Talk:Pope Leo XII

Zelanti

In the conclave of 1823, in spite of the active opposition of France, he was elected pope by the zelanti on the 28th of September. His election had been facilitated because he was thought to be on the edge of the grave; but he unexpectedly rallied.

His foreign policy, entrusted at first to Delia Somaglia and then to the more able Bernetti, moved in general along lines laid down by Consalvi;

Who are the zelanti? Who are Delia Somaglia, Bernetti and Consalvi? -- Zoe

The zelanti are a party of monks (new advent mentions them in several articles but doesn't have an article about them).

Della Somaglia is a typo and is a cardinal like Bernetti is, too. -- JeLuF

Can you add this information to the subject page? -- Zoe

I think it would belong into an article about the three of them, not here. -- JeLuF

Nonsense. The Zelanti are not a party of monks. They are a party within the Papal curia, the one advocating a strict, unconciliatory course. I forgot the name of the other party. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I'm sorry if this seems odd... but does anyone else get a popup that mentions something about "Butt Crusties" when they visit this article's page? It's similar to what happens when you visit this cached Wikiquote page here --BaronLarf 06:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sources???

There's not even one source listed here... that's a major problem. Nrbelex ^(talk) 22:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

It's worse than that - what sources are used are mainly very old and very biased - Thomas Adolphus Trollope, Francis Burkle-Young (who is not "old" but has some axes to grind), Godkin - surely we can do better than this rogue's gallery of Whig and modern progressive historians. Leo's reign was not without its flaws, particularly in regard to temporal administration of the Papal States - but this is something close to a hack job, and a poorly organized one at that. Quotes are not attributed; no attempt is made at balance; and the organization is lacking. Why does the Godkin quote get an entire section to itself? richardlender 20:18, 5 August 2008

Style Box

Is this necessary - given Leo's dates?

Jackiespeel 19:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of the Scottish hierarchy

Should this be under Leo XIII rather than here? Hansjoseph (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it from here because I also saw Leo XIII when I went to it.

Genga

the town is actually called "Genga" and not "La Genga" as written in the page LAUD (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation

I think that it's pretty obvious the pronouncation featured at the page doesn't bear any semblance to an authentic Italian pronouncation to the point Annibale is read as Annabelle.

Wouldn't it be better to just remove it completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.65.224 (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite hilarious

".... forbidding Jews to own property" "... and allowing them only the shortest possible time in which to sell what they owned,"

Is it clear to a reader that this provision refers to the 'immovable property' (outside the ghetto) or is it a little ambiguous? Just asking as a non English reader. --93.150.194.192 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The two statements are completely contradictory

In the article about Pope Leo XII. it says:

It is charged, however, that during this period his finances were disordered, and his private life was not above suspicion. He was suspected of having allegedly fathered three illegitimate children.

Something won't be right here: there is an irreconcilable contradiction in this report. If he was suspected of having three illegitimate children, then it would not be possible to claim at the same time that his private life was not suspicious: and how suspicious! According to the laws of the Catholic Church on celibacy, in this case his private life would be highly suspect. Indeed, if this matter were true, it would be the end of his church career. But if his private life was blameless, then he did not have an illicit relationship with a suspicious woman and the children resulting from that relationship. It therefore appears that this is a slander as well as that he was an opponent of smallpox vaccination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stebunik (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Stebunik: You don't appear to have given much thought to what it means to be "not above suspicion". You will see that this phrase makes perfect sense as it already does to me and other readers. Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

On that matter, I'll see what other sources say about this relationship and report back here.--Stebunik (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Malevolent rumor against Pope Leo XII

Italian original

English translation

Come ha spiegato recentemente il prof. Ulrich L. Lehner, docente di Religious history and Theology presso la Marquette University (Wisconsin, Usa), «furono proprio i missionari cattolici, per lo più Gesuiti, ad introdurre presso gli Indiani amazzonici il vaccino contro il vaiolo nel 1720. In Europa furono gli ordini sanitari cattolici ad introdurre la vaccinazioni pubbliche nel 1780». Uno studio storico del 2010 ha preso sul serio le accuse a Leone XII e, dopo aver approfondito, è stato scritto: «Si è concluso che il divieto al vaccino non fu reale ma è una voce malevola, diffusa soprattutto su siti Internet».

As recently explained by prof. Ulrich L. Lehner, professor of Religious history and Theology at Marquette University (Wisconsin, USA), "it was precisely the Catholic missionaries, mostly Jesuits, who introduced the smallpox vaccine to the Amazonian Indians in 1720. Catholic health orders to introduce public vaccinations in 1780 ». A historical study from 2010 took the accusations against Leo XII seriously and, after investigating it, it was written: "It was concluded that the vaccine ban was not real but it is a malevolent rumor, spread above all on Internet sites".

--Stebunik (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Pope Leo XII – and Catholic Church – are not against necessary vaccination

It is known that the Jesuits in their South American reductions - see e.g. Jesuit missions among the Guaraní - protected the Indians from cruel and profit-seeking traders who sold them as slaves. This was the main reason why the liberal governments of Portugal and others also hated the Jesuits and finally destroyed them. Where Catholic missionaries worked in North America (e.g. Mexico, Cuba, Canada) - Indians remained there in good numbers until today. In the United States, where Catholics were in a large minority and had no influence, the Anglican traders and gold seekers almost completely exterminated the Indians and no one protected them. However, if many died in Catholic institutions from various diseases (e.g. incurable tuberculosis, to which Indians were particularly susceptible), it was not only Indians who died there, but also whites, as well as many monks and nuns. I should only mention the little-known Slovenian missionary, Bishop Friderik Baraga (see: Frederic Baraga)), who wrote a grammar and a dictionary for the Ojibwe (Očipvejci) Indians and taught them all the sciences. This needs to be emphasized because of the one-sided accusations against Catholic missionaries, to which even the highest representatives of the Catholic Church succumb and fall for, because the liberal press silences all the good things Catholics have done, and at the same time unilaterally and maliciously interprets their failures or unintentional slip-ups, such as this evident in the description of Saint Mother Teresa too.--Stebunik (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)