Talk:Franz König

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


From the List of notable Cardinals (see below), all Cardinals except, for some strange reason, Cardinal Newman ("John Henry Newman") have entries in Wikipedia under Christian name + Cardinal + family name. Why has this been changed for Franz Cardinal König (redirected to Franz König)?????

At the Village pump, Docu has pointed out the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names, so this page will hopefully be moved back to Franz Cardinal König, with redirects from Franz König and maybe also from Franz Cardinal Konig and Franz Konig (?). <KF> 00:20, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The first time I came across this article, I asked at Village Pump and was told by several people that WP policy was that titles of any kind should not be included in article titles. Therefore I redirected it to a title without the word Cardinal. I have also created George Pell and Jean-Marie Lustiger on this basis. If I was misinformed I apologise, although I think this would be the correct policy. Why should Cardinals be a unique class of person who have their titles? Adam 01:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

They are not unique. All sorts of articles include titles in their title, for example Charles, Prince of Wales, Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Frederick I, Margrave of Baden, Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, Patriarch Nikon, Patriarch Athenagoras, and of course, Pope Paul IV. For all of these, and for cardinals, the title is an important part of who they are, and should be included in the article's title. Gentgeen 11:07, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but they are titles of a different sort, as has been established as a result of long discussions here. Titles of nobility or other hereditary titles are appended to the names of the people who hold them. The title Cardinal is of a different sort, such as General, Doctor, Professor or Sir, which do not appear in article titles. Adam 11:25, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cardinal is not an occupational title like Doctor or Professor, or Archbishop, but is a title of nobility. Cardinals are the nobility of the Vatican City, the electors of the head of state of a constitutional monarchy. The Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles has no more authroity, duties, or power over his diocese than does the Archbishop of San Francisco, who is not a cardinal, or in fact the Bishop of San Bernardino, who isn't a Metropolitan or an Archbishop like the other two. The only thing that sets Mahony apart from Levada is that when John Paul II dies (God forbid), Cardinal Mahony gets to go sit in a room with 130 other priests and decide who gets to wear the big hat, because he's been elevated to the College of Cardinals buy the monarch of the Vatican City, the Pope. Gentgeen 12:04, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Forms of Address[edit]

I have removed the '†' from after Cardinal König's name in the infobox. This is against the wikipedia Manual of Style, furthermore it is not a convention required, nor extensively used within the Catholic church forms of address, what's more, there are few to no examples of this occuring in any other articles on Cardinals. Also, it is not protocol to allow honorific forms of address in the first line of the article, however it is allowed to place 'His Emminence' in the infobox. (AJMW 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC))


Thanks for moving.

The article contains the following passage:

"This was an unexpected action on the part of John XXIII, who had been advised to withhold the red hat from König due to the fact that Austria was refusing to honour the Reichskonkordat, an agreement with Rome for the regulation of Church affairs that had been negotiated under Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, a Catholic proto-fascist. After meeting personally with König, John XXIII decided that, "I have a different opinion. I will put you on my list and you will find a solution". By 1958 the newly-appointed Cardinal König had managed to successfully convince Socialist authorities in Austria to recognise the concordat."

I don't know the facts in this matter but this account is certainly wrong:

  1. The Reichskonkordat is a treaty negotiated not between the Holy See and Austria under Dollfuß but between the Holy See and Germany in the first months of Chancellor Hitler. Either, the RKK was put in force in Austria during the Anschluß, or there was a separate concordat between Austria and the Holy See, negotiated by Dolfuß.
  2. Furthermore, searching on the internet, I have not found an answer to the problem above but the fact that there was a Staatsvertrag negioated by König in 1958 - so the government didn't simply accept the Konkordat (regardless of the origin) but a new treaty was made which basically confirmed the earlier regulations.

I will edit the article accordingly, using a wording that will not decide the first question. Str1977 (smile back) 18:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There indeed was a concordat signed under Dollfuß in 1933. Str1977 (smile back) 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


This section's title is a misnomer. The facts about him are not minor or whimsical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says that Konig called the publication of Humanae Vitae tragic, and then gives a reference - but this statement is nowhere to be found in the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)