Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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

This archive covers the later portion of April 19, 2005, and the early hours of April 20.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive08. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

Could someone clarify the 2010 thing with the Lutheran Church and priests marrying? It reads like some far-fetched fantasy world prophesy right now 68.233.74.69 03:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marktl

Is Marktl the local dialect of the German world Markt, meaning "market" in English? I found that there is another Marktl in the nearby country Austria. The names of places tend to reflect local dialects strongly.

XXX

Marktl is a diminutive of Markt in the Bavarian dialect, so the Pope's birth town used to be a settlement with a the right to hold a weekly market fair (that's one step down from a city which had both a market and a wall - in the middle ages, that is). Albeit a very small market, I guess, hence the diminutive.

Diminutives in standard german are mostly formed by adding "-chen" or "-lein" to the word, sometimes with a Umlaut, e.g. Markt, Märktchen, Märktlein. The "-l" is a Bavarian form of the "-lein". In English the suffix "-let" would be the parallel, as in "booklet". Str1977

Not a Nazi

I agree with the previous post, he was NOT A NAZI. Joining the Hitler youth was absolutely required at the time, as was being drafted at a young age. Refusal of either obligation entitled being shot, regardless of young age. Anyone who can call this Pope a Nazi is the same type of ignorant person who stereotypes all Germans as Nazis, or all Russians as Stalinists. Keep it neutral please.

Number of the beast , Greek Numbering System

First all. John's Apocalypse is written in Greek. So the number system to follow should be greek not ASCII no Latin only Greek. The Greek numerical system is

Α,α=1 Β,β=2 Γ,γ=3 Δ,δ=4 Ε,ε=5 ΣΤ,στ=6 Ζ,ζ=7 Η,η=8 Θ,θ=9 Ι,ι=10 Κ,κ=20 Λ,λ=30 Μ,μ=40 Ν,ν=50 Ξ,ξ=60 Ο,ο=70 Π,π=80 (symbol copa )= 90 Ρ,ρ=100 Σ,σ=200 Τ,τ=300 Υ,υ=400 Φ,φ=500 Χ,χ=600 Ψ,ψ=700 Ω,ω=800 (symbol sanpi)=900

Now it's very simple to calculate some Names AFTER we translate them to greek

The Name JESUS as an example is written in greek ΙΗΣΟΥΣ if we add the letters we come up with Ι+Η+Σ+Ο+Υ+Σ = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888

Another example christians (catholics, ortodox etc.) believe in a "trinity god" , father son and holly ghost the greek word for trinity god is ΤΡΙΑΔΙΚΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ Τ+Ρ+Ι+Α+Δ+Ι+Κ+Ο+Σ+Θ+Ε+Ο+Σ = 300+100+10+1+4+20+200+9+5+70+200 = 999

So who ever this individual is if we translate the name in greek and then make the addition the result will be 666.

Example: The Name BENEDICT in greek it is ΒΕΝΕΔΙΚΤΟΣ

        if we make the calculation we come up with 
        Β+Ε+Ν+Ε+Δ+Ι+Κ+Τ+Ο+Σ = 2+5+50+5+4+10+20+300+70+20 = 666 

Is that the name of our new Pope ?

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting he is currently a Nazi. Yeah, some pranksters are poking fun with his photo since he tends to be very conservative and authoritarian, but whatever, they're vandals, what can you do. I personally think that the Hitler Youth piece is relavent to the article. I also have read that plenty of kids were NOT part of the Hitler Youth, and perhaps that should be mentioned here too.[1] That doesn't mean he's a Nazi, it just is what it is: a fact. Inclusion of information that is negative shouldn't be automatically seen as POV. 24.18.46.58 05:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You might want to read the articles you cite. That one specifically says they were in the Hitler Youth.

"'Then I was put into a Nazi Reichsbahn training center in Nippes - it consisted of a factory, school, Hitler Youth – all in one, and in the morning you reported in - Heil Hitler, if you wanted to go to the loo it was Heil Hitler, Heil Hitler reporting back, the whole day long your hand went up and down, and I really hated that.'"--Samuel J. Howard 07:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think Nazi Germany gave Joseph Ratfucker - pardon my anglosaxon - one heck of an authoritarian streak, one which he TRIED to repress during Vatican II. It shows in his behavior: Ratzinger is more of a follower than a leader. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article says

qoute

He unwillingly fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.

unquote

The "unwillingly" is not NPOV. If it is to stay, there should be reference to his own explanation (interview in press, (auto)biography, url - something/anything) and then the sentence should read:

quote

Benedict XVI claims/asserts to have unwillingly fought [enter ref/url for unwillingness here] for Nazi Germany during World War II.

unquote

Wether someane was willing or unwilling is a judgement, not a fact. Judgements should be allowed as they make up the core of our social lifes. But this is an encyclopedia and thus judgements should be attributed to someone.

So those who feel that Benedict XVI is a clean whistle, please reference the "unwillingly". Otherwise it will need to be deleted and this makes him sound like a Nazi, which he is probably not. --Modi 07:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"unwillingly" means in this case under compulsion, and that he certainly was, he was drafted. He later deserted. He didn't pick it. If he had volunteered he wouldn't have needed to be drafted and if he wanted to do it he wouldnt' have deserted.--Samuel J. Howard 07:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel - and "claimed" is even less NPOV. Str1977

In the subsection "Before 1945" the following sentence state: National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen writes that Ratzinger was an enthusiastic member who joyously attended meetings. Does this refer to the seminary meetings? If it refers to his membership at Hitler's youth, I think it might have to be revised, since according the The Times (quoting the above mentioned John Allen): “Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,”. [2] Gugganij 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick bit of research and this is a bit of vandalism that has crept in - it does refer to the Hitler Youth meetings, and if you search for the original John Allen quote it says the polar opposite. You can find the original quote further back in the history. Reverted it and reorganised the section slightly to make it clearer. Vashti 10:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism: keep it neutral

Who is the vandal out there? The guy was NOT a NAZI, (like Hitler was a NAZI) and he did NOT burn jews while fucking animals. Anyone out there doing this, please stop, you are not getting any message across, and it is NOT funny, and you are not helping anyone. Please keep the article neutral. And in case you are wondering, I am not biased towards the Pope. I am a Hindu.

I agree with who said that. I was just reading that and it said he was homosexual. Wtf? 1) popes are celibate 2) he's conservative. --user:Redwolf24

While I agree that he was not a member of the Nazi party, or perpetrated war crimes, it is also disingenuous to say that all members of the party or the Wermarcht were burning jews (and everyone else in the death camps in carrying out the shoah). In addition, being celibate or a conservative has nothing to do with ones sexual orientation. There are more than a few closet cases, and/or celibate conservative non-heterosexuals. Not saying that the PIQ is homosexual or bisexual, but your line of argument is rife with logical fallacies. Lestatdelc 04:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Prophecy of St. Malachy

The Prophecy does NOT accurately predict every Pope; in order to make it fit, many antipopes were included in the line of succession and many popes have no analogy to their supposed mottos.

Could someone remove this gibberish about Malachy and stuff, this is not up to standard. I am very tempted to erase the whole stuff altogether, but I want just to say that i am in favour of deletion of this section. Hektor 03:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion it's worth at least a mention, just as it was mentioned in the JPII article. Any further speculation on how Benedict XVI fits into the prophecy can go into the Prophecy of the Popes article. --Kvasir 05:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current state of the Wikipedia entry on The Prophecy of The Popes is excellent. It acurately portrays what I've been seeing (and writing) on many internet boards and hearing (and saying) regarding people's interpretations of The Prophecy. The Article on The Prophecy of The Popes is meant to explain what the Prophecy is and how it is taken by the people... not whether (The) Prophecy itself is TRUE/REAL. Thus, there should be no bashing of the article based on disbelief of The Prophecy of The Popes itself.

- A. Ament gypsy_curiosa@yahoo.co.uk

The Pope's Dad

I'm mainly a WWII article writer and Ic ans ee there is a lot of interest in hwo the Pope grew up in Nazi Germany and that his father was a policeman during the time period in which german police were subordinate to the SS (1936 - 1945). Lets set the record straight and start an article on the Pope's father (I dont even know his name but Im sure others do). I think it is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. -Husnock 03:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pope's fathers name was Joseph Ratzinger (the elder). And yes, there's far too much about the war, a rather unimportant episode in the carriere of the Pope.

"Roman" Catholic Church

This is a sensitive issue within the Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger was not elected Pope of the "Roman" Catholic Church -- this designation refers to the Latin (or Western) Rite of the Catholic Church. There are a number of Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Holy See. The proper phrasing is thus: "as pope, he is ... patriarch of the Roman Church, and supreme pontiff of the universal Catholic Church". But somebody keeps erasing my changes!

Many other churches see themselves as the "Universal Catholic Church" - the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox, for instance. It is POV to use this title to refer to the Catholic Church, only. john k 03:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but only one titles itself the "Catholic" Church. If the others wanted to be called "THE Catholic Church", they should have titled themselves that. Anyway, "Roman" Catholic Church objectively refers to something that we don't mean to refer to -- that is, specifically and exclusively the Latin Rite of Catholicism. Look, everyone knows what the "Catholic Church" is, and it's not POV.

I don't mind calling it the "Catholic Church". We certainly should not call it the "universal Catholic Church." Among other things, this simply isn't true - it's not universal! Among other things, it is repetive - "Catholic," strictly speaking, means "universal." It's fine to call it the Catholic Church, because Catholic has mostly lost its old meaning of "universal" in favor of meaning "pertaining to the Catholic Church." But that is not true of the word "universal," which ought to be avoided. john k 04:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the Ratzinger family of Jewish origin?

Any source for this claim?

Who knows... who cares? How does it effect his papacy.

There are many online discussions/speculation about his mother being Jewish. A Jewish mother would make Ratzinger a Jew by maternal lineage according to Jewish tradition. I have yet to see any reputable news source citing, or mention anything about his mother. Perhaps something the Church and biographers purposely left out? Who knows. This would be huge for anti-semites everywhere if this turns out that Ratzinger is Jewish. --Kvasir 05:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Ratzinger is, indeed, Jewish, then.... ooooh yeah, we're gonna see some attemps by Chabad Lubavitch to convert him back to Judaism. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) Also, he got lucky in Nazi times, as anyone whose grandparent was Jewish was considered a Jew by the Nazis. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering his service in the Hitler Youth, he wasn't considered of Jewish descent by the Nazis, so i'd say that it's a good bet that he isn't. If you consider Joseph Sr.'s anti-nazism, the NSDAP government would have thoroughly checked his background.--Ansbachdragoner 05:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ansbach on this one, though there is one case of a Jewish boy surviving the "3rd Reich" disguised as a Hitler Youth, portrayed in the movie "Hitlerjunge Salomo". But given the family's anti-Nazi stance and the rural setting, any Jewish descent in the Pope's case would have been revealed easily. Maybe this rumour is a attempt to prove the "prophecies of Malachy" right? Str1977

Photo

File:HJuniform.jpg This is a Hitler Youth uniform. Clearly Ratzinger is wearing some other uniform in that photo. Adam 03:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? There could've been more than one kind of Hitlerjugend uniform. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is obviously a determined campaign to prove that Ratzinger was a Nazi. I dislike him as much as anyone else, but this is false and unfair, and this campaign should be opposed. Adam 03:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean with "dislike as much as anyone else"? I love him, I prayed for him, and I was so happy when he was elected! But I respect the good work you are doing to keep propaganda out of the article.

I didn't say "as much as everyone else," implying that everyone dislikes him. I am well aware that many people love him. I said "as much as anyone else," meaning that many people dislike him, and so do I. But I am in favour of fairness in historical articles. Adam 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the nutbags, i don't think anyone is attempting to prove that Ratzinger was a nazi. That he never had a NSDAP membership and went so far as to avoid membership in the Waffen-SS proves that. If people want to see him as a nazi, they are going to no matter what. For the objective minded of us, the photograph is obviously not HJ. As i've said to adam, it may be Luftschutz, as the breast eagle is definitely of the Luftwaffe pattern. I couldn't be 100% sure though, so perhaps it is best to retitle or remove the image until someone can confirm or deny. ATM, i do agree with Adam that it's presence witghout an adequate explanation seems like an attempt to show Ratzinger as a nazi.--Ansbachdragoner 03:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No form my part, there is a "campaign" to be precise so as to not spread disinformation on either side of the issue. Here is a photo this is a reproduction Hitlerjugend uniform for older teens, note the pin on the hat which is the same as the one in the Ratzinger photo. The photo should go back in as it is indeed a photo of him in a Hitlerjugend uniform of the period in question and let the facts be seen and be clearly delineated. Lestatdelc 03:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason people want to display this photo of Benedict XVI as a boy is to associate him with Nazism. If that's not POV, then nothing is. Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be ridiculous yourself. This is a controversial point of valid historical debate in context to a highly visible and celebrated person and deserves meticulous presentation of ALL the facts in order to let people rightly come to there own conclusions armed with the FACTS. Sweeping facts and history under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable or draw conclusions you don't like is hardly NPOV or fact based information. Lestatdelc 04:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lestatdelc -- A fact is a fact is a fact. Displaying an undoctored, publicly available photo is not POV -- it's simply information that the end reader can use to inform their opinion. The fact that some would like all of this information to be out-of-bounds is silly. 24.18.46.58 07:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Facts are facts (but please have all of them), but in what regard is this photo a fact. I rather serves to enforce an impression based on an uneven reading of facts. Str1977

One question to ask about this photo is: is this photo even of Cardinal Ratzinger in the HJ uniform. If so, include it (and try to be sure it was not Photoshoped). If not, then it should not be included. Zscout370 11:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COPYVIO IMAGES

Please stop adding copyvio images from NEWS AGENCIES. Vatican pics are also cpyrighted, see http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_eng.html. —Cantus…☎ 04:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Massive removal of pictures without any discussion is clearly not the way to go here. I also have seen a lot of other users stating Vatican released images are fair use. I'm not an Admin, so will leave it to them to figure that out. All the images taken out should be restored. If this continues, an admin should protect the page. -Husnock 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There has been one picture released by the Vatican, that we could possiply use under free use. We cannot claim fair use for images from news agencies like Reuters, so images that fit into that category the have to be deleted.--nixie 04:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are three templates for Roman Catholic images here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Roman Catholic Church images. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:21, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Pope Benedict XVI looks like a mummified version of Pope John Paul II. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think i'm alone here, who thinks that Ratzinger looks evil and his features looks bunched together like a prune. Not very benedictine-looking.--Kvasir 05:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh. While I've always thought Benedict XVI totally had the "evil cardinal" look going on, I'd have to argue that John Paul II looked far more corpsified. Kairos 10:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Vatican should declare war on Italy. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

LOL with what? Some 400-men strong Swiss guards? Oh wait, they can always pray for God's miraculous help. --Kvasir 05:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Austrian Legion

The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club Biography, (Google cache) states:

1944 September: Having reached military age, Ratzinger is released from the Flak and returns home, only to be drafted into labor detail under the infamous Austrian Legion ("fanatical ideologues who tyrannized us without respite").

Can anyone clarify what this Austrian Legion was? — Morning star 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was an Austrian Nazi militia before the Anschluss. Eichman and other later prominent Nazis were members. This is another anti-Ratzinger slander. (I can't believe I am being forced to spend so mucn time defending someone I dislike so much!) Adam 04:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fairness. It is great to find it again! Thanks. Pfortuny as anonymous80.58.23.44 07:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a clear falsehood. The Austrian Legion was a PRE-WAR assosciation, and was made up of convicted Party members. At the advent of the Anschluss most members were recruited into the SS. It is impossible for Ratzinger to have served with this unit. --Ansbachdragoner 04:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see how it says "under" not "in"? RFC is a pro-ratzinger site so i doubt they were trying to slander him. One way to read this is that he was supervised "under" by AL members.--Samuel J. Howard 05:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That may be, but it's still impossible. IMO, the article is suspect as the AL no longer existed in September '44.--Ansbachdragoner 05:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Fan Club site is pro-Ratzinger, it is meant to be satirical. Adam 05:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a long-time peruser of the site in question, I can definitely attest to the site's genuine admiration for the former cardinal, an admiration I and many other people share. --KJJ 06:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

At Last an Image

Since World War III seems to be going on about the Pope's picture, here is one that AT LAST should not ahve a problem with its copyright status.

File:MilChapPope.jpg

This image was e-mailed out on the Navy.mil system. It is the photo which will be used by the Catholic Navy Chaplains. As created by the U.S. government, it is public domain. I wont put it into the article until its approved by others since we've had enough of that tonight. -Husnock 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who e-mail it? You're sure it was created by the US gov?

Beware. The US government often uses texts, images etc. copyrighted by other sources, which it licenses. The mere fact that a photo was posted on a US Government mail system is not a proof that it is public domain as a work of the US government. I actually doubt that the US government had sent civil servants or military personnel just to take a photo of the new Pope; they most probably bought the picture from a press agency. David.Monniaux 11:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I raised this issue first in the post above you and I agree to most extents but I'd have to say it's quite easily possible they would have given that Bush is President

Copyvios

Apparently Cantus is insisting on inserting his various AP and Reuters images ripped off from various websites, removing the copyvio tags from those images and then putting them back in the article. Despite messages on the images and on his talk page he isn't discussing them so I encourage their continued removal. They are clear copyright violations. --Wgfinley 03:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite Annoying Indeed, Ive warned him twice, and fixed it 3 times.Rangeley 03:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ive reported this person on vandalism in progress. The user is also attacking legit images, changing the tags to say that they are the copyright violations. Hopefully an admin will get involoved. Ive left plenty of evidence on the vandal-in-progress page. -Husnock 04:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if the picture I put back in of the young Ratzinger is copyrighted. I thought it was taken out as part of the continual editorializing additions. Tell me if I am wrong, and I will not restore that image. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another followup to this. A lot of the questionable images had copyright tags changed to Vatican fair use after being questioned as copyright violations from Associated Press and so forth. It looks like users simply removed the copyvio tags (I wont name names). My understanding is that a user simply cannot go into an image or article marked for copyright problems and change it back without discussion or an admin clearning it. Here is an example of what I'm talking about: [3]. My point...Admins need to check these images. A lot of them are very suspicious. -Husnock 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus now on the image war. Eventually I would like to see a better fair use or PD photo for the protrait but the credit to AP is proper on the image's page. I'm comfortable with the images in the article now that are Reuters or AP but taken as part of the Vatican pool so therefore we should be able to claim fair use with credit to the proper agency which I have taken care of. --Wgfinley 05:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we do think we should have photos of Ratzinger in his early days, I have done a Google search and found many things. As for his papal photos, I always keep on mentioning is that we should a few days and see what crops up on the Vatican website. However, I do agree that we are in an image war, either against copyright images or vandal images (like the Darth Vader one we saw yesterday). Zscout370 11:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Missing text from the announcement

The Cardinal Deacon addressed the crowd as "dear brothers and sisters" in several languages, which was quite moving in bringing home the global nature of the audience. Anyone know the list of languages? Can we put this into the text of the announcement? Thanks -- Chris vLS 05:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google News indicates that the languages were Italian, German, Spanish and English. Can anyone confirm this? Vashti 10:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just reviewed the tape, the address "Dear brother and sisters" was first in Italian, then Spanish, French, German and English. The rest of the announcement was in Latin. I have added this to the article to reflect this but could someone please provide the Spanish and German text as well? --Kvasir 11:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

Okay...why the POV tag? What are the reasons and we can discuss. -Husnock 05:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What POV tag? -anon

Clarification request

This sentence is assumes more knowledge than I think is reasonable:

"His first name was already Joseph and together with Benedict, which he has now assumed, his Christian namesake is now complete."

I don't know what that means. 24.95.150.93 09:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nouvelle Theologie

The theology of von Balthasar, Lubac, etc. is commonly called "nouvelle theologie" in English. There are several things called new theology. Using the french is a way of picking out the right one. Perhaps it should be capitalized. We don't just translate borrowed foreign-originating technical/proper terms though. For instance Landespolizei and Ordnungspolizei, which mean "state police" and "order police". Or Habilitationsschrift, which means "Clothing writing"--Samuel J. Howard 05:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, you ought to start a page on that. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italicising it would probably be proper. WestonWyse 06:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Vote Called For

Which of these two images do people feel should be at the top of the article? They both now “appear” to be free of copyright infringements. Image:Pope Benedict XVI.jpg Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg

1. My vote is for the second one. You can see more of him and he seems to be in a better mood! No changes will be made until opinions are heard to avoid making people upset and causing edit wars -Husnock 06:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. The second one as well, even though the pope looks like a dweeb in both pictures, he IS happier on the right-hand side. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Second I think it's a better image, hopefully we'll get something out of the Vatican soon that's better than both (there should be an official portrait released). --Wgfinley 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. The second. He seems less constipated. (Can you say that about the pope?) WestonWyse 06:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. File:Palpatine.jpg ALL THE WAY! Ok, actually #2 because he looks kinda happy. Kinda. I miss John Paul.  :-(

The resemblance is disturbing. --Paradigm 10:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  ::he forhead is not nearly as pronouced as siddious' --Iorek Brynson

Thanks all for the calm discussion about this. I switched the photos. I agree that when the Vatican puts out an official one, that should go in ASAP. -Husnock 07:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even though the dicussion is over, I also agree that the second photo is a better one, since we see more of the outfit the new pope wears and also he looks happier. The first one has him looking cold and stoned. Zscout370 11:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL

Other controversial statements included a 1987 statement that Jewish history and scripture reach fulfillment only in Christ – a position critics denounced as "theological anti-Semitism."

A CHRISTIAN believes this!? NO WAY J. Parker Stone 06:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that he said Jewish history and Jewish scripture reach fulfillment only in Christianity. That's like telling a Christian that they only reach fulfillment in Shiva, or telling a Muslim that they only reach fulfillment in George W. Bush. 24.18.46.58 07:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except that it's Judeo-Christianity, meaning it has its roots in Judaism, which prophesizes of a coming Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus was that Messiah.

There's no such thing as Christian-Hinduism or Islamic Dubyaism. J. Parker Stone 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that's controversial.... that's Christian doctrine? I mean, Jesus is said to have come to fulfill the word of God...? Thinking your religion is better or builds on Judaism doesn't make you anti-semetic. gren 07:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so it's not the messanger that's the problem, it's the message: the Bible.

Cardinal Lustiger, who is Jewish by birth, has said exactly the same thing. It is standard Catholic (indeed Protestant as well) doctrine. Adam 07:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The vast majority of monothestic religions including most of Christianity, Judaism and Islam teach that you can only reach salvation through their God (who is the only true God). What does vary and is controversial is what they teach happens to followers of other (false in their belief) God.

Actually a large number of denominations within the Abramhamic religions argue that God being worshipped is identical even though the means that other religions have to approaching that God is in error. A lot of ecumenical conversation begins with this belief. 24.206.109.229 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tradiationally, Christianity has taught that only you accepted their God, you would always go to hell, later it changed to you will end up in purgratory for ever (unless you were bad enough to go to hell),

I don't think this is accurate. There are fundamentalist groups who claim that if you don't accept Christianity, you go to hell, and they claim that their view is rooted more deeply in Christian tradition and that people who believe otherwise are modernists. This claim is highly debatable. To get back to this article, it's pretty clear from his writings that Benedict XVI doesn't believe that "all non-Christians go to hell" is indeed a traditional view, and I think that a lot of the controversy about some of what Benedict XVI has written involves people reading in the theology of fundamentalist evengencal Protestants 24.206.109.229 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

more recently it has changed to you will go to heaven (but still through their God). Islam has always taught that you will be fine provided your a person of the book (i.e. follow Christianity or Judaism), although of course, your still saved through their God. Judaism has taught that they're God's chosen people and hasn't really said much about what happens to non chosen people.

Some corrections to the last post. The Christian view (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox ) has always been that you are saved by accepting God's grace in faith. The question of what happens to adherents of other religions (first mainly Jews and Muslims) is another problem that required a lot of reflection and different denominations have come up with different solutions. The Catholic view (Catechism 839-856) is that anyone who sincerely responds to God's grace they can be saved, even if they only grasp the truth imperfectly because "insurmountable ignorance" (meaning non-knowledge) keeps them from the fullness of truth as it is represented in the Catholic Church. So adherents of other religions can be saved, but not by their religion, though that may, in varying degrees, some truth. Of course the further any religion strays from the centre, the more difficult it should get. There might be "purgatory" involved (I'm no theologian), but the reference about "purgatory for ever" is self-contradicting. Purgatory is always a tempororay state, since it's aim is to purge, clean the human soul before entry into God's presence (you wouldn't use a washing machine which said: washing time indefinitely). So actually anyone who's in purgatory is saved, but not just yet in heaven. An "eternally lasting purgatory" would be identical to hell, which is basically eternal separation from God.

Str 1977

Sorry I got the wrong word, I meant limbo. Your explaination is better then mine but I basically said the same thing. Bear in mind you are only talking about the modern view. The tradiational view is as I said. The first view tended to be that non Christians would end up in hell (n.b. you only had to accept God in the Christian form to be saved, even if you were a raping, torturing, murderer, if you throughly accepted God in the Christian form before you died you would be saved whereas you could have been Mother Theresa but you still would have gone to hell if you didn't accept God in the Christian form. Over time, this change to non-Christians (e.g. babies) would end up in limbo unless they were bad enough to go to hell. Eventually, this change to the common view nowadays which is people are saved.

I think you are taken some of the assertions of evengeical protestants at face value. Based on what I've read of him, I suspect that Benedict would argue (and will argue) that its fundamentalists who are "innovators" and that the view that non-Catholics and (and by extension non-Christians) are eligible to be saved is the "traditional" Catholic view. One thing that Benedict will have to deal with is the movement of Catholics in the third world toward evengical protestantism, and so I suspect that he will talk a lot about how fundamentalist protestants are in error. 24.206.109.229 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping in again.

1. Yes this is the modern view but it has roots way back into the middle ages, Thomas Aquinas, and others, when theology widened its scope towards the Muslim world and far-off countries, where people never could be preached the gospel.

Limbo is rather a (out-dated) theological theory with regards to children that have died without being baptized. A theory which you need when you try to bring all the faith into one single system without any "holes" in it, as the Scholastics tried to do, using Aristotelian philosophy. Modern theology is more open to leaving questions open (sorry for the wording). Limbo however was never a dogma, never a part of the faith as defined by the church (if it were it could not be dropped again). As I've said, Limbo is rather out-dated. IMO it's problematic as the idea is defined as a "eternal separation from God" (like hell) but without additional punishment, in a way the outskirts of hell, but since the main problem with being in hell is exactly being separated from God, IMO this additional punishment (if there is one) doesn't really make any difference.

2. I strongly have to take exception to your remarks about "raping ...". Some extreme Protestants might agree with that view (though probably only in a hypothetical thought experiment), but it's certainly not the Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) view. The Church says you can lose the salvation attained by accepting Christ (that's actually one of the main difference between Caths and Prots, particularly Calvinists) - you can lose it by comitting a mortal sin (This is why someone might be denied communion). Then you need to repent of this sin, confess it and do penance in order to obtain absolution. So yes, even a murderer can go to heaven, but only if he repents of his crime.

Str 1977

---

File:Benedictum.JPG

This is an interesting image but I have no idea what the Vatican's copyright law is. Adam 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the Vatican's copyright law is. The fact that it the Vatican owns the copyright means that in the local copyright law applies. So for example, if someone in the US were to illegally publish it, the Vatican could sue this person in the US and US laws would apply even if Vatican laws say the crime would be forgiven if the person goes to confession and does penetance. What is more important is Vatican copyright policy and it has been said by someone that Vaticans do reserve the copyrights on all their works. However, if you were to e-mail them, you might be able to get permission and it would be my recommendation.

---

There are alternative possible reasons for this name, Benedictus. The less realistic but the more interesting is that Benedictus is one of the saint wich should protect Europe, and this name could be a peek at the borning new europe whose Constitution does not talk about christian (or jewish or islamic) origins.

The other one, probably the most realistic one, is that Benedictus is the first name "available". He could not take John Paul III since he was too great, John XXIV since he was too revolutionary, Pio XIII since he was the WWII pope and the hebrew omunity had issues with him, then you have another Pio and then you have Benedictus.

There's also Benedict of Nursia, cited by many news as the probable source of his choice. -- 09:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on the "available" name thing, not that this speculation would have a place in the article. We've seen emphatically how controversial Benedict's relation to the Third Reich (whatever it is) can be; the last thing he needed was to recall Pius XII and make it even worse. Some other man might have gotten away with it (barely), but clearly Cardinal Ratzinger could not. -- 11:28 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't Paul VII available? Paul VI was also the man who made Ratzinger a cardinal, so it would make sense on that level, too. john k 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another Hitler Reference

Though it is in the form of a cartoon, I think yall should look at it. Zscout370 12:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First German Pope since 1523

This has created a fantastic debate about whether Pope Adrian VI can be considered the last German pope before Benedict XVI, or if it was Victor II from the 11th century as many news sources are claiming. Since it has to do with whether Adrian VI was Dutch or German (or both), I'd love to see anyone interested in the debate continue it on the Pope Adrian VI talk page, since it will get lost in the archives here. -Eisnel 03:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who knows how long an individual will live, but, the average age of death for a pope in the last 250-years (17 previous popes since 1750) is 78 years, 123 days. Benedict XVI is 78 years, 3 days old on April 19, 2005. Reubenbarton 08:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't use the word "German" for anything dating from before 1871, as it can be quite controversial. The word "German" had a broader meaning before 1871, but since 1871 it really refers only to the modern German state. In Germany, people who call "Deutsch" the Austrians, Swiss, or, for that matter, the Dutch people, are connoted as being in favor of a "Großdeutschland". The idea of a Großdeutschland was definetly discarded with the creation of a small German Reich by Bismarck in 1871 (small because not including Austria or the German-speaking part of Switzerland), and it was only the Nazi who briefly revived the idea of a Großdeutschland. So let's not use the word German unduly. On the other hand, we could use the word "Germanic", which is perfectly neutral, and applies totally to the Netherlands. Be also aware that if you say that Benedict XVI is the eight German pope, that means you count Stephen X (1057-1058) as German. Stephen X was the son of Gozelon (aka Gothelo), of the House of Ardennes, who ruled the county of Verdun, as well as other nearby areas, essentially Romance speaking areas. So calling Stephen X German is perhaps even more controversial than saying Adrian VI was German. Saying Stephen X had Germanic heritage, on the other hand, is ok, as he was desceding from Frankish/Germanic ancestors, like most of the dukes and counts of France, and was blood related to both the Capetian Kings of France and the Ottonian Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire.

That's why I propose the following wording: "Benedict XVI is the first pope born within the current borders of Germany since Victor II (1055-1057), and the first pope with Germanic heritage since Adrian VI (1522-1523), who was born in what is now the Netherlands. Pope Benedict XVI is the eigth pope with Germanic heritage." I think this sounds as neutral as we can do. Please let me know what you think. Hardouin 12:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is silly - while I agree that use of "German" can be awkward for earlier time periods, your suggestion would mean that we can't call, say, Goethe, a German. A rule which produces absurd results is clearly not a good rule. As to "Germanic heritage," that's also deeply problematic - many of the French and Italian popes will have had Frankish, Norman, or Lombard blood. john k 13:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethe was born and lived within the current borders of Germany. That's quite different from Adrian VI and Stephen X. Besides, I am not proposing a "rule" as you call it, I am proposing a rewording of the article, so please comment the rewording I proposed. Hardouin 14:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goethe was born and lived within the current borders of Germany. That's quite different from Adrian VI and Stephen X - well, what about Kant? ;-) a German philosopher, but born and lived in Königsberg, now in Russia, not within the current borders of Germany. Anyway, I think that your proposed rewording is good and clear and everyone should be able to live with it :-). Gestumblindi (currently not at my own PC and not logged in)

Perhaps this page should be locked for awhile...

Due to the fairly constant and persistent vandalism and obviously rather fervent disputes regarding some aspects of Benedict16's biography and character, perhaps this page should be locked for a few days. Once this item is out of the news for a bit, the chaos here will probably die out some.

• We had the page locked before, but once it was, people came straight to here and complained about it being locked. Since it is on the main page, admins locked it before, as with other things on the main page. I will try to put a request on the Protection Page and use the reasoning I used above. Also, once again please sign all posts using four tildes ~~~~ or press the signature button (next to last button on the right, between the Nowiki and the line button). Zscout370 13:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think it is a good idea to never lock pages dominating the news. This was tried at John Paul II, and because it was unlocked again the article was transformed because of the then interest in him. The same is the case for Benedict II, and would be so for anyone in the news in a major way. vandalism can be watched. the reality is there were editors who locked locked it and then comntinued to work on it themselves. if they lock it again I will investigate and bring to the appropriate authorities this flagrant abuse of admin power, --SqueakBox 16:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

One problem with a lock right now: since the page is a current event item, it needs constant updates as events unfold. If it's locked, admins are not supposed to edit its content at all. So in this case, if it's locked and something changes, admins will be tempted to edit it while locked in order to keep it current, and that goes against Wikipedia policy and spirit. This is from the Wikipedia:Protection_policy page: "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it's linked off the main page, or because it's recently receieved a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." Granted, the high visibility of this page has attracted lots of vandals, but it's also attracted lots of Wikipedians who have taken up the call to defend its integrity. -Eisnel 16:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Eisnel. Thanks to the efforts of people like me the page is in better condition than if it was still locked from yesterday. Vandalism is a problem throughout wikipedia, and we must be vigilant. The lockers may think they are doing catholicism, etc, a favour in locking, but they are actually doing a disservice, --SqueakBox 16:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Latin name

Can someone verify the Latin name "Benedictus" ? I also thought it was that but on http://www.vatican.va/ , it's spelled "Benedictum". --Procule 13:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Latin name is Benedictus, but Latin is an inflected language and the form of the name varies according to case. Benedictus is the nominative case and Benedictum is the accusative case. Adam 13:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

To be honest, the vandalism which is going on here is distracting and probably concealing vandalism taking place on other pages throughout the Wikipedia project due to the attention diverted to keeping *this* article relatively stable.

Rather than just doing the temporary-lock-and-release routine which was trying to control damage yesterday, I think the admins might want to block edits by identified vandals on this page or *anywhere* on the Wikipedia subject to review and removal of ban when and if circumstances justify restoration of editing rights. Whig 15:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

killed in action?

under "Early life": "In 1943, at the age of 16, he and many of his classmates were drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, he was killed in action." --Cdamian 15:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BMW slave labour

Someone keeps removing the Dachau reference from this sentence, under "early life":

"They were posted first to Ludwigsfeld, north of Munich, as part of a detachment responsible for guarding a BMW aircraft engine plant that used slave labour from the Dachau concentration camp."

That BMW used slave labour from Dachau is a perfectly legitimate historical point. It is a different issue from calling Ratzinger an outright Nazi. If the plant is mentioned without a reference to its use of slave labour, readers will not be aware of exactly what Ratzinger was guarding. Please don't sanitize the history of this period.

Every German industrial plant used slave labor during World War II. Unless it is specifically relevant to Ratzinger in some way, I don't see why it should be in the article. john k 15:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name of the industrial concern "BMW" is specified. I am unsure how that is specifically relevant to Ratzinger. So, why don't we remove all details and context. Does that make better history, M. Kenney? Dickumbrage 16:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And at least the possibility that Ratzinger might have been aware that he was guarding a plant that used slave labour is relevant, given the moral gravity accorded to the position of pope. The initial edit, by the way, merely mentioned BMW, not that the plant made aircraft engines. Which of these two is most relevant? Perhaps it's also a given that all BMW plants made military parts. Nevertheless, some readers might assume he was merely guarding a car factory. I agree with Dick Umbrage: if we remove the reference to Dachau, why not also BMW? Or perhaps even his work as a guard? --Bwventril 16:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism is useless

This is not a discussion page on the Pope. You might easily find discussion boards to voice your opinion. -- KTC 16:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)