This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He should be removed from the list of papabili, simply because choosing someone of noble origin will be unlikely to happen, it would seem to the world to be a setup.
To 83.109.180.124:
Nobility and noble titles were abolished in Austria by an Act of April 3, 1919, Adelsaufhebungsgesetz, StGBl.Nr. 211/1919, most recently modified by BGBl.Nr. 1/1920. According to § 2 of the Act, the use of particles such as count can even result in fines or prison sentences (although in practice, this never happens). This law was never repealed and can be found e.g. in the Austrian legal information system [1], (type "Adelsaufhebungsgesetz" in the search field "Kurztitel/Abkürzung") If Christoph Schönborn is a citizen of Austria (which I would be surprised if he was not), this law is applicable to him, meaning that his name includes neither a Graf nor a von. Similarly, Karl Habsburg, the son of Otto von Habsburg, is an Austrian citizen (he ran for political office in Austria some years ago), which is why his name does NOT include a von. Martg76 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To our anonymous opiner, First of all, in no case would he have been a Graf von Schonborn-Wiesentheid, as he is not a descendant of Franz Erwein Damien Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid; rather, as a descendant of Friedrich Karl Joseph Graf von Schönborn, he would be a Graf von Schönborn. As to whether he was "born" a Graf (he was certainly not born a "Count"), I agree that the law mentioned above clarifies that; it's also true that it's often ignored outside Austria, but we should try to be accurate here, and the version you are reverting has the merit of being correct and not making any untrue assertions. And writing something in the German Wikipedia and then citing it is not a terribly persuasive way to support your contention. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
please stop lying. The only thing I added to the German article was the names "Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert" (from the English Wikipedia). Austrian law is complely irrelevant when it comes to his birth name. I january 1945 Austria did not exist. The Count was born a German citizen, and Germany has never banned use of noble titles. This is the reason he was born a count.
According to German Wikipedia, it is eigentlich Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid (the names Maria to Adalbert added by me).
Yes, you copied his additional names from here, where I had added them. "Schönborn-Wiesentheid" is still wrong. See here. I would gladly see any citation that you have for the Cardinal ever having used the title "Graf". - Nunh-huh 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page linked to from the papal election article [2] refers to him as "Count Christoph von Schoenborn (Austria)".
Apparently our Norwegian friend is not satisfied. He now asserts that we translate surnames, which, of course, we do not. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Persons with anti-noble feelings are often seen in Austria and Germany, but this article should describe Count Schönborn from an English point of view. It is no doubt he is rightfully a count, and that is why he frequently is referred to as such in English. Beeing ignorant in regard to his title is inappropriate. Ernst August of Hanover or Caroline, Princess of Hanover also have other legal names in German, but their titles are translated because it is usual practice in English. In English, we don't say "Prinz" or "Graf".
Setting aside the dispute of whether Austrian law is applicable (although there is no doubt it is) I'd like to point out that it might be reasonable to focus on how Cardinal Schönborn is generally being addressed in public (meaning Austrian, German and Swiss media, etc.) and how he refers to himself. Since he is Austrian this should certainly have precendence over any presumed 'English practice' of sticking to titles, thus effectively ignoring local customs and laws. (I might add that in my opinion there is no such thing as an 'English practice' since Cardinal Schönborn is not a public figure in the Commonwealth or US, which is why the english version of this wikipedia article ought to correctly portray the Austrian practice by simply translating German into English.) Thus his biography as published on the official homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna ( http://stephanscom.at/edw/cv/articles/2003/08/29/a3543) should be taken into account, where he is constantly being referred to as "Christoph Schönborn" or "Dr. Christoph Kardinal Schönborn OP" while his titles and second names are not mentioned at all. Hence it follows that he himself does not insist on his (legally non-existent) titles being used, since it is reasonable to assume that otherwise he would have ordered the biography to be changed to include them. Furthermore the vatican (certainly not known for anti-noble sentiments and secularism) also refers to him as "Herr Kardinal Schönborn" (refer to search results on vatican.va: http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=sch%F6nborn&x=0&y=0&CFGNAME=MssFindDE.cfg), which is especially apparent in a speech (refer to link) held by the deceased Pope John Paul II.. Having pointed out that Cardinal Schönborn himself and the deceased Pope choose to constantly ignore his titles, I'd like to conclude by presenting my own personal experience: Although being an attentive oberserver of the Austrian Catholic Church and having known that he is of noble origin, it wasn't until I read this article that I first got to know his exact titles, which is why I'm all the more surprised about this heated debate. (Apparently a militant monarchist - probably noble himself - ran into a convinced republican. Although having noble ancestors, I tend to respect and approve the republican point of view.) I therefore thoroughly recommend to omit his titles in the wikipedia article or to at least point out that they are generally being ignored and are in conflict with Austrian law! (Unregistered User, 5 April 2005)
The wording in the upper part now appears to be acceptable. Yet, concerning the section 'Notice on titles', I'd still like to be presented evidence for the alleged practice of ignoring the Austrian law in question at the time he was born. Since this is certainly not an undisputed fact, I therefore reinstante the accuracy warning. Furthermore it remains to be proven that his full name (including titles) is 'often' (quote) given as his name of birth. In fact the opposite appears to be true as I pointed out above by referencing his official biography at the homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna. (Same unregistered User, 5 April 2005)
Upon further reflection I do believe that the section 'Notice on titles' is not specifically related to the person of Christoph Schönborn, which is why I urge to remove it or replace it by a reference to a corresponding article. In my opinion the very existence of this section is testimony to the fact that there are still those who have yet to accept the egalitarian principles of a modern, liberal and open society. It is hence particularly unfitting that this article about someone who certainly is committed to those ideals should be abused the way it currently is (even if some claim to act in Cardinal Schönborn's interest). (Same unregistered User again; considering to register :-), 5 April 2005)
(above by anon. #1)
(above by anon. #1)
(above by anon. #1)
"... and we don't have to be ahistorical and ignorant. English readers are clearly interested in the fact that he is count of Schönborn."
" And yes, in fact nobility is a kind of natural law, as it cannot be "eliminated""
"But we should provide all relevant information, regardless of militant anti-noble activists in Austria"
The current wording not only points out that he would have been count, but also mentions his noble roots, thereby providing all the relevant information regarding his title (The 'English reader' referred to so often in the discussion above should thus be satisfied.). The general practice of Austrian law on nobility may (and should) be discussed in a separate article, especially since the section on nobility I omitted did not provide any additional information specifically concerning Cardinal Schönborn. (All it did was to restate once more his titles and the corresponding legal issues.). (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)
Some points on the extensive discussion above:
Summary: The cardinal's noble roots should be mentioned, but it should be made clear that Graf von ... is not his actual legal name. Martg76 09:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with many arguments put forward by various sides. To this discussion my addendum is that what was/is important all along was not the fact of him being a Count, whether "legally" or "illegaly", but the fact of his belonging to the family ( a noble one ) that was of a great importance to the history of the Catholic Church, and the history of Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, discussion was sidetracked to the formalities of various "laws". I strongly believe that the current development of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's career is better viewed in the context of his family career in Church and society. And this is why I started a separate entry on the family Schönborn. Thank you to all. Anchorite 02:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I think the current wording is acceptable. Anon1 15:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since this dispute appears to be settled then, I remove the accuracy warning. FormerlyUnregisteredUser 17:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
why dont you just ask the family. I happen to live in wiesentheid germany and am an American. Maybe I can find somthing out. Better yet why dont you call castle wiesenstein they may answer your question..
excuse the misspelling of wiessenstein.....
In 1945, the German era in east-central Europe ended with the Beneš Decrees and other measures expelling linguistically and culturally German people, who had been overwhelmingly pro-Nazi, from Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the Czech Republic today, people likely even to know German are mostly over 70.
With the expulsion of the "Sudeten" Germans from Czechia, the German names of places in the country have mostly been forgotten — not merely in the Czech Republic, but by most people even in adjacent parts of Germany and Austria. To refer to the Cardinal’s native Litoměřice as German "Leitmeritz", which you won’t find on most maps, is to pander to the well-organized lobby in Austria and German Bavaria of Sudeten irredentists — a particular sect of neo-Nazis (now often 3rd-generation descendants) who seem to think that the expulsions were temporary and that the Untermenschen of those places will eventually have to accept the re-imposition on them of their rightful Herrschaften.
Similarly, to refer to "Bohemia" is not to use an innocent translation of Czech Čechy (or Země české). It evokes a supposedly golden era featuring a nationhood called, in German, a Böhm — a bilingual or diglossic Austro-Hungarian subject, politically Catholic and kaisertreu (loyal to the Emperor) whose literary language was standard German, and whose daily colloquial idiom was (almost indifferently) subliterary Kuchelböhmisch Czech or a German broad dialect of the Austro-Bavarian type.
The Cardinal is of "Sudeten German" background, born in Litoměřice and like many of his ethnicity forced to flee with his parents to Austria. If (without heavily qualifying it with Czech = "internationally valid" equivalents) you use the vocabulary of the Sudeten advocates, you will wittingly or unwittingly further the agenda of this extremely unworthy lobby. 82.44.62.97 10:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A recent article in the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, stated that Cardinal Schönborn was the frontrunner to succeed Cardinal Levada as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, leaving Levada to take over from the aging Cardinal Egan in NY. Can anyone expound on this? If so, is it worth including in the article?
I hadn't heard that, but to be candid, I was surprised Levada got it over Schonborn in the first place. Shows how much I know, I guess. I would assume Schonborn is number one to take over, but then, I was wrong the first time.-- Morsefan 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to change a section heading, so I didn't, but I wanted to make a point here that I am sorely tempted to make over on the Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI pages. The problem with all the "Catholic notables" articles is that they emphasize unimportant issues while burying what really is notable about these folks. It just screams bloody murder on this piece. When we are devoting the space to evolution that we are, it is simply disproportionate not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic faith.
Here's my understanding, at least. I remember when Schonborn's statements on evolution came out. Every person of a certain religious stripe in numerous different faiths has a problem right now, because "evolution" is increasingly being distorted into meaning colloquially that God's hand in creating the universe was either non-existent or minimal, and no Catholic person is going to agree with that. So I don't really consider it "news" or "notable." Having said that, as far as I can tell, the article is correct enough as to his statements; it just doesn't make sense to make that half the article, though perhaps he will eventually reveal that he's on more of a "campaign" on the issue (we just cannot know that yet).
But what makes this a HUGE SCREAMER is that after Cardinal Ratzinger himself, Schonborn was the number one point man on the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. The drafting and "selling" of the Catechism is pretty much always listed as one of top achievements of John Paul II's pontificate -- though admittedly, where it stands is debateable (as an clarification of the faith, some might even argue it rivals Vatican II, though critics of the Church would probably look to other issues as somewhat higher up on the food chain). The point is twofold: (1) it is THE major event of Schonborn's career, and (2) compared to so many of the matters discussed in a lot of these articles (abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc.), it would rank much higher on the institutional Church's priority and accomplishment lists.
Now, the institutional Church's priorities should not be Wikipedia's sole guide for content, but it isn't irrelevant, and certainly the news media's shouldn't be either. Though I understand why some might be concerned about POV problems, that careful writing and additional edits can resolve that. It's just implausible to me that an article on Schonborn in any other encyclopedia would not give a substantial portion of the article's text, after the biography, to the Catechism. By contrast, by emphasizing the evolution issue so much, the article actually has a different set of POV weaknesses, By all means, keep the evolution material if that interests people -- again, it isn't "wrong" and there is something to be said for giving people a sense of significant statements by Church leaders even if in the bigger scheme of things its a little disproportionate. It may be a start for them doing further research, which is a purpose of an encyclopedia. The problem here is that you can't come to this article and get an accurate sense of Schonborn's life or work. That always has to be wrong.
I'm not a Schonborn expert and these Catholicism articles tend to get so much disagreement over content that I think it's right to air this issue on Talk pages first. Nevertheless, if people are OK with it and someone is willing to clean up my non-existent form afterwards (!), I don't mind to give the Catechism issue a whirl at some point. I just don't want to do it if the reason such matters don't tend to get included in these articles is that people really think they are improper. I'd disagree, but I don't want to spend the time editing if it will get deleted.-- Morsefan 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I should add one more thing. I did some looking, and the evolution thing may be more significant than I thought. I don't think it's either wrong or something that should be deleted by any means. If that is what the original writer really knew about, then good: that issue got covered accurately and without drafting POV, which is my real concern on Catholicism articles-- Morsefan 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC). But when I read the bit above about whether Schonborn is papabile -- and I will confess that though my heart wanted it to be Ratzinger, my head had Schonborn far ahead of him for the last conclave -- my sense is that he is definitely on the list, and if elected, the reason won't be evolution; it will be things like the Catechism.
The article claims that Schönborn is in Austria "popularly known as "The Healer"". Sorry, I am Austrian, but to me this popular nickname is totally unknown. I ask for the German translation ("Heiler"? Or even "Heiland"?!) and for a source. -- Vheissu ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You should tag that sentence in the article with { { fact } } (leaving out the spaces) which will insert a "citation needed" notice. If no one supplies a citation within a reasonable period of time then I think you could delete the sentence. I am not sure what is the official definition of a reasonable period of time, but I would say a month or so. Dark Formal ( talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed some unusual allegations about Cardinal Schönborn having participated in Masonic rituals. This could maybe be mentioned in the article if better sources can be found. [kreuz.net/article.9768.html] ADM ( talk) 04:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This article says:
Without some context, that is incomprehensible. Who are Rahner and Balthasar? Approaches to what? Are they soccer coaches with different theories of strategy on the field? Choir directors whose styles differ? Politicians with different ideologies? Scientists with differing theories of the history of one of the moons orbiting Saturn? Investment advisers with differing ideas of what the market will do?
OK, you can click on their names and find out something, but the paragraph should be more self-contained than that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Yesterday I added a subsection about Schönborn's response to the Williamson and Wagner controversies. Shortly after that Mocctur removed [3] the info about the Williamson controversy, with the edit summary "one remark on an obscure foreign bishop dosn't deserve such WP:WEIGHT in Schönborn's biography."
I disagree with this removal and the rationale given for it, and would like to start a discussion on this issue here. Richard Williamson could hardly be characterized as an "obscure foreign bishop". The lifting of his excommunication in January 2009 generated a worldwide furor, the effects of which are still being felt today. It also led to a significant crisis for the Catholic Church in Germany and Austria, because of the particular sensitivity to the issue of the Holocaust denial there. The Wagner appointment in Linz, which occurred several days later, compounded this crisis in Austria especially. Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy was hardly just "one remark", but rather a part of a significant and highly public effort to mitigate the consequences of the crisis. This response is very much remembered today.
As a March 2013 Catholic Herald article [4] says "January saw the media storm over Pope Benedict’s decision to lift the excommunications hanging over Lefebvrist bishops, including the controversial Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson. The Williamson affair shook the Austrian Church. The slow haemorrhaging of Austrian Catholics which had gone on for years suddenly turned into a torrent. [emph. added] In order to make peace, Cardinal Schönborn publicly criticised the Pope’s decision and joined a campaign urging Catholics to create T-shirts with slogans on why they were staying in the Church despite what was happening." The same article mentions that the Williamson and Wagner controversies de facto conflated into a single crisis for the Catholic Church in Austria.
Similarly, this Feb 2009 article [5] in The Tablet discusses in detail the effect of the Williamson/Wagner crisis in Austria and Schönborn's response to this crisis.
This New York Times Feb 2009 article [6] deals with the worldwide affects of the Williamson controversy, and the effect of this controversy, in combination with the Wagner controversy, on Austria in particular: "Austria, a majority-Catholic country with a complicated Nazi past, had been reeling from the pope’s revocation of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, including Bishop Richard Williamson, who has denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers as well as the scale and genocidal intent of the Holocaust. While that firestorm was still raging, Benedict ignited another by appointing the Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner, known for his Katrina comment and for saying that homosexuality was curable, as the auxiliary bishop of Linz."
Quite a few other news sources mention that Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy was notable and significant.
E.g. National Catholic Reporter wrote in Feb 2009 [7]:"In that regard, one telling development is the number of senior churchmen who have broken the informal taboo on criticism of the Holy See. For example, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, said: "There must be also a certain criticism of the Vatican's staff practice, which obviously did not examine the matter carefully." Given that Schönborn was a key supporter of Benedict XVI in the conclave of 2005, and that he did his post-doctoral work under then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at the University of Regensburg in the 1970s, one can safely assume that his remarks are not motivated by anti-papal animus."
A February 17 article "Austrian bishops tend to controversies unsettling their flock" by the Catholic News Agency [8] deals specifically with the fallout from the Williamson/Wagner controversies in Austria, and the response to it by the Austrian bishops, led by Schönborn. The opening paragraph there reads: "The diocesan bishops of Austria have published a pastoral letter responding to the two controversies roiling the local Church over the past several weeks: the scandal surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson and the appointment of Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner as an auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Linz."
An article in The Tablet [9] indicates Schönborn's response to this crisis was much more than "one single remark": "Confronted shortly afterwards with the announcement of the appointment as auxiliary bishop in Linz of Gerhard Maria Wagner, who claims that Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for the sins of New Orleans' homosexuals and abortionists, Cardinal Schönborn, who is Archbishop of Vienna, published a moving and unambiguous "Word of Comfort and Encouragement" to the priests and church employees in his diocese in his monthly newsletter, Thema Kirche. "I can imagine that many of you don't feel too good at the moment. Neither do I," he wrote. "Once again we are confronted with occurrences that cause grief and indignation. They make us shake our heads and seem incomprehensible. And once again the Church has been made to look stupid and so have we. And again we ask, ‘Is this really necessary? Have we deserved this? Are we to be spared nothing?' At a time when the Church should really be dealing with the crucial worries that face people today such as the financial crisis and unemployment, it is confronted with debates about a small group of people who refuse to recognise the Second Vatican Council, or at least crucial parts of it, who think the Pope and the Church are on the wrong path and who consider themselves as the true Catholic Church. And on top of that we are now faced with the uproar concerning the new auxiliary in Linz. This is all a bit much and can give rise to a feeling of hopelessness."
In June 2009 Schönborn lead a special meeting [10] of the Austrian bishops with the pope to discuss the crisis: "According to various news reports, the delegation, led by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, met with the Pope to discuss a variety of problems assailing the Church in Austria, especially the open rebellion of clergy in the Diocese of Linz that took place earlier this year after the Vatican appointed a traditional Catholic as auxiliary bishop . The problems in Linz began in early 2009 when Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the controversial Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a man who caused an international uproar when he denied the Holocaust in a television appearance."
This 2009 article [11] in the Irish Independent said: "Although Williamson has been removed from the head of his abbey in Argentina by his Religious Order, and Wagner's appointment shelved, Benedict's mistakes and inactivity have rekindled calls around the global Church for a more consultative 'People's Church'.This has manifest itself most prominently in Austria, where Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, after a six-hour emergency meeting of the Episcopal Conference, published a letter criticising the Vatican's lack of communication, especially for nomination of bishops."
Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy is often being mentioned in the press even now, years after the event itself. E.g. here [12] "in 2009 he criticized the pope’s lifting of an excommunication order on Bishop Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier, of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.", here [13], etc.
I don't know German, but even a cursory googlenews search shows that there has been plenty of coverage, over an extended period of time, of Schönborn's response to the Williamson and Wagner controversies in German and Austrian press. (here are a few sample links [14], [15], [16] [17], [18], [19] [20] [21] [22]), etc.
So, IMHO, the inclusion of information about Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy is amply justified. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the noble titles when speaking of him personally. Noble titles or honorifics (like von) do not exist in Austria anymore. As he is an Austrian citizen they should not be used. The fact that he is of noble descent is treated in the article. Unless there is sourced evidence that he is generally known by his comital title (I know some Austrians of noble descent still use titles and honorifics in some contexts) these should not be included in his titles and styles. I noticed this was extensively discussed on this page some years ago but the titulature somehow got back in earlier this year. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It's noted in other sources that Gerhard Wagner himself requested withdrawal of his appointment as a bishop. As far as I know, he continued as a priest of the diocese of Linz, despite not becoming auxiliary bishop there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00206032&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The introduction to this article mentions that he is well liked by many factions in the Church, "except those that are actually catholic". I don't quite understand this line, and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before I removed it. The citation given after this clause mentions nothing of the sort. Should this statement be removed? Apologies if this didn't warranted it's own heading here. - Fireballs619 ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He should be removed from the list of papabili, simply because choosing someone of noble origin will be unlikely to happen, it would seem to the world to be a setup.
To 83.109.180.124:
Nobility and noble titles were abolished in Austria by an Act of April 3, 1919, Adelsaufhebungsgesetz, StGBl.Nr. 211/1919, most recently modified by BGBl.Nr. 1/1920. According to § 2 of the Act, the use of particles such as count can even result in fines or prison sentences (although in practice, this never happens). This law was never repealed and can be found e.g. in the Austrian legal information system [1], (type "Adelsaufhebungsgesetz" in the search field "Kurztitel/Abkürzung") If Christoph Schönborn is a citizen of Austria (which I would be surprised if he was not), this law is applicable to him, meaning that his name includes neither a Graf nor a von. Similarly, Karl Habsburg, the son of Otto von Habsburg, is an Austrian citizen (he ran for political office in Austria some years ago), which is why his name does NOT include a von. Martg76 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To our anonymous opiner, First of all, in no case would he have been a Graf von Schonborn-Wiesentheid, as he is not a descendant of Franz Erwein Damien Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid; rather, as a descendant of Friedrich Karl Joseph Graf von Schönborn, he would be a Graf von Schönborn. As to whether he was "born" a Graf (he was certainly not born a "Count"), I agree that the law mentioned above clarifies that; it's also true that it's often ignored outside Austria, but we should try to be accurate here, and the version you are reverting has the merit of being correct and not making any untrue assertions. And writing something in the German Wikipedia and then citing it is not a terribly persuasive way to support your contention. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
please stop lying. The only thing I added to the German article was the names "Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert" (from the English Wikipedia). Austrian law is complely irrelevant when it comes to his birth name. I january 1945 Austria did not exist. The Count was born a German citizen, and Germany has never banned use of noble titles. This is the reason he was born a count.
According to German Wikipedia, it is eigentlich Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid (the names Maria to Adalbert added by me).
Yes, you copied his additional names from here, where I had added them. "Schönborn-Wiesentheid" is still wrong. See here. I would gladly see any citation that you have for the Cardinal ever having used the title "Graf". - Nunh-huh 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page linked to from the papal election article [2] refers to him as "Count Christoph von Schoenborn (Austria)".
Apparently our Norwegian friend is not satisfied. He now asserts that we translate surnames, which, of course, we do not. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Persons with anti-noble feelings are often seen in Austria and Germany, but this article should describe Count Schönborn from an English point of view. It is no doubt he is rightfully a count, and that is why he frequently is referred to as such in English. Beeing ignorant in regard to his title is inappropriate. Ernst August of Hanover or Caroline, Princess of Hanover also have other legal names in German, but their titles are translated because it is usual practice in English. In English, we don't say "Prinz" or "Graf".
Setting aside the dispute of whether Austrian law is applicable (although there is no doubt it is) I'd like to point out that it might be reasonable to focus on how Cardinal Schönborn is generally being addressed in public (meaning Austrian, German and Swiss media, etc.) and how he refers to himself. Since he is Austrian this should certainly have precendence over any presumed 'English practice' of sticking to titles, thus effectively ignoring local customs and laws. (I might add that in my opinion there is no such thing as an 'English practice' since Cardinal Schönborn is not a public figure in the Commonwealth or US, which is why the english version of this wikipedia article ought to correctly portray the Austrian practice by simply translating German into English.) Thus his biography as published on the official homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna ( http://stephanscom.at/edw/cv/articles/2003/08/29/a3543) should be taken into account, where he is constantly being referred to as "Christoph Schönborn" or "Dr. Christoph Kardinal Schönborn OP" while his titles and second names are not mentioned at all. Hence it follows that he himself does not insist on his (legally non-existent) titles being used, since it is reasonable to assume that otherwise he would have ordered the biography to be changed to include them. Furthermore the vatican (certainly not known for anti-noble sentiments and secularism) also refers to him as "Herr Kardinal Schönborn" (refer to search results on vatican.va: http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=sch%F6nborn&x=0&y=0&CFGNAME=MssFindDE.cfg), which is especially apparent in a speech (refer to link) held by the deceased Pope John Paul II.. Having pointed out that Cardinal Schönborn himself and the deceased Pope choose to constantly ignore his titles, I'd like to conclude by presenting my own personal experience: Although being an attentive oberserver of the Austrian Catholic Church and having known that he is of noble origin, it wasn't until I read this article that I first got to know his exact titles, which is why I'm all the more surprised about this heated debate. (Apparently a militant monarchist - probably noble himself - ran into a convinced republican. Although having noble ancestors, I tend to respect and approve the republican point of view.) I therefore thoroughly recommend to omit his titles in the wikipedia article or to at least point out that they are generally being ignored and are in conflict with Austrian law! (Unregistered User, 5 April 2005)
The wording in the upper part now appears to be acceptable. Yet, concerning the section 'Notice on titles', I'd still like to be presented evidence for the alleged practice of ignoring the Austrian law in question at the time he was born. Since this is certainly not an undisputed fact, I therefore reinstante the accuracy warning. Furthermore it remains to be proven that his full name (including titles) is 'often' (quote) given as his name of birth. In fact the opposite appears to be true as I pointed out above by referencing his official biography at the homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna. (Same unregistered User, 5 April 2005)
Upon further reflection I do believe that the section 'Notice on titles' is not specifically related to the person of Christoph Schönborn, which is why I urge to remove it or replace it by a reference to a corresponding article. In my opinion the very existence of this section is testimony to the fact that there are still those who have yet to accept the egalitarian principles of a modern, liberal and open society. It is hence particularly unfitting that this article about someone who certainly is committed to those ideals should be abused the way it currently is (even if some claim to act in Cardinal Schönborn's interest). (Same unregistered User again; considering to register :-), 5 April 2005)
(above by anon. #1)
(above by anon. #1)
(above by anon. #1)
"... and we don't have to be ahistorical and ignorant. English readers are clearly interested in the fact that he is count of Schönborn."
" And yes, in fact nobility is a kind of natural law, as it cannot be "eliminated""
"But we should provide all relevant information, regardless of militant anti-noble activists in Austria"
The current wording not only points out that he would have been count, but also mentions his noble roots, thereby providing all the relevant information regarding his title (The 'English reader' referred to so often in the discussion above should thus be satisfied.). The general practice of Austrian law on nobility may (and should) be discussed in a separate article, especially since the section on nobility I omitted did not provide any additional information specifically concerning Cardinal Schönborn. (All it did was to restate once more his titles and the corresponding legal issues.). (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)
Some points on the extensive discussion above:
Summary: The cardinal's noble roots should be mentioned, but it should be made clear that Graf von ... is not his actual legal name. Martg76 09:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with many arguments put forward by various sides. To this discussion my addendum is that what was/is important all along was not the fact of him being a Count, whether "legally" or "illegaly", but the fact of his belonging to the family ( a noble one ) that was of a great importance to the history of the Catholic Church, and the history of Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, discussion was sidetracked to the formalities of various "laws". I strongly believe that the current development of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's career is better viewed in the context of his family career in Church and society. And this is why I started a separate entry on the family Schönborn. Thank you to all. Anchorite 02:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
I think the current wording is acceptable. Anon1 15:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since this dispute appears to be settled then, I remove the accuracy warning. FormerlyUnregisteredUser 17:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
why dont you just ask the family. I happen to live in wiesentheid germany and am an American. Maybe I can find somthing out. Better yet why dont you call castle wiesenstein they may answer your question..
excuse the misspelling of wiessenstein.....
In 1945, the German era in east-central Europe ended with the Beneš Decrees and other measures expelling linguistically and culturally German people, who had been overwhelmingly pro-Nazi, from Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the Czech Republic today, people likely even to know German are mostly over 70.
With the expulsion of the "Sudeten" Germans from Czechia, the German names of places in the country have mostly been forgotten — not merely in the Czech Republic, but by most people even in adjacent parts of Germany and Austria. To refer to the Cardinal’s native Litoměřice as German "Leitmeritz", which you won’t find on most maps, is to pander to the well-organized lobby in Austria and German Bavaria of Sudeten irredentists — a particular sect of neo-Nazis (now often 3rd-generation descendants) who seem to think that the expulsions were temporary and that the Untermenschen of those places will eventually have to accept the re-imposition on them of their rightful Herrschaften.
Similarly, to refer to "Bohemia" is not to use an innocent translation of Czech Čechy (or Země české). It evokes a supposedly golden era featuring a nationhood called, in German, a Böhm — a bilingual or diglossic Austro-Hungarian subject, politically Catholic and kaisertreu (loyal to the Emperor) whose literary language was standard German, and whose daily colloquial idiom was (almost indifferently) subliterary Kuchelböhmisch Czech or a German broad dialect of the Austro-Bavarian type.
The Cardinal is of "Sudeten German" background, born in Litoměřice and like many of his ethnicity forced to flee with his parents to Austria. If (without heavily qualifying it with Czech = "internationally valid" equivalents) you use the vocabulary of the Sudeten advocates, you will wittingly or unwittingly further the agenda of this extremely unworthy lobby. 82.44.62.97 10:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A recent article in the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, stated that Cardinal Schönborn was the frontrunner to succeed Cardinal Levada as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, leaving Levada to take over from the aging Cardinal Egan in NY. Can anyone expound on this? If so, is it worth including in the article?
I hadn't heard that, but to be candid, I was surprised Levada got it over Schonborn in the first place. Shows how much I know, I guess. I would assume Schonborn is number one to take over, but then, I was wrong the first time.-- Morsefan 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to change a section heading, so I didn't, but I wanted to make a point here that I am sorely tempted to make over on the Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI pages. The problem with all the "Catholic notables" articles is that they emphasize unimportant issues while burying what really is notable about these folks. It just screams bloody murder on this piece. When we are devoting the space to evolution that we are, it is simply disproportionate not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic faith.
Here's my understanding, at least. I remember when Schonborn's statements on evolution came out. Every person of a certain religious stripe in numerous different faiths has a problem right now, because "evolution" is increasingly being distorted into meaning colloquially that God's hand in creating the universe was either non-existent or minimal, and no Catholic person is going to agree with that. So I don't really consider it "news" or "notable." Having said that, as far as I can tell, the article is correct enough as to his statements; it just doesn't make sense to make that half the article, though perhaps he will eventually reveal that he's on more of a "campaign" on the issue (we just cannot know that yet).
But what makes this a HUGE SCREAMER is that after Cardinal Ratzinger himself, Schonborn was the number one point man on the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. The drafting and "selling" of the Catechism is pretty much always listed as one of top achievements of John Paul II's pontificate -- though admittedly, where it stands is debateable (as an clarification of the faith, some might even argue it rivals Vatican II, though critics of the Church would probably look to other issues as somewhat higher up on the food chain). The point is twofold: (1) it is THE major event of Schonborn's career, and (2) compared to so many of the matters discussed in a lot of these articles (abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc.), it would rank much higher on the institutional Church's priority and accomplishment lists.
Now, the institutional Church's priorities should not be Wikipedia's sole guide for content, but it isn't irrelevant, and certainly the news media's shouldn't be either. Though I understand why some might be concerned about POV problems, that careful writing and additional edits can resolve that. It's just implausible to me that an article on Schonborn in any other encyclopedia would not give a substantial portion of the article's text, after the biography, to the Catechism. By contrast, by emphasizing the evolution issue so much, the article actually has a different set of POV weaknesses, By all means, keep the evolution material if that interests people -- again, it isn't "wrong" and there is something to be said for giving people a sense of significant statements by Church leaders even if in the bigger scheme of things its a little disproportionate. It may be a start for them doing further research, which is a purpose of an encyclopedia. The problem here is that you can't come to this article and get an accurate sense of Schonborn's life or work. That always has to be wrong.
I'm not a Schonborn expert and these Catholicism articles tend to get so much disagreement over content that I think it's right to air this issue on Talk pages first. Nevertheless, if people are OK with it and someone is willing to clean up my non-existent form afterwards (!), I don't mind to give the Catechism issue a whirl at some point. I just don't want to do it if the reason such matters don't tend to get included in these articles is that people really think they are improper. I'd disagree, but I don't want to spend the time editing if it will get deleted.-- Morsefan 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I should add one more thing. I did some looking, and the evolution thing may be more significant than I thought. I don't think it's either wrong or something that should be deleted by any means. If that is what the original writer really knew about, then good: that issue got covered accurately and without drafting POV, which is my real concern on Catholicism articles-- Morsefan 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC). But when I read the bit above about whether Schonborn is papabile -- and I will confess that though my heart wanted it to be Ratzinger, my head had Schonborn far ahead of him for the last conclave -- my sense is that he is definitely on the list, and if elected, the reason won't be evolution; it will be things like the Catechism.
The article claims that Schönborn is in Austria "popularly known as "The Healer"". Sorry, I am Austrian, but to me this popular nickname is totally unknown. I ask for the German translation ("Heiler"? Or even "Heiland"?!) and for a source. -- Vheissu ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You should tag that sentence in the article with { { fact } } (leaving out the spaces) which will insert a "citation needed" notice. If no one supplies a citation within a reasonable period of time then I think you could delete the sentence. I am not sure what is the official definition of a reasonable period of time, but I would say a month or so. Dark Formal ( talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed some unusual allegations about Cardinal Schönborn having participated in Masonic rituals. This could maybe be mentioned in the article if better sources can be found. [kreuz.net/article.9768.html] ADM ( talk) 04:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This article says:
Without some context, that is incomprehensible. Who are Rahner and Balthasar? Approaches to what? Are they soccer coaches with different theories of strategy on the field? Choir directors whose styles differ? Politicians with different ideologies? Scientists with differing theories of the history of one of the moons orbiting Saturn? Investment advisers with differing ideas of what the market will do?
OK, you can click on their names and find out something, but the paragraph should be more self-contained than that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Yesterday I added a subsection about Schönborn's response to the Williamson and Wagner controversies. Shortly after that Mocctur removed [3] the info about the Williamson controversy, with the edit summary "one remark on an obscure foreign bishop dosn't deserve such WP:WEIGHT in Schönborn's biography."
I disagree with this removal and the rationale given for it, and would like to start a discussion on this issue here. Richard Williamson could hardly be characterized as an "obscure foreign bishop". The lifting of his excommunication in January 2009 generated a worldwide furor, the effects of which are still being felt today. It also led to a significant crisis for the Catholic Church in Germany and Austria, because of the particular sensitivity to the issue of the Holocaust denial there. The Wagner appointment in Linz, which occurred several days later, compounded this crisis in Austria especially. Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy was hardly just "one remark", but rather a part of a significant and highly public effort to mitigate the consequences of the crisis. This response is very much remembered today.
As a March 2013 Catholic Herald article [4] says "January saw the media storm over Pope Benedict’s decision to lift the excommunications hanging over Lefebvrist bishops, including the controversial Holocaust-denying Bishop Richard Williamson. The Williamson affair shook the Austrian Church. The slow haemorrhaging of Austrian Catholics which had gone on for years suddenly turned into a torrent. [emph. added] In order to make peace, Cardinal Schönborn publicly criticised the Pope’s decision and joined a campaign urging Catholics to create T-shirts with slogans on why they were staying in the Church despite what was happening." The same article mentions that the Williamson and Wagner controversies de facto conflated into a single crisis for the Catholic Church in Austria.
Similarly, this Feb 2009 article [5] in The Tablet discusses in detail the effect of the Williamson/Wagner crisis in Austria and Schönborn's response to this crisis.
This New York Times Feb 2009 article [6] deals with the worldwide affects of the Williamson controversy, and the effect of this controversy, in combination with the Wagner controversy, on Austria in particular: "Austria, a majority-Catholic country with a complicated Nazi past, had been reeling from the pope’s revocation of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, including Bishop Richard Williamson, who has denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers as well as the scale and genocidal intent of the Holocaust. While that firestorm was still raging, Benedict ignited another by appointing the Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner, known for his Katrina comment and for saying that homosexuality was curable, as the auxiliary bishop of Linz."
Quite a few other news sources mention that Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy was notable and significant.
E.g. National Catholic Reporter wrote in Feb 2009 [7]:"In that regard, one telling development is the number of senior churchmen who have broken the informal taboo on criticism of the Holy See. For example, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, Austria, said: "There must be also a certain criticism of the Vatican's staff practice, which obviously did not examine the matter carefully." Given that Schönborn was a key supporter of Benedict XVI in the conclave of 2005, and that he did his post-doctoral work under then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger at the University of Regensburg in the 1970s, one can safely assume that his remarks are not motivated by anti-papal animus."
A February 17 article "Austrian bishops tend to controversies unsettling their flock" by the Catholic News Agency [8] deals specifically with the fallout from the Williamson/Wagner controversies in Austria, and the response to it by the Austrian bishops, led by Schönborn. The opening paragraph there reads: "The diocesan bishops of Austria have published a pastoral letter responding to the two controversies roiling the local Church over the past several weeks: the scandal surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson and the appointment of Fr. Gerhard Maria Wagner as an auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Linz."
An article in The Tablet [9] indicates Schönborn's response to this crisis was much more than "one single remark": "Confronted shortly afterwards with the announcement of the appointment as auxiliary bishop in Linz of Gerhard Maria Wagner, who claims that Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for the sins of New Orleans' homosexuals and abortionists, Cardinal Schönborn, who is Archbishop of Vienna, published a moving and unambiguous "Word of Comfort and Encouragement" to the priests and church employees in his diocese in his monthly newsletter, Thema Kirche. "I can imagine that many of you don't feel too good at the moment. Neither do I," he wrote. "Once again we are confronted with occurrences that cause grief and indignation. They make us shake our heads and seem incomprehensible. And once again the Church has been made to look stupid and so have we. And again we ask, ‘Is this really necessary? Have we deserved this? Are we to be spared nothing?' At a time when the Church should really be dealing with the crucial worries that face people today such as the financial crisis and unemployment, it is confronted with debates about a small group of people who refuse to recognise the Second Vatican Council, or at least crucial parts of it, who think the Pope and the Church are on the wrong path and who consider themselves as the true Catholic Church. And on top of that we are now faced with the uproar concerning the new auxiliary in Linz. This is all a bit much and can give rise to a feeling of hopelessness."
In June 2009 Schönborn lead a special meeting [10] of the Austrian bishops with the pope to discuss the crisis: "According to various news reports, the delegation, led by Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, met with the Pope to discuss a variety of problems assailing the Church in Austria, especially the open rebellion of clergy in the Diocese of Linz that took place earlier this year after the Vatican appointed a traditional Catholic as auxiliary bishop . The problems in Linz began in early 2009 when Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication of the controversial Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a man who caused an international uproar when he denied the Holocaust in a television appearance."
This 2009 article [11] in the Irish Independent said: "Although Williamson has been removed from the head of his abbey in Argentina by his Religious Order, and Wagner's appointment shelved, Benedict's mistakes and inactivity have rekindled calls around the global Church for a more consultative 'People's Church'.This has manifest itself most prominently in Austria, where Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, after a six-hour emergency meeting of the Episcopal Conference, published a letter criticising the Vatican's lack of communication, especially for nomination of bishops."
Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy is often being mentioned in the press even now, years after the event itself. E.g. here [12] "in 2009 he criticized the pope’s lifting of an excommunication order on Bishop Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier, of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X.", here [13], etc.
I don't know German, but even a cursory googlenews search shows that there has been plenty of coverage, over an extended period of time, of Schönborn's response to the Williamson and Wagner controversies in German and Austrian press. (here are a few sample links [14], [15], [16] [17], [18], [19] [20] [21] [22]), etc.
So, IMHO, the inclusion of information about Schönborn's response to the Williamson controversy is amply justified. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed the noble titles when speaking of him personally. Noble titles or honorifics (like von) do not exist in Austria anymore. As he is an Austrian citizen they should not be used. The fact that he is of noble descent is treated in the article. Unless there is sourced evidence that he is generally known by his comital title (I know some Austrians of noble descent still use titles and honorifics in some contexts) these should not be included in his titles and styles. I noticed this was extensively discussed on this page some years ago but the titulature somehow got back in earlier this year. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It's noted in other sources that Gerhard Wagner himself requested withdrawal of his appointment as a bishop. As far as I know, he continued as a priest of the diocese of Linz, despite not becoming auxiliary bishop there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00206032&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The introduction to this article mentions that he is well liked by many factions in the Church, "except those that are actually catholic". I don't quite understand this line, and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before I removed it. The citation given after this clause mentions nothing of the sort. Should this statement be removed? Apologies if this didn't warranted it's own heading here. - Fireballs619 ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christoph Schönborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)