Talk:Pope Benedict XVI

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Under "Titles and styles", I find > Pope Benedict chose to remove the title at a time when discussions with the Orthodox churches have centred on the issue of papal primacy.

Try the spelling "centered" instead of "centred".

128.63.16.20 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Makes far more sense. Whoops, got an edit conflict. Will try again. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I don't know what happened, but it's fixed.  Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello216.121.242.227 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

The article currently portrays the pope as a defender of the children, which is not NPOV, because there are quite a few reliable sources saying the opposite.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/munich-abuse-case-archbishop-ratzinger-failed-to-deal-with-suspected-pedophile-priest-a-731683.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sex-abuse-scandal-did-archbishop-ratzinger-help-shield-perpetrator-from-prosecution-a-684970.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/pope-benedict-xvi-stalled_n_532099.html

Trio The Punch (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any information about the pope's position on atheists in the article. Reliable sources say he likened the rise of atheism to Nazi Germany. Trio The Punch (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

May I direct you to WP:SOAP. Goodbye. Jeannedeba (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

May I direct you to WP:POV. Goodbye. Trio The Punch (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Trio has a good point. This section of the article glosses over the conduct of Joseph Ratzinger as head of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and Benedict XVI as Pope, giving a highly inaccurate picture of reality. Representing the serious allegations which have attached to this man, and the fact that some of them have been shown to be factually well based, is a necessary part of this article.

I'd like to reopen this discussion - there seems to be absolutely no discussion about his at best tacit approval or at worst coverup of certain specific sex abuse cases. -- ScaldingHotSoup ^(talk) 04:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Infobox says "Papacy ended 28 February 2013". Surely this should be qualified, since it hasn't happened yet? --GenericBob (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There should be no "Papacy ended" parameter until it actually ends. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Post-resignation

This article should add information on what happens how... when is the conclave called? (before or after the 28th?) Does he revert to being Cardinal Ratzinger? What happens to him after resignation? Do they wait to elect a new pope until Benedict dies? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Papal resignation is the place for that stuff. They do have precedent to work to, but details of just what will happen this time will doubtless come out today - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not abut current events. There've ben some child-rape remarks reverted already. We may need a lockdown on both the article and this Talk page. Bustter (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Conclave

The article on the 2013 conclave resulting from his resignation is up and running. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 12:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Article title

When the abdication takes effect, does the page A) remain as Pope Benedict XVI? or B) revert to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his death & then go back to Pope Benedict XVI? I'm assuming the latter. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• A) Hektor (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• A) of course. He will always be notable first and foremost for having been pope. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• A) As above. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 12:33, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
• A) He will continue to be Pope Benedict XVI, just not THE Pope anymore. He won't automatically be a cardinal after his resignation, because one must be a cardinal of something (a church in Rome or of one of the suburbicarian sees around Rome. Before becoming pope, Ratzinger was Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and Velletri-Segni. Those titles are now held by Angelo Sodano and Francis Arinze respectivley, so he would have to be re-created a cardinal. --JamesReyes (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• The title should remain Pope Benedict XVI. He is a former Pope and notable foremost for having been Pope as noted. This is comparable to an abdicated King, a Dowager Queen etc. who keep their titles as courtesy titles. Mocctur (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• A) It would be less confusing for readers & we would avoid creating & removing numerious pipe-links across the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Probably, he will have a title like Pope Emeritus.http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcorre.html So, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI will be a good page name. El Otro (talk)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. He will NOT continue to be Pope Benedict XVI. He will continue to HAVE BEEN Pope Benedict XVI. It is an exclusive American tradition to call ex-presidents, presidents. --Againme (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This confusion just goes to show why the page title should be the name of the person not his title. The idea that the page title would change upon death proves that the page title was wrong until then. How about 'Joseph Ratzinger (Roman Catholic pope)'? 75.247.164.197 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of his current status, he's still most known as Pope Benedict XVI, and that's an unambiguous title. 13:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for disambiguation and prepending "Cardinal" makes little more sense than prepending "Doctor". The correct title is for the article is and was Joseph Ratzinger. Hans Adler 13:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think as far as history goes, even if a pope resigns, he is still called Pope (like the last one to abdicate) although not he would not be one sitting on the papal throne. GrayFullbuster (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the proper thing would be to move this to Benedict XVI (already a free redirect). Definitely his more common name, but he has officially announced he is no longer Pope. If he's infallible, he's clearly not the Pope, and shouldn't be addressed as such. If I understand his resignation speech, the Interim Pope between now and the vacancy on February 28 is Jesus Christ ("And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ"). No opinion on whether we should move that to Pope Jesus Christ. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Papal infallibility doesn't work like that... KTC (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. But does Papal supremacy? "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." suggests it might. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to move the page anywhere anytime soon. When a Catholic Bishop resigns, be remains a Bishop (Emeritus), despite not being in charge as before. The Pope is technically the Bishop of Rome, so he will remain a Bishop (Emeritus) of Rome, and he may stil be referred to as Pope ("Father"), which is merely an inofficial title. We cannot move the article to Benedict XVI because that's not how articles on former popes are titld. Mocctur (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we could add "Pope" to any bishop or priest's article title. "Pope" should only be used in an official capacity, meaning the actual Pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how things work here. We title all popes "Pope" in the the article title, not only the current pope. If you have been Pope at any time, your article in Wikipedia gets titled "Pope [Name] [Number]". Mocctur (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

But none of the other Popes used their power to freely and officially renounce the papacy, did they? (Celestine V did, I see. He should also be stripped of the title on Wikipedia.) InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous and I am not saying that just because I love using that word. We are not in the position to strip anyone of any title or of anything whatsoever. Once a pope, always notable as a pope. There is a reason why Edward VIII is not caled Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course we're not in that position. But he was. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but he cannot erase the name "Pope Benedict XVI" from history and I doubt he will even try to. Unless he becomes president of the United States under the name "Joseph Ratzinger", it is beyond doubt that he will always be notable as a pope.Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we remove all mention of his former title. Most of the article should use it. He certainly was the Pope and notable for it. But it's no longer part of his name. Wikipedia should stay current. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody remember how we did this, when Pope Gregory XII abdicated in 1415? :) GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't on Wikipedia yet, but it seems someone else resigned in his name. Not sure if the supremacy extends to his delegates, or if that make that a different situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about naming the article "Former Pope Benedict XVI" ? Daniel32708 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we just leave it as it is and stop tampering with history? Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

History says that he is no longer Pope (after the 28th). Respect history lol. 2.137.179.191 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II is not pope anymore either. What shall we do about him and 260 other dead non-pope popes? Surtsicna (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said on Celestine V's talk page, even death does not have the (official) authority that the Pope does. They remain Popes. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should then quickly amend the article. It appears that there are currently more than 260 zombie popes reigning along with Benedict XVI. Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not reigning. Dead. But Popes, presumably in Heaven. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The solution is the following: You can leave the current page, but there should also be a Joseph Ratzinger independent page. That is, whatever he does after the 28th should go in that other page and not this one. "Pope Benedict XVI" is no longer after the 28th (just as if he was dead). Whatever he does after the 28th is being done by Joseph Ratzinger and not by Pope Benedict XVI. Another way to name that new page is "Former Pope Benedict XVI" so that we can leave in "Pope Benedict XVI" pre-pope stuff as well, just like in the pages of other popes. Daniel32708 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any such thing. We are dealing with an article about a human being here. He may be holy to someone and thus more than just a human, but he is not holy to a vast majority of people. There is a reason why we do not have seperate articles on King Edward VIII and Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor; on Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor and Francis I of Austria; on Constantine II of Greece and Constantino de Grecia, etc. He will not magically transform back into a human at 8 p.m. on 28 February 2013 AD. He will simply cease to hold an office - an office from which he derives all his notability. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I also don't like the idea of two articles for one man. I'll also reiterate that he has already renounced his position. The position will be vacant on the 28th, not vacated by him. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we know for a fact that he will not keep the name Benedict after resigning? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bcorre.html El Otro (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

TITLE MUST STAY Pope Benedict XVI LeQuackBalloon (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

calm down. I think, if we can verify the emeritus thing, we should treat it as an established precedent. Aunva6 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I've seen said he will indeed go back to being called "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger". Given that "Pope Benedict XVI" is so far from what the actual human man, who will still be living and no longer be pope, will be called, I think this knee-jerk insistence on keeping the page here needs to be rethought. As GoodDay mentioned, a perfectly logical course of action would be to use the name of the living man while he lives, then move it back here when he dies. Even if he is allowed to call himself "Pope Emeritus", it still wouldn't make sense to call him "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" unless that is the way the Church chooses to style him. If he is, rather, "Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Emeritus, then our version would be made up nonsense.

So we need to take a step back. We need to await confirmation of what exactly he is to be called and then, and only then, carefully consider how to deal with that information in light of the fact that he is a living human being and a historical figure. -Rrius (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that "Pope Emeritus Gregory XII" gets exactly 41 results, all of which are derived from the catholic-hierarchy.org site, making that construction less likely to have any official basis. -Rrius (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article title should stay as Pope Benedict XVI just as the titles for all of the articles of all of the previous popes. He will always be referred to as Pope Benedict XVI. He will just not be the reigning Pope. Magnetawan (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MP3 of resignation speech

Will it be possible to include the MP3 of the (Latin) resignation speech in the article, since the full text is also included? It can be found on the website of the Vatican radio (direct link). --134.130.114.129 (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but where in the article is it? I can't find it. Thank you. XndrK (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Resignation section. Nevermind, misread you. The audio in the Vatican article is at the bottom of the page. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The resignation of Benedict XVI

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Pope Benedict XVI will withdraw from duty 28th February 2013, it was announced from the Vatican. He explained his decision "lack the strength to continue performing their duties," noting that "goes for the good of the Church." This is the first resignation of a pope after 600 years.78.3.211.182 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed this:

"becoming the first pope to resign since 1415, and the first to do so voluntarily since 1294"

Please explain "voluntarily". I have read that the pope who resigned in 1415 did so to help end the Western Schism (in 1417, Cardinal Oddone Colonna was elected as sole pope, taking the name Martin V). So I assume the resignation of 1415 would have been voluntary. (unsigned comment from IP address 128.63.16.20 on 11 Feb 2013 at 16:52 UTC)

Hi, our article is following probably the most reliable currently available secondary source on this, from the Financial Times. But to give you a direct answer, Gregory was under heavy pressure to step down from his Cardinals, whereas Celestine was not. In fact several of them desperately wanted Celestine to stay in office, as he was very poor at handling politics and power plays, so the Cardinals could have their own way in worldly matters. (Not trying to imply most were ungodly, generally they were good men, but a few were corrupt.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't "without external motives" be better than "voluntary". Gregory resigned voluntarily - or his resignation would not be valid - although he did it to end the schism. Benedict is resigning due to his health while Celestine resigned because he was a monk, and realized he (a) was a poor administrator and (b) preferred the solitude of the monastery. I think these are similar and it is just to relate them but don't claim Gregory did not resign voluntarily. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Gregory XII might have liked to stay pope longer, but he certainly resigned voluntarily. --Jfruh (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It could also have occurred that Gregory (XII) would think his own staying in office would look selfish, although he is now regarded as the legitimate pope of that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to Pope Benedict XVI:

What will this man be called after February 28? Does he revert to Cardinal Ratzinger, or does he retain the papal name of Benedict XVI for life? I would note that John F. Kennedy is still called President Kennedy even though, being deceased, he no longer holds the office of president. Not the same thing, but having held the office of pope, and voluntarily resigning for what he feels is the good of the church, he merits continued use of his papal name, I would assume. GBC (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Other people, such as Wikipedia editors, don't get to assume these things. We will be told. I can't see any reason why he wouldn't just revert to "Cardinal Ratzinger", but that's just my assumption. Whatever the decision may be, it will certainly not be based on the American tradition of calling ex-presidents "president". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, in the rest of the world ex presidents are, and are called, ex presidents... --Againme (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is another good reference for the resignation: [1] yay. ;) 108.174.58.144 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The link provided by "[1]" immediately above takes me to "Original Star Wars VI ending" on Youtube; what is the meaning of that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2013

Papacy did not end on Feb 11th 2013. The Pope announced his dimissions on that day, but papacy will end on Feb 28th 2013. Igli984 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, he handed it over to Jesus for the next 17 days. Then it will be vacant till a human is chosen. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to Jesus's weekly mass. ;-) A date shouldn't be added to the term ended field of the infobox until the term actually ends. To do otherwise is to predict the future and Mr Pope could kick it tomorrow. --auburnpilot talk 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the future. He declared "I renounce the ministry of the Bishop of Rome". Not "I will renounce". He says the position will be vacant on the 28th (not that he will vacate the position), and in the meantime, he entrusts the Church to Jesus. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request re: Parkinson's

Only one media outlet (the one cited) has reported that the Pope has Parkinson's and that his resignation is a result of it. The Vatican spokesman specifically said that the resignation was not the result of any specific health concern. Unless this suspicion is reported elsewhere, it seems misleading to report it here as fact. 24.1.94.199 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the same source in the next line says: "the Vatican have said that the timing of the resignation was more to “avoid that exhausting rush of Easter engagements” than any specific illness." I think this request is valid. On the subject of mister Ratzinger have Parkinson or not it would fit better in the health section. This section does not seem to have been updated since 2009, so it might be time to make it uptodate especially since the pope is saying in his on statement that failing health is the reason he has resigned. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is still in the "People with Parkinson's Disease" group. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.33.75.2 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed Category:People with Parkinson's disease since the article's text doesn't currently mention the disease. --auburnpilot talk 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II had Parkinson's disease. Perhaps someone copied the category from that article? It is strange that it would have persisted in this article for any significant length of time. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Time of resignation

The article says he announced on February 11 that he will resign on the 28th, but the text of his address says he announced on the 10th that he renounces the Ministry, in the present tense, and that the position will be vacant (not vacated by him) on the 28th. He then says that "now", Jesus is in charge. Why the discrepancy? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hulk, its a translation from the Latin, not his exact words. But if you read the whole sentence it's reasonably accurate: "I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant"

To clarify it once and for all, he did not used the present tense. --Againme (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Its only from between 28 Feb and whenever the new Pope is elected that the Office will be in the temporary stewardship of Jesus Christ. Benedict is not resigning untill 28 Feb, this what the the Vatican itself and allmost all the good sources are saying. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's contradicted by the part where he says "And now, let us entrust...". The source currently used in the article speaks of the resignation as something that "came as a shock", not "will come", and other such things in past tense. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not allowed to interpret primary sources. That would be original research. Secondary sources say that he is still pope and that he will hold the office until 28 February. If there is a secondary source that says otherwise, please show it here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really an interpretation, just a straight reading of the words. Unless there was a mistranslation, he's pretty clear. The source used in the article speaks of the resignation in the past tense, from the headline on. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right Hulk. But thats just one source, other like the BBC or Financial Times sources are saying he doesnt resign until the 28th. If you google you'd find allmost all the good sources are saying this. In fact even the Reuters article includes the correct date "as from 28 February 2013,..." though as you say it contradicts itself. Maybe that source should be removed as its not the most accurate? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, we should use one of those sources instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is clear only to you, obviously. The rest of the world finds it rather clear that he is still pope. Curiously, it does not matter what is clear to us. What matters is what secondary sources report. Surtsicna (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you tune out the part I said about the secondary source currently used in the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So, if he's already ceased to be pope, what on earth is the relevance of 20:00 on 28 February 2013? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems that's when Jesus will turn it back over to men. I personally don't believe in the guy, but the Church clearly thinks of him as a sentient being. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There's been one or two sources where the journalists have been writing too fast. This idea that the Pope has already resigned is untrue. It's actually on Feb 28th that Jesus will take over; Christ will turn the office back to men once the Cardinals elect a new Pope some time later. (It may only take a few days, they'll want to have it sort well before Easter). FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That only works if you assume he meant February 28 by "now", and in Jesus' hands by "vacant". When I say "turn it back to men", men means Cardinals, not the next Pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Going through the Google News, I see many sources are repeating this "leaving on the 28th" thing. I think they're wrong, but they're certainly numerous, and Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. So I concede. Had to at least try. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, mate, not even the bleeding Pope gets to announce "when Jesus will turn it back over to men" (whatever the heck that means). That is a completely fantastical, fictitious fabrication from your fertile, fecund, factory of fear (= your mind). There is only one reasonable interpretation of the Pope's announcement, viz. that his resignation will become effective on 28 February, and that he is still the Pope until then. That's all there is to it. You are out of step with the entire world if you think differently. Have your weird fantasies if you must, but please keep them to yourself and leave Wikipedia out of the picture. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That's rather harsh there Jack. Hulk's view was consistent with one of the sources previously in the article, and with a reasonable interpretation of the Popes actual words. Even if you have good Latin, youd also need to be familiar with church practice and idiom to be sure to know that when Benedict entrusted the Church to Christ, (speaking current tense) he was only doing so in the sense that Jesus is **always** watching over the Church, not in the temporary stewardship sense that will be effective from Feb 28 to approx March 21. Dont forget not all editors here are Christians so they wont be guided into all truth. (John 16:13). Its good that folk like Hulk help explore all the reasonable angles, as that helps us ensure our encyclopaedia is as accurate as possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd considered he may have meant that in a less-than-literal way, but you never know how some people think about Jesus. In any case, that's some damn fine alliteration, Jack. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Inedible Hulk.

FeydHuxtable, I accept what you say about a plurality of angles. But that can't be used to make Inedible Hulk's statement acceptable. He misinterpreted the papal announcement to mean it took effect immediately, then supplied his very own set of completely made up words to justify his reading ("Seems that's when Jesus will turn it back over to men"). He referred to certain selected words in a source (written by a journalist) to support his view that the resignation has already taken effect, even though the same source quotes Benedict's own words from his announcement: "As from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours (1900 GMT) the See of Rome, the See of St. Peter will be vacant ...." That focussing on certain words that were not from the horse's mouth, but deliberately ignoring others from the horse's mouth, is what gets people into hot water. Inedible Hulk has since accepted the sources are pretty much all at variance with his interpretation - but amazingly, somehow, "they're wrong". Inedible Hulk is telling us he knows better than everyone else in the world. Make what you like of that. I know what I call it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The horse declared he renounced the Ministry (present tense, unless Latin doesn't differentiate), "in such a way" that there will be a vacancy on the 28th. He then describes "such a way": by handing the wheel to Jesus. I may use different words here, but they're all based on the (translated) words from the highest authority on matters like these. I haven't ignored any of those. Just a matter of how literal he was being. There are no facts in these stories (that I've seen) that contradict my conclusion, only different conclusions. I realize this, and so haven't touched the article. When (or if) other sources become available, I might. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify it once and for all, he did not used the present tense. --Againme (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree aghainme. I may not know latin, but I know german, and german has an infinitive case, which is not present in english, but is close to the perfekt (present) case. it is fairly easy for a translation to miss that. Aunva6 (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's not a matter of missing, but of style. If you try to translate exactly every verb tense and everything else, what you produce is not a very readable translation in the destination language. --Againme (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

according to the vatican news site, his resignation is effective on the 28th. [2] Aunva6 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean about conclusions. They say he said something, then produce the same evidence that I draw a different conclusion from. It doesn't make me wrong, but it does mean Wikipedia should give more weight to their conclusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

again, I will restate myself: we do not have a consensus on the actual date of resignation. regardless of what any news agency says, unless there is a consensus, it does not belong in the article. we DO have consensus that the papacy will be vacant on the 28th, so until we have consensus toe the contrary, I suggest we leave it saying the 28th. see WP:CON

Aunva6 (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get that you do not have consensus... but you are nobody to do original research. If two of you want to say that the Pope came from Mars, we are never going to have consensus. What you have to do is look at the sources. --Againme (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not doing OR. I am not even talking about the future state of the article. I am simply stating that there is not a consensus that he has already resigned. many sources say his retirement is as of the 28th, including the Vatican, however, the way he said it can be taken multiple ways. ALL sources agree that the papacy will be vacant on the 28th, whether he retired on the 11th or not. there is therefore consensus that the papacy will be vacant on the 28th, so I am suggesting that we leave the article saying that retirement is the 28th, for now. it can always be changed later if there is consensus that he retired on the 11th. Aunva6 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed the first part; as per the second, it's not going to happen... --Againme (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, now that we agree on something at least; ANSA may say that he is already retired, but the New York Times says it is on the 28th. Aunva6 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi dear Aunva, I think you missunderstood me... ANSA gave the breaking news to the world, and we of course informed that he is going to be the Pope until the 28th. That is what I was telling you so insistently last night... It was obvious... no hard feelings. Regards. --Againme (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eit sounded like you were arguing that he was no longer pope. he may have announced his retirement on the 11th, but his actual retirement date is the 28th. Aunva6 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is weird... Maybe you got me confused with someone else... As I remember from only last night -and can be read here- I was saying that he is still in office and you were saying there is no consensus... but never mind... :=) --Againme (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I was confused. I was pretty tired last night, so that could be part of it. I think we were arguing the exact same thing, but I thought you were arguing otherwise... silly me Aunva6 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Love my wiki-bros :=) --Againme (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Againme, Hulk and all. Hope all is well with you. I note the article is currently saying the Pope announced his resignation on 10 Feb. This is incorrect, and contradicts virtually all the reliable secondary and primary sources, which are saying he announced the forthcomming resignation on 11 Feb. An English translation of the pre –prepared resignation statement seems to have been dated on 10 Feb, which may account for this discrepancy. But even most Cardinals didnt know about the resignation until Pope read the statement to them on the morning of 11 Feb. I will change the annoucement date back to 11 Feb, hope this is okay. PS, I also think the current event tag ought to be removed, as further rapid changes are now most unlikely, but I'll leave that up to you guys.FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, FeydHuxtable! As long as it is clear that the 11th was the date of the announcement of the resignation, not of the effective resignation itself. --Againme (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC) As per the tag, please do not remove it, see the bottom discussion. --Againme (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

yep, I put that there after I reverted someone removing it. and inedible hulk, I think consensus is really against you this time. Aunva6 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

So consensus trumps a dated Vatican source, that also specifies "said Monday". Fine. (Nevermind, thought today was Wednesday.). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Of course the Pope has not resigned yet, but just declared his intention to resign at the end of this month. The papal spokesperson, Father Lombardi, in discussing the events until Feb 28, clearly stated that the Pope is the Pope till that date. Source: Press Conference, 2013-02-12 (4:30) I quote: Fino del 28 di febbraio Papa Benedetto XVI è il nostro papa in piena funziona... Gugganij (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that will shut me up. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Gugganij (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, what is the argument as I am lost. He announced on Monday that he will resign on the 28th @ 8pm (20:00). This is confirmed by the primary and just about every secondary source. The text "Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse." The word in bold is in the subjunctive mood, see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vacare#Latin and a decent grammar. Subjunctive present can mean present or future and the date is clearly future so the See of Peter will be vacated is probably the best English. Ergo, he resigns on the 28th. As for his name, clearly it doesn't change till the 28th and I am sure it will be announced officially (I am 90% he's still Benedict XVI). >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You are a little late to the discussion, but the problem was that the Holy See translated the subjunctive/infinitive into present tense in English, "I renounce". Some people still think that translations can be exactly literal and that makes them get crazy ideas. --Againme (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But that's OK. "I renounce" does not mean he was saying he ceased to be pope the very moment those words escaped his lips. He has indeed renounced his office, and that renunciation will take effect on 28 February. This is no different from when an employee submits their resignation to their boss, to take effect in 2 weeks time or whenever. In the meantime, he will say "I have resigned", which is perfectly accurate, but nobody thinks that means "I am unemployed" until the resignation actually takes effect on whatever date he specified. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Intelligent guy this Jack of Oz... I agree... In fact I just did that exact same thing with one of my employers... --Againme (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Information box under papal photo inaccurate

The information box under the Pope's photo reads that his papacy ended 10 February 2013. This is inaccurate. He will remain pontiff until he formally steps down on 28 February at 8 pm. He announced his resignation on 11 February 2013, so that might be noted, but he is still pope until February 28.

Alchemist91 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks for pointing that out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it sorted yet, but I won't edit war. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps it is best to reflect the position of the official authority on this; is there anything from the catholic church that states that he is or is not currently the pope? Aunva6 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I read it, the (former) Pope himself said he quit. But that's apparently not a widely-held view. The Vatican's website still has him listed for official scheduled appearances. If he makes those dates, I guess he's still the Pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

His resignation is going to be effective on the 28th. That is when he stops being pope. --Againme (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

again, we don't have a consensus on that yet. however, I think the article should list the resignation date as the 28th until we have a consensus to the contrary Aunva6 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Aunva, but that's ridiculous. We at ANSA gave this news to the world and what was announced is perfectly clear for 99 per cent of serious journalism. When the Pope says "now", he means "now that I am going to leave office". --Againme (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is his actual statement (my bolding):

• I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonisations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church.

• After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.

• I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.

• However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.

• For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

• Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects.

• And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

Not "is now vacant" but "will be vacant" from 28 February. How could that possibly be read any other way? If he had meant his abdication to have immediate effect, he would have said exactly that; and there would have been no point in any mention of 28 February, because that would have just confused the whole world. Thi is no different from Richard Nixon's announcement "I will resign the Presidency effective at noon on 8 August 1974". That statement was made a day or two before then, and he continued to be president right up until that precise moment in time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's different. Ratzinger said "I renounce...". Nixon said "I will resign...". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually he did not. Do you know Latin? He used the infinitive... --Againme (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Latin, but I know all reliable English sources are using the Vatican's translation, which is in present tense. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is why we who understood what the Pope said, are telling those who didn't, that the present tense in some translations, including the English one, is a matter of grammatical style and is to be undertood as coming into effect on the 28th. --Againme (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty big oversight by the Vatican. Do you have a source, other than yourself, for this mistranslation claim? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I have the Pope. The thing you have to understand is that good translations are never literal but conceptual -I'm a translator myself-, and it is only a mistranslation if you find this ambiguity that nobody thought anyone was going to find. The Pope said: Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commissum renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 29, sedes Romae, sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab his quibus competit convocandum esse (you can find the text everywhere). The phrase renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii means to renounce such a way that from the day of 28 February. See http://translate.google.com/#la/en/renuntiare%20ita%20ut%20a%20die%2028%20februarii --Againme (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the translation was correct, then. I still read it to mean the same thing I did. He resigns immediately, says the See will be vacant on the 28th, and entrusts the Church to Jesus in the meantime. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my... looks like you have made your mind and are a true believer in it... in this cases I ask: What would you accept as proof of the contrary, if there is anything that would do it for you? --Againme (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose if he shows up for his scheduled Papal appearances (two tomorrow), he would seem to still be the Pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then if you would abide by facts, I consider you to be better than a true believer =0) I accept the "challenge". Greetings. --Againme (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And I accept that he showed up, as Pope, for Ash Wednesday mass. I believe what I believe, but only till I have satisfactory reason to not believe. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

We are a meeting of great minds... lol --Againme (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Emeritus?

Although there is no history of this (except in the Middle Ages), I think that the Pope who has stepped down is to be referred as Pope Emeritus, just as well as a priest becomes Emeritus when his retiring age has arrived. Can anyone speculate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.101.55.218 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? EVERYONE can speculate, but NOBODY should do so HERE. This page is for improving the article, not for speculation. You may think whatever you like, but please don't share your thoughts here unless it's in the context of a discussion about the improvement of the article. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to be so rude. I think the point 37.101.55.218 is trying to bring up is that after the 28th we will need to change this article's name to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI or at leasat the first sentence should state that. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 04:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

he was asking for speculation. I really don't think that jack was rude, just capitalizing for emphasis Aunva6 (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if he wasn't asking for speculation (which he clearly was) or engaging in it himself (which he clearly was), we don't do that. There are good reasons for believing it will not be anything Emeritus but simply Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger once more (that's because it's not possible, canonically, to resign one's priesthood or bishophood, but it certainly is possible to resign the papacy, which we now have proof of; a king who abdicates is not "King Emeritus" anything, and a Pope is more comparable to a king in this sense than to other ranks within the church). But all that is just more speculation, which we don't do here, so I never said any of it. We have to wait until we are told what his new status in life is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly, at least on the part of 'wait and see'. hehe, I almost did my own speculation there. I guess it's just a completely unexpected event, one with really no precident Aunva6 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the terms 'Ex-Pope Benedict XVI' and 'Former Pope Benedict XVI' would both be legitimate. As for saying that he would revert to his 1977-2005 style as a Cardinal, I do not think that is even possible. - (202.89.140.65 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

Why not? He never ceased to be a cardinal. He never ceased to be a bishop or a priest, for that matter. His priesthood is subsumed in his bishophood; his cardinalhood is outside that, as it's not necessary to first be a bishop before being appointed a cardinal, although exceptions are very rarely made. The pope is primus inter pares among the cardinals, and now that he's resigning his papacy, he would revert to cardinal. That would be the default position, imo, and I'd need to see something authoritative to convince me otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously right concerning the priest- and bishophood, however since his election as pope he is NOT a cardinal anymore. Cardinals according to the Code of Canon Law (Can 349) are assistants of the Pope. They are assigned titular churches (that's in essence what makes them a cardinal - distinguished members of the clergy of Rome; with the exception of Eastern patriarchs (Can. 350, §3). At the moment he accepted to be bishop of Rome, he vacated his titular church (in his case Ostia and Velletri-Segni, which are now assigned to Cardinal Sodano and Cardinal Arinze respectively) - no titular church, no cardinal. Gugganij (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks. Does that mean that he reverts to bishop (or archbishop)? Or even back to priest? Or is this completely new territory? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To a certain degree we are in uncharted waters. He will remain a bishop and priest, since once you are consecrated you remain that till you die. Until let's say the 1960s simple bishops usually died in office. Now a bishop is required to tender his resignation with 75. When accepted by the pope he becomes bishop emeritus of his diocese. Thus, the most natural thing would be that Pope Benedict XVI will become Bishop emeritus of Rome. Obviously the new pontiff will be free to create Benedict XVI are cardinal again or bestow some other completely new honors on him. Informally, I am sure, he will rank above all cardinals in the order of precedence, even in the case he will not be created one. Gugganij (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

he hasn't lost his cardinal-ship, and this is 100% uncharted waters as far as we are concerned. we will have to wait and see what the church says his official title is. Aunva6 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not right. Benedict XVI ceased to be cardinal at the moment he accepted to become Pope in 2005. At this very moment his titular churches became vacant (and were subsequently assigned to other dignitaries).
The whole point of being a cardinal is to be a distinguished member of the clergy of Rome (loosely, any bishop in the world, who becomes a cardinal, is an "honorary" member of the clergy of Rome. In a conclave therefore the "clergy" of Rome elects its bishop). In order to become a cardinal, one has to be assigned to a Roman titular church (with the explicit exceptions of Eastern patriarchs). Without a titular church you are NOT a cardinal. Every new pope looses his titular church (otherwise they couldn't be assigned to new cardinals, which is regularly the case).
Now, obviously, the new Supreme Pontiff can change that mode of creating cardinals, however, with the current canon law in force, at the moment of his abdication on February 28, Pope Benedict will be, technically, Bishop emeritus of Rome (confirmed today by the Vatican spokesman Father Lombardi). As long as the new Pontiff doesn't change the rules or creates Joseph Ratzinger a cardinal, he will not be one. That's the technical side. How he will be addressed, if he gets a courtesy title or not is a different matter. We just don't know and as I understood Father Lombardi today he doesn't know either. Gugganij (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just an update: The Vaticans spokesperson seems to agree. [3] Gugganij (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There is the possibility that the Pope was not a cardinal before he became Pope, but the last time that happened was in 1378 (over 633 years ago), and that turned out to be a bad experience. Some of the cardinals in that election then feared for their lives, and they held a new election, choosing a man who is now regarded as an antipope and starting what we know as the Western Schism. In the news regarding Benedict XVI resignation, it's noted that Gregory XII resigned in 1415 to help end the Western Schism, and subsequently (in 1417), a single election (including cardinals named by various papal claimants) elected a sole Pope (Cardinal Oddone Colonna, who took the name Martin V).

There was a case of a CARDINAL resigning that rank in 1927 (the latest time that happened); that was Louis Billot, S.J., and because he was not a bishop he went back to the title "Father". He died in 1931. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been said, we are in uncharted waters. We will find out what happens at 8.01 pm on Feb 28, Italian time. Yes, he cannot lose his orders, and will remain a bishop. A bishop cannot be so without being attached to a title. So perhaps he may receive a titular office. I rather suspect he will refuse the title 'Papa Emeritus'. If he was humble enough to resign, why should he want to keep the title? But what do I know? I'm sure he is making the arrangements he wants.Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If we look back at history, we may notice that it is politically problematic to have a living ex-pope. Poor old Celestine V was imprisoned in a monastery. Benedict is going to a monastery of his own accord but possibly partly for the same reason - to avoid being the centre of opposition to the new pope. It might be difficult if he remained in consistory as a consultant to the new pope. Gazzster (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm. Jack of Oz? I am 37.101.55.218, which is Max Ventura, from Bergamo, Italy, and I do think you were very rude, actually. First off, this is a TALK page, not the article, and if you wanna be strict about anything, please do that in your own living room as I will feel free to pose questions and wait for answers. Secondly, to solve this melèe, I will now report to you all that this very evening I heard on national radio here in Italy that he will be referred to as Bishop Emeritus of Rome Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. That settles it. I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.157.23.140 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just like any other retired bishop. That makes sense. Very neat.Gazzster (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

so, will we change the name to 'Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger'? and have a redirect from Pope Benedict XVI? i guess we can take care of that with a rename discussion later, but it'd be nice to have a general consensus outlining it. Aunva6 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, we need just a little more than the say-so of one editor who says he heard something on radio. If that's the standard of verifiability we're gonna adopt here, heaven help all of us. Max Ventura, we're all fussing about the correct name Benedict XVI will have after 28 February, but it seems we're all breaking own rules, one of which is at the top: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", and that includes no idle speculation. We are not in a position yet to say anything in the article about his new title, because we simply do not know. All we have left is speculation, which we're not supposed to be doing. We can all speculate till kingdom come, it won't make a jot of difference. What we're told by people who are in positions of authority, and in a way that we can all check for ourselves rather than relying on the word of a Wikipedia editor - that will be what decides this question. Nothing else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not saying that we would base it of of just that, but I was figuring that we would have an idea of how we will go about renaming the article, if it is needed. I probably should not have phrased it as I did, but you are right, and that there is established procedure for renaming articles. Aunva6 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's tricky. When Joe retires Benedict XVI becomes a historical figure, and, as such, is entitled to an article under the heading of his papal name. His biography would end in 2013, and there would be a link to 'Josef Ratzinger after his resignation', or some such, for his life thereafter.Gazzster (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Pope of Rome ceases to be a Cardinal upon his election, as it is an upgrade to his title. Any lower titles he had prior to becoming the Pope of Rome ceases to exist. The same logic applies to a Bishop who is elevated to Archbishop, and to a Prince with a royal peerage acceding to the throne (such as the Duke of York who became King George VI, which caused the royal Duchy of York to merge in the Crown from the moment King Edward VIII abdicated).

An abdicated Pope of Rome would be titled 'Ex-Pope','Former Pope', and / or a combination of these, plus 'Bishop Emeritus of Rome'. - (202.89.140.65 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

As already stated above, the title Cardinal is an impossibility as long as the current pope (until Feb 28) or the new pope doesn't change the current rules or, alternatively, the new Supreme pontiff elevates Benedict to the cardinalship. Father Lombardi, the papal spokesman, seems to confirm that ([4]). Gugganij (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no chance of soon-to-be Ex-Pope Benedict XVI being recreated a Cardinal, as he lost his cardinalate the moment he was asked in Latin or Italian, "Do you accept your election as Pope?". He will retain a courtesy style as a Pope of Rome,including his regnal name, even though he will no longer be the reigning Pope of Rome. - (202.89.140.65 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

It's Pope or Bishop of Rome - please cut it out. As a protestant, unnecessary offending of Catholics is rude and annoying. I wouldn't appreciate it if they posted here and misnamed my religious leaders. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the offense... but it's always necessary to defy theocracies... :0) --Againme (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is not a Forum or Soapbox - take that stuff somewhere else and follow the rules. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you follow the rules and tell us what the insult is... otherwise, if you think "Pope of Rome" is offensive, take that stuff somewhere else... --Againme (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, "Pope of Rome" is an acceptable title. He is the Pope of Rome as opposed to the Coptic Pope or the Greek Orthodox Pope. In addition, the Eastern Churches in communion with the Roman Church refer to Benedict as Pope of Rome in the Divine Liturgy.NDomer09 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an answer. Or do we?

The source now says:

• There is finally an answer to one of the most popular questions. Once the resignation of Benedict XVI goes into effect on February 28 at 8 p.m. local time in Rome, he will still be addressed as “Your Holiness Benedict XVI.”
• According to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, the president for the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, the same procedure will apply to the Pope as with other bishops and archbishops. After that date, Benedict XVI will be referred to as the Bishop Emeritus of Rome.

This is really poorly worded, and confusing. It's saying he will be referred to as "Your Holiness Benedict XVI" even AFTER his resignation takes effect. Then it says he'll be the Bishop Emeritus of Rome. So, which is it?

Also, since when is a pope ever addressed as "Your Holiness Benedict XVI"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

probably his holiness benedict xvi, bishop emeritus of rom, like any other bishop, although it is slightly different to reflect his former status. the two are not mutually exclusive. Aunva6 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, still referring to Benedict as 'His Holiness' makes perfect sense. Every retired bishop retains his title, and along with it, its style of address. So, for example, His Grace the Archbishop of Adelaide, becomes His Grace Emeritus Archbishop of Adelaide. Just like when a ex-US presidents retain the style 'Mr President', and when a king dies his living wife is still called 'Her Majesty the Queen'.Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just looking at the two sentences, and they seem to be saying completely contradictory things. Unless we're supposed to merge them, and then what we get is:

• "His Holiness Benedict XVI, Bishop Emeritus of Rome".

It would have been good if the source had spelt that out precisely, just as I just did. Without the source saying this in so many words, we're still left wondering.

Another thing is that forms of address are not the same things as general references to a person. When we're just discussing a pope in the third person, we don't say "His Holiness Pope Whoever", it's just "Pope Whoever". "His Holiness Pope Whoever" is reserved for when we're writing a letter or a report to the pope. When we are addressing a pope personally, it's just "Your Holiness", not "Your Holiness Pope Whoever". What the source has given us is a very confused mixture of these styles, which goes nowhere in actually elucidating the matter it was purporting to elucidate. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an answer

Upon his resignation/abdication, he'll be given the title Pope Emeritus & will continue to wear white. He'll also keep the name Benedict XVI [5]. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I told you so.

So I am vindicated, at last. Pope Emeritus it is. I told you so from the VERY beginning. Lotsa loose words spent for nothing. And to laugh that off, I'd even be the one who couldn't care less, being non-religious. Max Ventura, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.206.74.216 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You called it. Great job. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 16:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And if this were a guessing game or even a forum for predicting the future, your pathetic gloating would be less out of place. As it happens, what you really did was pose a vague question (which you never actually cleared up), so vague in fact that it is not entirely clear that it ever related to the improvement of the article. That is of course what a talk page is supposed to be for. So your reference to "lotsa words spent for nothing" applies with at least as much force to you as anyone else. If you have a genuine question to pose about improving the article, please do so. Otherwise, take the time to review WP:Talk and WP:NOTFORUM. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Max Ventura, you have definitely not been vindicated. As various of us tried to point out, it was always completely inappropriate to be speculating about this matter here on these pages. We always had to wait to be told by the Vatican, and that has now happened. The matter is settled by whatever the Vatican authorities advise, not by what Max Ventura or any other editor guesses. As for your claim of not caring less, your gloatfest would seem to suggest exactly the opposite. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "Pope" is not even an official title, so "Pope emeritus" is not his official title now. He is the Roman Pontiff emeritus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcw7760 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for change of offensive terminology

The phrase "straight marriage" should be changed to "heterosexual marriage"; homosexual people aren't bent or crooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.34.11 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks for pointing that out. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also replaced "gay marriage" with "same-sex marriage". If we're going to be precise with the terminology we should be consistent about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think that's consistent. Consistency would require one of the following combinations: (a) "same-sex marriage" and "opposite-sex marriage"; (b) "homosexual marriage" and "heterosexual marriage". You cannot have (c) "same-sex marriage" and "heterosexual marriage" - at least, not if you want consistency. (Personally I prefer (a)). 86.159.85.105 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is consistent both ways... homo means same and hetero means opposite (actually "different", as we are not opposite). --Againme (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, our article is called Same-sex marriage, not Gay marriage. Strictly speaking, two heterosexual males (or females) could enter into a legal same-sex marriage - in the same way that a homosexual male and a homosexual female could legally marry in a traditional male-female marriage. (Using the words homosexual and heterosexual to denote the sexual orientation or each individual.) Marriage is legal concept that does not strictly require sexual desire or orientation towards the spouse. So yes, strictly speaking, opposite-sex marriage is more accurate than heterosexual marriage. However neither term is common, simply because it is the default or traditional implication of marriage. However opposite-sex marriage (and not heterosexual marriage) is included in our List of retronyms. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but a marriage of two heterosexual males would still be a homosexual marriage, because it would be a marriage of two people of the same (homo) sex. So here, too, the word does not have to speak about sexual orientation... --Againme (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Order

Someone told me the pope was a jesuit, but I was not sure so I checked here and found nothing. Is he? If not what is he? Or can one become a catholic priest without belonging to an order (Dominican, Jesuit, Franciscan, Carmelitan, Benedictine, Delasallian, Hospitalier etc)? --Squidonius (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, no, a priest need not belong to an order. -Rrius (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct! Priests who do not belong to an order are "diocesan" (i.e., come under the bishop of a diocese). Joseph Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI) was himself ordained for a diocese and was never a member of an order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

An abdicated Pope of Rome is also an abdicated monarch

As seen as the Pope of Rome is abdicating, he will also be an abdicated monarch, so the category of 'Monarchs who abdicated' needs to be added as well. - (202.89.140.65 (talk))

No the pope is NOT abdicating the throne of Vatican. That is just a by product (Ex officio) of resigning the throne of Peter. Cannon law does NOT specify papal resignation as abdication. And also just to clarify, he does NOT vacate the seat of Peter, but the seat becomes vacant. (Also see Papal resignation). We have to wait till the next pope in order to know how a resigned pope is referred to. --Jayarathina (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Jayarathina, but that is byzantine... It's like saying that a king renounced the kingship of the French but not the throne of France... --Againme (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jayarathina, the Pope of Rome IS a monarch, albeit, an elected monarch. He is the Sovereign of the Vatican City State.

He is not only abdicating from the See of Rome, but also from the throne of the Vatican City State as well.

The category 'Monarchs who abdicated' is quite appropriate. - (202.89.140.65 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

It's not Pope of Rome. It's either just Pope or Bishop of Rome. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

please keep discussion relevant to the article. he could have said the bishop-pope of uruguya for all that it really matters to the discussion. Aunva6 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI IS the Pope of Rome, as the Coptic Church in Egypt also has its own Pope. There is a huge world of difference between the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Egypt. - (202.89.140.65 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

so? we all knew what he was talking about. learn context. would a talk page for the current Bishop of Rome be talking about the pope of Egypt? also, keep on topic Aunva6 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good thing, this article is too long already ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.204.189 (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

He will indeed be an abdicated monarch and should be included in the appropriate category. Mocctur (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Current Event tag

please, DO NOT remove the current event tag until say.... a week after the retirement on the 28th. it is a current event, no matter if you think it isn't changing rapidly. actually, editing multiple times within a week seems to be fairly rapid for Wikipedia. Aunva6 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I just removed it, before reading this. What purpose does it serve? The announcement has been made, the page is continually updated, and does not become dated. We should not keep these tags beyond the time there is a need for them. Kablammo (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is to remind editors, and readers that there are major events happening with regards to the person. there are key points of information that will be released at the end of the month. we can also expect major announcements with regards to his status, before the end of the month. Aunva6 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

actually, I just read it, and perhaps you are right. i guess it is only intended for a couple of days. it should be put back up on the 28th if needed. Aunva6 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's usually used to indicate that the information on the page is being edited frequently... and a warning to editors that they can encounter edit conflicts when they try to save changes. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

yeah, I saw that. i guess we don't really need it at the moment, but on the 28th, it may be needed again. Aunva6 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines at Template:Current are helpful here. This is not a situation where, as in a natural disaster, readers should turn first to official sources for the most recent information. Kablammo (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ash Wednesday

Should this article not say how one of the last ever services he took was on Ash Wednesday 2013?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

if you think it should be in there, by all means, put it in. Aunva6 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Last mass would be more significant and accurate. He still has quite a few other various services on his schedule. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Last public mass might be better. I am quite sure he will celebrate private masses in future, he is a priest after all. Gugganij (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013

The term RESIGNATION should not be used. I believe the proper term is ABDICATION since Pope Benedict does not report to any higher person on earth Moon-buddy (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

the consensus is that the term to use is resignation. it is defined as such in canon law. Aunva6 (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

'Abdication' is more correct, rather than 'resignation', as the Pope of Rome is also a monarch, as the Sovereign of the Vatican City State. - (203.211.74.75 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Who is "Pope of Rome"? There's no such title. I've asked you before to stop it. This is the TP for Benedict, the Catholic Pope, and it's clearly understood who we are discussing here. "Bishop of Rome" or "Pope" - nobody's confused with the head of the Coptic Church. OK? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's supported by Abdication. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! History books use abdication. The Church does not use that term but we are not the Church. Also, HammerFilmFan, Pope of Rome is not an insult as far as I can see... --Againme (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole reason I brought it up is because I've had complaints. This is a violation of WP:CIVIL and if it continues I'll take it up the ladder. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You still do not explain what the insult is. My whole family is Catholic. Benedict XVI is a Pope and resides in Rome. Please explain yourself rather than threatening with administrative burocracy. --Againme (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:DR Aunva6 (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disengaging as per WP:DR. --Againme (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you Againme. now, I still don't see how Pope of Rome can be offensive, perhaps he's a member of the coptic church and it's just part of his normal speech. in any case, as long as it doesn't show up like that in the article, what does it matter HammerFilmMan? this is a talk page, and it is alot more relaxed vs an article, and if anything, it's you that is blowing up over a minor issue. perhaps you should take a short wikibreak, and chill out some. Aunva6 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am actually a Protestant - a member of the Anglican Church of New Zealand. I use the term 'Pope of Rome' to distinguish him from the other Popes around the world, especially the Coptic Pope of Egypt. The title 'Pope' is also in use in the Orthodox Churches to mean a priest. The Pope of Rome is not only a bishop reigning over a diocese, but is also the Sovereign of the Vatican City State. The Vatican City, although a country in its own right, is actually located geographically in Rome. - (203.211.74.75 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

saying 'the pope of rome' here is just redundant, as the talkpage is about the pope of the roman catholic church. that said, I don't think it was a big enough deal to get mad at you over. Aunva6 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If the IP wants to compare the Pope to an anti-pope from Egypt? let him. Afterall, I'm certain he's not still doing so in his posts, just to annoy others here :) GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

yeah, I really don't care either way... it's a trivial detail, at least on a talk page Aunva6 (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hitler Youth

This article should also be put into the category of 'Hitler Youth members' as well, given the fact that Pope Benedict XVI of Rome was a Hitler Youth member. - (203.211.74.75 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

There is no category by that name, but there is Category:Hitler Youth. Seems the people in that category all had a much more significant connection to the group than Ratzinger. I wouldn't think he belongs there, given the circumstances. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

His Hitler Youth membership was actually made known shortly after he was elected Pope of Rome in the 2005 Conclave. This definitely makes him notable as having been a Hitler Youth member. - (203.211.74.75 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

No, we are not going to include that. And he wasn't a member of any such organization. Membership is when you apply by your own free will for membership, not when some organization against your will, without your approval, registers you as a member. And in fact he never had anything to do with this organization, so he wasn't a member in the normal sense of the word. Mocctur (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be a voluntary member of something to be a member. The Catholic Church counts me as a member, even though I was baptised as an unwilling baby and have missed virtually every Sunday of church since. Still, his membership doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion there. Yes, it was noted in the news, but only because he had become a notable person for entirely different reasons. If he'd never become Pope, we'd have never heard a peep about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's time for me to tell everyone that notability is not a factor in determining article content again. I seem to be doing that a lot these days. Le sigh... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In other words, just because a person is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, that does not mean that every single detail of their life is fair game. Nobody disputes that general policy. However, in this case, I can see two reasons why we might make an exception:

• his predecessor Pius XII's relationship with the Jews and Nazi Germany is still, 80 years down the track, a matter of serious scholarly debate, to say the least; so any relationship a later Pope might have had with Nazism, including growing up in its very midst, is going to have some bearing on the wider debate
• should Benedict XVI ever be a candidate for canonisation, you can bet the Vatican will be examining every minute detail of every day of his life, and the nature of the relationships he had with all the people he ever met and all the groups he was ever associated with, however innocently, in an effort to find whether there is any obstacle to canonisation. Not that we're here to do the Devil's Advocate's work, but clearly this is a matter of considerable interest to a great many people. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no reason not to include it, and if we're going to include mention of it, there's no good reason not to categorise accordingly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The page says "...virtually every young male in Germany was, in some way, connected to the HJ. Only about 10 to 20% were able to avoid joining. This category is therefore reserved for those whose membership was notable in some way." Not for notable people who just happened to be members. Fine to mention it in this article. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, February 16, 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Even here in Italy, you could NOT avoid being a Balilla, just like a HitlerJugend member in Germany. You know who could avoid that? Only people residing in remote, unaccessible areas, and those who didn't go to school altogether. Everyone else would be stoned alive if they didn't dress as a member in special occasions. And their parents would be scrutinized , heavily. So you did what the rest of the paople was doing, sheepishly. Max Ventura, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.206.74.216 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Italian and German

What is the reason for having his papal name in Italian and German? Doesn't he, as pope, represent all Roman Catholics in the world equally? Surtsicna (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

good question. probably because he is from germany, but resides in italy. but, that isn't a reason to have them there, so I really don't know... Aunva6 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't he reside in a sovereign state that borders Italy? Also, his being German does not explain it. His being German is sufficiently reflected by his original name. I see no reason to provide a German version of his papal name without providing, for example, a Spanish one. (Aren't most of Catholics worldwide Hispanophones?) Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

En français aussi, s'il vous plaît. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

BLP sources

I have tagged this twice now with {{BLP sources}} as there is much which is lacking in sources; yet twice it has been removed. It may be "unsightly", but it is necessarily so - and a helluva lot better than the large number of {{fact}} I will add in their place, as has been suggested. Therefore I propose we restore the BLP sources tag. GiantSnowman 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

do you mean the 'honors and awards' section? that all came from the italian wiki page. the rest looks well sourced to me, except the 'Titles and styles' section, although much of that is the same for every pope. there are 210 references, which is about right for an article of this size and subject. Aunva6 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The 'Overview' section:

Benedict XVI was elected Pope at the age of 78. He is the oldest person to have been elected Pope since Pope Clement XII (1730–40). He had served longer as a cardinal than any Pope since Benedict XIII (1724–30). He is the ninth German Pope, the eighth having been the Dutch-German Pope Adrian VI (1522–23) from Utrecht. The last Pope named Benedict was Benedict XV, an Italian who reigned from 1914 to 1922, during World War I (1914–18).

Born in 1927 in Marktl, Bavaria, Germany, Ratzinger had a distinguished career as a university theologian before being appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising by Pope Paul VI (1963–78). Shortly afterwards, he was made a cardinal in the consistory of 27 June 1977. He was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by Pope John Paul II in 1981 and was also assigned the honorific title of the cardinal bishop of Velletri-Segni on 5 April 1993. In 1998, he was elected sub-dean of the College of Cardinals. On 30 November 2002, he was elected dean, taking, as is customary, the title of cardinal bishop of the suburbicarian diocese of Ostia. He was the first Dean of the College elected Pope since Paul IV (1555–59) and the first cardinal bishop elected Pope since Pius VIII (1829–30).

Even before becoming Pope, Ratzinger was one of the most influential men in the Roman Curia, and was a close associate of John Paul II. As Dean of the College of Cardinals, he presided over the funeral of John Paul II and over the Mass immediately preceding the 2005 conclave in which he was elected. During the service, he called on the assembled cardinals to hold fast to the doctrine of the faith. He was the public face of the church in the sede vacante period, although, technically, he ranked below the Camerlengo in administrative authority during that time. Like his predecessor, Benedict XVI affirms traditional Catholic doctrine.

Number of references for all that text? Zero. GiantSnowman 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

it had a cite, no. 13, but it's a bad link. the information is legit, but we do need to find a source for it. Aunva6 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't a section tag make much more sense then tagging the article itself, an article that already has 210 references? Marauder40 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's all referenced to one source, then tag it appropriately. Other sections are similarly poor re:references. It may have 210, but it may need 220/250/300 to get up to scratch... GiantSnowman 21:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

just that portion of the overview section was referenced to one cite. having a few short paragraphs with a single source for them isn't bad, as long as the source is reliable. the issue with it is just the broken citation. the vast majority of the article is well cited, just 2 sections are in need of cites, as far as I can tell. Aunva6 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ran a checklink. Nos. 103, 194, 107, 146, 106, 156, and 206 are dead links.Aunva6 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, BLP articles require all material be referenced with a reliable source. If the source used covers a large amount of text, it is best to cite the source next to the claims even if it shows the same citation for multiple claims. Contentious material, whether, positive, negative or even neutral should be removed if not sourced or poorly sourced. Any contentious claims must be referenced with multiple reliable sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

add section above nuclear weapons: "Technological Weapons"

Technological Weapons

Issues related to modern technological weapons were discussed at Papal Audience at the INTERPOL General Assembly in 2012. Benedict determined that the unethical direction of energies, especially by electronic means of control, was a cardinal sin equivalent to the induction of curses or spiritual molestation. The resolution declaring use or abuse of electronic weapons was mutually recognised as a major crime, crime against humanity, and crime against nature, by Pope Benedict and his staff and most INTERPOL, UN Human Rights and other United Nations parties.

unsigned comment was by 66.91.140.34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunva6 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation is incorrect

The term "resignation" is incorrect: as a pope (i.e. a sovereging rulers) he "abdicates" or "renounces". --Chessstoria (3 s) ^{(All your base are belong to us)} 14:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessstoria (talk • contribs)

The sources, including ones from the Vatican, say that unlike other kinds of monarch, popes resign. See, e.g., sec. 77 here. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo in section "Resignation"

In the second line of the "Resignation" section it says "resigned without external presure". Does it not mean pressure?

194.166.35.73 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

it should. thanks for pointing it out. Aunva6 (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Vatican: Benedict XVI will be “Pope emeritus”

news.va: Benedict XVI will be “Pope emeritus” This information should be added to the article. --93.209.82.92 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Tense

When is it appropriate to change the " is the 265th pope" in the lede to "was the 265th pope"? When he steps down and the Swiss Guards go inside? 198.151.130.40 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He is a living person so he still is the 265th pope and ... served until his retirement ...--93.209.79.180 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, there will only ever be one 265th pope. If it had said simply "pope", it would be appropriate to change it to "was" tomorrow at 8 pm, Vatican time. But, if we want to be consistent with the last few popes' articles, we would say he "reigned as Pope from...to...". No is, was or 265th necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why not "is the 265th Pope and reigned from...to..." ? He still will be “Pope emeritus” --93.209.70.210 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we couldn't include "265th". It just isn't how it's done for the 264th or 263rd (and so on) popes. I don't see how being Pope emeritus has anything to do with the lead sentence's tense. It has the word "pope" in it, but it's a different thing from a pope, and less notable. Definitely lead paragraph worthy, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

He will still be a Pope, i.e. he will still hold that title. He will just not be the reigning one. This is similar to other monarchs who abdicate in favour of their children for example, they often retain their titles as His/Her Majesty, King/Queen, they just cease to be the reigning one (for example Juliana of the Netherlands). If a King dies, his queen consort will also continue to hold the title Queen and the style of Majesty, even if her son becomes the new reigning king and his wife the consort of the reigning king who also hold the title of Queen. Once a King/Queen/Pope/other monarch, always a King/Queen/Pope. Mocctur (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion What we are ultimately talking about is how to word the lead, not tense. So how about this: "Benedict XVI (Latin: Benedictus XVI; born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger; 16 April 1927) is Pope Emeritus, having served as the 265th pope from 2005 to 2013. In that role, he served as both the leader of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State. Benedict was elected on 19 April 2005..." -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius. Only seven hours to go! --Againme (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to capitalise the word "pope" when it is not a proper noun. It should be: "Benedict XVI is pope emeritus", "Benedict XVI served as pope from 2005 until 2013", etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is the word Pope part of the name of the article?

Why do popes in English Wikipedia have the word Pope in the title? Saint Joan of Arc redirects to Joan of Arc. Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Timothy Cardinal Dolan both redirect to Timothy M. Dolan. President Bill Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton. Besides, many other Wikipedias don't use the word Pope. E.g. fr:Benoît XVI, es:Benedicto XVI, de:Benedikt XVI., ru:Бенедикт XVI. Full list of interwikis in wikidata:Q2494#wb-item-q2494-sitelinks-counter. Fridek (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Very few names would be ambigious without the word "Pope" and a simple solution would be the John I (pope) format. In fact, I am certain that more than 220 out 265 articles would not need any kind of disambiguation. Getting rid of "Pope" would also simplify categorization and linking. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guideline for this is at WP:NCCL#Popes. I agree that it is inappropriate. Popes are not 'better' than kings, emperors and presidents and I can see no reason why they would 'need' the title more than these other powerful people.

There was a previous discussion on this issue at WT:Naming conventions (clergy)/Archive 1#Inclusion of titles in article names - suggest changing Pope Innocent IX to Innocent IX, etc., but with little participation. The only argument for using the title was that due to the uniqueness of the position it functions in the same way as "of France" in the case of a French king. This doesn't really convince me.

If anyone wants to pursue this, I suggest opening a new section at WT:Naming conventions (clergy). The present article can certainly not be renamed in this way while the guideline says that "Pope" is normally required in the title. Hans Adler 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#Pope as part of the name. Fridek (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• The objection would make some sense if Benedict were the man's name. But it isn't, and by all logic the article should then be Joseph Ratzinger, Karol Wotyla, etc. In comparison to kings, they are kings of countries. So Henry IV of England and Henry IV of France are unambiguous. But John XXIII of Rome would be incorrect and adding back in pope neither addresses the original objection or matches common use. The status quo is fine. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not see the point there. Elizabeth II's name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Her regnal name is Elizabeth II. Benedict XVI's name is Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. His regnal name is Benedict XVI. It is entirely comparable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • No, his name since 2005 is Benedict (officially, Benedictus in the official language of his country) and he is a mononymous person. Joseph Alois Ratzinger is his birth name, his former name. It's not comparable to Elizabeth having multiple given names and using one of them in most situations. Alexandra Mary are not Elizabeth's former names. Mocctur (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The relevant comparison would be if someone called John Peter Smith suddenly became King of the UK and adopted the name George. This is essentially the same as a name change. Mocctur (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Assuming that is correct, how is it relevant here? It is ridiculous to claim that this man is not Benedict XVI, that it is not correct to refer to him as Benedict XVI or that Benedict XVI would not be an appropriate title for that reason. For what it's worth, Elizabeth II's middle names are essentially her former names, as I very much doubt she has [ever] used them since her accession. Her father went from Albert to George VI, which is an even more obvious example. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not...

change current pope to emeritus before he has resigned. As he has announced and as is widely known, he will resign at 20, in 1 hour and 20 minutes. Mocctur (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is beyond the beyond that people keep editing this before it's official! Enough! Moncrief (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's no different from any other Wikipedia article that involves something dominating the headlines. One simply has to be vigilant or else just refrain from looking at the article due to the frustration it causes. 1995hoo (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"resign voluntarily"

This is discussed above but I wanted to give it its own section to prompt discussion. The article says that "He will become the first pope to resign since Pope Gregory XII in 1415, and the first to do so voluntarily since Pope Celestine V in 1294." Gregory XII resigned under pressure to help end the Western Schism, but I think it's incorrect to say that he didn't resign voluntarily. He did it under his own free will and without any threat of violence against him (indeed, his resignation would not have been canonical if this had not been the case). --Jfruh (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

This title is really not a good idea. Hektor (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In agreement. Note that we don't title all previous (died in office) pops as Late Pope Name #. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move the article back

I urge an administrator to move this article back to its former title. The possibility of a move was discussed days ago and there was absolutely no consensus to move the article. The new title makes no sense and is against all relevant guidelines. This man will always be notable as a pope, not as a former pope. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I second that. I see no consensus to move this article to "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" By that reasoning, the article "Edward VIII" should be "Edward, Duke of Windsor". --JamesReyes (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, even regardless of the merits, there was no consensus for this when such a large move should clearly require it. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding monarchs, if Wikipedia had existed in the 1930s, I imagine that Edward VIII would be moved to "Edward, Duke of Windsor" until his death, at which point he would be moved back to Edward VIII. Keep at eye out to see if Beatrix of the Netherlands will move to "Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands" when she abdicates in the next few weeks. Seven Letters 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Customarily, an abdicated monarch under such circumstances will keep his or her title and style, much like the Queen Mother in the UK still held the title Queen without being the current reigning queen or current consort. Beatrix will surely remain Her Majesty Queen Beatrix as far as titles and styles are concerned. 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)~

Beatrix will revert to "Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands". It is a custom and it has been confirmed. It still does not mean that the article about her should be moved anywhere after her abdication. Surtsicna (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we should drop "Pope" from the article title of all popes unless there exists multiple monarchs by the same name and number. I know there is a discussion on this separately.

I see it's been moved back, but I will put in my comments anyway: I agree that "Pope Benedict XVI" is the logical title. In addition, "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI" sounds awkward. If the article must be moved, it ought to be "Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus" or "Benedict XVI (Pope Emeritus)." That form is more consistent with the way the Vatican announced he'd be styled; in addition, off the top of my head I can't think of any occasion when I've heard "(position) emeritus" used as a title appearing before a person's name. In the case of a professor, for example, the customary form tends to be "John Smith, professor emeritus of (subject)." That's consistent with standard Catholic usage as well. For example, the current archbishop emeritus of Washington, D.C., is referred to as "Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington." 1995hoo (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bob, for reverting the move so swiftly. That was very kind of you. Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! I was actually surprised I could move it (twice) without an edit conflict! The Church no longer refers to him as Pope anymore, so I'm not sure the title in its current state makes sense (at least as long as he is living). Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a valid question. While the abdication of Queen Beatrix isn't necessarily the best guidepost because the law on this sort of issue varies from country to country (compare the Netherlands, where the heir apparent succeeds, to the UK, where Edward VIII had to disqualify all his descendants if he'd had any), it might still provide a useful guidepost. I do think Wikipedia can take some time to hash this out, however, because until the conclave elects the next pope it's not an issue that would cause significant confusion. 1995hoo (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, he is primarily notable as the former reigning Pope, not for his post-papacy status. Also note that his title probably still is just Pope, the emeritus part is customarily added to titles such as Bishop, Professor etc. when they retire, but strictly speaking, the title per se is only Bishop etc. A Bishop Emeritus is often referred to simply as Bishop, while the Emeritus part is added when it is important to explain that he is the/a retired Bishop, not the one in charge. Mocctur (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose moving this article anywhere. The title should remain Pope Benedict XVI, every single other pope article is so named. Also, people misinterpret the emeritus part, it's not a different brand new title. The Pope simply retains the titles and styles he already has. When the word emeritus is used, it is very often in parentheses. A retired Bishop (Emeritus) may also correctly be referred to as simply Bishop, and the same goes for Professors and other groups who customarily use the emeritus part. Mocctur (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue partly goes to the distinction between the indelible character of being a bishop through the Sacrament of Holy Orders versus the status of holding office as a bishop. That is, the "office" refers to a particular man's status as bishop of a particular diocese. Paul Loverde is the Bishop of Arlington (a diocese in Virginia). If he were to retire tomorrow, he'd still be a bishop, but he would no longer hold the office of Bishop of Arlington. The same may be true of the former pope in that "pope" is simply an office (though a very important one), not something imbued with an indelible sacramental character. That is, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and if (as has been the case for several hundred years) the conclave elects someone who's already been ordained as a bishop, he does not receive any further ordination. There's simply an inauguration Mass. Note that the old practice of a papal coronation corresponds with the idea of taking office as well. In other words, to go back to the Loverde example, if he were to retire tomorrow he would be Paul Loverde, Bishop Emeritus of Arlington, but because he'd still be a bishop it would be perfectly appropriate to address him as "Bishop Loverde." I'm not certain the same thing is true of a former pope. Benedict is still a bishop, but he's clearly no longer the pope.

No doubt part of the issue here is that this situation is, for all practical purposes, unprecedented. Norms on the use of titles have changed a lot recently as well. For many years it was the custom that you did not refer to a former US president as "President (name)" because the principle was that there is only ONE president of the United States at any time. Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, was addressed as "General Eisenhower" after he died. Nowadays that custom seems to have slipped by the wayside and you often hear people refer to "President Bush" or "President Carter." 1995hoo (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The only way I could support Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as the article title, would be if we changed all the popes articles to (example) Late Pope John Paul II and Late Pope Emeritus Celestine V. I assume, that won't be happening. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconcistency with use of "Pope" in lead and infobox

Just curious... why do many pope articles use "Pope" as the first word of the lead and at the top of the infobox, but many others don't? Shouldn't the format match in the articles of all the popes? There's a huge inconcistency among pope articles. In this article, "Pope" has been removed as the first word in lead, and at the top of the infobox. Here's how it's done for the most recent popes... Pope John Paul II removes it in the lead, and the infobox uses "Blessed" instead of Pope. In Pope John Paul I, pope wasn't touched; it remains in both the lead and infobox. Pope Paul VI uses "The Venerable Pope" in both places. Pope John XXIII uses "The Blessed Pope" in the lead and "Blessed John" in the infobox. You can look at others here. Shouldn't we have consistency in all these articles? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree there should be a consensus among all of the articles. Of note however those Pope's who have been Declared "Blessed" would fit a different mold than that of a Pope who has not been named Blessed. Blessed refers to the stage of the process in reaching to Sainthood. Magnetawan (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It should certainly be removed from the infoboxes because it is redundant to other parameters. Whether or not it should be removed from lead sentences depends on the wording of the lead sentence. "Pope John Paul I reigned as Pope of the Catholic Church" is a bad sentence. It is rather obvious that Pope John Paul I was a pope, isn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the article title and what's at the top of the infobox should match. In this article it simply says Benedict XVI in the lead and infobox. So why doesn't, let's say, Pope John Paul I just say John Paul I in both places instead of Pope John Paul I? Neither one is pope now, so why does one get the title in those places, but the other one doesn't? As Magnetawan said, there really needs to be a consensus (i.e. rule) on how it should be. Just go back and look at the last 15 to 20 pope articles. It's clear that there's no standard for how this should be done. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I brought this matter up at WP:CATHOLIC. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That was nice of you GoodDay. Thanks. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The colour bar should remain gold, like all previous popes. Alive or dead, Benedict XVI is still a previous pope. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't it read Papacy began, Papacy ended? PS: This article shoudl be protected, for next few days, due to edits being made without prior thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Or should his time as pope be listed instead under the list of previous positions held? I recognize that this is an unusual situation and so I don't know whether that would work. Either way, I agree with you on keeping it protected. A lot of people read one article in the media, declare themselves experts, and then rush to edit Wikipedia. (I shudder as I think of what happens every time an NCAA conference realignment occurs. Even when it's announced that a school "will change conferences" two years down the road, people rush to edit Wikipedia as though the move has already occurred.) 1995hoo (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

These kinda problems allways flare up, when an officil resigns. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Abdication

Pope Benedict XVI is also an abdicated monarch as well as an abdicated Pope of Rome. The category 'Monarchs who abdicated' also needs to be added as well. - (203.211.71.230 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC))

The current Code of Canon Law does not provide for an "abdication" as pope. (Not "Pope of Rome," BTW.) The Code of Canon Law uses a Latin word that translates as either "resigned" or "renounces." 1995hoo (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of "Resignation" vs. "Abdication" is addressed in an article on CNN, the article states that by the description it is proper to say resignation rather than abdication Magnetawan (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how the anti-popes of Egypt do it, but the Papal abdication category will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Asteroid 8661 Ratzinger" wording

At the bottom of "Honours and awards", this sentence doesn't seem right:

The asteroid 8661 Ratzinger was dedicated to him, on the grounds of making accessible the Vatican archives and thus allow the historians to investigate miscarriages of justice against Galileo and other scientists in the Middle Ages.

• Is is supposed to mean "the asteroid was dedicated to him because he made accessible the Vatican archives and thus allowed historians...."? This reference suggests so.

• Should "dedicated to him" be "named after him"?

Some rewording of the sentence may be required. 203.176.108.99 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've edited and expanded the statement and added a reference. Bede735 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope is not an official title

The word "Pope" does not appear anywhere in canon law; the office is referred to as "Roman Pontiff" or "Supreme Pontiff". Popes never sign documents as "Pope", but as "Pontifex". Pope is an honorific, more akin to a nickname. So for people to interpret that Fr. Lombardi means that Benedict's OFFICIAL title is either "Roman Pontiff emeritus" OR "Pope emeritus" is lazy. One is a legal title, the other is for common usage only. This article should make clear that his official title is "Roman Pontiff emeritus". --Amcw7760 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Should the title of the article not be "Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus"? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Surtsicna (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification of unclear phrasing

This is minor given the current hot topic of Benedict's relinquishment of the Pontificate, but should be fixed at some point. The following phrase seems to suggest that the theologian, Tony de Mello, wrote his problematic material after he was dead. It needs re-phrasing in order to express that the examination and notifications were posthumous, not the writings themselves.

Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: 1981–2005'

for instance, some posthumous writings of Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello were the subject of a notification (second para, third line)

115.64.132.182 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)