Talk:Pope Francis

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pope Francis' football memoribilia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments on TC

@LongIslandThomist914: you wrote: As of now the section makes no mention of criticism at all. I do not understand what you are saying. Either one make a short sentence about the reception on TC, or one does not mention the reception. It is too soon to find sources on the global reception of TC, therefore we should refrain from adding any comment. The main article is there to contain individual opinions from important people about TC. It must be noted that as of now the TC section on the Pope Francis article makes no mention... of praise at all! This is why I propose the comments be removed. Veverve (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve Yes but it’s not everyday that you have cardinals, members of the Curia under Pope Francis, openly criticizing the decisions of a Pope. In many ways I think this is more of an open controversy than the Document on Human Fraternity, I don’t really think many Catholics globally were aware of that document yet it generated enough controversy to make mention on this article. I think how it reads now is a good compromise position. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@LongIslandThomist914: please ping me next time you answer me. it’s not everyday that you have cardinals, members of the Curia under Pope Francis, openly criticizing the decisions of a Pope. So what? Filling a section with only criticism while the document was also praised really looks like a POV pushing. Moreover, the opinion of the former cardinal-bishop of Hong Kong is really unimportant, as it is not an exceptional position.

I don’t really think many Catholics globally were aware of that document yet it generated enough controversy to make mention on this article. So just find a RS which says the document created some controversy and how, and explain it in the arrticle. No need to give individual opinions outside of the main article.

I disagree with the current version. Veverve (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I mean is this not a section on controversies? I’m sure there were people who loved Amoris laetitia and the document on human fraternity as well yet they both generated controversy so they get a mention here. Like Amoris, TC also gets a mention in the Papal Documents section without reference to the controversy. I don’t think it’s a secret that many trads are upset with TC, even secular publications like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe have mentioned a lot of traditional Catholics are upset about it. I don’t know what about Cardinal Zen’s statements that makes them “not an exceptional position.” I think those reading this article should understand the severity of the controversy here, possibly the largest theological controversy of this Papacy LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@LongIslandThomist914: For Zen, see Talk:Traditionis custodes#Cardinals.

many trads are upset with TC there is nothing suggesting it as the section stands now. The controversy surrounding TC, from what I see written in the section, is that TC is "harsh", whatever that means, and cardinals are unhappy for vauge reasons. Veverve (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: what about their statements were “vague”? It’s clear they’re upset that people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend. I think any dimwit can see how that can at least be possible construed as harsh. Now if anything the section is less clear, and you also just ripped a quote straight verbatim from the Pentin article without attribution or block quoting. If you’re going to throw around your Wiki weight and publish whatever you want without consensus, you can at least have good syntax and take “Retired” off your user page. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@LongIslandThomist914: I would not mind quoting unprecise statements, but you are asking for those to be the presentation of the criticism of TC. I maintain that the cardinals' statements were vague, so allow me to look at each statement, and I will tell you what information I find in them.

"Cardinal Raymond Burke questioned the 'harshness' of the decree"

I do not know what information I could gather from that. In what way was it harsh? Was it the wording? No mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend.

Müller, who served as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2017, also criticised the letter as "harsh" saying, 'Instead of appreciating the smell of the sheep, the shepherd here hits them hard with his crook.' He also contrasted the approach taken by Francis to curb the traditionalist movement with his failure to condemn 'the innumerable “progressive” abuses in the liturgy [...] that are tantamount to blasphemy.' "

He reproaches to the pope of doing such, but not such, is what I understand of this criticism. So again, no mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend.

"Cardinal Zen, characterised the document as a 'blow' to traditional Catholics who 'have never given the smallest reason to be suspected of not accepting the liturgical reform of the [Second Vatican Council].' "

So, Zen believes it is a "blow" to the traditional Catholics who never questionned the Mass of Paul VI. Now you bring questions of Vatican II, which is not introduced before, and is not explained later. Again, no mention of people who enjoy this form of the mass can no longer attend, simply that Zen believes it is mean to those people. By the way, as I said I am opposed to quoting Zen for the reasons given above.

Keep in mind that even if those statament were sufficient, you would still need to indicate that those quotes of cardinales represent all the reasons for which TC was criticised, and they do not.

I also would like to point you the following:

1) For now, it seems clear, when you read Catholic media, that those who attended the Tridentine Mass were disappointed. You would need to read news articles about Catholicism regularly to know that, which is not the case of the majority of people who read Wikipedia.

2) Wikipedia is for everyone, so we should assume that the people who will read the article about the pope know nothing about the history of the Catholic Church. Much like you - probably - would not know anything about Gelug when reading the article of Jetsun Lobsang Tenzin.

If you feel a "According to Edward Pentin" before his quote is necessary, feel free to add it. You can also paraphrase him, so that what he says will not be a quote anymore.

Lastly, I do not wish to use any Wikiweight. I felt the analysis of Pentin was a good compromise - it mentions the three cardinals' criticism and gives a good summary - between our two positions, and thus added it. I do those edits, because I deem them necessary.

I hope this a clarified some misunderstandings which may have arisen between us two.

Veverve (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Important

I am concerned with the article stating that Francis supports legal recognition of same sex couples. The quote is controversial, taken from an (initially) unpublished documentary movie, and is contradicted by later evidence like this and this --65.94.98.111 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between "supports legal recognition" and "supports church recognition". One can hold the first in the affirmative and the latter in the negative. The two that you note indicate that Francis does not support having priests bless or officiate same sex unions. That does NOT mean he doesn't believe that such unions should be legal. --Jayron32 17:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: please, read the second source carefully. This is the quote:

The letter goes on to provide background on the incident, saying that over a year ago Pope Francis was asked during an interview “two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has generated confusion.”

Pointing to the pope’s assertion in the film that “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” the letter said this statement was a reference “to the pastoral need that, within the family, a son or daughter with a homosexual orientation should never be discriminated against.”

A reference was then made to paragraph 250 of Francis’s 2016 post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which states that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”

Families whose members include individuals with same-sex attraction, the paragraph continues, “should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.”

The letter then went on to explain that the pope’s remarks about civil cohabitation were made in response to a separate question about “a ten-year-old local law in Argentina on ‘marriage equality of same-sex couples’ and his opposition to them as the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires in this regard.”

On this point, the letter said Pope Francis in the interview insisted that “’it is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage,’ adding that – in that in the same context – he had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection.”

This, the letter said, is the context for the pope’s statement in the documentary that “What we have to have is a civil union (convivencia civil) law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Quoting a 2014 interview Pope Francis gave to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, as proof of the pope’s backing of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the letter said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” the pope said in the 2014 interview.The letter goes on to provide background on the incident, saying that over a year ago Pope Francis was asked during an interview “two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has generated confusion.”

Pointing to the pope’s assertion in the film that “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” the letter said this statement was a reference “to the pastoral need that, within the family, a son or daughter with a homosexual orientation should never be discriminated against.”

A reference was then made to paragraph 250 of Francis’s 2016 post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which states that “every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while ‘every sign of unjust discrimination’ is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence.”

Families whose members include individuals with same-sex attraction, the paragraph continues, “should be given respectful pastoral guidance, so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.”

The letter then went on to explain that the pope’s remarks about civil cohabitation were made in response to a separate question about “a ten-year-old local law in Argentina on ‘marriage equality of same-sex couples’ and his opposition to them as the then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires in this regard.”

On this point, the letter said Pope Francis in the interview insisted that “’it is an incongruity to speak of homosexual marriage,’ adding that – in that in the same context – he had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection.”

This, the letter said, is the context for the pope’s statement in the documentary that “What we have to have is a civil union (convivencia civil) law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Quoting a 2014 interview Pope Francis gave to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, as proof of the pope’s backing of traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the letter said, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

“Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety,” the pope said in the 2014 interview.

65.94.98.111 (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the pope expressed support for gay secular marriage in this interview, and the Vatican decided to give the pope's 2014 opinion. Please try not to post a whole article. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Well, it is far from non-controversial that he has. The documentary has been said to have asked two separate questions, and the Pope has since approved a document that states that all same-sex unions are a sin. I do not know why in the introduction we would say that the Pope supports same sex marriage, when this is heavily disputed. --65.94.98.111 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

The hyperlink for footnote 244 "A new saint for the Church and Fulton Sheen soon to be Blessed" currently redirects to a porn site. Instead it should be going to https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-07/pope-francis-sainthood-beatification-decree-sheen.html 2600:100E:BF16:E79:97E:61FB:E001:62 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Veverve (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I DELEON JARMON WITTNESS THESE NON FAITH POWERFUL RICH ORGANAZATION USING PEOPLES IN SPEADING HIV AND ARE VERY, VERY VIOLENT AND KILL CHILDREN AS WELL WHO (HEIR TO PERSON)

https://youtube.com I DELEON JARMON WITTNESS THESE GROUPS OF VERY, VERY VIOLENT PEOPLES SPEAKING HIV VIRUSES IN MY COMMUNITY AND KILLING OTHER USING VIOLENCE TO TAKE THEIR INHERITANCE AWAY FROM THEM WITH THE TEXAS STATE TREASURY DEPT. & TEXAS COM,PTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. I WORKED IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA MANY YEARS AGO BEFORE THESE GROUP OF NON RELIGOUS PEOPLES WITH OTHER USING DRUGS AND HIV TO SEEK AND KILL AND DESTROYED THE COMMUNITIES WITH SEX, DRUGS AND VIOLENCE AS THEIR LAND AND MINERAL RIGHTS TAKEN FROM THEM HELD AT THE TEXAS STATE TREASURY DEPT. AND TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUTS. SEE DELEONJARMONVIDEO@FACEBOOK.COM & DELEONJARMON@TWITTER.COM & DELEONJARMON@PINTEREST.COM. I WAS RAISED AT CORINTH MISSIONARY BAPHIST CHURCH 1600 EAST 16TH STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS WITH ALL MY FAMILY MEMBERS NOW DEAD AND MANY MURDERED SINCE THESE GROUPS HAVE MOVED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS WITH OTHERS FROM OUTSIDE AUSTIN TO PLACE IN HOUSING UNIT WITH CDC AND ATCIC. SEE DELEONJARMON@YOUTUBE.COM & DELEONJARMON@GOOGLE.COM & DELEONJARMON@MESSENGER.COM NATALIEABRAM1978@TEXASHEALTHCARE.ORG & NATALIEABRAM19782METABANK.COM & NATALIEMIGYONABRAM@FRONTSTYEP.ORG AND NATALIEABRAM@UACHURCH.ORG HER ASSOCIATES RACHEAL GOMBY 1974 @SSA.GOV & CHERYL MURRRAY AT CHERYLMURRAY@SSA.GOV & RACHEALGOMBY@SSA.GOV & RHONDAMORRISON@SSA.GOV & BRIDGETSMITH@SSA.GOV & RACHEALCLEMENTS@SSA.GOV & PETEBROWN@SSA.GOV AND KIETHSNEED@CMBC.ORG & CHARLESBYRD@CMBC.ORG & NITAPRICE@SSA.GOV ALL HAVE DATED WITH HOMELESS PEOPLES THAT WERE HIV POSITIVE WITH THE TEXAS HEALTH DEPT. ON WALER STREET IN EAST AUSTIN SAID MICHELLEGRANT@CDC.GOV THESE PEOPLES NEED TO BE STOPPED BUT THERE IS NO ONE WILLING TO STAND AGAINST THESE RICH POWERFUL NON FAITH ORGINAZATIONS. DELEON JARMON THEY IN EVERY PUBLIC LIBRARY