Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

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

This archive covers May 31-June 17, 2005.

Papal Coat of Arms

I was under the impression that the coat of arms for Pope Benedict XVI replaced the tiara with a mitre. One image correctly reflects this, at the top of the article. The other image shows the papal tiara, not a mitre, ironically right next to the paragraph discussing the removal of the tiara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benedictcoatofarms.jpg I don't really know all that much about this system, so could someone fix it, or tell me why it is the way it is?

Is there any way that a link can be provided for the new information regarding the coat of arms? [unsigned]

I have long been suspicious of the supposed new papal coat of arms. It has all the hallmarks of a botched job. Anyone who has worked in the media or politics knows how these things happen. The artist who did the original sketches had a 'big idea' - drop the tiara. No-one says 'no', not surprisingly, as they were up to their necks with other distractions at the start of a new papacy. He jumps the gun and tells the Vatican's unofficial newspaper, itself famed for getting things wrong. A big story erupts, others designing Vatican websites etc all join in, presuming it to be the case and so the Vatican decides to play along, or doesn't feel it has a choice but to, as it actually has no real coat of arms to use right now. Then when the attention has dropped, what was only meant to have been an unofficial coat of arms never officially approved is quitely dropped, the junior staff get a verbal telling off with a 'don't ever do that again', and a revamped version including the traditional symbols is re-issued, initially on official papal documents.

The supposed new arms broke too many of the golden rules of papal heraldic design. For a start Pope Paul VI explicitly banned the use of mitres on clerical coats of arms as far back as 1969. In addition, mitred shields is in fact the format of many Anglican bishops' coats of arms. Given Benedict's views on protestantism, he was hardly likely to adopt a protestant bishop's style of arms. Every heraldist I spoke to in the last few weeks said that the "new" Benedict arms were proposterous and would be quietly ditched when the moment was right. They universally made the point that the Vatican doesn't abandon one thousand years of heraldic tradition in a few days. In their view it had all the hallmarks of someone jumping the gun and announcing something before a decision had been taken.

The Vatican website still carries the tiara-less coat of arms. That could mean either

1. they haven't gotten around to changing them yet - and its website does have a habit of being behind times. (It still had John Paul II on it as the "living" pope not merely after he had died, but even after Benedict had been elected, for a while);
2. There is a battle going on between the senior staff responsible for papal documents, and the junior rankers who do the website, etc. That would mean that no official decision has yet been taken, but as the people designing official documents would have direct access to the Pope or his closest aides, and those doing the websites would be lucky to get into the same room as him, the official document designers are much more likely to sway the Pope on the final choice.
3. To sort out the confusion, two personal coats of arms will co-exist - one with no tiara as the personal arms of Pope Benedict XVI, and one with a tiara as the official arms of Pope Benedict XVI.

To try to clarify what exactly is going on, I have contacted the Vatican Press Office for information. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 01:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think there is just this poppoli guy who wanted a little publicity and highjacked wikipedia to put his creation on-line (which, by the way, looks amateurish and hand-drawn)... some kind of fan-fiction I would say. On another line, I got the new www.vatican.va/vatican_city_state/services/stamps_coins/documents/emissioni_filateliche_2005/italiano/sf200505_it.htm Vatican stamps and they ve got the mitre... My advice: delete the tiara. The joke is over.82.120.14.147 19:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Show me the source

How did this get started? I can find no documentation on this so-called battle over the papal coat of arms. As of May 31, 2005, the Papal Website still carries the coat of arms sans tiara, see, www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/stemma-benedict-xvi_en.html Papal Stemma. Until then, I think it best that the coat of arms with the tiara be removed from the page. Aloysius Patacsil 19:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Following that argument, we should have kept Pope John Paul II as alive until two weeks after his funeral, given that the Papal Website still had him as the current living pope even after Benedict had been elected! lol. I'm sorry to disappoint people who love the net, but websites are usually some of the most unreliable sources of information on the planet, and, given how easy they should be to update, notorious for being out of date. The key issue is hardcopy printed documents. As to the battle over the papal coat of arms, it is real alright. It led to a screaming match between two senior Vatican figures some weeks ago in earshot of a friend of mine, a journalist there. One was praising the 'new' Tiaraless arms. The other said they were a disgrace and would be binned by the end of the summer. It all got very very heated, with one storming off. This is actually a very big issue right now, with professional heraldists queuing up to ridicule the 'new' arms as flawed. Curiously, while they have been used, and written about, they still haven't been formally announced in the standard manner. Normally the formal announcement comes first! FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Following the death of John Paul II, the Holy See embargoed communications simply because it had to devote its resources towards the papal obsequies and conclave. With the election and installation of Benedict, that is no longer the case and the website is very reliable. Aloysius Patacsil 20:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

BTW the 'source' you mention doesn't contain a statement on meaning from the Vatican. It replicates comments by the man who drew them, based on what he said in the Vatican's unofficial newspaper. That sounds very much like someone designing the website deciding to cut and paste information into the page. If they were official, a formal statement by a senior official (probably of cardinal level), not a retired nuncio and parttime heraldist, would be there. FearÉIREANN^(talk)

The L'Osservatore Romano is the official newspaper of the Holy See. The official journal of the Holy See is the Acta Apostolica Sedes. I'm not sure what you refer to when you state "unofficial newspaper." Aloysius Patacsil 20:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

ÉIREANN - Until your journalist friend documents his findings in writing, I would consider your reportage of what happened within his earshot as unreliable. I would be most grateful if you could document where in L'Osservatore Romano or the Bolletino there is discussion on this alleged change in coat-of-arms.

In response to Gerald Farinas, I believe that the tiara-less herald serves as the personal arms of Pope Benedict. Official correspondence from the Holy See still uses the Stemma papale. For example, the diocese of Honolulu's arms on the dexter shield consists of two pulo'ulo'u sticks with a cross on a field of red, with a miter. Correspondence from the diocese still uses this. When Bishop Silva sends correspondence from himself to others, he would probably use his personal arms instead of the diocesan arms. In like manner, Benedict XVI would do likewise. Aloysius Patacsil 20:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... my comment disappeared and I have no means of retrieving what I said. Anyhoo, what I said was that I do have documents bearing the papal tiara coming through my office from the nunciature. --Gerald Farinas 20:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd urge people to stop chasing the headlines on this one. When it's official and final, it will be official and final. Heraldry and the rest of the Vatican pomp is thankfully not very high on the priority list. patsw 21:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Patsw, I agree. I am just concerned that inaccurate information is being placed on the page. The information at the link I provided indicates that the placement of an alternate image is misleading. Status quo is best in this situation. Aloysius Patacsil 21:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

People slow down, I have a foto with Benedict XVI tapestry when it was shown, do you want to see it again?-PioM _EN DE PL 21:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So helios.et.put.poznan.pl/~pjawor/wiki/reuterBenXVI.jpg here (on Sunday, week after inauguration) is foto with pope Benedict XVI with his tapestry, and helios.et.put.poznan.pl/~pjawor/wiki/vatican_pope_pl102BXVI.jpg here (on Sunday, week after inauguration) is closer look at pope's tapestry.-PioM _EN DE PL 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also still have source of made by me image (in vector graphic), so it is no problem to replace mitra by tiara and overwrite commons, I have plenty of tiaras to place because i drawn more eclesial coats. This "strange" image is placed without license notice.-PioM _EN DE PL 22:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to keep both images in the article but move the mitred image back to the top where it originally was and move the papal tiara image back to the bottom of the article where it originally was, too. The language used in the image captions have already been changed so as to not declare either one "official." --Gerald Farinas 22:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't change article, because someone will tell that I made it because the first made (no-tiara) image is mine.-PioM _EN DE PL 22:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it. By the way, I don't know if people have told you this already but we all appreciate the hard work you did in making the papal herald image. --Gerald Farinas 22:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks (see the archive). -PioM _EN DE PL 23:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mitre and Tiara Versions

PioM... would it be possible for you to create a matching papal herald with the tiara to replace the one authored by Mark Poppoli? The fact that the Poppoli image doesn't have license citation worries me. Also, if we're going to have both versions (mitred image taking the lead in the article), we might as well make them matching pairs. The article would look a bit cleaner. (Plus, you didn't hear it from me but I think a lot of us like your artwork better; the other one looks like the bear is licking an ice cream cone at certain angles.) --Gerald Farinas 19:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that bear in Foppoli image is heraldicaly perfect (but it looks funny, worst is that on orginal pope's coat of arms, that looks like Pittbull dog)!, the image is beautifull, it take much time to make such image, I think it was drawn on paper and than scanned. Ok Gerald, I will place version with tiara, I must look for proper file with that pope's coat of arms (I have plenty of them).-PioM _EN DE PL

Succession boxes

With the addition of a streamlined Pope infobox on all the papal articles, is there really a need for those in-the-way looking succession boxes at the very end of the article. That same information is more prominently displayed already in the Pope infobox. --Gerald Farinas 19:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Emperor Palpatine vandals

I have crated the article Wikipedia:Oh my God! You Deleted Bad Jokes and Other Nonsense! You bastard!/Pope Benedict XVI. All vandals can go and play there. Salleman 02:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you have to admit, it's hilarious :)

Featured status

Should we go for a new feature process soon? What do you think? --83

I would say no, since we should try to get more photos of the Holy Father and need to figure out how to make the article stable. Plus, it fails one part of the FAC: Be an uncontroversial subject. The pope is a figure people will fight over his role during WW2 and also some of his policies before and after his election to the papcy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't noticed edit wars over the WW2 time in the last months. But I agree more photos would be fine. --83

Ok, we have more photos, I will remove my RFP notice. The page is more static than it was first nominated, so that issue is clear. But I think some want to chop some sections up, since the page is 50 kb big, too much for some folks to handle. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Source; Moot; Not in context

I believe the following is not verifiable, in 2005 moot, and the quote doesn't give you enough context to evaluate the intent of the speaker.

According to Catholic News Service, "One bishop who is well informed on the issue and asked not to be named said the secrecy demanded by the new norms gives the appearance of a 'cover-up' by the church." www.americamagazine.org/catholicnews.cfm?articleTypeID=29&textID=1352&issueID=355

The complete paragraph

One bishop who is well informed on the issue and asked not to be named said the secrecy demanded by the new norms gives the appearance of a "cover-up" by the church. He said the norms were too legalistic and ignored the pastoral needs raised by pedophilia cases. He questioned whether victims would find an all-priest tribunal an acceptable forum. Those close to the Vatican in Rome, however, said the new norms do not rule out pastoral initiatives by bishops, and they defended secrecy in such cases, saying it was needed to protect the accuser and the accused.

First of all, the Vatican did not "cover-up" nor give the appearance of a "cover-up" in the promulgation and implementation of the Sacramentorum Sanctitatis. Rather as other articles on this point out, rather than a cover-up, this clarified that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responsible for offenses against the Eucharist (such as sacrilege, flagrant liturgical abuse, or unauthorized concelebration); offenses against the sacrament of Penance (such as absolving a partner in adultery soliciting sexual favors from penitents, or violating the confessional seal); and abuse of children. In all such cases, bishops are expected to report accusations directly to Rome for adjudication.

We can't verify who had the opinion this was a "cover-up" and I think the quote doesn't add anything that the rest of the text doesn't already include. In 2005, we know that the 2001 procedures mentioned here have worked effectively to deal with the laicization of priests when their cases get referred to Rome. There's been no cover-up in Rome when a bishop has presented a case to the CDF.

I present two choices: replace the "cover-up" sentence with the complete paragraph from the Catholic News Service, or delete it as being unverifiable and redundant to the rest of this section. patsw 20:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notes

I removed the following note since it didn't have a corresponding ref and was throwing the list out of whack:

{{Note|Maciel}}Peter Popham, news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=632210 Pope 'ignored sex abuse claim against John Paul's friend'," ''The Independent'' (UK), April 23, 2005

—Wayward 19:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

qui ex Patre Filioque procedit

I'm very busy at the moment, and would rather not do any editing until Wednesday. However, I have noticed a bit of reverting (very civil and good faith, etc.) going on in the "Dialogue with Other Faiths" section, and I believe there may be some misunderstanding.

The Nicene Creed, in the official (and appalling) English translation, says, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." "We" is, of course, a mistranlation for "I". The official Latin text says "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit". That's the same as the English version, except that the sentence just begins with "And in", rather than "I [or we] believe in". The word "Credo" ("I believe") is at the very beginning of the Profession, and is not repeated for each sentence in the Latin version.

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a problem with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. I think they believe He proceeds from the Father through the Son, but I'm not sure. Since the word Filioque ("and the Son") was not in the original version of the Creed, it could be omitted (though not denied) as a gesture towards ecumenism. That seems to have been the case in the wording of Dominus Iesus www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_lt.html.

Some of the reverting seems to have been over whether it should be upper or lower case letters, and some over whether it should be "Patre" or "Patre Filioque". The Vatican document uses upper case ("Patre", not "patre"). As it currently stands, the Wikipedia article says the following:

The changed Latin sentence is "Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex Patre procedit" ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son").

That's incorrect because:

• The Latin sentence begins with "Et in" (and in), not with "Credo in" (I believe in).
• The Latin sentence has "Dominum et vivificantem". If those words are omitted, for the sake of space, there should be dots ( . . . ). Otherwise, it looks like a direct and complete quotation.
• The English translation should either begin with "And in", or else use square brackets for [I believe in].
• The English translation of the changed Latin version (from Dominus Iesus) should not have "and the Son". (The omission of "and the Son" is the entire point of that paragraph.

By the way, I'm not very keen on "quietly left out without notice" in that paragraph. You can't very well leave out something noisily. I'd go for something like "omitted without comment".

Would anyone like to have a shot at re-editing that section while I go back to my work? Ann Heneghan 14:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann,

I had a shot.

I rephrased this into

...in which the famous "filioque" clause ("and the Son") is quietly ommitted. The changed Latin sentence reads "Et in Spiritum Sanctum (...), qui ex Patre procedit" ("and in the Holy Spirit (...), who proceeds from the Father") instead of "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" ("who proceeds from the Father and the Son"). ...

This addresses all your four points, only the implied "I believe" is not explained in the text, though I'm not sure whether this is needed.

My former edits on this where only looking at the upper/lower case thing. And if it is "Spiritum Sanctum" it must be "Patre" and "Filio(que)".

I share your ill-feeling towards the mistranslation.

Your understanding of the issue is quite right. The original Nicean creed had only "proceeds from the Father" - the inclusion of the Son however is used by some Church Fathers (don't know which ones) and was later gradually adopted by the Western Churches (first the Spanish Churches, than the Frankish Churches (under Charlemagne) and than the Roman Church (under the influence of Emperor Henry II)), probably to combat a subordinationist mis-interpretation of the creed. However, the Eastern Churches have rejected this unilateral act as conflicting with provisions of the Council of Ephesus. So the opposition was mainly on the formal level until the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople claimed a difference in substance, in order to paint his Roman adversaries as heretics. I think, it was also him who came up with the wording "from the Father through the Son" in order to phrase the supposed difference, so of course he didn't change the text. Attempts of reconciliation have basically always interpreted the Western "and the Son" as equaling the Eastern "through the Son". These reunions were, whenever they were achieved, short-lived.

The ommission in Dominus Iesus might be a gesture of ecumenism towards the Eastern Churches. However, it also backfired, since some Protestant leaders in Germany complained about the ommission and denounced it as tampering with the creed. (This was a very hilarious complaint coming from Peter Steinacker. I won't get into details about him. If you want to know more, please tell me.) Str1977 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've already said on Str1977's talk page, thanks for doing that. I'm very interested in the Pope Benedict article, but don't really have enough time to contribute much. I have to limit the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia, and the Terri Schiavo article is taking up more time. Ann Heneghan 3 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Images

This Wikipedia uses a number of fair use images. However, for other Wikipedias which do not accept fair use, it is extremely difficult to find images of the Pope, with only one or two very mediocre being available. We should ask professional photographers or agencies to donate a couple of images of the Pope to Wikipedia under a license which make it possible to use for other Wikipedias. There are so many beautiful images of him taken.

Out of the question for the Associated Press and Reuters. They want Wikipedia to purchase a license if it wants to use its images. --Gerald Farinas 19:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some Images at Commons:Benedictus XVI, I hope we can get some Images as a pope at the World Youth Day 2005. -83.129.61.171 01:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a really good picture of Benedict darthbenedict.ytmnd.com here. → JarlaxleArtemis 01:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'll pass on that one. Plus, I had a picture request listed here for a while, but it has been fulfiled. I removed the notice, but others are welcome to stick it back on here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

German or English

There have been some reverts over whether to use the German title or the English translation in the succession box no. 1.

I don't have a great preference in this, though I guess most Wikipedians would prefer the English, as this is the English Wiki, not the German.

However, in either case it should be correct language and "Biskop" is not an extisting German word. It's "Bischof" and in this case "Erzbischof" (written as one word) - also then the preposition ("von" instead of "of") and the place names ("München" instead of "Munich")should be in German.

Anyway, I posted a correct German version and then immediately a English version. Others might choose between the two.

Str1977 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, "biskop" is Scandinavian, it was a typo, and I thought that I corrected it to Bishop. The title should be in English, and not German. It's very disturbing that some Germans insist that an English language encyclopedia must use German words instead of English (like those who occasionally change Chancellor to Bundeskanzler). --83

That's allright, so we should leave it as it is. Str1977 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removal of one section

I would propose to remove the following part: According to his cousin Erika Kopp, Ratzinger had no desire from childhood to be anything other than a priest. When he was 15, she says, he announced that he was going to be a bishop, whereupon she playfully remarked, 'And why not Pope?'. It's an anecdote without any encyclopedic information. Gugganij 11:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd support taking it out, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Ann Heneghan 3 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Featured

I have resubmitted this article for featured status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. 83.109.188.50 01:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Succession box

Could whomever keeps inserting The Servant of God before John Paul II's name in the succession box please stop doing so. Those boxes are only there to link an office or title holder to their predecessor and successor. They are not intended to contain any titles, styles, or other terms that are not in themselves part of their name or regnal name. Servant of God should no more be in that box than should His Holiness, His Eminence, Venerable, Blessed or any other designation that is not part of the person's name or regnal name. Such designations belong in the text of the article where they can be explained and contextualised. Added in succession boxes where they cannot be explained or contextualised, they can be misread as indicating that Wikipedia is endorsing a POV. Benedict's predecessor was John Paul II and so that is all that should be in the box. Apart from anything else, he was not a Servant of God during his lifetime so should not be referred to as such when his regnal name is being used as a link. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put in an invisible <!-- request not to change it -->, referring editors back to Talk. Maybe that will work. Ann Heneghan 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would he technically count as Italian aswell?

Most Tyroleans have Italian ancestors somewhere along their family lines, especially South Tyroleans.

It may well be that he has Italian-speaking ancestors aswell, I believe the population of the area is quite mixed. (Note also that parts of the North Italian population are actually of Germanic origin).

Umm...Marktl is not exactly located in Tyrol. While it's theoretically possible that there were some Italian ancestors a couple genetarions back, you don't get much more Bavarian than Ratzinger's family :) -- Ferkelparade π 13:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the biography. The person meant is his mother Maria, whose family were from South Tyrol. 83.109.128.127 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most Tyroleans have Italian ancestors? Do you know that as a fact? Gugganij 10:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

We need to expand the lead section slightly to meet the criterias for this article becoming featured. The length should be approximately that of Pope John Paul II. I've made an attempt to expand the section, improvements are very welcome. 83.109.128.127 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is the case. Both article at 53K and 54K respectively are well over the recommended maximum limit for size to ensure they are compatible with all browsers and can be edited by all Wikipedians. (This one is bigger, BTW) Pope John Paul II has already had to have chunks removed to linked articles even to bring it down to 53K. It is being further broken up to bring it to manageable size. This one too is going to need severe pruning, with some of its sections removed to linked articles, and smaller summaries left in the main article. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may be the case, but see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. 83.109.128.127 19:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All articles, featured and non-featured alike face the same technical and editing problems if they go over 32K. In addition a bug sometimes saves the article twice on the one page, with different text in each 'version'. It is alkward enough trying to untangle 'doubled' articles that are now at 60-70K. If that bug were to hit this article, it would be a crazy 108K and it would be a nightmare to compare each version of each paragraph to its rival, work out which is the one to keep and which is the one to delete, delete it, save the change, then do the same thing with the next paragraph, and the next, and the next etc etc etc. In addition some browsers won't save a page over 32K. So if the article is bigger than that, and a user with one of these browers (and millions still use them) edits the page, they inadvertently wipe out everyone over 32K, often cutting the article mid-sentence. If, as happened recently, some people working on the top of the page didn't notice the bottom had been lost, then all their work has to be wiped out as the page is reverted to the pre-cut article. Going over 32K causes a heck of a lot of problems, which is why the warning comes up once you reach 30K, saying that the article is getting near the size where additional text should be put elsewhere and not in that article.

Many users who don't have problem browsers, or who don't have to clean up accidental cuts by other people, or untangle bug-hit duplicates, don't realise that the 32K rule is there for a reason. Those of us who have devoted ages trying to sort out messes caused by cuts/wipeouts/duplicated paragraphs know from experience the problems that arise and the hassle involved in trying to fix the mess. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But it is claimed that the lead section needs to be longer than it was before according to the style manual before the article can be featured. 83.109.140.228 23:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive12. Thank you. Str1977 19:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---