Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fiamekeeper (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 31 May 2005 (→Flamekeeper corruption section: ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

FlameKeeper corruption 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.

Troubles you that , when its evasion . Troubles you that I used your own canonical law to pierce the rotten heart of this papal corruption of 1933.

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.

Whatever about that , the history , the truth , the human consequences are alone important , not the Misplaced Pages .

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)

ANSWERS : Every unjustified attack has to be gladfully rebutted. I marvel ,again. All accusations emanating from not alone myself but confirmed by another entirely neutral wikipedian , Kenny , are slander . Any slightest appearance of anything reported or historically mentioned , you slash . Great, you are really good at it , you persist , and return as you can , you use the minor button where possible , remove what is not yours as if it were . You brandish your standard even whilst admitting your ignorance of the subject . Of course you do and I'll tell ytou why : because the reality is so explosively , disgustingly , brutally damning that you can only believe it to be Slander. Poor Str1977, I sympathise with the distress .

I should own up to the fact that neither with yourself nor the other wikipedian mentioned , did it ever occur to me that such extraordinary editing as which I encountered from you both at Pope Pius XII or the Centre Party could be the result of ignorance. I believe I did you both credit thereby . Nor do I like the only alternative analysis that I can come to , the most logical , which I hesitate to write but which would naturally come to the normal mind of the reasonably informed .

I will report that I notice , over the course of my efforts to justify myself and to present mentions of this history hitherto un-made in WP, some four factors . 1There is a national viewpoint in play, involving a necessity for what I , anyway, call revisionism through a frame of mental response that doubtless loses something in the eloquence of it own interior translation. Germans per se are generally not native English speakers, unless they happed to grow up on an English, say, pavement .English people agree that there exists some mental difference between the two . I will tell you that some of my best friends are Germans , and I accept them for how they are .The greater part of any perceptible difference would result from linguistic factors - however there is note also for German philosophy as contributing to the colour or perception . My very slight experience of actual German historiography would however make me suspect there to be an over-weening and thorough-going revisionism of the history . I see it on the Appeaement page , to do with the poor Sudetans . Its nonsense about them being separated from Germany , as written in apparently this same sub-grerman-english style . that style which starts with ifs and would have been . Truly dreadful , historically wrong baloney .

2There is the faith 's revulsion at itself , requiring complete rebuttal or denial . 3 There is the historian , protective of his standing amongst whoever, and twisting on a hook of history . 4 There is the Wikipedian protective of his standing on the Misplaced Pages and oblivious to the evident revisionism evinced or to how this might appear

Simply , as with the removal of my posted headline on this header here , (temporary in nature and which clearly revealed its contents , albeit so little ) the editing belies your softly reasonable , nigh academic text . Your editing is not cautious but as belligerent as you alone see fit to require. Not knowing the subject , which I remind readers is that of criminally (both canonically and civilly) corrupt Papal collusion with the nascent Third Reich , Str1977 slashed repeatedly , wherever necessary . Slashes today , at historians and men greater than himself . Well , old chum , you wait until we get back to the question of the as yet un-presented subject of the Holy See's investments in German heavy industry . You will be relieved to see focused within the everlasting presence of Edgar Ansel Mowrer , this very question . I am only sorry that I do not slake your thirst to correct and edit from existence these further un-palateable motives for the corruption . Be patient , the truth does not hide . The truth stinks . Fiamekeeper 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be currently four factors in the editing you display .