Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

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

This archive covers discussions inactive since December 2005.

Charges of Desertion

I removed the text regarding the "desertion". This is a very very serious offense, and should be proven, before it is put in this article. Desertion is punishable by Death in many armies, and rightly so, particularly when one's country is fighting for survival. I for one would never believe that the present Pope would be a deserter.

If anyone wants to reinstate this, they should have proof of Conviction of the offense, ie, from a German court, not just hearsay from some newspaper. I know this rumor has been circulated, but rumors should have no place in wikipedia. Wallie 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Given the context that the action occurred in late April 1945 or early May 1945, it is more likely that his unit collapsed. The concept of desertion implies an individual who flees from a functioning fighting unit. It does not apply when the unit itself is scattered. At the time, many of the units of the Wehrmacht in the field were collapsing. The circumstances of the collapse of Ratzinger's unit can be mentioned (to the extent that they are reconstructible after the fog of war) without using a word that is actionable. Robert McClenon 14:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

McCleneon, your definition of desertion seems to be based on something other than the rules which applied to Ratzinger; under German military law in 1945, the collapse of his unit would not permit him to go home. He should have reported to the nearest operative unit to be reassigned. Wallie; he has mentioned this himself in interviews. Had there been proof of conviction, he would not have been pope today; in 1945 (before the surrender in May) the mandatory punishment for desertion in Germany was death, and there was no appeal. It's also difficult to transfer the standards of a modern, democratic society to the situation in Germany at the time. Those who were against the Nazis would not, as has been attested by many, have felt that desertion was a betrayal and that Germany was fighting for its survival; rather, they felt that the Nazi government was pushing the country towards total annihilation, and that the only way to save Germany was to end the fighting. Patriotism is not necessarily blind obedience to the authorities; it is just as much an understanding of what your country really needs from you. Living under a collapsing and desperate dictatorship is very different from living under a democracy. Cnyborg 11:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cnyborg appears to be disagreeing with me, but is probably actually agreeing with me. "Patriotism is not necessarily blind obedience to the authorities; it is just as much an understanding of what your country really needs from you. Living under a collapsing and desperate dictatorship is very different from living under a democracy." Correct. An argument that he "deserted" may be technically correct in terms of the German law at the time, but to make that statement is to apply the standards of a "collapsing and desperate dictatorship". What he did may have been labeled as "desertion" by the Nazi government at the time, but we do not need to use their linguistic standards. Robert McClenon 11:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He writes about having deserted in his biography. I wouldn't call it a crime anyway, as the German Parliament formally restored the honor of all WW2 deserters in 1999. --HBS 14:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Benedict himself says he deserted.
• 2. The premise that the "desertion" is offensive per se, describing it as a "very serious charge," irrespective of the country/regime being deserted, is positively ludicrous. If anything, being LOYAL to the Third Reich would be a serious charge, and a serious insult, something people should not be accused of lightly without proof, not the other way around.

The objective fact is that he deserted the Nazi regime. That is not simply from a Nazi perspective, but from an external one as well, for "desertion" is not a moral act, but a matter of fact. Whether one wishes to attatch a negative or a positive connotation to the term is an entirely different question, and depends on the circumstances of the act, and on who is deserting whom, and from what reason. Being that in this case it was the Nazi regime being deserted, the term is not only linguistically acceptable, but is one of pride.

The label "deserter" cannot possibly be construed as pejorative in this context unless one is a Nazi, or a Nazi-sympathizer, or is thinking irrationally. Outside of that, to call him a deserter of Nazi Germany is quite a compliment; it is a positive statement.

One can call him a deserter, a traitor, a disloyalist, a betrayer, and whatnot, but since the object of all those signifiers is a regime that society commonly holds to have been highly execrable and decrepit, then the aforementioned terms carry positive connotatons in this context.

Conversely, words such as "loyalty" and "patriotism" and other nice-sounding things can carry highly negative connotations when speaking of such regimes.

The phrase: "Ratzinger deserted the Nazis" should be a highly positive compliment, to anyone who is not pro-Nazi. The phrase "Hitler was loyal to Nazism" should be a highly negative insult, to anyone who is not pro-Nazi.

The premise that such terms as "deserter" are, a priori, negative terms, irrespective of the context in which they are used, and irrespective of the circumstances they describe, is fundamentally flawed and simplistic, and linguistically ignorant.

I say leave the "deserter" comment intact, because that is exactly what the man did, and it is a worthy, honorable act to be acknowledged and to be given due credit.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This pops up all the time in anti-Catholic discussion boards as a talking point:

• Ratzinger the enthusiatic killer under the Nazi flag for Nazi glory.
• Ratzinger the deserter, coward, and traitor to his homeland.

The truth is he was neither, and people falsely assert he must have been one or the other. patsw 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To what extent are attitudes towards BXVI influenced by the fact that he is the last political figure for whom WWII is a relevant factor (ie in earlier periods there would be more people about whom this statement would be valid) as much as the religious connection?

I find it extremely difficult to see how anyone, Catholic, non-Catholic, or anti-Catholic alike, could possibly argue there to be anything wrong or negative in that he "betrayed his homeland," who is not a pro-Nazi sympathizer.

I agree he is not either of those two descriptions; the most reasonable description is that he was a deserter to the Third Reich, and is thus a hero to be applauded, in at least that one particular respect.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 05:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

101 Heresies of Antipope Benedict XVI

Whether you agree or not, this syllabus documentates positively the many contradictory beliefs Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has with the traditional Magisterium of the Popes. Please include this in the external links:

http://www.patrickpollock.com/101heresiesofbenedictxvi.html

Nope. Doesn't belong there. It is doubtful if it belongs here either. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't belong for another reason. The website to which you refer itself doesn't not have a sound grasp of Catholic theological tradition. It would be like me trying to discuss Astro Physics. i know some of the words, but truly don't understand the concepts.DaveTroy 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglican leader calls Pope's view on gay people: "an act of violence that needs to be confronted"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051105/ts_alt_afp/britainusvaticanpope_051105211201

"We are seeing so many Roman Catholics joining the (Anglican) church," said Robinson on a visit to London. "Pope (Joseph) Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) may be the best thing that ever happened to the (US) Episcopal Church."

"I find it so vile that they think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. It is an act of violence that needs to be confronted." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.229.17 (talk • contribs) 07:37, November 06, 2005

Well, but the article associated with the link above is not entirely correct. As far as I know, no decree was published yet by the current pope, throwing out all gay seminarians. Gugganij 12:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above quote might belong in the Gene Robinson article for citing his views of the Catholic Church but it has little to do with the subject of this article. This is for editing the article, it's not a discussion board. patsw 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Gugganij 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Robinson is a spokesman for the US Episcopal Church, but not for the Anglican Communion. The US Episcopal Church has been instructed by the Anglican Communion to reflect on its choice of Robinson as a bishop. The US and Canadian national churches in the Anglican Communion are at variance with the view of the Anglican Communion as a whole, which is not that different from the Catholic position, which is that sexuality outside of marriage is sinful, but that the church also has a ministry to heal and help sinners. Robert McClenon 20:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It would also appear that Robinson is being less than respectful to the leader of a church with whom the Anglican Communion seeks greater unity by calling him other than his current title, which is Pope Benedict XVI. I think that Robinson is taunting Catholics, and that is not really very appropriate. Robert McClenon 20:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The general usage in Italy is to refer to Popes by their birth name. I've seen a video where an Italian refers to Pius XII as "Papa Pacelli," and a google search of Italian news sources shows references to "Papa Ratzinger." Are Italians all being disrespectful of the Pope? Is the population of the world's most Catholic country taunting Catholics? (I know usage in English tends more towards using the name, but the implication that he is taunting Catholics seems to be going a bit far on pretty slim evidence.) john k 22:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, John, whether Italy is the world's most Catholic country. Be that as it may - the Catholicity of Italians might make such "rough endearments" possible (maybe it stems from the fact that Popes tend to be better known in Italy than anywhere else before they became Popes. Anyway, just because it is common (and not taunting) in Italy that doesn't mean that someone speaking like this in a country where it is not common does have negative intentions. Benedict was controversial before he became Pope and I think by using his former name, GR is saying "I don't care whether you are Pope now I still don't like you". Still, not fair, not fine, as Harry Hart would say. Str1977 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It still is newsworthy for the article. A comment by one leading religious figure about another in a different church fully qualifies for inclusion in the article. As for tainting Catholics: it is more a case of taunting some Catholics. Many others agree with him and find Ratzinger's views offensive. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jtdirl, given the prominence of the two person this might be noteworthy for Gene Robinson, but not for Benedict. You could probably fill three Benedict articles with X said Y about him. As for tainting Catholics, Robert is right. As standard you have to go by the teaching of Scripture and Church despite some people disagreeing. That's another matter. For my part, I think Robinson's comment not only offensive but dangerous and a threat, given what we have seen in the past. That's were real violence lies. This is another instance showing how right Benedict was in his sermon before being elected. Str1977 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the Archbishop of Dublin is wrong then when he disagrees with Benedict. So do many theologians and vast number of Catholics (but then the overwhelming number of Catholics disagree with Ben on contraception, and a large proportion of Catholics disagree with him on divorce and abortion. But that irrelevant here. A leading figure in one church criticised the attitude of another. That is news and definitely belongs in this article. Your POV and my POV don't matter. But this comment does because of who spoke it, in what context, and the fact that millions of Catholics share it is also important. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the Archbishop said so I can't say whether he's right IMO. Anyway, in regard to the question whether something is true or not, numbers don't matter. But then again, this whole issue is irrelevant to the article. As for GR's comment: do we really want to include every X said about Benedict into the article? And I'm not so sure that millions of Catholics share the view of someone as extreme as GR. Str1977 23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't "every x". It is an attack on the pope by an ordained bishop in the Anglican communion. That is newsworthy. We couldn't physically list every attack made on Ratzinger given his propensity for drawing criticism on himself. But an Anglican bishop's criticism is "must use" just as Catholic bishop's attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury would be a "must use". Choosing to leave out such a major attack by a notable figure would be exercising a POV. It should be left up to the reader to decide their opinions on the attack. BTW calling Ben's critic "extreme" is both OTT and inaccurate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite brilliant: If you're attacked you only have yourself to blame.

No. But Ben draws criticism like (and this is no value judgment on him, just an Irish phrase used in such circumstances) 'flies to shite'. Given the frequently offensive ways in which he phrases things, he generates strong reactions the way a different way of saying things would not. BTW while Ben still condemns not merely homosexual relationships but even homosexuality itself in a way that past popes like Paul VI and even John Paul II didn't, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin urged the Irish state to give civil union recognition to gay relationships. Another bishop said Ben's language about gays was "unfortunate" while the a leading Anglican figure in Ireland called Ben's tone "barely Christian". The (deeply religious) current President of Ireland has openly urged recognition of gay rights and when asked refused to support Ben's view of homosexuality when visiting him. So the idea that the Catholic Church sings from the one hymnsheet on the issue is clearly wrong. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What does "OTT" mean?

over the top FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, extreme is an accurate desription of GR. Str1977 00:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Many people would hold that it is a more accurate description of Ben than of Gene. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia is struggling with the word notable, let's discuss who Gene Robinson is. He's a bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire of the Episcopal Church in the United States, a community of about 16,000 Christians of that denomination. If the threshold for notability is as low as denominational leadership of 16,000, we have very many notable religious leaders indeed. My local pastor would be one. For a little perspective, there's 100 Catholics in my diocese for each Episcopalian in his. Could it be that Agence France Presse runs this story not because of the notability of Robinson, but because what he said fits their template of criticism of Pope Benedict? patsw 23:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He a member of the house of bishops. The size of diocese doesn't matter. All that matters is that a member of the house of bishops made such a comment. So yes it is 100% notable. And frankly your comment on AFP is paranoid. If a Catholic bishop had attacked the Anglican head it would have carried it too. If they hadn't the boss would have warranted sacking for incompetence. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally agree with Str1977 and patsw that Robinson's comments are more relevant to an article on Robinson. I also agree with Robert that Robinson was "being less than respectful to the leader of a church with whom the Anglican Communion seeks greater unity" by calling the Pope "Pope Ratzinger". Yes, they may say that in Italian, so an Italian speaking English might make some errors in social or interpersonal meanings, and could be forgiven for them, but that does not apply to Bishop Robinson. To Jtdirl, I'll add that I think it's less likely that a Catholic bishop would publicly criticize by name a leader of another Christian church. And, while I certainly don't expect you to start referring to the pope as "the Holy Father", it would make for a nicer atmosphere here if you could drop the "Ben". Given the length of your posts, I can't imagine that it's done just to save you the trouble of typing five more letters. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 00:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I regularly shorten names in here. Ben is not meant offensively. It is just what I always call him except in articles. I often call the Queen Liz, for example. It is just how I write. But the fact that you believe that a Catholic bishop would not attack the head of the Anglican faith (they have done, BTW, but I'll let that pass) makes my point. The criticism of the head of one faith by a member of the episcopate of another clearly is newsworthy and is not the same as criticism by journalists, lobby groups, etc. It crosses a demarcation line and so is IMHO both as a historian and a journalist not merely something that one would expect to be mentioned, but something that is obligatory to mention. It is a fundamental issue which apart from everything else shows the perception of Ben(edict) in other faiths. Some criticism in that tone was not de rigour in JPII's time. Nor was it said about Paul or John. It shows how B is seen across faiths and that is a must in an encyclopædia article if only is being truly NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You need to explain to us how this House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States has acquired "matter" with respect to the Catholic Church in the world? And how is this House of Bishops supporting Robinson on this call for confrontation? How does one claiming leadership of 16,000 call for a confrontation with 1 billion?

Jtdirl, how small would would a parish or diocese have to be before you would call its non-Catholic Catholic critic/leader non-notable? patsw 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is such a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote that it is not worthy of wasting a time answering. Obviously you are primarily interested in pushing your views on the topic. We are actually dealing with an elementary NPOV issue here, the criticism by a member of the episcopate of one faith of the head of the episcopate of the other. As people have been saying since the beginning of time, "size does not matter". It is quality, not quantity and episcopal attacks have quality. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you moving the goalposts? You last wanted to establish Robinson's notablity by being 1 of the 100 bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States(average size of diocese is 23,000, Robinson's is 16,000). You brought up the House of Bishops, not me. Now it's a matter of quality.

• What is a quality attack against Pope Benedict as opposed to a non-quality attack on Pope Benedict?
• Would any attack or any statement of support by any leader or bishop of an non-Catholic denomination of any size be notable in itself in the Pope Benedict XVI article? patsw 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt whether you are serious about this debate since you seem to keep misrepresenting what I say. Quality, Sir, is an attack by a high profile member of an episcopate which claims to be part of the apostolic succession on the head of the episcopate of another faith claiming to be part of the apostolic succession. Quantity is simply the number of ordinary attacks by people who do not claim apostolic succession but are simply media commentators, lobby groups. Robinson is a bishop who in Anglican parlence is a successor to the apostles. He is attacking someone else who claims to be a successor to the apostles and making a serious accusation against him. He made the attack in a church and was applauded for doing so. It received international coverage. That sir is a serious attack. Do not let your own distaste for Robinson and his sexuality, and your own obvious devotion to the pope, blind you to NPOV rules. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This guy is just a minor (yes, MINOR) Episcopalian bishop who's trying to make headlines by making baseless comments. Unless we include every controversial comment by every bishop ever said about Benedict XVI, it's crazy. Should we include comments on Robinson's page citing the articles about entire Episcopalian congregations converting to Catholicism over this issue (which yes, has happened, and unlike Robinson's claim, can be proven)? Not an NPOV issue, it's simply superfluous. JG of Borg 02:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Countering Jtdirl's claim that I am not serious, I gave some serious thought to some analogy already in the Wikipedia might apply even if it is not exact. Cindy Sheehan has obtained far more publicity than Gene Robinson has or will. Yet in spite of Wikipedia's long and detailed article on her, she does not appear in the George W. Bush article. In fact, throughout the Wikipedia critics (activists, columnists, bloggers, etc.) don't get into the articles of their targets. And this is a good thing: The Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine patsw 03:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy is absurd.

• She and Bush are both on the same side, so to speak. Both are Americans.
• She is an ordinary citizen. He is the President.

In contrast

• It is not the done thing for hierarchies of one church which claims it is part of the apostolic succession to criticise someone a different church which claims to be part of the apostolic succession.
• It is not the done thing for one religious leader to criticise another religious leader, much less one from another faith, in a church, from a pulpit.

Yet here we have one high profile bishop whom his faith teaches is part of the apostolic succession, in a church, on a pulpit strongly attacking someone outside his church, and in the process getting a standing ovation and praise from other members of the other's cleric's church.

Even more dramatically the bishop who made the comments is not some minor bishop from the arse-end of beyond. He is a bishop whose selection for, and installation to, the episcopate almost provoked a schism within the second largest Christian denomination on the planet, and who was himself criticised sharply but none other than the current pope when a cardinal, an attack which got worldwide prominence. The bishop is now one of the most recognisable Christian clerics within the Christian communion, a man's whose every comment is monitored by the media, by critics and supporters in his own church, and in other churches. By any standards of NPOV the attack is newsworthy because of

• who made it
• his episcopal status
• his own profile
• what he said
• who it was made on
• where it was made
• the reaction among the congregation
• the reaction among many of the faithful within the church of the cleric being attacked.

That is utterly abnormal, and 100% newsworthy. As to Patsw's comment, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, he openly admits to coming on to Wikipedia to push a Catholic viewpoint, and not even a mainstream Roman Catholic viewpoint but that on the conservative fringe. I can't help wondering what part the individual person making the attack's sexuality, and the distaste they hold that sexuality in, plays in the obvious denial of some people at what is an important, newsworthy event. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that it is more significant for an Episcopal bishop to criticize the Pope than it would be for a Catholic bishop to do the same? That claim seems difficult to sustain. john k 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Of course it is, John. Generally, certainly since Vatican II there is an unwritten rule followed by both sides: 'be polite. Don't say anything nasty against the other side.' They trip over themselves to say nice things about each other even when privately they don't mean it. In contrast Roman Catholic bishops often criticise the pope. Not as often as others might wish, but in house criticisms aren't unknown. Stinging inter-faith criticisms are the equivalent of one government member in one country criticising the government in another. They may fight like cats and dogs privately, but publicly they deliberately avoid making personal criticism. When Major's criticism of Clinton was revealed at the time it was big news because PMs aren't suppose to attack US presidents, just as JFK's reference to Harold Macmillan's tendency to dress in women's clothes was not supposed to mentioned; certainly no-one expected a slightly drunk US president to ask the UK ambassador "Tell me, does Her Majesty and the Prime Minister use the same dress designer?" in front of others at a White House reception!

Interchurch, like interstate, relationships are always shrouded in politeness at least publicly. It is seen as not the done thing for anyone publicly to let it be known what the real feelings are. Anyone who speaks to Anglican leaders will know that most of them despise Pope Benedict XVI for comments he made as a cardinal in Dominus Iesus, comments Pope John Paul II later privately disassociated himself from in contracts with senior church leaders, blaming the fact that due to his health he didn't read all that was sent to him and just gave it a blanket approval. (JP was famously never good at paperwork anyway. He spent the time his secretaries kept in his timetable for doing the paperwork doing meditation instead. Some monumental cock-ups occurred, like appointing someone known in the Church as a child rapist to an archdiocese because JP hadn't read the file.) Ratzinger and JP had a blazing row about Dominus Iesus. For the second time Ratzinger was seen to storm off after a few cross words from the pope. (The first time was in St. Peters when he insisted that John Paul could not meet some protestant figure. John Paul said he was going to whether Ratzinger liked it or not. Ratzinger famously let out a roar and stormed out, front of thousands of onlookers who were flabbergasted. They did not speak for a month afterwards. Witnesses to it were astonished that any cardinal would behave that way to a pope.) Though protestant leaders make no secret privately of their detestation of Ratzinger, and their horror that him of all people became pope, they (through gritted teeth) said (marginally) nice things about him at the time of his election.

So yes John, an attack like that is a very big issue. They rarely happen and are seen as very much one of the Thou must never rules of interchurch relationships. The odds are that like the polite friendship, both sides pretended they didn't hear it either. If they officially did they'd have to comment, so they would have given the standard "We did not hear of it" comment, while privately uttering comments that questioned the marital status of Bishop Robinson parents, if you get my drift!FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't a big issue. I think it's reasonably important, but not necessarily important enough to include in this article. But that wasn't my point. If, say, the Catholic bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire, had said exactly the same thing as Robinson (Let's say he says, modifying some pronouns, "I find it so vile that he thinks we are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. It is an act of violence that needs to be confronted.") that this would be less newsworthy? I think it's almost certain that that would be a bigger deal for a Catholic bishop to openly attack the pope than for a minor leader of another denomination to do so. john k 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a Wikipedia page "religious figures' opinions of each other"  ;) (Question - what are Ian Paisley's views of BXVI - and did he make a statement on John Paul II?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk • contribs) 18:56, November 08, 2005

Interesting discussion. This quote is indeed notable, but it's really all about Robinson, not Benedict. It doesn't say anything neutrally factual about Benedict, the subject of this article. It says volumes about the perspective of Robinson, the subject of a different article. That's where it belongs. It is quite disingenuous to quote an extreme POV source and pretend that it's an NPOV edit by hiding behind the fact that it was said. -- Kbh3rd 19:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It highlights that there is a lot of disquiet over Benedict's opinions on gay people across the churches. That is notable. To choose to ignore it would breach NPOV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kbh. Also, there is currently no context in which to include this quote in the article. It'd be hanging in the air, saying X dislikes Y. Anyway, the quote's little substantial contribution to Benedict's article is already covered in various references to the homosexuality issue. Str1977 21:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with patsw, Gugganij, JG of Borg, Kbh3rd, and Str1977. It may be relevant to the article on Gene Robinson. In an already long article on Pope Benedict, it's superfluous. AnnH ♫ 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is criticism of a person by another high profile person not relevant to the article on the person being criticised, given the status, profile, context and coverage of, and reaction to, the criticism? I fail to see the logic in your position? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To note my opinion on this, since most of my comments so far have been on side issues, I wonder why Jtdirl is so insistent that this material be included. It seems to me that in a long discussion of the particular issue that Robinson was commenting on, including his quote might indeed be appropriate. If it is out of context, I don't think it is relevant. Currently, there is no context. john k 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to my previous number-signed comment (as do not wish to be abused) - perhaps this topic could be moved to a page on "Interreligious relations" (analogous to international relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.66 (talk • contribs)

Crime of revealing Child Sex Abuse

Hang on! The article obfuscates the instruction concerning this headline with penalties against the actual crime of the Child sex abuse . I (!) find this serious -don't you ? I am presently asking user:Anne Heneghan to re-consider her removal of the penalty for the former "crime" (automatic excommunication) on the relevant CC Sex Abuse article .

Apart from this minor but serious situation of inclusion or dis-inclusion or obfuscation, I suggest that the former penalties are highly revealing and intensely shocking . I do not refer , as it does appear to be not exctly the same thing, to Confessional confidences here .

While I'm here , I also reject the removal of Abraham Lehrer to Pius XII. It is illogical , and may be a "maneuver intended to deceive" . EffK 09:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Style box

I'm not happy with the current placing of the style box. IMHO the ideal position should be beneath the Infobox, as there is still a lot of empty space, but I don't know how to format this. Help is appreciated. Str1977 10:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think the position of the style box is horrific. IMHO the box is not needed, the details of how to address the pope one may read in the pope article. There also seem to have been a vote which concluded that the style shall be used in the lead section. I think that would be a much better solution in repect to space. -- scrittore

There was a vote that decided that style boxes were to be used in all royal and papal articles. And yes it is needed. If it isn't there you get edit wars with people fighting over whether you should put His Holiness at the start of the article. So the style box is an standard requirement. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I agree completely. Is there a way to place it beneath the Infobox where there is space. Str1977 01:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The style box was out of sync because a pointless second image of the pope had been added. Overloading a page with similar images breaks POV by making the article look unduly fawning. Images should only be used that either contextualise text, fill in a visual gap, or show something different to other images. Adding in a picture of the pope waving after an image of the pope sitting down is pure overkill. What next? A picture of the pope's left profile? A picture of the pope's right profile? A picture of him waving with his left hand, then a picture of him waving with his right hand? Cluttering the page with similar images and identical captions is poor design layout. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Scrittore's adding a photo was POV - but it certainly was not an improvement. I have reinserted the original "JPII+B16" photo again. Str1977 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for that second image at that part of the page. The page is image-heavy at that point. The other picture contains no new information, has no newsworthiness, and simply overloads the page. If it is worth carrying at all (and I doubt it, personally) it should be moved to a different part of the page where there is a shortage of images. But two images of the pope in different physical poses (sitting and waving) when the second had no information to communicate except that he can wave, is too much for a section. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that Scrittore POVed the article, just that an article that is top heavy with images that aren't needed either for layout reasons or for newsworthiness, can make an article look too fawning. In an extreme case, for example, someone filled the Margaret Thatcher with images lately, and made it look as though this was Thatcheropedia and that the article should have been captioned: Thatcher: Our Hero. Too many Ben images could have the same effect. It was no doubt a genuine edit, but just pushed the section visually a little too pro-Pope Benedict. We are not meant under NPOV to be pro- or anti- him. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about the misunderstanding. Actually, I like the term "Thatcheropedia", though not exactly her. Anyway, the removal of the "waving" photo has not fixed the position of the "style box". Please consider my proposal. Cheers, Str1977 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh? It looks fine on mine. Flaming browsers and skins!!! The number of edit wars caused by people seeing the same screen differently!!! Simply cut and paste the box and relocate it to what works for you. Once you include the {| and |} commands then you have the entire box so simply move it to a new location. It is best though to keep it up high in the article or else people will start adding in His Holiness again and we'll have that damned edit war on our hands again. If your and my browsers are showing different things then my moving it might only make things worse. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't make it today. For this and other cases it'd be good to know how to create tables to put stuff side by side or beneath each other. Can you, Jtdirl, or anyone else point me to some help. Str1977 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture section

User:199.43.32.67: Addition of this section has been reverted twice. Please discuss here before adding it again. The fact that someone can manipulate a photograph of Pope Benedict XVI to look like Emperor Palpatine is simply irrelevant. --Elliskev 19:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is a variation on the vandalism we have seen here so many times. Str1977 20:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people have only one joke used repeatedly, but which they do not have the capacity to develop into something that amuses others - but until Vandalopedia (where everybody goes in for creative vandalism) is created for such people to amuse themselves, we will have to put up with them.

And some people do give rise visual puns.

image with JPII

I don't like the old one. Neither Ratzinger nor JP II are looking good at it. I see no problem that Ratzinger is posing similarly with JP I, rather continuity.

The photo (JP II & Ratzinger 1978), is great. The (then) new (264th) Pope & the future (265th) Pope. GoodDay 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Angelo Sodano

Since the Dean of the College of Cardinals has the duty to ask the Pope-elect, if he accepts his election & Ratzinger couldn't perform this duty as he WAS the Pope-elect. The person who did ask Ratzinger if he would accept his election (I assume, the Vice-Dean Angelo Sodano asked Ratzinger), should be mentioned. Does anyone agree/disagree? GoodDay 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't find that fact relevant for the Pope's article, however, it would be great for the article of the Papal Conclave of 2005. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article development

I have set up History of the Papacy which needs development. Jackiespeel 15:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)