Talk:Pope Paul VI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pope Paul VI article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Saints Pope Paul VI is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Contents

[edit] Archived Discussions

This guy worked together with the CIA when he was archbishop of Milan, according to a CIA agent:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-3/wyatt5.html

INTERVIEW WITH MARK WYATT, 15/2/96 (CIA Agent in Italy)

MW: Yes, we did have liaison with the civic committees and we did support them. There are many examples actually of support to Catholic leaders that had problems and wanted help, particularly in the north of Italy, in the big industrial centres of Milan and Turin. And I must say that the men that I knew who were bishops or archbishops - it went to the top. The Archbishop of Milan I knew personally, and he needed something which was very important in the big election coming up, and when he later became the Pope. I mean, I don't think he ever talked about it. He's long gone now, but a most remarkable man. You know, the Church did not directly involve itself, but they realised that if they didn't win the critical elections, that they really wanted to contact the Americans for support, and they got it. Civic committees - yes, we helped.


[edit] The "Our Hamlet" section is unsubstantiated

The "Our Hamlet" section -- or more precisely, the first three of its four paragraphs -- is unsubstantiated, in my opinion.

I propose that this section be deleted, or perhaps prefaced with an introduction such as this:

Traditionalist Catholics often see Paul VI as a major architect of the decline of the church, or at least as someone who unwittingly allowed it to happen. Many of them propose theories such as the following:

However, this section does not belong in a factual article without a disclaimer such as this. As a matter of fact, I personally do think that Paul's weaknesses contributed to many of the problems of the church. But that is my PERSONAL OPINION, and should not be put in a Wikipedia article. Moreover, some of the specific claims of this section (such as John XXIII calling him "Hamlet") are disputed by historians altogether.

The fourth paragraph of this section is not objectionable, although I think it better belongs elsewhere in this article.

Lawrence King 09:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John L. Allen reported in this National Catholic Reporter article that Pope Paul VI's former private secretary, Bishop Pasquale Macchi, said that Pope John XXIII's former private secretary, Bishop Loris Capovilla, wrote that Pope John XXIII never called Montini a "Hamlet", and that Pope John was in fact bitter that the remark had been attributed to him. - 4.230.30.65
Based on that article alone shouldn't it be removed? 150.250.249.136 17:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote this section, changing it to NPOV. The view that Paul VI was indecisive must be included in this article, since it is well-known. For example, the new Life Magazine commemorative issue on Pope John Paul II refers to Paul VI as habitually indecisive (p. 71). On the other hand, this remains an opinion, since Paul VI never said publically "I am unable to decide on issue so-and-so."

Regarding the "Hamlet" remark: I changed this to an "alleged" remark. It is a well-known comment and deserves to be mentioned. Allen's article you cited makes a good case against it, but the case is based on John XXIII's and Paul VI's secretaries alone. Moreover, it's clear from Allen's article that the "Hamlet" story is famous enough that two papal secretaries commented on it. And look at this paragraph:

Bishop Pasquale Macchi... said that John XXIII’s secretary, Bishop Loris Capovilla, has written an article denying that John XXIII ever called Montini, whom he knew and loved and actually made a cardinal, a "Hamlet." In fact, Macchi said, John XXIII knew that people attributed this remark to him, and was bitter about it.

This is staggering. If Macchi is lying, then the case against the Hamlet comment dissolves. If Macchi is telling the truth, then the "Hamlet" comment had become famous even before the death of John XXIII! So in either case, the Hamlet comment has to be mentioned in this article.

Personally I think the "Hamlet" comment never happened, because John XXIII apparently favored Paul VI as a successor, and it seems odd he would do this about a man whose judgement he didn't trust. But that's just my opinion.

Lawrence King 08:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I removed Jtdirl's addition to this section. It read as follows:

Pope Paul himself reflected that description of himself in a private note written in 1978. He asked: "What is my state of mind? Am I Hamlet? Or Don Quixote? On the left? On the right? I do not think I have been properly understood."
[footnote] Cahal B Daly, Steps on my Pilgrim Journey (Veritas, 1998) p. 177. [pre-publication review edition]

A "private note" substantiated by only an unpublished work is harly substantiated at all. Who is Cathal Daly, what makes him/her an expert on Paul VI, and how did Jtdir get a copy of this unpublished work? Lawrence King 09:21, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

  1. It is not an unpublished. It is very much published. I only mentioned it as being a review copy because I write book reviews and the copy I have is the pre-publication book review version. It is possible that the final published version, including illustrations, has a different page numbering to the paper-covered review version I was given 2 months ahead of the formal publication;
  2. Cathal Daly is only Cahal Cardinal Daly the retired Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland and a personal friend of the Pope's;
  3. Cardinal Daly was quoting from Peter Hebblethwaite's biography of Pope Paul. However as the review version did not give the page numbers of the stuff from Peter's book, only op.cit, I did not link it to Peter's book. I presume the copyeditor editing Cathal's manuscript will have checked out Cathal's references and filled in the pages in the final version of the book. But the version I got to review was still a rough-cut of the book, not the hardback illustrated final print-run.

If you had bothered to do a quick google search you would have been able to find out exactly who Cathal B Daly is. And pre-publication review edition is self-explanatory. It is an edition issued for review prior to publication. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 18:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, seeing your evidence, I concede the point. Lawrence King 07:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disparity regarding Paul VI in articles on Paul VI and John XXIII

The article on Pope John XXIII states in regard to Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Montini): "Though he was named to head one of the most ancient and prominent archdioceses in Italy, Pius had refused to elevate Montini to the rank of cardinal."

But the article on Pope Paul VI says of Pope Paul VI: "To the surprise of many, Montini never received the red hat (as the appointment to the cardinalate is often called) before Pope Pius's death in 1958; what was not known was that at the Secret Consistory in 1952 Pope Pius revealed that Montini had declined the cardinalate."

I have no certainty which of these is correct, but presumably one OR the other is, and this should be made consistent by someone who does know. [My money's on paragraph 2.] BTW, these Pope articles are fascinating, have turned my into an instant Wiki fan. Thank you all.

Best wishes to all in Wikiland,

Andy Hansen

My guess is that this is a matter that historians disagree about. But I can offer one slight piece of evidence.
John Allen, a great reporter for the (otherwise lousy) National Catholic Reporter, recently wrote a great article on papal elections. It includes the following bit:
In the Novemdiales of 1958, for example, curial Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo went to visit the patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Angello Roncalli, on Oct. 17, to ascertain his position on one of the most highly charged issues of that conclave -- what the new pope would do about Archbishop Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan, who had been exiled from Pius XII's curia. Roncalli, never the naif some took him for, gave a reassuring response: "How could a man be secretary of state when he is not desired by the cardinals of the curia?" he said. Roncalli went on to be elected pope, and honored his old friendship with Montini in another way, making Montini his first appointment as a cardinal. -- From [1]
This suggests that Allen believes your Paragraph 1 above.
There is a huge biography of Paul VI by Peter Hebblethwaite that I would like to consult to resolve this issue and the Hamlet issue. It was at our church library but I looked for it today and couldn't find it....
Lawrence King 06:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impostor?

Should that link about an alleged impostor to Pope Paul VI remain here? I don't think so. This theory is very far-fetched and I think the differences given in the images result from the fact that Paul VI aged considerably between the respective photographs. Anyway, what would have been the point of replacing him with an impostor? That is not stated in that link. I think the impostor link should be removed.

No. The links should stay. It is a far-fetched claim but one many people have heard of. In the interests of NPOV a claim (even if ludicrous) that is repeated consistently and known about (even if laughed at) should be mentioned. If you didn't, you'd be rightly accused of censorship. The claims about some words on Papal Tiaras is similarly loopy but you cannot ignore the fact that some people believe it. You can simply point out the claims made, let them know where it is made, and presume on their ability to see it for what it is, a pile of infantile rubbish.

The reason for the supposed imposter was simple. Some nutty right-wing Catholics believed that Pope Paul VI could not possibly be responsible for some of the post-Vatican II policies (as many Russians until 1905 believed the Tsar didn't know about the negative impact of his government's policies on them). So they dreamt up this nutty scheme whereby the real pope was being held drugged in the Vatican and the actor was standing in for him in a lot arranged by a conspiracy of crypo-protestant liberal cardinals. The plan supposedly was that the actor would as Paul VI agree to all their liberal plots to undermine mother-church and bring on the triumph of protestantism and the devil. The dreamers of this nutty conspiracy even diluded themselves into imagining that the Virgin Mary was appearing to them to confirm all of it. Of course, if it was the actor who died in 1978, and not the real Pope Paul, then in theory Pope Paul (aged 107) could still be in the Vatican, drugged and bound, as so their beloved John Paul II was an invalid pope!!! FearÉIREANN 21:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but you sound just as nutty as those people on the web site I mentioned. What makes you believe that Cardinal Montini still lives in the Vatican at age 107? But anyway, you write that that scheme of an impostor in the Vatikan replacing Pope Paul VI is nutty. You just strengthen my opinion that those stupid links should be removed. That thrash was thought up by some religious fanatics and there's a lot less to it than to that most unlikely plot of murder against John Paul I.--Maxl 00:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cop on to yourself. That was sarcasm. When writing history one has to mention nutty theories of a lot of people accept them as reality (eg., the 'murder' of John Paul I, the various nutty theories about the assassination of Jack Kennedy, etc.) You obviously aren't a historian. FearÉIREANN 19:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a compromise, why not keep the link and put a comment after it that says "This theory is not widely accepted"?
The unlikely murder plot appears in the Pope John Paul I article, by the way!
Lawrence King 01:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will be enchanted to learn that the Paul VI 'imposter' claim now features in a separate article on political body doubles, reported as an allegation only. Myself, I don't see what's so far-fetched about this idea. It's a known practice in political circles, as you'll see from Political decoys. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Vatican to have got an actor to stand in for the Pope if he was ill and/or didn't want to make public appearances. Visibility, dear people, visibility. Bums on pews. Feet on streets. Cash in tills. Garrick92 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged denial of homosexuality

Jtdirl added a new subsection, with the following text:

Denial of homosexual rumours
Pope Paul VI caused considerable surprise in 1968 when, to the consternation of his aides, he publicly denied rumours that he was homosexual. Though rumours had circulated periodically in anti-papal and anti-Catholic publications as to Paul's sexual orientation, with suggestions of a past relationship while he was an archbishop with a priest who had served as his secretary, when what Paul called the 'scandalous rumours' began to feature in some elements of the Italian media, he choose controversially to issue a public denial. It was the first time in the modern era that a pope had commented in any way about their sexual identity.
[footnote] Peter de Rossa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Corgi, 1989) p.538.

This is not true.

There had been allegations of a sexual relationship in his past. At some point, Paul VI surprised people by decrying unspecified "scandalous rumors" about himself. He did not say which rumors he was referring to.

Moreover, even if we agree to jump to the conclusion that he was referring to these specific rumors, that is quite distinct from his sexual orientation. It is conceivable that a heterosexual man can have a homosexual affair (especially in a mostly-male environment). It is conceivable that Paul VI was homosexually-oriented but chaste (in which case his denial of this affair would have been true, but irrelevant to his orientation). It is conceivable that Paul VI had never even heard of the concept of "homosexual orientation". I have not the faintest idea if any of these are true, but my point is that even if we assume that he was referring to this rumor, there is no way to stretch his comment into an orientation-related statement.

If he had not said raised the issue then it would be of questionable relevance. But if a public figure comments on rumours about themselves, then the fact of this denial is newsworthy, just as Patrick Hillery's And Dick Spring's denials about rumours about themselves made it a newsworthy fact warranting inclusion on biographical portraits of themselves. Similarly no serious study would have covered the allegations of wife-beating made against Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern. But he raised it as an issue by denying it. Similarly biographies tiptoed around questions of the Prince of Wales's relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles and Diana's relationship with James Hewitt. But when they commented, whether negatively or in those cases positively about those rumours, the issue could no longer be tiptoed around and had to be dealt with.
Pope John Paul II faced rumours as to a supposed relationship with a woman prior to his becoming a priest. But as he never dealt with the issues, serious biographical studies don't, just as serious biographical studies do not cover the rumours about John XXIII and the Freemasons. But if either of them had discussed or commented on the issue then it would be negligent of a writer to ignore an issue they themselves had raised.
Public figures may be caught in a no-win situation over how to deal with rumours about their private life: stay silent and leave the rumours unchallenged, or deny them and give them publicity. But the standard biographical approach to rumours is simple: if a credible source comments on them, then they have to be mentioned. And there is no more credible source than the person who is the subject of the rumour. By commenting, they are showing that the rumours are impacting on them or their office. And if it impacting on them or their office, then historians have to mention the fact.
As to the specific issue, Paul denied the scandalous rumours. There was only one rumour, that of his sexual orientation. No other allegation about his personal life was made. Everyone knew what he was talking about, and the media at the time reported explicitly what he had been talking about. As to the claim that Pope Paul had never even heard of the concept of "homosexual orientation" that is ridiculous. The man was hyper intelligent, was educated in a seminary from his youth, lived in an all male environment where homosexuality was rife, and as pope he was confronted with constant issues associated with homosexual orientation, such as a report on priests and sexual maturity in 1971. One can argue that he might not have understood the up to date theories on orientation - the Catholic Church is not exactly au fait with the issue. But to suggest that he might never have heard of the concept of homosexuality is about as absurd as claiming that he had never heard of aeroplanes or that women wear trousers. Come on, be realistic.
I am reasserting the section, which is based on an evidenced source, which contrasts with much on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 17:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

First, I concede your point regarding whether Paul VI had heard of the concept of sexual orientation. As you pointed out, this concept was certainly understood by him.

But I disagree with the idea that he denied this orientation. Suppose John Paul II had explicitly denied an affair with some specific woman. Would that constitute denial that he was heterosexual?

I'm absolutely not claiming he was gay. My point is this: Catholic moral teaching and the modern Western secular views on sexuality are different in many ways, but one thing they have in common is a careful distinction between sexual orientation and sexual activity. (This contrasts with some fundamentalists who seem to think that someone can just "choose" to be gay or not gay.) So we owe it to Wikipedia to distinguish the two in this article.

Would you be willing to rephrase this to refer to denial of homosexual activity or something along those lines? Lawrence King 07:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a fair point, but unworkable. It is a valid distinction, but one more honoured in the breach than in the observance by many churchmen, including the current pope in some comments. But if one creates a distinction here it will be taken to mean that he was accepting that he was gay, but just not sexually active as a gay man. Or that we are implying that he was gay. (And that would open the mother of edit wars!) While some of the rumours focused on specific allegations, the whole message behind them was that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was gay. He didn't say 'I have not have sex with so-and-so' or 'I have not had sex'. He explicitly denied the scandalous allegations, all of which questioned his orientation, not simply that he had once been sexually active as a gay man earlier in his life.
Many people in public life accused of homosexual behaviour don't just deny the behaviour but deny being gay, because a significant proportion of the public have an 'issue' to put it mildly with a public figure being gay. Subtle distinctions between the act and the orientation are not made by many people. Irrespective of whether Paul was gay (and people who knew him and were friendly with him have told me that they had little doubt but that personally he was gay) had he let the idea that he was stand, irrespective of whether he ever did anything about it, many particularly conservative Catholics would have reacted with fury. One need only look at the reaction in the Anglican Church, which places far less personal stress on the symbolism of the leader, when a celibate gay man was made a bishop. The fact that he was gay, not whether he was sexually active, was the issue. Paul would have faced a far worse reaction if he had confined his denial to sexual acts and not to his sexual orientation. In addition, had his denial just been about acts, not emotions, he would have faced an immediate media response of "but are you gay?" So the denial had to be total, not qualified, to close the issue and was interpreted as such. I think the headline sums up the context of his comments and the complete reason for their utterance. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point -- that if we stated the truth, in confusing terms, it would mislead our readers.

But the proper solution is not to state something that is false!

By the way, if everything you wrote above is true, I advise you not to repeat it so casually. Pope Paul VI was an extremely famous man who was born in 1897. It seems a priori unlikely that he had several friends who are now friends with an Irish Wikipedia writer in his 30's. I certainly will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if I were you I wouldn't just casually drop in the fact that you have "inside information" through "common friends" with a man who is at least 68 years older than you.

One is a relative of my parents who was a seminarian in Rome in the 1960s, met Pope Paul and was introduced to the Pope as his local bishop at a religious gathering. The Pope asked him about the seminary and then began talking about his own seminary days. They ended up keeping in touch until the end of Paul's life in 1978. (He speaks of Paul as a deeply troubled, lonely man.) Another is a retired British bishop I know who knew Paul very well before he was pope and when he was pope. A third is . . . well, that would be telling. (In my job you know people of all ages, classes, creeds and contacts!!! Heck I've even met Bill and Hillary Clinton! :-) FearÉIREANN\(talk) 09:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide us with the actual quote of what the pope said? I've seen this in various places; it shouldn't be hard to find. I propose that we display this quote, rather than your interpretation or my interpretation of it. Lawrence King 08:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The article has been corrected to say that Pope Paul's denial may not have necessarily referred to the rumours regarding his sexuality. I suggest the information on his page is no longer listed as "disputed".

Consensus seems to have been reached; after reading all this, I've removed the tag. (Wandering thru Popes this morning checking on their birthplaces; no brief either way in any of this, but that tag looked bad and sho' nuff, no longer seems to apply.) Bill 11:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beatification process

I have added information about the current beatification process of Paul VI. I have also added him to the Servants of God category. I hope this helps. User:12.77.46.123

It does, yes: the beatification info and the category are useful. On the other hand the repeated reverting to the honorific by User:24.194.43.85 is not. The title "Servant of God" is an honorific, albeit granted only to those for whom there is a cause in beatification; Wikipedia practice, following that of print encyclopedias, is not to use honorifics once the subject of the article is dead: see for example the difference between George VI and Elizabeth II; so not only "Servant of God" goes out, but "His Holiness" as well. There is also a question of consistency, since there are quite a few other popes whose cause in beatification is "pending", though it may be for some hundreds of years: but those popes have not been tagged with the Servus Dei honorific. Don't forget to sign your posts to Talk, by the way. Bill 16:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not correct. Wikipedia uses diplomatic honorifics, ie terms like His Holiness, which is a diplomatic usage, not Holy Father. Servant of God etc which are not. So as per wikipedia standard I have reinserted HH, the standard usage for popes. If a HM is missing from George VI of the United Kingdom it is because of a unilateral action by a user (I can guess who!) I will correct that as per standard. (Just checked. Yup. It was the same user, who has been waging a personal war on styles. As you can see HM is standard usage for royal articles (see Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. User:Neutrality as been unilaterally removing them.) FearÉIREANN\(talk) 04:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I stay out of controversy, so I'll just disappear on this one, just add it to the quirks of Wikipedia; but golly, you better get cracking! There are 260+ Pope articles, almost none of them have "His Holiness"; and countless articles on cardinals need "His Eminence", too, and innumerable judges, senators, ministers, need "His/Her Honor", "The Hon.", "Excellency/Reverend"..... (Mild joke aside, it's not normal encyclopedic practice, once someone is dead. There just seems to be some fear in some quarters that it's disrespectful because the person is recently dead.) The "Servant of God" designation, which I'm not in favor of either, mostly on similar consistency grounds, is actually somewhat better, since it imparts additional information, which "His Holiness" does not! Bill 08:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bill and User:Jtdirl: May I attempt to clarify my view of "titles and honorifics" with regards to the Popes? In general, no one is addressed during their lifetime as "Saint," "Venerable," or "Servant of God," and certainly no one is addressed as "Blessed." A living Pope however is addressed as "His Holiness," which is his official "honorific." However a Pope after he dies may or may not be given one of those four official titles by the Church: Saint (2 miracles), Blessed (1 miracle), Venerable (declaration of virtues), or Servant of God (examination of holiness). Few would argue that "Saint," "Blessed," and "Venerable" aren't official Church titles, as they are. So there seems to be a two-fold argument - whether "His Holiness" is a proper title for a dead Pope; and whether "Servant of God" is an official title. I won't attmept to answer the first, but rather I'll comment on the second and allow apparent Wikipedia precedent to clarify the rest. Since no person becomes Saint or Blessed (and few if any become Venerable) without first undergoing an official "examination of the holiness of the Servant of God," and since a person undergoing that examination of holiness is titled by the Church "Servant of God," then "Servant of God" is an official title and is marked just as Saint, Blessed, and Venerable persons would be. "Servant of God" Pope precedents: John Paul I, John Paul II. Saint/Blessed/Venerable Pope precedents: John XXIII, Pius XII, Pius X, Pius IX, Innocent XI, Pius V, Celestine V, etc., etc.. Therefore, I propose that Paul VI should be titled "The Servant of God Pope Paul VI," as it is his proper title. 12 July 05

Wikipedia uses the formal generally used styles in the opening paragraph to contextualise the style used by an office or title holder. The Servant of God is not a generally used title but one exclusively used by a small minority of Catholics. In addition it was not used to refer to his office nor in his lifetime. His Holiness is a diplomatic style used, so it is appropriate to use. The other, as a rarely used, exclusive internal term not used even by most Roman Catholics, and not used during Paul VI's lifetime, isn't. FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint)
"Saint," "Blessed," and "Venerable" were not used during Pius X, John XXIII, and Pius XII's lifetimes (respectively) either, nor were they used to refer to their office. Whether "Servant of God" is used by a "small minority" is a moot point. It is an official title of the Church, reflecting the current honor in which the deceased person is held by the Church, just as "Saint," "Blessed," and "Venerable" are official titles of the Church and are reflecting the current honor in which the deceased persons are held by the Church.
Saint and Blessed are widely used and understood by Catholic and non-Catholic alike, so it is OK to use them. Holiness is a diplomatic style. Servant of God is neither. It is rarely used outside a small segment of Roman Catholicism. So no, it is not OK to use.

FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 23:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Saint, Blessed, and Servant of God, in the context of popes, impart information. Holiness does not, since all popes are so styled, at least while they live. (Once dead, they are only so styled by Wikipedia, and only those after Gregory XVI, for some reason). Servant of God, while not common, is as official as the rest of them. If Wikipedia were serious about any of this, or if someone wants to take on the project, a search should be made for all Popes who are in the first phase of the canonization process, and whether by titling them Servant of God or by adding them to the (existing) category "Servants of God", they should be listed or categorized together. You'd get some surprises: many people never make it past the first phase, and there may be well be some popes in the group from hundreds of years ago. This whole discussion, though, is merely another sign of the systemic and populist bias of Wikipedia as a whole: recent stuff and stuff that catches the public eye gets endless palavers and pages (third-rate sci-fi works), but major articles go missing altogether. Bill 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Bill, for that insight. I think we look at the issue here two different ways but are essentially in agreement. It appears some are trying to drive an artificial wedge within the realm of fact based on "populism." Encyclopediae should be concerned primarily with fact and imparting critical information, just as you said. My issue on this page is that information is not being imparted in the way that standardization requires it to be; that information is made tacit. To examplify it: hypothetically speaking, probably no Catholic prays to "Pope Celestine V, the man...who was later made Saint;" nor do they likely pray to "Pope Celestine V, a Saint;" they pray to "St. Celestine V" or "Pope St. Celestine V" -- and so forth and so on with the rest of the Saints and Pope-Saints. In the same way, "The Servant of God" (like St., Bl., and Vn.) is a title, not so much like "His Holiness" which I would characterize as more of an "honorific" or a "title" only of a living Pope. Lastly, from the Pope's mouth, the supreme authority of the Church (and its titles and honors), to our ears: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], etc., etc.. 13 Jul 05

[edit] Servant of God

Since Paul VI's holiness is under scrutiny for beatification, since his official title is thus "Servant of God," since that title is in official usage by the Church (as documented above by addresses of John Paul II; and documented elsewhere), since "Servant of God," like "Saint," "Blessed," and "Venerable" supercedes any other such lesser honorific, i.e. "His Holiness," etc., bestowed upon a living Pope and not in general use since his death (again, see documented addresses above), since it imparts relevant information, since he was a former leader of the Catholic Church and should thus be titled as such requires and deems official and proper, since there is Wikipedia precedent and gerneral conformity on the issue (see above): I propose that the title within this article be modified to the proper and official Church title of Paul VI, "The Servant of God Pope Paul VI."

[edit] Styles infobox

A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to this article. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanae Vitae

I just substantially edited this section. It originally began "towering over his pontificate is his most controversial decision" which is POV. (Erm, what about Paul VI on the liturgy, celibacy and so on?) What is undeniable is the enormous dissent to Humanae Vitae. I could not find a decent online source for the statistics. (I had rather high hopes for the National Catholic Reporter IIRC that paper together with the Tablet broke the story of the 'Majority Report'.) I suspect there has been no international study and one would have to combine studies from the US, the UK etc.

I can find no reference to the story of John Paul I's encounter with the United Nations and alleged disapproval of Humanae Vitae. I give notice that unless contrary reason appears I will delete the sentence altogether. Stroika 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Nealry a month has gone by, time for the JP I reference to go. Stroika 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, at least here, that Germain Grisez was one of the authors of the so-called "minority report". He is not an unbiased reporter. Jhobson1 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign of Vatican City

Why on earth was the description of Pope Paul as sovereign of Vatican City [removed]. He was not just pope but also a head of state and monarch. That role and the diplomatic status of the Vatican as a state gave him gave him a diplomatic role in international affairs separate to his position as pope. The diplomatic role on top of the religious one gives popes a status in international law and diplomatic procedures not possessed by any other religious leader. If he wasn't a head of state he wouldn't be able to appoint nuncios and pronuncios, who are diplomats. The entire existence of the Vatican foreign service rests on its status as a state and the status of the pope as a head of state. So pointing out the fact that he was sovereign of Vatican City is a must in the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl did not even wait for a reply - just re-reverted, without waiting for me to post onto the talk page. What am I supposed to make of that?
I removed the reference to Sovereign of the Vatican City because it is irrelevant in an article of this scope on this subject. All the fantastic information Jtdirl cites could or should be found under the article for Pope. When was the nunciature particularly significant for the subject of this article? Name one aspect of Paul's life mentioned in this article (or which should be mentioned in this article) where the fact that he was Sovereign of the Vatican was crucial. I doubt the head of a mere postage stamp state such as Liechtenstein would have been able to lecture the UN jamais la guerre (4.10.1965), Paul VI could because he was also head of the Catholic Church, in a word Pope.
The Annuario Pontificio lists nine titles for the Pope (famously "Pope" is not one of them): 1 Bishop of Rome, 2 Vicar of Jesus Christ, 3 Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, 4 Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, 5 Patriarch of the West, 6 Primate of Italy, 7 Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, 8 Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, 9 Servant of the Servants of God.
The most important are the first and last. They begin every Papal document as an assertion of the Pope's right/duty to teach with authority. All of the others are an expression within theology and Canon Law of these two titles with the exception of the one at issue. It is not of the nature of the Papacy that the Pope be a temporal sovereign (something the Popes took up after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, i.e. not for the first three or four centuries): it is of the nature of the Papacy that the Pope have functions like those of certain other Bishops (4, 5, 6 and 7) (5, 6 and 7) as well as functions pertaining to him alone (2, 3[, 4] and 9). Jtdirl said "bizarre edit. Being a head of state and a monarch is kinda important." Not in an article of this scope which is not even about the office itself but about only one of the bearers of that office.
The Pope could in theory carry on his mission without special diplomatic status, as - for example - citizen of Italy. The Church insists on the Pope's diplomatic status as head of state as a final safeguard for her mission. In fact for about 50 years from c.1870-c.1920 the Pope's status was precarious. The Papal States were gone and the Vatican City was not yet in being. It is not of the nature of the Papacy that the Pope be a sovereign although it is for practical purposes necessary.
(And this is what Jtdirl calls an "illinformed edit").
In any case this is not an article about the Pope but about one Pope in particular. The fact that the Pope is sovereign of the Vatican City is more relevant to John Paul II. He enacted the current 'Basic Law' which had not been revised since Pius XI.
Bizarre edit or not Jtdirl - if he insisted on reverting - would have done better to integrate the other edits I made to the introduction. "He presided over the Catholic Church during most of the Second Vatican Council and played a central role in implementing its decisions." Both verbs are false or at least misleading. Theologically the Pope is head on earth of the Catholic Church (you can leave out on earth if you like), he is not a president. He did however preside over an ecumenical council. Secondly every single document of the Council left it to the Pope to implement its decrees, "played a central role" seriously understates that. I admit the edit summary did not make clear that there were multiple edits. I must say I did not expect such a trivial sentence to be reverted especially as I had just substantially altered the section on Humanae Vitae which for many people is the significant fact of Paul's pontificate.
I am going to revert again. Stop me if you must. I am past caring. Do other editors the courtesy of explaining why.
Stroika 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on every count. I posted an explanation here (and would have done it quicker if my internet connection had not gone down for a few minutes). You had not the courtesy of making any explanation for your deletions twice much less actually discuss your unilateral deletion in advance. All the papal articles on popes since 1929 mention the pope's position as a sovereign just as the articles on Mary Robinson, Umberto II, Nelson Mandela, Elizabeth II, P.W. Botha, Francois Mitterrand, George W. Bush and all other heads of state were heads of state. Pope Pius XII was a head of state. John XXIII was a head of state. Pope Paul VI was a head of state. John Paul I was a head of state. John Paul II was a head of state. Benedict XVI is a head of state. You have be preoccupied with the Pope's religious jurisdiction. This article is not just about the pope, it is about someone who held two positions — a head of a religion and a head of a state. If you want an article purely about religion, write for the Catholic Encyclopaedia. This ain't it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am replying because you are misrepresenting the case. There *was* an explanation, in the edit summary the first time I made the edit, which I thought sufficient. I am sorry if it wasn't. I didn't want to burden the talk page given that I had already made another series of edits which I thought - and still think - dealt with far more substantial matters. After my first reversion, you did not give me time to post to the talk page and now you cannot be bothered to address the substance of what I say. You should have assumed good faith then. You should actually talk now - i.e. engage with what I actually say.
Neither the phrase nor the title "Sovereign of the Vatican City" (in your haste you left out the definite article this time) occur in the article for John Paul II - so much for every Pope since 1929, so much for being "standard format of papal articles" as per your latest edit summary. That really is the weakest argument: "every other article like this on wikipedia has this so we must have it here". It just begs the question. Incidentally another reason why it is significant in JPII's article but not this one: under JPII was the first time the Holy See recognised the State of Israel.
Jtdirl says: "Wrong on every count"? Really? Every count? Erm be careful with that hyperbole Eugene.
I don't deny that Paul VI was a head of State. I just thought it irrelevant in the article introduction. You use boilerplate if you must but I thought internal links were meant to make that unnecessary.
Jtdirl says: "You have [to] be preoccupied with the Pope's religious jurisdiction." Where does that come from? What do most people think about with regard to the Pope? That he is head of (one of) the world's smallest country(-ies)? or that he is head of (one of) the world's largest religion(s)? The Pope's diplomatic jurisdiction is tiny. It extends over not very many people, almost all of them male celibates. Once upon a time it was larger - a vestige of which is found in the fact that the Nuncio is by custom the most senior of all diplomats accredited to a particular country. This is all very interesting but not very relevant here, for the article is about Pope Paul VI not The Pope.
You complain that I did not "discuss [my] unilateral deletion in advance". Forgive me. I must have thought I was editing Wikipedia. Why should I discuss every single edit? It was something I thought was of little to no significance in an article about Paul VI and last time I checked he was the subject of this article hmmm *let me see* yes still the case.
I repeat. Show why it is significant for this Pope in this article. I don't care very much but your failure to cite anything in Paul's biography re nuncios etc. is very telling. Actually let me do your work for you (off the top of my head). How about his involvement with Aldo Maro? Not sure how that depended on Paul's status as Sovereign of the Vatican City but I am sure your ingenuity can come up with something.
Stroika 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Athenagoras

Nothing controversial, it's just that the Edit Summary doesn't have enough space to explain what I did.

The following section, "Pilgrim Pope," contained a redundant paragraph repeating, almost word-for-word, the contents of this section. (It did have better links, though.) It also had the Paul-Ramsey meeting.

I combined the two Athenagoras paragraphs, and moved the Ramsey information to where it seems better located.

No big deal. B00P 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Christ?

Many Religious Right Groups have dubbed Pope Paul VI one of twelve (12) Antichrists: among them are Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian Diocletian, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Kurt Waldheim, Willy Brandt, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The Twelfth, according to Theologins, will give Birth to End Times or Armageddon.

This seems out of place in the Footnotes section, and is uncited. I recommend removal. MKV 04:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like vandalism that escaped notice. It should be deleted immediately. LotR 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed. MKV 16:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think tldm.org is satanic

I think tldm.org (article links to it with link text 'Claims that Pope Paul VI was 'replaced' by an imposter in 1972') is a satanic-twisted paranoia-inducing tabloid from the pit of hell that promotes both general fear and paranoia and bible-thumping judgemental religion (fundamental catholicism) both at the same time. tldm.org has a 'directives from heaven' section that has many quotations from a false christ.

Until the title of the section on Paul VI's alleged indecisiveness and the prominence given to the Hamlet quote are removed it is impossible for serious participants to contribute to the editing. The allegations of indecisiveness need to be addressed in an impartial manner with less attention to trifling North American oriented detail and set alongside Paul' s cultural awareness- his encouragement of Christian humanism and patristic studies, his openess to Latin American and Third World influence----Clive Sweeting

[edit] Modernist liberals?

I changed the clause "Though modernist liberals viewed him as the person who would have succeeded Pope Pius, since Montini was not a member of the College of Cardinals" to "Although some viewed him as a person who might have succeeded Pope Pius, since Montini was not a member of the College of Cardinals" as this is very much POV language. (Ie, "modernist liberals" is fightin' words.) Jhobson1 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)