Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:08, 14 May 2005 editStr1977 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,123 edits →Flamekeeper says, I ask ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:58, 10 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,438,662 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Catholicism}}, {{WikiProject Theology}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(89 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader}}
	==Church doctrine and personal theology==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
			{{WikiProject Catholicism\|importance=high\|attention=}}
			{{WikiProject Theology\|importance=low}}
			}}

			==Church doctrine and personal theology==
	I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:		I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:

Line 14:		Line 19:
	I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right.		I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right.
	] 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)		] 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

			== Removal of Controversial Uganda Study ==

	Dear all,		Dear all,
Line 19:		Line 26:
	I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.		I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.

			This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Misplaced Pages is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ''ipse dixit''.
	==Flamekeeper says, I ask==

			==Condoms and Moral and Ecclesiastical Law==
	Flamekeeper added this paragraph to the "Abortion and politics" section.

			The BBC tried questioning Primate ] before his journey to demonstrate at ] recently , about the Catholic church's attitude to prevention of ] through the greater use of ] His unsatisfactory , nigh evasive , answers provoke a further questioning .
	The basis for the injunction against co-operation with Evil lies in the Encyclical ] and comes from Romans 3,8. It is an injunction whose application applies to actions whether personal, family or societal and forbids the knowing choice of an evil course even in order to achieve any subsequent known good. This teaching is the bedrock of Christian morality and provides the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on issues relating to ] ]. The controversy generated by this reference to Evil in 2004 , adds to the controversy concerning the proposed ] of the wartime ].

			Humanae Vitae states that no member of the church can possibly deny that the church is competent ''in her magisterium'' to interpret natural moral law. The encyclical further states that God has wisely ordered laws of nature . However ,as we all know , there is a new biological "law" of infectivity which states that human bodily intercourse can of itself be a death sentence . God's law previous to this new law of cause and effect might have or did appear to be wisely ordained , but the situation now is completely ovetaken by what presumably (in inversion of God ) would be classed as a 'devilish' law but which medically is recognised as being an infective human immuno-deficiency syndrome .
	I'd like to ask anyone to comment, whether his observation that the then Cardinal Ratzinger's statement towards elections really had the effect he describes - not just being controversial, but drawing attention (other than FK's) to this principle or Pius XII.
	PS: Of course, Flamekeeper, we know you think it's true so don't bother to post here.
	] 22:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

			We know that in fact this infectivity is not limited to humans . We know that the result of the infectivity is mortal destruction , irrespective of morality or belief , or, indeed, species . We know that the church's response thus far is to solely countenance abstention from intercourse between humans as solution , whereas we know that the simplest of protective plastic film is enough to protect life ,already in existence ,from this mortal danger .
	Another question is, whether it really is important for what reason a topic is brought up in discussion.
	] 23:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

			Here we have a plain contradiction in the natural law trumpeted under the aegis of the ] by ] and ,doubtless, throughout this faith's teaching . The natural law has changed ,however a faith may wish to deny this - the mortality is present and its virulence exceeds any inverse of God's will (such as the fallen Angel's name earlier mentioned describes-but which we should not use except in this particular theological analysis ).
	:I would like to ask some questions within the text of Flamekeeper's paragraph...

			The belief in Hum. V. is that each man through the exercise of his conjugality ''is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator'' . Indeed so, and irrefutably , the design is subject now to ] (whether through God's will or not is in comparison a theological as opposed to real discourse) . The church -which has always insisted on the inverse of God -the unrepeatable name , is well-placed to therefore recognise that a duality exists now within natural law .
	:"The basis for the injunction against co-operation with Evil lies in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae and comes from Romans 3,8. " Who says that this is the basis? Where do they say it? Can the place where 'they' say it be cited?

			However it appears that the members of the church ] are in natural and hence , from the above, moral confusion . As natural law has changed and the duality has entered within the very chain of ministry that is conjugality , we see that there is a complete up-ending of the socio-moral order of society . Death is overtaking wide sections of humanity , simply because of their natural adherence to the previous natural order . Marriage is no bar to infectivity , intention is no bar . The ]'s only advice is towards abstinence by all from the most instinctual natural functions of the body , which is an equal up-ending of the natural law , and one which we see financially bankrupting the church following the human failure of its own ecclesiastics even with their magnificent support system of the Mother Church, providing them with nourishment and care to the grave.
	:"It is an injunction whose application applies to actions whether personal, family {familial} or societal and forbids the knowing choice of an evil course even in order to achieve any subsequent known good. This teaching is the bedrock of Christian morality and provides the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on issues relating to Human Life." See question above.

			It is not here the intention to simply point to hypocrisy , because this will not further understanding or provide advance. Nevertheless I have to relate this central subject of world concern back to a similar moral problem , that implicated by the teachings of ''romans 3,8'' . This is necessary because the central argument of humanae vitae rests upon the same ''magisterial'' or divine law tenets. These state that ''whilst a lesser evil may be tolerated to prevent a greater evil , that yet , evil shall never be chosen in order to promote a good'' . HV states ''though it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good ,"it is never lawful
	:"The controversy generated by this reference to Evil in 2004, adds to the controversy concerning the proposed Beatification of the wartime Pope Pius XII." What controversy? Who is talking about it besides Flamekeeper? Why does it add to the Beatification controversy specifically?
			even for the gravest reasons , to do evil that good may come of it ,-in other words to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order...even though the intention is to protect ... an individual .. or society in general .''

			Laudable injunctions, which I note at length throughout the relevant pages , were broken by ], ] and his predecessor ] . That is a subject of dispute here on wikipedia and elsewhere . It appears to many historians that indeed the Catholic Church as led at the time , chose actively (in ] and ] ) to consider ] a lesser evil than ] and was therefore culpable in upending the moral order of society .
	:Just some thoughts. ] 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			The church , in so far as it can operate to defend itself from the accusations and the historical realities (through apologists ) should now recognise that just as it chose then to avail of the '''lesser evil''' policy , now it should see the damage considered resultant upon the use of protective condoms to marital structure and promiscuity and actual conception to be '''clearly the lesser evil''' given that God (let us use the word) has now inserted the dualism of death into this conjugal ministry of life .
	::::Let the church answer this.] 09:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			(Ye who would cavil at my use of these pages to raise these issues, as those who cavil at the additions to the historical pages, should deeply consider the morality of your complaints before carping at these words...) FAMEKEEPER SOMETIME SOMEDAY
	:::::The paragraph in question in Humanae Vitae is:

			FK,
	::::::''Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it'' It then cites Romans 3.8 which says:
			those that cavil are those wikipedians that don't consider themselves above the (wiki) law. But I digress.
			Apart from the fact that your evaluation of the Pius XII situation is wrong, now you are also inconsistent:
			Only a few lines above this post you called on BXVI to go to the UN make what you call "the Law" a.k.a. as the principle "don't do evil to achieve good", to make this principle international binding law. I considered this simplistic, unrealistic and unpractical. But now, in this post, you are calling on the same BXVI to do the complete opposite, namely to declare an evil, though a lesser evil, good.
			Yes, I agree using condoms are a lesser evil than spreading AIDS and IMHO the late and the current Pope agree. But it's still evil, according to Catholic morality - and I hope you can muster enough tolerance to at least let us be and follow our consciences.

			Very confusing is your remark that "natural law has changed" - no, natural law has not changed, it cannot change, otherwise it wouldn't be natural law. And natural law doesn't change because of the appearance or spreading of a disease. There were other STD here before anyone could spell AIDS.
	::::::''Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.'' .

			However, for those you seriously consider the Pope responsible for the spreading of this pandemia, please read the following, non-Catholic articles:
	:::::::Who has stated, Flamekeeper, that what you detail is the "bedrock of Christian morality"?

			http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA993.htm
	:::::::And, what controversy? Who besides you, Flamekeeper, sees a controversy in this?

			http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/7406.shtml
	:::::::Not trying to attack you here, but some important elements are missing from your paragraph. ] 13:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			] 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
	::::::The question is I suppose whether Pius XII tolerated Naziism or co-operated with it in full knowledge of everything that it was going to do. The latter involves a level of foresight that would be truly astounding. ] 12:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
	] 12:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			:Sir , you have reverted a post which was a reply to your question . You add that it is factually inaccurate . Please specify the inaccuracies , and justify your statement that it was. ] 15:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
	Much study of that refers to Churchmen and statements then, read up Guenter Lewy.

			:FK,
	It seems to me that if these statements are written in an encyclical like that, they are pretty foundational to Catholic morality. A lot of other Christians would agree with them too, though not universally. Deitrich Bonhoffer clearly didn't. However there is a big difference between ''doing'' an evil action in the expectation of a good result, and tolerating evil in the expectation of preventing a greater evil. Almost all Christians would probably agree that the former was allowed only in exceptional circumstances; many would say it is never allowed. ] 14:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
			:1) your post was not a reply to my previous post ("...those that cavil"). There was no question that needed an answer and you did not touch upon any of the issues I referred to in this post or related to the section title. Hence, your post was '''off-topic'''.
			:2) your posted exactly the same stuff (save for a introductory paragraph) over at Ludwig Kaas. Hence your post is a '''double post'''.
			:3) your claims about Hitler being "recommended as a ''good'' in himself" and about Pius XI and Pacelli's "anti-semitism" are unsubstantiated and clearly untrue. Hence your post is '''factually inaccurate'''.

			::Zut ! OK so have I got to drag it all in here- if you say so . The ''good in himself'' was short for what Pius XI said to Franz von Papen , quoted prsumably out of the Nuremburg Trials , we had that one before . Now the antisemitism , from what you say I must produce this . That'll involve a lot of website links , so , OK . I'll present them as is .
			:4) again you're using a wiki talk page of an unrelated entry as a soapbox to spread your message. At this law-abiding wikipedians (not just me) cavil. Hence your post is '''mis-use of talk page'''.
			:I hope that's enough. ] 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

			::Touche , but well I'm back in the black on that , the questions are on topic now , seeing the legal clauses in the Enabling Act . What I want to know now is this:-
	I agree that Bonhoffer might need to come into focus theologically. I come back to this as I'm asked . Humanae Vitae see Section 14 paragraph 3 second sentence goes In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a lesser evil ot to promote a greater good,(17) it is not licit,even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;(18) that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person,even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Footnote 17 , Cf Pius XII,alloc.to the National Congress of the Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. ^, 1953 in AASXLV(1953)pp.798-799. Footnote 18. Cf.Rom.3:8.

			::::Is there a Reichskonkordat ?
	The other answer is that No. I am the first to quote the law in reference to knowing, pre-meditated collaboration with Evil (the Nazis) by these churchmen three at this time, 1932-1933. Historians limit themselves to the facts, not to the law. I follow humbly in the wake of true historians as does a sparrow after crumbs but I am ''not'' the history nor the historians. There is a saying that ''You can achieve anything in this world, if you do not require to take the credit'' and this combines with the productive power of open software in the Misplaced Pages to enable what up until now has been fractured ( history ) to link with what is morality (law).
			::::With what legal entity was it made ?
			::::Can it be made with an illegal entity ?
			::::What's it been worth per year in turnover?

			==Theology of the Popes==
	I am afraid to have to add that my inescapable conclusion is not only that that which user JASpencer finds astounding if true, but is worse. It is that beyond the action being calculated openly as in the interests of the Church in fighting Communism , that by subterfuge the clinching dimension was a ''quid pro quo'' between Kaas, Pacelli and the frail Pontiff Pius XI. History does not single out the last, I will remark. However history remarks on the remarkable rise of Pacelli to over-whelming influence(upon the frail Pontiff) and remarks on the immediate exile of Kaas from a leading public office, into a position of lets say hardly modest station within the Vatican. Kaas continued his relations with Germany to the extent that he re-appears in wartime dealings had by the Vatican with a ''strand'' of the German ] or resistance. However my saddest accusation raises the corruptible nature of the institutions of the Church, it is that far and beyond the cynicism which transgressed the moral laws of the Church law, lies a more banal , personal cynicism between Kaas and Pacelli. They had their own little Vatican putsch amongst so many others of that time, such that no one particualrly remembered, for the Pacelli pay off is separated to his actual accession.

			Perhaps similar articles - including perhaps the political aspects -should be written about some of Benedict's predecessors. How did ]'s and ]'s theological/political positions affect the development of ]; or ]'s self-designation as the ] might be starting points. ] 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
	This ''should'' interest our new german Pope who inherits above all others the abilities necessary to steer the Church through these particular rocky waters emanating from this stage in her long history. I seriously foresee that this will help the world - that settling this will enable the Church and other religions to avail of a truer position in the modern world. One based on clear visions of morality which can be shared truly between races and without falling prey to imperialism or tyranny. The consequences upon ''this'' strategic facilitation of tyranny have very greatly shaped the actual panorama of the present world. As we confront the future we will need the reconciliation attendant upon the acknowledgement of this truth.

			====Yet One More Request====
	I would like to bolster the present Pontiff, that he should not in any way see any of this as an attack upon himself or his ministries , nor upon the relevant law, nor upon his valid guidance for its promotion. Unfortunately for him the Malthusian circumstances of this interregnum of Eras now presents the gravest difficulties. Only a reconciliation with truth in respect of the past will enable the institution to firmly uphold the real essence of its mission .
			I am probably being far too naive in asking for another summary rather than simply concluding that ] has nothing to say. Famekeeper does say that war was inevitable. If he realizes that war (between communism and fascism) was inevitable, then exactly what is he saying should have been done differently, either by the ] or by democratic states?

			:I have never said that war was inevitable- I have said that Brok immediately felt it were so, once Pius XI's wishes for the Centre Party to '''enable''' Hitler were relayed by Pacelli and Kaas .] 05:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
	I feel but do not know -as only with death or some gift of God whom none of us is vouchsafed to have, but feel in my heart, that Humanae Vitae is right. Despair at the living conditions of humanity can turn citizens to a Hitler or all manners of solutions, but none of these are the real problem. The real problem is that as we are incorporated, we are sparated from our spirit. Our incorporation in life allows us the ''chance'' to make of our spirit a communication. As spirits we do not communicate-which is why we hear nothing sensible back from the dead . But go we do, and my heart feeling , rational as this incorporation is, is that in so far as Humanae Vitae encourages ''birth'' , even into a pitiable life, it is correct.

			] appears to be saying that there was a tragedy in the works. That is absolutely correct. He also appears to be saying that the ] could have prevented the tragedy by superior wisdom and actions. Exactly what should have been done differently? ] 01:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
	Howsoever piteably stricken or unwanted or starved is this life yet we treasure it politically (as we do in partial measure, nationally and through aid and the UN organisations and, yes, the Churches). Unfortunately for the Pontiff, in the absence of incarnated proof supporting the existence of Spirit, we simply prefer to dwell as much as we can in the present Now of Life, revelling in its aberrance from dis-incarnation, revelling that we can touch and struggle and hear and run and see into each others eyes. We forget and we wish not to remember the silence from whence we came nor whence we go. And this will continue but maybe not for very much longer. So I say that we should prepare here on earth , now, the way to this. Reconciliation is required and truth is ''per se'' universal. We go into a new ''era'' ''now'' and it is time to open the heart and the doors and the cupboards and cabinets and reveal such as we discuss, that was millions of peoples lives. We need to reach out to ''those'' extra millions of ''spirits'' who were tortured and burnt and starved and frightened to death because of that tyranny in question then, and opening the tragedies of the past that we might better share the ''now'', share that life in the ''lives'' that are here . Law must be true or must be wrong and a law that applies as to life as to spirit, must be right. So . ... Do it I plead, Apply it now, that we may believe. ] 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			:The Church should not have tilted the balance , and not have added its seal of respectability to the murderous intent . You should remember that Germany was not re-armed at 1932 , rather subject to specific international controls .
	Given the ''theological'' question raised shouldn't there be now?

			==Example of the Principle of Double Effect==
	I admit its all ''my'' fault, ''my suggestion'' alone, ''my'' pin-pointing towards incredible un-reconstructed hypocrisy but - just the question of the Law ; ''not'' the co-operation question ''nor'' the Beatification, ''nor'' the Jewish discontent, ''nor' the American Socialist controversy.

			The full related example can be seen here, without copyright notice (the text is marked to reveal integrality of outside-copyright use . I place the relevant part here below . It relates to the Christian theological reasoning why or why not ]s can be used between even , here, couples beyond the age of fertility . Acknowledments to William .E. May, Prof. of Moral Theology , JPII Institute for Studies on Marriage & the Family at ]
	The Law, its just Flamekeeper, shining a light. On hypocrisy and corruption in the Vatican. On Vatican legal mis-maneagement. On the futility of claims by human representatives to infallibility. On the moral wrong of protecting the divine ''right '' of God before the civil rights of humanity. Herein lies the resurgence of that other question regarding the separation of Church and State. It is ''herewith'' apparent that the Church does not exhibit the slightest degree of awareness or responsiblity, nor it's members nor its apologists nor its theoreticians nor jurists. A Church that appears immune to the contents of its infallible encyclicals - Yes ! Pius XII was ''infallible'' - he claimed it formally.

			:''Nonetheless, as I argued in a brief essay published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1988), pages 1-2, it would, as I said in that essay, be morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effect but it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.''
	Go on - he needs prosecution, conviction against the Law and excommunication or the equivalent for the dead .

			Prof. May then explains why not .
	The Pontiff ''must awake'', because his job is on the line - he will become illegitimate will he not? The end of the Church as we know it : the beginning of the Law? Welcome to the new era.

			:I do not understand the relevance of this example. I disagree with the conclusion as to the use of condoms because I disagree with '']'', which I consider to be a philosophical error. It is a valid example of double effect ''if the original conclusion that the use of condoms is morally illicit'' is accepted. The Nazi issue is entirely different. ] 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
	I predict that Papal elections will have all Cardinals wearing plastic sensorized see-through smocks revealing them in all their nakedness and humanity within the new Church, such that their very emotions register automatic tonal variations according to their mood. Man will demand and receive the chance to really see the Holiness of the Pacellis amongst us, and of the Saints true. It will be ''good'' and more ''infallible''. Seriousness will however divorce music and singing and prayer from the words of truth. All such dangerous and indeed Nazi-like affectations shall be excluded from the workings of legality that are from now the principal requirement for leadership. Thus will the lead, taken by the Society in the stylisation and presentation (syndicated very efficiently as we saw) of this last little Conclave, be taken to its conclusion in time.

			Please explain the moral error you have formulated for HV-perhaps ''that'' would be relevant on the HV page discussion.
	However shocking might appear this course and my words, this is a joyful prospect compared to the thoroughly evil illegality of the past which ''assisted'' towards it is still at least believed 40,000,000 European and 295,000 American war dead, as well as 5,662,000 Jews and 1,000,000+ Roma. A lot of death certificates, a lot of Law. See-through cassocks, I predict . ] 01:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

			==Bureaucratic Removals by Editor==
	:Dear all,the objective of this talk section, however, was to ask, whether the paragraph in question was relevant in the sense that your observation that there is controversy stemming not only from the CDF's statement regarding elections, but from any relation to Humanae Vitae or the events of 1933 (a discussion of these has been donee at Pius XII talk, so no need to repeat it all here). That's my query: is there such a controversy (as Flamekeeoer says) or isn't there (as I think).

			Nothing's really gone from this page - it's just brushed under the carpet, to stink in a digital cupboard. All is relevant despite this cleaning , condoms are relevant to Hitler by way of church law, and all things are countable and sourceable. BXVI knows well . The war against Islam is the war , not that against Buddhism(that was jealousy) and do deaths of violence perturb ? Against all teaching of kindness and love war was embraced by the beatific Pius XII . Now in the formulation of the struggle for the Church as Islam , BXVI will take the appropriate measures . We shal not know the out-come, but we certainly know the out-come of Pius XI's measures of ] . Theological interpretations will have to be most agile to deflect the coming storms of arrows from the past , but the moral and heavenly consequence of error for the present will presumably be there for those involved . The present pope's relations with the Right in this present axis are plain for all to see in this brave new cyberworld . This is what bureaucrats do not understand . Incisions into my posting will not help them . Abraham Lehrer lives now on the wikipedia , where the reference he made about his dear Mother, should reside just as the words of the surviving Roman deported to ] should reside forever in cyberspave beside the personage of ]. ] was told to know, & he knows . He just hasn't worked out if there's a policy required or not . I have spent remarkably little time on chasing the Chicago mob over all this history . Why do we not focus now on the connections through to the ]s , and be even handed about this older axis ? It ain't hard to read todays quid pro quo of interests .] 22:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
	:Dear Flamekeeper, please respect that this is the objectve of the query. Nothing else.] 21:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

			== Urgent attention for this page? ==
	CDF? So you wish to know what the american socialists say about church interference to justify my paragraph..Ill quote then? How the controversy is viewed by Jewish commentators in regard to both Pacelli and The law( about complicity in Evil) ''together''? Your precise language as phrased is unclear. I must say that your language is exceptionally clear sometimes and more fuzzy at others exhibiting a curious dichotomy. You are powerfully well informed , so can we analyse again the situation as regards legitimacy. You referred to ''posthumous'' correction earlier so can you relate this to Pacelli and what ''could'' be the result of censoring his meditation and action ? I broaden the enquiry but will answer, when I understand you, since no one else seems to be queuing up. ] 09:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

			Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is one of the world's foremost theologians. He has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles. This page doesn't really have ANYTHING about his contribution to theology.
	Three things:

			Is there anybody familiar with his work who could try to summarise his achievements?
	1. Statements on my query:
	- Is the CDF's statement in question based on the principle in Romans 3? Yes, and this can be included in a subclause.
	- Is the statement based on Humanae vitae? No, HV was limited to contraception and only bases itself on Romans 3 – hence both the statement and HV are based on Romans 3.
	- Did the statement cause attention to HV? I think no. Hence it's not relevant to this entry IMO.
	- Did the statement cause attention to Pius XII? I think no. Hence it's not relevant to this entry IMO.

			STOP
	2. You say my language is fuzzy sometimes. Please direct me to the points you are unclear about and I'll try to clarify. What do you mean by legitimacy?
			The links to doctrine and dogma
			is sort of broken.
			STOP
			:Absolutely. This page lists a bunch of hot button issues, but says pretty much nothing about Benedict's theology. He just issued an apostolic exhortation that reiterates that the Mass in the center of Catholic life, but as far as I can see, it is mentioned neither here nor the main Benedict page. This article needs to be refocused away from what the mainstream media creates through soundbytes and on Benedict's actual positions on Catholic doctrine. --] 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

			Allow us to pull this article to half decent standard before demanding that we update everything, we '''are''' getting there, dont worry! ] 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	3. Regarding any trials/corrections/enquiries:
	Of course any question is open to enquiry by historians, whether outside or inside the Vatican. Sources will be disclosed in time, in line with the rules to protect living people (just as any other archive too).
	There can be no posthumous excommunication or any posthumous penalty or censoring issued by any Church body (or anyone else). Dead people are subject only to God's judgment and that is.
	The only exception is the process of beatification: the proposed Saint (I don't know the exact terms of canon law) is put to scrutiny just as in a trial (with a formal prosecutor, formerly known as 'advocatus diaboli') – the difference is that even if the person is beatified and canonised, that doesn't mean he's sinless or his life is without fault or error. No one is anyway and any repetentent sinner can be forgiven. Beatification is only a formal confimation that the person is in heaven with God (usually proved by miracles that occurred on his intercession).
	BTW, infallibility is no issue there.

			== Pope says hell and damnation are real and eternal. ==
	But please may others comment on my query (this shouldn't be an "all over again" debate)
	] 21:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

			An interesting analysis in . This Misplaced Pages article seems to miss how Pope Benedict XVI understands ] so really needs expanding. Personally though I feel that as a concept hell is a rather brutal approach to managing society but then ] does equate aspects of what religion does to people (and especially children) as abuse. (Which is my way of saying that I'm now interested in this Pope and the related articles). ] 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	==Censure and Legitimacy==

			:I'm glad you brought that up, I have just realised that this article isn't the Theology of Pope Benedict, more the Politics of Pope Benedict! We don't mention his views on the Virgin Mary, Original Sin, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory etc etc...we will have to work these things into the article! ] 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	The legitimacy problem I have posted for obvious reasons on ] discussion . It appears within that scandals ''can'' be rectified and concludes that a solution exists to these accusations and can be '''supplied'' (direct quote from the canonical guide cited there ) by the Church .

			where is he living rihgt now <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	)

Latest revision as of 05:58, 10 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Catholicism High‑importance

Theology of Pope Benedict XVI is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Theology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Church doctrine and personal theology

I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:

Dear all,

I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph.

Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it.

Of course the creation of the subpage makes it more complicated. Maybe we should put in some passage here, distinguishing the two. Str1977 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine with me. Though I do apologize if this sub-page put a wrench in anyone's plans, but if yall want to link to the main page in the various passages, thats cool with me. I am mainly just watching the page for vandalism. Zscout370 (talk) 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear all again, I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right. Str1977 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Controversial Uganda Study

Dear all,

I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.

This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Misplaced Pages is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ipse dixit.

Condoms and Moral and Ecclesiastical Law

The BBC tried questioning Primate Cormac Murphy O'Connor before his journey to demonstrate at Edinburgh recently , about the Catholic church's attitude to prevention of Aids through the greater use of Condoms His unsatisfactory , nigh evasive , answers provoke a further questioning .

Humanae Vitae states that no member of the church can possibly deny that the church is competent in her magisterium to interpret natural moral law. The encyclical further states that God has wisely ordered laws of nature . However ,as we all know , there is a new biological "law" of infectivity which states that human bodily intercourse can of itself be a death sentence . God's law previous to this new law of cause and effect might have or did appear to be wisely ordained , but the situation now is completely ovetaken by what presumably (in inversion of God ) would be classed as a 'devilish' law but which medically is recognised as being an infective human immuno-deficiency syndrome .

We know that in fact this infectivity is not limited to humans . We know that the result of the infectivity is mortal destruction , irrespective of morality or belief , or, indeed, species . We know that the church's response thus far is to solely countenance abstention from intercourse between humans as solution , whereas we know that the simplest of protective plastic film is enough to protect life ,already in existence ,from this mortal danger .

Here we have a plain contradiction in the natural law trumpeted under the aegis of the Magisterium by Humanae Vitae and ,doubtless, throughout this faith's teaching . The natural law has changed ,however a faith may wish to deny this - the mortality is present and its virulence exceeds any inverse of God's will (such as the fallen Angel's name earlier mentioned describes-but which we should not use except in this particular theological analysis ).

The belief in Hum. V. is that each man through the exercise of his conjugality is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator . Indeed so, and irrefutably , the design is subject now to AIDS (whether through God's will or not is in comparison a theological as opposed to real discourse) . The church -which has always insisted on the inverse of God -the unrepeatable name , is well-placed to therefore recognise that a duality exists now within natural law .

However it appears that the members of the church Hierarchy are in natural and hence , from the above, moral confusion . As natural law has changed and the duality has entered within the very chain of ministry that is conjugality , we see that there is a complete up-ending of the socio-moral order of society . Death is overtaking wide sections of humanity , simply because of their natural adherence to the previous natural order . Marriage is no bar to infectivity , intention is no bar . The Primate's only advice is towards abstinence by all from the most instinctual natural functions of the body , which is an equal up-ending of the natural law , and one which we see financially bankrupting the church following the human failure of its own ecclesiastics even with their magnificent support system of the Mother Church, providing them with nourishment and care to the grave.

It is not here the intention to simply point to hypocrisy , because this will not further understanding or provide advance. Nevertheless I have to relate this central subject of world concern back to a similar moral problem , that implicated by the teachings of romans 3,8 . This is necessary because the central argument of humanae vitae rests upon the same magisterial or divine law tenets. These state that whilst a lesser evil may be tolerated to prevent a greater evil , that yet , evil shall never be chosen in order to promote a good . HV states though it is sometimes lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good ,"it is never lawful even for the gravest reasons , to do evil that good may come of it ,-in other words to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order...even though the intention is to protect ... an individual .. or society in general .

Laudable injunctions, which I note at length throughout the relevant pages , were broken by Pope Pius XII, Hitler's Pope and his predecessor Pope PIus XII . That is a subject of dispute here on wikipedia and elsewhere . It appears to many historians that indeed the Catholic Church as led at the time , chose actively (in 1932 and 1933 ) to consider Nazism a lesser evil than Communism and was therefore culpable in upending the moral order of society .

The church , in so far as it can operate to defend itself from the accusations and the historical realities (through apologists ) should now recognise that just as it chose then to avail of the lesser evil policy , now it should see the damage considered resultant upon the use of protective condoms to marital structure and promiscuity and actual conception to be clearly the lesser evil given that God (let us use the word) has now inserted the dualism of death into this conjugal ministry of life .

(Ye who would cavil at my use of these pages to raise these issues, as those who cavil at the additions to the historical pages, should deeply consider the morality of your complaints before carping at these words...) FAMEKEEPER SOMETIME SOMEDAY

FK, those that cavil are those wikipedians that don't consider themselves above the (wiki) law. But I digress. Apart from the fact that your evaluation of the Pius XII situation is wrong, now you are also inconsistent: Only a few lines above this post you called on BXVI to go to the UN make what you call "the Law" a.k.a. as the principle "don't do evil to achieve good", to make this principle international binding law. I considered this simplistic, unrealistic and unpractical. But now, in this post, you are calling on the same BXVI to do the complete opposite, namely to declare an evil, though a lesser evil, good. Yes, I agree using condoms are a lesser evil than spreading AIDS and IMHO the late and the current Pope agree. But it's still evil, according to Catholic morality - and I hope you can muster enough tolerance to at least let us be and follow our consciences.

Very confusing is your remark that "natural law has changed" - no, natural law has not changed, it cannot change, otherwise it wouldn't be natural law. And natural law doesn't change because of the appearance or spreading of a disease. There were other STD here before anyone could spell AIDS.

However, for those you seriously consider the Pope responsible for the spreading of this pandemia, please read the following, non-Catholic articles:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA993.htm

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/7406.shtml

Str1977 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sir , you have reverted a post which was a reply to your question . You add that it is factually inaccurate . Please specify the inaccuracies , and justify your statement that it was. Famekeeper 15:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

FK,

1) your post was not a reply to my previous post ("...those that cavil"). There was no question that needed an answer and you did not touch upon any of the issues I referred to in this post or related to the section title. Hence, your post was off-topic.

2) your posted exactly the same stuff (save for a introductory paragraph) over at Ludwig Kaas. Hence your post is a double post.

3) your claims about Hitler being "recommended as a good in himself" and about Pius XI and Pacelli's "anti-semitism" are unsubstantiated and clearly untrue. Hence your post is factually inaccurate.

Zut ! OK so have I got to drag it all in here- if you say so . The good in himself was short for what Pius XI said to Franz von Papen , quoted prsumably out of the Nuremburg Trials , we had that one before . Now the antisemitism , from what you say I must produce this . That'll involve a lot of website links , so , OK . I'll present them as is .

4) again you're using a wiki talk page of an unrelated entry as a soapbox to spread your message. At this law-abiding wikipedians (not just me) cavil. Hence your post is mis-use of talk page.

I hope that's enough. Str1977 16:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Touche , but well I'm back in the black on that , the questions are on topic now , seeing the legal clauses in the Enabling Act . What I want to know now is this:-

Is there a Reichskonkordat ?

With what legal entity was it made ?

Can it be made with an illegal entity ?

What's it been worth per year in turnover?

Theology of the Popes

Perhaps similar articles - including perhaps the political aspects -should be written about some of Benedict's predecessors. How did John XXIII's and Paul VI's theological/political positions affect the development of Vatican II; or Pius IX's self-designation as the Prisoner in the Vatican might be starting points. Jackiespeel 18:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet One More Request

I am probably being far too naive in asking for another summary rather than simply concluding that Famekeeper has nothing to say. Famekeeper does say that war was inevitable. If he realizes that war (between communism and fascism) was inevitable, then exactly what is he saying should have been done differently, either by the Catholic Church or by democratic states?

I have never said that war was inevitable- I have said that Brok immediately felt it were so, once Pius XI's wishes for the Centre Party to enable Hitler were relayed by Pacelli and Kaas .Famekeeper 05:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper appears to be saying that there was a tragedy in the works. That is absolutely correct. He also appears to be saying that the Catholic Church could have prevented the tragedy by superior wisdom and actions. Exactly what should have been done differently? Robert McClenon 01:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church should not have tilted the balance , and not have added its seal of respectability to the murderous intent . You should remember that Germany was not re-armed at 1932 , rather subject to specific international controls .

Example of the Principle of Double Effect

The full related example can be seen here, without copyright notice (the text is marked to reveal integrality of outside-copyright use . I place the relevant part here below . It relates to the Christian theological reasoning why or why not condoms can be used between even , here, couples beyond the age of fertility . Acknowledments to William .E. May, Prof. of Moral Theology , JPII Institute for Studies on Marriage & the Family at The Catholic University of America

Nonetheless, as I argued in a brief essay published in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1988), pages 1-2, it would, as I said in that essay, be morally wrong to use condoms in this way. Using them would not violate some of the conditions of the principle of double effect but it would violate the first condition of this principle, which requires that the act chosen, prescinding from its evil effect, must either be morally good or at least morally indifferent. But condomistic intercourse is not morally good in itself, nor is it morally indifferent.

Prof. May then explains why not .

I do not understand the relevance of this example. I disagree with the conclusion as to the use of condoms because I disagree with Humanae Vitae, which I consider to be a philosophical error. It is a valid example of double effect if the original conclusion that the use of condoms is morally illicit is accepted. The Nazi issue is entirely different. Robert McClenon 18:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain the moral error you have formulated for HV-perhaps that would be relevant on the HV page discussion.

Bureaucratic Removals by Editor

Nothing's really gone from this page - it's just brushed under the carpet, to stink in a digital cupboard. All is relevant despite this cleaning , condoms are relevant to Hitler by way of church law, and all things are countable and sourceable. BXVI knows well . The war against Islam is the war , not that against Buddhism(that was jealousy) and do deaths of violence perturb ? Against all teaching of kindness and love war was embraced by the beatific Pius XII . Now in the formulation of the struggle for the Church as Islam , BXVI will take the appropriate measures . We shal not know the out-come, but we certainly know the out-come of Pius XI's measures of Reichskonkordat . Theological interpretations will have to be most agile to deflect the coming storms of arrows from the past , but the moral and heavenly consequence of error for the present will presumably be there for those involved . The present pope's relations with the Right in this present axis are plain for all to see in this brave new cyberworld . This is what bureaucrats do not understand . Incisions into my posting will not help them . Abraham Lehrer lives now on the wikipedia , where the reference he made about his dear Mother, should reside just as the words of the surviving Roman deported to Auschwitz should reside forever in cyberspave beside the personage of Eugenio Pacelli. Jimbo was told to know, & he knows . He just hasn't worked out if there's a policy required or not . I have spent remarkably little time on chasing the Chicago mob over all this history . Why do we not focus now on the connections through to the markets , and be even handed about this older axis ? It ain't hard to read todays quid pro quo of interests .Famekeeper 22:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Urgent attention for this page?

Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) is one of the world's foremost theologians. He has written dozens of books and hundreds of articles. This page doesn't really have ANYTHING about his contribution to theology.

Is there anybody familiar with his work who could try to summarise his achievements?

STOP The links to doctrine and dogma is sort of broken. STOP

Absolutely. This page lists a bunch of hot button issues, but says pretty much nothing about Benedict's theology. He just issued an apostolic exhortation that reiterates that the Mass in the center of Catholic life, but as far as I can see, it is mentioned neither here nor the main Benedict page. This article needs to be refocused away from what the mainstream media creates through soundbytes and on Benedict's actual positions on Catholic doctrine. --Sephiroth9611 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow us to pull this article to half decent standard before demanding that we update everything, we are getting there, dont worry! Gavin Scott 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pope says hell and damnation are real and eternal.

An interesting analysis in this link. This Misplaced Pages article seems to miss how Pope Benedict XVI understands Hell so really needs expanding. Personally though I feel that as a concept hell is a rather brutal approach to managing society but then Richard Dawkins does equate aspects of what religion does to people (and especially children) as abuse. (Which is my way of saying that I'm now interested in this Pope and the related articles). Ttiotsw 16:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, I have just realised that this article isn't the Theology of Pope Benedict, more the Politics of Pope Benedict! We don't mention his views on the Virgin Mary, Original Sin, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory etc etc...we will have to work these things into the article! Gavin Scott 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

where is he living rihgt now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.199.121.8 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories: