Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 31 May 2005

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.

FK section

I have removed the theological analysis to the discussion page for Hitler's Pope. I note that Spencer did not reply to str1977's query. I note that other than Str1977, no one has tried to defend the papacy. Since the CDF are well aware by now of these issues and these pages and have taken no effort to refute any of the points, they can rest where they are best sited, under Hitler's(two)Popes which should now become the centre of historical effort. I do not deny that avoidance of this issue altogether has its merits - but doubt that this would accord with the objectives of the WP. Indeed the whole story of how the Church influenced 20 th century european history to successful advantage could be a lesson to all. Or at least it would be but for such as Mowrer, Hochluth and Cornwell and in greater or lesser part all the historians analysing the origins of World War II and the evolution of the Church since 1750. I repeat that the editing within political pages (Centre Party Germany, the Nazi Party and Germany), as well as the papal pages (JPII, Pius XII, monsignor Ludwig Kaas revealed a concerted attempt at historical revisionism on the WP. Again, I recognise the merits , all of them anti-social, as revealing the anti-democratic thinking inherent to the church and to all that it touched(and touches) through recent history . B XVI represents a direct continuation of policy as formulated by Pacelli and evidently refuses to enter into a spirit of Christian reconciliation, preferring to wield a metaphorical sword. I have proved that the Popes in question have been canonically excommunicated since 1933, and for all who deny it - I refer you to these same discussions with the eminently useful str1977. Let the ground be at Hitler's Pope where all historical argument and analysis can join with the political and the theological. Fiamekeeper 13:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To put some things straight:

No one here came to the defense of the papacy, me included, since the deleted discussion was about whether to include a certain paragraph into this entry, or in other words: whether it was relevant or not. No one but FK thought it was relevant or could follow his logic.

FK wants to use WP as a platform for accusations ... but WP should be an encyclopedia. And my editing was not revisionism, but defending WP against your attempted abuse of it.

FK gives one-sided narrative or slander as fact and wants to spread them or use innuendo.

FK overestimates his "pet issue" ("the CDF are well aware by now of these issues and these pages") and thus draws unwarranted conclusions ("and have taken no effort to refute any of the points")

FK thinks history is a law court trial, in which the principle is "in dubio contra reo" and no defense allowed (whether facts or motives or interpretation).

FK confuses "claimed" with "proof" (I have proved that the Popes in question ...")

And he has the audacity to use a mediocre German playwright plagued my mania as a source? That's citing Shakespeare for English or Roman history - only that Shakespeare is the greater playwright! If he puts him beside Mowrer and Cornwell, that casts bad light on these two. I know Cornwell deserves it for his sloppy work, but I don't know about Mowrer (I never heard of him). But judging from FK's association, he cannot be called reliable. Str1977 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)