Talk:Alfredo Ottaviani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
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. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
The link from Franjo Šeper points to an empty page. Fixing the link to Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani makes the naming in the succession list inconsistent.
Wouldn't a redirect link make more sense here? - ClaudeMuncey
I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
United Press Internationl reports that Ottaviani was elected Pope on October 26, 1958, which invalidates the election of Angelo Roncalli as Pope John XXIII to days later.
I just pulled this from the article -- this is a variant on a favorite urban legend of sedevecantists: that John XXIII was not validly elected. Usually, the real pope was supposed to be Siri. This grew out of a real incident at the 1958 conclave where the smoke looked white when it was supposed to be black, confusing everyone. This was debunked decades ago, but it still makes the rounds ClaudeMuncey 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This makes no sense
The article says "Ottaviani, while opposed to the separation of Church and State and granting equal rights to all religions, supported religious tolerance—suppressing public manifestations of non-Catholic religions when possible". This makes no sense. It seems to be defining religious tolerance as intolerance. Jhobson1 13:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- In earlier days when Catholics meant "tolerance" they meant charity and love you show to something wrong or irritating. The argument goes that you only use the word "tolerate" for something you basically find in error or bad. People don't usually say "let's be tolerant to democracy" or "you should tolerate his good hygiene." So from that perspective members of other religions were to be treated with love and charity, but forbidden from public recognition as they were in error. Privately they could do whatever they wished as long as this did not break the rules of society. (Most nations still would supress religions if they do that. If a religion required members to take hashish they would likely face some suppression in the US) Just like a scientist may tolerate an individual who believes in Intelligent Design, but support the suppression of ID in public schools as being pseudoscientific error. I admit though that kind of strictness is something I'm glad I never lived under. There are times I worry that makes me a bad Catholic, but I don't think so.--T. Anthony 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
