like in the box, but still couldn't work it out.  I felt it was better to submit it and have one footnote that looked different than to leave a sentence that might misrepresent the CDF letter.  Perhaps someone would be kind enough to correct my formatting?  Thanks.  Ann Heneghan 14:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce and remarriage 

message: I noticed in a lot of the article, it still refers to him as Ratzinger, when it should clearly be Benedict XVI. If you were to look in any other Pope's article, It was always John Paul II not Karol (except when describing his birth), And always John Paul I and not Albino. Why should it be any different for this pope? Rangeley 04:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Ratzinger? 

message: OK, folks.  The Palpatine picture is amusing, but inappropriate.  I'm taking it down. Looks like somebody beat me to it. Popefelix 14:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palpatine 

message: New to the Wiki, so I didn't really want to make any changes on my own. I did, however, feel the need to at least point out that this paragraph:
<BLOCKQUOTE>The position is not arbitrary nor moralistic, but possesses a rigorous philosophical basis (See Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility). It seems that considerable weight can be given to this position, as abstinence promoted in the country of Uganda has reduced an AIDS population of 29% to roughly 6%, as opposed to other countries where condoms are promoted and the infection levels have either remained stable or increased.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Is not correct. This Feb. 24, 2005 article from the Washington Post reports quite the opposite:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much-heralded decline of AIDS rates in the most closely studied region of Uganda, two researchers told a gathering of AIDS scientists here.
It is the deaths of previously infected people, not dramatic change in human behavior, that is the main engine behind the ebbing of the overall rate, or prevalence, of AIDS in southern Uganda over the last decade, they reported. ...<BR>Wawer's findings come from a study of 10,000 people ages 15 to 49 who live in 44 villages near Uganda's border with Tanzania. Each year researchers have gone door to door collecting blood and urine samples and asking about health and behavior. About 85 percent of residents cooperate with the study, which over the years has grown to include AIDS treatment and prevention services as well as research. ...
<BR>
Condom use, however, changed markedly over the survey period. In 1994, only about 10 percent of the men said they consistently used condoms with non-marital partners, compared with 50 percent in 2003. For women of the same age, the rate of condom use in non-marital sex increased from 2 percent to 28 percent.</BLOCKQUOTE>I believe that this paragraph in the article should be removed, as I believe it is unrelated to the facts, attempts to add opinion (The position is not arbitrary nor moralistic) that is not supported, and is generally inaccurate. 
However, I don't want to just hack away at someone else's work, and others may have a different perspective.
:I don't personally believe that the first sentence is POV, especially since it cites a source for theological / philosophical basis. I would recommend retaining it, and changing the next sentence to something like "Some believe that the marked decline in AIDS infection in Uganda can be attributed to abstinence and sexual fidelity, though this is disputed by two researchers..." and summarizing and referencing your source. I'm glad you're making an attempt to discuss changes with others editing the article, but I would recommend you be bold. Keep in mind, though, that this is intended to be an article about Benedict, and we may not want to devote too much space to side topics. This info may be more appropriate in an AIDS article linked here. --MikeJ9919 16:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS and Uganda Reference False 

message: I think the pronouncation link is outdated (he is surely not Cardinal Ratzinger anymore). Should it be removed (and replaced with just Joseph Ratzinger, like Pope John Paul II article's Karol Wojtila)?
*I just stuck it there for reference sake only, so I request that it is kept there. Plus, I know he is not called Cardinal Ratzinger anymore, but I still think the link should be included to people can hear how the name is pronounced in German. Zscout370 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the pronouncation should be left in the article. I agree with Zscout370. --Maxl 18:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article seems rather slapdash, put together in several stages, in somewhat of a hurry. It could use some refining (and reducing in length - including the pronounciation). Perhaps there should be a section devoted to Him as Cardinal Ratzinger, with the sound file there, rather than in the main article. --'s-Gravenhage 19:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be right where it is now. It's the same with John Paul II. ;) --Maxl 19:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the length of the article I already made a suggestion below. No information should be deleted but some sections should be turned into main articles with leaving only short information in this article, especially the critics section. --Maxl 19:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the pronunciation in the John Paul II article is only his name, not including the title "Cardinal." I believe it ought to be the same here, but until we can find such a file, the one we have should remain at the top where it is now. --User:Jenmoa 20:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncation 

message: Why are many of the sections repeated?
I've removed the major repetition at the beginning, but there are still sentences repeated here and there.
:Yes there are some repetitons. And I think the whole article has become too large. What about only giving the main infos in the article and put the more detailed info into additional main articles linked to this article? I think that may make sense as some people don't want such an in-depth information; and those who want it can move on to the detailed articles on each of the sections. --Maxl 18:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the information box with the short info appears twice in the article. ;) --Maxl 18:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitions 

message: Some discussants and article editors have claimed that the style "His Holiness" is "Wikipedia style policy."  But it was only added as style policy in the last couple days, and specifically by the same users who keep adding the style back in this article.  
The truth, quite simply, is that the honorific is a Catholic POV, is offensive to some/many readers, and is at odds with the usage in all other encyclopedias, news sources, etc.  The point of this article should not be "Vatican press release", but rather a NEUTRAL article. 
However, I would not object to the usage later in the article, if it was accompanied by a contextualizing remark about the range of its usage.  Much as the similar honorific was used for the Dalai Lama before some of the same involved people changed the Dalai Lama article to conform with their newfound "policy." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
*Lulu, is this NPOV good enough for you: " He is styled either as His Holiness [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#endnote_HisHoliness) or the Holy Father." This is later in the intro article, but I figured you (and many others) want this. Now, is everyone happy now? I want to put this issue to rest, just like many of you want to. Zscout370 03:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zscout370's suggestion is great.  As was an earlier one for "formally addressed as."  As would be anything else that mentioned rather than used the style.  I absolutely do not want to dispute that the style is used, I just don't want to endorse it specifically (nor deny it either). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:46, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
First, it is not true that this has been wikipedia style policy for only a few days.  It has been policy for at least several months.  Secondly, the idea that this is a "Catholic POV" is absurd.  Non-Catholics also refer to the pope as "His Holiness," and this style has nothing to do with whether or not the pope is holy.  It is simply a style attaching to the pope.  Is it a "Catholic POV" to refer to the Archbishop of Westminster, since Anglicans believe that this area is under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Bishop of London? john k 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: As this keeps coming up over and over here, I want to remind folks that the wikipedia style policy is under discussion for a proposed survey at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposed Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles in Biographies. Please join the discussion there if you have any desire to be helpful in framing this question. Whig 04:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style as "policy" 

message: There is nothing in this article as yet on the new Pope's inauguration that took place today. I think it was quite remarkably because people applauded many times during his sermon. And does anyone know if the Eastern Catholic churches were involved with any inauguration of a previous pope like they were this time? --Maxl 19:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misspelled it! ;) But you're right, it should be part of this article, probably also as a sub article to this just as I suggested for all the major parts of the article before. --Maxl 20:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inauguration 

message: We should keep an eye on this page, http://members.tripod.com/romeartlover/cataloga.html to see when the new Papal arms has been designed for the Holy Father. Zscout370 21:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: Does anyone know how to remove the question mark just after the soundbite of the name. I tried, but couldn't get it done.
Str1977 22:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question mark 

message: Is this image fully sourced properly? Cantus raised doubts, I clarified sources further, but If we are missing anything else we might as well fix it rather then go back to that terrible picture cantus keeps putting up where he looks half dead. Rangeley 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Image 

message: I'm curious about how truthful some of the information on AIDS is. There is a comment about abstinence being more effective than condoms, in terms of fightings AIDS.  I find this hard to believe - is one pro-church example being used?  I know, in Canada, we have sex education programs for children that have consistenly found more liberal sex-ducation more effecient.
::It seems this information is false. See the Washington Post quote above, in the section "AIDS and Uganda Reference False".08:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But that does not mean we should not say that studies show it to be false. Titanium Dragon 09:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Aids 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians!
There are people who vandalise this page.
The whole article is being removed and insulting texts (about the Pope and Christians in general) are put on the page instead.
Perhaps the page should be secured from edditing for a while.
Kind regards Allard, Mon 25 April 2005 10:28
p.s. I did restore the old page TWICE!, but for how long it will last?
I don't know if it's (technically) possible or in line with wiki rules, but how about restricting editing to registered users (vs IPs). I know that's not a nice thing to do, but maybe a way to substantially reduce the vandalism (I mean the extreme form), as registered users can be held accountable whereas IPs can't.
Just a thought, I'm feeling uneasy about it too.
Str1977 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism! 

message: I moved the "abuse section" from the "cardinal" section into the "controversial views" section, where it was originally, but someone constantly moves it back to the "cardinal" section.
I think it belongs to the "controversial views" section, since
a) the paragraphs are discussing a controversy
b) it is rather bulky im comparison to the rest of the cardinal section. If we want to put it there, we should be much more elaborate on other issues during his cardinalate.
Another thing is the phrase "As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, such abuses were ultimately his responsibility to investigate ..." Can anyone give evidence fo that. The CDF is concerned with doctrinal issues and though abuse is a sin, it's not heresy.
Str1977 09:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the last point, this was said in the Observer articles, and just to check, National Catholic Reporter says Ratzinger's "office is charged with processing sex abuse cases".  Rd232 10:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be a bit of a pain, but I'm not altogether convinced by the National Catholic Reporter's statement.  The NCR has been very anti-Ratzinger and very anti-John Paul)for years;  some Catholics call it the National Catholic Distorter.  I know my request is a bit unfair since I haven't come up with anything to say that the CDF is not charged with processing sex abuse cases.  But, like Str1977, I feel surprised.  Doctrine is such a large issue and so is sex abuse.  I just can't imagine the same congregation being responsible for both.  Could you provide a link to something less biased than the NCR?  Thanks.  Ann Heneghan 10:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse section 

message: I listened to the complete (fifteen-minute) radio interview (April 20 2005) with Cardinal Connell on RTE Radio (I'm Irish.)  There was not one word about Cardinal Ratzinger advising him about to handle the the sex abuse case.  I also saw Connell's (April 20) RTE Television interview. This lasted a little more than five minutes, and also was entirely silent about sex abuse cases.  Both interviews can be found here  (scroll to the bottom).  For the moment, I'm removing the statement that Connell says his approach to the sex abuse cases was guided by Ratzinger.  If anyone wishes to reinsert it, please provide a source that can be verified.  He did not say it in an RTE Interview on 20 April.  Ann Heneghan 10:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the RTE interview (can't get the audio to work), but a if not the source for this is the Irish Daily Star. A copy of the article is here () and the headline can currently be seen at  (so presumably it's today's headline); I've saved a screenshot of it as well. Rd232 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratzinger's advice to Cardinal Connell 

message: The article is so full of hyperlinks I just want to run away screaming when I see it.  Do we really need links for every single date mentioned, for example?  Birth, yes.  Key points of career, sure.  Selection and inauguration, absolutely.  But the rest?
And same goes for things that should be common knowledge, like "German", "World_War_I" etc.  And come on, "family" and "marriage"?  You just did that to piss people like me off, admit it.
magetoo 11:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: It seems pretty systematic that what many editors are inserting is an explicitly pro-Catholic POV (they may or may not be Catholic themselves, I recognize).  There's a common conceit, I think, that the official Vatican position or language on any issue is the same as "neutral."  But it's really just the opposite--that's the specific positions of the most interested party (not a disinterested encyclopedia).  This comes out in pretty much everything I've tried to restore to NPOV.  E.g., trying to get the offensive honorific moved to mention rather than use (Use-mention_distinction) (it's a fact that people use it, but it is offensive and would not be used by many other people--including me, FWIW, as an athiest).
Likewise with the attempt to falsely insinuate a greater passivity in Ratzinger's wartime activity than is evidenced or plausible.  As if he was just as uninvolved volitionally in joining the Hitler Youth as is it were "he was struck by a meteor."  If you have a strong POV, niggly language to try to absolve responsibility and involvement makes your case.  But it just ain't neutral.  Unfortunately, even with a source already judged reputable, the pro-Pope POV editors vandalize accurate, neutral language such as:
:When Ratzinger turned 14, he "joined the Hitler Youth … shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941" . According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. Ratzinger has mentioned that a Nazi mathematics professor arranged reduced tuition payments for him at seminary. This normally required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities -- however, according to Ratzinger, his professor arranged that the young seminary student did not need to attend those gatherings to receive a scholarship.
Very frustrating! The Vatican already has their own website, why can't Wikipedia be an encyclopedia instead? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
::I appreciate that you feel frustrated with the article.  What edits do you believe should be made to make it more NPOV?  The paragraph you quoted above states what seem to be the two material facts: Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth, and membership was compulsory.  If there is some other material contribution (eg.  he was active in it; he approved of it; etc.) then, with the appropriate verifying evidence, that should be added.
::As far as titles go, I don't feel Elizabeth II is particularly majestic.  But I don't have a problem with her being styled "Majesty". Slac speak up! 02:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic POV 

message: I listened to the complete (fifteen-minute) radio interview (April 20 2005) with Cardinal Connell on RTE Radio (I'm Irish.)  There was not one word about Cardinal Ratzinger advising him about to handle the the sex abuse case.  I also saw Connell's (April 20) RTE Television interview. This lasted a little more than five minutes, and also was entirely silent about sex abuse cases.  Both interviews can be found here  (scroll to the bottom).  For the moment, I'm removing the statement that Connell says his approach to the sex abuse cases was guided by Ratzinger.  If anyone wishes to reinsert it, please provide a source that can be verified.  He did not say it in an RTE Interview on 20 April.  Ann Heneghan 10:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the RTE interview (can't get the audio to work), but a if not the source for this is the Irish Daily Star. A copy of the article is here () and the headline can currently be seen at  (so presumably it's today's headline); I've saved a screenshot of it as well. Rd232 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing the source.  I accept that the information appeared in the Daily Star, though I'd be very surprised to learn that Cardinal Connell willingly gave them an interview.  It's a rather sensational paper - not very high brow - and the Cardinal is not really a man of the people.  Anyway, it says it.  But do we really want that in the Wikipedia article?  Might it not be a bit biased and misleading.  For one thing, people could pick up the impression that Cardinal Ratzinger advised Cardinal Connell to transfer paedophile priests, to leave children in danger, to deceive victims, to give the impression that he was cooperating with enquiries when he wasn't, etc. etc. etc.  However, all that the article really says is that Cardinal Ratzinger advised Cardinal Connell to sell land so as to be able to compensate victims.  I could have given him that advice;  it wouldn't mean that I condone the cover up.  The Daily Star article does not tell us what information Connell gave to Ratzinger, and the only advice from Ratzinger that it reports is the advice to sell land.  Would it be NPOV to quote from a tabloid article implying that Cardinal Connell's disgraceful handling of the sex abuse cases was carried out with Cardinal Ratzinger's approval? What does everyone think Ann Heneghan 13:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratzinger's advice to Cardinal Connell 

message: The footnotes in this article don't work properly.  When you click on some of the numbers, they don't take you to that number in the list at the bottom, and vice versa.  I'm not sure what needs to be done to make it work. --John 15:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can fix them. The plus side of these footnotes is that, even if the numbers don't match up, you should still be going to the correct footnote (that is, the contents of the footnote should be correct for wheree you were in the text). The bad side is that 1) people don't seem to be following the instructions placed in the notes section (visible when you click Edit), so the numbers are getting out of order, and 2) external links within the body mess up the notes numbering. This article is something of a test-case for Footnote3, so, if you have any thoughts on how easy/hard they are to use, feel free to post at Wikipedia_talk:Footnote3#Test_case. — Asbestos | Talk 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Could their be a infobox about when the pope will travel to other countries and other places? --Contrib 17:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedict XVI travel 

message: Is Pope Benedict XVI into any kind of music? What language's does he speak? --Contrib 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music and Languages 

message: People keep adding fake pictures to the article. If someone can think of a solution get back to me. --Contrib 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Pope Benedict XVI 

message: Sorry for the duplication posts but it's getting really frequent on the Pope Benedict XVI page. Please take note. --Contrib 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: What holidays does Pope Benedict XVI celebrate? --Contrib 18:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays 

message: I thought we were going to get a new one after he had his mass of inaugaration. It's still the same horrible picture.
*I know the picture sucks, but we do not have a PD photo yet. I have not heard word from the Vatican, yet. Zscout370 18:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture 

message: The person blanked the page and wrote some vulgar things so I deleted that but the page got blanked. Take note. --Contrib 18:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the persistence of the vandalism the only options were to protect the page and stop everyone accessing it, or block that IP. The blockage is time-limited. Hopefully the idiot doing the vandalism will have learnt their lesson and gone away. Any serious users who find themselves locked out in the meantime can always contact an administrator and request the block be removed. It is unfortunate that some idiot ends up screwing up so many others but because of the scale of the vandalism and its repeat nature a block had to be imposed. If they come back and start up again it may be necessary to temporarily protect the page to get the message through to the vandal that wikipedia is sending a collective f-off to him or her, but that is very much the last resort.  Blocking was the lesser of two evils. FearÉIREANN 00:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually got blanked by the User:Wikipedia is Communism vandal. I know I had to revert this article a few times due to the blanking/vandalism. I think that it has picked up more recently in the past few days, but I thank God that it is not as bad as it was the day of his election. Zscout370 01:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major vandalism person blanked page 

message: I'm thinking maybe through some sort of divine inspiration John Paul II knew that his Prefect of CDF would be elected Pope after him. Ratzinger twice submitted his resignation but was rejected by JPII, perhaps to keep him in the limelight and thus a more viable candidate. He also chose Cologne, Germany to host the next World Youth Day, a perfect homecoming for his successor.
Perhaps this picture tells it all:
http://www.fshcm.com/prophetic.jpg
*Cardinal Ratzinger was very close to JPII, since he was the Dean of the College of Cardinals. Vatican law prohibits from the Pope hinting at naming a successor to the papcy. JPII might have kept Ratzinger for other reasons, but not as a successor to the papacy. Zscout370 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did John Paul II want Benedict as his successor? 

message: This page has been under attack all night (well it is night here in Ireland). It seems to have been besieged with vandalism in the last half an hour. I have temporarily protected it to stop this siege. Earlier attempts to drive away vandals by blocking them did not work. Protection was the last option to stop it. Apologies to all serious wikipedians inconvenienced by this, but it had hit a point where protection was the only option. FearÉIREANN 03:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protected 

message: http://www.erzbistum-muenchen.de/archiv/iMA011/iMA01116001.JPG 
(source: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising website) moded
*I will try to crop that image and send the jpeg of just the arms later on today, once the protection has been lifted. Zscout370 11:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No that was the arms of Pope John Paul II. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It was probably just a holding coat of arms - not Ben's yet, but not JPII's anymore. 
When is The Vatican revealing his true coat of arms?
When they have a coat of arms to reveal. The man who did the coats of arms of John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII is now dead. So they are going to have to find a new person to do the design. That person will then have to discuss with the new pope what he wants in the arms (and that new pope is probably rather busy right now). Some research may also be done into Ben's family history to see if there ever was an earlier coat of arms - if there was, it could be used as the template for the new arms. Then versions could have to be done, another meeting with the pope requested, granted and take place, then a version picked, then if formally be approved by those who deal with papal heraldry (just to ensure there was no accidential similarity with an earlier pope's coat of arms), then the final official agreement on the new coat of arms, the preparation of a version for the papal website, etc. 
He was elected seven days ago. Come on, guys! I know religion is in the business of miracles but seven days to do all of that? Some pope's coat of arms took months to be designed. Some really really quick one weeks. But never days. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal Coat of Arms of Benedict XVI 

message: (Source: Yahoo! Images)
Isn't that the Papal Coat of Arms for Pope Benedict XVI? Obviously, this was taken when he emerged from the balcony after being elected.
:No that was the arms of Pope John Paul II. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably just a holding coat of arms - not Ben's yet, but not JPII's anymore. 
When is The Vatican revealing his true coat of arms?
When they have a coat of arms to reveal. The man who did the coats of arms of John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI and John XXIII is now dead. So they are going to have to find a new person to do the design. That person will then have to discuss with the new pope what he wants in the arms (and that new pope is probably rather busy right now). Some research may also be done into Ben's family history to see if there ever was an earlier coat of arms - if there was, it could be used as the template for the new arms. Then versions could have to be done, another meeting with the pope requested, granted and take place, then a version picked, then if formally be approved by those who deal with papal heraldry (just to ensure there was no accidential similarity with an earlier pope's coat of arms), then the final official agreement on the new coat of arms, the preparation of a version for the papal website, etc. 
He was elected seven days ago. Come on, guys! I know religion is in the business of miracles but seven days to do all of that? Some pope's coat of arms took months to be designed. Some really really quick one weeks. But never days. FearÉIREANN 17:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Papal Coat of Arms? 

message: :::Though it is true that sometimes it is 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 (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.
:(18) see Rom 3,8
This is the legal principle cited as the basis for  the enciclical Humanae Vitae and is the basis for the entire teaching concerning human  fertility .
I enquire  of the Holy Father how soon will he choose institute a public enquiry of tribunal into the breaking of this law in  direct intent by  Pope Pius XI, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli the future Pope Pius XII and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas Leader of the Catholic Centre Party in Germany, against the moral order of the Church and of all societies in general Flamekeeper 09:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Breaking of the Law ... or not?

message: "For some reason, the media is treating Pope Benedict XVI almost exactly like they treat President Bush. They're turning him into some kind of boogeyman, while ignoring the fact that his policies and beliefs are virtually identical to his much-praised predecessor. The poor man is being demonized because he's a Catholic Pope who is, well, Catholic." (from Dummocrats)
:Surely the man is accustomed to this.  It is strange how some feel the need to attack the non-violent religious beliefs of others, but it is not a new idea.  There are those who view shared spirituality as a character flaw in lesser people.
:http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm
:It is scary to know what can happen when people decide to take action and help "lesser people", "for their own good".  It is scarier that such attitudes still exist in light of the catastrophic genocides that have occurred as a result of such thinking. plain_regular_ham 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the Pope, but I think that beliefs can indirectly cause violence.16:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think many in the media are just trying to see who this Ratzinger guy is and how will his views, actions, etc will affect not only the Papacy, but on the world. I am sure that after a while, it will die. We can see things like this again once this process happens again after the papcy of B16 is finished. Zscout370 16:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beliefs can certainly have an indirect influence on violence.  Theodore Kaczynski felt compelled to murder several people in the name of environmentalism.  I don't believe that this requires fundamental changes to environmentalism.  I do believe that this requires people to be aware when others cross the line between belief and radicalism. plain_regular_ham 17:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just happen to wonder about violence being seemingly subjective, that's all. I shouldn't have mentioned it here.18:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  media and the Pope 

message: Kudos to Pope Benedict for foregoing the papal coronation and going back to the use of the pallium (in the style of the Christianity of the Sub-Apostolic Age) and the ring of the fisherman...  I do hope that the Vatican makes this his official portrait.  Viva il Papa!  Aloysius Patacsil 19:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Will a close-up of the ring be ok to use in Wikipedia? Zscout370 (talk) 19:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Going back to ancient pastoral symbols