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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Herzen deleted the following sentence (as a good faith edit) from the article, under the section about relations with the Jewish community: "An article in Israel's The Jerusalem Post notes that "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." He made two points: first, he said that the article "falsely" stated that the quote was from a "news article," but it was really from an editorial. I prefer to think a better word would be "mistakenly" (and I do make my share of mistakes!) -- :) -- so I just changed "article" (not "news article") to "editorial". However, the other reason |Herzen gave for the deletion is that this pope had nothing to do with the Holocaust, so why bring it up? (His words.) I'm not sure I understand that objection. This quote makes a very positive point that while John Paul II was known for his strong positive feelings with Jews (probably the strongest of any prior Pope), that relationship took place while John Paul II was relatively young, because the Holocaust destroyed so much of the Jewish community in Poland. This quote says nothing negative about either John Paul II or Francis, but only uses the comparison to make a very positive point about the fact that Francis had a long and rich relationship with a "living, breathing community" of Jews up until the point he became pope. I would welcome comments from other editors before this is deleted. I think it's positive and interesting. On the other hand, if other editors agree it's not a worthwhile quote, and there is a consensus for its deletion, then that's what should happen. Please share your comments. NearTheZoo ( talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, ANI was the wrong place. Although tempers seem a little frayed here (and probably some comments shouldn't have been made) it's not an ANI matter; it's a content dispute. It seems to me, having read the thread, the consensus is clearly (I think) to keep the quote, and it would be for Herzen to take it to, say, DRN if he wishes to pursue removing it. (Although I see you've now done so.) Having said that, I think Herzen is probably correct about the Jerusalem Post's motivation behind the non-reference to Benedict. Benedict grew up "with Jews" as much as JPII did, so I think the newspaper is making a somewhat sly point. But I don't see on what WP policy grounds we would exclude it here because of that. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral (only editors). In a section about relationship with the Jewish community, it's notable what the Jerusalem Post, probably the most notable Jewish media resource in English, has to say about it. It's a quote without comment, making it clear it's from an editorial. I fail to see the relevance of Muslim reaction to it (if any). DeCausa ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has accumulated far too many quotes, and far too much "according to..." language. Wikipedia is written in encyclopedic language, and does not have to mimic newspaper reporters, who always attribute material inline ("According to..."). If a statement is by a lone editorial writer, or by another non-notable figure, then by WP:UNDUE it doesn't belong here (also, it is WP:OR to claim an opinion is important enough to go in this article--instead, it would take a reputable secondary source re-reporting the opinion to back up that sort of claim). Only consensus opinion should be given, and since it is the consensus, there is no need to attribute it inline to anyone in particular. This article needs to be kept pruned of such language since it is heavily read and is in danger of becoming overlong. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Haven't not looked at this entry closely since first doing a lot of work on it just before and after the election, I'm rather surprised to find this sort of speculation. I'd strike it all as anti-encyclopedic:
News sources are quoting "senior Vatican officials" as saying that one test that Francis will face is what he will do to reform the Vatican bank, known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR).[169] According to them, the bank has "regularly damaged the Vatican's image" and there are "growing calls for reform".[169] Because Francis has said that he wants the Catholic Church "to be a model of austerity and honesty", some church officials are predicting that the pope will either restructure the bank or—a less likely alternative, but within the realm of possibilities—close it altogether.[169] Two senior Vatican officials who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said that it is possible that, as a first step, the pope might establish an advisory committee on "possible changes to the Vatican's financial structure".[169]
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this breathless crystal ball stuff is what needs to go:
The pope's two immediate predecessors both visited the Great Synagogue of Rome, and news sources expect that Pope Francis will visit the synagogue, as well.
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's another bit that says "I dunno. Lets wait and see.":
According to news reports "a senior Vatican official" could "neither confirm nor deny" reports of Bergoglio's behind the scenes views as cardinal, but that whatever views he might have expressed at that time, "he should be given time to develop his policy position as pontiff".
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Some data brought by Clarín and replicated in El País and other international media, that was cast into doubt initiating an interesting discussion archived on this talk page proved to be just... well, a bunch of lies.
At least, El País has the decency to recognise its mistake: Argentine Church denies that Cristina Kirchner refused any interview that Archbishop Begoglio had asked for. In fact, she accepted every time he asked for. We have to be careful with biased media on Latin American issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 ( talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Raw Google translation of above comment
|
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only jesuit. He is not part of any association or movement, like Communion and Liberation, Charismatical Renewal, Neocatecumenal Way, Opus Dei. Please delete such false information. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the annual Meeting of Communion and Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo.cosimo ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's false..the sources you cited ( http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 AND http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/one-pope-francis-allegiances-might-tell-us-something-about-churchs-future) do not say Bergoglio is in Communion and Liberation. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the Meeting. It's false. -- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Here you can find the archive of the speeches at the Meeting of CL in Rimini and if you try to search Bergoglio...none! http://www.meetingrimini.org/default.asp?id=992-- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bergoglio just presented a book of Fr Giussani, CL founder, like he just celebrated mass in memory of San Josemaria Escrivà founder of Opus Dei and took part at some Charismatic Renewal meetings..-- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI did not say that Muhammad was "evil and inhuman" at his Regensburg lecture. The medieval source he quoted said that the things Islam introduced to the world, such as conversion by the sword, were "evil and inhuman." This is a basic and seemingly tendentious error that needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.112.162 ( talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed a mention of the American Nuns' Group or Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the "Early Issues" section of the article, but it wasn't substantiated. Referencing the New York Times, I've included more specific details to the situation involving the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Scifilover386 ( talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Here [Vatican: 'Francis cancels salaries of cardinals overseeing bank'] is the article I used on that. Also it shows up here [1] from Vatican Insider. I have not processed that article enough to figure out what it says. This is clearly an actual policy change that has happened. More sources that give more context would be helpful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is a new section on Francis and his overtures towards atheists. I had seen a report about that, and thought of incorporating it into the article, but didn't, because even though I am an atheist, I relate to the Catholic Church as a Lutheran. But given how many "New Atheists" there are nowadays, who think there is something here worth taking a stand about (as opposed to me; I am perfectly comfortable seeing myself as a nonbelieving Christian), it was nice to see Francis make a friendly gesture towards atheists.
Given that, I have two reservations about the article as it currently stands. First, I think the section title "Relations with religious communities and others" is awkward. "Others" is a weasel word here; clearly, what is meant by "others" is atheists. (I don't think there's any point in going into the atheist/agnostic distinction here.) So I would prefer the section to be titled "Relations with religious communities and with nonbelievers". I believe "nonbeliever" to be a more friendly term than "atheist".
Second, I think the statement, "Some atheists are favourable towards the new pope despite his uncomplimentary attitude to them" is unnecessarily divisive. Any Christian is going to have an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists to a certain extent, just as he is going to have it towards anyone who rejects Christ as our lord an savior. It is utterly redundant to mention that Francis has an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists. What matters is that he wants to find a common ground, and appears to respect atheists' freedom of conscience not to believe in God. – Herzen ( talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This article [2] from USA today is probably the most upfront about the issue. Is Pope Francis cancelling the employee bonus worth mentioning in the article? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed idel speculation on what others think he might do. That really is not worth having. We are reporting his teachings and statements not uninformed speculation. I also removed unsourced statements of "disapointment" about his continuing the reform of the LCWR as somehow not "reformist". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the third paragraph, after "his concern for the poor," it should also read, "his insistence that people take time for leisure and recreation" (see NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/us/pope-francis-has-a-few-words-in-support-of-leisure.html?smid=fb-share)
Also, there needs to be a separate section on Pope Francis's Personal Life, shown here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9931413/Pope-Francis-20-things-you-didnt-know.html. In particular, it should be told that his favorite film is "Babette's Feast." Chevybattaglia ( talk) 06:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This article [3] leads with that claim, but it is not really from any actual statement or action by Francis, so for now I would call it too soon to say anything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if Leonardo Boff's view Liberation Theology Supporters Say Pope Francis Can Fix Church 'In Ruins' is accurate or is wishful thinking by an old man previously forced into silence. Later Boff was forced to leave the Franciscan Order where he spent most of his adult life to avoid being forced into silence yet again. Still I put it into the article and added a quote for the sake of objectivity. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There an editor that is adding mention of the Bangladesh building collapse in Savar to a bunch of articles, including this one since Pope Francis commented on the low wages being paid to workers as Slave labour. Now I'm sure that Pope Francis comments on lots of things all the time. I don't believe that comments such as these belong in this article (and they rightly belong in the 2013 Savar building collapse article). Do other editors have an opinion? -- HighKing ( talk) 18:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Proxima Centauri, please give your comment. Thanks, New worl ( talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone asked me to comment, I see from the page history there's been quite an edit war over my edit. Sometimes the best way of dealing with an edit war is to compromise so I shortened the edit and put it into the section on Poverty. I think the Pope's reaction to Savar is at least as notable as his reaction to a strike in Buenos Aires which is already in the article. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
In the biography El Jesuita, published in 2010, the pope was asked point blank whether he cooks his own food, and he says no. At the end of chapter 1, he is asked "cocina actualmente?" And he responds, "No tengo tiempo." "Do you cook these days?" "I don't have the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.17.29 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The article currently begins with the following: "Francis ... is the current Pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. As such, he is the Bishop of Rome, and sovereign of the Vatican City State." I think that we should mention first that he is the Bishop of Rome, since that is his primary title. He is Pope and sovereign of the Vatican City State by virtue of his being the Bishop of Rome. What do you all think? (Here are my edit and the reversion) Edge3 ( talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"Throughout his life, both as an individual and a religious leader, he has been known for his humility, his concern for the poor, and his commitment to dialogue as a way to build bridges between people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and faiths."
This is POV as it's a very subjective sentence, unworthy of an encyclopedia, and lacks any kind of citation. While we all do appreciate the humility he brought with himself, these sentences need to be removed. -ezikleyici — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezikleyici ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Early versions of this article were written in American English, and therefore editing should be consistently in American English. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is meaningful that the May 2013 elevation of saints was a record number. Never before has the Catholic Church elevated that many saints at one time. [4]01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 ( talk)
This edit told us not to change titles of cited works. Why shouldn't we CORRECT the titles, when the titles appear INCORRECTLY in the article? Two headlines were reported in the article to have hyphens, but if you follow the links, you see that they were actually en-dashes. I changed them. Then they had the correct titles. That same edit also introduced punctuation errors, changing things like pp.&nsbp;18–19 to pp. 18-19. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
An interesting point, though I don't know in what way it can be included in the article: in at least two cases Francis has said something radical about non-Catholics being OK, and the establishment has promptly "clarified" that actually you can start out any way, but you have to join the Catholic communion to get the perks.
Francis: the Anglican Ordinariate was "quite unnecessary", the Catholic Church needed Anglicans as Anglicans. The Establishment: a spokesman for the Ordinariate said the words were those of Venables, not the Pope. The Telegraph newspaper: Pope Francis 'dismissed Anglican branch as quite unnecessary', 31 May 2013
Francis: God “has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! (…) Even the atheists,” Everyone!” Pope Francis: God redeemed everyone, ‘not just Catholics’ Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics Pope Francis says atheists can be good Later the Vatican clarified non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism.
Is there a systematic point of friction here, a hidden battle, a pointer of things to come? Pol098 ( talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The section "Nonbelievers" is unbelievably misleading. This sentence needs to be changed as soon as possible: "Later the Vatican clarified stating non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism." Vatican did not officially clarify anything, as you can see for yourselves: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explanatory-note-on-the-meaning-of-salvation-in-francis-daily-homily-of-may-22. Father Rosica is not a Vatican's spokesman (although he was one two months ago) and he has not used any official Vatican channel (ZENIT is an independent agency: http://www.zenit.org/en/about/2001). Moreover, he actually seems to agree with Pope Francis instead of disagreeing with him: "We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity [...] is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition." The mistake apparently stems froms a CNN's blogger's misinformation: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/ (note that there are no sources given for Dan Merica's mistaken claims). It is very unfortunate that this falsehood has found its way into Wikipedia, too. I cannot edit the article myself so I'm asking somebody who can to do this instead. Thank you in advance! – Scobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.77 ( talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read the article, Vatican City, which says that "Vatican City State" is another name for Vatican City. If you don't believe Wikipedia, then here is a link to Vatican City State's home page in English. Once again, you have introduced a grammatical error by deleting text. Please correct the sentence to read either: "...Sovereign of Vatican City" or "...Sovereign of the Vatican City State". I am using the talk page because I do not desire to be drawn into an edit war. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should rename this article to Francis (Pope) as "Pope" is a honorific title. The only reason why we need the title "Pope" in the title is to disambiguate. We could also use Francis I but I think that may be OR. This isn't a formal request - just intended to create an informal discussion as all former Pope's seemingly have this title. For the same reason the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth is Elizabeth II without the "Queen" title. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Let it go, it has been discussed in lenght and the consensus havent changed, to continue it to beat a death horse. 41.66.207.149 ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Edit_summary, please provide edit summary. Thanks, New worl ( talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Something have to be done about the teaching section. Right now it is nothing other than a loose collection of statements, issues that are contraversial to the catholic church or just in general and what seems to be different editors pet issues. It has little connection to its main article (of witch it should be a resume I guess) Theology of Pope Francis. I think some of the issues in the teaching section should be relegated to that article while there might be important information on in the main article that should be written in a short form in this article. But I do not myself have the knowledge about the teaching of Francis to make the decision what is important and what is not. So please if anyone have the time and the knowledge have a look at the teaching section. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is Argentina's dirty war the first heading after the Pope's early life? Why isn't it mentioned that the "human rights lawyer" who sued Pope Francis was an active member of a Marxist terrorist organization? Ef2ribosylation ( talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)ef2ribosylation
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Bishop" section, I have found this:
Early in his time as Archbishop Francis sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.
Try this instead (changes explained just after the revised version of the above; I have omitted the footnote reference, but that is not part of the change and should stay in):
Early in his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.
I added "of Buenos Aires" to make it clear that he was bishop of the diocese, because when he was Coadjutor he already had the rank of archbishop. Comma has been placed just after "Buenos Aires". I changed "Francis" to "Bergoglio" because the "Francis" name didn't come into use until he became Pope.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have found this, and am wondering how long he had that pectoral cross:
He also wore the same iron pectoral cross that he had worn as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, rather than the gold one worn by his predecessors.
I prefer not to use "Cardinal Archbishop of ___", because being Cardinal is a separate appointment from being (arch)bishop of a diocese. Anyway, his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires is not his entire pre-papal time as a bishop, because he was previously auxiliary bishop and then coadjutor archbishop in Buenos Aires archdiocese. I don't have enough information to make this an edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
New encyclical " Lumen fidei" (The Light of Faith) to be published July 5 (Friday). -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Here [5] is a Vatican announcement about Francis appointing a commission to investigate the Institute for Religious Works. I think we need something on this in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
He's got a "técnico quìmico" degree in an "esquela secundaria industrial" ([ sort of hight school]). He's not a chemist with master OR bachelor.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1562738-bergoglio-un-sacerdote-jesuita-de-carrera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.111.45 ( talk) 13:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/16/the-making-of-a-meme-pope-francis-scientist-not-or/
NOT A CHEMIST!
-- 87.10.111.45 ( talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23494353#TWEET838343
What section do we file well reffed regional views of his work under? Hcobb ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
maybe create a section 5.9? -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of "his visit was received favorably", rather than saying "Newspaper X said Y". Hcobb ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the introduction to this article contains four paragraphs: one explaining Francis' title, one summarizing his life, one describing his character, and one stating his views on sexual morality. While those views definitely belong in the article, it's incongruous to put them in the introduction when none of his other specific positions are stated there. It implies that sexual morality has been the centerpiece of Francis' papacy, and that's not accurate. 182.247.145.76 ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the need to keep the intro short, but my fellow editor Pol098 keeps making an edit that I think distorts the meaning of the "who am I to judge?" quote.
Pol's preferred wording seems to be (I don't see the word 'condemned' used in the source as its used here):
I've used the following instead:
I know the version I've suggested is longer, but it seems that Pope Francis is trying to be both kind and welcoming in his declaration, without overturning clear doctrine regarding homosexual behavior. As such, I think the sourced reference to another scripture seems to help provide guidance to the reader without misleading them into thinking Pope Francis said homosexuality is ok, or that he was explicitly condemning homosexual acts (in that press conference). -- Avanu ( talk) 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This issue can be resolved if Francis' positions on sexuality specifically are omitted from the intro, as suggested above. The nuance of his specific positions on sexuality can be discussed alongside his teachings on other central issues in the "Teachings" section. 42.114.3.31 ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit other editors views please on some potential changes. Firstly, there is a section called "same-sex marriage" but I think we should re-title it simply "Homosexuality" and capture a wider snap shot of the issues (civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage for example)? But I'd like also to add a reference to Pope Francis' recent comments on gay people made when returning from Brazil - as this has attracted a lot of interest (and I don't think it's been covered elsewhere in the article?) I'd like to add something about Francis reaching out to gay people - by washing the feet of gay men with HIV/AIDS at a maundy thursday ceremony. I'm also wondering to what extent we might use some material from Paul Vallely's new book on Francis, Untying the Knots? Most controversially he makes the claim that Bergoglio in Argentina confirmed in private meetings the need to acknowledge some legal rights for gay people, and then advocated civil unions to fellow bishops. Vallely also says that the letter sent to the enclosed order of nuns was tactical - some bishops were whispering about his stance and so he wanted to forward a copy of the letter to the Vatican to show he had taken the standard line. But the letter was leaked (something he had not expected). Any thoughts please? Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Paul Vallely has published a book about Francis during the dictatorship in Argentina, Pope Francis: Untying the Knots. Vallely is a good journalist and we should look out for what's in that book. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a simplification and a mischaracterization of Catholic teaching on ordination to say that Francis is personally "against" it. It actually doesn't matter what his own position is, or anyone else's. The Church has spoken infallibly that she has no authority to ordain women. Just like the Church cannot create the Eucharist out of rice cakes and beer, it is impossible to ordain women, no matter how much anyone wants it, even the Pope. Naturally a sitting Pope will want to profess his own opposition to it, but to claim here in our voice that he is "against" it is to imply that a simple policy change by a future pope can open the door, when it is shut, locked, and key melted down for the next fisherman's ring. Nobody can reverse Church teaching and this is doctrinal, not disciplinary. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to list in the English Wikipedia the Spanish and Italian forms of the name "Francis". Even including the Latin form of popes' names is questionable, although it can perhaps be defended in the case of the popes of antiquity and of the Middle Ages, and could be continued into more modern times for the sake of uniformity with earlier popes. The Latin form is also that used in the proclamation of the election of a pope: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum ..." But why include the Italian form of the name of Pope Francis? And is the fact that he was born in a Spanish-speaking country sufficient reason for including in the English Wikipedia the form "Francisco", by which he was never known while he lived in his homeland? If "Francisco" is defended, "Pancho" can also. "Papa Pancho" is quite widely used in Spanish-language media, as here and here and here and here. Esoglou ( talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In answer to this edit, which speaks of Francis' admonition to follow our consciences, even among unbelievers, I suggest this article from Zenit, quoting Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the nature of conscience, the effects of conscience, and the requirement to form one's conscience well. The article was written in 2011. I will continue looking for articles which specifically respond to Francis' words. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi/ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/ Elizium23 ( talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include such a long and opinionated quote from one newspaper about his efforts to discuss with Muslims? From imams yes, but a state-censored newspaper? What does it add to our understanding of the Pope? Indiasummer95 ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The article has been tagged as being too long and it seems the reason for this is the ever-growing section on teachings. I propose that the section be reduced to a few paragraphs or just a couple of subsections and that the majority of content be spun off to another article. As well as Theology of Pope Francis, I suggest another article be created (called something like Social teachings of Pope Francis), where the subsections on sexuality, abortion, organised crime, capitalism etc. could be moved (this includes the same sections duplicated on the theology article). Let's just use this article's 'teachings' section to briefly summarise the theme of Pope Francis' teachings in this article; e.g. he is generally thought to be compassionate and 'progressive'. -- Hazhk Talk to me 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Council of Cardinal Advisers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I read about them in the New York Times and couldn't find their names on Wikipedia easily, though I see now they are listed in this article. If y'all want to redirect that article back to here, that might be okay, but I just wanted to let those writers who are active here know about this so they can decide what to do.
jps ( talk) 13:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two small, but important, errors in the Pre-Papal Career section.
The text reads... "At the conclusion of his novitiate in the Society of Jesus, Bergoglio officially became a Jesuit on 12 March 1960, when he made the religious profession of the initial, temporary vows of a member of the order.[34]"
1. We Jesuits generally measure our date for "becoming a Jesuit" from the day that we begin the novitiate...not from the day we take vows. Bergoglio, therefore, became a Jesuit in March 1958, not in March 1960.
2. Jesuits do not make a "religious profession of initial, temporary vows." Some other religious congregations do that, but Jesuits take perpetual vows. We do this twice: simple perpetual vows at the conclusion of the novitiate and solemn perpetual vows several years later (after additional study and training).
Wikipedia has this correct in the article on "Religious Vows." "Depending on the order, temporary vows may be renewed a number of times before permission to take final vows is given. There are exceptions: the Jesuits' first vows are perpetual, for instance, and the Sisters of Charity take only temporary but renewable vows." /info/en/?search=Religious_vows
Wikipedia also has an accurate, detailed description of Jesuit Formation (the training of young Jesuits) here: /info/en/?search=Jesuit_formation "At this point, the novice pronounces his First Vows (perpetual Simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and a vow to persevere to final profession and ordination)..." "Formation for Priesthood normally takes between 8 and 14 years, depending on the man's background and previous education, and final vows are taken several years after that..."
The most accurate citations would come from the Jesuit Constitutions, but I cannot find a public domain copy online. A recent print edition is... Padberg, John, ed. (1996), The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and their Complimentary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources
~~Rev. Gerard E. Menard, SJ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem1540 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The Pope is widely quoted in the press as saying that "his church must shake off an obsession with the issues of abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful." But while the need to become more merciful is clear from the full text of the English translation of the interview, in it he never actually says the church is too obsessed with abortion. A summary should reflect the gist of a person's entire message rather than providing undue weight to some part of it. Perhaps somebody who can read the original Italian transcript can clarify whether the press coverage accurately reflects what the Pope really said. Bwrs ( talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, the sources for this interpretation come from three definitively left-liberal media outlets - The New Statesman, BBC, and NYTimes. Couldn't a more balanced summary of his perspective in the interview be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.34.1 ( talk) 03:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit makes no sense for many reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to "change Church doctrine". Second, it is redundant to the beginning of the paragraph which has Francis already affirming Church teachings on these things. Third, there is nothing in the cited source about changing Church doctrine--certainly because this Catholic magazine, as dissent-filled as it is, realizes doctrine cannot change--so it is WP:OR to read out a conclusion from his quoted statement, "I am a son of the Church." Elizium23 ( talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or does anyone else find the articles lead very sloppy? There is a lot of unimportant information in there and some statements are unnecessarily supported by up to five references. Would any one else support a full rewrite of the lead? Tomh903 ( talk) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on about those sentences:
First, it was included at a "Trivia" section, and then moved to the "Papacy" section. Should we keep this info (and if so, where?), or should we remove it? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create an article " Public image of Pope Francis"? Cambalachero ( talk) 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
>> Gay magazine names pope as person of the year (the advocate and 'Pope Francis effect' - a boost in church attendance ) .> Pope names 19 new cardinals ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).
I noticed that there was a space between the end of the second paragraph and the [4] source, so I went to edit it out. What I found in the source code, however, was
<!--This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there--> <!--<br clear=all>< ! ---This break is to aid formatting on wide screens.--->
There are three issues with this. First of all, I've never seen anything like it, and on my 1600x900 screen I don't see any issues at all with the formatting. Second, ther message that "This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there" isn't true; as far as I can tell the lead is the only section that mentions Francis being the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere or Latin America, that's not in the body text, and not cited. Third, if it were correct, and that content was in the body, properly cited, as it should be, than there's no reason for the [4] citation to be in the lead in the first place.
I've removed the hidden messages, but I'd like for someone that's actually worked on the article to see if they can figure out the content and sourcing issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
72.37.171.132 ( talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Request for addition under "other writings" of Evangelii Guadium, Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Francis, 2013.
As this is his first major document written as Pope, it should definitely be listed and linked to the Evangelii Gaudium page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelii_Gaudium
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the line that says: "Pope Francis, while affirming the present Church teachings, has stated that Catholics have concentrated officiously on condemning abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts, while neglecting the greater need for tenderness, mercy and compassion." To: "Pope Francis has said: We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. He has also asked Catholics to treat people with mercy and compassion." Here are the reasons for this change: The current statement is tendentious, making the pope appear to reprimand Catholics for their emphasis on these essential issues. His statement indicates only, as the paragraph following the quote say more explicitly, that these need to be stated with context of the full thinking of the Church. Furthermore, there is no reference in the article to extend his remarks to homosexuality. Also, he does not mention mercy in the context of this quote. This is being read into the statement about abortion and contraception. It is more accurate to state the pope himself and to state his general stance of remembering mercy. Again, saying it the way it is now makes it appear that the pope is calling out Catholics who try to advance the rights of the unborn, for example, of not being merciful.
98.181.3.126 ( talk) 04:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
...between the first section and early life section . They do not follow the entry format of other Wikipedia articles(Popes), redundancy, and ambiguity about the Pope Francis nationality ==
Contradiction:
1.Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.[3]
But in the Early Life section:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Flores,[15] a barrio of Buenos Aires. He was the eldest[16] of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant accountant[17] born in Portacomaro (Province of Asti) in Italy's Piedmont region, and his wife Regina María Sívori,[18] a housewife born in Buenos Aires to a family of northern Italian (Piedmontese-Genoese).
Pope Francis's mother was not a immigrant.She was born in Buenos Aires http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/biography-the-life-of-pope-francis/
I agree that it should be:as a son of an italian immigrant and an argentine of italian descent. Or it could also be that the laws in Argentina are different than in America. If you are born in Argentina you are still consider an immigrant unless you apply for citizenship.So his mother was still consider an immigrant-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2.Redundancy and wrong section: Following sentence :Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.''''This sentences should be in the early life section and also you repeat the same thing.
Just move the the sentence to the right section.It does not make sense to have that sentence in another section. I agree the sentence is the wrong place.-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3.We only use the latin name.The italian name is not necessary. If not we should change all the other Popes articles to include the italians names.
examples of entries in Wikipedia (Popes):
Pope Benedict XVI:(Latin: Benedictus XVI; born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger on 16 April 1927) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
Pope Paul:Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II
Wikipedia only use the latin name.Just follow the rules Why did they put the Italian name? It does not make sense.
4.Ambiguity about Pope Francis nationality: In Personal details: They did not mention his nationality only the place he was born. Pope Francis is from Argentina or he was just was born in Argentina? After reading the article it seems he was just born in Argentina and work in Argentina but his nationality is Italian.Just because you were born in a country does not mean you have the nationality of that country. For example, you can be born in France but you do not adquire french nationality. On the contrary, if you are born in United States you adquire the american nationality.Most people do not know the laws in Argentina. Does the Pope have an Argentina nationality or not? Remember that this article is read by people who made not have any knowledge about the laws in Argentina. Also you put that he was born to italian immigrants(although her mother was from Argentine) and when people search Pope Francis nationality this what you read from Wikipedia:Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 17 December 1936) is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, having ... although others pages(not Wikipedia) they put Argentinean. Is very confusing. -- Wendyone ( talk) 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia. Pope Francis is Italian. He was born to Italian immigrants. His mother might be consider an italian american if she was born in the USA but she was born in Argentina.The laws may be different in Argentina than in the USA. Maybe the laws are more similar to China.He was born there and work there but we do not know if he ever became an Argentinean. Other media may assume he is from Argentina(they believe they have the same laws as the US). It is unclear what country he is from. But in my opinion and Wikipedia opinion, Papa Francesco is italian.He was just born in Argentina as Senator Mc.Cain was born in Panama. Until it is not clear they cannot put a nationality like they did in the other Popes' articles. I am assuming that is the law in Argentina. I do not know what is the law in Argentina.-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Have you bothered reading the article on Italian Argentines? 24-25 million Argentines are part of this ethnic group. Argentine is estimated to have 1,500,000 Italian speakers, making Italian "the second most spoken language in the nation". Dimadick ( talk) 22:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a big problem with this section, in particular, the part that deals with atheists. "Redemption" is very different from "salvation" in Catholic (and, I believe, Protestant) soteriology. The Church affirms that Christ died to redeem everyone -- but it doesn't follow that all are saved. Atheists' (and journalists') ignorance about such things has made Pope Francis appear as if he contradicted Church teaching when, in fact, he did not.
There is also much confusion in this section about the dogma "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." Catholic belief is not that one must consciously and formally be a member of the Church to be saved (though they believe that is the ideal, the goal, what God desires), but that anyone who is, in fact, saved (by the "grace of Christ alone" -- not by works, nor by faith alone) is, in fact, a part of "the soul of the Church" whether or not that person consciously has faith in Jesus Christ. Someone who seeks God but, being "invincibly ignorant," never comes to faith in Christ can, by the mercy of God, be saved if he obeys the natural law, is contrite for sins he knows are sins, etc. "EENS," as this dogma is often "short-handed," is a much more nuanced belief than most people think (including many Catholics). Even the Society of St. Pius X (the "SSPX"), who broke away from Rome in order to adhere to traditional teaching and to preserve the traditional forms of the sacramental rites, was headed by a man -- Archbishop Lefebvre -- who wrote in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics":
I think this section needs to have added clarification so as to not allow journalists and atheists set the tone in ascertaining whether or not Pope Francis is changing teaching or is acting as a progressive, etc. It's to the Catholic Church to form and state its beliefs and to, then, decide when they're being changed or not. At the very least, people who haven't studied Catholic soteriology shouldn't be allowed, in an encyclopedia, to make Pope Francis out to be denying the doctrine of his own Church when he, in fact, isn't. Schoemann ( talk) 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Expectations have been raised that could be disappointed later. [1] Certainly many people have unrealistic about the new pope and unrealistic expectations have become credible. [2] At least one priest feels it necessary to warn against expecting too much, for example Women priests. [3]
I added the above here. One of my sources consists of fabrications as I pointed out. I started this section so people can discuss what to do with the section. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The section headed "Sartorial taste and aesthetics" refers to "Bethlehem, Israel". As the entry on Bethlehem makes clear, Bethlehem is in Palestine, not in Israel. Richard Linsert ( talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This section seems to be a debate over what the position of women in the church should be, as opposed to what the Pope thinks of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.116.39 ( talk) 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We could use a small section (after "Vatican Bank" perhaps?) on Francis' stated plan to make more use of the national bishops conferences and the collegiality that implies. A specific detail would be his approach to his own role in the Italian Bishops Conference, where he has already acted by (1) removing Mariano Crociata as its Secretary-General and (unlike his two predecessors as Pope) sending him to a diocese that does not put him in line to become cardinal and (2) appointing someone very much like himself to serve in that post on an interim basis, Galantino. He has signaled that he's interested in having the Italian bishops elect their own leaders, giving up his own right to pretty much control the selection. There are some sources that discuss how this shows he is not going to use the Italian Episcopal Conference in the political way his two predecessors did. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This section needs to be removed. It appears to be based on a particular editorial and does not seem to warrant the bandwidth. 70.165.51.18 ( talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Contradiction
Pope Francis took the name Francis after Francis Xavier, not Francis of Asisi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.159.237 ( talk) 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoever changed the photo of Pope Francis, into the cropped closer Facial shot from the previous version, thank you. This face picture is truly a better photo more direct and classier than the previous half-body installed a few weeks ago. LimosaCorel ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a quote talking about Francis's parents not making it in America, which means Latin America. But, right above the quote, someone wrote the United States, which is NOT what the quote is refering to, since his parents obviously raised him in South America, not the United States of America. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.128.10 ( talk) 05:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Name" section, I find
"Pope Clement XIV who had suppressed the Jesuit order"
Please insert a comma just after "Clement XIV", because "who had suppressed the Jesuit order" does not narrow down "Pope Clement XIV" any further.
I could also compose a remark about the non-use of the regnal number "I", although Pope John Paul I (elected and died in 1978) did use it. I recall seeing or hearing "Francis I" at least once in the news media, and then hearing a statement that no number would be used for this Pope Francis. (So, like the Queen Elizabeth I/II situation in England, this Pope Francis would only get the "I" retroactively if a later incumbent also took the name "Francis".)
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Done the comma. As for the "I", it has been discussed a lot when he became Pope, and there was consensus to call him just Francis. Cambalachero ( talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just gone into Pope John Paul I's entry and found that he explicitly used "the first". I added a remark that Pope Francis also took a previously-unused papal name but did NOT use "the first". It would, however, be interesting to find out how "the first" got into the news media regarding Francis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Pope Francis tells Italian mafia to repent ( Lihaas ( talk) 20:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).
"Liberals are unwise if they expect significant change in doctrine though the Church will seek a "realistic application of doctrine, the church must never judge as though it had a guillotine in its hands." [262]"
This line (see above) appears to be a direct communication to liberals and doesn't fit the encyclopedic tone of the article. Perhaps it should say
"Although many understand him to be liberalizing the papacy [30][31], others point to the fact that no major progressive changes have occurred to the church during the first year of his service [262]"
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Herzen deleted the following sentence (as a good faith edit) from the article, under the section about relations with the Jewish community: "An article in Israel's The Jerusalem Post notes that "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." He made two points: first, he said that the article "falsely" stated that the quote was from a "news article," but it was really from an editorial. I prefer to think a better word would be "mistakenly" (and I do make my share of mistakes!) -- :) -- so I just changed "article" (not "news article") to "editorial". However, the other reason |Herzen gave for the deletion is that this pope had nothing to do with the Holocaust, so why bring it up? (His words.) I'm not sure I understand that objection. This quote makes a very positive point that while John Paul II was known for his strong positive feelings with Jews (probably the strongest of any prior Pope), that relationship took place while John Paul II was relatively young, because the Holocaust destroyed so much of the Jewish community in Poland. This quote says nothing negative about either John Paul II or Francis, but only uses the comparison to make a very positive point about the fact that Francis had a long and rich relationship with a "living, breathing community" of Jews up until the point he became pope. I would welcome comments from other editors before this is deleted. I think it's positive and interesting. On the other hand, if other editors agree it's not a worthwhile quote, and there is a consensus for its deletion, then that's what should happen. Please share your comments. NearTheZoo ( talk) 04:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, ANI was the wrong place. Although tempers seem a little frayed here (and probably some comments shouldn't have been made) it's not an ANI matter; it's a content dispute. It seems to me, having read the thread, the consensus is clearly (I think) to keep the quote, and it would be for Herzen to take it to, say, DRN if he wishes to pursue removing it. (Although I see you've now done so.) Having said that, I think Herzen is probably correct about the Jerusalem Post's motivation behind the non-reference to Benedict. Benedict grew up "with Jews" as much as JPII did, so I think the newspaper is making a somewhat sly point. But I don't see on what WP policy grounds we would exclude it here because of that. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral (only editors). In a section about relationship with the Jewish community, it's notable what the Jerusalem Post, probably the most notable Jewish media resource in English, has to say about it. It's a quote without comment, making it clear it's from an editorial. I fail to see the relevance of Muslim reaction to it (if any). DeCausa ( talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has accumulated far too many quotes, and far too much "according to..." language. Wikipedia is written in encyclopedic language, and does not have to mimic newspaper reporters, who always attribute material inline ("According to..."). If a statement is by a lone editorial writer, or by another non-notable figure, then by WP:UNDUE it doesn't belong here (also, it is WP:OR to claim an opinion is important enough to go in this article--instead, it would take a reputable secondary source re-reporting the opinion to back up that sort of claim). Only consensus opinion should be given, and since it is the consensus, there is no need to attribute it inline to anyone in particular. This article needs to be kept pruned of such language since it is heavily read and is in danger of becoming overlong. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Haven't not looked at this entry closely since first doing a lot of work on it just before and after the election, I'm rather surprised to find this sort of speculation. I'd strike it all as anti-encyclopedic:
News sources are quoting "senior Vatican officials" as saying that one test that Francis will face is what he will do to reform the Vatican bank, known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR).[169] According to them, the bank has "regularly damaged the Vatican's image" and there are "growing calls for reform".[169] Because Francis has said that he wants the Catholic Church "to be a model of austerity and honesty", some church officials are predicting that the pope will either restructure the bank or—a less likely alternative, but within the realm of possibilities—close it altogether.[169] Two senior Vatican officials who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said that it is possible that, as a first step, the pope might establish an advisory committee on "possible changes to the Vatican's financial structure".[169]
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this breathless crystal ball stuff is what needs to go:
The pope's two immediate predecessors both visited the Great Synagogue of Rome, and news sources expect that Pope Francis will visit the synagogue, as well.
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Here's another bit that says "I dunno. Lets wait and see.":
According to news reports "a senior Vatican official" could "neither confirm nor deny" reports of Bergoglio's behind the scenes views as cardinal, but that whatever views he might have expressed at that time, "he should be given time to develop his policy position as pontiff".
Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Some data brought by Clarín and replicated in El País and other international media, that was cast into doubt initiating an interesting discussion archived on this talk page proved to be just... well, a bunch of lies.
At least, El País has the decency to recognise its mistake: Argentine Church denies that Cristina Kirchner refused any interview that Archbishop Begoglio had asked for. In fact, she accepted every time he asked for. We have to be careful with biased media on Latin American issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.111.219.140 ( talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Raw Google translation of above comment
|
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only jesuit. He is not part of any association or movement, like Communion and Liberation, Charismatical Renewal, Neocatecumenal Way, Opus Dei. Please delete such false information. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the annual Meeting of Communion and Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo.cosimo ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's false..the sources you cited ( http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 AND http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/one-pope-francis-allegiances-might-tell-us-something-about-churchs-future) do not say Bergoglio is in Communion and Liberation. Bergoglio never was in Rimini at the Meeting. It's false. -- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Here you can find the archive of the speeches at the Meeting of CL in Rimini and if you try to search Bergoglio...none! http://www.meetingrimini.org/default.asp?id=992-- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bergoglio just presented a book of Fr Giussani, CL founder, like he just celebrated mass in memory of San Josemaria Escrivà founder of Opus Dei and took part at some Charismatic Renewal meetings..-- Cosimo.cosimo ( talk) 21:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Pope Benedict XVI did not say that Muhammad was "evil and inhuman" at his Regensburg lecture. The medieval source he quoted said that the things Islam introduced to the world, such as conversion by the sword, were "evil and inhuman." This is a basic and seemingly tendentious error that needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.112.162 ( talk) 18:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed a mention of the American Nuns' Group or Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the "Early Issues" section of the article, but it wasn't substantiated. Referencing the New York Times, I've included more specific details to the situation involving the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Scifilover386 ( talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Here [Vatican: 'Francis cancels salaries of cardinals overseeing bank'] is the article I used on that. Also it shows up here [1] from Vatican Insider. I have not processed that article enough to figure out what it says. This is clearly an actual policy change that has happened. More sources that give more context would be helpful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is a new section on Francis and his overtures towards atheists. I had seen a report about that, and thought of incorporating it into the article, but didn't, because even though I am an atheist, I relate to the Catholic Church as a Lutheran. But given how many "New Atheists" there are nowadays, who think there is something here worth taking a stand about (as opposed to me; I am perfectly comfortable seeing myself as a nonbelieving Christian), it was nice to see Francis make a friendly gesture towards atheists.
Given that, I have two reservations about the article as it currently stands. First, I think the section title "Relations with religious communities and others" is awkward. "Others" is a weasel word here; clearly, what is meant by "others" is atheists. (I don't think there's any point in going into the atheist/agnostic distinction here.) So I would prefer the section to be titled "Relations with religious communities and with nonbelievers". I believe "nonbeliever" to be a more friendly term than "atheist".
Second, I think the statement, "Some atheists are favourable towards the new pope despite his uncomplimentary attitude to them" is unnecessarily divisive. Any Christian is going to have an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists to a certain extent, just as he is going to have it towards anyone who rejects Christ as our lord an savior. It is utterly redundant to mention that Francis has an "uncomplimentary attitude" towards atheists. What matters is that he wants to find a common ground, and appears to respect atheists' freedom of conscience not to believe in God. – Herzen ( talk) 21:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This article [2] from USA today is probably the most upfront about the issue. Is Pope Francis cancelling the employee bonus worth mentioning in the article? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed idel speculation on what others think he might do. That really is not worth having. We are reporting his teachings and statements not uninformed speculation. I also removed unsourced statements of "disapointment" about his continuing the reform of the LCWR as somehow not "reformist". John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the third paragraph, after "his concern for the poor," it should also read, "his insistence that people take time for leisure and recreation" (see NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/us/pope-francis-has-a-few-words-in-support-of-leisure.html?smid=fb-share)
Also, there needs to be a separate section on Pope Francis's Personal Life, shown here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9931413/Pope-Francis-20-things-you-didnt-know.html. In particular, it should be told that his favorite film is "Babette's Feast." Chevybattaglia ( talk) 06:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This article [3] leads with that claim, but it is not really from any actual statement or action by Francis, so for now I would call it too soon to say anything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if Leonardo Boff's view Liberation Theology Supporters Say Pope Francis Can Fix Church 'In Ruins' is accurate or is wishful thinking by an old man previously forced into silence. Later Boff was forced to leave the Franciscan Order where he spent most of his adult life to avoid being forced into silence yet again. Still I put it into the article and added a quote for the sake of objectivity. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 09:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There an editor that is adding mention of the Bangladesh building collapse in Savar to a bunch of articles, including this one since Pope Francis commented on the low wages being paid to workers as Slave labour. Now I'm sure that Pope Francis comments on lots of things all the time. I don't believe that comments such as these belong in this article (and they rightly belong in the 2013 Savar building collapse article). Do other editors have an opinion? -- HighKing ( talk) 18:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Proxima Centauri, please give your comment. Thanks, New worl ( talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone asked me to comment, I see from the page history there's been quite an edit war over my edit. Sometimes the best way of dealing with an edit war is to compromise so I shortened the edit and put it into the section on Poverty. I think the Pope's reaction to Savar is at least as notable as his reaction to a strike in Buenos Aires which is already in the article. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
In the biography El Jesuita, published in 2010, the pope was asked point blank whether he cooks his own food, and he says no. At the end of chapter 1, he is asked "cocina actualmente?" And he responds, "No tengo tiempo." "Do you cook these days?" "I don't have the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.17.29 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. The article currently begins with the following: "Francis ... is the current Pope of the Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. As such, he is the Bishop of Rome, and sovereign of the Vatican City State." I think that we should mention first that he is the Bishop of Rome, since that is his primary title. He is Pope and sovereign of the Vatican City State by virtue of his being the Bishop of Rome. What do you all think? (Here are my edit and the reversion) Edge3 ( talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"Throughout his life, both as an individual and a religious leader, he has been known for his humility, his concern for the poor, and his commitment to dialogue as a way to build bridges between people of all backgrounds, beliefs, and faiths."
This is POV as it's a very subjective sentence, unworthy of an encyclopedia, and lacks any kind of citation. While we all do appreciate the humility he brought with himself, these sentences need to be removed. -ezikleyici — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezikleyici ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Early versions of this article were written in American English, and therefore editing should be consistently in American English. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is meaningful that the May 2013 elevation of saints was a record number. Never before has the Catholic Church elevated that many saints at one time. [4]01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.199.90 ( talk)
This edit told us not to change titles of cited works. Why shouldn't we CORRECT the titles, when the titles appear INCORRECTLY in the article? Two headlines were reported in the article to have hyphens, but if you follow the links, you see that they were actually en-dashes. I changed them. Then they had the correct titles. That same edit also introduced punctuation errors, changing things like pp.&nsbp;18–19 to pp. 18-19. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
An interesting point, though I don't know in what way it can be included in the article: in at least two cases Francis has said something radical about non-Catholics being OK, and the establishment has promptly "clarified" that actually you can start out any way, but you have to join the Catholic communion to get the perks.
Francis: the Anglican Ordinariate was "quite unnecessary", the Catholic Church needed Anglicans as Anglicans. The Establishment: a spokesman for the Ordinariate said the words were those of Venables, not the Pope. The Telegraph newspaper: Pope Francis 'dismissed Anglican branch as quite unnecessary', 31 May 2013
Francis: God “has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! (…) Even the atheists,” Everyone!” Pope Francis: God redeemed everyone, ‘not just Catholics’ Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics Pope Francis says atheists can be good Later the Vatican clarified non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism.
Is there a systematic point of friction here, a hidden battle, a pointer of things to come? Pol098 ( talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The section "Nonbelievers" is unbelievably misleading. This sentence needs to be changed as soon as possible: "Later the Vatican clarified stating non-Catholics who know the Roman Catholic Church can only get to Heaven by converting to Catholicism." Vatican did not officially clarify anything, as you can see for yourselves: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explanatory-note-on-the-meaning-of-salvation-in-francis-daily-homily-of-may-22. Father Rosica is not a Vatican's spokesman (although he was one two months ago) and he has not used any official Vatican channel (ZENIT is an independent agency: http://www.zenit.org/en/about/2001). Moreover, he actually seems to agree with Pope Francis instead of disagreeing with him: "We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity [...] is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition." The mistake apparently stems froms a CNN's blogger's misinformation: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/ (note that there are no sources given for Dan Merica's mistaken claims). It is very unfortunate that this falsehood has found its way into Wikipedia, too. I cannot edit the article myself so I'm asking somebody who can to do this instead. Thank you in advance! – Scobin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.13.77 ( talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read the article, Vatican City, which says that "Vatican City State" is another name for Vatican City. If you don't believe Wikipedia, then here is a link to Vatican City State's home page in English. Once again, you have introduced a grammatical error by deleting text. Please correct the sentence to read either: "...Sovereign of Vatican City" or "...Sovereign of the Vatican City State". I am using the talk page because I do not desire to be drawn into an edit war. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should rename this article to Francis (Pope) as "Pope" is a honorific title. The only reason why we need the title "Pope" in the title is to disambiguate. We could also use Francis I but I think that may be OR. This isn't a formal request - just intended to create an informal discussion as all former Pope's seemingly have this title. For the same reason the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth is Elizabeth II without the "Queen" title. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Let it go, it has been discussed in lenght and the consensus havent changed, to continue it to beat a death horse. 41.66.207.149 ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Edit_summary, please provide edit summary. Thanks, New worl ( talk) 06:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Something have to be done about the teaching section. Right now it is nothing other than a loose collection of statements, issues that are contraversial to the catholic church or just in general and what seems to be different editors pet issues. It has little connection to its main article (of witch it should be a resume I guess) Theology of Pope Francis. I think some of the issues in the teaching section should be relegated to that article while there might be important information on in the main article that should be written in a short form in this article. But I do not myself have the knowledge about the teaching of Francis to make the decision what is important and what is not. So please if anyone have the time and the knowledge have a look at the teaching section. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is Argentina's dirty war the first heading after the Pope's early life? Why isn't it mentioned that the "human rights lawyer" who sued Pope Francis was an active member of a Marxist terrorist organization? Ef2ribosylation ( talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)ef2ribosylation
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Bishop" section, I have found this:
Early in his time as Archbishop Francis sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.
Try this instead (changes explained just after the revised version of the above; I have omitted the footnote reference, but that is not part of the change and should stay in):
Early in his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio sold off the Archdiocese's shares in multiple banks and transferred its accounts to those of a normal customer in international banks.
I added "of Buenos Aires" to make it clear that he was bishop of the diocese, because when he was Coadjutor he already had the rank of archbishop. Comma has been placed just after "Buenos Aires". I changed "Francis" to "Bergoglio" because the "Francis" name didn't come into use until he became Pope.
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have found this, and am wondering how long he had that pectoral cross:
He also wore the same iron pectoral cross that he had worn as Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, rather than the gold one worn by his predecessors.
I prefer not to use "Cardinal Archbishop of ___", because being Cardinal is a separate appointment from being (arch)bishop of a diocese. Anyway, his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires is not his entire pre-papal time as a bishop, because he was previously auxiliary bishop and then coadjutor archbishop in Buenos Aires archdiocese. I don't have enough information to make this an edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
New encyclical " Lumen fidei" (The Light of Faith) to be published July 5 (Friday). -- Cyrus Grisham ( talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Here [5] is a Vatican announcement about Francis appointing a commission to investigate the Institute for Religious Works. I think we need something on this in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
He's got a "técnico quìmico" degree in an "esquela secundaria industrial" ([ sort of hight school]). He's not a chemist with master OR bachelor.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1562738-bergoglio-un-sacerdote-jesuita-de-carrera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.111.45 ( talk) 13:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/16/the-making-of-a-meme-pope-francis-scientist-not-or/
NOT A CHEMIST!
-- 87.10.111.45 ( talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23494353#TWEET838343
What section do we file well reffed regional views of his work under? Hcobb ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
maybe create a section 5.9? -- Aunva6 talk - contribs 18:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of "his visit was received favorably", rather than saying "Newspaper X said Y". Hcobb ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Currently, the introduction to this article contains four paragraphs: one explaining Francis' title, one summarizing his life, one describing his character, and one stating his views on sexual morality. While those views definitely belong in the article, it's incongruous to put them in the introduction when none of his other specific positions are stated there. It implies that sexual morality has been the centerpiece of Francis' papacy, and that's not accurate. 182.247.145.76 ( talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the need to keep the intro short, but my fellow editor Pol098 keeps making an edit that I think distorts the meaning of the "who am I to judge?" quote.
Pol's preferred wording seems to be (I don't see the word 'condemned' used in the source as its used here):
I've used the following instead:
I know the version I've suggested is longer, but it seems that Pope Francis is trying to be both kind and welcoming in his declaration, without overturning clear doctrine regarding homosexual behavior. As such, I think the sourced reference to another scripture seems to help provide guidance to the reader without misleading them into thinking Pope Francis said homosexuality is ok, or that he was explicitly condemning homosexual acts (in that press conference). -- Avanu ( talk) 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This issue can be resolved if Francis' positions on sexuality specifically are omitted from the intro, as suggested above. The nuance of his specific positions on sexuality can be discussed alongside his teachings on other central issues in the "Teachings" section. 42.114.3.31 ( talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit other editors views please on some potential changes. Firstly, there is a section called "same-sex marriage" but I think we should re-title it simply "Homosexuality" and capture a wider snap shot of the issues (civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage for example)? But I'd like also to add a reference to Pope Francis' recent comments on gay people made when returning from Brazil - as this has attracted a lot of interest (and I don't think it's been covered elsewhere in the article?) I'd like to add something about Francis reaching out to gay people - by washing the feet of gay men with HIV/AIDS at a maundy thursday ceremony. I'm also wondering to what extent we might use some material from Paul Vallely's new book on Francis, Untying the Knots? Most controversially he makes the claim that Bergoglio in Argentina confirmed in private meetings the need to acknowledge some legal rights for gay people, and then advocated civil unions to fellow bishops. Vallely also says that the letter sent to the enclosed order of nuns was tactical - some bishops were whispering about his stance and so he wanted to forward a copy of the letter to the Vatican to show he had taken the standard line. But the letter was leaked (something he had not expected). Any thoughts please? Contaldo80 ( talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Paul Vallely has published a book about Francis during the dictatorship in Argentina, Pope Francis: Untying the Knots. Vallely is a good journalist and we should look out for what's in that book. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a simplification and a mischaracterization of Catholic teaching on ordination to say that Francis is personally "against" it. It actually doesn't matter what his own position is, or anyone else's. The Church has spoken infallibly that she has no authority to ordain women. Just like the Church cannot create the Eucharist out of rice cakes and beer, it is impossible to ordain women, no matter how much anyone wants it, even the Pope. Naturally a sitting Pope will want to profess his own opposition to it, but to claim here in our voice that he is "against" it is to imply that a simple policy change by a future pope can open the door, when it is shut, locked, and key melted down for the next fisherman's ring. Nobody can reverse Church teaching and this is doctrinal, not disciplinary. Elizium23 ( talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to list in the English Wikipedia the Spanish and Italian forms of the name "Francis". Even including the Latin form of popes' names is questionable, although it can perhaps be defended in the case of the popes of antiquity and of the Middle Ages, and could be continued into more modern times for the sake of uniformity with earlier popes. The Latin form is also that used in the proclamation of the election of a pope: "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum ..." But why include the Italian form of the name of Pope Francis? And is the fact that he was born in a Spanish-speaking country sufficient reason for including in the English Wikipedia the form "Francisco", by which he was never known while he lived in his homeland? If "Francisco" is defended, "Pancho" can also. "Papa Pancho" is quite widely used in Spanish-language media, as here and here and here and here. Esoglou ( talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In answer to this edit, which speaks of Francis' admonition to follow our consciences, even among unbelievers, I suggest this article from Zenit, quoting Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the nature of conscience, the effects of conscience, and the requirement to form one's conscience well. The article was written in 2011. I will continue looking for articles which specifically respond to Francis' words. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi/ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/ Elizium23 ( talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include such a long and opinionated quote from one newspaper about his efforts to discuss with Muslims? From imams yes, but a state-censored newspaper? What does it add to our understanding of the Pope? Indiasummer95 ( talk) 16:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The article has been tagged as being too long and it seems the reason for this is the ever-growing section on teachings. I propose that the section be reduced to a few paragraphs or just a couple of subsections and that the majority of content be spun off to another article. As well as Theology of Pope Francis, I suggest another article be created (called something like Social teachings of Pope Francis), where the subsections on sexuality, abortion, organised crime, capitalism etc. could be moved (this includes the same sections duplicated on the theology article). Let's just use this article's 'teachings' section to briefly summarise the theme of Pope Francis' teachings in this article; e.g. he is generally thought to be compassionate and 'progressive'. -- Hazhk Talk to me 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Council of Cardinal Advisers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I read about them in the New York Times and couldn't find their names on Wikipedia easily, though I see now they are listed in this article. If y'all want to redirect that article back to here, that might be okay, but I just wanted to let those writers who are active here know about this so they can decide what to do.
jps ( talk) 13:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There are two small, but important, errors in the Pre-Papal Career section.
The text reads... "At the conclusion of his novitiate in the Society of Jesus, Bergoglio officially became a Jesuit on 12 March 1960, when he made the religious profession of the initial, temporary vows of a member of the order.[34]"
1. We Jesuits generally measure our date for "becoming a Jesuit" from the day that we begin the novitiate...not from the day we take vows. Bergoglio, therefore, became a Jesuit in March 1958, not in March 1960.
2. Jesuits do not make a "religious profession of initial, temporary vows." Some other religious congregations do that, but Jesuits take perpetual vows. We do this twice: simple perpetual vows at the conclusion of the novitiate and solemn perpetual vows several years later (after additional study and training).
Wikipedia has this correct in the article on "Religious Vows." "Depending on the order, temporary vows may be renewed a number of times before permission to take final vows is given. There are exceptions: the Jesuits' first vows are perpetual, for instance, and the Sisters of Charity take only temporary but renewable vows." /info/en/?search=Religious_vows
Wikipedia also has an accurate, detailed description of Jesuit Formation (the training of young Jesuits) here: /info/en/?search=Jesuit_formation "At this point, the novice pronounces his First Vows (perpetual Simple vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and a vow to persevere to final profession and ordination)..." "Formation for Priesthood normally takes between 8 and 14 years, depending on the man's background and previous education, and final vows are taken several years after that..."
The most accurate citations would come from the Jesuit Constitutions, but I cannot find a public domain copy online. A recent print edition is... Padberg, John, ed. (1996), The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and their Complimentary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts, St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources
~~Rev. Gerard E. Menard, SJ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gem1540 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The Pope is widely quoted in the press as saying that "his church must shake off an obsession with the issues of abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful." But while the need to become more merciful is clear from the full text of the English translation of the interview, in it he never actually says the church is too obsessed with abortion. A summary should reflect the gist of a person's entire message rather than providing undue weight to some part of it. Perhaps somebody who can read the original Italian transcript can clarify whether the press coverage accurately reflects what the Pope really said. Bwrs ( talk) 23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, the sources for this interpretation come from three definitively left-liberal media outlets - The New Statesman, BBC, and NYTimes. Couldn't a more balanced summary of his perspective in the interview be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.34.1 ( talk) 03:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit makes no sense for many reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to "change Church doctrine". Second, it is redundant to the beginning of the paragraph which has Francis already affirming Church teachings on these things. Third, there is nothing in the cited source about changing Church doctrine--certainly because this Catholic magazine, as dissent-filled as it is, realizes doctrine cannot change--so it is WP:OR to read out a conclusion from his quoted statement, "I am a son of the Church." Elizium23 ( talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it just me or does anyone else find the articles lead very sloppy? There is a lot of unimportant information in there and some statements are unnecessarily supported by up to five references. Would any one else support a full rewrite of the lead? Tomh903 ( talk) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on about those sentences:
First, it was included at a "Trivia" section, and then moved to the "Papacy" section. Should we keep this info (and if so, where?), or should we remove it? Cambalachero ( talk) 13:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create an article " Public image of Pope Francis"? Cambalachero ( talk) 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
>> Gay magazine names pope as person of the year (the advocate and 'Pope Francis effect' - a boost in church attendance ) .> Pope names 19 new cardinals ( Lihaas ( talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)).
I noticed that there was a space between the end of the second paragraph and the [4] source, so I went to edit it out. What I found in the source code, however, was
<!--This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there--> <!--<br clear=all>< ! ---This break is to aid formatting on wide screens.--->
There are three issues with this. First of all, I've never seen anything like it, and on my 1600x900 screen I don't see any issues at all with the formatting. Second, ther message that "This para summarizes text in the body, sources are cited there" isn't true; as far as I can tell the lead is the only section that mentions Francis being the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere or Latin America, that's not in the body text, and not cited. Third, if it were correct, and that content was in the body, properly cited, as it should be, than there's no reason for the [4] citation to be in the lead in the first place.
I've removed the hidden messages, but I'd like for someone that's actually worked on the article to see if they can figure out the content and sourcing issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
72.37.171.132 ( talk) 14:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Request for addition under "other writings" of Evangelii Guadium, Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Francis, 2013.
As this is his first major document written as Pope, it should definitely be listed and linked to the Evangelii Gaudium page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelii_Gaudium
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the line that says: "Pope Francis, while affirming the present Church teachings, has stated that Catholics have concentrated officiously on condemning abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts, while neglecting the greater need for tenderness, mercy and compassion." To: "Pope Francis has said: We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. He has also asked Catholics to treat people with mercy and compassion." Here are the reasons for this change: The current statement is tendentious, making the pope appear to reprimand Catholics for their emphasis on these essential issues. His statement indicates only, as the paragraph following the quote say more explicitly, that these need to be stated with context of the full thinking of the Church. Furthermore, there is no reference in the article to extend his remarks to homosexuality. Also, he does not mention mercy in the context of this quote. This is being read into the statement about abortion and contraception. It is more accurate to state the pope himself and to state his general stance of remembering mercy. Again, saying it the way it is now makes it appear that the pope is calling out Catholics who try to advance the rights of the unborn, for example, of not being merciful.
98.181.3.126 ( talk) 04:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
...between the first section and early life section . They do not follow the entry format of other Wikipedia articles(Popes), redundancy, and ambiguity about the Pope Francis nationality ==
Contradiction:
1.Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.[3]
But in the Early Life section:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was born in Flores,[15] a barrio of Buenos Aires. He was the eldest[16] of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant accountant[17] born in Portacomaro (Province of Asti) in Italy's Piedmont region, and his wife Regina María Sívori,[18] a housewife born in Buenos Aires to a family of northern Italian (Piedmontese-Genoese).
Pope Francis's mother was not a immigrant.She was born in Buenos Aires http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/blog/biography-the-life-of-pope-francis/
I agree that it should be:as a son of an italian immigrant and an argentine of italian descent. Or it could also be that the laws in Argentina are different than in America. If you are born in Argentina you are still consider an immigrant unless you apply for citizenship.So his mother was still consider an immigrant-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2.Redundancy and wrong section: Following sentence :Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as the son of Italian parents, Bergoglio worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before entering the seminary.''''This sentences should be in the early life section and also you repeat the same thing.
Just move the the sentence to the right section.It does not make sense to have that sentence in another section. I agree the sentence is the wrong place.-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3.We only use the latin name.The italian name is not necessary. If not we should change all the other Popes articles to include the italians names.
examples of entries in Wikipedia (Popes):
Pope Benedict XVI:(Latin: Benedictus XVI; born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger on 16 April 1927) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
Pope Paul:Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II
Wikipedia only use the latin name.Just follow the rules Why did they put the Italian name? It does not make sense.
4.Ambiguity about Pope Francis nationality: In Personal details: They did not mention his nationality only the place he was born. Pope Francis is from Argentina or he was just was born in Argentina? After reading the article it seems he was just born in Argentina and work in Argentina but his nationality is Italian.Just because you were born in a country does not mean you have the nationality of that country. For example, you can be born in France but you do not adquire french nationality. On the contrary, if you are born in United States you adquire the american nationality.Most people do not know the laws in Argentina. Does the Pope have an Argentina nationality or not? Remember that this article is read by people who made not have any knowledge about the laws in Argentina. Also you put that he was born to italian immigrants(although her mother was from Argentine) and when people search Pope Francis nationality this what you read from Wikipedia:Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 17 December 1936) is the 266th and current Pope of the Catholic Church, having ... although others pages(not Wikipedia) they put Argentinean. Is very confusing. -- Wendyone ( talk) 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedia. Pope Francis is Italian. He was born to Italian immigrants. His mother might be consider an italian american if she was born in the USA but she was born in Argentina.The laws may be different in Argentina than in the USA. Maybe the laws are more similar to China.He was born there and work there but we do not know if he ever became an Argentinean. Other media may assume he is from Argentina(they believe they have the same laws as the US). It is unclear what country he is from. But in my opinion and Wikipedia opinion, Papa Francesco is italian.He was just born in Argentina as Senator Mc.Cain was born in Panama. Until it is not clear they cannot put a nationality like they did in the other Popes' articles. I am assuming that is the law in Argentina. I do not know what is the law in Argentina.-- Discussionme ( talk) 16:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)— Discussionme ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Have you bothered reading the article on Italian Argentines? 24-25 million Argentines are part of this ethnic group. Argentine is estimated to have 1,500,000 Italian speakers, making Italian "the second most spoken language in the nation". Dimadick ( talk) 22:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a big problem with this section, in particular, the part that deals with atheists. "Redemption" is very different from "salvation" in Catholic (and, I believe, Protestant) soteriology. The Church affirms that Christ died to redeem everyone -- but it doesn't follow that all are saved. Atheists' (and journalists') ignorance about such things has made Pope Francis appear as if he contradicted Church teaching when, in fact, he did not.
There is also much confusion in this section about the dogma "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." Catholic belief is not that one must consciously and formally be a member of the Church to be saved (though they believe that is the ideal, the goal, what God desires), but that anyone who is, in fact, saved (by the "grace of Christ alone" -- not by works, nor by faith alone) is, in fact, a part of "the soul of the Church" whether or not that person consciously has faith in Jesus Christ. Someone who seeks God but, being "invincibly ignorant," never comes to faith in Christ can, by the mercy of God, be saved if he obeys the natural law, is contrite for sins he knows are sins, etc. "EENS," as this dogma is often "short-handed," is a much more nuanced belief than most people think (including many Catholics). Even the Society of St. Pius X (the "SSPX"), who broke away from Rome in order to adhere to traditional teaching and to preserve the traditional forms of the sacramental rites, was headed by a man -- Archbishop Lefebvre -- who wrote in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics":
I think this section needs to have added clarification so as to not allow journalists and atheists set the tone in ascertaining whether or not Pope Francis is changing teaching or is acting as a progressive, etc. It's to the Catholic Church to form and state its beliefs and to, then, decide when they're being changed or not. At the very least, people who haven't studied Catholic soteriology shouldn't be allowed, in an encyclopedia, to make Pope Francis out to be denying the doctrine of his own Church when he, in fact, isn't. Schoemann ( talk) 09:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Expectations have been raised that could be disappointed later. [1] Certainly many people have unrealistic about the new pope and unrealistic expectations have become credible. [2] At least one priest feels it necessary to warn against expecting too much, for example Women priests. [3]
I added the above here. One of my sources consists of fabrications as I pointed out. I started this section so people can discuss what to do with the section. Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The section headed "Sartorial taste and aesthetics" refers to "Bethlehem, Israel". As the entry on Bethlehem makes clear, Bethlehem is in Palestine, not in Israel. Richard Linsert ( talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This section seems to be a debate over what the position of women in the church should be, as opposed to what the Pope thinks of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.116.39 ( talk) 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We could use a small section (after "Vatican Bank" perhaps?) on Francis' stated plan to make more use of the national bishops conferences and the collegiality that implies. A specific detail would be his approach to his own role in the Italian Bishops Conference, where he has already acted by (1) removing Mariano Crociata as its Secretary-General and (unlike his two predecessors as Pope) sending him to a diocese that does not put him in line to become cardinal and (2) appointing someone very much like himself to serve in that post on an interim basis, Galantino. He has signaled that he's interested in having the Italian bishops elect their own leaders, giving up his own right to pretty much control the selection. There are some sources that discuss how this shows he is not going to use the Italian Episcopal Conference in the political way his two predecessors did. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This section needs to be removed. It appears to be based on a particular editorial and does not seem to warrant the bandwidth. 70.165.51.18 ( talk) 20:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Contradiction
Pope Francis took the name Francis after Francis Xavier, not Francis of Asisi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.159.237 ( talk) 22:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoever changed the photo of Pope Francis, into the cropped closer Facial shot from the previous version, thank you. This face picture is truly a better photo more direct and classier than the previous half-body installed a few weeks ago. LimosaCorel ( talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a quote talking about Francis's parents not making it in America, which means Latin America. But, right above the quote, someone wrote the United States, which is NOT what the quote is refering to, since his parents obviously raised him in South America, not the United States of America. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.128.10 ( talk) 05:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Name" section, I find
"Pope Clement XIV who had suppressed the Jesuit order"
Please insert a comma just after "Clement XIV", because "who had suppressed the Jesuit order" does not narrow down "Pope Clement XIV" any further.
I could also compose a remark about the non-use of the regnal number "I", although Pope John Paul I (elected and died in 1978) did use it. I recall seeing or hearing "Francis I" at least once in the news media, and then hearing a statement that no number would be used for this Pope Francis. (So, like the Queen Elizabeth I/II situation in England, this Pope Francis would only get the "I" retroactively if a later incumbent also took the name "Francis".)
128.63.16.20 ( talk) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Done the comma. As for the "I", it has been discussed a lot when he became Pope, and there was consensus to call him just Francis. Cambalachero ( talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just gone into Pope John Paul I's entry and found that he explicitly used "the first". I added a remark that Pope Francis also took a previously-unused papal name but did NOT use "the first". It would, however, be interesting to find out how "the first" got into the news media regarding Francis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
>> Pope Francis tells Italian mafia to repent ( Lihaas ( talk) 20:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).
"Liberals are unwise if they expect significant change in doctrine though the Church will seek a "realistic application of doctrine, the church must never judge as though it had a guillotine in its hands." [262]"
This line (see above) appears to be a direct communication to liberals and doesn't fit the encyclopedic tone of the article. Perhaps it should say
"Although many understand him to be liberalizing the papacy [30][31], others point to the fact that no major progressive changes have occurred to the church during the first year of his service [262]"