Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latin Signature

Signature at the end of the announcement says "Benedictus XV". Is that intended? Shouldn't that be "Benedictus XVI"?

अभय नातू (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-Papal style

I don't believe that he will revert to his pre-election title as a Cardinal, as it seems impossible. It should be more correct to style him as 'Former Pope Benedict XVI' or 'Ex-Pope Benedict XVI'. - (202.89.140.65 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems possible that he as a "monarch" would revert to a princely style of sorts - Queen Beatrix will do so in April, though her reversion comes as the result of a bloodline entitlement rather than a pre-accession creation of a given title. I doubt that there is specific Canon or heraldic law with which to confirm what the correct style is and that however Benedict XVI chooses to style himself will set something of a precedent for the future. I would note that Edward VIII retained the style which he was entitled to by birth (HRH The Prince Edward) but lost the styles, dignities and honours which had been merged into the crown upon his accession - The Titles and dignities which he held in his later life were specifically re granted to him by his brother, the King. The papal throne is of course a very different animal from those purely temporal monarchies which I have broached the subject of, but on the other hand I would hardly call the Conference of Catholic Bishops in England and Wales to be an exhaustive authority on the style of a former Pope - no one is! If I were to propose a style it would be something along the lines of The Most Reverend The Bishop Emeritus of Rome. Though His Eminence may also be attached as an alternative dignity. I do hope that there will be some discussion the the style of the former Pope beyond that which is occurring at present, where every media outlet has picked up the statement of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in England and Wales as indisputable fact. -- Aricci526 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the last pope to resign (Gregory XII) returned to being a cardinal, and some expect Benedict to do the same. I heard this on NPR this morning, so I don't have a good citation handy. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Angelo Correr, the former Gregory XII, had to be RECREATED a Cardinal in order to rejoin the Sacred College. The Council of Constance granted him the title of Bishop of the See of Porto, precedence immediately after the future Pope to be elected, and the title of perpetual legate of Ancona. When Benedict XVI’s resignation becomes effective, nothing in present law leads to the conclusion that he will at once rejoin the College of Cardinals. If the precedent of Gregory XII is followed, Benedict XVI may be recreated a Cardinal, perhaps given a suburbicarian See (is one available?), and given special precedence above the Dean.76.121.18.103 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect he will reject all this and only use the simple monastic title of "Brother" Aetheling1125 18:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

govern the bark of St Peter ??

• What does this mean ? Something to do with trees, ships, dogs, or something else ?Eregli bob (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Here "bark" is an old-type sailor's or literary spelling for "barque". The Latin said "navem" (accusative of navis), so I have replaced "bark" by plain understandable "ship". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If they mean ship, they should say ship. I don't know what they would be thinking, to translate "navem" as "barque" or "bark". That's an absurd translation. It's anachronistic now and anachronistic for the first century AD also. It's not like St Peter was Captain Cook.Eregli bob (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reactions section

This section is more fitting for wikiquote than offering anything encyclopedic. Reaction sections ... may suffer from:

• Too much detail and being directory like (WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
• Using routine announcements and news reports - world leaders routinely offer their condolences for tragic events (WP:NOTNEWS)
• Promoting a particular response, reaction or event beyond its significance in reliable sources (WP:NOTADVOCATE) and other biases (WP:NPOV)
• Focussing unduly on recent events (WP:RECENTISM)
• Not themselves covering a notable topic, if multiple reliable sources have not given significant coverage to the reactions (WP:N)
• Being only a collection of quotes, possibly suitable for transwiki to Wikiquote

I invite editors to greatly trim this section and focus more on the effects of the resignation than the customary platitudes from world leaders who, of course, want to maintain diplomatic relations with the person resigning. Insomesia (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation address

• Someone just deleted the text of the resignation address, saying "that's for Wikisource". Fair enough -- but shouldn't there be a link to Wikisource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.180.144 (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have restored the text of the resignation address. Please discuss here before any deleting of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Someone deleted his speech as copyvio and wants the edits with the speech in to be redacted. What is wrong with quoting such an important speech made in public by such a historically important man? It is likely in several newspapers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this particular discussion, I am incubating the sources provided for the resignation address here, as the article currently says "Benedict said:" with nothing following. Feel free to re-add these sources to the article if consensus determines that the full text of the address belongs there.

• Pope Benedict announces retirement, ABC News Online, 11 February 2013
• http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/on_pope_benedict_xvi_resignation_2-11-2013.htm

—KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• The speech was quoted verbatim and in its entirety in a number of on-line media outlets, including CNN and BBC, and of course it was released on the Vatican's website (I can look up the URLs if that's helpful), so I'm not sure that incorporating it in the article is actually a copyvio 96.46.202.55 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have put the speech in Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI/speech. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• 20 or 29?: The Latin version in some online versions has "... hora 29, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri ..."; but there is no 29th hour of the day. http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/on_pope_benedict_xvi_resignation_2-11-2013.htm leads to an audio speech of the Pope saying the Latin version, and for "hora 29" he says "hora vigesima" and nothing about "nine", so it should be "hora 20".
• Res ipsa loquitur. How can an article about the resignation NOT include the text of the resignation? The Vatican surely does not assert copyright over the most historic papal communication in over half a millennium. Keep it in here. The whole affair will sort itself out within a couple of months, and in the meantime the text of his address certainly should be in this article. JeffTracy (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Y Hoc factum est I have put the speech back in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had to remove it again. The page which contains the speech is marked as copyright 2013, [1], so without a clear statement that the speech has been released as public domain, I think we need to proceed on the assumption that it is copyrighted. I've added it as an external link, though. - Bilby (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lightning strike

Would it be appropriate to mention lightning striking St. Peter's Basilica after the resignation? The BBC (at least) has reported this. Of course, we shouldn't speculate on any possible "meaning", but I think it's interesting, especially if lightning doesn't often strike there. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Only if it became significant. Like he changes his mind because it was a sign from God he should not resign. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are other lightning strikes that routinely happen to Vatican buildings noted? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Good of the Church"

Off topic discussion

On at least two occasions recently – including what has been reported as his final public Mass on Ash Wednesday – Pope Benedict stated that his reason for resigning is for the "good of the Church". To me, this statement could carry several connotations beyond merely declining health, and this deserves some mention if not discussion in the article. Certainly, there is no more public display of the ravages of age and ill health in a public figure than that of Pope John Paul II, and yet I remember nothing about his being unable to carry on the functions of his duties (with certain limitations of course) up to the time of his death. There is no mention in the article at this point of the potential effects of the recent HBO documentary on his decision, but I do not mean in this post to imply that this is what the Pope meant, even in part. However, if declining health is the whole of the reason for his decision, a simple statement to that effect would be called for; and by repeating it publicly more than once – including such an auspicious occasion that also happened to coincide with an important date on the Church calendar – the Pope seems to be implying that there is more to it than that. Finally, for whatever reason, the broadcast signal from EWTN vanished from the Cable One cable network in Biloxi at virtually the same moment that the resignation was announced. I have been unable to locate any indication on the Internet of this occurrence, or whether it has happened in other locations. Shocking Blue (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Similar to how Popes do not resign, US Presidents do not resign. While Benedict is a glaring exception for the Church, Nixon was the one glaring exception in the other case, and he repeatedly cited his motivation as being for "the interest of the Nation" without admitting any culpability to the scandals surrounding his presidency. Prior to Nixon's resignation there were strong calls for his resignation, and key people around him had resigned. Prior to Benedict's resignation, there were strong calls for his resignation, and there were very important Catholic leaders who had resigned. The most recent that I am aware of is that of Matthew Clark, Archbishop of Rochester, who resigned last September amid huge criticism for how sex scandal cases under his leadership were handled. There were probably others in the months since then, and there were much higher profile cases before then. Here is a statement that has repeatedly been removed from this article for being "tangential": As early as 2010, several secular and liberal Catholics were calling for Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, citing the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger's once signed a letter putting off efforts to defrock a priest convicted of child abuse. Here is another statement that has repeatedly been removed elsewhere: "Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, said Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse." There are many, many other references from this week saying similar things. And that is just one of the scandals surrounding his papacy. There are a myriad of issues that are not being mentioned in our article, and here is a video from The Young Turks ("Largest Online News Show in the World") that gives a much more complete coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3Rmfvbw_o. While I certainly do not want to see our article here read like that YouTube report, it gives a decent idea of the topics that need to be addressed here in order for this article to be considered complete. For Nixon's case, there is no separate article about his resignation. That topic is incorporated into the Watergate article. But the cloud over his presidency was dominated by that one scandal, so that merge is totally appropriate. For Benedict, while many sources are identifying the sex abuse cases as being the primary factor, there are other significant ones as well (with VatiLeaks being just one other) so it is clear to me that this resignation article is best to remain as a stand alone. But by stand alone, I do not mean to keep it stripped of all other factors other than his health, nor even simple mention of "good of the Church". When reporters look into what "good of the Church" means, they find a huge can of worms. And this article is in huge need of covering, or at a bare minimum simply mentioning, what those other factors are. This week's resignation did not happen in a vacuum. And for this article, as it currently stands, to read as though it did is a total whitewash. I recommend re-adding the section that addressed "Scandals during papacy".--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Without Reliable Sources that specifically back up any claim beyond health reasons, this would be Original Research. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC) I totally disagree. People were calling for his resignation and then he resigns. It is not necessary to prove that he resigned because of those calls for his resignation. The simple fact that there was a movement calling for his resignation in and of itself is notable and salient to this article. And neither of the two quotes above constitute original research. Those are two quotes that meet all standards of Wikipedia. There are plenty of other sources as well. An argument could be made that even The Young Turks video can and should be quoted. But I myself have a preference for the more traditional sources like the NY Times. Moreover, the "health reasons" doesn't even pass the logic test. Every single pope before him for the past several hundred years have held that office until they have died. This means that unless they get hit by a truck or get poisoned by their adversaries (eg-JP1) then this means that they will get old, their health will decline, and they will die of natural causes. Everyone knows this, as did Benedict when he took the job. That is why the Vatican is talking about "good of the Church", because every Catholic on the planet expected Benedict to stick it out until he got old and died. Even the ones who were calling for his resignation were probably shocked that he actually did it. Once again, for this article to stand as it is and present a story that this resignation happened in a vacuum makes for a grossly incomplete article. There were serious scandals surrounding the papacy, and many people this week have reported that those scandals were major factors, if not the actual cause, for his resignation. If this article were to document the long string of priests, bishops and archbishops who resigned prior to Feb 11, then many readers will not be mystified by the huge event of this week. And Wikipedia is about presenting well documented information to readers so they are no longer mystified by topics that they did not completely understand before coming to a Wikipedia article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Nope, it's completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about advancing fringe views, personal theories and synthesis. "The simple fact that there was a movement calling for his resignation" does not demonstrate notability or relevance to this article, and the mere connection is original research and synthesis. Mocctur (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Watergate = Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God

Off topic discussion

Here is a quote from the documentary trailer by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney: "From 2001 forward, every single priest sex abuse case went to Ratzinger. He has all the data." For those who prefer reading articles over watching videos, here's one of the reports: 'Mea Maxima Culpa' Documentary Asks Unsettling Questions Of The Catholic Church, The Very Week Pope Benedict Resigns... Quote (including caption): Alex Gibney's film asks questions of the highest echelons of the Catholic Church Now, his documentary exploring the abuse of power in the Catholic Church - all the way to the highest levels in Rome - is being released the very week the Pope announces his resignation, an event unprecedented in 600 years of goings-on at the Vatican. And Gibney has told the Hollywood Reporter he thinks the Pontiff's departure from office is most certainly "inextricably linked" to the scandals he explores in his film. It seems that Papa Ratzi was unable to keep his ship watertight just as sadly as Nixon's plumbers were unable to keep all hell from breaking loose.--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I just found another key video, interviewing director Alex Gibney about his documentary: "Pope Benedict was not answering any of my calls or letters." "One of the things that I liked about this story is that it had a direct connection to the Pope, so it enabled me to follow that chain." Gibney goes on about calling Penn State a version of the Vatican "writ small" with "the same impulse". (at 14min)--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) if that isn't contentious, I don't know what is. WP:BLP. it's also speculation, and not reliably sourced, don't put it in the article. Aunva6 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, the work of an Oscar-winning documentary director is not what you consider to be a reliable source. Curious. Well there are a wealth of other sources as has been discussed at length above and elsewhere (particularly over at the Talk page for the sex abuse scandals article). Notice that BLP does not guide us to immediately remove facts about a person simply because a very large and powerful organization finds such facts to be unpleasant and embarrassing. This belongs in the article. If anyone feels that the info is not conforming to NPOV, then we can work together to improve the specifics on how this info is included.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) that is why I didn't remove it from the talk page. we are saying that we need other sources saying things about the abuse scandal. one movie is not enough Aunva6 (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Ok, for anyone who prefers mainstream sources, I just found a CNN report from Monday - CNN--Pope Benedict: Priest abuse mars legacy - with these quotes: "...even priests lost faith in the Pope's handling of the child abuse crisis ... there was a real sense that Pope Benedict was attempting to dodge responsibility ... for many, Pope Benedict had failed." I expect there will be many who will vehemently want to see this reference dismissed as well. But please, instead of threatening me on my personal Talk page, please take your complaints to the sources and not me as a messenger.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I've removed the CNN quote - it is unrelated to his resignation. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I don't want to comment on the possible NPOV issue here, but though this article and the Huffington Post piece say that the documentary "is scheduled to be released" in the same week as Benedict's announcement of his resignation, the wiki article on the documentary itself says (and gives sources) that it was released on September 9, 2012 at the Toronto International Film Festival, and on November 16, 2012 in the USA. So it seems to me the dates don't match up that neatly? Tom (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I just fixed the article. While the documentary had local release in Milwaukee (the city where the documentary events were focused) and then some other local city releases, the worldwide HBO broadcast happened on February 4th 2013.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Cheers, Tdadamemd. But February 4th would be a week before, not the same week. After reading the whole Huffington Post article I note that the reporter seems to be referring to the UK release, but unless the pope goes to the movies in the UK only, that seems a rather tenuous link. I don't want to dispute or confirm the director's claim that the scandals themselves may be linked to (or even main cause for) Benedict's resignation, but it seems to me that the "same week the documentary was released"-thing by itself is a bit unlikely to be a main cause. Tom (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I expect that the author intended to communicate "in the same 7-day period", as in 4 + 7 = 11. And I don't think anyone was trying to say that the timing of the worldwide broadcast was a main cause, but rather one of many factors.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC) A reminder: Wikipedia is not a soap box. Any connection to these cases involving sex abuse in the past, which are unrelated to his resignation, is original research, synthesis and many of your contributions violate both the WP:BLP policy, the WP:UNDUE policy, the WP:SYNTH policy and the WP:OR policy. There seems to be wide agreement among those knowledgeable that Benedict was in fact the person in the Catholic Church doing the most to combat sex abuse, both as a cardinal and a Pope. Mocctur (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) How bout we examine specific quotes from WP instead of broadbrushing them... From WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Now look at what one of those sources had stated: "Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, said Benedict’s papal reign had to come to an end because he facilitated widespread abuse." People here are getting all mad at me, when I don't see myself to be in violation of any Wikipedia policy. Perhaps what you all are really mad at is the truth.--Tdadamemd (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC) And how is the personal theory of some "co-director" of some fringe website notable to the degree that it merits inclusion in the introduction of this article? By the way, Wikipedia is not about advancing WP:TRUTH. Mocctur (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If hers was the only quote out there floating around in cyberspace, then you would have substance behind your WP:Undue rebuttal. But hers is not. She is speaking for untold multitudes. I just provided a handful of sources. As for WP:Truth, I have yet to share my personal opinion as to whether or not I agree with what these sources have been saying. Members here who have been hyper-critical of me might be surprised to learn that I myself was a member at a Catholic monastery with extremely close ties to the Church to include priest relatives within the Vatican.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Your personal background is not relevant to the discussion. The only issue relevant is that these fringe claims are not related to the topic of the article, namely the resignation of Benedict XVI for age and health reasons. Mocctur (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I fail to see how Joseph Ratzinger's culpability in sex abuse cases can be considered fringe. This quote of yours from above is in need of direct reply, because it appears you've missed a critical part of the story here: "There seems to be wide agreement among those knowledgeable that Benedict was in fact the person in the Catholic Church doing the most to combat sex abuse, both as a cardinal and a Pope." The 2010 calls for resignation had nothing to do with anything he did or didn't do as Pope - not even as Cardinal. It was an effort to hold him accountable for actions he did (or rather, didn't do) long before he got to Rome. Quote: "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish." These types of actions (/inactions) are felony offenses in many countries. And there are a multitude of reports saying that this is a significant aspect of his resignation decision. Some saying that this is the central issue. For this article to say absolutely nothing of what is being widely reported is a disservice to Wikipedia.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If you continue using this talk page as your personal soapbox, your contributions will be removed. 1) He doesn't have any "culpability in sex abuse cases", on the contrary. 2) This issue has nothing to do with his resignation due to advanced age. Just because some obscure figures claim it, it doesn't become notable. Newspaper articles from 2010 have no connection or relevance to this article's topic, making a connection between a newspaper article from 2010 and this article is synthesis and original research. Mocctur (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Is it not possible that your points 1 & 2 are you on your soapbox? I have been using this Talk page to support well-referenced quotes. You are certainly free to disagree with those quotes, but this Talk page is designed for us to arrive at a consensus as to which facts are needed in the article. The article as it stands right now reads like a Vatican Press Release. And that is not what Wikipedia is about. We are about presenting relevant facts in a neutral point of view. This can be boiled down to two words: A) Complete B) Balanced As for continuing productive discussion here on this Talk page, I would suggest that an excellent start would be recognition that all parties who have contributed to this Talk page have been volunteering their time and effort with good faith (at least as far as I have observed). Personal threats and accusations are unnecessary and non-productive, albeit an understandable and common "debate" strategy.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Btw, I hope everyone is perfectly clear that I was never suggesting that any mention of Nixon or Watergate ever be included in the article. My reason for raising that here was in an effort to try to help people see the validity of the articles and sources I was citing regarding Benedict's resignation.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Criminal prosecution

Off topic discussion

This section has articles that discuss the prospect of prosecuting Joseph Ratzinger for crimes committed while pope, and before [which have been identified as major factors in his resignation]. [edited--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)] From the Guardian this afternoon: Pope Benedict has to answer for his failure on child abuse Quotes: "...Ratzinger was appointed Vatican enforcer but turned a blind eye to sex offenders." "...the blindness was, in significant part, Benedict's." "When he was the archbishop of Munich in 1980, the case of Peter Hullermann crossed his desk. Father Hullermann was accused of multiple crimes of abuse. In one case he had taken an 11-year-old boy hiking in the mountains, plied him with drink, locked the door, stripped him and forced him to perform oral sex. Yet Hullermann's punishment was simply to be moved from Essen to Munich for therapy. Within days, this known sexual predator was given pastoral duties with access to young people – and he promptly abused again. Benedict's defenders have long insisted those fateful decisions were taken by his deputy. But the crucial documents, when they surfaced, said otherwise." "No less disturbing is the case of the California priest Stephen Kiesle, convicted of tying up and molesting two young boys in a church rectory. His superiors wrote to Rome in 1981, requesting that the abuser be defrocked, warning of "scandal" if he remained. After an initial request for more information, Ratzinger took four years to deliver his reply. It came in Latin – and said his office needed more time to consider the case. No doubt grateful for the delay, Kiesle was able to return to one of his former parishes – in the youth ministry." "It was a similar story with Father Lawrence C Murphy of Wisconsin, tormentor of as many as 200 boys in his care at a special school for the deaf, telling them God wanted him to teach them about sex. Eventually the archbishop of Milwaukee wrote to Rome – to Ratzinger – demanding action. Once again, the future pope failed to answer. Eventually a secret, canonical trial of Murphy began in 1996, ordered by Ratzinger's deputy. But the trial was halted after the abuser wrote a personal plea to Ratzinger, requesting that he be allowed to "live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood". He was granted his wish, dying peacefully, buried in his priestly vestments. Those children, deaf and especially vulnerable, never saw justice." "Whatever warm words he uttered as pope, it is this record of action – and inaction – that matters more. Benedict never acted against the top echelon of cardinals and bishops who had covered up crimes and obstructed justice. After Cardinal Law had fled Boston – just before state troopers arrived bearing subpoenas over claims of child abuse by priests in his archdiocese – he found safe harbour in Benedict's Vatican. When those anxious to prosecute their abusers asked that the Vatican archives be opened, he kept the files shut. The truth is, what little this pope did to deal with the evil of child abuse came too late, and only under duress." This article is saying that Ratzinger is a criminal. It goes on to talk about prosecuting him for these crimes.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Here's an article from Reuters discussing the legalities in prosecuting Benedict for crimes: Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican Quotes: "Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy. It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say." "In 2010, for example, Benedict was named as a defendant in a law suit alleging that he failed to take action as a cardinal in 1995 when he was allegedly told about a priest who had abused boys at a U.S. school for the deaf decades earlier." "There have been repeated calls for Benedict's arrest over sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. When Benedict went to Britain in 2010, British author and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins asked authorities to arrest the pope to face questions over the Church's child abuse scandal." "In 2011, victims of sexual abuse by the clergy asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the pope and three Vatican officials over sexual abuse." You all can read the full details.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) There are now reports about formal action directly initiated by Benedict: Letter to Italian President alleges Pope seeks 'legal immunity' Quote: "The ITCCS claims the Pope sought the meeting to ask for immunity from prosecution by the Italian government. In a letter to Napolitano, ITCCS Secretary, Rev. Kevin Annett, says: "I need not remind you, Mr. President, that under international law and treaties that have been ratified by Italy, you and your government are forbidden from granting such protection to those like Joseph Ratzinger [real name of Pope Benedict XVI] who have aided and abetted criminal actions, such as ordering Bishops and Cardinals in America and elsewhere to protect known child rapists among their clergy. Your obligation to the Vatican through the Lateran Treaty does not negate or nullify the requirements of these higher moral and international laws; nor does it require that you give any protection or immunity to a single individual like Joseph Ratzinger, especially after he has left his papal office." The letter goes on to point to "documented" crimes of child trafficking and torture, alleging that the crimes are linked to the Pope Benedict and other Vatican officials." Here is a scan of the letter.--Tdadamemd (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Seclusion

In his conversation with the clergy of the diocese of Rome the Benedict mentioned, that "...anche se per il mondo rimango nascosto" (although for the world I remain hidden)[2]. The BBC wrote that this hints at some kind of total seclusion after his retirement. Is it worth to be included in the post-papacy section? Gugganij (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

mention age

To put the pope's health issues into context, maybe it would be helpful to mention that he is 85 years old at the time of his resignation? Where would we mention this? Edge3 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I added it to the 'Post papacy' section. But since health was his stated reason for retirement then I would suggest that we add an entire section that covers issues about his health, and that this statement about his age should be moved there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we put a detailed section about his health on his main article, and then just put [See Health] in the resignation? I'm not sure how that would work, but those who were here longer on wikipedia, should know how to do it? Appfan33 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. I just moved the age statement up to the Resignation address section with a link to his article where his health is discussed.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Benedict or Benedict?

His name seems to be changing with every sentence. So, should we address the pope as Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Benedict, or Benedict? Which would seem appropriate? Appfan33 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

All 3 are appropriate ways of referring to him. Variety makes the article more readable. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Earlier requests for resignation

Per the BLP policy, I've removed the section claiming earlier calls for Benedict XVI's resignation - I couldn't find any mention of this in the source provided, [3] , and certainly no mention of the further claim that Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, had tried to put off attempts to fire a convicted chid abusing priest. That seems to be a fairly contentious claim, so it is going to need a good source. - Bilby (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

NY Times source found: "Do Popes Quit?". The New York Times. 10 April 2010. p. 1. Retrieved 13 February 2013. I will add the statement to reflect this fact.--Tdadamemd (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Will the section be reinstated?

Are more sources necessary? If so, for which aspects of the section? Steve.Murgaski (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is information from 2010 and has nothing to do with Benedict's actual resignation. As stated in the edit summary when the information was removed, if it belongs anywhere, it should be in Pope Benedict XVI. There is a section in that article on the sex abuse issue. If it is added to that article, there should be adherence to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Cresix (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-papacy activities

As I wished, and suspected, he has some writing plans:

• Benedict XVI: 10 things about the Pope's retirement, thing 6.

He's going to pray with his brother, advice his successor, write, read, play piano, play black-and-white comedy films, and take care of his cat.

If God will, he will produce some interesting philosophical and/or religious texts. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you post this here? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Proper term (abdicate vs resign vs renounce vs retire, etc)

I wish people would stop calling this "resignation". He has repeatedly said he is standing down - that's retirement, not resignation. Resignation is when something has irretrievable broken down. I can't get my own way; I hate this place; what missing money? I resign. This should be titled "Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI", and references to his actions should call it retirement - until any possible future point when something is uncovered to reveal that he was forced out. Jgharston (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as most media sources are using "resign" and "resignation". However, personally I believe "abdicate" is a better word as the Holy See is a monarchy. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should include reaction by world leaders and how it plays out....He's a lame duck for three weeks. Then, is there a ceremony? The Catholic church is all about ceremonyEricl (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

CNN has an opinion saying that "resign" is the correct term because that's the term used in a translation of the Canon Law. I checked the authoritative Latin source and it uses the phrase "muneri| suo renuntiet", 'reject his office'. So not only are they right that "abdicate" is used in the modern times mostly of monarchs (which The Pope is not) and that the original source seems to use a term that is maybe best translated as "resign", most sources are also using "resign" as pointed out above. --hydrox (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Accordint to canonic law it is a resignation, that is the correct term. Read the Wiki article on Papal resignations. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The CNN article relies on an English translation of the Code of Canon Law. If you check the Latin source for the Code, you can see that the words used are "renuntiet" and "renuntiato": renounce. Atreyu81 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pope of Rome is an elected monarch as the Sovereign of the Vatican City, so he is abdicating the Papacy. - (202.89.140.65 (talk))

The correct word should be "renounce". Jgharston is correct to say that he is not resigning. But the Latin word used is "renounce" (check the etymology: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/renounce ). I'd say that all references to "resign" should be changed to "renounce"; "resignation" to "renunciation" and so on. Atreyu81 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The English translation is seen here http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P15.HTM, showing 'resign' as the operative word. By the way, popes are seen as monarchs in a different way than are secular monarchs; he is indeed the head of state of the Vatican, but he is never called anything like "your magesty"; he is a monarchical episcopate. I do hope no one argues that I'm wrong because popes were the "Holy Roman Emperors": they were called that simply because those popes were the ones that crowned the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (which is simply not conflated with the Church!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.14.76 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They have said on the BBC that the correct terminology is "renounced the Papacy". Indeed, he used that word in his speech, viz:

"For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005" (para. 3 line 2, [4]

We should therefore use the word "renounce" Aetheling1125 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also believe Renouncement is best, even if I prefer Abdicate. He clearly said Renounce. Furthermore, resignations must be accepted by someone; as Pope, the highest earthly authority, there is no one to resign to. Jonathan Ng 吳家明 02:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng556 (talk • contribs)

On the day it was announced, NBC's Today show announced that the Pope would abdicate, stating that someone gives a resignation letter to their boss when they resign. Since the Pope has no boss, he cannot resign. Rather, he abdicates, just like a king or queen would. Whether we use abdicate, renounce or something else, it seems that resign is definitely incorrect. Truthanado (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that retirement sounds best, but I also think that we should use renounce in place of resign. Amazaing77 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "renounce" is the most accurate, with least POV issues. And as mentioned before, he used the term himself. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In any case, the noun is not "renouncement" (as used above), but "renunciation". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Vatican citizenship

Will Benedict XVI still be a Vatican citizen after his resignation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Citizenship might suggest that he loses the citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.111.17 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• One assumes he will still be a cardinal, living on the grounds and thus a citizen. But this is a purely academic exercise, nobody will ever confront the Church in this way. Abductive (reasoning) 23:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The current article states that Benedict "will not have the title of Cardinal when he retires, and will not be eligible to hold any office in the Roman Curia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.190.110 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reuters states http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-pope-resignation-immunity-idUSBRE91E0ZI20130215 that "After he resigns, Benedict will no longer be the sovereign monarch of the State of Vatican City, which is surrounded by Rome, but will retain Vatican citizenship and residency." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.190.10 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision deletion requests

I am moving the templates that were at the top of the articles here, in case they have a purpose in categorization or whatnot. The reason I removed them is stated in my original edit comment. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• See discussion at Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI #Resignation address above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  I have no opinion on the text that was removed. My problem is with that godawful template. Whether it's about a copyvio or a BLP, bringing massive attention to it with a template that takes up half the first screen is not a good idea. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  The rule is that you should put the {{copyvio-revdel}} template on the page containing the violating content, but never mind: let's put the template here instead. The text violates WP:NFCC#3b (you can't include an entire unfree work) and WP:NFCC#8 (the article can be understood just as easily without the speech), so it can't be included on the page. The Latin text can be readded 70 years after the death of the pope, and the English text can be readded 70 years after the death of the pope or 70 years after the death of the translator, whichever is later. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

how do you figure? " the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." it is fair use to have it in the article, if it is even copyright at all, which is doubtful. Aunva6 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the text on the Vatican site is marked as copyright 2013 [5]. There is no problem if we quote and discuss parts of the speech, but a verbatim copy of the text is likely to count as outside of the bounds of fair use, which generally only permits publishing a portion of the text. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright notices have no legal meaning, except that they could possibly be used as evidence if you are disputing who the copyright holder is, in the event that multiple people are claiming to be the copyright holder to the same work. All works are protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This is true. But the page on the Vatican's website containing the text of the speech does have a copyright notice, rather than a notice stating that it is PD or CC. So while it is true that a copyright notice isn't needed, that certainly suggests it would be a mistake to assume PD until we have evidence to the contrary. - Bilby (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

then how is it that other sites use it in its entirety? Aunva6 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that they can claim a public interest exemption instead of fair use. I've always found it frustrating, as there is a lot I'd like to use here under fair use, but our policies are generally more restrictive that other sites, in part because we relicense material and in part because we allow comercial reuse and need to be wary of opening up reusers to copyright actions. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the selected revisions as speeches and press releases are copyrighted (unless otherwise noted). For example, Martin Luther King's speeches are copyrighted until 2039 (70 years after his death). I have left the usernames and edit summaries visible because non-violating content was added into the revisions that contain the speech. James086^Talk 17:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Legal Immunity

The issue of legal immunity seems more or less irrelevant. I also wonder if it breaks WP:NPOV since it focuses on one area (abusive priests) which is obviously negative. It also implicitly assumes that he is guilty of some issue when you can find many reliable sources saying that he cracked down on abusive priests. I am for removing it but I want others' opinions. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from your own User Page:

"This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake."

I will suggest to you that the Catholic Church and its leadership are not exempt from the wisdom behind those words. You can see in sections above that there were plenty of calls for Benedict to not only resign, but to be criminally prosecuted. That is not my opinion. It is well documented, well referenced fact. Those facts have been squelched here as "off topic". How can calls for Benedict's resignation and calls for his criminal prosecution be considered to be separate from the topic of his actual resignation? The latest report I posted was a letter about him seeking legal immunity in Italy, so he won't be 'imprisoned' within the Vatican. (My paraphrase.) And you are re-raising that issue here.

You yourself are seeing the immunity issue as irrelevant when there are key sources who see this as central. NPOV requires that a balanced presentation of information be made. And if you really believe that millions of people can be in error while fooling themselves into believing they are not, then you might want to take a step across that border where the Vatican becomes Italy and have a look from the perspective that is clearly seen by many on the outside.

Jesus taught love for all! That includes pedophiles and those who harbor pedophiles. But would Jesus sanction zero accountability for such actions? Would Jesus even approve of a bureaucracy that put so much as a single layer of buffering between one human being and that person's communion with Divinity? ...let alone layer upon layer of priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, topped off with a pope. This last question has no direct relevance to the Wikipedia article we are discussing, but is the most fundamental issue that faces the future of the Catholic Church, the future of Christianity, and the future of the human race. Benedict's resignation may be looked back upon by historians as a triggering event for the completion of the tearing of the veil of separation between humanity and the Source of humanity.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The latest report I posted was a letter about him seeking legal immunity in Italy, so he won't be 'imprisoned' within the Vatican. (My paraphrase.) - Well, actually the letter doesn't say anything like that. It is a letter written by a non-official group calling itself International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State to the Italian president, claiming that Joseph Ratzinger is seeking immunity from the Italian government and the President shouldn't grant it. Besides the fact, that I am not aware of any legal possibility, that the Italian government could even grant immunity to a private person (thus, why writing that strange letter at all?), they do not back up their claim that the Vatican is seeking that protection at all by anything substantial. Gugganij (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I happen to see your description of that letter to fit exactly with my statement that it is "a letter about him seeking legal immunity in Italy".

And I see nothing else you've stated above as giving any reason to not include these facts in the article. There have been multiple calls for him to resign. There have been multiple calls to have him arrested. He resigns. There are reliable sources reporting that he is seeking immunity. Yet this forum chooses to turn a blind eye to all of that. How ironic that the central issue of criticism that many see as the reason to him resigning is his continual decision to turn a blind eye.

Here is a Guardian article from two years ago about a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) about Benedict along with Cardinals Sodano, Bertone and Lavada:

Pope accused of crimes against humanity by victims of sex abuse.

Because of this formal action at The Hague, I would agree with your assessment that it may not be possible for the Italian government to grant immunity. Such action would make them complicit as well.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I just found the document of the charges filed at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Link to the pdf file-http://www.kanzlei-sailer.de/pope-lawsuit-2011.pdf, titled:

Criminal Charges

against

Dr. Joseph Ratzinger,

Pope of the Roman Catholic Church

on grounds of

Crimes against Humanity

According to Art. 7 ICC Statute

It cites three specific Crimes Against Humanity. One of these is:

"the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes".

It is ironic to see it dated February 14, 2011, Saint Valentine's Day from two years ago, because all three charges have a basis in sexual behavior.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Even more ironic is that the Rome Conference of 1998 that created the International Criminal Court was held at the UN building 4 kilometers away from the Vatican - just a short swim down the Tiber (GoogleMaps). If anyone could turn up a reference that showed that Ratzinger attended any of these meetings, that would be quite a find.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I am not a native English speaker, but for me there seems to be a difference between your statement ("a letter about him seeking legal immunity in Italy"), which implies that he actually did seek that, and the content of the actual letter itself (issued by an private organization called "International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State") Original. They write "Sappiamo che [...] Josef Ratzinger sta cercando la protezione del governo Italiano per assicurarsi [...] immunità..." (Translation: We know, that Josef Ratzinger is looking for protection of the Italian government to ensure his immunity). They do not back that claim up by anything. They call the Pope on their website a "proven war criminal" (which war? WWII?) and they claim to know already what the Pope and the Italian President will be talking about at their meeting next (sic!) week (namely "securing protection and immunity") - pretty ridiculous. Additionally, this organization seems to have a habit of wanting to get crowned head of states behind bars - they are also harrassing Queen Elizabeth II (on their website they call her "Tottering Liz Windsor, aka Queen of England") and that she should answer charges for her complicity in crimes against humanity, genocide and child trafficking ([6]. I think we can safely describe them as being a fringe group holding fringe opinions and therefore there is no need at all to include any of their claims in the article.

2. Concerning the charges filed at the International Criminal Court by the law firm "Kanzlei Christian Sailer" (the weblink you provided above): Actually, in Germany and Austria we have had some fun with this guy for a pretty long time now: As a lawyer for a religious movement called Universal Life he was, for example, suing both the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church in Germany (wanting the court to forbid those churches calling themselve "christian" [7]), he petitioned the German Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons to put the Bible on the department's "List of Media Harmful to Young People". The charges against the Pope, which you linked above, don't just cover the "usual" stuff, but in his file child baptism is included as well (which Sailer regards to be a crime against humanity, since he feels that that [it] amounts to living in servitude). SNAP's complaint (which was issued later than Sailer's complaint and was by far less strange as Sailer's one) was rejected by the ICC already.

A personal note: Please don't just try to google virtually any website which contain the magic words "Ratzinger" and "child abuse" and post it on this talk page, while leaving the tedious quality check to your fellow wikipedians. Regards Gugganij (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Italian letter is not proof that Benedict is seeking immunity in Italy. It discusses the expectation that he will, and that seems to me to be a completely logical and reasonable expectation considering all of the other reports about people calling for Benedict to be prosecuted. You may want to dismiss that as coming from a fringe group, but the reporter for the source posted in the section above decided otherwise.

...and news organizations like CNN are making very different decisions from the one you are arguing for. Here is a video report from today:

Could Pope Benedict be put on trial?

"Pope Benedict XVI's resignation brings calls for his prosecution. CNN's Nic Robertson investigates the claims."

Quote from Robertson's audio:

"SNAP's 12,000 global members want Pope Benedict put on trial." (SNAP = Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)

"The case has already been filed with the International Criminal Court."

Those are exact quotes, so it would appear that CNN does not agree with you. I expect I can find other sources that are widely accepted as reliable. I've been finding these reports by going to GoogleNews and putting in the search term [pope]. This CNN video was the first article I found.--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, sorry about my "personal note". Totally unnecessary and condescending. Please accept my apology.
Concerning the letter: The letter says not that they expect that he will, but that they know that he does. Something completely different. And, as already stated above, they claim to know the content of a future conversation between the Pope and the President of Italy. All of it without any shred of evidence. Concerning the ICC cases: I got the information that the ICC didn't take up SNAP's complaint from one of your sources (Reuters). Gugganij (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This issue is very much pertinent to the case and appears to be its underlying reason, however I would suggest, we wait for more revelations before writing long and speculative articles. I wouldn't however do away with this section. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would however do away with the sentence in the opening section saying he is the first to do so without 'external pressures' as this is clearly not the case. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I don't see much value in most of what is in this section - a lot of surmising, but nothing we can use. That said, it is hard to see anyone making a decision without "external pressures", as there are always things influencing a person's decision. The intent of the source seems to be to distinguish between choosing to resign entirely of one's own free will, and being forced to resign. On those grounds I've changed the reference in the article to "freely" per the source. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would not be wise for us to expand the article in any speculative direction. That would be totally unencyclopedic. I also agree that it would be a major improvement to remove the tone that the resignation happened without regard to external pressures. While it may be true that Benedict had no concern for any of that, it would be improper for this article to present a view that such pressures did not exist. Clearly they did.

I share the opinion that this article will be a lot easier for us to write a few months from now.--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I proposed "without external pressure" on Talk:Benedict XVI then copied it here. The issue with "freely" has nothing to do with Benedict; it implies Gregory XII did not do resign freely. If Gregory's resignation was not free, it was not valid which is a position held by just about nobody. Could you please suggest something else like "without ulterior motives" (Gregory XII resigned to end a schism - since both the Pope and anti-Pope resigned a new election would be accepted by all) or "on his own"? I will go with "without ulterior motives" tomorrow if nobody suggests better.

As a second point, why do we need to issue child abuse. Cases have been presented but they have been akin to prosecuting Dick Cheny for crimes in Abu Ghraib (we all agree they are crimes but prosecuting leaders seems out of place and Dick Cheny's page doesn't mention Abu Ghraib). I am all for prosecuting the priests to the full extent of the law and leaders who should have known better; it seems odd to prosecute him for one or two cases a psychologist in Munich told him he could fix and some that came to tsaid / she said cases that latter turned out to be true. Wouldn't "provide him with legal protection from potential lawsuits in regard to the han of child abuse cases." be betteworded "provide him with legal immunity from potential lawsuits."? >> Jesus Loves You! er:MPSchneiderLC|M.P.Schneider,LC]] small>(parlemus • feci) 18:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The ICC document reference in PDF has three charges only one of which is child abuse. I think that it would fair to either add all three or none. Obviously, the Guardian and CNN need to sell so they emphasize the most sensational (child abuse), but it is the 3rd charge. Therefore, I am removing the reference to child abuse. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that "freely" and "without external pressure" are both inaccurate. There were calls for the man to be arrested and prosecuted. No one says that Richard Nixon resigned freely or without external pressure even though he did not admit guilt when he announced his resignation. M.P.Schneider, and anyone else who thinks that the accusations against Benedict were limited to only one case in München, I recommend that you watch these programs:

BBC Panorama: What the Pope Knew (2010)
BBC Panorama: Sex Crimes and the Vatican (2006)

After weighing the facts presented in those programs, the biggest thing I am surprised about is that anyone was surprised with Benedict's announcement last week. The biggest surprise to me is that he lasted this long.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Benedict was forced to resign, and M.P.Schneider,LC is correct that if he was forced to resign then the resignation would not hold. All decisions are the result of various pressures - whether they be health or otherwise - so I am uncomfortable with "without external pressures", as that goes beyond the source. But unless you can show that he was forced to resign, it was a decision made of his free will, and saying so is reflected by the sources. - Bilby (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No evidence? I see a mountain of evidence on this one webpage alone. Now if you were to say no proof, then I would agree.

As for this notion that the resignation would not hold if forced, you are reflecting a policy that was put in place prior to the formation of the International Criminal Court. This event marked a huge turning point with regards to the legal accountability of heads of state. Nixon made a free choice to resign. But he did so knowing full well that the Congress would hold him accountable, and he would be out one way or the other. Benedict knows that he is accountable to the ICC, and the loads of evidence posted on this page indicate that he may very well have made his decision knowing that he would be out one way or the other.

Here is the kind of pressure Benedict was facing in 2010: ~12,000 Marching in London Protesting the Pope's Visit

Granted, that is a sampling of some of his most extreme detractors. Here is a BBC2 program from 2010 that gives a much more balanced investigation, seeking interviews from some of the Pope's biggest supporters: Benedict - Trials of a Pope

The host arrives at the conclusion that he believes that Benedict should not resign. But note that he is still talking about Benedict resigning.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between people calling for his resignation, and people forcing him to resign. Let's not confuse the two claims. There is no evidence that he was forced to resign, as opposed to resigning freely, and we do have sources which clearly state that it was a free decision. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I myself don't see a huge difference. If he felt pressured to resign, then that pressure either came from within the Vatican or from outside of the Vatican. To date, I have seen no evidence at all from any pressure coming from anyone close to him. But from places outside of the Vatican, I've seen plenty.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a third possibility (neither pressure from outside nor inside): Namely, feeling physically incapable of discharging his duties as pope, which is a quite daunting job. Gugganij (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that to be the position that Bilby was arguing for. I have voiced agreement that the motivations communicated by Benedict may very well be accurate, but that it would not be proper for our article to present that without also addressing the huge pressures coming from outside of the Vatican.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A much more important point is that whatever his personal motivations may or may not have been, that would give absolutely no justification for this article to blatantly ignore all of these external factors, as the article currently does. When notable incidents are calling for resignation and that gets reported on by reliable sources, then we have a duty to incorporate that into the article. Such fact are fully relevant, yet continue to be ignored. What we are left with is a heavily biased article. This is a gross error that needs to be corrected.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another possible option would be "on his own initiative." Anyone who is outspoken in this world will have his detractors, Pope Benedict is not different. It is far different from Gregory XII. Gregory was encouraged by 80%+ of his closest collaborators to resign, Benedict had been asked to resign by people who dislike the Catholic Church and see him as representing the Church. I do not know of a single Cardinal, Vatican official, or orthodox Catholic who told Benedict to resign. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 13:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've just stated, given all that we know right now. I think your suggestion is an excellent idea.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Then "freely" is changing to "on his own initiative."

We still have the issue regarding immunity. Is it relevant? 16:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

M.P.Schneider, I am surprised to see that question asked after all that's been posted to this section, let alone the rest of this page. Aside from the BBC, there was also a 2010 report by CNN titled:

CNN: What the Pope Knew (2010).

This is the most thoroughly researched program I have watched so far. I don't see how anyone could watch any of these shows and afterward ask whether this article needs a section about immunity from the sex abuse cases. NPOV requires that we have such a section.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To me all these programs seem the same as radical left-wingers arguing that we should prosecute Dick Cheny (and Bush and Rumsfeld for that matter) for crimes in Abu Ghraib. I don't have time to watch and analyze the hours of television you are citing in the next few days. Hopefully another editor can. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is legal immunity relevant to this page?

The CNN link [BBC 'Benedict - Trials of a Pope' link] above is cued up so that the meat of the point is made in just a few minutes. [correction--Tdadamemd (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)]

As for Dick Cheney, imagine if there were thousands of people calling for him to resign, several people file international criminal lawsuits ...and then he actually resigns. And then imagine a Wikipedia article written about his resignation that makes not a single mention of all of that external pressure. Well that is the kind of thing we have here with this article about Pope Benedict. Certainly you are free to disagree with the critics. But to continually ignore them, and persist in sanitizing the article and even all the efforts to sanitize this Talk page is to do a huge disservice to Wikipedia.--Tdadamemd (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, let's propose a situation where "several" people called for Dick Cheney to resign, a couple of groups (apparently in order to get some publicity) file lawsuits which are tossed out as not viable in a court which is unable to accept the case, and years later he decides to resign as a result of ill health. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There were thousands calling for Cheeny to be imprisoned or executed, and protesting all over the Middle East. Then, he was the first vice president of a 2nd-term president in over a generation not to run for president (pretty close to resigning). And I don't think these Cheeny protesters were seeking publicity as much some calling for Benedict.

I am not going to comment until someone else enters. I have several reasons: 1. the 3 of us are just going in circles, 2. I admit that I am pro-Pope just as Tdadamemd is anti-Pope (and as a non-anonymous editor, you could easily my non-wikipedia writing), 3. I am occupied with several other things over the next bit. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

All of this talk about Cheney are excellent reasons to include a 'Criticism' section for an article about him. These are not reasons for justifying the current state of our article about the Pope resigning. As far as bias goes, we all have our own. I don't see myself so much as "anti-Pope" as I consider it to be "pro-accountability". And the point I had stressed early on in this discussion is that I am not the source of this push. There is a great wealth of sources that have connected the topic of the Pope resigning to major scandals. And this spans from 2010 through to this very week. Yet the article remains in this lame condition of reading like a Vatican press release, with not a single mention of sex abuse scandal, or VatiLeaks, or any of the other negative incidents that people are reporting on as the cause of his resignation.

Now regarding being a "non-anyonymous editor", I see just about everyone posting to this page as non-anonymous. There's a huge difference between posting under a pseudonym versus posting anonymously. My own writings have been published under this name for well over a decade. I can't recall ever writing anything that could be taken as anti-Pope or anti-Church prior to two weeks ago. And again, the theme I have been pursuing over these past 14 days is nothing personal against Joseph Ratzinger. You may find this hard to believe, but I actually empathize with the man. He (and others like him) were in positions of leadership in an institution that has a very rigid set of policies. In that position he was forced to make decisions that would either conform to those policies, or go against them. Those are big decisions. And Ratzinger was far from the only one to put the "good of the Church" ahead of a need to protect children from being molested.

...and we can likewise extend empathy for someone like Dick Cheney. I don't think he authorized torture because he enjoys torturing people. He made tough decisions based on what he saw to be the "good of the country", when others may clearly see that it was not for the overall good of the planet. And even if he tortured because he enjoyed it, great spiritual leaders of the likes of Jesus or Buddha would probably tell us that such pathological behavior is rooted in the person having been damaged themselves in some major way. And such damage can affect a human just as surely as short circuiting an android robot would cause that entity to behave in harmful ways. It is this teaching that forms the basis of having love for pederastic priests, let alone compassion for those who administrate over them.

And now I will accept criticism for having soapboxed, because nothing in that paragraph above pertains to what we should or shouldn't have in this particular article. Having compassion or empathy, or maintaining a pro-Pope bias, does not excuse having this article remain in the sterilized condition it currently stands at.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read the above rambles and obfustications I haven't been unable to find any reliable sources which discusses it in any factual and relevant way and so cannot support having anything about it in the article. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not relevant. Despite the diarrhea of words above, it's much ado about nothing as pertains to this article. If it ever becomes a major matter of discussion in the mainstream press, mention may be relevant in some Wikipedia article, but not this one. Cresix (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Speculative conspiracy theorizing and tendentious soapboxing. Strawman arguments like "Would Jesus even approve of a bureaucracy ...", "As for Dick Cheney, imagine if there were thousands of people calling for him to resign ...". Sheesh! --Stfg (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support in theory, but unless RS indicate a quid pro quo for Benedict's resignation we shouldn't be discussing this in the first place. Miniapolis 18:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Legal immunity NOT relevant to this page. Are there actual credible (i.e. not some crackpot fringe private organization) legal charges filed against this living man? If not, then a legal immunity article would be no more appropriate than on an article about an infant born yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Legal immunity NOT relevant to this page. The question of legal immunity does not arise, as the Petrine Ministry is not the ordinary of dioceses wherein abuse has occurred, not in local jurisdictions, not in civil law. The ordinary is the local bishop and his presbyters. These are the persons who have legal accountability. One does not prosecute the Queen, head of state for crimes occurring in her dominions and territories; one does not prosecute the Head of State -- or former head of state -- of the Vatican City for crimes which have occurred in other legal jurisdictions. This RfC should have its own section and not be within a huge blob of text. Whiteguru (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose/Legal immunity irrelevant per all above commentators, including the "support in theory" (which, in reality, is an oppose/rationale for oppose, based on lack of "RS for quid pro quo arrangment"): there's no need to add more reasoning. I've not read the entire conversation. I read the first page or two and skimmed the last four or five. Move for close based on the near-unanimity of opposes from several uninvolved voices over the course of more than a week. I received a request from the FRS to comment here. I have never been involved with or edited this page before. Disclosure of possible COI: I am a cleric. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 06:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it is clear that my position on what is proper to cover in this article does not fit with the vocal majority here.

I maintain that the article, in its current form, reads like a sanitized Vatican press release. Even if all of the arguments I've presented here are seen to carry no weight, I fail to see how the wealth of reliable sources that I've sited have been so readily dismissed as irrelevant, giving not so much as a single mention within the body of the article. And aside from the one's I had highlighted, there were plenty of reliable sources reporting on the December VatiLeaks Dossier, with that document's connection to the resignation decision. I find it shocking to see so many editors here to not want a single mention of any of that. So the decision for now is to continue presenting an article on Benedict's resignation as though there was absolutely no connection to any of the scandals, and to pretend that all of the reliable sources that do point to such connections don't exist. Very curious.--Tdadamemd (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You should read WP:OR about making connections that aren't described in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have long been accused of OR & SYNTH here, but I have yet to be made aware of a single edit I've made that goes against WP. And note that I am talking about edits I made to the article, not comments posted on this Talk page. That's a huge difference. These edits were well referenced, yet got sanitized out of the article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)