Talk:Christoph Schönborn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] His Noble Roots

Image:Cristophcardinalschoenborn.jpg
Extra photo for later placement

He should be removed from the list of papabili, simply because choosing someone of noble origin will be unlikely to happen, it would seem to the world to be a setup.

Why shouldn't a noble be elected pope? Your opinion is very discriminating against nobles. There is no doubt Schönborn is papabile, he is frequently discussed in the press. anon1 03:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobility and Austrian law

To 83.109.180.124:

Nobility and noble titles were abolished in Austria by an Act of April 3, 1919, Adelsaufhebungsgesetz, StGBl.Nr. 211/1919, most recently modified by BGBl.Nr. 1/1920. According to § 2 of the Act, the use of particles such as count can even result in fines or prison sentences (although in practice, this never happens). This law was never repealed and can be found e.g. in the Austrian legal information system [1], (type "Adelsaufhebungsgesetz" in the search field "Kurztitel/Abkürzung") If Christoph Schönborn is a citizen of Austria (which I would be surprised if he was not), this law is applicable to him, meaning that his name includes neither a Graf nor a von. Similarly, Karl Habsburg, the son of Otto von Habsburg, is an Austrian citizen (he ran for political office in Austria some years ago), which is why his name does NOT include a von. Martg76 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Also see the article von and the German Wikipedia article Adel. Martg76 17:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To our anonymous opiner, First of all, in no case would he have been a Graf von Schonborn-Wiesentheid, as he is not a descendant of Franz Erwein Damien Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid; rather, as a descendant of Friedrich Karl Joseph Graf von Schönborn, he would be a Graf von Schönborn. As to whether he was "born" a Graf (he was certainly not born a "Count"), I agree that the law mentioned above clarifies that; it's also true that it's often ignored outside Austria, but we should try to be accurate here, and the version you are reverting has the merit of being correct and not making any untrue assertions. And writing something in the German Wikipedia and then citing it is not a terribly persuasive way to support your contention. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please stop lying. The only thing I added to the German article was the names "Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert" (from the English Wikipedia). Austrian law is complely irrelevant when it comes to his birth name. I january 1945 Austria did not exist. The Count was born a German citizen, and Germany has never banned use of noble titles. This is the reason he was born a count.

According to German Wikipedia, it is eigentlich Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert Graf von Schönborn-Wiesentheid (the names Maria to Adalbert added by me).

Yes, you copied his additional names from here, where I had added them. "Schönborn-Wiesentheid" is still wrong. See here. I would gladly see any citation that you have for the Cardinal ever having used the title "Graf". - Nunh-huh 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page linked to from the papal election article [2] refers to him as "Count Christoph von Schoenborn (Austria)".

You're citing an Internet betting parlour as a source for his birthname?? I note, however, that they don't add a superfluous "-Wiesentheid"... - Nunh-huh 22:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm citing the pages linked to from our article on the papal election 2005, not as a source for his birth name, but as a source for what he is referred to as outside Austria. I don't care about the Wiesentheid. Remove it if you believe it is incorrect.
It seems our "papal election 2005" article needs better sources, then, doesn't it? Again, I really would like to see a source that gives his actual birthname, rather than someone's guess at it... Since 1919, in Germany, there are no titles, and titles to which one would have been heir to have become surnames. So it is an open, and interesting question, which can only be settled by documentation, not fiat. Until such a source is found, we ought not to assert that he was born "Graf Christoph von Schönborn" rather than "Christoph Graf von Schönborn" or "Christoph von Schönborn" or "Christoph Schönborn". - Nunh-huh 23:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I just clarified the situation with respect to the appicablity of Austrian law. Between 1938 and 1945, Austrian law remained in force unless specifically repealed. For instance, the ABGB was not replaced by the BGB (however, a lot of German commercial and tax statutes were enacted in 1938). The ban on noble titles was never repealed. I hope the current text is now accurate and acceptable certain anonymous editors who appear to be unfamiliar with Austrian law. Martg76 08:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently our Norwegian friend is not satisfied. He now asserts that we translate surnames, which, of course, we do not. - Nunh-huh 08:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-noble feelings

Persons with anti-noble feelings are often seen in Austria and Germany, but this article should describe Count Schönborn from an English point of view. It is no doubt he is rightfully a count, and that is why he frequently is referred to as such in English. Beeing ignorant in regard to his title is inappropriate. Ernst August of Hanover or Caroline, Princess of Hanover also have other legal names in German, but their titles are translated because it is usual practice in English. In English, we don't say "Prinz" or "Graf".

We do not impute to them birth names that they did not have. We do not say they were "born Caroline, Princess of Hanover" or that they were "born Ernst August of Hanover" for the simple reason that they were not. In English, we say Prinz or Graf if it's part of someone's last name. - Nunh-huh 08:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we "impute" them birth names. "His Royal Highness Ernst August Albert Paul Otto Rupprecht Berthold Friedrich Ferdinand Christian Ludwig, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Braunschweig and Lüneburg, Royal Prince of Great Britain and Ireland (born 26 February 1954 in Hanover, Lower Saxony, Germany)", although the official name is "Ernst August [...] Prinz von Hannover". "Surnames" which are in fact titles like Prinz von Hannover, Herzog von Braunschweig, Graf von Schönborn, are always translated in English. Ernst August is never referred to as the "Prinz von Hannover" in English.
That doesn't seem to say anything about his "birth name". As for referring to him as Prinz von Hannover, sometimes he is, sometimes he isn't. Perhaps his article needs to clarify that some of those titles (e.g. Royal Prince of Great Britain and Ireland) are titles of pretense. What is lacking in this article is any documentation of Christoph Schönborn's birth name or use of the surname Graf von Schönborn or title of Graf von Schönborn. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
He is automatically a count of Schönborn according to the traditional European view of nobility, and according to the privilege his family received for eternity by the Austrian souvereign. A saying runs "once noble, always noble". It is irrelevant whether he himself has used the title. It is clearly documented that he is referred to as count in English.
So what? As someone with an Austrian law degree, I can assure you that these privileges are completely irrelevant today. Martg76 10:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is not a question of Austrian law, but of practice in the English-speaking world. Austrians have no jurisdiction over peoples outside Austria and English practice.
It IS a matter of Austrian law. Under the principles of conflict of laws in all countries I am aware of, the question of what a person's name is referred to the law of his or her citizenship. Even if you are willing to ignore the fact what Schönborn's actual legal name is, you should provide evidence for that purported "English practice". So far, you have failed to do that. Martg76 17:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh my goodness. Personally, I don't think I harbor anti-noble feelings. I don't object to the use of noble titles in the appropriate historical context, which the contemporary Republic of Austria is not. It seems to me that people who address descendents of nobles with their imputed titles are usually sycophants. As to the specific case, could you provide empirical evidence that the cardinal is usually referred to as Count of Schönborn in English? I didn't find any with google, and searches such as "Christoph Graf Schönborn" and "Christoph Graf von Schönborn" also yield only very few results, most of them in right-wing extremist or ultraconservative catholic publications. Martg76 10:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Adressing and styling people with their rightful titles is a matter of courtesy. I would also style the German and Prussian throne pretender "Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preussen" as His Royal Highness, George Frederick, Prince of Prussia, because we do so in English. Even the English court recognize the titles of German princes and princesses, although the German state do not.
      • Well, in a country that abolished nobility there are no "rightful" titles, unless of course you follow a weird monarchistic theory of natural law. I wouldn't consider addressing a descendant of former nobles with such titles a matter of courtesy, but with being either a sycophant or a monarchist. Again, I ask you to provide evidence for your claim about English practice (google doesn't provide it). Furthermore, I wonder why it should be necessary that we discuss this with someone who doesn't even have a username or sign his postings. Martg76 17:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Setting aside the dispute of whether Austrian law is applicable (although there is no doubt it is) I'd like to point out that it might be reasonable to focus on how Cardinal Schönborn is generally being addressed in public (meaning Austrian, German and Swiss media, etc.) and how he refers to himself. Since he is Austrian this should certainly have precendence over any presumed 'English practice' of sticking to titles, thus effectively ignoring local customs and laws. (I might add that in my opinion there is no such thing as an 'English practice' since Cardinal Schönborn is not a public figure in the Commonwealth or US, which is why the english version of this wikipedia article ought to correctly portray the Austrian practice by simply translating German into English.) Thus his biography as published on the official homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna (http://stephanscom.at/edw/cv/articles/2003/08/29/a3543) should be taken into account, where he is constantly being referred to as "Christoph Schönborn" or "Dr. Christoph Kardinal Schönborn OP" while his titles and second names are not mentioned at all. Hence it follows that he himself does not insist on his (legally non-existent) titles being used, since it is reasonable to assume that otherwise he would have ordered the biography to be changed to include them. Furthermore the vatican (certainly not known for anti-noble sentiments and secularism) also refers to him as "Herr Kardinal Schönborn" (refer to search results on vatican.va: http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=sch%F6nborn&x=0&y=0&CFGNAME=MssFindDE.cfg), which is especially apparent in a speech (refer to link) held by the deceased Pope John Paul II.. Having pointed out that Cardinal Schönborn himself and the deceased Pope choose to constantly ignore his titles, I'd like to conclude by presenting my own personal experience: Although being an attentive oberserver of the Austrian Catholic Church and having known that he is of noble origin, it wasn't until I read this article that I first got to know his exact titles, which is why I'm all the more surprised about this heated debate. (Apparently a militant monarchist - probably noble himself - ran into a convinced republican. Although having noble ancestors, I tend to respect and approve the republican point of view.) I therefore thoroughly recommend to omit his titles in the wikipedia article or to at least point out that they are generally being ignored and are in conflict with Austrian law! (Unregistered User, 5 April 2005)

I see no particular reason to omit anything, but I do think it's important to be perfectly accurate about what is stated. I think it's worth a mention that he would have been heir to a title had they not been eliminated. I've tried another rewording in the article that avoids the need for an accuracy warning; see what you think of it. _ Nunh-huh 20:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wording in the upper part now appears to be acceptable. Yet, concerning the section 'Notice on titles', I'd still like to be presented evidence for the alleged practice of ignoring the Austrian law in question at the time he was born. Since this is certainly not an undisputed fact, I therefore reinstante the accuracy warning. Furthermore it remains to be proven that his full name (including titles) is 'often' (quote) given as his name of birth. In fact the opposite appears to be true as I pointed out above by referencing his official biography at the homepage of the archdiocese of Vienna. (Same unregistered User, 5 April 2005)

Well, I agree with you there. I don't believe his birth name is "often" stated as in the lower portion (which was added, I think, as a compromise with our former anonymous interlocutor. Be bold! Edit the lower portion into truthfulness! <g> - Nunh-huh 21:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I do believe that the section 'Notice on titles' is not specifically related to the person of Christoph Schönborn, which is why I urge to remove it or replace it by a reference to a corresponding article. In my opinion the very existence of this section is testimony to the fact that there are still those who have yet to accept the egalitarian principles of a modern, liberal and open society. It is hence particularly unfitting that this article about someone who certainly is committed to those ideals should be abused the way it currently is (even if some claim to act in Cardinal Schönborn's interest). (Same unregistered User again; considering to register :-), 5 April 2005)

By all means register. All you have to do is pick a name, and people pay more attention to people with names! (even silly names!) <g> - Nunh-huh 22:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Hence it follows that he himself does not insist on his (legally non-existent) titles being used, since it is reasonable to assume that otherwise he would have ordered the biography to be changed to include them. "
This is nonsense. He may be put in jail for using his titles over there, and the web page is published in Austria. But we're not in Austria, and we don't have to be ahistorical and ignorant. English readers are clearly interested in the fact that he is count of Schönborn. The Vatican is not using his titles because this may be problematic for him in Austria, where he actually lives. But we should provide all relevant information, regardless of militant anti-noble activists in Austria. And yes, in fact nobility is a kind of natural law, as it cannot be "eliminated". Only official recognition of it can be eliminated. Which is not the same. anon1 03:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(above by anon. #1)

We shouldn't be ahistorical and ignorant by asserting falsely that "he is count of Schönborn". The most that may be true is that some people call him a "Count of Schönborn". Any footnotes (other than the betting parlor you've already cited) on who those people may be? Or references supporting your assertion that "nobility" is part of "natural law"? - Nunh-huh 02:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your claim that he is not count is ridiculous. anon1 03:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(above by anon. #1)

I gather that's a big "no" on the sources, then. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see no reason that we should do it different than the German Wikipedia, which reads "eigentlich [...] Graf von Schönborn". I have cited sources, which you have not, although this is not really a question of sources, but a question of whether the article should take an anti-noble point of view or a more neutral point of view. The practice at the English Wikipedia is to recognize titles, even if they have no legal status (i.e., Ernst August of Hanover also has the right to the titles prince of Great Britain and Ireland and Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg, according to traditional German nobility law). anon1 03:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(above by anon. #1)

[1] The German Wikipedia is nothing to emulate in this instance, as it even gets his surname wrong. [2] you've cited an Internet bookie, while I've cited an Online Gotha [3] German nobility law doesn't end in the 19th century, and [4] the title "Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" has nothing to do with German law, nobilary or otherwise. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"... and we don't have to be ahistorical and ignorant. English readers are clearly interested in the fact that he is count of Schönborn."

By mentioning that he would have been born "Graf von Schönborn" in the absence of Austrian law, this article already satisfies English reader's curiosity about titles. Hence it is not as if someone was trying to conceal his noble descent as anon1 seeks to point out in order to justify keeping to revert. Yet there is absolutely no reason to include a wholly separate section discussing an alleged practice of ignoring Austrian law at the time he was born as such a section doesn't contain information solely or specifically related to Cardinal Schönborn. I therefore encourage you (anon1) to start a special 'Nobility in Austria' article where those issues should be discussed. The only reasonable alternative would be to add the current section on nobility to all articles regarding Austrians once considered noble. (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)

" And yes, in fact nobility is a kind of natural law, as it cannot be "eliminated""

<LOL> - Does this sentence illustrate the neutrality you (anon1) accuse us of lacking? (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)

"But we should provide all relevant information, regardless of militant anti-noble activists in Austria"

I agree with you there, which is why I now would never consider to neglect mentioning his title. Yet since the official name as recognized by Austrian and international law (refer to discussion above) is Christoph Schönborn, I believe that the wording 'he would have been born as ... if Austrian law were not to exist' satisfies the neutrality requested above since it accurately portrays the Austrian legal situation without having to refer to alleged 'natural laws of nobility' that would override current legislation. Furthermore this wording provides all the relevant information regarding his title, thus ensuring that no relevant information is being kept from the English reader. Hence the section discussing Austrian law on nobility can be omitted or - even better - should be relocated to a separate article and extended to cover the issue more in-depth. I encourage anon1 to do so! (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)

The current wording not only points out that he would have been count, but also mentions his noble roots, thereby providing all the relevant information regarding his title (The 'English reader' referred to so often in the discussion above should thus be satisfied.). The general practice of Austrian law on nobility may (and should) be discussed in a separate article, especially since the section on nobility I omitted did not provide any additional information specifically concerning Cardinal Schönborn. (All it did was to restate once more his titles and the corresponding legal issues.). (still unregistered user; 6 April 2005)

  • "By all means register" - I did :-) FormerlyUnregisteredUser 07:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some points on the extensive discussion above:

  • The cardinal's noble ancestry is potentially relevant information that should be included (I think we have consensus on this).
  • If he is an Austrian citizen, his legal name cannot include a von or Graf.
    • A sidenote: Nobody ever went to jail for using a noble title in Austria. The penalty is one of administrative law, meaning that a prison sentence can only be imposed if the perpetrator failed to pay the (very low) fine. Still, the law is widely respected.
  • Wikipedia has a policy on accuracy. What a person's actual name is, is a matter of law. Other names can and should be mentioned (and should even be used in the name of the page if they the most commonly used form), but it should be made clear in what context they are used and that they are not the person's actual name.
  • From this follows that the wording of the German Wikipedia (eigentlich Graf von Schönborn ...) is inaccurate. It should be changed to something like ursprünglich Graf von Schönborn ... if that was his name at birth.
  • If FormerlyUnregisteredUser (great that you registered) believes that nobility is kind of a natural law (notice by FormerlyUnregisteredUser: I never did! In fact it was me who opposed this concept which was stated by anon1. (for details check my response below or read the discussion above!)), it is only his or her personal opinion. However, there is no general agreement on what natural law is. I guess most people believe that the principle of equality is. If Wikipedia presented Graf von Schönborn as the cardinal's actual name, it would thus endorse a particular point of view. This would violate Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.
  • You might argue that the positivist perspective endorsed by Nunh-huh and me is also a particular point of view, but I think that the relevant country's positive and generally accepted law should be considered to be closer to NPOV than one user's personal perspective on natural law. It is at least verifiable. In fact, I think a country's law should have a presumption of being NPOV vis-a-vis any natural law.
  • And yes, the note on noble titles is not well-placed on this page. There are other pages with similar problems, such as Kurt Schuschnigg.

Summary: The cardinal's noble roots should be mentioned, but it should be made clear that Graf von ... is not his actual legal name. Martg76 09:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for structuring the discussion by adding a list points upon which we agree or disagree. (That's exactly what I planned to do :-) )
But I believe you have misunterstood my position: I never stated nobility to be a natural law - rather I critized the position of anon1 who stated this theory! I strongly oppose the Cardinal's titles to be considered part of his name and - as convinced republican - fully agree with the Austrian law. You might check out the entire discussion to see that I was always opposed the notion of a natural law of nobility and the very concept of nobility itself! (Hence it was me who again removed the section concerning noibility.) I thus feel offended by your claim that I supported a position contrary to one I do (and did). I completely agree (and always agreed) that his name should be stated as recognized by Austrian law, which is why I am perfectly content with the article's current version (that I submitted by the way). FormerlyUnregisteredUser 09:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry for this misunderstanding. I was confused because neither of you was registered, and because most postings were not signed. I am glad to hear that we agree. I hope the other user (the one whose IP address starts with 83...) reacts to my points. BTW, I think the current version of the article ("would have been count ...") is fine (except for the unrelated point that the Schönborn family is not just an Austrian family, but also extends to Germany). Martg76 09:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please feel free to further elaborate on his family! FormerlyUnregisteredUser 10:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many arguments put forward by various sides. To this discussion my addendum is that what was/is important all along was not the fact of him being a Count, whether "legally" or "illegaly", but the fact of his belonging to the family ( a noble one ) that was of a great importance to the history of the Catholic Church, and the history of Central and Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, discussion was sidetracked to the formalities of various "laws". I strongly believe that the current development of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's career is better viewed in the context of his family career in Church and society. And this is why I started a separate entry on the family Schönborn. Thank you to all. Anchorite 02:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the family page, which seems very useful. A reference to his family is of course important. However, with respect to this page, the core problem was that an anon kept inserting inaccurate information for a while, namely on Schönborn's name, which is simply a matter of law. Martg76 08:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the current wording is acceptable. Anon1 15:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute settled

Since this dispute appears to be settled then, I remove the accuracy warning. FormerlyUnregisteredUser 17:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] graf von schonborn

why dont you just ask the family. I happen to live in wiesentheid germany and am an American. Maybe I can find somthing out. Better yet why dont you call castle wiesenstein they may answer your question..

excuse the misspelling of wiessenstein.....

[edit] No Sudetendeutsch lobbying, please

In 1945, the German era in east-central Europe ended with the Beneš Decrees and other measures expelling linguistically and culturally German people, who had been overwhelmingly pro-Nazi, from Czechoslovakia and Poland. In the Czech Republic today, people likely even to know German are mostly over 70.

With the expulsion of the "Sudeten" Germans from Czechia, the German names of places in the country have mostly been forgotten — not merely in the Czech Republic, but by most people even in adjacent parts of Germany and Austria. To refer to the Cardinal’s native Litoměřice as German "Leitmeritz", which you won’t find on most maps, is to pander to the well-organized lobby in Austria and German Bavaria of Sudeten irredentists — a particular sect of neo-Nazis (now often 3rd-generation descendants) who seem to think that the expulsions were temporary and that the Untermenschen of those places will eventually have to accept the re-imposition on them of their rightful Herrschaften.

Similarly, to refer to "Bohemia" is not to use an innocent translation of Czech Čechy (or Země české). It evokes a supposedly golden era featuring a nationhood called, in German, a Böhm — a bilingual or diglossic Austro-Hungarian subject, politically Catholic and kaisertreu (loyal to the Emperor) whose literary language was standard German, and whose daily colloquial idiom was (almost indifferently) subliterary Kuchelböhmisch Czech or a German broad dialect of the Austro-Bavarian type.

The Cardinal is of "Sudeten German" background, born in Litoměřice and like many of his ethnicity forced to flee with his parents to Austria. If (without heavily qualifying it with Czech = "internationally valid" equivalents) you use the vocabulary of the Sudeten advocates, you will wittingly or unwittingly further the agenda of this extremely unworthy lobby.82.44.62.97 10:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Job?

A recent article in the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, stated that Cardinal Schönborn was the frontrunner to succeed Cardinal Levada as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, leaving Levada to take over from the aging Cardinal Egan in NY. Can anyone expound on this? If so, is it worth including in the article?

I hadn't heard that, but to be candid, I was surprised Levada got it over Schonborn in the first place. Shows how much I know, I guess. I would assume Schonborn is number one to take over, but then, I was wrong the first time.--Morsefan 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to change a section heading, so I didn't, but I wanted to make a point here that I am sorely tempted to make over on the Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI pages. The problem with all the "Catholic notables" articles is that they emphasize unimportant issues while burying what really is notable about these folks. It just screams bloody murder on this piece. When we are devoting the space to evolution that we are, it is simply disproportionate not to mention the Catechism of the Catholic faith.

Here's my understanding, at least. I remember when Schonborn's statements on evolution came out. Every person of a certain religious stripe in numerous different faiths has a problem right now, because "evolution" is increasingly being distorted into meaning colloquially that God's hand in creating the universe was either non-existent or minimal, and no Catholic person is going to agree with that. So I don't really consider it "news" or "notable." Having said that, as far as I can tell, the article is correct enough as to his statements; it just doesn't make sense to make that half the article, though perhaps he will eventually reveal that he's on more of a "campaign" on the issue (we just cannot know that yet).

But what makes this a HUGE SCREAMER is that after Cardinal Ratzinger himself, Schonborn was the number one point man on the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. The drafting and "selling" of the Catechism is pretty much always listed as one of top achievements of John Paul II's pontificate -- though admittedly, where it stands is debateable (as an clarification of the faith, some might even argue it rivals Vatican II, though critics of the Church would probably look to other issues as somewhat higher up on the food chain). The point is twofold: (1) it is THE major event of Schonborn's career, and (2) compared to so many of the matters discussed in a lot of these articles (abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc.), it would rank much higher on the institutional Church's priority and accomplishment lists.

Now, the institutional Church's priorities should not be Wikipedia's sole guide for content, but it isn't irrelevant, and certainly the news media's shouldn't be either. Though I understand why some might be concerned about POV problems, that careful writing and additional edits can resolve that. It's just implausible to me that an article on Schonborn in any other encyclopedia would not give a substantial portion of the article's text, after the biography, to the Catechism. By contrast, by emphasizing the evolution issue so much, the article actually has a different set of POV weaknesses, By all means, keep the evolution material if that interests people -- again, it isn't "wrong" and there is something to be said for giving people a sense of significant statements by Church leaders even if in the bigger scheme of things its a little disproportionate. It may be a start for them doing further research, which is a purpose of an encyclopedia. The problem here is that you can't come to this article and get an accurate sense of Schonborn's life or work. That always has to be wrong.

I'm not a Schonborn expert and these Catholicism articles tend to get so much disagreement over content that I think it's right to air this issue on Talk pages first. Nevertheless, if people are OK with it and someone is willing to clean up my non-existent form afterwards (!), I don't mind to give the Catechism issue a whirl at some point. I just don't want to do it if the reason such matters don't tend to get included in these articles is that people really think they are improper. I'd disagree, but I don't want to spend the time editing if it will get deleted.--Morsefan 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I should add one more thing. I did some looking, and the evolution thing may be more significant than I thought. I don't think it's either wrong or something that should be deleted by any means. If that is what the original writer really knew about, then good: that issue got covered accurately and without drafting POV, which is my real concern on Catholicism articles--Morsefan 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC). But when I read the bit above about whether Schonborn is papabile -- and I will confess that though my heart wanted it to be Ratzinger, my head had Schonborn far ahead of him for the last conclave -- my sense is that he is definitely on the list, and if elected, the reason won't be evolution; it will be things like the Catechism.