![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
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 discussions inactive since October 2005.
This is inappropriate for several reasons, the key ones being:
Not nearly as much of a waste of bandwidth as the edits you have made on this article. The warning would not have been put there if you had not vandalised the article to start with. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The motive for the placing of the warning is irrelevant, and you haven't replied to any of the three major points I made. -- 84.9.88.149 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Style Box
Following from the discussion several paragraphs above, and the comment text in the article, could it please be pointed out just where this overwhelming consensus to abandon honorific style as part of the name, in favour of the box, is to be found. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I just haven't yet found it in the various parts of Wikipedia where this topic has been debated. Thanks. Arcturus 20:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The UN knows how to address a pope - and uses the honorific "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI", as do the wikipedia pages for other persons who by tradition, custom or protocol are afforded such honorifics. It is blatant POV and bias to afford honorifics to some who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Queen Silvia of Sweden, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, the entire British royal family, the entire royal family of the Netherlands, etc.) on wikipedia pages, but to deny them to others who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Catholic cardinals and popes). It does not matter how many times people vote or claim consensus or make other excuses - the cold hard fact is that Popes reign as absolute monarch of a sovereign state - as well as Bishop of Rome. Honorifics should be used in equivalent fashion for all persons of similar and widely known and accepted status. Blatant POV to do otherwise. Please explain how it is wiki in any way to discriminate against just one globally recognized (by the UN and almost 200 nations) sovereign throne. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Because people do not necessarily know what a style box is, or what the curt info contained there is about, and because popes are referred to as "His Holiness" in informal and formal settings by Catholics and non-Catholics, including at the UN, including all documents issue by a pope, this ought to be explained in the text - and it will be. Putting this common usage to the side as if everyone understands it and it is not worthy of mention is simply POV to an extreme degree. I will be adding it back unless someone comes up with some exlanation as to why such important information must be sequestered to a sidebar. Referring to someone by such a lofty title is odd - it ought to be explained. 214.13.4.151 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You have made up a new rule that is NOT part of the style manual link you point to regarding this controversy. The rule in effect starting August 2005 simply does not allow the article to begin with the honorific, and adds a style box. It does not demand that the article cannot discuss the nature of the honorific and when it is used in the main text. That is your preference, but not the wiki rule. I presume you did not intend to misread the rule - but you did misread it. I will be adding to the article a discussion of the honorific and when, why and how it is used. I know you may not like it, but the unique way a person is addressed every day of their lives, and a form of address that is so lofty, is certainly something to ignore or cast aside in a style box. 214.13.4.151 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from the style section you pointed to:
I thought other people were going to take this on. The facts of the paragraph were recast to be netural and a little more coherent. The bit about Jewish critics of Dominus Iesus or Cardinal Ratzinger or Catholic doctrine (choose any or all) was omitted because it followed the very vague "critics say.../leaders offended..." template. If there are identified Jewish critics who specifically opposed Cardinal Ratzinger (oppose Pope Benedict), that might be mentioned and linked to.
Catholic liberals, by the way, do not constitute another faith. Perhaps Hans Kung, Jacques Dupuis, and Paul Kittner merit their own section -- call it Dialogue with Catholic dissenters patsw 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This appears to perpetuate an odd misunderstanding from over 8 years ago. It has been deleted for reasons I explain below:
The deleted text included this possibility:
The linked IHT article no longer exists and while there's 290 Google hits on Ratzinger autoerotic, none appear to have a usable, verifiable, citation.
The Wikipedia should be accurate and not propagate this unverified quote through this article. While not addressing Buddhism directly, Aspects of Christian Meditation published by the CDF when Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect covers this territory from the Catholic perspective and certainly more accurately reflects his views. Finally, if there is verifiable evidence that Pope Benedict regards or regarded Buddhism in its authentic form as fulfilling one's own sexual needs without a partner, that could be included in the article. patsw 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I just added a subsection on teachings. The truth is this is a Pope's most important role (aside from celebrating Mass which for Catholic theology is absolutely the most important activity of a priest, much more a Pope).
Together with a pre-existing paragraph on sexual matters, I added two paragraphs, which I deem as two of the most important paragraphs so far in his papacy:
1) one on jesus Christ himself. Of course, Jesus Christ is the main topic of any teaching in Christianity. So how he deals with this topic is very important.
2) tyranny of relativism. Very many writers, both Catholic and non-Catholic commentators, have said that Benedict is to relativism and secularism as John Paul II is to communism. He is for fixing the West as John Paul fixed the East. So whatever he says about this is VERY IMPORTANT.
Later we can come up with some more teachings, but those will have to go to a break-out article. Marax 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean non-religious, non-theological because then we should not have any Category in the Encyclopedia on Religion, Christian Theology, etc. That's a body of knowledge that has a tremendous amount of literature available. In some libraries it has the biggest section.
NPOV just means neutral--not taking sides. The encyclopedia does not adapt the religious views but just expresses them and informs about them as being said by this or that Pope. And if they are very important the more they should find space above the usual trivia that is splashed in many articles of Wikipedia. R Davidson 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Whats benedicts papal motto?? This site [2] claims it is 'Be CO-workers in the Truth. If this is correct, whats the traduction in latin and were should we put it in the article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The motto of the then-cardinal Ratzinger was "corporatores veritati" and it was part of his crest as archbishop and cardinal. (a small version can be seen here: http://www.erzbistum-muenchen-und-freising.de/EMF074/EMF007342.asp)
Maybe it could be included at the stage when he became archbishop or cardinal, e.g. "Since then his motto is ..." or something like this. Str1977 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Around the middle of May, we had a long section on election to the papacy. There was an extract which went like this:
Before his first appearance at the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica after becoming pope, he was announced by the Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez, protodeacon of the College of Cardinals. Cardinal Medina Estévez first addressed the massive crowd as "dear(est) brothers and sisters" in Italian, Spanish, French, German and English — each language receiving cheers from the international crowd — before continuing in Latin. He announced the decision with the words:
Which translates to:
At some stage, someone cut that section. I was disappointed, but didn't protest, as the page was already very long, and as I felt that my attachment to that bit might be due to the huge excitement I felt on 19 April — and I realized that the fact that it was an overwhelming moment for me didn't necessarily mean it should go in the encyclopedia.
However, I have noticed recently that that section (Election) looks a bit unprofessional, because there are three photos plus Jtdirl's styles box, and not enough text to balance — so there's a big gap in the page. What would anyone feel about having the Habemus Papam reinserted? Alternatively does anyone have the technical knowledge to reformat those pictures, so as to avoid the blank parts of the the page? Perhaps some photos could be resized, or even moved, and I'm sure the styles box could go to another part of the page. (But I would prefer to have Habemus Papam back again . . .) Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Ann, I've rv'd you on this because I don't think it makes sense to go back on a previous consensus just because the pictures need to be balanced out with text. I say lose one of the pics instead - I suggest the one with Sodano.-- Transf1o 02:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion: with each Pope for the first month of office have the full version of the Habeamus Papam text, then refer to the HP article, with a mention of if/how the present Pope's version differed from standard (apart from name). Ditto an explanation of how to address the Pope.
I meant "the full text within the Pope's biography...' and then make a cross reference to the HP text.
In reference to the earlier comments on the two Piuses: perhaps if the person raising the issue were to create articles on "Theology of Pius XI" and ditto Pius XII the issue might be resolved - and what could young Ratzinger have done to alter their actions? (Another case of the benefits of hindsight).
Someone had changed "John Paul II" to "John Paul Scally" various places in the article. There may be more vandalism which has escaped our attention.
I am a recorder for the Spoken Wikipedia project. I think that the reason that this article has not yet been recorded is that there are several non-English words that many of us do not know how to pronounce. I am a cradle Catholic and can pronounce any of the Latin words and abbreviations in the article, but many can't. I, for one, do not know how to say the German words. Taking these steps will significantly improve the chances the article will be recorded, but these should be done anyway for readability for English-only speakers:
Additionally, it would be nice, considering that this is an English encyclopedia, to add something like this to near the top of the page:
If the authors can help me pronounce the words, I will record it. -- Mm35173 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a note: When I first saw the request for the Spoken article, this article was very unstable. I haven't been following this one too closely of late, but I suppose it's calmed down. I'm sure you don't need the reminder, but just in case: make sure the article's not changing drastically all the time. /unnecessary reminder ;) -- User:Jenmoa 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't it "pastor pastorum" or simply "papa"? A previous discussion can be found here: Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive10#Latin Str1977 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The "habemus papam" said "Decimi sexti". This is the genitive case, hence the nominative case should be "Decimus sextus".? Or "Sextus Decimus"?
Prototypical pronunciation guide (needs to change to IPA):
Pronunciation Guide
|
AFAIK, this pope is strongly against gay rights and gays in general. Shouldn't there be something about this in the main article? 134.58.253.131 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone here suggests that the pope's views and actions are "against gay rights and gays in general". Yet the Catholic position he affirms explicitly advocates love of those who have homosexual tendencies, but a hatred of their sinful choices to have immoral sex (as with all sin). Similarly, the pope advocates, explicitly, that persons with homosexual tendencies have the exact same rights as all other human persons! No disrimination at all is adcvocated. No one has a moral right to be ordained. No one has a moral right to put a penis into any rectum (male or female), or to engage in oral-genital sex (regardless of the genders involved). Everyone is able to enter into a voluntary marriage with a person of the oppostie sex - even persons who are homosexual can do so. There is no denial of rights. The attempted manufacture of new "rights" associated with sexual behavior or the choice to engage in certain sexual acts may result in civil law changing, but has no effect on moral laws. 214.13.4.151 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Out, your comments indicate that you are ignoring most of what I wrote (other than thinking that what homosexuals do to reach orgasm is "foul-minded"). No man has a right to become a priest. People with the right diposition are, perhaps arbitarily in the eyes of some, invited to ordination by those with the authority to do so. Sadly, many heterosexual males have been refused ordination because certain seminaries had a gay power clique that would not allow doctrinally and morally sound candidates to be ordained (i.e. if you would not join in the gay hijinx or at least give it your blessing, you got kicked out of the seminary). By the way, educated persons understand thaat rational persons discriminate all the time. Its part of life. Discrimination is usually good. Its when there is no morally licit basis for the dicrimination that it is correctly deemed reprehensible. In other words, when I looked for a romantic interest, I discriminated and ruled out all persons of my own gender. This is an example of good discrimination. And when I went shopping, I went to the checkout line with the cashier who is always very warm and friendly - discriminating against the other cashiers. I think my point is clear. The millenial moral taboo against homosexual acts (and the celebration thereof, aka "gay culture" or "gay pride") remains for many - and those people have not been (and won't be) bullied into embracing such immorality as if it were good or even neutral. 214.13.4.151 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
First, there is no bill to be passed. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Again, no one has a right to be ordained a priest (and this tradition is as old as Christianity). Church leaders invite people to be ordained. Not everyone qualifies. Those who have a tendency to commit perverted acts that can never be holy and are always evil perhaps are not qualified - its up to the Church leadership to decide that. Orthodox Jews are not chastised for "discriminating" against women by treating them as unclean during menses. Vegetarians are not chastised for "discriminating" against people who eat meat. Blacks are not chastised for refusing to let whites join their special race-based organizations. Of course, you, Quas, can save special chastisement for the pope and everyone will know you mean well. After all, good intentions are what's really so important... In case you did not notice, I generally ignore comments about where I work. Its fun to watch you get your knickers in a twist about such things. My employer is SOOOOOOOO not relevant to this article. 214.13.4.151 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Its funny that anyone would think that advocacy of Catholic moral values is anything to "hide". Your notion that such ideas must be kept hidden speaks volumes about your extremism. 214.13.4.151 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is easily misunderstood because it is seen by "gay rights" advocates as similar to that of evangelical Protestant churches, when it is not. Evangelical Protestant teaching on homosexuality is very different from Catholic teaching. Catholics see Catholic teaching on homosexuality as differing from both evangelical teaching and "liberal" teaching.
Catholic teaching distinguishes between desires and action. As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching only does with respect to heterosexual desires, but not to homosexual desires. In Catholic teaching, homosexual desire, like heterosexual desire, is not sinful, unless it goes to the point of "lust". Sexual action outside of marriage is sinful.
As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching is that homosexual desire is sinful. Catholic teaching does not say that. The conflation of desire and action leads evangelical teaching to condemn humans who have homosexual desires. Catholic teaching, which is more nuanced, does not lead there.
Catholic teaching is that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. It is also that sins may be forgiven, but that persistent sin is a deeper problem.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why men with homosexual desires cannot be priests. There is also no reason why men with heterosexual desires cannot be priests. Regardless of their desires, they are expected to sublimate them.
In Catholic thinking, the concept of "don't ask, don't tell" is deeply flawed, because it does make the statement of homosexual desires a subject of condemnation. However, "don't ask, don't tell" is a very deeply flawed compromise between two extremes that did not consider a more nuanced middle position, which would distinguish between desires and actions. No one should be punished or condemned for what they feel or think. It is only actions that are a subject of rules.
I don't really understand the "liberal" position, which appears to be that society should encourage all forms of sexual desires and actions.
When compared to other Christian religious leaders of the early twenty-first century, Benedict XVI is very much of a "moderate". He neither supports church-sponsored gay marriage (which he is very much against) nor urges the Church to condemn homosexual desires and the people who feel them. Robert McClenon 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
With hang-ups on sexuality separating the left and right, I would like to find some common ground here. Has anyone any thoughts on asexual candidates for Holy Orders? I think the ideal candidate would be chaste and holy, and free from genitalia of any sort. Aloysius Patacsil 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think "left" and "right" are appropriate here. In regard to your questions: I would object to "asexuals" being ordained. I wouldn't even object to "physical eunuchs", though a case could be made against this from scripture and also this was used against Origen, when he was illicitly ordained. But I don't think "free from genitalia" would be part of any ideal -chaste (which is more than just "continent") and holy however, yes. Str1977 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This talk page reverts to the subject in question (ie BXI). The Catholic church's attitudes towards various sexual and other positions (if you will accept the pun) belongs to a separate page - and there should be a brief mention on the main BVI page about *his* particular attitudes towards such matters. Most people find other people's slanging matches (anyone care to create a page on that?) boring at the very least.
Discussions do tend to wander off topic (discussion group messages with several "re:s" tend to bear little relationship to the titular topic of discussion). I was referring to such items as the one immediately preceeding this one - and once a topic gets to such a length, perhaps it deserves an article of its very own. It was the slanging matches that I was defining as boring.
I just added one of the most important texts (if not the most important) of Benedict XVI on the most important battle he is waging, which is the battle against secularism in the West. Hope you like it. It's one of the most beautiful he has written and one of the most logical thing that strikes at the very root of the issue. Moreover, it shows his view of the religion of which is the leader. Lafem 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something from the discussion above could be transferred to the Interfaith page, where it may be more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.83 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
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 discussions inactive since October 2005.
This is inappropriate for several reasons, the key ones being:
Not nearly as much of a waste of bandwidth as the edits you have made on this article. The warning would not have been put there if you had not vandalised the article to start with. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The motive for the placing of the warning is irrelevant, and you haven't replied to any of the three major points I made. -- 84.9.88.149 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Style Box
Following from the discussion several paragraphs above, and the comment text in the article, could it please be pointed out just where this overwhelming consensus to abandon honorific style as part of the name, in favour of the box, is to be found. I'm not saying it doesn't exist; I just haven't yet found it in the various parts of Wikipedia where this topic has been debated. Thanks. Arcturus 20:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
The UN knows how to address a pope - and uses the honorific "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI", as do the wikipedia pages for other persons who by tradition, custom or protocol are afforded such honorifics. It is blatant POV and bias to afford honorifics to some who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Queen Silvia of Sweden, King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, the entire British royal family, the entire royal family of the Netherlands, etc.) on wikipedia pages, but to deny them to others who customarily and in diplomatic circles are afforded them (such as Catholic cardinals and popes). It does not matter how many times people vote or claim consensus or make other excuses - the cold hard fact is that Popes reign as absolute monarch of a sovereign state - as well as Bishop of Rome. Honorifics should be used in equivalent fashion for all persons of similar and widely known and accepted status. Blatant POV to do otherwise. Please explain how it is wiki in any way to discriminate against just one globally recognized (by the UN and almost 200 nations) sovereign throne. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Because people do not necessarily know what a style box is, or what the curt info contained there is about, and because popes are referred to as "His Holiness" in informal and formal settings by Catholics and non-Catholics, including at the UN, including all documents issue by a pope, this ought to be explained in the text - and it will be. Putting this common usage to the side as if everyone understands it and it is not worthy of mention is simply POV to an extreme degree. I will be adding it back unless someone comes up with some exlanation as to why such important information must be sequestered to a sidebar. Referring to someone by such a lofty title is odd - it ought to be explained. 214.13.4.151 05:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You have made up a new rule that is NOT part of the style manual link you point to regarding this controversy. The rule in effect starting August 2005 simply does not allow the article to begin with the honorific, and adds a style box. It does not demand that the article cannot discuss the nature of the honorific and when it is used in the main text. That is your preference, but not the wiki rule. I presume you did not intend to misread the rule - but you did misread it. I will be adding to the article a discussion of the honorific and when, why and how it is used. I know you may not like it, but the unique way a person is addressed every day of their lives, and a form of address that is so lofty, is certainly something to ignore or cast aside in a style box. 214.13.4.151 14:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Here is an excerpt from the style section you pointed to:
I thought other people were going to take this on. The facts of the paragraph were recast to be netural and a little more coherent. The bit about Jewish critics of Dominus Iesus or Cardinal Ratzinger or Catholic doctrine (choose any or all) was omitted because it followed the very vague "critics say.../leaders offended..." template. If there are identified Jewish critics who specifically opposed Cardinal Ratzinger (oppose Pope Benedict), that might be mentioned and linked to.
Catholic liberals, by the way, do not constitute another faith. Perhaps Hans Kung, Jacques Dupuis, and Paul Kittner merit their own section -- call it Dialogue with Catholic dissenters patsw 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This appears to perpetuate an odd misunderstanding from over 8 years ago. It has been deleted for reasons I explain below:
The deleted text included this possibility:
The linked IHT article no longer exists and while there's 290 Google hits on Ratzinger autoerotic, none appear to have a usable, verifiable, citation.
The Wikipedia should be accurate and not propagate this unverified quote through this article. While not addressing Buddhism directly, Aspects of Christian Meditation published by the CDF when Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect covers this territory from the Catholic perspective and certainly more accurately reflects his views. Finally, if there is verifiable evidence that Pope Benedict regards or regarded Buddhism in its authentic form as fulfilling one's own sexual needs without a partner, that could be included in the article. patsw 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I just added a subsection on teachings. The truth is this is a Pope's most important role (aside from celebrating Mass which for Catholic theology is absolutely the most important activity of a priest, much more a Pope).
Together with a pre-existing paragraph on sexual matters, I added two paragraphs, which I deem as two of the most important paragraphs so far in his papacy:
1) one on jesus Christ himself. Of course, Jesus Christ is the main topic of any teaching in Christianity. So how he deals with this topic is very important.
2) tyranny of relativism. Very many writers, both Catholic and non-Catholic commentators, have said that Benedict is to relativism and secularism as John Paul II is to communism. He is for fixing the West as John Paul fixed the East. So whatever he says about this is VERY IMPORTANT.
Later we can come up with some more teachings, but those will have to go to a break-out article. Marax 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean non-religious, non-theological because then we should not have any Category in the Encyclopedia on Religion, Christian Theology, etc. That's a body of knowledge that has a tremendous amount of literature available. In some libraries it has the biggest section.
NPOV just means neutral--not taking sides. The encyclopedia does not adapt the religious views but just expresses them and informs about them as being said by this or that Pope. And if they are very important the more they should find space above the usual trivia that is splashed in many articles of Wikipedia. R Davidson 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Whats benedicts papal motto?? This site [2] claims it is 'Be CO-workers in the Truth. If this is correct, whats the traduction in latin and were should we put it in the article. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 23:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The motto of the then-cardinal Ratzinger was "corporatores veritati" and it was part of his crest as archbishop and cardinal. (a small version can be seen here: http://www.erzbistum-muenchen-und-freising.de/EMF074/EMF007342.asp)
Maybe it could be included at the stage when he became archbishop or cardinal, e.g. "Since then his motto is ..." or something like this. Str1977 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Around the middle of May, we had a long section on election to the papacy. There was an extract which went like this:
Before his first appearance at the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica after becoming pope, he was announced by the Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez, protodeacon of the College of Cardinals. Cardinal Medina Estévez first addressed the massive crowd as "dear(est) brothers and sisters" in Italian, Spanish, French, German and English — each language receiving cheers from the international crowd — before continuing in Latin. He announced the decision with the words:
Which translates to:
At some stage, someone cut that section. I was disappointed, but didn't protest, as the page was already very long, and as I felt that my attachment to that bit might be due to the huge excitement I felt on 19 April — and I realized that the fact that it was an overwhelming moment for me didn't necessarily mean it should go in the encyclopedia.
However, I have noticed recently that that section (Election) looks a bit unprofessional, because there are three photos plus Jtdirl's styles box, and not enough text to balance — so there's a big gap in the page. What would anyone feel about having the Habemus Papam reinserted? Alternatively does anyone have the technical knowledge to reformat those pictures, so as to avoid the blank parts of the the page? Perhaps some photos could be resized, or even moved, and I'm sure the styles box could go to another part of the page. (But I would prefer to have Habemus Papam back again . . .) Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Ann, I've rv'd you on this because I don't think it makes sense to go back on a previous consensus just because the pictures need to be balanced out with text. I say lose one of the pics instead - I suggest the one with Sodano.-- Transf1o 02:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion: with each Pope for the first month of office have the full version of the Habeamus Papam text, then refer to the HP article, with a mention of if/how the present Pope's version differed from standard (apart from name). Ditto an explanation of how to address the Pope.
I meant "the full text within the Pope's biography...' and then make a cross reference to the HP text.
In reference to the earlier comments on the two Piuses: perhaps if the person raising the issue were to create articles on "Theology of Pius XI" and ditto Pius XII the issue might be resolved - and what could young Ratzinger have done to alter their actions? (Another case of the benefits of hindsight).
Someone had changed "John Paul II" to "John Paul Scally" various places in the article. There may be more vandalism which has escaped our attention.
I am a recorder for the Spoken Wikipedia project. I think that the reason that this article has not yet been recorded is that there are several non-English words that many of us do not know how to pronounce. I am a cradle Catholic and can pronounce any of the Latin words and abbreviations in the article, but many can't. I, for one, do not know how to say the German words. Taking these steps will significantly improve the chances the article will be recorded, but these should be done anyway for readability for English-only speakers:
Additionally, it would be nice, considering that this is an English encyclopedia, to add something like this to near the top of the page:
If the authors can help me pronounce the words, I will record it. -- Mm35173 18:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a note: When I first saw the request for the Spoken article, this article was very unstable. I haven't been following this one too closely of late, but I suppose it's calmed down. I'm sure you don't need the reminder, but just in case: make sure the article's not changing drastically all the time. /unnecessary reminder ;) -- User:Jenmoa 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't it "pastor pastorum" or simply "papa"? A previous discussion can be found here: Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI/Archive10#Latin Str1977 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The "habemus papam" said "Decimi sexti". This is the genitive case, hence the nominative case should be "Decimus sextus".? Or "Sextus Decimus"?
Prototypical pronunciation guide (needs to change to IPA):
Pronunciation Guide
|
AFAIK, this pope is strongly against gay rights and gays in general. Shouldn't there be something about this in the main article? 134.58.253.131 23:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone here suggests that the pope's views and actions are "against gay rights and gays in general". Yet the Catholic position he affirms explicitly advocates love of those who have homosexual tendencies, but a hatred of their sinful choices to have immoral sex (as with all sin). Similarly, the pope advocates, explicitly, that persons with homosexual tendencies have the exact same rights as all other human persons! No disrimination at all is adcvocated. No one has a moral right to be ordained. No one has a moral right to put a penis into any rectum (male or female), or to engage in oral-genital sex (regardless of the genders involved). Everyone is able to enter into a voluntary marriage with a person of the oppostie sex - even persons who are homosexual can do so. There is no denial of rights. The attempted manufacture of new "rights" associated with sexual behavior or the choice to engage in certain sexual acts may result in civil law changing, but has no effect on moral laws. 214.13.4.151 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Out, your comments indicate that you are ignoring most of what I wrote (other than thinking that what homosexuals do to reach orgasm is "foul-minded"). No man has a right to become a priest. People with the right diposition are, perhaps arbitarily in the eyes of some, invited to ordination by those with the authority to do so. Sadly, many heterosexual males have been refused ordination because certain seminaries had a gay power clique that would not allow doctrinally and morally sound candidates to be ordained (i.e. if you would not join in the gay hijinx or at least give it your blessing, you got kicked out of the seminary). By the way, educated persons understand thaat rational persons discriminate all the time. Its part of life. Discrimination is usually good. Its when there is no morally licit basis for the dicrimination that it is correctly deemed reprehensible. In other words, when I looked for a romantic interest, I discriminated and ruled out all persons of my own gender. This is an example of good discrimination. And when I went shopping, I went to the checkout line with the cashier who is always very warm and friendly - discriminating against the other cashiers. I think my point is clear. The millenial moral taboo against homosexual acts (and the celebration thereof, aka "gay culture" or "gay pride") remains for many - and those people have not been (and won't be) bullied into embracing such immorality as if it were good or even neutral. 214.13.4.151 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
First, there is no bill to be passed. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Again, no one has a right to be ordained a priest (and this tradition is as old as Christianity). Church leaders invite people to be ordained. Not everyone qualifies. Those who have a tendency to commit perverted acts that can never be holy and are always evil perhaps are not qualified - its up to the Church leadership to decide that. Orthodox Jews are not chastised for "discriminating" against women by treating them as unclean during menses. Vegetarians are not chastised for "discriminating" against people who eat meat. Blacks are not chastised for refusing to let whites join their special race-based organizations. Of course, you, Quas, can save special chastisement for the pope and everyone will know you mean well. After all, good intentions are what's really so important... In case you did not notice, I generally ignore comments about where I work. Its fun to watch you get your knickers in a twist about such things. My employer is SOOOOOOOO not relevant to this article. 214.13.4.151 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Its funny that anyone would think that advocacy of Catholic moral values is anything to "hide". Your notion that such ideas must be kept hidden speaks volumes about your extremism. 214.13.4.151 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is easily misunderstood because it is seen by "gay rights" advocates as similar to that of evangelical Protestant churches, when it is not. Evangelical Protestant teaching on homosexuality is very different from Catholic teaching. Catholics see Catholic teaching on homosexuality as differing from both evangelical teaching and "liberal" teaching.
Catholic teaching distinguishes between desires and action. As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching only does with respect to heterosexual desires, but not to homosexual desires. In Catholic teaching, homosexual desire, like heterosexual desire, is not sinful, unless it goes to the point of "lust". Sexual action outside of marriage is sinful.
As far as I can tell, evangelical teaching is that homosexual desire is sinful. Catholic teaching does not say that. The conflation of desire and action leads evangelical teaching to condemn humans who have homosexual desires. Catholic teaching, which is more nuanced, does not lead there.
Catholic teaching is that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful. It is also that sins may be forgiven, but that persistent sin is a deeper problem.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why men with homosexual desires cannot be priests. There is also no reason why men with heterosexual desires cannot be priests. Regardless of their desires, they are expected to sublimate them.
In Catholic thinking, the concept of "don't ask, don't tell" is deeply flawed, because it does make the statement of homosexual desires a subject of condemnation. However, "don't ask, don't tell" is a very deeply flawed compromise between two extremes that did not consider a more nuanced middle position, which would distinguish between desires and actions. No one should be punished or condemned for what they feel or think. It is only actions that are a subject of rules.
I don't really understand the "liberal" position, which appears to be that society should encourage all forms of sexual desires and actions.
When compared to other Christian religious leaders of the early twenty-first century, Benedict XVI is very much of a "moderate". He neither supports church-sponsored gay marriage (which he is very much against) nor urges the Church to condemn homosexual desires and the people who feel them. Robert McClenon 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
With hang-ups on sexuality separating the left and right, I would like to find some common ground here. Has anyone any thoughts on asexual candidates for Holy Orders? I think the ideal candidate would be chaste and holy, and free from genitalia of any sort. Aloysius Patacsil 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think "left" and "right" are appropriate here. In regard to your questions: I would object to "asexuals" being ordained. I wouldn't even object to "physical eunuchs", though a case could be made against this from scripture and also this was used against Origen, when he was illicitly ordained. But I don't think "free from genitalia" would be part of any ideal -chaste (which is more than just "continent") and holy however, yes. Str1977 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This talk page reverts to the subject in question (ie BXI). The Catholic church's attitudes towards various sexual and other positions (if you will accept the pun) belongs to a separate page - and there should be a brief mention on the main BVI page about *his* particular attitudes towards such matters. Most people find other people's slanging matches (anyone care to create a page on that?) boring at the very least.
Discussions do tend to wander off topic (discussion group messages with several "re:s" tend to bear little relationship to the titular topic of discussion). I was referring to such items as the one immediately preceeding this one - and once a topic gets to such a length, perhaps it deserves an article of its very own. It was the slanging matches that I was defining as boring.
I just added one of the most important texts (if not the most important) of Benedict XVI on the most important battle he is waging, which is the battle against secularism in the West. Hope you like it. It's one of the most beautiful he has written and one of the most logical thing that strikes at the very root of the issue. Moreover, it shows his view of the religion of which is the leader. Lafem 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps something from the discussion above could be transferred to the Interfaith page, where it may be more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.83 ( talk • contribs)