Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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

This archive covers May 16-June 2, 2005.

Highest ranking American

"Sources have indicated that Pope Benedict is likely to appoint San Francisco metropolitan archbbishop William Joseph Levada as the next Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If confirmed, Archbishop Levada would be the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy."

I have a few concerns about this paragraph: (1) I would prefer that we don't refer to sources as "sources" in the articles. Do an in-line citation if you know it. For example, "Time magazine said...." or something like that. (2) Wouldn't the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy remain Edmund Cardinal Szoka, Governor of Vatican City? The new office holder would certainly be one of the most influential, but technically speaking not the highest ranking in the hierarchy. And we have to remember that personality made the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith influential during the tenure of Cardinal Ratzinger. He made it influential; it wasn't for several generations before he took office and there remains a small possibility that the successor won't be as influential at all. (3) Levada was not the only person named. Cardinal George of Chicago was cited as a candidate. So was the Austrian cardinal and several others internationally. Mention them or don't mention Levada at all. (4) Is it really relevant to devote such precious article space (kb) about who the Pope will choose to fill a bureacratic position? --Gerald Farinas 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The Doctrine of the Faith is the second highest Vatican position, the man in charge of the Inquistion.

Agree. The Vatican City State has a spiritual as well as a temporal aspect. In a religious monarchy as the Vatican, the spiritual as in the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith assumes a greater role than temporal as evinced in the Role of Cardinal Szoka. Aloysius Patacsil 23:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eh? The Cardinal Secretary of State and the Cardinal Camerlengo are both clearly higher positions in the curia than the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One might also argue that the Dean of the College of Cardinals is the second highest ranking figure in the Church, or that all Cardinal-Bishops outrank all Cardinal-Priests, no matter what specific curial office they hold. john k 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's my POV as a Catholic. The CDF has more influence in my life than Cardinal Szoka will ever have. Aloysius Patacsil 23:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion about higher ranks, I think, that such competition is futile. The pope is the highest, but all others are restricted to one aspect. The Prefect of the CDF is highest in the field of doctrine and discipline (in the curia - he still is not on his own superior to a Bishop), the Governor of Vatican City and the Secretary of State in matters of the Vatican City State, the one internally, the other externally. The Cardinal Dean in regard to the College of Cardinals, and so on ... To cut a long story short: there is no number 2 in the Church. Str1977 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Latin

Hey. Changed the Latin to Benedictus P.P. XVI a little while ago. It was reverted, which I'm fine with, but why? I had asked about whether P.P. should be included on Pope John Paul II and someone added it in, so I figured it held true here as well. Only because I assumed we were translating the boldface Pope Benedict XVI into Latin, so I thought the "Pope" should be carried over. Thoughts? --User:Jenmoa 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the change because I don't think that the P.P. is actually part of his name. It's just an abbriviation for "pope," or "papa," as he's known in Italian. It's found in signitures, which is where you've probably seen it, but not on documents and other things. Hope this clears it up. Bratsche^{talk random} 02:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.P. is an abbreviation of Pater Patrum (Father of Fathers) Fjl 10:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I always wondered what that meant. Aloysius Patacsil 19:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Flj is incorrect. P.P. is an acronym for Pastor Pastorum (Shepherd of Shepherds) [1] patsw 02:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Patsw,

I always (don't take that literally) thought it meant "Pontifex et Papa" (or "Papa et Pontifex")

I never heard of "Pastor Pastorum" and at least the newadvent article doesn't give that title.

Str1977 08:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the revelavant quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 [2] (which is in the public domain and available at the New Advent site) giving this title

It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum.

Episcopus episcoporum is bishop of bishops. patsw 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Patsw, it's there, but does that mean that PP means "Pastor Pastorum"? I never heard of these "PoP" or "BoB" before, they are not part of the offical titulatur (and "BoB" is a bit dodgy, IMHO). I only know "servus servorum Dei". Str1977 18:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

P.P. used in the official signature of the Pope is pastor pastorum. Besides the Catholic Encyclopedia, you can seach Google for pastor pastorum Pope for more references. A printed source:

• Bunson, Matthew. Pope Encyclopedia, The. (1995) New York: Crown Trade Publications ISBN 0-517-88256-6.

is the one I quoted when I mentioned this in my blog. I highly recommend this book for anyone with an interest in the papacy. I translated Episcopus episcoporum for the benefit of readers here. It is not used in the official signature of the Pope as P.P. is presently used. patsw 23:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patsw, found some more on the issue (http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0005Hr) - two conflicting opinions:

"The "P.P." stands for "Pope and Pontiff" this means that he and he alone is the sucessor of St. Peter."

"Now, what does "PP." actually mean? According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (under "Ecclesiastical Abbreviations") and according to Fr. John Hardon's Catholic dictionary, "PP." stands simply for "papa," meaning "pope." A clue that it does not stand for two words (such as pope and pontiff) is that there is only one period (at the end), rather than two periods (one after each "P")."

Str1977 10:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed Style

Note: the discussion of the vote is now at Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Styles_Vote. The vote, totaled 44, came out withm 25 support for the His Holiness style being prefixed, and with 19 against. This does not meet the "consensus" rules that has been tossed around on here and at the MoS page. Though we do have some room to figure out what we can do as a whole, at least we can say that we try to figure something out. I thank everyone for participating in this poll/debate. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Dead link

The link to yahoo news for note no. 1 is no longer active. Algebraist 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Conf 22:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Link on the Honorific

I am not sure I understand why the link on the His Holiness honorific is being reverted - it seems natural - that someone would want an understanding of what this title means in this context. I was reverted when I restored it a few days ago, and for me this wasn't part of the debate on using them or not but just the wikipedia thing to do. Can someone please explain? Trödel|talk 21:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the link or to not having it. I noticed also that it seems to have become a minor issue in the bigger edit war over "His Holiness", but I don't think it's worth a war. I'm happy to link. I'm also happy if people prefer not to. My personal preference would be to have it linked, so that people could find out a little bit about the title and what it means. Ann Heneghan 21:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I can think of no reason not to link Dave (talk) 21:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

When Lulu and others added a footnote to His Holiness I opposed it for its wrong content, but this link seems all right to me. No need to delete it. Str1977 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think His Holiness should be linked. However, I am still not placing a vote on where HH will go in the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Problems with endnotes and section editing

There are duplicate endnotes, leading to an inconsistency between the numbers in the text and those in the list at the bottom. This happens because some endnotes are referenced multiple times, e.g. #13 and #15. These should be split into ref_CNSa and ref_CNSb, with the entry for CNSb just reading "ibid." (There may be more such duplicate endnote refs.)

I couldn't correct this myself because somehow section editing is screwed up: the section edit links go to the wrong sections. Lupo 14:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The section edit links seem OK. As for the footnotes, it's just the footnote templates are deficient. You get duplication or numbering problems. Also consider there are instructions in the comments in the notes section. Conf 15:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, yes, section editing worked now. I've fixed the endnote numbering. "Avoid duplicates" applies to both reference identifiers and references themselves; as two references to the same target will screw up the numbering. Rather fragile, that whole scheme. But then, so are all currently available alternatives. Lupo 19:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, I know what the instructions mean because we edited them many times and you are wrong. I don't like footnotes too much but you have only increased bloat. Bah. Conf 20:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of announcement text

Anyone else concerned at this afternoon's deletion of the habemus papam announcement text, etc? Did we lose useful info there? –Hajor 03:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

We can always put it back in. It should be noted it was given partially in a few languages and the rest of it was in Latin. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, rescuing it from history's no problem. I just wanted some help in making my mind up about whether we were better off with it or without it. –Hajor 04:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If we do not have the full announcement, then we should note that the words "Dear Brothers and Sisters" was read in several languages, then list the language in the order it was spoken. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Italicizing styles

Would there be any objection against consistently italicizing and linking prefixed styles like His Holiness? That seems like a reasonable way to defuse the debate, and to make it clear that we are mentioning the style, not using it.--Eloquence* 15:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Linking, no, that seems perfectly sensible. Italicising, yes, they are never italicised in normal use. People might write about the style The Right Honourable, but no one would ever write The Right Honourable Tony Blair or His Holiness The Pope. Putting the style in italics is doing exactly the same thing as putting it in scare quotes would. (Plus italics at the very beginning of an article look very ugly.) Proteus (Talk) 16:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Proteus. Ann Heneghan 17:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I object to it. Prefacing a name with such is not NPOV, as the entire point of a style is to show respect to the possessor of it. Styles are "real words" precisely because they are meant to imply the person they are referring to possesses the related attribute; holiness, majesty, honor, or what have you. Also, the fact that people object to certain people (Kim Jong-il, Lucian Pulvermacher, ect.) having styles is a strong indicator that prefacing someone's name with them is not neutral. Why do they even need to be included at all in the article on Benedict XVI? He is obviously the Pope, and if you want to know how to address the Pope formally why not go and look on the page on his position, the Pope page? It seems far more logical to put them on the positional pages rather than in individual biographies, especially given that many people do not keep their styles or the same style throughout their lifetime; examples include judges and various elected officials. Titanium Dragon 06:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The styles are already refered to at the Pope article: "He is styled "Your Holiness" (Sanctitas Vostra) and is frequently referred to as "the Holy Father."" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Breaking news on Response to sex abuse scandal

The following was inserted to the Response to sex abuse scandal by 68.251.118.126, replacing paragraph 3:

On April 23, 2005, The Independent reported that Ratzinger had since 1997 ignored specific sex abuse allegations made by nine different people against Father Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legion of Christ. But Cardinal Ratzinger re-opened the investigation in December of 2004. Following months of interviews, on May 20, 2005, the Legionaries of Christ released a statement saying the Holy See had informed them "there is no canonical process underway regarding our Founder, Fr Marcial Maciel, LC, nor will one be initiated." On May 22, 2005, the New York Times reported "The founder of an influential Roman Catholic order in Mexico will not face a church trial on longstanding allegations that he molested teenagers, a Vatican spokesman said on Saturday." While some criticized the move, others saw it as exoneration for Father Maciel.--68.251.118.126

Some of the content may have merit, but needs to be integrated into the section, rather then replace referenced facts about statements made.--ghost 21:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a link to the article online? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Who cares what the The Independent reported or what the New York Times reported? What are the facts? I've read the articles in question and it's like the flushing of the Koran down the toilet. The only people on the record are those saying "no comment" It should be deleted for being speculative, unsourced, unconfirmed, and insigificant to Pope Benedict XVI. This isn't an artcle titled Fr. Marcial Maciel or Legion of Christ I propose deleting this, we can revisit it when there's something on the record. Right now there's a spin war going on between pro- and anti-LC leakers. patsw 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The facts are that the actual unsigned statement from the office of the Secreteriat of State did not say that no canonical process would be initiated, only that none is foreseen at the moment. In Italian: "non vi è nessun procedimento canonico in corso né è previsto per il futuro nei confronti di P. Maciel" [3] which in Vatican-ese often describes something that may eventually happen but is not "officially in the works." According to John Allen's report, the Vatican office responsible for the case has not communicated its intentions to anyone, including the Secreteriat of State. Thus it is not known if there will eventually be a canonical process in the case. VViki 15:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous sources used in this paragraph cannot be verified and consequently are violations of the offical verifiability policy. It has been deleted. If the paragraph is rewritten to include a verifiable source who heard the Cardinal Ratziger say "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope's as Marcial Maciel.", it can be added back. I believe this is not a real story but some sort of spin war between factions in the Vatican, one faction seeking a public investigation and report on the Fr. Maciel and another faction seeking to suppress any public discussion. patsw 22:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw. Also have doubts about quoting "one bishop who is well informed on the issue and who asked not to be named". Admittedly, the article, as it currently stands, says, "According to Catholic News Service". So it is possible to verify that Catholic News Service said it. It's just not possible to verify that the bishop really said what Catholic News Service said he said. Ann Heneghan 23:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

enthroned, sovereign of the Vatican, inaugurated

Contrary to a claim made, popes are described as reigning, given that they are elective monarchs. One does not have to be crowned (btw the word is not coronated. Who keeps using this nutty word?) to be described as reigning. No-one crowned Queen Beatrix in the Netherlands, King Albert in Belgium, King Harald in Norway, etc yet they are described as reigning and their periods in office as reigns. It is also exceptionally clumsy to write about someone being inaugurated in an inauguration. The generic term that covers the various methods of formal papal initiation of their papacy, whether they are crowned or inaugurated, is enthroned, which makes sense as officially popes are said to sit on the papal throne. Using enthroned also gets over the alward sounding 'inaugurated in an inauguration. Also Papal Inauguration Mass is the formal name of the ceremony and requires capitalisation. In addition the Pope is not just head of a religion. He is also a head of state, so it is important to mention that fact by pointing out that he is also the sovereign of Vatican City because it is as sovereign of Vatican City, and not as pope, that states have diplomats accredited to him.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and it is important to get the formal terminology correct in these areas. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This would work, except that the Pope did not sit on the papal throne on April 24. It wasn't until May 7 when he celebrated his first mass in St. John Lateran. So, technically, he was not enthroned on April 24. I agree with avoiding the cumbersome language, though. Since I also agree on getting the formal terminology correct, perhaps another solution could be found. Maybe "He celebrated his Papal Inauguration Mass on April 24..."? Pmadrid 7 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Actually is the Holy See and not the Vatican City who has diplomatic relations.. Cjrs 79 01:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I found this in Wikipedia Holy See :

"The Holy See administers the Vatican City, including all diplomatic functions; foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See rather than to the Vatican City, and the Holy See establishes diplomatic agreements ("Concordats") with other sovereign states, on behalf both of itself and of the Vatican City (as appropriate). Generally speaking, the Holy See is a party on its own behalf to treaties of Ecclesiastical interest, and a party on the Vatican City's behalf to treaties of technical significance (e.g., regarding co-operation with Italy)." Cjrs 79 01:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Correct. All diplomats are accredited to the Holy See. But the Letters of Credence make it clear that, for example, states are accrediting diplomats to the Court of Benedict XVI as sovereign not as pope. The reason the Holy See is used is because it has had a continuous existence linking the Papal States and Vatican City. In reality nuncios act both as religious and civil ambassadors. Using the Holy See and the Pope's sovereign status gets states around the problem of states accrediting diplomats to a religion. Otherwise they would face questions of 'if you accredit an ambassador to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, why don't you accredit ambassadors to other religions?' It is very complex, but the bottom line is that Benedict on his election became a reigning sovereign and a reigning pope and accuracy requires that we state that. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 16:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Also on Wikipedia Pope: "Contrary to popular belief, it is the pope's ecclesiastical jurisdiction (the Holy See) and not his secular jurisdiction (Vatican City) which conducts international relations; for hundreds of years, the Pope's court (the Roman Curia) has functioned as the government of the Catholic Church." Holy See: "Because in this latter sense the Holy See comprises both the Pope and the Roman Curia, it is effectually the government of the Roman Catholic Church; as such, it is recognized as having a legal personality under international law." The Vatican website: "The expression Holy See refers to the supreme Authority of the Church, and thus the Pope as Bishop of Rome and head of the College of Bishops. Defines therefore the Central Government of the Catholic Church. As such, the Holy See is an institution which, according to the international laws and customs, has a juridical personality which permits it to sign treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives, as juridical equivalent of a state."[4] I agree that popes ought to be described as reigning but you're mistaken about the diplomatic point. The pope is sovereign both in terms of Vatican City and also in terms of heading the government of the Catholic Church and this government of the Catholic Church is as the Vatican website says the "juridical equivalent of a state" and has "juridical personality" according to "international laws and customs." VViki 20:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"juridical equivalent of a state. That's my point. The papal court actually functioned both in the religious and in the temporal power sense. Much though I hate to say it, Wikipedia is not 100% accurate in a lot of its content. States do not have diplomatic relations with the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church. The has diplomatic relations with the Catholic Church in its state capacity. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There are currently two legal personalities under international law connected to the Catholic church. 1. The state of the Vatican City and 2. the Holy See (to some degree similar as the Knights Hospitaller). The former was founded in 1929, the latter has been existing for centuries. Even as the papal state was dissolved and the church lost all territory, the legal personality of the Holy See didn't cease to exist. Since the Holy See doesn't has any geographic extension (unlike the Vatican City) it cannot be regarded to be a state.

Protecting the page

This page has for days been under siege from vandals, one in particular, for quite a while now. Unfortunately the principal vandal is using a university IP number that cannot be blocked except for an hour or two at any one time. Any longer blocking provokes an outcry from the other students who besiege admins with emails demanding that the block be cancelled immediately.

The main vandal seems intent on revisiting and revandalising the article every chance he or she gets, and this seems likely to continue certainly for days, probably for weeks, until the prat gets bored and goes away. Even constant reversions are not sucessful as text and images keep being lost in the process.

The only shortime solution, I would suggest, would be to temporarily protect the page. If over the next 24-48 hours the vandal every time they come back find that they cannot vandalise the page as it is locked, they might give up completely. It is an extreme option, but the only one that may stop the farce of vandalism, reversion, vandalism, reversion, edits to find bits lost in the process and reinsert them, more vandalism, etc. It would be unfair on everyone else who are doing honest edits, but if we don't do something the danger is that we will still have this page being vandalised repeatedly every day for weeks to come with most of our time wasted on just reverting the vandalism of this asshole.

Other than locking the page, the only other option is to place a longer term block on the vandal's IP but that is something Wikipedia as a whole would have to agree on, as it would also potentially block hundreds of contributors from that university and lead to vast numbers of complaints to Jimbo and to all the admins. (The last time such a block was tried, over 100 admins and others were emailed by legitimate users demanding that the block be removed immediately.)

Any thoughts, people, on whether we should temporarily lock the page? Or has anyone else got another proposal? Or are people prepared to spend their time indefinitely reverting, reverting, reverting, as well as checking to make sure that some of the article's contexts have not been lost in the process? FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think (reluctantly) that it would be a good idea to protect it for the moment. Ann Heneghan 21:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why can't Wiki just disable anon edits to a page when the page is repeatedly vandalized? This would take care of much of the vandalism patsw 23:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. AFAIK we can't (or just don't) do it right now. It is the obvious solution longterm but is unlikely to solve the current problem here. :-( FearÉIREANN^(talk) 00:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Is 131.111.8.103 the only IP from Cambridge or are there others? Looking at the page history, it appears that 131.111.8.103's has vandalised about 10 times today, but hasn't done so before. Since all of his vandalism has been reverted within four minutes or less, it looks like he hasn't been exceedingly harmful. I think it might be a better idea to wait a few days at least to see whether he's going to keep it up or not, before taking the step of protecting the page. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are others unfortunately, probably being used by the same nutcase. If you look back at the history over the last week and more you will see continuous vandalism happening from a number of users. One however has been traced back. He or she seems to be using IPs that are used by a lot of people. In the edit histories of those IPs you see lists of superb edits, then a series of vandalistic edits, then back to good edits, etc. When some days ago I blocked one IP user who had been consistently vandalising here for one day, all hell broke loose when it turned out that other perfectly OK users later that day who ended up with the same IP, found themselves blocked. But normally a page with 10 vandalism attacks in the one day would automatically be protected. In all the edits today the article's main picture was lost. I had to dig through the archives to find it again and put it back in place. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 03:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

On a very quick glance I saw 6 pieces of vandalism by the same user yesterday, including the following message left

• (cur) (last) 20:01, 28 May 2005 131.111.8.98 ([name removed], can you really not see the resemblance? Oh no I forgot, you've gone blind haven't you because you masturbate so much.)

So 16 attacks of vandalism in 2 days would certainly warrant action. Indeed the frequency is increasing, not decreasing. If it wasn't for the fact that the person is using a commonly used IP, at this stage he would probably have had an indefinite block imposed. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 03:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I also support the page being locked for a certain period of time. We can also use that time to gather evidence for whatever topics yall want to take care of and clear other issues dealing with the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive11. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk random} 21:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---