Talk:Robert Bellarmine

NPOV

"Bellarmine had not enough deep knowledge of his own nature or Christian experience to be able to appreciate the Augustinian doctrines of the corruption of man and the necessity of divine grace to any good movement of the will."

"Bellarmine's exposition of the views and arguments of the Protestants is surprisingly full and accurate, so much so that the circulation of the book in Italy was for a time not encouraged. He fails, like most of his contemporaries, in understanding the principle of historical development, and his belief in authority, pressed to an extreme, injured his sense of truth and allowed him to handle both the Bible and history in an arbitrary manner."

This is quite obviously a Protestant POV. To write that a Doctor of the Church had "not enough deep knowledge of...Christian experience" is risible.66.133.249.120 10:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Second. Horrible POV. Sounds like quotes were lifted from 19th century apologetics.

The quotes above have been edited out, leaving this critique irrelevant. ----

Giordano Bruno

In my opinion burning of Giordano Bruno should be mentioned in the begining of article – Giordano Bruno#Trial and death Superborsuk 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not concur. The trial of Bruno was not a big enough focus of his career to merit mention in the introduction. I note that Bellarmine is not mentioned in the introduction of the Giordano Bruno article, but is relegated to a subsection. Rwflammang (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole article on Cardinal Bellarmine is written from an overwhelmingly Catholic point of view, and is unsuitable for an unbiased encylopedia. There should be mention of the torture and deaths of Giordano Bruno and Giulio Cesare Vanini, in which Bellarmino was a major participant. It is unacceptable for a Saint to be an unrepentant murderer without some explanation. Ronpeek 08:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Giulio Cesare Vanini was executed in Toulouse, not Rome. What did Bellarmine have to do with his death? If this article is biased, then Vanini's is biased too; Bellarmine gets no mention in it. Rwflammang (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his protracted prosecution of Gallileo and his denunciation of the Copernican system. Those action, not his theological arguments, are the points for which he is best known today, and therefore are what ought to be emphasized in a secular encyclopedia. It's also inaccurate to call him a "murderer." If the deaths of Bruno (and tens of thousands of other people condemned by the Inquisition) were "murder," then the guilt belongs to the Church itself, not to Bellarmine personally. He didn't even levy the sentence himself, he simply concurred in the judgment -- which does make him complicit -- but was reportedly haunted by it ever after because he had failed to persuade Bruno to the "official truth." Finally, Ronpeek is apparently under the delusion that contradictory secular opinion has anything whatever to do with the Church declaring someone a saint. There are any number of bloody-handed saints whom the Church regards as having acted in its best interests. --Michael K Smith^Talk 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Need confirmation of his feast day

He is listed under feast days for May 13, yet the info box says September 17. Which is correct...? Thanks --Midx1004 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

His feast day is on the 17 of September, which happens to be today.Daneaboy (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph after "New Duties"

Does not make sense and should be rewritten. Who is Gaetano?

4.243.167.224 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Daniel F. Baedeker

Unhelpful external link

The external links section of the article had advertised this website as containing "primary source texts from his writings". However, the website appears to contain nothing but dummy links, as it has done for some months. It doesn't appear to contain any primary source texts at all, nor does it appear to have done so in the past. I have therefore commented out the link so Wikipedia readers won't be misled into wasting their time by following it. I don't believe the link should be reinstated until the webpage it points to does in fact post some primary source texts. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The link has since been removed altogether, fwiw. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputationes

I propose removing much of what is in the section on his Disputationes to Disputationes, or Disputationes (Robert Bellarmine). It is too much information on one of his works to be in this article, but the information should be retained. Any objections? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done; moved it to Disputationes. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Copernican doctrines "correct"?

I have removed the adjective "correct" as a disputable and unnecessary qualification of "Copernican doctrines". Strictly speaking, Copernicus's system is not "correct" (the Sun is not truly immobile, for instance), but in any case there seems to me to be no good reason why this article needs to try and inform its readers of the precise epistemic status of Copernicus's system.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsuitable link

A link to this site was recently readded to the article after I had removed it as a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. I had already removed it twice before with edit summaries indicating that it violated the guidelines on external links. Each time it has been subsequently readded without any edit summary or discussion on this talk page to justify its inclusion.

The site in question is a blog whose entire current contents comprises the 3 posts on the page you will see if you click on the link to it. Two of these posts each contain a short, single-paragraph excerpt from Bellarmine's writings on alleged errors in the Book of Concord. The third is a brief statement of opinion about Bellarmine's importance. I can see no reason why this blog should be considered an exception to criterion 11 of the guidedline on links to be avoided. In my opinion, Wikipedia's readers who follow the link are likely to consider it to have been a waste of time, and should not be misled into doing so by apparent claims that the site contains "New translations of [Bellarmine's] writings". I have therefore reworded the label on the link and tagged it as unsuitable. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable argument for retaining it, I intend to remove it again.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your concern in moderating the Bellarmine page is much appreciated. The translations provided on that on that website come from Bellarmine's Iudicium De Libro Concordia Lutheranorum, error 1; error 6 (1628 ed.) Tomus II, 553-554; 555. This same text of Bellarmine's can be found in Fevre's critical edition vol. VII, pgs. 103, 108. Measures will be taken to document all translations from Bellarmine's works on that site to alleviate any concerns of authenticity. It would be appreciated if links to that site of new translations be not taken down.---Scipio125

Your own gratification in having Wikipedia link to the site is not a sufficient reason for it to do so. As I have already pointed out several times, inclusion of the link in the article violates Wikipedia's guidelines, and the current content of the site is too meagre for it to have any hope of qualifying for exemption. Unless you can address these issues satisfactorily, the link should be removed.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern and welcome the moderation. The Bellarmine page is a very significant one on Wikipedia and should be maintained with utmost care. My objective is to translate Bellarmine's writings and to make them available to the wider public. Having reread the guidelines I understand why a blog cannot be included on this external link given its mutable nature. Would it, however, be permissible to create links to static pages of significant portions of new translations of his works, providing appropriate documentation? My goal is to make information about Bellarmine more readily available to the general public, I would like to translate significant portions of his work such as his Iudicium de Libro Concordiae as I progress with the translation and link them through Wikipedia's website so that more users can know of their existence. Eventually I plan to make them available in their entirety. However, the completion of an entire volume takes time and it is nice to make these materials available even as in an abbreviated form for the wider public sooner than later. Your input on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio125 (talk • contribs) 03:41, August 8, 2009

In my opinion, a link or links to a site containing a substantial body of Bellarmine's works (whether in the original or in translation), or extracts from them, would certainly be appropriate. But your site doesn't currently contain anywhere near enough material to qualify.

Personally, I wouldn't care that much whether a site containing a substantial amount of useful material were a blog or a "static" web-site, but you should keep in mind that unless your site satisfies the criteria specified in Wikipedia's guidelines, any editor who objects to the inclusion of a link to it may rely on those guidelines as a pretext for removing the link. One thing that would certainly help your case for including a link to your site would be for you to provide evidence that you are an established expert in a relevant field (e.g. translation of Renaissance latin, Bellarmine scholarship, etc.).

In my opinion, your appropriate course of action, as specified in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, would be for you to first add sufficient content to your site to make it of likely interest to Wikipedia's readers. When you believe this to be the case, post a message on this talk page to see whether other Wikipedia editors agree with you. If no-one (or at most, a small minority of editors) were to raise any objections, you would then be perfectly justified in adding a link to your site to the article's external links section.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response to my questions. By all means go ahead and remove the link to the site. I will increase the amount of material and consult the other editors in the future concerning a link. Thanks again for your input. Best ---Scipio125 8 August 2009.

Google Books

It would be awesome for this page of reference to be linked up with many of his complete works on Google Books! Is that illegal or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.186.100.114 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite awesome, and not illegal. It just needs to be done, and it is not necessarily a trivial task since he was quite prolific. Rwflammang (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-residence?

According to the article

In 1602 he was made archbishop of Capua. He had written strongly against pluralism and non-residence, and he set an example himself by leaving within four days for his diocese, where he devoted himself to his episcopal duties, and put into effect the reforming decrees of the Council of Trent.

What is meant by "non-residence" in this context?

Top.Squark (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There was once a problem of bishops not living within their own dioceses; they would take multiple bishoprics and only live in one. Obviously it's hard to teach, govern and sanctify your flock when you don't live amidst them, particularly when you haven't airplanes and email. That's why Bellarmine was a critic. I've explained the term in the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alleged misquotation

A recent edit added the following footnote to a sentence in the section of the article on The Disputations:

"There has been a misquote around from his disputation on controversies concerning the Pope, misquote and referenced correction being available at [1]"

There are a couple of problems with this:

• "There is a misquote around ..." is too vague to be verifiable. The blog article cited as source gives the following as the alleged misquotation:

"If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad."

but cites no specific source as having maintained that the quotation was actually uttered or written by Bellarmine. From a web, google book, and google scholar search, the only sources I was able to find which did make such an allegation were an article Why I abandoned Papism by one Paul Ballester-Convolier (or Ballaster-Convolier, or Ballester Convallier, or maybe some other combination thereof), a bishop of some Orthodox branch of Christianity, and four websites which reproduced it. Although this article attributes the quotation to Bellarmine, it does not say that it appeared in The Disputations. In fact, it gives no indication whatever of when or where Bellarmine is supposed to have written or uttered the quoted words.

• The blog cited as having supposedly debunked the quotation is clearly not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.

In my opinion, the alleged quotation is not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the article, even if only in a footnote. Unless someone can show that it is much more important than it would appear to be to me, I believe this footnote should be deleted.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Geocentrism

There is an edit war going on about a sentence in the lede that says that Bellarmine is best known "by some" for his geocentrism. It is far from clear to me that his geocentrism is notable, since geocentrism was widely accepted back in the day, and Bellarmine was far from being its most zealous booster. Also, the "by some" is a weasle phrase, and I have to wonder whether the view of this particular "some" is notable. I support removing this clunky sentence. Rwflammang (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the weasel words but not the sentence. There are indeed "some" who link the two, and "some" of them are notable. For example, note that the Galileo affair is the key part of Bellarmine's entry in Britannica. Furthermore, there are numerous Catholic apologists who have attempted to reframe the Galileo affair, thus indicating its historical resonance. It's clearly notable, clearly a major incident in Bellarmine's life from a historical perspective, and clearly the primary reason a non-Catholic reader would be likely to take any interest at all in Bellarmine's thought. Since Wikipedia is not aimed at Catholic readers alone, the lede should give non-Catholics reason to understand Bellarmine's historical significance outside of the church. Finally, the Galileo affair is a key part of this article, and per WP policy the lede should summarize the article's contents.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the version of the sentence you created with this edit is very well expressed and works fine as part of the lead. In my opinion, there were various problems with all previous versions of this sentence, and I would oppose the restoration of any of them as a replacement for your latest.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bellarmine Jugs

There is a long cited section about the bellarmine jug on Bartmann jug:

"The popular alternative name 'Bellarmine' is recorded earliest in 1634, and is in popular tradition associated with the cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), a fierce opponent of Protestantism in the Low Countries and northern Germany. The reason for the association with Bellarmino is not entirely clear but was possibly conceived by Dutch and English Protestants to ridicule the cardinal.[4] Another possibility is his anti-alcohol stance.[5][6]"

I feel like this should be added to this article as well. Any objections?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

So, just why was this Cardinal Inquisitor made a saint?

I came to this page because I couldn't figure out why a 20th Century Pope would canonize an inquisitor who'd been dead for over 300 years. Having read the article, I still can't figure it out.

Would there be some super secret Catholic Conspiracy involved in this oversight? Was the Pope trying to promote a return to the anti-scientific view of the universe that St. Robert upheld? There is no mention of Bellarmine's canonization on the Pope's wiki page and only a passing mention of his being named a Scholar. Is there something special about Bellarmine's being named both? ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickjack (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a good question, but one that Wikipedia is not equipped to answer for you, unless you have a reputable source that provides answers. Kortoso (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Bellarmine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317111653/http://thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp01259823 to http://thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp01259823

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bellmarine and Filmer, Patriarcha

What should be made, but I think something should, of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha (1680), which begins by attacking Bellarmine as allowing space for arguments against monarchy: Filmer, Sir Robert (1949). Peter Laslett (ed.). Patriarcha and other political works. Oxford: Blackwell.? Wikiain (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Fulgenzio Manfredi

I've fixed up the new ref to the trial of Fulgenzio Manfredi, but is it something for which Bellarmine is "widely remembered"? Maybe this should be moved to the body of the article and further information added. Wikiain (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)