Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pope Benedict XVI: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:56, 14 May 2005 editFlamekeeper (talk | contribs)297 edits →Pius XII, ''latae sententiae'' ,Excommunication and Extracts from Canon Law← Previous edit Revision as of 13:33, 14 May 2005 edit undoFlamekeeper (talk | contribs)297 edits →Pius XII, ''latae sententiae'' ,Excommunication and Extracts from Canon LawNext edit →
Line 67: Line 67:
Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon '''1336'''. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under ] Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon '''1336'''. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under ]


::: '''Canon 1329''' Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lessr gravity. ::: '''Canon 1329''' Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.
::: '''Section 2''' : In the case of a ''latae sententiae'' penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties . ::: '''Section 2''' : In the case of a ''latae sententiae'' penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties .


''Ferendae sententiae'' refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas ''latae sententiae'' refers to '''automatic ''' penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which '''do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that '''1329''' relates to the situation of ] as opposed to Monsignor ] and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII). ''Ferendae sententiae'' refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas ''latae sententiae'' refers to '''automatic ''' penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which '''do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that '''1329''' relates to the situation of ] as opposed to Monsignor ] and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).


With relevance to historical writers terming this ''the great scandal of history'' , With relevance to historical writers terming this ''the great scandal of history'' it says in
:::Canon '''1399''':Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and '''necessity demands that scandals be prevented or ''repaired'''''. :::Canon '''1399''':Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and '''necessity demands that scandals be prevented or ''repaired'''''.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see ''] and it is stated that excommunication '''is the spiritual sword''' and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the ''forum internum'' or internal bond to the Church '''and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven ''' affecting and binding ] . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops .''' In foro externo'''excommunication has become defunct whereas penalty ''in foro interno'' is close to the subject of the above American ''communion controversy'' . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this '''minor''' ''corrective'' penitental measure , as in the denial of the ] and real '''major''' excommunication as in the ''sword'' . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either ''a jure''( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

''A jure'' '''is''' the law itself which declares that ''' he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication''' at the offence ''ipso eo'' and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of ] through ''latae sententiae'' . '''No''' intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under ] .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in '''nullity''' and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the ] . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in ''heaven'' .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the ''']''' Churches it says that it (]) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their ''censure '' '''overtakes''' them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in ''revolt'' against the true ] .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of ] it should be relevant that there was a '''consummation''' of the offence , the full use of '''reason''' , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( ''''''].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of '''liberty resulting from great fear''' ( of ] ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a ''positive'' law , than as palliative for offence against the ].

To overcome the above problems of '''nullity''' with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of ''severity'' as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a ''mildness'' towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the '''nullity''' of certain acts by the ''censured'' cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated '''burial''' . They could suffer total loss of ] both ''in foro interno'' and ''in foro externo'' and the rendering as '''null''' of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to '''''supply''''' jurisdiction ( '''in retrospect?''')] 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


==Highest ranking American== ==Highest ranking American==

Revision as of 13:33, 14 May 2005

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.
Former FACThis article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Empty Archives To Be Used

Specific Issues Addressed

Retrieved from past talk pages

Notes to Editors

Archive

Sorry folks about the archive. The page was about 118 kb, and needed to be archived. I don't really have time to create subject-specific archives now, but if anyone wants to, feel free. Thanks, Bratsche 03:23, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

When you can , please can you make one for the Question of the Law , as it keeps recurring , called Pope Question. What is really needed is to refer links to the plethora of more thorough questioning and commentary on the actual article page but I do not wish a revert war at that level ......hence all discussions are lengthy only to overcome POV resistance . Of course ,I deny that I am POV . The wikipedia actually cannot contain the disperse information on the edge and everywhere and non-POV /POV link inclusion would save all the proving, disproving . The wikipedia needs to provide the directory to elsewhere with a balanced advisory guide as to the various POV but it is rather an uphill struggle , Cerberus the hound seems to have the doors covered always . Discussion is perhaps educative but , more tedious and combative as it gets more controversial between POV and POV . Certainly with archiving it warrants even less effort so the greatest interval possible is required .Flamekeeper 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Pius XII

I have taken the liberty of deleting the long topic being repeatedly copied from the Talk:Pope Pius XII page. Conf 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I take the liberty of inserting this relevant statement by user [[John}}K "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."
Conf, can you shed any light on posthumous excommunication , by any chance ? Flamekeeper 09:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
What has all this got to do with discussion about an article on Pope Benedict? Ann Heneghan 09:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
It has to do with Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term 'complicity with Evil' in 2004 and his being the Prefect in charge of everything .The theological injunction comes from the Prefect . He is in charge of the above . But , were the possibility of excommunication to arise concerning the above then the article would indeed have to include a report that would answer the questions raised . A first question would be that if a Pope could, because he should ( debateable) , excommunicate a Pope (two here in this case ) posthumously , then would the legitimacy of the living Pope not be called itself into question ? It is just as well that the Pontiff is still the Prefect ,or, maybe theres a simple way out . To assert that this is speculation is contradicted by the Prefectoral re-iteration and by the above authors , if the user:JohnK report is correct . Flamekeeper 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't provide much knowledge regarding posthumous excommunication. (The other talk pages where connected issues arise are Talk:Centre Party (Germany), where the quote comes from, and Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.) Conf 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

UserStr1977 had indeed written that it would be that a declaration of automatic excommunication would be declared under latae sententiae.Flamekeeper 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The Question of The Law , Theology and Prefecture of the CDF ,and America

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII, latae sententiae ,Excommunication and Extracts from Canon Law

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related _canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;
part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity.
section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 .

Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon 1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.
Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties .

Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see ] and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( ].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Highest ranking American

"Sources have indicated that Pope Benedict is likely to appoint San Francisco metropolitan archbbishop William Joseph Levada as the next Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If confirmed, Archbishop Levada would be the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy."

I have a few concerns about this paragraph: (1) I would prefer that we don't refer to sources as "sources" in the articles. Do an in-line citation if you know it. For example, "Time magazine said...." or something like that. (2) Wouldn't the highest ranking American in the church hierarchy remain Edmund Cardinal Szoka, Governor of Vatican City? The new office holder would certainly be one of the most influential, but technically speaking not the highest ranking in the hierarchy. And we have to remember that personality made the office of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith influential during the tenure of Cardinal Ratzinger. He made it influential; it wasn't for several generations before he took office and there remains a small possibility that the successor won't be as influential at all. (3) Levada was not the only person named. Cardinal George of Chicago was cited as a candidate. So was the Austrian cardinal and several others internationally. Mention them or don't mention Levada at all. (4) Is it really relevant to devote such precious article space (kb) about who the Pope will choose to fill a bureacratic position? --Gerald Farinas 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


Latin

Hey. Changed the Latin to Benedictus P.P. XVI a little while ago. It was reverted, which I'm fine with, but why? I had asked about whether P.P. should be included on Pope John Paul II and someone added it in, so I figured it held true here as well. Only because I assumed we were translating the boldface Pope Benedict XVI into Latin, so I thought the "Pope" should be carried over. Thoughts? --Jen Moakler 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the change because I don't think that the P.P. is actually part of his name. It's just an abbriviation for "pope," or "papa," as he's known in Italian. It's found in signitures, which is where you've probably seen it, but not on documents and other things. Hope this clears it up. Bratsche 02:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Conclave Presidency

Removed the "over which he presided" comment regarding the conclave. No one really "presides" over the conclave...the three panels of three cardinals that perform its important functions are rotated continuously. However, if anyone is said to "preside", it would be the Cardinal Camerlengo, not Ratzinger as Dean of the College of Cardinals. --MikeJ9919 04:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Benedict, or rather Cardinal Ratzinger, did preside over the conclave, over the election proceedings, though of course helped by two other Cardinals. The Camerlengo, on the other hand, was responsible for the more administrative duties around the Vatican. Str1977 07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected with regards to the Camerlengo. Having reread Universi Dominici Gregis, I still believe that there cannot be said to be a "presider" in Conclave. The only mention of the Cardinal Dean acting in an executive capacity is this: "The Cardinal electors, after reciting the prayers found in the relative Ordo, listen to the Cardinal Dean (or the one taking his place), who begins by asking the College of electors whether the election can begin, or whether there still remain doubts which need to be clarified concerning the norms and procedures laid down in this Constitution." --MikeJ9919 15:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Blessing video of pope.

It goes so quickly it's just a blur. Just a thought maybe a slower video would work or something else? --Contrib 19:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Surely we can find a better picture of Pope Benedict that that truly dreadful one currently being used. It really is appallingly bad. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 22:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Just like with the last photo I put on here, this one is not that great. I am hoping I get some PD/Fairuse photos soon, but I do not think it will come for a while. I am not going to pay the Vatican for any photo, so we are kinda stuck, in my POV. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Category: