Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Page Protection request removed

I have removed the request concerning this page and Benedict XVI Theology . I do this because I have finished the discussion . All readers should note that at last some information is allowed to balance the article . If the apologists will refrain from their censoring edits , I shall be able to remove myself . I ask that the discussion concerning intervention in the Civil Order be allowed to remain for the sufficient period as instructional and relevant and even handed . I think it should be added to Benedict's Theology discussion pages as relevant to his rule and if there is someone who agrees with the necessity , I ask them to do so . The present state of this article on Pius XII justifies my intervention as balance is now being allowed . A new user could perhaps fairly attempt to erase unwelcome references but all current users here should accept the validity of this balance now and preserve this state .Flamekeeper 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII Bashing

(Actually, Pope Pius XII was a documented Nazi sympathiser, both by historical and photographic account.

He used the Nazis as a method of exterminating the Serbs (of which over one million (1,000,000) were massacred during World War II.

Adolf Hitler, apparently, was a devout Catholic:

“I am completely convinced that I am acting as the agent of God. I am now a Catholic and will always remain so.”

— Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" (Hitler was never excommunicated by the Vatican. Mein Kampf was never banned by The Church.)

Reference:

"Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII", by John Cornwell

The Vatican’s Holocaust (online book) by Avro Manhattan published by: Ozark Books, Springfield, Missouri, http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html )

above comment moved from article.

I think the answer is that this is an interesting point of view, and one that should be in the article - attributed to named advocates, such as John Cornwell. Wikipedia cannot call people Nazi sympathisers, but we can report on accusations made by other people. Martin 09:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(from talk:Catholicism) I removed the section that follows from Catholicism It contains strong POV / unsupported claims that Catholicism and Nazism are strongly intertwined. Anyhow, judge for yourselves and discuss. --Zippy 06:41, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unsupported? He gives two references - that's not unsupported.

However, comments on a single pope are better placed here than at Catholicism. Martin 09:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, my reading of the quotation from Mein Kampf was that he was providing evidence in Trollish :).

For anyone who wants to spend some time reading up on the matter, this report, by a panel of three Catholic and three Jewish academics (no atheists :|), seems like a useful source. Interestingly, the Vatican has not responded to those requests. -- Pde 12:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, to get a proper perspective on Pius XII and his relationships with the several Fascist dictators, you have to trace Vatican politics back at least to the period of the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento. Pius XII's chummyness with the Nazis and with Fascist dictators was in fact founded on the traditional politics and policies of the Papacy. This material probably does indeed belong in Catholicism, or better yet, in an article on Roman Catholic Church separate from Catholicism. -- IHCOYC 13:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What was removed and is at the top of the page here is simplistic and one sided and has no place in that form in any encyclopædia. The issue needs discussing but in a proper, professional NPOV manner. I think it would make more sense to put the issue in a broader narrative perspective as IHCOYC observed, perhaps Roman Catholicism and right wing politics. FearÉIREANN 18:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Further to the above:

Most of the "Hitler's Views" section is problematic. Observe:

"Hitler apparently had no problems with Catholicism, however:

“I am completely convinced that I am acting as the agent of God. I am now a Catholic and will always remain so.”

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's opinion of his own Catholicism has nothing to do with Pius XII, does it? (Especially without mentioning that Hitler later reviled Christianity as a "lie" and an "invention of the Jew".)

"Hitler was never excommunicated by the Vatican[. . .]"

True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. Also Stalin's question "How many divisions has the Pope?" is relevant; excommunicating Hitler would have been effective suicide.

"[. . .]and so remains officially Catholic to this day..."

The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing.

"In addition, Mein Kampf was never banned by The Church."

Lots of books were never banned by the Church. Does this mean that the Church endorses those books? No, it does not.

"It is not clear what the intentions of the Church were in this particular inaction, but it is unlikely that the merely overlooked such a prominent figure as Hitler..."

That's just opinion masquerading as fact. Who says that? What are the other explanations given?

So I'm going to strike out this section. It might be relevant elsewhere (in an examination of Hitler's religious views, perhaps), but it has no place here.

--Mirv 05:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII Compared to Hitler and Stalin

The sway that religion has on society makes me sick, to be honest. This entry was justified the same way that defacing Adolf Hitler or Stalin is justified. Any truely objective encyclopaedia would at least detail Pius' 'alleged' involvement with the Nazis... Considering the fact that there are photographs of the Pope meeting with Hitler, however, it's a little difficult to give into the delusion that he didn't at least have some Nazi ties.

If you want to know my honest opinion, I think that unfortunately, because of the Catholic religion, we at wikipedia are being coerced to make Pius XII look better than he actually was. This is the same sort of thing that happened in the Soviet Union to anyone who criticised Stalin even after Kruschev had reversed his plans. Stalin was still regarded as a hero of the RELIGION known as the Soviet Union, people didn't want to give up their delusion that he was a good man, and as a result, to this day, Communist fundamentalists go on about how Stalin was a wonderful leader, as opposed to what he was almost certainly--a brutal and psychopathic dictator responsible either directly or indirectly for the deaths of some 20 million souls.

Incorruption

I've removed the following: In Roman Catholic lore, "incorruption", the miraculous preservation of a body from decomposition, is held to be a confirmation of sanctity; cf. Bernadette Soubirous.

That is simply wrong. "Incorruption" may be read as evidence of sanctity, but its absence does not mean evidence to the contrary. Many reasons may cause incorruption - type of soil in which the corpse is buried, type of coffin used, the use of preservatives on the remains prior to burial, etc. In catholic theological belief (not lore) an incorrupt body must have no contributing natural or chemical factors that can explain its state. In Pius's case, we simply do know what state it is currently in. All we do know is that a botched job occured when an attempt was made to preserve it prior to the lying-in-state; some form of preservation usage is standard practice with papal corpses given the numbers of people who may want to see the body during its lying-in-state; papal corpses usually are forced to undergo more exposure to air (in particular the hot temperatures of Rome) over a longer period than any other corpse, most of whose lying-in-states (eg, the Queen Mother's, US presidents, etc) take place in sealed coffins. The Vatican was quick to point out that no special meaning should be attached to the preserved state of John XIII's body when it was removed from its coffin prior to his beatification, for it had received a light wax spray prior to display in 1963 and had been buried in air-tight triple coffins. So taking Pius XII's immediate decomposition as evidence, or implied evidence, of lack of sanctity, is simply mischevious agenda-pushing nonsense. All it indicates is a botched job at preservation and nothing to do which his state of sanctity, whether good, bad or indifferent. FearÉIREANN 18:46, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unfair Links

Clearly the list of links shows how biased this article is. I think a fair approach would include at least a few of the numerous websites that are critical of Pius XII. There appear to be very few if any of these.

One link should be removed and that is of the "article" by Ian Paisley [1] which is clearly a biased piece of slander and should not be included as it sheds no light on Pius XII. --Frankrig 05:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute : The Concordat

The anonymous edit of 23.15 hrs 01 April 05 was not minor and seriously affected the historical facts in this matter to do with Cardinal Pacelli . Of all the dates and meetings and communications removed , only the 1932 reference to Pacelli is anecdotal and refers to page 209 from the journalist Edgar Ansel Mowrer's Triumph and Turmoil ISBN 04 92 00267 , when Mowrer interrogates his assistant Otto Brok about the Secretary of State in Rome's letter read out by Monsignor Ludwig Kaas as party leader to the Zentrumspartei or Catholic Centre Party leadership . Mowrer introduces this by saying that the Communist gains in the May 1932 elections to the Prussian Landstag , only set the stage for a further betrayal, this time of the Catholics . Alleged or anecdotal ,it was reported as a secret meeting and Mowrer was ( and is ) respected worldwide by all (except Hitler) . This present editing , along with the complex and detailed timeline removed by the anonymous , removes from this encyclopedia the actual movements and meetings and communications undertaken as matters of historical fact . Their removal is not justified and their protection is . This becomes a case of Dispute and the wikipedia can no more ignore this than can the Church . Adjudication is required , and there are many historians on these pages , for what is a most crucially important political matter . It constitutes the abdication of Democracy by itself , - or its death by conspiracy , and it is the turning point around which all modern history revolves . This famous and mysterious abdication in the face of evil , as referred to in the late Pope John Paul II's recent book Memoria e Identidad is the weak brick in the foundations of our time and we can permit ourselves no amount of obfuscatory self-exculpation( ie hiding) . Until is is accepted , it remains a dispute but it is not an allegation : it is a denial of inconvenient truth which makes a mockery of all that is good and true .Tolerance of un-truth is poison and this particular poison is in need of clearance and purgation . We cannot understand our world and why we come to this present if we hide the past which led to World War II , the Holocaust ,the Nuclear Arms Race , the Space Race, European Partition , the Fall of Communism, the Middle East Crisis and the present evolving world order where balance of power and all our technologies have evolved from the wartime results of this arrangement of the Concordat .Flamekeeper

Flamekeeper, it's hard for me to understand what you are saying.

First of all, you aren't clear about what edit you are objecting to. Each Wikipedia viewer sees the times on the History page in their own time zone, so when you refer to "the anonymous edit of 23.15 hrs 01 April 05" I suspect you must mean the the second-from-the-bottom edit by 24.91.137.38 on that date, since this is the only edit that I see where the timestamp ends in :15. (Here in Seattle it shows as 15:15, 1 Apr 2005." I ran a diff of this and he changed "Nazi's" to "Nazis and". I agree that the meaning is changed, but since the old version was grammatically incorrect I feel this is not a big deal.

Actually - most of the time people are refering to the UTC time which is what will display unless you go into your Preferences click "Time Zone" and put in an offset - I am guessing that one of you has done this - thus the time matching is off - may I suggest that you both not have an offset so that it is easier to communicate Trödel|talk 13:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it occurs to me that you might be objecting to the combination of all four of 24.91.137.38's edits on that date. These do include some substantial changes.

In summary: The first half of your paragraph above makes no sense to me, because I cannot identify the specific edit you are disputing. The second half of your paragraph is a rant that doesn't address the point of a dispute. You can't dispute a page because it makes you angry; you can only dispute it because you believe it is factually incorrect, or because it distorts history by overemphasizing or underemphasizing key points.

Lawrence King 10:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I claim that many of the edits made since I tried to fill in the historical facts of meetings result in a distortion of history . Therefore I have shortened the interpolation of those outstanding facts and equally simplified the distortionate assertions since included . I feel this to have been even-handed as the facts are already for some time accepted on the main nazi party page , (which should be but isn't called the nazi party page but the national socialist party of germany, thus confusing modern readers ), I have given lengthy notice for my disputation of the intervening Pius XII page , I have provided sufficient info on the Centre Party (Germany) page , and all in all tried to allow the world a glimpse of its own history . You are quite correct that the time and particular edit I referred to was incorrect . I don't know how this can be resolved . Has one to simply list all the myriad books which have never quite understood this explosive connection in order to show that not only was it insufficiently understood or recognised but also carefully obfuscated by clearly interested parties ? Do I need to list all the urls to sites revealing the clear criticism of this history, mostly relevant to acts of murder we term the holocaust ? I said some time ago that historians should intervene and I am not comfortable in assuming any such mantle . I can only hope that this present move will indeed lead to a complete resolution of this dispute such that the history becomes clear and un-disputed . I cannot however accept that it is simply obfuscated -can I or can you ? Flamekeeper

No need to provide URLs. Can you state, very briefly, what facts are in dispute? Or if you prefer, can you tell me which claims on the Pius XII page are things you disagree with?

You say that these facts are "already for some time accepted on the main nazi party page". But it would take me a while to read that entire page and the entire Pius XII page and look for contradictions. It's easier if you tell me.

I'm not asking you to defend your view: just say what it is.

Thanks! Lawrence King 04:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "urban legend" for Papal involvement with the Nazis is expanded upon the Centre Party (Zentrum)page where references and facts are provided sufficient to warrant the case . Flamekeeper 21:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Relations with Mussolini

The bulk of this write up focuses on his relationship with Germany during WWII. What of Mussolini and Italian Fascists? There is only one reference to Mussolini in the article and The Vatican is, after all, surrounded by Italy. Can someone with the knowledge fill this in? --Discordian 14:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why was this page locked?

"Flamekeeper" locked this page on 13 April and said it was because of a dispute, "see the talk page".

This Talk page has had no new entries since 8 April. How are we to know which of the many disputes on the Talk page need to be resolved before the page will be unlocked?

Lawrence King 10:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it were in fact Flamekeeper who locked this page, this would appear to be a violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy, where it is written:

Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page).

Since Flamekeeper has added comments to the talk page and been involved in editing the page, he should not have locked it if it were in fact him; he should have requested that some other admin review the situation and lock the page. I would suggest calling attention to this on the talk pages of the policy article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake in Etiquette - I wish to make no mockery . I was trying to help by calling your attention to this . As I have remarked in the past , the wikipedia is at times syndicating complete falsehood which is thereby re-inforced . Everyone will be most re-assured if the administration can decide even in this one case what needs to be protected . I certainly will have caused much harm if my etiquette distracts from the essential dispute -which remains to be addressed . Flamekeeper

Why not unlock the page then - and clearly identify what portions you object to on the talk page so they can be discussed. It's been locked for 5 hours for no reason Trödel|talk 15:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is editable I just noticed that the Edit this page link was active at the top instead of the View Source of a normal protected page - looks like User:Flamekeeper is having fun - I removed the false protected notice at the top - so edit away. Trödel|talk 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of this subject is funny . I clearly labelled the dispute as being with the concordat .History and goodwill objects to all of the Concordat and to that which is a carefully crouched repair of my earlier corrections. I earnestly ask someone to protect this page in the absence of discussion and resolution . I think it was quite clear what I was trying to protect - the history and consequences of the Concordat and the Church's relationship with the Nazi party . Evidently no one else shares my indignation , which becomes a question in itself .Flamekeeper

The proper page for requesting protection is: requests for page protection. However, I don't think protection is necessary - this page does not have the type of revert war going on that usually warants protection. The controversy re Nazi Germany seems to be covered - though the language could probalby be tightened some - there is no reason to protect the page. see the protection policy for more info Trödel|talk 18:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Trödel, for your intervention here.

Flamekeeper, I think you need to be more clear in your edits. I am a fairly well educated native speaker of English, and I find your prose very hard to read. You wrote above, "I clearly labelled the dispute as being with the concordat". Sorry, but you didn't. When you added the "protected" label, all that appeared on the history page was the following text:

02:27, 13 Apr 2005 Flamekeeper (protected~~~~)

The four tildes (~~~~) appeared literally in your comment, which might indicate you didn't realize that this sign is not expanded in edit summaries.

Also, in talk pages like this one it's best to use colons (:) to indent your comments so that each user's comments line up correctly. I added colons to your comments above to make this section more readable.

Just some constructive advice, because I think your frustration is due to the fact that you think people are ignoring you, when in reality they might just find your writing difficult to read. Taking a bit more time will make it easier for all of us! Because in the end, all of us share your hope that "the history becomes clear and un-disputed".

Lawrence King 04:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes! The page is quite balanced at this point-but can we avoid another editing war? I should have reverted and I can't agree with Trodl so easily-surely you all see the requirements of the situation ? The language I use tries to communicate the maximum to those who are actively concerned . If this issue were not prohibited from discussion-if the documents were released , if it didn't lead where it lead then it wouldn't instill indignation . As it is I am re-assured by your presences which might frustrate future propagandising and I'll happily leave it to you to revert as it is required . I don't want to be the one constantly casting the stone , but the wikipedia needs to keep in step with reality and the reality is that there is a lot of indignation out there . The other reality is that the relevant bodies do not seem at all to wish to confront their 'evolution' but rather happily consider that they can revise history to suit their case . If I am historically incorrect I serve no virtuous purpose but revisionism erupts constantly . The logic of the situation following WW II is that our world is heading for a 'truth and reconciliation' scenario which will come with a future UN-type universal body . The culpability extends far from this page and into the realms of globalised capital , but the reconciliation will have to be cognisant of all the factors including this page and extend from the 1st World unto the bottom . The apparent victory of Capital as opposed to Ideology will be short-lived and the body in question here will play its part by recognising the 3rd World in its own way now . Only a 3rd world Pontiff will possesss the sufficient distance from such a severely tainted history to survive the scrutiny that will come .I humbly suggest that the new Ideology wil be simply human and incorporate all our extending bio-chemical knowledge . The economic side will however require fundamental change and such mental change will require the con-version of all beneficial social organisation into a unity .This page is vitally important for an understanding of this future . Flamekeeper

Memoria e Identidad title and relevance

This book has now been published in English as Memory and Identity. Any particular reason why it's preferred to name the book in Spanish? (Not Italian; "identity" there is identità; though I'm not sure why this has e instead of y, which is the usual Spanish for "and".) -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main relevance of the book to this article is that this use of the Enabling Act by way of an example in it shows the continuing lack of understanding of the shattering consequences of Pacelli's involvement . Separately, in the secret annexe to the Concordat, padres may perhaps include religious or monks rather than just priests -in which case it could be more accurate to stick with that term . As well as this it is a fact ( upon which Hochhuth based his play) that the Holy See invested heavily in German Industry following its settlement(by sale) of the Papal Lands outside the Vatican . It would be logical to believe that Pacelli was just partly blinded (as were so , so many other investors ) by these interests . It would be reasonable overall in fact to conclude that Pacelli mistook the size of the Devil with whom he supped and that his spoon was too short, and that he spent all his following years in greatest regret .It is undoubtedly true that the Church was desirous throughout the centuries of formal recognition by the german states .However it appears from all sides that hitherto there is no willingness to confront this Concordat ( and its dependant Holocaust) issue , but only a continuation of Cardinal Pacelli's silence . Of course infallibility when wrong and un-sustainable needs a solution that is not available within that self-same creed of infallibility . It is truly an impossible position as movement forward contradicts the teaching , and movement backward in time is unavailable . Hitherto the option has been to side-step and divert but now what  ? Lastly it is reasonable to note that there has been a change in the wikipages relevant to the Church , and it is reasonable to presume that this might follow upon the recent Vatican conference rapidly held to analyse the new media means for dissemination .That which is empowering and democratising in the wikipedia represents a great challenge and , on this page, a danger but it also provides the means for concerted action by groups . This present page is now a litmus test on several strategic levels .Flamekeeper

I understand its relevance. What I want to know is why the title is given in another language on the English language Wikipedia when the book has an official English title. If there's some technical reason to do so, by all means go ahead. Perhaps "the religious", which can mean "members of religious communities" in English, might be a more formal fit than "padres" BTW. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was the title used first by the euronews TV channel which provided a report of the contested attack by Pope John Paul II on democracy is the reason . Perhaps they had some cause or it is a confusion of tongues .Flamekeeper 21:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection

Following the repeated anon whitewashing of the complicity described within the article , page Protection has been sought .Intervening recent edits have been minor in comparison .Flamekeeper 07:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)