Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

A more balanced view on the controversy

See this debate from the NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125311240

"after Pope John Paul II put Cardinal Ratzinger and his office in charge of the abuse complaints in 2001, Allen says "he began to talk much more openly about what he described as 'filth' in the Catholic Church, and became much more aggressive about prosecuting abusers."

In his papacy, Pope Benedict has been the first pope "to break the Vatican's wall of silence on this issue."

Also, see this op-ed in the New York Times by John L. Allen: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

Before then, no Vatican office had clear responsibility for cases of priests accused of sexual abuse, which instead were usually handled — and often ignored — at the diocesan level. In 2001, however, Pope John Paul II assigned responsibility to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s all-important doctrinal office, which was headed by Joseph Ratzinger, then a cardinal.

As a result, bishops were required to send their case files to Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. By all accounts, he studied them with care, making him one of the few churchmen anywhere in the world to have read the documentation on virtually every Catholic priest accused of sexual abuse. The experience gave him a familiarity with the pervasiveness of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic Church can claim. And driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as “filth” in the church, Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have undergone a transformation. From that point forward, he and his staff were determined to get something done.

[...]

"Among Vatican insiders, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith became the primary force pushing for a tough response to the crisis. Other departments sometimes regarded the “zero tolerance” policy as an over-reaction"

"After being elected pope, Benedict made the abuse cases a priority. One of his first acts was to discipline two high-profile clerics against whom sex abuse allegations had been hanging around for decades, but had previously been protected at the highest levels."

[...]

"What we are left with are two distinct views of the scandal. The outside world is outraged, rightly, at the church’s decades of ignoring the problem. But those who understand the glacial pace at which change occurs in the Vatican understand that Benedict, admittedly late in the game but more than any other high-ranking official, saw the gravity of the situation and tried to steer a new course."

[...]

"Yet to paint Benedict XVI as uniquely villainous doesn’t do justice to his record. The pope may still have much ground to cover, but he deserves credit for how far he’s come."

Jeannedeba (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the neutral 3rd party sources that paint John Paul as the villain here? Where are the neutral 3rd party sources that demonstrate Ratzinger has rooted out and forcefully denounced child rape? Where has he said the children are more important than the priests or Church itself, which are all disposable irrelevancies compared to children? If there are sources lets paint the real picture. Where are they? Op-eds don't count. John Allen is one man. Where are multiple sources telling this story?

"So that when Benedict was elected, a matter of just months after his election, in effect, the hammer came down. Father Marcial was taken out of priestly ministry and was instructed by the new pope to go live a life of prayer and penance." from that NPR. Where is the evidence they turned this criminal over to police? Stop defending the Church and pedophiles and start defending NPOV. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

An op-ed in the New York Times by the leading expert on the Pope does certainly count. You are just being disruptive now and I'm going to ignore your personal attacks. The article includes several sources, including this one (The Times). Jeannedeba (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 

Maciel was protected by John Paul II and remained leader of his organisation until John Paul's death. Ratzinger started an investigation of Maciel (a very powerful man and a friend of the pope) while John Paul was still alive, which obviously took a lot of courage. After he became pope, he forced Maciel to resign. What are you complaining about? Benedict was certainly not the villain here. (the sources are all in the article)Jeannedeba (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You get multiple independent verified 3rd party sources we can paint your version and I'll back you on it. That article on John Paul doesn't vindicate Ratzinger (which you have no authority or power to do here) and it doesn't elminate any verifiable facts of what Ratzinger did or didn't do. That can get added to John Paul's article. Are you willing to add to John Paul's article that he protected pedophiles? Peter Ian Staker (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, the article currently has "As Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger had tried to investigate cases of sexual abuse as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but his efforts were blocked by Pope John Paul II[citation needed]". That remains uncited, and it either needs to be cited to a reliable source, or it has to come out. The subject is mentioned in a NYT Op-Ed[1], which is sourced to an expose in the National Catholic Reporter[2] regarding the Marcial Maciel scandal. But none of those sources make a claim as strong as the one in the Wikipedia article. There's a letter showing Ratzinger passing the buck to the Vatican, but that's about it. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That's completely untrue, the fact template needs to be removed, because it's used abusively. The paragraph is full of references, detailing at least two prominent cases where Ratzinger pushed for investigation, but was blocked by John Paul (the Maciel case and the Groër case). The sentence you are referring to is just an opening sentence, i.e. an introduction to the following text that contains all the details and references. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Maciel case, but I have to agree that we can't make sweeping statements about JPII or Benedict based upon this one claim. I think it might be better worded in some way as to indicate that "there is evidence showing" or "in one case" or something along those lines. I don't think Maciel could be used to show systemic opposition from JPII or systemic fighting the system by Ratzinger. I think it might be better cast as a case where JPII's personal friendship clouded his judgment but not Ratzinger.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maciel is one case, Hans Hermann Groër[3] is a different case, in both cases Cardinal Ratzinger clearly pushed for investigation and for doing something about it, but was opposed by John Paul II and powerful forces within the Vatican. I think it's clear that Ratzinger/Benedict has been, for several years, the leading reformer who has pushed for putting an end to sexual abuse, even when facing powerful opposition within his church. Noone has done more than Benedict to stop it. Critics of sexual abuse should applaud Benedict for his courage and work in this area. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Associated Press reports today "Vatican goes into damage control mode over abuse"[4]. --John Nagle (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've added full protection for three days following a request on RfPP. If that's no longer needed, or if I've inadvertently protected any potential BLP violation (an issue that was mentioned in the report), please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no BLP violations in the current version (see above discussion), it (the early life section) is merely the version that has been stable for the last five years and that is properly sourced and encyclopedic. Protecting the stable version for a few days seems adequate. This page has been under heavy attack by disruptive users recently, and we don't need to rush anything. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Feel free to ask on RfPP if it needs to be extended. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

3 days should do the trick. By then the current "controversy" will be out of the news & hopefully people will have moved on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be longer than that. The Pope's scandals are now in the "breaking news" category, and the AP says the Vatican is in "damage control" mode. --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully not... articles shouldn't be in admin only mode any longer than they absolutely have to be... unfortunately this means that the article might be moved in and out of protection quite a bit because like you I fear this will become a lightning rod for vandalism or good faith but extremely biased editing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request (section «2010 controversy over sexual abuse within the Catholic Church»)

{{editsemiprotected}} On the 25th of March 2010, The New York Times titled in the front page "Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hp

On the same day, the Times titled in the front page the title "Pope 'failed to act' on US sex abuse claims" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7075237.ece

195.110.151.130 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What precise change do you want made to the article? Algebraist 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the statment of the Holy See [5]. THX. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the way this section is currently written it claims as a Bishop and as Cardinal Benedict (then Ratzinger) zealously defended young boys being molested, investigated these crimes and tried to get rid of pedophiles in the church, but was blocked by then Pope John Paul II. It's kind of convenient that we now see blame on a dead man, and it is interesting that even this clearly apologetic (as in advocating for Benedict) take on things there is no mention of this zealous version of Ratzinger trying to have these criminals prosecuted. In any case it is not NPOV to have all this pro-Benedict stuff in there, completely ignoring the scandal of him trying to cover up for pedophiles, as mentioned in the above links. If there must be some rebuttal of this, fine, but to sweep these things under the rug turns this into a fluff piece praising Benedict, whitewashed of even the accusation of wrongdoing. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that anyone reading this article wouldn't glean from it that he's been accused of being involved in a cover-up? I think that's blatant nonsense. The NYTimes pieces have been disputed, including in fairly mainstream press sources like the NYPost. This isn't a new page. We should only give significant weight to things that are generally accepted as true. It's clear in the article that accusations have been made. That's sufficient for the time being. Additionally, you say that we "now see blame on a dead man." That's a misrepresentation. I've been familiar with the Maciel case for years, and even while JPII was still alive, his and Cardinal Ratzinger's disagreement on Maciel was known.MikeNM (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At Benedict_16#Controversy_over_child_sexual_abuse_in_the_Catholic_Church, add {{SACC}}

In aid of information, crosslinking, and for sake of consistency with the range of other articles on the database with similar import to the template's subject matter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ResignBen16 (talk • contribs) date

That would not be an appropriate navbar, because this article is not part of the sexual abuse scandals series. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Kiesele case

I've corrected the date and circumstances; Kiesele had been convicted of pedophilia in 1978 (not 1985) and he and his bishop requested his defrocking, which was delayed for the best part of a decade, in part by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Also I've linked to a New York Times page with more documents to give a fuller picture.Red Hurley (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The letter was from 1985, hence where the date came from. FYI, it is factually inaccurate to say Ratzinger delayed the defrocking, as he had no authority over it at all. All he did was issue a standard form letter urging due caution. Really this is much to do about nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a non-Church RS that says it's much ado about nothing we treat it with the due weight the available RS are treating it with. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia isnt about truth its about verifiability per wp: verify, church source is equally valid as a RS. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but if the church says one thing and everyone else says another, the Church is wrong. they and Ratzinger have no special value or authority any more than any private group such as 4H or a labor union. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have made no change to the article on this point. Please also note that the Church has a lot better understanding about how their procedures work than a reporter reading a form letter 25 years later without any of the surrounding context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the church is an expert on lots of their stuff, but the Church and Christianity are irrelevancies in the face of NPOV which is our only religion here. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Sure the Church knows more about its internal procedures but are you actually saying that an organization accused of crimes is a more reliable source for information than anything else, in other words we should take their word for it on faith, regardless of any evidence to the contrary? That's not good scholarship. I guess we should shorten O. J. Simpson murder case and replace it with the story that random gangsters killed O.J.'s wife and he's on the hunt for them now, since people accused of crimes are more reliable sources for stories about those crimes than any evidence or investigation thereof. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is being accused of any crime here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely non-news and completely taken out of context. It doesn't belong in the pope's biography at all. All he did was issuing a standard letter recommending the appropriate caution. I don't see why caution should be controversial. This is an encyclopedia, not The Sun. The paragraph read like an accusation, and totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a non-story that will be completely forgotten within two weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Yeah but if the church says one thing and everyone else says another, the Church is wrong" we dont get to decide that, please read the opening line of wp: verify truth is not the requirement for inclusion. as for the OJ simpsons comparison, sure as soon as he becomes a head of state and releases information as a government source (joking incase not obvious). And just for the record the OJ article should reflect his statements of being innocent, as should this article. I'm not saying to the exclusion of conflicting sources if thats what you think im saying. NPOV would require both the Pro and Con side of the argument if it contains either. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

British citizen requesting the Pope's arrest

The fact that some British tabloids write that some British nutjob wants to arrest the Pope does not merit mention in the biography of the world's most important individual. There are regularly nutjobs who want to arrest Barack Obama, the Pope or other important people or have other crazy ideas. If the British government had done something to arrest the Pope, we could mention it. If one British private citizen has some crazy idea that is not going to happen it's not worth mentioning. If the individual in question had his/her own biography, it could be mentioned in their biography, not the Pope's biograhy. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't taken the time to read the linked article about the living person you are taking the liberty to call "nutjob" (quite remarkable language for a user who claims to place importance on the WP:BLP policy).

Richard Dawkins is not any private person, but one of the most notable critics of organized religion. If the campaign were as unimportant as you claim, CBS and The Times would not have reported on it.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this can be described as the isolated initiative of an individual vowing to make a citizen's arrest. Rather, it seems that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are working with two high-profile human rights lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's visit to Britain. See "The case for arresting the Pope", by Allison Kilkenny (Apr. 11th, 2010). IreneDelse 20:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IreneDelse (talk • contribs)

I didn't mention any names, I just referred to the general fact that any person who wants to arrest, assault or whatever a leading public figure (like the Pope or the American President) is, by definition, a nutjob. The person you are referring to is a private citizen, and does not represent the British government. We do not include far-out conspiracy theories or otherwise far-out views held by some private citizen in the biography of the world's most important living individual. Just because some private citizen says something outrageous and has some crazy idea, it does not mean it belongs in a concise summary of the most important aspects of the Pope's life (there are lots of crazy people around the world who hold strong opinions regarding most leading public figures). Adding such material is considered vandalism.

Private individual calls for the arrest of the Pope: Not relevant.

British government moves to arrest the Pope: Relevant. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To be precise, Richard Dawkins denies on his official website that he ever said he wanted to personally arrest Benedict XVI, only that he supported "wholeheartedly" the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to "mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain." Dawkins says he didn't originate the idea either, but that it was Christopher Hitchens. See Robertson's article in the Guardian, "Put the pope in the Dock" (April 2nd, 2010). IreneDelse 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT before re-adding this material. It may seem like a big deal now, but try to take a longer term view. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can take it for granted that the British government is going to ignore this nonsense completely. If or when (not going to happen) the British government moves to arrest the Pope, the situation would be different. If or when scientists discover the Earth is flat, we can rewrite our article on the Earth. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeannedeba it's probably time you took a break from this article given the title of this section and your obvious POV. They can proceed with a private prosecution (their words) but you're crossing the OR line. It's not up to you to decide what they'll do. Geoffrey Robertson is one of the most respected legal minds in the world, not "some nutjob". It's also Hitchen's idea, not Dawkins. It's not WP:UNDUE in any way and if you want to claim that please be specific. WP:RECENT could apply but this is hardly a minor celebrity trying to gain some publicity. For us to dismiss it we have to be doing OR about it's potential success and that's not on. As it stands and as it's being reported this could very well be a major event both in his life and the church and very much deserving of it's place in this article. However I don't want to start a edit war so lets wait and see what other editors have to say on the issue. RutgerH (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't have any POV except upholding encyclopedic standards and neutrality. Very much unlike some people pushing their agendas against the Pope in this article with puff pieces like this. I don't need to have an opinion of what some British individual is going to do - as long as the British government is doing nothing to arrest the Pope, this does not belong in this article, it's some idea held by one private individual who's not even legally qualified. There are 6,814,000,000 other people in the world, a concise summary in this article (the whole article is a summary with lots of in-depth articles) cannot report every far-out view on the Pope. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Robertson is the legal mind so there's your qualification. It's being reported so it's not a 'far-out' view on the pope. You're in no way being neutral given the title of this section and calling it a puff piece in the very next sentence. RutgerH (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"the world's most important living individual"? An excellent example of systemic bias. Wikipedia articles are not written from a Catholic point of view.

Jeannedeba is of course correct in stating that the article should not report the view of any "one private individual". But this view is not just that of some random person out of 7 billion, it is that of a notable figure (several ones, actually) and it has been reported by several reliable sources, a fact that Jeannedeba fails to acknowledge.

As to WP:UNDUE, consider the fact that the article currently spends a whole paragraph informing the reader about the pope's cats.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you obviously don't understand what undue wight means. This is a biography of the pope's entire life, not an article on the sexual abuse controversy. Three paragraphs about a form letter, with no legal meaning and no proven impact, is quite excessive. Furthermore adding things like Cardinal Angelo Sodano's opinion on the scandal is completely off topic and obviously was inserted just to make Benedict look bad. As a compromise, I have left ONE sentence saying Dawkins organized a campaign against the pope. That gives the incident three sentences in total, which is plenty - if every story about the pope got three sentences the article would be 500k long.

As to other things perhaps being given undue weight, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a terrible argument. The correct thing to do is fix the other stuff that is wrong, not use one wrong to justify more wrongs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An entire book has been written about his love for cats. Obviously, the same can't be said about his 1985 letter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware that his love of cats had become a major international controversy in which he had (and is being) under threat of legal action.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the rule that says only "major international controversy" (which this is not) is allowed to be covered. And for the record, I couldn't care less about how much cat coverage there is or isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out why this should be covered (its a major news event) as opposed to just a some aspect of his life. As to its international nature Huffington post [[6]] NY times [[7]] Washington post [[8]] CBS news [[9]] So it is clear that this has received a lot of attention outside the uUK, this is not just some British loony season story.Slatersteven (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal immunity

As explained in the CBS article, behind the campaign discussed above - which has gained widespread attention and attracted 10,000 signatories to a petition opposing the pope's upcoming visit to the UK - there is a serious legal debate about the pope's diplomatic immunity regarding child molestation lawsuits, a question that had already been raised shortly after he took office in 2005, when Benedict's lawyers asked U.S. president George Bush to grant him immunity in a child molestation lawsuit where he was named as a defendant (not as the main perpetrator, of course). See Pope seeks immunity over sex abuse suit U.S. Says Pope Immune From Molestation Lawsuit. Which also shows that the claims about this being recentism are not justified.

CBS quotes David Crane, former chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, Geoffrey Robertson and other authorities (whom Jeannedeba will now probably smear as "nutjobs" too for daring to consider the possibility of a legal prosection of what for her is "the world's most important living individual").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pope doesn't need to be "granted" legal immunity. He is a souvereign head of state, and there is no scholarly debate over that question. As the source you are referring to points out: "There's really no question at all, not the vaguest legal doubt, that he's immune from the suit, period," said Paolo Carozza, an international law specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School." Jeannedeba (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that this is not a new issue. it goes back at least 5 years. So any claim that this is recentism is unjustified.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, there is no issue at all. I didn't say this was recentism, I said there is no scholarly debate over this question as pointed out by the source provided by HaeB. The Holy See is recognized by more or less the entire world, the only notable exception being the communist dictatorship in mainland China. For instance, the Holy See is recognized by the United Kingdom and the United States. (Legal status of the Holy See, Foreign relations of the Holy See) Jeannedeba (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Notre Dame sources must be taken as what they are, extremely partisan and pro-Catholic so of lesser value. Get another non-Catholic source. But that aside that question is settled until there are more legal steps taken or until further developments. Neutrality demands independent non-religiously affiliated sources however. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Notre Dame would be one of those CINO cases---Catholic in Name Only. They have a lot of autonomy from the Church and do not in any way shape or form kowtow to them---remember that they invited Obama to speak despite the local bishop and catholic organizations saying not to. Many of the older schools were founded by religious institutions, but have moved away. For example, Southern Methodist University is Methodist in Name Only or my alma mater Ohio Wesleyan is Methodist in Name Only. They get a modicum of funding and get to advertise their affiliation, but the professors are not compelled to adhere to any sort of guideline professions of faith.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Associated Press - Sunday, April 4th, 2010

"senior British lawyers are now examining whether the pope should have immunity as a head of state and whether he could be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction" and "Lawyers are divided over the immunity issue. Some argue that the Vatican isn't a true state, while others note the Vatican has national relations with about 170 countries, including Britain. The Vatican is also the only non-member to have permanent observer status at the U.N." So it is not as clear cut as is being presented.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording

The article currently reads:

In early April 2010, attention was drawn to Ratzinger's role in a 1980s sexual abuse case where he urged "due caution" and consideration for "good of the universal Church" before defrocking American priest Stephen Kiesle, who had been convicted by the criminal courts of pedophilia in 1978. The accusations were dismissed by the Vatican as taken out of context. Richard Dawkins started a campaign to arrest Benedict "for crimes against humanity".

I am open to alternate wordings and/or minor additions. However, I think the current structure is what we want at this time. That is: One paragraph containing the accusation, the papal response, and third party reactions. Any more than one paragraph would be undue weight, IMO. Keep in mind that this is a recent event and so seems more important than it likely will turn out to be. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That wording is now authorized by me to stay as-is until more developments occur. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are hardly in a position to "authorize" anything. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its slightly mis-leading he was not de-frocked untill did not de-froch him untill 1987. So I susgerst that line is re-worded to

"In early April 2010, attention was drawn to Ratzinger's role in a 1980s sexual abuse case where he urged "due caution" and consideration for "good of the universal Church" before defrocking American priest Stephen Kiesle in 1987, who had been convicted by the criminal courts of pedophilia in 1978."

One last point, its been claimed that Rartzinger did not have the power to defrock him, who did?Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that he did not have the authority to personally do anything. I'll have to check on the exact details, though, and get back to you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need this paragraph at all, this is non-news as agreed above. The whole paragraph is a violation of WP:NPOV because it is insinuating. It presents some very select issues like an accusation. A more appropriate wording would be: In a difficult case, Cardinal Ratzinger sent a standard letter where he recommended the appropriate caution in the handling of the case. But then again, why does this need to be in the article? This is nothing. Presenting this like an accusation is POV/puff piece/attack page/undue/insinuating and certainly unencyclopedic. Jeannedeba (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do forgive me but no such agrement has been reached reading the above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was reached not to include this material. Jeannedeba (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 

Where? and per us there is no concensus now so the issue remains open. The content remains until a clear majority (not a simple majority) oppose it and demonstrate consensus. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the other way round. You need consensus to include this controversial material. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but you said that consensus had been reached for its exclusion, that is not the case. No consensus has been reached either way.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The confusion here is perhaps my fault. I said I do not believe the story (about the letter in general, not Dawkins) will amount to anything above. However, my opinion is not relevant - RS think it matters, so it matters for now. If it proves to be inconsequential in the long run, the material can easily be removed at a later date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This story is a sequal to events that go back at least five years.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, unless you consider all cases of child abuse to be the same story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If they involve the saem person i would say that they are either the same (or at least related) story.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Every single thing that happens in the church at least indirectly involves the pope. That doesn't mean everything that happens is related to every other thing though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But he is directly, not indirectly involced in these. He has been repeatdly accused of this cover up.Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne is entirely correct, it is other way around. The person who wants to add or maintain controversial material in a BLP is the one that is responsible for A) providing reliable sources and B) proving that the inclusion of the material is necessisary and needed. When the material is controversial, especially when dealing with a BLP, then the policy is not to include it until/unless its inclusion can be shown to be valid/necessary. Here we are dealing with a WP:FRINGE position, there are hundreds of not thousands of people out there who probably believe the Pope should be arrested---but that doesn't mean that their position is the norm or accepted position. Nor does it mean that it is worthy of being repeated. If some government/legal body actually issues a warrant for his arrest or he has to change his travel plans because of such a threat, THEN it becomes noteworthy.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to note (hopefully for the final time) that there's no such thing as "defrocking" in Canon Law. Can we please be specific about what was an was not done? Kiesel was removed from ministry. His vows were not dissolved, but the dissolution of vows is not ordinarily viewed as a punishment. I know the media uses the word "defrocked" frequently, but unfortunately, they are inconsistent with what they mean by that. Perhaps its asking a little much for wikipedia to be held to a higher standard than NYTimes editorials, but in this case I think it's very important. MikeNM (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

By all means, please do suggest more accurate wording. --164.107.191.158 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But only backed by neutral third-party (non-church) sourcing. Peter Ian Staker (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems entirely appropriate to rely on Church sourcing for the Church's legal code. I think it would be appropriate to distinguish, as Canon lawyers have encouraged, between dismissal from ministry and dismissal from the clerical state. The latter is what was delayed in the Kiesle case. The term dismissal from the clerical state is used in the Code of Canon Law (see, for example, Canon 1336 §1[10]) The problem with the current wording is that it's inconsistent even within its own paragraph. Fr. Maciel was not dismissed from the clerical state but was forced to resign from ministry. Kiesle was removed from ministry, too. You wouldn't get the idea from that paragraph that Kiesle and Maciel got pretty similar treatment.MikeNM (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I realized the the article said that he was charged with "pedophilia," which isn't actually a charge. I checked the news articles on it and am changing the wording to match them. It will read "...who was arrested and plead guilty in the California Courts to misdemeanor lewd conduct for his activities with two young teenaged boys, resulting in a sentence of three years probation."MikeNM (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sex abuse section to Pope Benedict XVI article is not neutral

This is the first time I have a problem with neutrality on Wiki. In regard to the sex abuse scandal: There are some very recent revelations to which there have not been any resolutions. It seems that article is plainly saying that the pope did his best not to cover up the scandal. Says who? Says some other guy in the church? The statements made regarding the pope might not be very credible, given it was made by another member high up in the curch. The problem with that is there is no other viewpoint opposing those statements. I am certain I have seen some opposing points of view in the media. I saw one interview by a priest in Oakland who knew Kiesle and had requested for him to be defrocked. His statements regarding the pope contradict the statements made in defense of the pope. So why include a quote defending the pope, but no quotes from the other side of the argument? Overall, the child abuse section is too short. If it was goin to be so shallow, the section should have read "The pope is currently involved in a child abuse cover-up scandal. It is alleged that prior to becomming the pope, Ratzinger was aware of specific cases of child abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests, but failed to remove those pedophiles from their positions permanently. The pope denies the allegations and any involvment in a cover-up. These facts are in dispute.

I am suspicious as to who wrote that section for Wiki. Hmmmmmm.......... Whoever wrote it must have a biased view. Unfortunately, they were a bit too indulgent in their bias, as to tip everyone off. In other words, it didn't work. Next time try not to be so obvious about it.

Note: I am not citing any references because I am not claiming any statememts of fact or truth; there are many different sides and stories in the media. Shadikh (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a change made, please make a concrete request and yes that means citing a source - opinions must be sourced just as facts must be sourced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadikh, I think your comments are simply ignorant of the facts. For one thing, his office did not have the authority to remove priests for sex abuse prior to 2001. For another, in the letters cited about Fr. Murphy in Wisconsin, that priest in California, etc., he specifically supported the decisions (which were not his to make, anyway) to permanently remove the offending priests from ministry. The questions addressed in those letters were about whether the offenders vows could be dissolved in a religious sense, not whether the priest could ever hold a position in the Church's ministry.

This brings me to a complaint about this section of the article. There's no such thing as "defrocking" in current Catholic Canon Law. I know the press uses it a lot, but it doesn't mean anything. I think its use is confusing, because it's not specific about what was and was not done. Many think that if a priest wasn't "defrocked," it means that a priest continued to minister as a priest, which is plainly not the case. If no one steps in to defend the use of that ambiguous term, I will replace that sentence with more precise language that reflects the realities of the Code of Canon Law. 76.100.172.130 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the article im seeing is concerning pope john paul II. Maybe he was innefective on combating the scandals. But is certainly a lack of intelectual honesty to make him the direct responsible in hiding the scandals. And most importantly,without a trustable citation or documental proof! It is clear a break in the wiki veiew of neutrality,politically motivated(by defenders of anti-catholic elements or even "defenders" of benedict xvi. The problem concerning the pedophiles is not of pope X or Y. But the excessive formalism of catholic institutions and the craving to obsolete,innefective traditions (example: secrecy of confession,even when it affects inocent people, excessive importance to celibacy,etc).A reform is necessary,and a cultural change on perspective. Blaming persons will not help. The excessive formal structure is the cause,the inefectiviness is only the effect.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.178.73 (talk • contribs)

I have to admit, I'm a little uncomfortable with the way this section does appear to throw John Paul II under the bus.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As much as I would love to jump in to defend JPII here, as I believe he was an exemplary man, any edits should maintain that he DID in fact try to block investigations into Maciel. It seems he did so because he trusted Maciel and thought the accusations were just slander... to insinuate that he blocked them in order to cover up for Maciel would be going beyond the evidence. But, JPII's great accomplishments and charisma should not result in a white washing of that particular major mistake.MikeNM (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok mike,but the article is not structured in a way that make this apparent. Article makes a unaware reader to think that he protected pedophiles purposely. And this even without citation. A polemical info must be accompanied by the two sides to be neutral and not take a political side. Most of the polemical articles of wikipedia,unfortunately,take a one-sided vie about matters,a thing that does not happen in the more obscure ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.179.241 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for changes? It doesn't actually say that he deliberately defended pedophiles. If you think you can fairly add in a section expanding the events to paint a clearer picture, I would support that. I don't know how to do that, though.MikeNM (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Secretary's Statement

Do we think the recent statement of Benedict's Secretary of State needs to be mentioned? I mean of course his claim that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked and that there is no connection between celibacy and sex crimes against minors? Refraining, as I will try, from outrage, I ask, was the Cardinal speaking as a private person or as the Pope's representative? If the former, it can be mentioned on his own page, if he has one. If the latter, I think it needs to be included.--Gazzster (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cardinals are generally allowed to speak their mind, and are not necessarily speaking on behalf of the whole church. At this point, this statement could merit inclusion in an article about the abuse cases and/or in Bertone's biography, but I don't see any strong reasons to include it in Benedict's biography at this time. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed it is already in Bertone's article. Of course the Vatican's comment on the Cardinal's statement, if and when it comes, could be material for this article.--Gazzster (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)--Gazzster (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If and when it comes from the Vatican (or is even attributed to the Pope by the SoS, but until then it is his opinion. It would be parallel to Hilary Clinton saying somthing and having what she said attributed to Obama.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article, but it probably belongs in Catholic church sex scandal or some related article. Bertone is the Vatican's secretary of state, second only to the Pope, so when he gives a press conference, it's a Vatican statement. Spin control is now in progress.[11] --John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

More news today. Many stories from reliable sources. Frantic spin control from Vatican. Attempt to blame gays: "Vatican cardinal blames scandal on gays" (UPI). Attempt to back off from statement blaiming gays: "Vatican Backtracks on Linking Abuse Scandal to Gays" (Sidney Morning Herald) Attempt to blame media: "Anti-church campaign seen in scandal stories, Vatican editor says" (Catholic Spirit). Attempt to act contrite: "Pope says church must do penance for abuse cases" (Reuters) All this is coming from top people at the Vatican. --John Nagle (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nagle, this is nothing new. It is all referring to the point Gazzster made above and not appropriate for the article on Benedict--they would, however, be pertinent to the main article on the sex abuse subject. The only one that might have anything material for this article would be the last one wherein the pope says the church needed to do penance.... although prefixing it with "attempt to act contrite" would not be a NPOV way to phrase it ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't added anything to this article. I've been adding material to Catholic church sex scandal, as breaking news. There's extensive coverage in many reliable sources today. We'll have to see how the scandal unwinds. --John Nagle (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... I wasn't sure if you were saying that we needed to add that info here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on CDF

In the section on the CDF, the paragraph that deals with Crimen Sollicitationis is thoroughly factually flawed. Something dealing with the CDF's role in sex abuse issues should be included, but the paragraph there now is so incorrect that I think that paragraph should be stricken. Crimen Sollicitationis was neither written by Cardinal Ratzinger nor was it issued in 2001. It was issued in 1962 by Cardinal Ottaviani (as the wikipedia article on that document states.) It went out of effect in 2001 when Cardinal Ratzinger signed a new letter to replace/update it, called "De delictis gravioribus." This sort of factual error is completely unacceptable.MikeNM (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond just fixing the reference to say something along the lines of "in De delictis gravioribus Ratzinger updated Crimen Sollicitationis" are there any other problems with the section? I mean, yes it is obvious that the wrong document is referenced, but that does not mean we throw the rest of the paragraph out the window. The pope was criticized at the time. I am going to fix that reference as you are correct it is factually inaccurate and I don't think this fix will be controversial.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Based upon the factual error identified above, I made the non-controversial edit[12] to fix the source---it does not change the content or anything else in the document, just clarifies the actual letter Ratzinger wrote.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that edit works well enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeNM (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oprhaned Child

I think we need to move a section, I would be bold and do so on my own, but as the article is currently under protection, I think we should get some consensus to do so. Currently the Sex Scandal is at the very end of the section on his papacy. It comes after his health, attire, and apostolic ministry. I feel like it is an orphaned child there. As the section now reads:

• Points 1-4 deal with his election and early papacy.
• Point 5 deals with the internal focus of his papacy and the theological/administrative issues he addresses.
• Points 6-7 similarly deals with the external focus of his papacy and the implications of his theological/administrative issues he addresses.
• Points 8-9 deal with his personal health and preferences. They are a little lighter in tone and importance.
• Point 10 deals with the sexual abuse crisis.

In my opinion having the sexual abuse crisis at the end doesn't make sense. It is in the wrong location. It is somewhat a theological/administrative issue, but doesn't really fit under that umbrella, but still I think the article would make more sense if we moved the section up and placed it just before the ecumenical efforts section? That way points 5 and 6 would both be dealing with the internal focus of his papacy and the implications of his theological/administrative issues.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it makes the most sense in between current points 5 and 6. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be between 7 and 8 (move it above attire). Yes it's primarily an internal issue but there's plenty of external comment on it. To break up his work with the scandal section I feel would devalue his work but the scandal section won't be devalued by such a placement. RutgerH (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That actually isn't a bad thought.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a few more hours and if nobody objects, I'm going to move the section. I don't think this is a controversial move as it doesn't affect the actual content of the article, it only affects the location/flow.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the move.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Album, interests section

I'm noting a piece of outdated information in the "Interests" section. The article states:

"Pope Benedict has recorded an album of contemporary classical music in which Benedict sings and recites prayers to the Virgin Mary.[157] The album was set for release on 30 November 2009."

This date has passed, at the very least I believe it should be changed to "The album was released on 30 November 2009". The current form of the sentence is confusing as it appears to be written after the release date (the "was") but it doesn't actually indicate whether the album was released on time or not. Can this be corrected, maybe a name for the album added? --Pstanton (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Moral panic

There is an interesting article by the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne called "Moral panic flares again"[13], which could possibly be cited in this article and/or in the article on the alleged abuse cases. There is also an interesting article by Thomas G. Plante[14]. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It was an interesting article and I think it made a lot of salient points, but he kind of undermined his credibility with those last three paragraphs. I could have used without the conspiracy theories---they may be true, but it shifted the article away from being a case study to a polemetic.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

His main point was that sexual abuse is not a major problem in the Catholic Church as compared to other parts of the society (he cites some interesting figures), and that the current hysteria is an example of moral panic, which is an established scholarly term and theory in sociology. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but his last 3 paragraphs show this to be an apologetic more than anything else. If he left that part out, then it would have been a great source dealing more with an academic subject.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

While I do not agree with his last paragraphs, I don't think they invalidate the rest of the article and some of his key points. I wouldn't want to cite the last paragraphs, just (and not necessarily in this article) something along the lines of "sociologist Massimo Introvigne argues that this is a case of moral panic, and that sexual abuse is not a big problem in the Catholic Church as compared to the rest of the society". Introvigne is a very prominent sociologist of religion, and this particular article has received great attention in several countries (not only Catholic media). Jeannedeba (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The study never even mentions the current Pope. Therefore it would be a violation of WP:SYN to include in this article. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not to advocate using the article or not, but the rationale you present doesn't work. The article doesn't have to specifically address the pope as the article is directly referencing something that pope is intimately involved with. No offense, but it doesn't take half a brain to connect the dots. Synthesis is taking two positions and coming up with a third one which would be original research. Here drawing the line would not be SYN, because connecting this case to the sex scandal which the Church/pope is accused is a direct line. Again, I'm not advocating using the article, but rather saying your rationale not to use it doesn't work. Furthermore, the article DOES mention the current pope, so your criticism isn't even based upon facts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The articel also does not address (as far as I can see) the actual contoversy. Which is not that catholic priests are peodphiles, but that the catholic church activly coverd up the fact. It is that Ratsinger has been accused of being party to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, perhaps the two of you are not reading the full article??? First, let's assume that it doesn't? There is zero doubt that the author is addressing the allegations of sex abuse case. But we don't have to make that assumption. Because the author does directly talk about it. The fact that headlines say "it involves the Pope" is in its own way a textbook case, it goes on to talk about the Munich case in some detail. Again, I am not arguing for or against inclusion, but I am pointing out that you and Mr Cleveland have made two completely unfounded arguments.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I mis-understand your point. I ws saying that the article does not adress what ratzinger has been accused of (and what hte basis of the ncontocersey is) which is not that the catholic church is riddled with Pedophilles (which is what hte articel is adressing), but that the caqtholic church (and Cardinal Ratsinger) coverd up the abuse of children in the |c atholic church (which the articel does not seem to address). In the case of Munich if does say that the German courts decided that Ratsinger was not involved, and that is the only material in the artciel that has any relevance on this page. But it does not address the central question of the alledged coverup, only that catholic preiest are no more likely to be pedophiles then any one else (whilst ignoring the fact that (for example) the American school system does not (and has not been accused of) covering up abbuse by teachers).Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is discussing the notion of moral panic as it references the Catholic Church and sex abuse cases. The basic principle of the article is that the cases being brought forth today are nothing new and have been dealt with in the past, but we are bringing forth new allegations every day creating a "moral panic." He uses the case in Munich as a specific example of how this "moral panic" is being created. The point of the entire article is that the whole "scandal", while based upon facts, is being blown out of proportion (eg creating a moral panic). Old facts are being treated as new and when 30 year old memory differs from the written record, the differences are being touted as proof that something isn't right. (As for the German courts deciding in 1986 that Ratzinger was not involved, I would love to see that covered in what I felt was a more reliable source---the last 3 paragraphs of this article move this away from what I consider to be an interesting article and push it into the realm of apologetics---if that is true, then Gruber's recent statements are not as important/material, the 1986 ruling would, IMO, exhonorate Ratzinger.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The truth about the jurisdiction of Then-Cardinal Ratzinger

In regards to the scandal, Pope Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) did not have jurisdiction to act against priests accused of sexual abuse, unless the abuse was concomitant with a violation of the seal of Confession. All other cases of misconduct lay within the local Diocese, not with the CDF. However, after the Vatican realized that the U.S. Church had failed to deal properly with sexual misconduct in the priesthood, the Vatican gave the CDF jurisdictional authority in 2001, in order to expedite the canonical process of laicizing abusive priests (by the way, "laicizing" is a more accurate term than "defrocking"). So the cases where Cardinal Ratzinger "failed" to act against abusive priests seem like dubious accusations, to say the least. Considering all of this, this information needs to be mentioned, as there seems to be some personal vendetta against the Pope on the part of some who won't take a look at the actual facts, and despite the fact that all evidence points to failures on the part of some of the U.S. bishops (like the now-disgraced Archbishop Weakland in the case of Lawrence Murphy) not on Cardinal Ratzinger.Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to emphasize the fact that this became his responsibility from 2001 onwards. Jeannedeba (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusation that previous Pope blocked the present popes investigation.

"As Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger had tried to investigate cases of sexual abuse as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but his efforts were blocked by Pope John Paul II"

This is not supported by the links given in that section, the newspaper article only states that in the opinion of this one source he was blocked by the "Vatican", nowhere in the links given does it say that it was personally blocked by Pope John Paul II. Unless links are given that support this as a statement of fact rather than opinion then it shouldn't be in here in that form.

The whole section seems to be an attempt to sanitise at the expense of a dead man, but that's a matter for discussion. The opening statement above, that's presented as fact and not opinion is not supported by the later links in the paragraph and I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amentet (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove content without cause and without discussing it first. This is merely the opening sentence of the paragraph, as discussed before. The following sentence doesn't make sense without the opening sentence, for which reason your edit was not an improvement of the article. The opening sentence is clearly supported by the following sources in the same paragraph, for instance by The Times ("the late pontiff blocked an inquiry into a paedophile cardinal", this article also mentions several important cases, notably the Maciel and the Groër case). Also, "The Vatican" would in any event mean the former pope in this case, only he would have the authority to block any undertaking by Cardinal Ratzinger (this was also pointed out by the source in question, that is, The Times: "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — who became Pope Benedict — had tried to investigate the abuses as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, according to Schönborn. But his efforts had been blocked by “the Vatican”, an apparent reference to John Paul."). Jeannedeba (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have rearranged and partially reworded this section now anyway, relying more on direct quotes from the sources. Jeannedeba (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We can only say twhat sources say, not what we interpeated them to say. If a source not not expresly say it tehn niether can we.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Marceli case the sources say he was investigating (not that he started the investigation) in 2004. We can only say what the sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hullermann removed

The actions of certain editors, who evidently think that they WP:OWN this article, are so onesided it's funny. There are innumerable news articles linking Benedict to Hullermann and discussing the importance that the Hullermann scandal may have for Benedict. It is a WP:NPOV violation for Wikipedia editors to impose their own opinions that the Hullermann affair is unimportant or trivial. Yet some editors, not content with spinning off the Hullermann scandal into a POV fork, have removed all mention of the scandal from this page completely! Grover cleveland (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, or I'd look into it some more. But the section you added is a little on the long side. It would be more acceptable in the main article on the sexual abuse issue, but we need to trim it down for this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I lied, an hour later and I'm going to bed. I tried to cut your section down---mostly by compressing sentences and removing unnecessary details. Again, my main problem with the first draft wasn't the tone/facts, but rather the length. It was rather wordy at some points. I have no doubt that somebody else will come by an reword some of my edits. But hopefully we can get to a nice concise statement that works for all.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 09:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem wasn't the facts or tone, it was the excessive detail/length and the tangential relevance in this biography at best, but this problem had already been solved by moving most of the material to a different article, see below. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hullermann controversy was removed by User:Axxxion, who has otherwise been pushing anti-Benedict POV in this article. So much for intellectual honesty.

The controversy was previously mostly moved to a separate article because the Pope's biography is not the right place to have all the details (WP:UNDUE) just because the Pope might have had some remote knowledge of the case. Also see [15], this really isn't a case at all (i.e. it has nothing to do with the Pope). You (Grover cleveland) of course reverted, but were quickly reverted[16] by a different user who stated "Agree with Jeannedeber's version, more concise & appropriate for article".

I have no idea why you anti-Benedict people yourself removed all mention of this case, then blaming it falsely on those who uphold encyclopedic standards ("whitewashers"), then reinstating an inappropriate and much too detailed former version of the text that had been removed by multiple people. I was quite happy with the short summary and see no need to remove it. Further work on the Hullermann case needs to be done here. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 

I have to agree this did seem overly detailed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne, while I agree that Grover's allegations show his bias, his entry into the article was a balanced piece (EG I did not see it as overly negative or positive) towards the Pope---only too much detail for THIS article. I would also agree that his edits did make some assumptions of bad faith, but I have to call you out as well. While he was in error about who removed the piece, that does not mean he was engaged in intellectual dishonesty.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the current version, and don't think there is enough in there now. While Gover's entry was way too detailed, the two sentences that currently exist might not be enough. I'll have to mull it over---this is a biography of his entire life so that MIGHT be appropriate. But I'm not sure.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the series of edits, the piece that is absolutely necessary is that Hullerman resumed priestly duties in the Archdiocese wherein he did commit more crimes. The fact that there was a case isn't the concern, but rather that hullermann was allowed to resume his priestly duties.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence suggesting he committed any crimes in the Archdiocese of Munich. The source points out that he was convicted of these crimes in 1986, in a different parish. Ratzinger didn't even work in Germany at that time. I fail to see why this information is relevant in Benedict's biography. Phil Lawler writes[17]: "There is no evidence that the Pope was aware the accused priest was an accused pedophile; he was evidently informed only that the priest had been guilty of sexual improprieties, and probably concluded that he was engaged in homosexual activities with young men." The Pope's only involvement with this case was that he formally approved that this priest from a different diocese stayed in a rectory while he was undergoing counseling in Munich. The case was of course handled by the Diocese of Essen. He didn't know the details of the case, and he surely didn't know what the priest was going to do many years later in a different diocese.

As I said before, the edits were not problematic per se, they were problematic in this article because this is Benedict's biography. Also, when Grover cleveland refers to "whitewashers" who "think that they WP:OWN this article", he clearly refers to me, per previous statements here. He's attacking me without bothering checking who actually removed the text in question. I, on the other hand, took the time to check who did it. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What he knew/didn't know is a matter of conjecture at this point. I suspect that it wasn't as big of a deal at the time as we are making it out to be today... I suspect that when it came accross his desk (if he ever actually saw it) not much thought went into it... it wasn't the buzz that it is today. And it was probably one of those issues that was faced with a "Ok, whatever" type of attitude. Times have changed. BUT the fact remains, it was under Ratzinger that Hullermann resumed his priestly duties. The articles do imply that the new cases occurred in another parish (not necessarily a different diocese---but possibly after Ratzinger moved on) but that doesn't matter. Ratzinger was either directly (or indirectly) involved in his getting reinstated in pastoral ministry with the public.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain (preferably here and in the article) while this case is relevant at all. The article currently has about four lines explaining Hullerman's actions and one unsourced sentence saying Benedict's knowledge of the events "has been questioned". As such, the present text provides no justification for the inclusion of this material (not saying there isn't one per se, just that none has been provided). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a minimum of text to explain the connection to Ratzinger, and made the remainder of my additions at Peter Hullermann controversy. I apologize to all concerned for my intemperate language, and for misidentifying the person who removed all mention of Hullermann. I appreciate that everyone here is working in good faith, despite our differences of opinion. Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article was recently fully protected for a few days to calm things down. However, when it was unprotected, it was fully unprotected. It had been semi-protected for an extended period of time (since January 2008). Should this article still be semi-protected? The article Barack Obama is also semi-protected. It seems to be the usual practice that articles that are high-risk vandalism targets are semi-protected on a more or less permanent basis. Jeannedeba (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that there has been a great deal of IP based vandaliam as yet. As such I cannot see a reason for this page to be semi-protected.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The investigation of Maciel

The investigation of Maciel was initiated by Ratzinger in 2004. Countless sources have emphasized this fact. Also see this article in the NYT by Ross Douthat, which is critical of Benedict, yet points out that he was the main force in combating sexual abuse for several years. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/12douthat.html?src=mv

But there’s another story to be told about John Paul II and his besieged successor. The last pope was a great man, but he was also a weak administrator, a poor delegator, and sometimes a dreadful judge of character.

The church’s dilatory response to the sex abuse scandals was a testament to these weaknesses. So was John Paul’s friendship with the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ. The last pope loved him and defended him. But we know now that Father Maciel was a sexually voracious sociopath. And thanks to a recent exposé by The National Catholic Reporter’s Jason Berry, we know the secret of Maciel’s Vatican success: He was an extraordinary fund-raiser, and those funds often flowed to members of John Paul’s inner circle.

Only one churchman comes out of Berry’s story looking good: Joseph Ratzinger. Berry recounts how Ratzinger lectured to a group of Legionary priests, and was subsequently handed an envelope of money “for his charitable use.” The cardinal “was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said, and turned the money down.

This isn’t an isolated case. In the 1990s, it was Ratzinger who pushed for a full investigation of Hans Hermann Groer, the Vienna cardinal accused of pedophilia, only to have his efforts blocked in the Vatican. It was Ratzinger who persuaded John Paul, in 2001, to centralize the church’s haphazard system for handling sex abuse allegations in his office. It was Ratzinger who re-opened the long-dormant investigation into Maciel’s conduct in 2004, just days after John Paul II had honored the Legionaries in a Vatican ceremony. It was Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, who banished Maciel to a monastery and ordered a comprehensive inquiry into his order.

So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up.

Jeannedeba (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And here is another one:

"In 2004, John Paul -- ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel -- honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem's Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel."

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/money-paved-way-maciels-influence-vatican

Which is roughly the wording that was originally used in the article. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened, not began.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No what we have is a conflict of sources, one says we re-opened it one says that he authorised it. So I don't thibnk is can be claerly demonstrated that he bagan the investigation, mearly that he was repsonsilbe for it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict of sources. It may be the fact that some sources are less precise. These are the facts (from the article by Jason Berry):

In 1998, eight ex-Legionaries filed a canon law case to prosecute him in then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's tribunal. For the next six years, Maciel had the staunch support of three pivotal figures: Sodano; Cardinal Eduardo Martínez Somalo, prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life; and Msgr. Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Polish secretary of John Paul. During those years, Sodano pressured Ratzinger not to prosecute Maciel, as NCR previously reported. Ratzinger told a Mexican bishop that the Maciel case was a "delicate" matter and questioned whether it would be "prudent" to prosecute at that time.

In 2004, John Paul -- ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel -- honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem's Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel.[18]

I.e., Cardinal Ratzinger did indeed authorize an investigation, and furthermore, he was the only leading church figure interested in doing something with this problem. He was pressured by other powerful people, notably the private secretary of the pope, Stanislaw Dziwisz, and cardinals Sodano and Somalo, not to do so. Yet, despite this pressure, he decided on his own, while John Paul was still the pope and actively honored Maciel, that something had to be done about this case and started an investigation anyway. Without Ratzinger, there wouldn't have been any investigation at all, and there was surely no investigation until 2004, only a canon law case that was being ignored for the reasons mentioned. Why are people attacking Benedict, the chief crusader against sexual abuse who demonstrated great courage in combating such abuse, despite very strong opposition, again and again, that is a very interesting question. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No they are what a source claims, one that another source (you provided) seems to partiualy contradict (re-opened as opposed to authorised (which by the does not preclude a re-opening, he might have authorised the re-openiing of the investigation indead your source seem to impy this as there were charges against him before Ratzinger intervined)). Nor is you statment about there being no investigatio without Ratzinger true (after all Maciel was already facing canon law charges, someone must have investigated those).Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, there is no contradiction. The first source was merely a short, random op-ed that was not necessarily that precise, the second is a very detailed article on this particular case by a leading expert on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, who has even written a book and directed a film on this particular case, the Maciel case (Jason Berry). Frankly, we don't need to state the same fact twice. There was no investigation until Ratzinger authorized it, only a canon law case that was being ignored until then. Yes, I am entirely correct that there was no investigation without Ratzinger. No, you don't need "authorization" just to file charges. Authorization to actually do something about the charges is a different matter. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What was the cannon law case about? Also for there to be a case there has to be an investigation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all explained by the source. No, first comes the charges/canon law case, then comes the investigation. The investigation was authorized in 2004 by Ratzinger after years of pressure (from the pope and his confidants) not do to anything about the case. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So in fact he did re-open an old case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There hadn't been any investigation before, as pointed out by the source. He authorized doing something, for the first time, with a case that had originally been filed in the late 1990s. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

And was apparaently initaly shut down by Ratzinger http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn051906.htm "Ratzinger, who initially shut down the probe of Maciel, then allowed the investigation to go forward," So who started it in the first place? as well as "The case could also call into question the action of Benedict XVI, who as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stopped the case against Maciel in 1999. However, he reactivated the case in 2004 and ultimately approved the disciplining of Maciel." http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn051806.htm. So it would seem he did in fact re-open the investigation, having first cliosed it down.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"During those years, Sodano pressured Ratzinger not to prosecute Maciel, as NCR previously reported"[19].

"Berry reports that much later, efforts to reveal Maciel’s machinations and sexual improprieties were actively blocked by “pressure from Maciel’s chief supporter, Cardinal Angelo Sodano.” Berry reports that after nine former members of the Legion who claimed to have been sexually abused by Maciel filed a canonical case against the founder with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998, Sodano “pressured” Cardinal Ratzinger to halt the proceedings."[20]

Yes, the proceedings were stopped due to that pressure, but there was no thorough investigation of this case until 2004, due to the same pressure to close the case. Ratzinger deserves credit for ignoring the strong pressure, and only a week after John Paul had honored Maciel again, taking it upon himself to investigate this case properly, thus making himself many powerful enemies. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do you sources say tehre was no thorough investigation? Moreover as almost all the sources (including this one) seem to say that Ratzinger re-opened the investigation there must have been one, not matter how cursery.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot speculate there was an "investigation" just because some random op-eds have used that word. The sources in question aren't the original ones in any event, they are just based on the thorough article by Berry[21], arguably a leading expert on the Maciel case, which explains the history of this case. I see no need to use some op-eds and shorter articles that are less precise and merely based on Berry's article as sources now that we have a much better source. Have you even read Berry's article on the case, which all these sources are referring to? Jeannedeba (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not specualting, sources say (sources you provided) that there was an investigation that Ratzinger re-opened. At the very least they all say that case was droped by Ratzinger and then re-opened. Also please do not insert text not supported by the source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't say that. How hard is this to understand? You are trying to make it look like someone else had investigated Maciel before, and that it was a coincidence that Ratzinger investigated him, while the fact is that Ratzinger was the sole person who pushed for investigating him, and that there was no investigation before Ratzinger investigated him. The fact that Maciel's friends, which included the Pope, succeeded in initially pressuring Ratzinger to drop the case, doesn't change this fact or the fact that Ratzinger took it upon himself to start an investigation of Maciel in 2004, as pointed out by the only high-quality source provided at this point[22]. A random op-ed by a more or less random person, who happens to use the word "investigation" and deals with this issue with much less detail and precision, isn't equally valid as a detailed article by the leading expert on the issue. Please don't make false claims about other inserting text that is clearly supported by the source, for the last time. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is also not speulation, an article writen in 2001 in which Berry writes "Without explanation, the Vatican has halted a canon law investigation of one of the most powerful priests in Rome, accused by nine men of sexually abusing them years ago as young seminarians."http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001d/120701/120701g.htm. So there was an investigation and it was halted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are just hair-splitting, also, I find it ridiculous that you claim that the fact that Ratzinger opened this case in 2004 despite opposition is "not supported" by the sources when it is. Also, stop revert-warring disruptive spelling and formatting mistakes into the article all the time when they have been corrected. This edit[23] was not an improvement of the article and I urge you to revert it yourself. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any spelliing mistakes in my last edit. Nor have I said that his opening of the case is not supported, I have said that otehr sources say that he re-iopened and old investigation, and tehre certaionly was an ealier invertigation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here I pointed out that this was not proper English, yet you again (not for the first time) revert-warred the same spelling mistake into the article, causing me great frustration.

In your most recent edit, you reverted my correction of wrong quotation marks, my correction of wrong use of spaces, my correction of the name of the author you are citing (John L. Allen, Jr., per that article's title, not John L. Allen Jr), my correction of the name of the publication (National Catholic Reporter, not national catholic reporter), my correction of the text flow ("told the National Catholic Reporter that Ratzinger was..." is better than "writing in the national catholic reporter" in a parenthesis). You also removed, for no reason, the fact that "when he started the investigation despite the strong opposition<ref name="ncr-maciel" />. Furthermore, you forced me to go through all these mistakes by yourself again and document them. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PLease point out the line in the source that backs your addition. If you had just done a foramt change and not added material then I might have beeter understood what you were objecting to. Perhpas format edits and additions might be better done seperatly. I do not agreed that your sentance flowed better but i think i have recrified my other 'errors'.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel"
• "who prosecuted him despite pressure from Maciel's chief supporter, Cardinal Angelo Sodano"
• Etc. etc. etc. You haven't even read the source, which documents all this very thoroughly.

What about all your formatting mistakes and poor prose? Jeannedeba (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Which souurce are we talkiing about as I canot find any such lines in the text of the source relating to the line you added text to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about ref name="ncr-maciel" (that, this article) as pointed out above. It was also specifically pointed out in my edit summary[24]. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is not articel that the material quoted from its from the articel by John L. Allen, Jr., the Berry material is quoted above this line. So in fact the material you added was not from the articel I sourced, nor was it anything that Allen wrote. Why di=o we need this in the article twice?.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Text up to accusation Ratrzinger stoped investigation. "Vatican restricts ministry of Legionaries priest founder Move seen as confirmation of sex abuse allegations against Maciel

By John L. Allen Jr. Rome

Capping a decade-long on-again, off-again investigation of accusations of sexual abuse, the Vatican has asked Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, to observe a series of restrictions on his ministry.

In effect, Vatican sources told NCR this week, the action amounts to a finding that at least some of the accusations against the charismatic 86-year-old Mexican priest are well-founded.

Maciel has not been laicized, but the restrictions issued shortly before Easter by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith limit Maciel's public activity, such as his capacity to celebrate public Masses, to give lectures or other public presentations, and to give interviews for print or broadcast.

The restrictions have been approved by Pope Benedict XVI, and the Vatican is expected to issue a brief statement shortly.

---

The Vatican Press Office released May 19 a communiqué concerning Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado. Read the document here. This is an English translation of the Italian original. The Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi Movement issued a statement in response tothe communiqué of the Vatican. Here is that statement.

---

Vatican sources stressed that the action against Maciel should not be read as an indictment of the Legionaries of Christ or its lay branch, Regnum Christi.

A spokesman for the Legionaries, asked to comment on the development, replied in an e-mail, "We have nothing to say. We don't know anything about this."

According to sources who spoke to NCR, the congregation's investigation was closed sometime toward the end of 2005. In the early months of 2006, the cardinal members of the congregation in Rome were invited to review the documentation. The decision to impose restrictions was then reached sometime before Easter.

Sources described the documentation collected by the congregation as involving the testimony of at least 20 accusers. The acts in question, according to these sources, reached into the 1980s.

One cardinal who serves on the congregation told NCR that, in his view, the material left little doubt as to the validity of the charges, though he said he was less clear how Maciel understood what he had done. Under canon law, intent and state of mind are sometimes taken into consideration in meting out punishment.

Within the Vatican, the Maciel case has long been seen as particularly sensitive, in part because it could tarnish the reputation of the late John Paul II, who warmly praised and repeatedly honored Maciel. The case could also call into question the action of Benedict XVI, who as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stopped the case against Maciel in 1999. However, he reactivated the case in 2004 and ultimately approved the disciplining of Maciel.

A senior Vatican official told NCR that the decisive break came only in late 2004, when a number of additional accusers came forward. Prior to that, he said, both John Paul and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, were operating on the assumption that the charges were not justified." Where does it say something that supports "when he started the investigation despite the strong opposition"? This is not hair sliting, we only say what sources say, not what we want them to say. As you have said do not repeat stuff, i8ts already there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've been going through all of these edits that the two of you have been making and have a few observations:

1. Steve, try to proof read your edits before entering them. Jeane is right, you are putting a lot of mistakes in there that aren't being caught.
2. However, Jeanne your claim that he is only reverting your correction of his edits isn't entirely correct---in the cases I saw he reverted your edits then changed them himself.
3. The two of you need to calm down---I don't think you two are as far apart as you two think you are.
4. The quotes that Jeane provided above were referenced elsewhere, the fact that you insist that she repeat is a little ludicrious. The first quote is cited on this page twice before. The one related to Sodano, I couldn't find on this page, but I found several other quotes wherein Jeane has provided the link saying the same thing.

My take, based upon what I've seen here (primarily reading the quoted materials):

• Ratzinger was involved in a case against Maciel, but that case was closed due to pressure from the pope/Sodano.
• Ratzinger reopened the case in 2004 (the fight over exact verbiage that the two of you got into was little ridiculous---opened/reopened doesn't really matter. It was closed and then it was opened.)
• It does look like new evidence might have come forth in 2004 (probably in response to the Pope's honoring of Maciel.) When people are honored critics often crawl out of the woodwork, so this is (IMO) very believable.
• How much pressure was on Ratzinger in 2004 too keep the case closed is unclear. It is obvious that it was closed due to external pressure. It is also clear that Ratzinger re-initiated the case in 2004, ostensibly on his own, but it is not clear if the pressure to do so had been relaxed. Eg, what role did the new evidence have on Sodano and JPII defense of Maciel? Was he pressured to close the case after he reopened it?

There are probably other comments, but I think the two of you should try to figure a compromise.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My asking what source she was refering to was caused by confusion on my part. The material she added followed the materaial by Allen, Jr. not Berry (which is already in the article) I therfore assumed that she was not reapeating material (see below) but using other material from Allen, Jr (both artciels have appeared in the same newspaper, thus the links look very similar). Thus I ask for claification as to what source she meant, as I could not find the material in the Allen, Jr text, and did not bleive that having previously said that she does not want duplication in the article would have herself have duplicated material. If she had said it was from the Berry articel I would have realised my error (and of course pointed out its already in the article). I think it was obvious that I had the wrong source in mind.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand, but I think the two of you are talking around one another more than is necessary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just some short comments for now: I didn't claim that he was only reverting my spelling, formatting and prose corrections. He reverted all my edits because he disagreed with some parts of it. However, after I pointed out this now, he corrected some of these mistakes again. The wording eventually worked out seems acceptable. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sections

I am starting to think that we need to break the sex abuse scandal into two sections. To me it has two feels/focuses. First, we have Ratzinger/Benedict's personal history reputation as a force against pedophilia within the church. Second, we have the scandal and the attempts to link Ratzinger to the cover ups. I think the two motivs would read better if we broke them into sections. I just can't think of good section headings.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and broke it into two sections. Feel free to rename if you can think of better labels or revert if you don't think it is appropriate. I think it helps with the flow and to differentiate the parts of the article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a good idea. Jeannedeba (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a general observation regarding length: The section on the abuse cases is not too long at this time, but we should take care to avoid expanding it endlessly, i.e. it should not become much longer. Jeannedeba (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither section should become much longer, but that kind of depends on what (if any) allegations materialize and/or prove sustainable. Actually, looking at the two sections again, the section on his role as Cardinal/Pope might be trimmed a little.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Canon law vs. secular law?

Victim groups such as Survivors of Child Abuse, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and BishopAccountability.org claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations.

Well, I'm not quite sure but there are information on the Holy See (vatican.va): Abuse of minors. The church's response. that this is already clear I qoute:”Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.” (Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations). It has been suggested that a relationship exists between the application of Crimen sollicitationis and the non-reporting of child abuse to civil authorities in this case. In fact, there is no such relationship. Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities. (STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.J., CONCERNING THE "MURPHY CASE"). So what is unclear about canon law and secular law? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We should note that a confession of such a crime made under the seal of confession is still considered inviolable in canon law.--Gazzster (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The first source talks about allegations, not canon law confidentiality (of which it makes no mention thus does not establish primacy). Also the source is rather vague as to by who (or when) the allegation should be reported (but seems to imply based on placement that this would occour only after (thus establishing primacy for cannon law) after CDF has been informed (and after "If the allegation has a semblance of truth" thus it seems to be cannon law not secular law that will determine if the police are informed about all allegations. The second talks about solicitation, not child abuse as such. Also it states it does not prohibit it, not that it requires it. And again does n ot establish primacey of secular law over cannon law (and indead has nothing to say about this).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, that looks like OR if I've ever seen it. The source clearly states, ”Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.” It does not state "AFTER contacting the CDF" or "Only if a Semblance of Truth" has been determined. In the US, you have no choice, if there is an allegation, you have to contact that authorities... period. The CDF only wants to know about it if there is a "semblance of truth." As for "who/when" that's also covered by the civil laws---plus, that would make this too convoluted. "If a nun does the crime, the mother superior, if the mother superior does the crime then the local priest, if a local priests then the bishop, if the bishop the archbishop." Come on, sometimes short simple declarative statements are better than complex one. Civil laws are to be followed, if it was more complex then it creates wiggle room, "well it wasn't my responsibility." As for the ordering? Again, give me a break. There is no place in the summary that says, "here is the order to which you perform the following." It just lists the things (in no particular order) as to what needs to be done. It doesn't even number the items. The "semblance of truth" only pertains to contacting the CFD not obeying the civil laws concerning the subject---the civil laws shoudl "ALWAYS" be followed---hmmm ALWAYS doesn't mean only after the CDF has been notified and approves, it means ALWAYS. Also, if they put more in there, then you would run into the possibility of creating conflicts between secular and cannon law. If the memo dictate any details of how to deal with the civil authorities, then you might have a conflict. By stating in clear unambiguous language that civil laws should always be followed, you are stating that civil law is on equal footing (or better) to that of canon law. I think this is a pretty clear statement.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It also does not say before, that’s my point neither document establishes that civil law has primacy, just that it should be followed. As to wriggle room, well the source provides that, in exactly the way that is in question. The source say that allegations should be reported to the CDF, but it talks about crimes when reporting to the civil authorities. This is being pedantic, but that’s the point is it not? Does the church report all allegations or just those where it believes crimes have actually occurred? The source seems to be vague here (by the choice of words) in that it could be argued that if the church does not believe a crime has been committed it does not (under cannon law) have to report it.

The Associated Press says much the same. “In addition, the guideline makes clear that bishops are to report "crimes" — not just allegations”. As well as this “Still, it was unclear what enforcement mechanism the guideline published Monday might have. It is just that — a guideline — and not an official instruction to bishops from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” So it does not say that Civil law has primacy. It also says that this document does not overturn (as it is a guideline only) previous documents, and that victims are not impressed and still believe that cannon law secrecy does still apply.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

”Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.” Civil laws---not canon laws. That is pretty straight forward. If the law requires that the authorities be notified when an allegation is levied, then that's the law that will be followed. Now, I have no problem with citing people who are critical saying the statement doesn't go far enough, they exist. Some people just ain't going to be satisfied with any statement. But this probably wouldn't deserve more than a sentence or two in this article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

One its not cannon law, its a guideline only, not a binding cannon directive. Two Its says crimes, (as the AP piece makes clear) not allegations. Nowhere in the document does it make clear what is a crime (as opposed to an allegation), nor that civil authorities should be informed before cannon authorities. So it is straight forward that civil authorties should be informed of crimes, but it is not clear that (as it makes no mention of this) that this takes precidence over cannon law confidentiality (it for example does not say that when priest hears a confesion he should go the the policie before the church). Or that the civil authorities should be informed of allegations (as the source does not say that). If this material is to be used to prove that the church now states that Cannon law confidentiality is now secondry to civil law it must say that, it does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is related directly to Canon Law, "The applicable law is the Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law." The AP is not the end-all and be all of authority. When it comes to defining crimes, it should not define them---that is a civil term that the civil authorities should define. As for secrecy, the Church has said that elsewhere, Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities. But we are getting off the point... this page isn't for apologetics ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new text (I have left out sources form connivance).

Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations. The Vatican has issued new guidelines that say “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed” Critics have said that the guideline makes clear that bishops are to report "crimes” not just allegations and that it was unclear what enforcement mechanism the guideline might have. It is not an official instruction to bishops from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Victims groups are not impressed and still believe that cannon law secrecy does still apply.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How about (and this incorporates the key point from the next paragraph as well):

Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations. The Pope then promised to introduce measures that would 'safeguard young people in the future' and 'bring to justice' priests who were responsible for abuse. In April, the Vatican issued guidelines on how existing church law should be implemented. The guideline dictates, “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.” As it is a guide for "lay persons and non-canonists", critics argue that it is not binding on bishops and that the church officials only have to report "crimes” but not "allegations" of wrongdoing. Victims groups still believe that cannon law secrecy does still apply.

This version has four key differences: 1) that the guidelines are related explicitly to the implementation of Church Law "The applicable law is the Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law." 2) It includes the Pope's promise to introduce measures (the following paragraph which would have been out of place if it was left after this.) 3) "not impressed" is not encylopedic 4) the guideline doesn't address Bishops, its more generic.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% certain that even that much should go into this article.

Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations. The Pope then promised to introduce measures that would 'safeguard young people in the future' and 'bring to justice' priests who were responsible for abuse. In April, the Vatican issued guidelines on how existing church law should be implemented. While the guideline dictates that “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed.” Critics and victim groups believe the measure is poorly worded and not strong enough.

Again, the details of the issue and criticism are more appropriate in the article on the sexual abuse controversy, not on the Pope himself. Mentioning that under his direction an edict was issue and that the edict is still criticized is about as much depth as we need on this article. The details go into the main article. (Again, note, that I personally think 10-20% of this section can be trimmed.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the German version is a bit more clear. "Die staatlichen Gesetze hinsichtlich der Anzeige von Straftaten bei den zuständigen Behörden sind immer zu befolgen. "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed. (The civil law concerning the duty of disclosure of these crimes to the appropriate authorities must always be followed.) So it depends on the civil law in the country. In Germany no-one has to report these crimes or allegations to the police, if the civil law however says you must report the crimes and or allegations than the CDF guidelines say they must be reported to the civil authorities. So secular law enforcement has no priority over canon law, but it's also true the other way round, because canon and civil law are (as far as I understand) two distinct areas. Did I misunderstand something? --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That's how *I* interpret it... I don't think one is over the other... they are separate issues. But I think what we need to focus on is the verbiage that we use.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Added the following to the article: Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations.[120][121][122][123] The Pope then promised to introduce measures that would 'safeguard young people in the future' and 'bring to justice' priests who were responsible for abuse.[110] In April, the Vatican issued guidelines on how existing church law should be implemented. The guideline dictates that “Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed.”[124] The guideline was intended to follow the norms established by U.S. bishops, but "falls short" as it does not include a "zero tolerance" policy and only requires reporting of "crimes" where required by law, not "allegations" or crimes where not required by law.[125]---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse victim in Malta sees Pope Benedict as a saint

This could be relevant:

• Abuse victim in Malta: Pope Benedict XVI is a 'saint'
• Abuse victim in Malta sees Pope Benedict as a saint Jeannedeba (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Individuals perspectives of abuse victims are no more relevant than would Dawkins view. If an abuse group were to praise him, then yes, but individuals? No, we have individuals who think Benedict is every shade from Evil Incarnate to Jesus's younger brother.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be argues less so. Dawkins is a notable person (in the area of religion, he is effectivly the cheof spokesperson of 'millitant' atheism). So it could be argued his veiws do matter. These are only notable for what was done to them, they are not notable in and of themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... and as a general rule, even Dawkins opinion isn't going to rise to the level to be included in this high level summary. It would truly have to be something extraordinary. (EG the attempt to get the Pope arrested materialized into him actually getting arrested or even a warrant issued.) I pointed to Dawkins because it would be hypocritical to argue that a single abuse victims opinion belongs when she argued against Dawkins view above.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll

I just removed the following from the article, it was added to the section on institutional cover-up:

A poll taken in six countries at the end of April 2010, indicated that the pope was the seventh most respected leader in the world.

First, it definitely does not belong in that section. Second, I'm not even sure if it belongs at all. It is a somewhat meaningless report. He's the seventh most respected world leader? How many were on the survey? I remember an old news report from the USSR. The USSR reported that their race team came in second place, while the US team came in second to last place. What the report didn't mention was that the race was heads up between the US and USSR.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is meaningless. Was he seventh most respected in every country? Or was he first in one country and fourteenth in another. So to average the statistics out he's seventh? What were those countries? He might be expected to be higher in Catholic countries than in non-Catholic, though I imagine he's taking a beating in the polls in Eire right now.--Gazzster (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The countries:United States, Britain, France, Italy, Germany or Spain. Three of them are pretty solid Catholic, two are a mixed bag, and the last still has a decent showing...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of coun tires in the world (and the fact that most of the population are not christian having a poll carried out in christian countires only seems to be jerrymandering the result a bit (especialy as three are catholic as well).Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention they are all western developed countries.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sex Abuse Scandal -- Responses POV SECTION

I just tagged the Responses section as POV. The section needs to be trimmed, right now it is entirely too long and does not need all fo the quotes that are currently contained therein. Some of these quotes can/should be moved to footnotes, but right now it is disproportionate to the other sections in the article. I've argued that we need to keep a high level perspective on some of the allegations so it would be hypocritical of me advocate anything else in the Responses section. This section could lose 20-30% of the fluff and be much more balanced/stronger. Right now, it feels as if we are throwing every positive quote out there that we can find.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The break out of the Maciel case is a perfect example... the fact that it is larger than the entire alleged coverup section just doesn't fly. This is an article on the pope---not Maciel. If nobody tackles this section, I'm probably going to do so this evening. (I'm at work, but this section is way too long and apologetic in nature.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I cut the section down, put most of the quotes into footnotes where they become more support for the position rather than undue weight.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are a marked improvement over the previous version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it reads better and is more objective in nature and tone. I waffled on the placement of the Maciel case though. The Maciel section could have definitely gone under the allegations section as well as it is clearly a case where mistakes were made. IMO, of the three cases accusing Ratzinger of being involved in a cover-up, this one is the one that has the most legs. It is also the one that paints him in the best light because he was the one who eventually brought Maciel down.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of abuse section

While I do not object to rewriting/reducing the section somewhat, the current version seems to be less than ideal.

Some examples:

"In his role as Head of the CFD, he "led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statue of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders. He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words.""

I do favor the inclusion of this quote, but where it's now moved, and with the attribution to its source removed, the text doesn't make sense, mixing up facts with opinion. "He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words" is not a fact. The quote made sense in the original context, but not now.

"According to Berry"

The source Berry has not yet been introduced. There is no link to Berry any longer or mention of the name of the source. Also other sources are no longer attributed.

The Groër case, a very important case, has also been removed.

The reduction needs to be revisited in order to make sure sources are attributed and properly introduced, to prevent loss of valuable information, and in order to make sure sentences are used in their proper context.

If we are going to reduce the section, I note that the "cover-up" section has not been reduced but rather been expanded upon. I think it's now time to remove the two non-cases (Hullermann and Kiesle) completely. They are not relevant to the pope's biography and have already faded from the public/media spotlight (which is quite clear from a Google News search), as has been evident that they eventually would from the very beginning (the pope was neither particularly involved nor did anything wrong in these cases, and everyone's got the point by now). The level of detail on irrelevant non-cases without any lasting impact (small media hypes of March 2010) is inappropriate. It's possible we at some point in the future will have a few sentences on the media hysteria in March 2010, but few will remember Hullermann. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if the article section is not significantly reduced, at any rate the references to Kiesle's "defrocking" should be changed to "laicization". The former is enforced by the hierarchy, while the latter is requested by the priest, which was the case with Kiesle.142.151.138.171 (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

actually Laicize is correct in both situations, it can be voluntary or forced. Defrock is just synonym used because many people wont know a Latin word. taken right from the article on this, "dismissed from the clerical state" doesn't mean the same as being fired, Its more analogous to a military discharge, with defrock used to describe a dishonorable discharge specifically. Laicize however can mean either retirement or termination. However, i agree defrock is not used correctly in this instance, because it was requested rather then forced, Laicize can be either, defrock can only mean forced and so is the wrong term here. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:SACC is added in at the section of the article handling the issue of Catholic sex abuse, as appropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I have no objection to any of the changes mentioned above. I also think the SACC template is appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The template in question was created by a permabanned User:ResignBen16 (banned because "user is not here to build an encyclopedia"[25] - also: User:Ben16R esign and User talk:ImpeachBen16 after his ban), and was described by several others as a disruptive product of a disruptive editor. It's basically a POV template and a Wikipedia:Disinfobox that adds nothing to the article and makes the section unnecessary long. Even if the template ended up not being deleted (discussion), including it in someone's biography is a totally different matter and extremely inappropriate. It's quite sufficient to have a link to the main article on the abuse issues, having links to every single article on abuse cases from the pope's biography is excessive, undue and POV. I very much oppose having anything at all created by User:ResignBen16 in the pope's biography. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the template is appropriate but only if placed where the article makes particular reference to the sex abuse scandals - which is presently towards its end. This biographical subject has played a key role on from 2001 re that topic. The original authorship of it has no relevance to any issue as in any case it has prevailed through the attempt at deletion where even there authorship was found to be of no relevance.202.76.159.252 (talk)

I disagree, this article currently only includes one such template (Catholic Church template), and doesn't primarily deal with the abuse issues (only a very small part of it deals with these issues). Multiple editors found the template to be the disruptive product of a disruptive user, so there is no consensus in this regard. What's most important, though, is that it adds nothing of value to the article and only makes the section unncessary long. The link to the main article on the abuse cases is there for the intended purpose. The template in itself is only tangentially relevant to Benedict's biography. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Making money"

This sentence in the lead section just doesn't sound right as making money, to me, implies for profit.

Pope Benedict is the founder and patron of the Ratzinger Foundation, a charitable organisation, which makes money from the sale of his books and essays in order to fund scholarships and bursaries for students across the world.

Maybe replace with

...which uses funds raised from the sale of his books....

Does anyone else feel it should or shouldn't be changed? RutgerH (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes cents sense to me.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about the need to avoid saying "making money", but the proposed change is fine. LOL Balloonman! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Deteriorating Health

pope is very old now, he might die any time. we should unlock the article to provide quick notice when he dies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.231.88 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pope is very much in good health at 84 unlike his predecessor.--Carsjme (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

As you probably know Pope Benedict was in the german army. I think you should add his military service under the information. Also what rank was he in the army? Spongie555 (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I originally came here thinking that wouldn't be necessary because I couldn't believe that we actually put that on every notable person who served during WWII, whose military service itself wasn't notable or wasn't known for their service. But a quick search of notable world leaders, senators, representatives, and governors proved me wrong. As for his rank, I don't know, perhaps we could just put "enlisted" or soemthing similar to indicate that he was not an officer, until we find a source?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article itself, however, I think the whole info box would need to be adapted to include that (which I am not opposed to.) I would be opposed to adding just the military info section without also adding his other roles. EG when you look at George H.W. Bush, it shows you that he was in the military from 42-45; then rep from 67-71; Ambassador 71-73; Chair of the RNC 73-74, etc. I think the Pope's page SHOULD have his military service, the time he was a professor at various schools from 51-77 (with odd appointments here and there), Archbishop of Munich and Freising: 1977–82, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1981–2005. Similarly, when looking at other notable people, their notable roles lists who they succeeded and who they preceeded.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea better about the infobox. I think we should change the infobox like how you said it. Spongie555 (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal, however I see a problem. A quick search of recent popes (Leo XII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II) all show infoboxes that are nearly identical to that of Benedict XVI. Additionally, the infoboxes of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are limited in the same way as the popes. Finally, if you want to look at a non-religious type, look at the British Royal Family. Prince Charles' infobox, for example, contains nothing about his military service, and his service was far more significant than Benedict XVI's. These points are at least something to consider.--Msl5046 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

True but people should know what he did over the years till he became pope. Spongie555 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would propose that the changes should be made to the other Popes (I will state, that *I* probably won't make them, I'm not to active in editing these articles.) But I would say that the Popes should list their history ala senators/governors/presidents. As for Military Service... I'm personally indifferent, but if it is a convention of the MilHist project, I have no problem with it. It doesn't hurt.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If people want to know what he did before he came pope, they can read the article section on his early life. There's no need to cram it all in the infobox.Farsight001 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I support balloonman idea. Also Farsight some people dont read the articles they just skip through so why not put what he did on the top so they can read it. Spongie555 (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If people don't read the articles, that's their own fault. Wanting to cater to lazy people is no reason at all to flub and ignore the infobox standards. His early life is right near the top and easy to check. In addition, I just went through every single pope (265 of them), and aside from the obvious Peter and one pope with no infobox at all, every single one of them has a nearly identical infobox. No military experience. No ambassador positions. No career mention whatsoever, unless you include "pope" among careers. The only reason to add such information is to blast everyone who visits the page in the face with the word "Nazi" next to Benedict's face.Farsight001 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I can see the value of listing their positions just as I see the value of listing the positions various politicians have had. Makes for a ready reference and increases the utility of the pages. as for Nazi, that was why I was originally reluctant, but if it is a practice to do so, I have no problem with it. He was in the military, and while that may have been the German military, it does create a bond with others who have served. In fact, it might create a bond for those who served due to the draft/force.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman about adding all the other postions. Also just becuse he serverd in the Nazi doesnt make him one. As you have read in the article he didnt like to but was forced. As Balloonman said he was draft/force in the army. As for the other popes alot of them dont have infobox info becuse we dont know alot about them but the most recent ones we could add their postions to the infoboxs. Spongie555 (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My take is that it would not be appropriate to include the Military career information using the normal Military person infobox because Pope Benedict's notability is not because of his military service. Thus, including these details would need to be done in the same/similar way to that which is used for US Presidents, where it is just a small part of the infobox. However, taking a look at Template:Infobox pope, I don't think it would support the Military career field as the Infobox President does. As such, adding this to the Infobox pope would probably need to involve discussion with the editor/s concerned with that infobox. Having said all of this, I personally don't think that it necessary for every notable person who previously served in the military to display this service in their infobox, if their military service is not what made them notable. If there is a possibility that it might be perceived negatively (I don't know that it would, but I'm not an editor of these articles, so I don't know), then I'd suggest maintaining the status quo and leaving the infobox as it is. That is just my opinion, though. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do a vote to see if we should add more stuff to the infobox. Spongie555 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's remember what an infobox is for. It's a little billboard to grab readers' attention with basic facts. And the title of the infobox is Benedict XVI, not Josef Ratzinger; meaning that his notability hinges on the fact that he is Pope and a head of state.So details of his youth aren't particul;arly relevant or useful. By all means, let's discuss them in the body of the text.Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict has held half a dozen professorial chairs in Germany, several dozen Roman Curia offices, and countless other offices (journal editor, academy member etc. etc.). Each of these offices are way more important than having been conscripted into the army for a few month. I think it's a really bad idea to include Benedict's military service in the infobox, and if we did, we would need to include maybe several hundred offices that are more important. That's simply not what the infobox is for - it's there to provide a brief overview of the most important facts, leaving details to be dealt with in the article text. We don't have an article on Benedict because of his military service, it's a rather unimportant detail in his biography, that should of course be briefly mentioned in the main text (there's not that much to say), but not in the infobox.

When it comes to George H.W. Bush: Mr. Bush was a commissioned officer, served for several years and received several military awards. Benedict was a conscripted private aged 17 who never saw combat, only served for a few months and never did anything remarkable nor received any awards. The military service also is more relevant in a politician's biograhy than the biography of a priest, so I think I would oppose the inclusion of "military service" in the pope template. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.220.214.239, 12 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Well, I assume this is the talk page for Pope Benedict XVI's page on wikipedia. I think someone should add under the last section of his pre-papal career that then Cardinal Ratzinger asked to be assigned as the librarian of the Vatican Library. There are a lot of links that Card. Ratzinger wanted to spend the rest of his life in scholarly study of religious works. This is important info that should be added. Two links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/7928493/Pope-Benedict-wanted-to-be-a-librarian.html http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7114

68.220.214.239 (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Shearonink (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, Template:Uw-sofixit does not really apply here - the article is semi-protected ([26]) and non-registered users cannot "fix it", unless they register an account, wait for four days and make 10 other edits... Thus I added a sentence to the article ([27]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Blessing for Birmingham Born Gary Critchley's freedom campaign from the Pope

THE campaign to free a punk rocker convicted of a murder he insists he did not commit has received a blessing - from the POPE.

Birmingham-born Gary Critchley, who turned 48 on Friday, has been in prison since he was just 17.

Gary went down for a recommended nine years in 1981 after being convicted of the murder of Edward McNeill in a London squat.

Yet there were no forensics to tie him to the crime and witness statements blamed someone else – but were never heard in court.

Incredibly, despite the court sentencing tariff, Gary has gone on to spend almost 30 years behind bars.

But the campaign to finally free him is gathering pace and the letter from the Pontiff, who is due to visit Birmingham later this year, is just the latest boost for his miscarriage of justice campaign.

The letter, dated August 2, 2010, read: “Dear Mr Critchley, the Holy Father has received your letter and asked me to reply in his name.

“He appreciates the concerns which prompted you to write to him.

“His Holiness will remember you in his prayers and he invokes upon you God’s blessings of strength and peace.” He has already received a letter of support from Downing Street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cceeeee (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Female priest stuff

From Archive 8 I infer that there was once some text in the article about BXVI condemning female priests, in some to him related denomination or some undefined such that needs an accurate description. The topic is very important for RCC relations to other churches, so it should be in the article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Cononization of Nuno Álvares Pereira

{{edit semi-protected}} In the canonization section there is a group of 4 new saints who were canonized by Pope BXVI. One of them is Nuno Álvares Pereira aka Nuno de Santa Maria.

The canonization took part on April 26, 2009, Saint Peter's Square, Vatican City

the wikipedia link of this saint is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_%C3%81lvares_Pereira

Not done: Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source for this information. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the homily for the mass of canonization ([28]) should be reliable enough. I also added another one ([29]), as the link to a previous reliable source seems to be dead. Oh, and once again - thanks to the original poster for letting us know. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

Why dont we have any good quality images of him? Some images get all fuzzy when you see full size. Spongie555 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

As a general principle, I, for one, would like to see "Pope Benedict XVI" redirect to "Joseph Ratzinger", not the reverse.--81.174.2.233 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME The policy outlined at Wikipedia:Article titles is that "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."

Mtminchi08 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zeppelin26, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Pope Benedict XVI. was baptized on the name Joesph Aloisius not Joseph Alois! (see: "Die Taufe in St. Oswald" at http://www.katholische-kirche.de/12656 or German Wikipedia) please adjust this. Thanks! --Zeppelin26 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. A few days ago it still worked. But see here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_celebrates_his_82nd_birthday/ )but they write it false. It is not Aloiysius it is Aloisius. You can see that on a photo of the parish register in the German Version (Aus meinem Leben) of his Biography Milestones. I also found this picture online on this page http://www.liborius.de/specials/marktlforschung.html you just have to click on the picture in the middle and then it is the 7th picture in the slide show which is a copy out of the book (see left top corner).--Zeppelin26 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An here is the working link: http://www.katholische-kirche.de/12656.html--Zeppelin26 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Zeppelin26 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Your source is already 404. Do you have another that meets our reliable source guidelines? -Atmoz (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Like his predecessor" traditional/conservative

Phenomenology. There is no mention of his training in it.

I haven't even read the entire article yet, and a phrase like this has occurred twice so far. I have two qualms about this. Firstly, could any Pope be honestly referred to as non-traditional or liberal? Is not the institution he leads inherently conservative and traditional? Secondly, Bendedict's predecessor was considered by many to be quite liberal and to have broken with Tradition in many ways. (These two "qualms" are not contradictory if one considers them thoughtfully. I think it illustrates the problem with using the phrase "like his predecessor" and the terms conservative, liberal, traditional etc. without much context.)24.21.36.196 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can have liberal Popes. It's on a spectrum, just like politicians. Using US government as an example. You can have Conservative Democrats (Joe Lieberman) or Liberal Republicans (John McCain)... while the two of them are Conservative/Liberal when compared to their base, they are not conservative/liberal when compared to the other party. On the spectrum of Catholic Cardinals, Benedict was very conservative.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

His conservatism is in contrast to the liberalism of the Vatican II papacies, especially that of John XXIII, and to a (much) lesser extent Paul VI. john k (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's all relative too. Leo XIII was regarded as a liberal at the time, on account of his support of labour movements, his social reform agenda and his abandonment of the French monarchists. Pius IX started off a liberal, and notoriously turned into the arch-consersative. Yet we would consider these figures as very conservative if they lived in our own time. Ratzinger was considered a liberal at the time of the Second Vatican Council.Even so I think it safe to say that he is theologically and politically close to his predecessor. JP2 and Ratzinger worked very close together, and much of Wojtyla's work is actually Ratzinger's.Both adhere to the teachings of the Vatican Council, but interpret its teachings as conservatively as possible.This might be a reaction to the chaos and dissent experienced by the papacy during the pontificate of Paul VI. Or it may be the natural retiscence of the Vatican, the world's oldest extant beaurocracy, to advocate change.Gazzster (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

There were four "citation needed" notations on this page as of 20 November 2010. I found what I believe are good citations for two of them (the Spain 2006 trip and the "Dialogue With a Certain Persian"). The two other "citation needed" requests are a bit more problematic as these are statements that are open to a great deal of interpretation and opinion as presently written. Any suggestions as to how to address these and/or rewrite them if necessary?

Mtminchi08 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems extraordinary that this article has no Criticism section, given that this pope has received a not insignificant amount of criticism on various points. E.g. how about the new book The Case of the Pope by Geoffrey Robertson QC. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree71.76.199.245 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Per policy, criticism sections are discouraged. Ideally, criticism should, as it is here, be worked into the article.Farsight001 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Er, an article doesn't have to have a section called "criticism". In fact, such generic sections are generally frowned upon, the criticisms are woven throughout the article (see sections related to other religions, homosexuality, pedophilia, the Tridentine mass, stuff related to his being prefect, etc.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's almost as if the section on sexual abuse was written by the Vatican. There are copious opinion quotes, such as the one from Mary Ann Walsh, which is purely an opinion with no factual data presented. If that is there, where is the comment from other intellectuals who are more scathing?130.102.158.15 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And that wouldn't be too bad. Not even mainly because it's the Pope we're talking about, though that makes the matter more important. It's a human being we're talking about, and it's necessary to talk friendly about human beings. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pope Benedict's relation with the Italian people..

When I was in Italy recently I noticed that a lot of Italians quite fondly refer to Pope Benedict XVI as "Papa Ratzi"... something that could be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.99.187 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it however there may be some people here that find it to be irreverent. Then again this article isn't for the purpose of pope worship. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Italians always refer to popes by their birth name. john k (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Papa Ratzi is not irreverent, unless someone decides to use it that way. And that I'd assume he's not Italian, though I'm neither and thus don't directly know. Not that there's no Italian irreverent to the Pope (though there are few, I guess...), but they would use other expressions.--77.4.46.189 (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Aloisius vs. Alois

Pope Benedict XVI. was batized on the name Joesph Aloisius not Joseph Alois! (see: "Die Taufe in St. Oswald" at http://www.katholische-kirche.de/12656 or German Wikipedia) please adjust this.--Zeppelin26 (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref is 404. See for spelling which is Aloysius. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I do not believe the ending paragraph of the Birth control and HIV/AIDS section correctly reports the pope's recent statement about condoms. According to the citation, what the pope actually said when asked about the church's position on condoms was the following: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality." Considering the pope said explicitly in this quote that condoms are not a moral solution, I think it would be incorrect for Wikipedia to report that the popes says "the use [of condoms] can be morally justified."--Msl5046 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If the Catholic Church (or rather the Pope specifically) is now relaxing the absolute ban on condoms, which would appear to be the case, then indeed they are deemed morally justifiable. If their use was considered an intrinsic evil they could not, on any account, be condoned. I wonder if many realize just how revolutionary this is. The teaching of Paul VI and John Paul II forbade artificial contraception as a moral evil in any circumstance, even in the case of rape. Now that the door has been opened, it will be hard for the Vatican not to concede other circumstances in which artificial birth control is morally justifiable. It will be interesting to follow developmentsGazzster (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But the pope himself, in the supposed "revolutionary" announcement, said that the use of condoms is not a "moral solution." I'm not sure how it can be inferred from that the pope now deems them to be morally justifiable; it would seem he said the opposite. Further, the Vatican, through a spokesman, has announced that the pope's statements have not changed church teaching, which is completely at odds the cited article. Because of this dichotomy, would it not be best for Wikipedia to rely on the pope's own words?--Msl5046 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the pope's remarks.--Msl5046 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I believe it would be more accurate for the paragraph in question to read something like the following: However, in November 2010, in a book-length interview, the Pope acknowledged that the use of condoms, with the intention of reducing the risk of HIV infection, may be "a first step toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." In the same interview, the Pope also reiterated the traditional teaching of the church that condoms are not seen as a "real or moral solution" to the HIV/AIDS pandemic.--Msl5046 (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the pope said that a male prostitute with a male customer could use a condom to avoid transmission of disease because in that case contraception is not an issue. [30] Surely, the pope will not allow condoms as a means of preventing pregnancies, and no form of birth control or "artificial" family planning is permitted. Of course, living as a male prostitute is not considered moral by the church. So what if a condom will both prevent disease (good) and prevent pregnancy (evil)? I think in that case the pope will say condoms are not OK. /129.142.71.166 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the pope used the example of a male prostitute in this interview, although he did not specifically say a male prostitute with a male customer. Even so, I think it is irrelevant to the point at hand because when he used this example, the pope said that a male prostitute using a condom to reduce the risk of HIV infection may have taken "the first step in the direction of moralization," but then went on to say that condom use is, nevertheless, not a "real or moral solution" in the eyes of the church. Nowhere in the interview does the pope ever say that a particular type of person in a particular situation may use a condom, nor does he ever say that the use of a condom is moral—quite the opposite in fact. This section of the article should be revised to reflect what the pope actually said.--Msl5046 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks like this is the case when the seemingly reliable secondary sources misinterpret a primary source. We would have resort to attribution of their opinions if there were no other sources, but, fortunately, there are secondary sources that discuss other interpretations (and that discuss misinterpretations), for example, "Condoms may be ‘first step’ in moralisation of sexuality, says Pope" ("Catholic Herald", 2010-11-20, [31]), "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???" (Jimmy Akin, "National Catholic Register" blog, 2010-11-20, [32]), "What does the Holy Father really say about condoms in the new book?" (Dr. Janet E. Smith, "Catholic World Report", [33])... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seewald asked the question, 'Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?' To which Benedict replied, 'she of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality'.

The answer appears to be ambiguous, and a little strange. If the Church has not modified its position, the use of condoms is completely opposed to 'a more human way, of living sexuality'.How then can it be 'a first step'? And if it is not 'a moral solution', it must be immoral. How then could it be encouraged. My guess is that the Vatican will be explaining the Pope's statements in the next few weeks.Gazzster (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, condom use is immoral in the eyes of the church, the pope said that explicitly in the interview. What exactly did he mean by his other statements? It's debatable. Because it's debatable, it is better for Wikipedia to simply report the pope's words rather than trying to interpret what the pope said, and then reporting, as fact, that the pope now approves of condoms, when it is, in fact, debatable what he meant. I have changed the section in question to my suggestion from above. If anyone has a suggestion for better wording, I look forward to reading it.--Msl5046 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder too if it is helpful to consider that his words are in the context of a interview. He may be expressing a personal view. So it is not official,unsupported by any Vatican document.Gazzster (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've edited the section to make clear that the pope was being interviewed when he made the statement. If no one objects to the current wording in the next few days, I'll remove the dubious tag.--Msl5046 (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt in Catholic circles that the pope has not "changed his mind" about the use of condoms for birth control, nor does this indicate that Catholic theological opinion is "shifting" as some quotes seemed to suggest. It was only pertaining to (the example I saw was "male prostitutes") disease control where birth control could not possibly be a factor. Confusion, if any, has been mostly caused by the media (as usual) attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill. Student7 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why include mention of this at all? It is a rather minor thing, IMO even to the media. Including it seems like recentism.Farsight001 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That what is not moral is immoral is, of course, right. But it's not foreign to Catholic theology that some sin, even some grave sin, is less bad than another. And allow me to say so, that's simplest common sense. --77.4.46.189 (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Take the analogy that cleaning house is "good." Is it less good to leave dog poop a) on the dining room table, b) in the middle of the den, or c) in the closet? The answer is "in the closet with the door shut." But that doesn't make it good or even tolerable. It just makes it less bad! Theology can be fairly precise when discussing absolute goodness. There are really not a lot of referents when discussing degrees of badness. Student7 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that there has been no discussion on this issue in nearly a week, and no objection to the current wording of the section in question, I've removed the dubious tag.--Msl5046 (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MOAI12, 2 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Typo. Change 'statue of limitation' to 'statute of limitation'. MOAI12 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.53.58.6, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section on the beatifications approved by Pope Benedict XVI, it states that "Fr. Basil Moreau is scheduled to be beatified next year." Fr. Basil Moreau was beatified on September 15, 2007 in Le Mans, France, as is stated on his Wikipedia article. The section in Pope Benedict's Wikipedia article should state that Fr. Basil Moreau was beatified in 2007. Thank you.

68.53.58.6 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request From Talgris, 22 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please edit the following reference from: Pope canonises 'lepers' apostle' and four others, Agence France-Presse, 11 October 2009. to: Pope canonises 'lepers' apostle' and four others, Agence France-Presse, 11 October 2009.

Talgris (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro alert!!

The intro sentence

He has reaffirmed the "importance of prayer in the face of the activism and the growing secularism of many Christians engaged in charitable work."[3]

garbles up who says what. The link [3] is to deseretnews.com implying Latter-Day-Saints, my alert presuming that the farther away from Roman Catholic Church, the risk for misinterpretations is greater, and the statement in question is told by the Latter-Day-Saint reporter Jerry Earl Johnston. I think a better and more primary (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) source is needed in order to get it right, so that the pope and the Roman Catholic Church gets the "ownership" of the meaning of the sentence, and external comments (from Lutherans like me, Orthodoxes, Calvinists, Mormons, Islam ... whatever) are added upon that primary meaning, otherwise the religious discourses here on wikipedia will forever remain a chaos of who-said-what. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My thought on compliments would he the opposite. The further away the comment, the more credibility it has IMO. Also, the sentence seems to criticize "activists," not something that a Catholic source is likely to mention. I agree that the sentence could be clearer, and may need to be reworded, therefore losing the quote. Student7 (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany

Would somebody please change Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany to Category:Grand Crosses with Star and Sash of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, please? --92.225.82.29 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Other Christian Denominations

In the section entitled Diologue with other religions, should there be a section discussing the Pope's relations with other Christian denominations?70.240.48.205 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He speaks polish

or at least he can read it. it should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.217.101 (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Horns' in Pope Benedict XVI's picture

(Before reading my comment, I am proposing that the photo needs to be changed to another image of him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.106.3 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I noticed something "odd", while reading this article. If you look at the picture of Pope Benedict XVI given in this article, examine his head. There are two small statues positioned behind him, in such a way that they appear *nearly* to be "horns", a reference to the devil. This photo should be changed to another image, as this photo was added to wikipedia, in a malicious manner. For the record, I am a life long atheist, and do not believe in God, the Devil, or any other deity, but as soon as I laid my eyes on that picture, I immediately thought, "are those devil horns?!?!"

Really, the picture needs to be changed. I am also an amateur photographer, and I would be willing to edit out the two stone figures in question out. There would be no trace, or mark on the image, that would show any alteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.106.3 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about need, but for the record, Wikipedia is not allowed to photoshop. For another, there are people familiar with the scene who would realize that something was missing above him. Student7 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the 'horns' myself? What would anyone expect to see when the pope is posing before St Peters? The stone figures are the twelve apostles.Gazzster (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We should get rid of the current picture of the Pope to get over with the 'horns' issue. i can see the 'horns' and i feel its inappropriate for the pope. the picture in the 'overview' section is better --Carsjme (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, let's find a different picture of the Pope to use. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I can find something... --Student Insomniac, at school 209.7.73.118 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nazi slander

The article claims that his brother said Joseph Ratzinger was an "enthusiastic" member of the Hitler Youth who attended meetings regularly. The source article says just the opposite, that he resisted the Hitler Youth, and did not attend. Danfmarsh (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In any event, this was an organization for children. All of whom were joining en masse. It was literally impossible to avoid joining. Student7 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As it was impossible for adults to avoid being drafted into the armed forces.Gazzster (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He's German, I find it hard to believe that article! Oddly enough all records that would prove his military record "vanished" about the time he was about to become pope! Is there any paperwork to prove that? Well, other then that he was "unenthusiastic"? No, so it's not a fact. That pesky photo of him giving the Nazi salute that always gets deleted, makes you wonder. I'm sure the Vatican made sure they got their stories straight. Deleting the photo is just plain censorship, you guys make Hitler proud! Manteno (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing slander isn't censorship. The photo of him supposedly giving the Nazi salute is a cropped photo of him raising both arms. Without the cropping, it's obvious he's giving a blessing. Danfmarsh (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, he was 12 years old when the war began, exposed mostly to "information" that Nazi propaganda could deliver. He thought as all kids thought, that grown-ups were right and the war to "liberate" humanity from the curse of (whatever) was a wonderful idea. This concept doubtlessly deteriorated, as did that of all Germans, during the course of the war. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not the place to discuss morality of joining Hitlerjugend or Wehrmacht (if anyone wants to discuss that, Catholic Answers do seem to have a forum where this topic might be suitable). WP:NPOV demands that we would give each point of view its due weight. Thus we do report that he was an unenthusiastic member, as we have a source that tells us so ([34]). If we would want to discuss the morality of that in the article, the same source considers that it was almost heroic (the title itself is "New pope defied Nazis as teen during WWII"). The contrary opinion seems to be fringe and thus it should get no mention at all. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

True wiki isn't a forum but isn't there a reason for the "discussion" tab?! I don't know, maybe for discussion? I just question his military history, it changes as he sees fit. And to say it's a "fringe" opinion is laughable. The fact that much paperwork managed to suddenly disappear when he became pope is a fact, and the lowest number of Catholics in almost 100 years just a coincidence?Manteno (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"True wiki isn't a forum but isn't there a reason for the "discussion" tab?! I don't know, maybe for discussion?"... That tab is not for discussion about anything the article describes - just for discussion of possible improvements of the article (WP:FORUM - [35] and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - [36]). In this case I do not see any change of the article that you propose, or oppose, or support, or question, or discuss - only the inappropriate discussion of the subject of the article (yes, Danfmarsh did report the error in the article, but, unfortunately, then the discussion went off this topic). And - I repeat - Wikipedia is a wrong place for that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Manteno: the photo with the alleged nazi salute is a cropped photograph of the benediction at the end of his ordination. Next to him you see his brother, Georg Ratzinger.: [37] --Usquam (talk)

Old Pictures

All the pictures of Pope Benedict on the page appear pretty recent (since he became Pope). It would be nice to include some older ones, e.g. childhood, priest-era, bishop-era pictures. Articles for other recent Popes have a pretty nice mix. 98.169.111.167 (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Papa Benedikt XVI. i kontracepcija

Hrvatski pisac Giancarlo Kravar: Papa Benedikt XVI. odobrio je, doduše samo u izuzetnim prilikama, upotrebu prezervativa (kondoma) da bi se spriječilo širenje AIDS-a, čime je postao prvi Papa u povijesti Katoličke crkve koji je dozvolio jedan od oblika kontracepcije.78.2.117.155 (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Babblefish the above reads:

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Pope Benedict XVI has approved, but only in exceptional circumstances, condom use (condoms) to prevent the spread of AIDS, becoming the first pope in the history of the Catholic Church that allowed a form of contraception

But the reality of it is (unless something new has come out) the Pope doesn't allow for the use of condoms as a contraception, but rather a form of preventing disease... and if I'm not mistaken, the "exceptional circumstances" are for male partners where pregnancy is not an issue.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that I don't mind someone lacking English pointing out an error in the article.

I do mind someone grinding an axe. I think contributors in foreign languages should limit their contributions to their own language encyclopedia. I get the impression that this editor entered this on a number of language versions besides English, requiring a series of editors to "figure out" what he was saying and respond to it. This is a bit troll-ish IMO. We have sufficient editorial input of varying persuasions on the English Wikipedia to cope with them. We don't need near-WP:FRINGE theories to cope with from a non-English source. Let him argue with his own language editors (he probably has!) instead of annoying dozens of others!

This is not a putdown for Balloonman, who WP:AGF, figured it out and correctly responded to it. More in the way of a suggestion for handling future non-English "contributions." Student7 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Interests + FANTA

Hi, I just wondering if is OK to add to the article, the verifiable, well established fact that The Holy Father enjoys to drink Orange Fanta with his meals:

• Sipping Fanta, watching TV and playing the piano: A rare glimpse of the Pope relaxing at home--Arturo Meza Sierra (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia. When weighed against other issues that may and may not merit inclusion, this would be pure trivia.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, what about the cats? --Arturo Meza Sierra (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Pope's interest in cats resulted in the publication of the book "Joseph and Chico: A Cat Recounts the Life of Pope Benedict XVI" in 2007 as noted in the Interest section of this article. The organizers of the 2008 World Youth Day in Sydney lent the Pope a grey cat called Bella. No books have been written about the Pontiff's choice of beverages nor was it noted on his many travels what beverages were served to him by his hosts. Additionally, the Barack Obama article notes "The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy." George W. Bush's dog Barney even has his own Wikipedia article. No mentions are made of what beverage either President Obama or Bush prefer to drink.Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.179.250.108, 24 August 2011

Fr. Basil Moreau was beatified on September 15, 2007. The canonizations section for this article on Pope Benedict XVI says that he is still scheduled to be beatified even though this has already taken place. It should be corrected to read that he has already been beatified.

74.179.250.108 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that confirms this? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

yup http://www.holycrosscongregation.org/mission-spirituality/csc-history/ as well as like a ton of others if you google basil moreau beatification. you can even watch the ceremony on YouTube lol. its not exactly like this is material likely to be challenged. but i'll cite it anyways. Smitty1337 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WebCite

I have cached most of the citations of this article to the WebCitation archive. There are, however, some websites which do not allow their articles to be cached. This took quite a bit of time but I'm glad that these citations are now archived. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Glossing over Ratzinger 2001 letter

The section on child abuse and Ratzinger's response notes that he urged JP2 to collate all abuse cases under the jurisdiction of the CDF, but nowhere does it mention that, in the same letter, Ratzinger also obstructed justice in child abuse cases by insisting that the Church deal with such matters internally under pontifical secret instead of notifying the authorities (source). Instead the article paints the picture of Ratzinger as a paragon attempting to stamp out child abuse and see justice done, and makes no mention of this despite it being reported in the media. I feel this needs to be addressed. almightybob (pray) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing of the opening, which states that Benedict XVI is "the leader of the Catholic Church as well as the other 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Holy See," ought to be changed. "As well as" implies that the 22 sui iuris eastern Catholic churches are not part of the Catholic Church. Perhaps "including" could replace "as well as"? 108.15.193.6 (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Luftwaffenhelfer

In the early life section will some kind administrator please add "Air force child soldier" to the germanophone "Luftwaffenhelfer" so that English-only speakers do not have to waste time looking it up?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.92.162 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)  Done

Had a look at the linked article, didn't see any problem, copied in the change. Penyulap _talk 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope's "denomination"

Is it really necessary to note explicitly in the personal details box that the Pope is Catholic? Just saying. KBurchfiel (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is read by English speaking people from India, most of them speak some English, a great many are extremely fluent. However, most of them aren't christian. (Ditto many other countries across the globe) Penyulap _talk 03:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Intro needs an adjustment...

The intro currently (as of 1/27/2012) states that Benedict XVI is "the leader of the Catholic Church as well as the other 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Holy See."

The implication that the eastern Catholic churches are not included in the Catholic Church needs to go. That part should read either, "the leader of the Latin Church as well as the 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches (etc.)" or "the leader of the Catholic Church, including the 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches (etc.)."

108.15.215.22 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a darn thing about this article, but a quick scan of the linked articles doesn't indicate any large problem such as vandalism, so I've changed the article as you wish, I removed the words 'the other' I hope that is ok ? I could see your point regarding the implications too. But I have no opinion on your edits inclusion or otherwise. Penyulap _talk 03:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Penyulap. I don't want to be a pain, but I feel the sentence still requires tweaking. Removing "the other" makes sense, but the way it now reads - "the leader of the Catholic Church as well as 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches" - still gives the impression that these eastern Catholic churches are somehow not part of the Catholic Church. A brief look at the wikipedia article itself on Eastern Catholic Churches should corroborate that they are in fact considered to be fully part of the Catholic Church. That's the real issue with the sentence - the implications of "as well as."

108.15.197.63 (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just write out a new sentence, so i can cut and paste, or if you sign up you can edit it directly yourself. The article isn't locked to stop people editing or get edits approved, it's just to slow down vandals a little bit that is all. You are most welcome to edit it, or hassle me on my talkpage and I can work faster (I don't read this page really) but just write how you'd do the whole sentence. Penyulap _talk 04:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know when it was changed, but the way it reads now is fine. 108.15.212.196 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Blue Mosque Visit Picture

It would be nice to add a picture of the visit of the Pope to the Blue Mosque in Istambul. There are many beautiful ones, although I have no clue about their copy right problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggot (talk • contribs) 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro, again

The introduction had
"Often regarded as the present Successor to Saint Peter,"
What are we trying to convey, here? If "Successor to Saint Peter" is an appellation it should be in quotation marks, not italics; and it'd probably be better limked to Vicar of Saint Peter, or Pope, or Apostolic succession, or somesuch. If it is just saying he is (regarded as) "the present successor", it'd be better in lower case, without any punctuation at all. I've done that provisionally; what does anybody else think? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that Apostolic succession would be sufficient. since Vicar of Saint Peter is just a redirect to Vicar of Christ which doesnt really convey the intent of succession from peter, or the primacy of peter.Smitty1337 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pope article uses this language: "In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint Peter, the Apostle." In the Pope Benedict XVI article, the word "Often" implies frequency and not the belief of Catholics. I recommend changing the sentence in the lead to read: "Regarded by Catholics as the present successor of Saint Peter, the Apostle, ..." Bede735 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, I hadn't paid much mind to the sentence itself. Rather, just the place the wikilink would direct towards. I'll change that now, it is rather peculiar to phrase it "Often regarded", not to mention that's a peacock term since we don't say who is doing the regarding. I'm going to post the link to Apostolic succession while I'm at it.Smitty1337 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Medjugorje

The quotes attributed to the Pope are from a self-published website, but, these quotes are circulated among the followers of Medjugorje, which is why I referenced the website.

Medjugorje is becoming a big issue in the Catholic Church, so I thought Medjugorje should be included in the article.

Oct13 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

criticism or controversy

Can't there be any section to detail the criticism Pope Benedict XVI recieved or may be something about the controversies? His stand on Birth control/HIV or Homosexuality are controversial --sarvajna (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Critical issues are discussed though. See, for example, his positions on homosexuality and condoms. Oct13 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is in the article. Separate criticism sections are discouraged, so it is spread out in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

POV

POV - for intentionally many bad things omitted about this man.

Just one example - from The Evil Side of the Roman Catholic Church: The Infamous Trio: We Must Protect Our Priests And Let the Little Children Be Damned by Fred L. Ward, Xlibris Corporation, Nov 30, 2005 page 35

He further believed in cover-up, denial, threats, and any and all means available as a means to quickly and quietly handle all criminal cases of child molestation and abuse charged to the Roman Catholic clergy. He advised Pope John Paul II how to accomplish this cover-up with favorable results in favor of the Roman Catholic Church.

Just compare this quote to the polished image of this man given in the Sexual Abuse in the RCC section!

Further - from The Rule of Benedict: Pope Benedict XVI and His Battle With the Modern World by David Gibson, HarperCollins, Aug 21, 2007 page 45: about his "ecumenism"

Ratzinger - whose brief did not include ecumenical dialogue - declared that followers of other religions are in a "gravely deficient situation" compared to Christians, who alone "have the fullness of the means of salvation". He added that "there exists a single church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him", and for good measure said that many Protestant churches cannot be churches "in the proper sense".

--68.98.167.207 (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For the edification of others, IP68 is an IP hopper who recently attacked the Catholic sex abuse cases in a similar manner, editing while refusing to discuss, and has come here because the other article was put under protection due to his/her edit warring. They come and go from month to month, editing from 68s, 71s, and sometimes 216s, always saying that articles pertaining to Catholicism have serious POV problems and that the article "shall" be altered to repair the issues he sees. I am hoping for a fruitful discussion with him one day, but have yet to see him try to do anything but turn any Catholic-related article into a scathing expose on the sex abuse cases.

Now, to IP68 - as explained in the catholic sex abuse cases talk page, we need a reliable source. For example, Fred Ward's book is self published, poorly sourced, and the author is himself not a qualified expert. It is in no way whatsoever a reliable source.Farsight001 (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with that quote from Pope Benedict XVI when he was Joseph Ratzinger. This position has been held by the Church since Apostolic times and reiterated by the Second Vatican Council under the document Nostra Aetate. I understand you may have some animosity or hatred towards the Papacy or the Holy See due to the failure some very bad and disturbing priests, but I agree with Farsight001 that the book you wish to source is poorly written, and it not a credible reliable source due to his impartiality towards academic references. Have a blessed day. 98.148.212.56 (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Tim

• Here is a very disturbing article about this man published in the New York Times on March 24, 2010: Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys [38]]

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit. The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal. The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.

The first paragraph of Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church counts only favorable views of this man policy. Overwhelming criticism of this man's morality which can be found in the media news and books is excluded entirely.

--71.191.23.46 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)