Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 15

About this Editing Talk page

Please keep in mind that this is called "Editing Talk" and this is not a discussion board. "X proves Y" only merits inclusion in the article if it can be verified and not merely argued. In the realm of POV: "A wrote X proves Y" in order to be presented neutrally will include "B denies X" and/or "C wrote X does not prove Y". But in all cases there needs to be a citation of the dispute and no original research. patsw 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me reiterate what Pat has stated above - 5 pages of archives in a merely a month. Is that really necessary? Str1977 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sow with piglet.jpg was followed with There are no published minutes or records of the concordat negotiations. Thus it's ok to spe spe spe spe speculate as to what hap hap hap happened behind closed doors. Porky pig ma ma ma ma maintains that Pius XII insisted on showing his stamp co co co collection to Hitler and Hitler asked that Pius officiate at a clandestine wedding between him and Eva Braun in the ca ca ca catacombs. Others speculate that pa pa pa pa Pius XII and all the signatories of the co co co concordat played rock scissors paper to determine which party got to dictate the terms of the concordat.

Image:Toilet_Trained_Cat_22_Aug_2005.jpg was followed with Suffering succotash, frankly, anything short of identifying the QpQ as a conspiracy theory is unacademic, unfair and silly as per Porky's speculations. Can you see that?

Quid pro Quo Analyzed

I think that there is little disagreement that there was a quid pro quo that the dissolution of the Centre Party was a condition for the Reichskonkordat. Does anyone disagree? (Wasn't there an article in the konkordat that implied that dissolution by regulating Church involvement in politics?) Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the content dispute really is about whether and how much to address the allegations of a tie-in between the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act. Is that the real issue remaining? Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Robert. No objections from me. (The articles "only" banned clerics from politics (§ 32), and protected Catholic organisations in the fields of religion and charity (§ 31) (and in fact restricted them to it). Str1977 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes, QpQ2 is the IMO the only thing I object to, for lack of evidence. Str1977 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I will make another distinction. The question of why the Centre Party deputies supported the Enabling Act (which is a fact) is not the same as the question of whether there was a tie-in between the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act (which can be considered speculation or an inference). Robert McClenon 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Then the question is whether Bengalski is arguing in favor of an inclusion of QpQ2, and, if so, in what form, and how much recognition should be given to the fact that it is at best a minority view? Robert McClenon 19:08, 31 January 2006

The answer is yes. Here again is the suggestion I made above:

It is widely accepted (eg. sources ...) that Pacelli agreed to the dissolution of the Centre Party, which took place on 6th July, as a quid pro quo for Germany's agreement to the concordat, although some argue (sources...) that the party was already doomed in any case. Some (eg. Paul, Mowrer?, Lewy?, Shirer, Scholder?...) further maintain that Pacelli also agreed to influence the Centre Party's support for the Enabling Act, passed on March 23rd, which gave Hitler dictatorial powers. However this claim is disputed by other historians (sources ...).

As you can see from this: 1) I think, although Str1977 says it is universally acceptable, we still need to provide at least an example reference for QPQ1. 2) I think Str1977's point that the Centre Party was praps a dead duck anyway may be worth mentioning, and that too with a source. 3) Yes I think we need to have QPQ2 there - and note, once again, I'm not asking for it to be put as a statement of fact but as an allegation from some sources. 4) If there are sources countering the allegation let's say that too. As in general, the balance between voices alleging it and those denying need to reflect NPOV. That means: yes, if it is a minority view, that can be made clear. Indeed if the sources for it can be proved to be completely spurious then yes it shouldn't be in at all.

But so far, I repeat myself again, I haven't actually had an argument as for why the sourcing we've got in so far is non-notable. And, once again, I ask that this claim be treated the same as all the others (and no, once again, we're not just talking about stamp collections but about the many significant unsourced claims on the page): we'll mark it as having a disputed source, and allow three weeks for supporters of the claim to show the source is serious, or provide more (I'll digest Shirer, and try to get hold of what Lewy and Scholder have to say), or on the other hand for its critics to show why the sourcing is unacceptable. And if we can't get any resolution by then, which I very much hope won't be the case, I guess we can ask for mediation.Bengalski 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As a reference for QpQ you can use Toland/Atkin (I have ordered the book), or Ludwig Volk (I can provide him). That the Centre party (as all other parties) were doomed is not a view held by some, but consensus of historiography.

If QpQ2 included as an allegation, we should add that there's no evidence for it. Also, the source of the allegation sprung to my mind again - it was first stated by Goebbels in 1937 to counter Mit brennender Sorge. Those with no love lost for the church later copied from that allegation and Lewy mentions the allegation but immediately states that there is no evidence. In the passage quoted by EffK, Shirer does not say anything about it. I haven't heard of Scholder. Mowrer doesn't talk about the Enabling Act or the Concordat in the quoted passage at all - he gives a third hand account of a letter send by Pius XI/Pacelli to Kaas. It doesn't confirm EffK's view (QpQ2) actually and can be interpreted differently. Though either interpretation is already Original research, as the letter (or rather the Mowrer account) hasn't been used by anyone.

But, Ben, though we disagree I applaud your calm and down-to-earth style in dealing with this. I wished I had been able to enjoy that before.

And yes, it was a glitch again, sorry about that. Str1977 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Critique of the Gregory S. Paul Article

As Bengalski referred to the article The Great Scandal by Gregory S. Paul, I want to comment to the merit of this piece of writing.

The article sets out from the claim that it were perilous to put Atheists into power via the example of the Nazis. The author then proceeds to demolish this claim by stating that the Nazis were not Atheists. Hence, the article is an apologetic essay on behalf of Atheism, distancing it from Nazism. That's a valid enterprise and I agree that Nazism was not per se atheist. However, it is neither Christian in any meaningful way and the author makes the common mistake of thinking black-and-white (mirroring his adversaries. If Nazism is not atheistic it must be Christian. To butrress this, Paul raises a couple of counter-attacks connecting Christianity or Christians with Nazism.

I concur with this criticism. Nazism was neither Christian nor atheistic. A better characterization of Nazism would be that it was Satanic. (There are forms of so-called Satanism that are more or less harmless. There are also forms of Satanism that are evil, and Nazism was one of the more evil of them.) If this is central to Paul's reasoning, then he is using a false dichotomy. Robert McClenon 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazims as a Distortion of Christian government

(Calling Nazism satanic is inaccurate. The notion of having a Christian country arose with Constantine and perhaps before. Throughout the Middle Ages, the theme of a Christian or Catholic country was prevalent and initially Nazism simply followed that view. Its goal of a "Juden-free" country was consistent with prior Christian governments, if the means to achieve that were not. Nazism was successful at ridding the country of Jews, and facing expulsion from professions, loss of civil rights, and beatings, many Jews left Germany. While they demanded a fee for leaving, the Nazi government through 1937-38 facilitated Jewish emigration.

The basic problem was that not enough Jews left, and there were still Jews in other countries. The movie Conspiracy accurately outlined the Final Solution. It would be quicker and more efficienct to apprehend and kill the Jews than attempt the cumbersome process of inducing them to leave. Hundreds of Jews could be killed in a day, with efficiency that drarfed until emigration process.

The process was aided by Catholics like Pius who had initially supported the Nazi regime and indicated that Nazism and Catholicsm were not inconsistent doctrines. One could and many Catholics were Nazis. Concentration camps generally bore crosses, Christmas was celebrated, and those who arranged the apprehension and killing generally went to Mass on Sunday and celebrated their Christian traditions.

Nazism can be regarded as the notion of a Christian society gone awry. The roots of having a Juden-free society lie with Constantine, the Crusades, and others. (hopey5000).

I'd concur with Robert's observation that Nazism was satanic, but this is a theological interpretation and, for Wiki purposes, POV (and I know, Rob, you weren't suggesting including it). The trouble with many atheist analyses is (no disrespect to atheists intended) that it is mostly atheism vs. religion. Religion is discussed as a block, without drawing distinction between different religions. In Paul's case it is all about Atheism (which he is defending against unfounded criticism) and Christianity (which he attacks instead). Paul frequently describes that a Nazi had religious views and then goes on to attack Christianity for it. Also, he takes the stand that anything which calls itself Christian is also Christian. (An approach I have unfortunately encountered recently). "While one has to be careful not to be too narrow, one also shouldn't slide into the faceless." (Guess who said that!)

Hitler and other Nazis were not atheists, but they neither were Christian - they held to their own religions (there was no unanimity) taken elements from here and there. Str1977 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche? Someone with a moustache? And what was that recent encounter?--shtove 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't Nietzsche and I never seen the person in question with a moustache. Hint: he has something in common with the protagonist of this article.

The recent encounter is a dispute here on Wikipedia, with another editor, involving several articles involving Christianity. Str1977 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying EffK doesn't have a moustache! The mystery quote is by a man. Using metaphor. Trying for balance. Reflecting generally. Having something in common with Pius XII. Data processing.....: another Pope? Italian Pope? Spice up the clues.--shtove 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't EffK (whether with or wihout a moustache). Yes, it was another Pope, but not an Italian Pope. Str1977 08:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, critiquing Gregory Paul, writes: The article sets out from the claim that it were perilous to put Atheists into power via the example of the Nazis. Anyway (and this is tangential to article content), that is the wrong argument about whether to put atheists in power. Unlike Nazis, communists are (at least nominally) atheists, and the abuses and human rights violations of communist governments are also notorious. Stalin was not Hitler, but both Stalin and Hitler were evil. Beware of false dichotomies. It would appear that the Gregory S. Paul article is a false dichotomy. Hitler came to power via a false dichotomy. That is not tangential to article content. Robert McClenon 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Robert, not tangential to our article content. However, it was central to Paul's thesis and I wanted to give a full portrait of the article and what it was actually about, namely Atheist apologetics. There's nothing wrong with that, unlike EffK I don't think apologetics a crime, but it's not what our article is about. Str1977 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Downright false statements include:

• "Vatican I stridently condemned modernism, democracy, capitalism, usury, and Marxism. Anti-Semitism was also part of the mix"

Vatican I did nothing of the sort, it defined Papal infallibility and Papal primacy of jurisdiction. The syllabus against modernism was an appendix to an encyclical a few years earlier. Anti-Semitism has not been demonstrated to be part of the mix.

• "Nazi-era constitution explicitly evoked God."

This is a very strange statment, denoting Paul's absolute ignorance of the Nazi state. Otherwise he would have known that such a thing as a Nazi-era constitution did not exist.

• "their ideology was conservative"

Nazis were politically allied to conservatives, but their movement wasn't conservative. But conservatives found out too late.

• "Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy."

If we count as anti-democratic the Nazis and the Communists, that leaves us with more than 50% since July 1932. Hardly two-thirds.

• "German society was so thoroughly divided into opposing Protestant and Catholic blocs."

And what about those neither strictly Protestant nor Catholic. What about voters of SPD or KPD?

• "Catholic Zentrum party had antagonized the Vatican during the 1920s"

This overstates a disagreement, but such a disagreement was nothing new in the Centre's history.

• The Centre was "forming governing coalitions with the secularized, moderate Left-oriented Social Democrats. This changed in 1928, when the priest Ludwig Kaas became the first cleric to head the party."

On the contrary, the Centre had been in coalition with the SPD before 1921, in 1923, and from 1928-1930. Kaas was one of the architects of this Grand Coalition.

• "The devoutly Catholic chancellor Franz von Papen"

is already misleading as a reader without any further knowledge will assume that Papen was a member of and supported by the Centre, when in fact he became Chancellor against his party's will and left it. But the follwing is again downright false:

• "Papen ... formed a Zentrum-Nazi coalition"

Papen couldn't do that because he belonged to neither party. In fact, there were Centre-Nazi talks but these were aimed at ousting Papen

• "Nazi anthem “Horst Wessel”—which was set, by the way, to the traditional hymn “How Great Thou Art.”"

Horst Wessel composed his song, stealing from an anthem used by a rival Communist group. What he didn't know is that the Communist composer had himself stolen it from a operetta, ironically composed by a Jew. Neither tune has any similarity with "How great thou art".

Other misleading statements:

• "Hitler’s public speeches were recorded reliably, but were often propagandistic. His private statements seem more likely to reflect his actual views,"

Paul goes on to heavily use Hitler's public statements to prove his Christianity.

• the Christian childhood of Nazi leaders cannot be used to connect Nazism and Christianity, when very often the same people turned against their childhood, as Hitler, Himmler, Höß and Goebbels did.
• "instructed Speer to include churches in his beloved plans for a rebuilt Berlin".

Maybe, but does that tell us what should happen in these churches. At best it tells us that Hitler wasn't an atheist, but we knew that.

• "On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have ... undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, ..."

And the atheistic movement in question is Marxism, "godless Bolshevism". Again this at best only proves that Hitler was no atheist.

• "German bishops released a statement that wiped out past criticism of Nazism by proclaiming the new regime acceptable"

That is both true and false. German bishop issue a statement, calling for cooperation of Catholics with the new government while explicitely reiterating past criticism.

• "In a flagrant conflict of interest, the devout Papen helped to represent the German state"

Misleading as Papen was German vice-Chancellor, as such the fourth man in the German state. Notice that Papen is constantly described as "devout".

• "Concordat negotiations were largely held in Rome, so that Kaas could leave ..."

No, they were held in Rome because that is where the Pope resides. Kaas' leaving his party behind was the consequence of the concordat talks and not its reason.

• "Post-Concordat voting patterns suggest that Catholics, on average, even outdid Protestants in supporting the regime"

Misleading, as there were no real elections after the signing of the concordat, only yes-no votes and plebiscites on specific questions, often a combination of the two.

• The concordat "bound all devout German Catholics to the state ... Catholics had no open legal right to oppose it or its policies."

I find it hard to believe that Paul is serious here. Catholics had no legal right to oppose the regime, with or without the Concordat. The government was the government. He is falsely suggesting that they had such a right and that the Pope took it away from them.

• "The modest protections it provided. But those provisions were never needed."

May Mr Paul tell us how he knows that these were never needed. Is he infallibly aware of all possible developments?

• "The state purged a far higher proportion of atheists than traditional Christians."

Misleading, as it assumes that only these two exist.

• "the nominally Catholic Hitler had not the slightest desire to slaughter masses of the very Aryan people to whom he belonged, and whom he wanted to elevate to supreme power ... ideological and racial suicide"

But it is nonetheless what Hitler aimed at during his last days.

• "Oriented toward family values as they were, the Nazis could not decide how to handle these Jews without violating the sanctity of marriage."

The Nazis did not believe in the sanctity of marriage and certainly were not conflcited about this. Interracial marriage/sex was considered "Rassenschande" and a crime by them and any hesitation to exterminating Jews living in mixed marriages was only of a tactical and temporary nature.

I don't think we give any historical merit to an article that contains so many downright erroneous or misleading statements. But the piece doesn't claim to be historical scholarship, it is an apologetic essay aimed at distancing Atheism and Nazism, hence it repeatedly argues that Hitler and the Nazis were no atheists. Note however that counter-arguments are immediately contradicted by other, though often not very valid, points. Paul never puts his own argument under such scrutiny.

Be that as it may - the relevant question here is: How does this article relate to our issue? Does Paul support QpQ2? There is one sentence referring to this:

Now Zentrum’s pivotal role in assuring passage of the Enabling Act can be seen in context.

That's all Paul has to say on this and even that is only presented as a possibility

Summing up, I think at least in regard to our issue of QpQ2 we don't need to trouble ourselved with the question of whether Paul is a valid source (though IMHO the above list answers that question decidedly), since he doesn't say anything substantial at all on our issue.

I am not surprised, since EffK, who dug up this piece, has done this before time and again. Str1977 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Critique

I am inclined to say that I find Str1977's analysis to be persuasive. I would conclude that the Paul article is neither a credible work of historiography nor a solid source for an allegation of QpQ2. Unless Bengalski disputes Str1977's analysis, then I would delete all of the sourcings for QpQ2, and leave it as an unsourced allegation, to be left up for about three weeks. Also, as long as the unsourced allegation of QpQ2 is left in the article, I would delete the NPOV banner, while leaving the sourcing banners. Robert McClenon 18:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I really hope whoever Str1977 is that he/she is etremely unbiased, can back up his facts, and is nearly perfect in his facts and opinions. If he isn't a lot of poor ppl are going to believe misguided stuff, because he is one heck of a persuader. So whoever you are watch what you say VERY carefully!!!! Emma —This unsigned comment was added by 83.55.183.49 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 March 2006.

Who Is Gregory S. Paul?

Who is Gregory S. Paul exactly? I guess he's not the paleontologist; Is he an academic or journalist? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he almost certainly is the paleontologist. Both his Wikipedia biography and other sources state that the paleontologist Gregory S. Paul also published a paper that argued that organized religion was negatively correlated with social well-being. Other sources note that this paper was harshly criticized as deficient in both sociology and statistical analysis. The paleontologist Gregory S. Paul is a regular contributor to Free Inquiry on the subject of evolution (as a critic of so-called creation science), an area where he is academically qualified. Either the author of this paper is the same paleontologist, or there are two Gregory Pauls, both of whom contribute to the same magazine and have the same hostile stance toward Christianity. The second explanation may be true, but multiplies entities unnecessarily. Robert McClenon 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; That was all a big waste of time for everyone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we now delete GS Paul from the sources? Str1977 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I did, unless I missed one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a post in "an electic Christian blog" criticizing the anti-religion paper that says that "The Great Scandal" was by the same Gregory S. Paul. Robert McClenon 18:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Checking a source published in a humanist publication is a waste of time. As Trotsky said to Stalin - 'I was wrong, you were right, I should apologise.' But now in that paragraph we have left in claims sourced to a Mr. Rychlak - again not a historian, but a law professor published by a partisan Catholic press (as opposed to a palaeontologist published by atheists.) And Fr. Leiber, not just a Catholic priest but the pope's own confessor/secretary - a neutral observer if ever there was one. But of course there are those unnamed 'trustworthy sources'. Am I really the only person here who sees double standards being applied?Bengalski 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I am sure that you not the only one who sees a double standard. I am sure that EffK also does, but I do not, and I will disregard his views. However, I do not understand the "double standard", but would be interested in hearing an explanation. I did check the source. Any claim that I thought that checking a source in an allegedly "humanist" publication was a waste of time is just plain incorrect. (It is an anti-religious publication, not necessarily atheist, but anti-religious. Erasmus, the great humanist, who was a Catholic, would not have recognized it.) The publication did not provide biographical information about the author, although I spent a long time looking for it. I made no references to 'trustworthy sources'. Are there any specific claims that you want deleted because they are made by untrustworthy sources? If so, please identify them rather than just flaming about bias. I do not consider Gregory S. Paul to be a source who is qualified on the subject matter. Are there other sources whom you consider unqualified? If so, can you identify them? Maybe we can excise them. Robert McClenon 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Post by EffK

Don't worry EffK, it takes more than a couple of cartoon animals to keep me from the truth. I once had my head bit off by a giant cat and I'm back. Have you got, or if you posted them before could you point me to, the full quotes from Shirer though.Bengalski 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a black cat.Bengalski 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Can Bengalski please post the EffK remark (with heavy editing) that provoked the pussy picture? In Irish idiom, EffK is almost a rude anagram.--shtove 22:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK's comment was deleted by Robert McClenon who alleged personal abuse. I think it was my comment that provoked anonymous 70... to post his pussy, but I can't be sure. Bengalski 00:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I can repost his comments, but at this time, it would be rude to do so unless I was asked politely. Bengalski's cat is probably a rogue cat, but is also a wise cat. I suggest looking in the article talk page history. Robert McClenon 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The cat is not the cat depicted in the image. Bengalski says that the cat was black. The cat in the picture is gray and white. Robert McClenon 04:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Very productive guys!!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 83.55.183.49 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 March 2006.

NPOV

Since the QpQ2 claim is still in the article, I have removed the NPOV tag. I have left the other tags in the article. I see no need for the NPOV tag as long as all points of view, such as QpQ2, are mentioned with an opportunity for sources. Robert McClenon 12:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing it. You asked me above what I thought needed to be done to move this article towards NPOV, and I gave you eight points. We haven't even finished with one of them yet.Bengalski 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski's Eight Points

Copying them from the archive, they are: Some things I think need to be done to move towards NPOV:

1. The 'QPQ' passage needs to be in. I do not see the problem with Gregory Paul as a source, and I would like to see specific argument as to why he is not acceptable. Perhaps it would make sense to have a general discussion here about what we see as requirements for admissibility as a source. As this point is so hotly contested I will try and find other sources as well. But I ask again that people let the paragraph remain while we work on it, as it has better sourcing than much of the rest of the article.
2. The Pavelic para needs to be in. Vatican support for the murderous regime in Croatia is highly controversial and should not be whitewashed.
3. The childhood stuff is completely over the top - do people really think it is encyclopedic to have so much gushing praise of his canoeing skills, memory, stamp collection etc.? If I went overboard requesting sources I think it was because this part was rather overboard on unsourced praise. If all these points come from one reliable book then that would take out all the citation requests. But it would still leave a lot of guff in the article. If you're going to have so much praise shouldn't we mention some of his childhood failings? Do we really believe he didn't have a single one?
4. I am not denying that Pius was involved in saving jews, or that he has been praised by many for this. But there needs to be some balancing. For example the claim that he was personally responsible for saving 800,000 lives is really over the top, and not substantiated. Okay perhaps putting in the point that the church also saved Nazis is not the best way to do this. It would be better if we could use the talk page to work out a balanced position.
5. In fact there are claims that Pius was directly involved in a policy of sheltering war criminals - notably in Unholy Trinity (Aarons and Loftus) and in the latest edition of The Real Odessa (Uki Goñi). I will write something on this for the article.
6. Pius' critics link his alleged failings in relation to fascist regimes to his anti-communism. We should have something on this.
7. Perhaps if we can work out a balanced version of the holocaust debate w

e can actually cut down this section of the article - I agree with people who have complained that it is given too much prominence in a page that is about the man's whole life not just this period. A POV war involves escalation of claims on either side like an arms race, a touch of bilateral disarmament wouldn't be amiss.

1. Most of all I think we need a POV dispute tag so long as any critical material is simply going to be deleted out of hand.Bengalski 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is Gregory S. Paul?

Maybe I'm missing something, but again, who is Gregory S. Paul? Unless there is more to him than an article on a website, I do not see how he is in any sense a legitimate historical source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I do not think that you (Tom Harrison) are missing something. As I mentioned above, I think that Str1977's analysis discrediting the article is on the mark. It was EffK who was citing him as a source. I would suggest deleting both the Mowrer and the Paul footnotes as sources for QpQ2 and leave it as an unsourced allegation, to e deleted later. Robert McClenon 17:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He is evidently a paleontologist who is also the author of anti-religious papers. Robert McClenon 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Childhood Stuff

What does Bengalski propose doing about the childhood stuff? I proposed summarizing it in one paragraph and moving the longer text into a sub-article, but I thought that there was disagreement. Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think try and re-write it in a style that isn't pure hagiography 'he was wonderful at this', 'he was the best at that' etc. I'll have a go at that if you like. On the other hand there may be an inherent problem that the only biographies that deal with his childhood are written by hagiographers like Sr. Marchione, in which case it may be impossible to give a NPOV account of his early years.Bengalski 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at articles on other modern popes, the paragraph on "early life" is often limited to when and where he was born, who his parents were, and when he began his study for the priesthood. There is nothing remarkable about the childhood and youth of Eugenio Pacelli. One would expect that a young man who later became Pope would have been studious, serious, and of good moral character. I suggest that it be shortened to the more typical one paragraph, and a mention made of the Sr. Marchione biography/hagiography. Robert McClenon 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest cutting the boyhood stuff down to:

Pacelli, who was of noble birth, was a grandson of Marcantonio Pacelli, founder of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, a nephew of Ernesto Pacelli, a key financial advisor to Pope Leo XII, and a son of Filippo Pacelli, dean of the Vatican lawyers. His brother, Francesco Pacelli, became a highly regarded attorney, and was created a marchese by Pius XII. His devoted biographer Sister Margherita Marchione^[1] has provided a lengthy and flattering account of his boyhood and teenage years.

In 1894, at the age of 18, he entered the Capranica Seminary to begin study for the priesthood and enrolled at the Gregorian University. He was ordained a priest on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899 by Bishop Francesco Paolo Cassetta.

From 1904 until 1916, Fr. Pacelli assisted Cardinal Gasparri in his codification of canon law. Pope Benedict XV appointed Fr. Pacelli as Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria in April 1917, and on May 13 1917, Benedict consecrated him as a bishop. This was the very day of the first appearance of the Virgin Mary (to whom Pacelli had a special devotion) to th ree peasant children at Fatima, Portugal. Robert McClenon 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I have abridged the boyhood stuff as I had discussed. Robert McClenon 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(Image of alligator removed. It came with the comment)Why bother having anything about his childhood (other than maybe the fact that he was actually born)? What are you trying to make Wikipedia into? A resource for inquiring minds? A clearing house for information? Fooey! The article should be a whipping post for this anti-semitic devil who only harbored thousands of Jews in the Vatican so he could get free Matzah ball soup and discover what makes dreidels spin so fast. Let's get real on the history here folks and stop glorifying this monster by talking about his philatelic proclivities!]]

Point 8

No. We do not need a POV dispute tag because critical material is deleted out of hand. We need to ensure that critical material is not deleted unless it is found to be unverifiable. Robert McClenon 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right about this - anyway, 70... seems to have shifted his focus to animal pics for now. But I maintain we need the NPOV tag until there is a reasonable consensus that the article is NPOV on all 8 points (and any other relevant ones). I am still disputing this at the moment (though I hope we will make progress over the next few weeks), therefore there is still a POV dispute.Bengalski 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The most recent of the animal pics was not posted by 70 but by Bengalski and is a different sort of humor. Robert McClenon 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted no animal pics.Bengalski 18:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Did 70 also post the cat? That explains your comment that a black cat should be substituted? Robert McClenon 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

four power pact

I'm guessing the article on Four-Power_Pact is wrong about the signatories. Perhaps someone who knows for certain (Str1977?) could change it.Bengalski 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the four powers restated their commitments to the League of Nations, then they would not have included the United States, which had declined to join the League. However, does this have anything to do with Eugenio Pacelli, who was negotiating the Reichskonkordat at the same time? (Those two treaties were, interestingly, signed in the same city but different countries.) Robert McClenon 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Only in that it is linked to from this page, which is how I found the error (I think it should read Germany and Italy instead of US and Japan) - there is a point being made in the reichskonkordat section that the concordat was not the first treaty to recognise Hitler's dictatorship, as the 4PP had already been signed.Bengalski 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I will look into the matter. This was included a long time ago and I think the reason was to give perspective to the criticism of the Concordat, especially in light of the often repeated claim that the Concordat was Hitler's first international treaty. Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben was guessing right: the four powers are the UK, France, Germany and Italy (it was Mussolini who suggested such a treaty). Str1977 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have dug deeper and found that the original version of that article was correct, until some anon changed it [2] - why can never be known as it was that IPs only edit. Str1977 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: Vandalism. He did it on purpose, to be malicious. I am not a psychiatrist and do not know why. Robert McClenon 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust section

I'm going to try to clean this up and find some more scholarly sources for this. When I first read this, the opening sentence came from sttppr.blogspot.com. In case you are wondeirng, that stands for Society that thinks Pope Pius rules. That sentence had the intended effect of making it seem like no one would ever have questioned Pius's actions had it not been for some "communist newspaper". I'll note more gems here on the talk page as I find them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove a lot of what was a lengthy section. It mostly consisted of original analysis arguing that critics of Pius came out too late and that had he spoken out against the Holocaust there would have been a backlash. This type of essay is non-encyclopedic. For all the noise in the old section, there were very few facts about what Pius actually did during the Holocaust and it was impossible to glean even what the argument was made by Cromwell which the author of that section was arguing against so rabidly. I proposed the following. The facts about what he did. The public perceptions of his performance. And the charges and (within reason) rebuttals made by mainstream historians. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the current WWII section. Unknown to me, several apologists have created a POV fork section later in the article which I merged (rather than deleting) in case it contains any useful information. I'll work to reduce the repetition immediately. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sectioning

Another issue: The relation of some sections to one another is a bit blurry. We have the "Secretary of state", then at the same level the "concordat" and again at the same level "relations to Nazi Germany before the war" - but these all happened under Pacelli as secretary and the concordat is part of these relations. A similar issue exists with "Becoming pope" (which I intend to expand a bit) and "World War II". Any thoughts for improvement? Str1977 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Reichskonkordat

Paul S. Gregory notes that the Catholic Church frequently entered into concordats with nefarious nations. Depicted here is Pope Duplicitous XII entering into a concordat with the nation of Hell, represented by Satan himself in the year 1313. If one looks closely, one can read the words of the concordat which assured the Church the right to persecute Jews on even numbered days of the month. On the balcony in the background, Hitler's paternal ancestor looks on approvingly.

Unrelated comment

I think this is the most horrid looking article and talk page I've yet seen on Wikipedia. It's a mesh of uncited statements while the talk page is a bunch of unrelated barnyard imagery. What's going on here?--T. Anthony 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the barnyard stuff is User:149.150.236.125 whoever that is.--T. Anthony 13:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The animals were a form of protest/humour by the IP user (70.../149...) against my inserting some material critical of Pius XII into the article. Above you can see the 8 points I gave as my concerns about the POV nature of the article. I will do some more work in the next few days on some of these. There are a lot of uncited statements in the article - which I think is particularly unacceptable for an article that has been this controversial. I think we kind of agreed that we would give a few weeks for people to find citations for them, otherwise just remove anything still unsourced. You could help with this if you like.Bengalski 13:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to be less active, see my talk page, but maybe. I did support whatever banning, or whatever it was, happened to EffK though so you might not want me on this. (Although an important part of my issue with him was that I couldn't understand his writing so maybe I'd be okay by you)--T. Anthony 13:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski - You should not make deletions from this article for failure to make citations. If such deletions were massively made from wiki, 99.99% of Wiki would be gone. The article is appropriately tagged with the "Primarysources" tag. Deletions for failure to make citations makes sense when the great majority of an article has citations, and the remaining statements without citations are doubtable - not when an admittedly biased editor like yourself "does not like content". As for myself, I am a recent unbiased "watcher" on the article, as I noticed the article attracts controversy. I know virtually nothing about Pius XII. As a neutral observer, I will readd whatever a biased editor like yourself deletes, allowing the article to mature with citations, just as every other wiki article. pat8722 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think in fact it was someone else's suggestion that unsourced comments be deleted after a period of time. If you look at the edit history of my brief involvement you'll find my contributions have been deleted rather more than I've deleted anyone else's, and I have never deleted anything because I 'disliked content'. What I have done is put in tags calling for sources. If you are really as 'unbiased' as you claim (and I think if wikipedia was edited only by people without any prior views in any direction then 99.99% of editors would be gone), please make sure to keep your watchful eye on all participants.Bengalski 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was so impressed at having met a genuinely unbiased person I had a quick look at your talk page and contributions, and I guess your comment about being neutral was meant as a joke. Look, there's nothing wrong with having a POV on wiipedia. The point is to try and stand aside from it when editing. No one is perfect, but I genuinely think this is something I try hard to do. I tend to think being open about your POV is an important part of collaborating with good faith.Bengalski 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I put some sources for a few things, I'm not sure how valid they all are. However the thing Pius XI said about "in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites", that seems pretty well documented. That newspaper the Moonies, err Unification Church it's early in the day for me, run even mentioned it.--T. Anthony 15:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I found another source for that speech which gives an original reference to the NYTimes, and moved it into footnotes - left your source in as well though. I changed the wording slightly in the para which I think makes it clearer where this was from.Bengalski 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing or shrinking '70's comments

As long as we are entertaining conspiracy theories and giving platforms to diatribe in the main article, there is no legitimate reason why '70's comments, albeit not wholly orthodox, should be censored, dimished or removed. That is not permissable to do on a talk page if the comments are not in bad faith. '70's comments are his/her letigimate commentary on what is going on and do in fact add to the discussion. There is no rule against the rule of some imagery conjoining to comments. In fact, the pictures make the talk page a little easier to navigate and remember where particular discussions occured (kind of like sign posts or landmarks). I will shrink them by half though aware that they may be a bit too large. Thanks!

Reply to Unrelated Comment

The article has been the subject of content disputes for nearly a year, mostly concerned with trying to provide balance between positive and critical views of Pope Pius XII. Bengalski is one of the editors who thinks that the article is biased toward Pope Pius XII. Bengalski inserted the source tags for numerous unsourced statements. I acknowledge that it makes the article ugly for the time, but it is part of an effort to improve an article that has been the subject of disputes. It is my opinion that serious work on the article was excessively difficult until EffK was banned because he was disrupting talk pages to the point where discussion of the article was impossible. He (EffK) insisted that he was the subject of censorship because of his content views, but what he was banned for was misuse of article talk pages, vitriolic personal attacks, and general disruption of the encyclopedia. As Bengalski mentioned, the animal cartoons were a form of sarcastic humor.

The reason there is a discussion of deleting unsourced information is that there are questions about whether the statements are verifiable. The objective is to allow scholarly opinions to be presented as scholarly POV while deleting questionable statements of fact or opinions that have no scholarly basis (in which case they are original research).

Thank you for your interest in this article. Robert McClenon 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Gator Image

The gator image is not copyrighted. In fact, the creator of the image stated, "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." As for the comments that were deleted, it is not up to anyone to unilaterally decide that a contributor's commetns are "irrelevant." Comments should remain as a matter of record. Kindly leave an individual's comments in place.

Perhaps you're unaware of this, but it's just not standard practice to have a series of unrelated animal pictures on a talk page. I requested an image of ET in a Santa suit be removed from Talk:Xenu and I don't even like Scientology. This isn't to be your personal joke space.--T. Anthony 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If it continues, administrator intervention should be sought. Perhaps it should be sought anyway, since it seems that the anon has violated 3RR. But perhaps he wasn't made aware of the rules. Anon, if you're reading this, could you have a look at WP:3RR. Thanks

I did request administrator intervention a few hours ago. Since 3RR blocks are only used for ongoing revert wars, at this point if the image is not reverted again, the anon will probably only be warned rather than blocked. Anyway, the anon misread one of my edit summaries. I never said that the exorcism had been performed by Pope John Paul II. It was performed by Pope John Paul I, who was a sick man, but knew that a bishop had to do what a bishop had to do, and it further weakened him. Robert McClenon 02:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people say...

I was driving to work the other morning when one of those stupid ads came on the radio for the "See Clearly" snake oil method of improving your eyesight "naturally" (no eye glasses, no surgery, nothing but this snake oil method of improving one's vision). Then the voice-over said, "some say wearing eye glasses worsens your eye sight and makes you more dependent on glasses...try the "See Clearly" method instead." Anyway, that's when I thought of the illogic of this board insisting that if someone (Paul Gregory) says something, it has a right to be in this article. Because "someone said". (UNSIGNED)

The voice of reason! Oliver Keenan 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress

Several suggestions have been made (to me, by email) about progress on this article. One was to revert the article to its state before EffK began editing. I disagree. Another was to revert the article to its state in August 2005 when the current round of edit wars began. I disagree. Another suggestion was to scrap the article and start over. I disagree. I do however agree with a suggestion that the criticisms and defense of Pope Pius XII should be summarized in one paragraph in this article, but moved into a sub-article. Robert McClenon 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is Klaus Scholder?

At last I've had a chance to do some more serious reading on this. I now know that EffK's 'strong' quid pro quo - relating the concordat to the enabling act, not just the self-dissolution of the Centre party - is supportd by at least some heavyweight historians. The source given by both Cornwell and our friend Gregory (no more animals please) is the late Professor Klaus Scholder of Tubingen University, in his 'The Churches and the Third Reich', vol 1, who basically devotes a whole chapter to arguing this. From what I can see, he seems to be recognised even by his critics (and I note he was a protestant) as an important authority on this area.

Scholder himself points to earlier historical work on this: "the argument for a connection between the Reich concordat and the EA was stated and substantiated in detail for the first time by Karl Dietrich Bracher" but unfortunately I can't read Bracher as he has not been translated from German. (For those who can teh reference is 'Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung und Reichskonkordat.' in F. Gese and F.A.von de Heydte (eds.) 'Der Konkordatsprozess', Munich nd 1957-59 pp. 947-1021).

If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." (p248)

People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bengalski, when doing your reading please be careful whether someone argues a connection between Concordat and EA in Kaas' mind (though we cannot know for certain I think that thought at least passed his mind once or twice) or whether the Holy See/Pacelli is involved. EffK made it easy for him (and hard for us) as he simply declared Kaas to be Pacelli's tool (but he anyway thought Catholics to be Romote-controlled robots), but that is not how we should work. Thanks for your effort. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Scholder is with EffK on this - he is clear that both Pacelli and P11 were involved, with Kaas the 'key go-between' in the negotiations (in the English translation anyway). Also his sources say much more than that it just passed through Kaas' mind - they are saying this was specifically part of the bargaining. But I suggest you read the Scholder (I think you said you didn't know it, but from what I found it is fairly easy to get hold of in academic libraries) and we can discuss the details after if you like.Bengalski 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not having received any further reply to this I have rewritten the reichskonkordat section to reflect the information I got from Scholder and other sources. Please no one remove anything without discussing - everything I have put in is properly sourced.Bengalski 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, Ben, understand that I have to read Scholder be´fore I can comment on him (I have started). Right now I can only say that your edit removed other valid info, and gives quite too much room to Scholder (and him alone) - the article should state the general lines, with all sides in case of controversy, with dipping into too much detail. Also, before the controversy the facts should be stated first. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Style box

Following discussions on John Paul II and Benedict XVI surely the style box should not appear here?

Suggestion - as it will apply to other Popes - a "style box" for those (whether or not Popes) moving through the process of saint maiking - eg "date made venerable, by whom, on what grounds, date made saint ditto etc"?

Jackiespeel 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the style box regarding honorifics, that was a consensus decision taken after a long debate to use them throughout Wikipedia in all royal, papal and other articles. Doing it that way stopped endless edit warring over whether to include honorifics in the text of articles. Previous policy had started articles with His Holiness Pope Pius XII . . . " "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" etc. As it is an agreed policy adopted practically unanimously its inclusion is automatic and is treated as such. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are we with sourcing?

It's a bit disheartening to spend time tracking down sources and putting in info referenced down to the page number, then the next anonymous editor comes in and inserts completely unsourced stuff (where are these 860,000 trees exactly? has anyone ever seen them? even the catholic websites I googled only said that some (unnamed) letter writers in the Israeli press had suggested planting trees ... not that Golda actually done it), and even in moving text deletes tags calling for sources. I have reverted these latest edits - though in fact amalgamating the concordat details into the relevant section is right, it needs to be done so as not to duplicate info already there, and with some thought to the structure of the whole section.

More seriously, little progress has been been made on all the unsourced claims in the page. I'll try and do some more work editing the page soon - but if there are claims that I'm not sure about and I can't find any reputable source googling what do I do? I'm not keen to delete anything without full debate, but there comes a point where we have to do something to clean up the page and hopefully move towards removing the sourcing tags.Bengalski 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above in the "Unrelated Comment" section, "Bengalski - You should not make deletions from this article for failure to make citations. If such deletions were massively made from wiki, 99.99% of Wiki would be gone. The article is appropriately tagged with the "Primarysources" tag. Deletions for failure to make citations makes sense when the great majority of an article has citations, and the remaining statements without citations are dubious - not when an admittedly biased editor like yourself "does not like content". As for myself, I am a recent unbiased "watcher" on the article, as I noticed the article attracts controversy. I know virtually nothing about Pius XII. As a neutral observer, I will readd whatever a biased editor like yourself deletes, allowing the article to mature with citations, just as every other wiki article." pat8722 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we then leave in a patently nonsensical insertion like Golda Meir planted 860,000 trees in memory of the number of jews saved by Pius indefinitely in the hope that someone will find a reputable source for it one day? There is a point where a claim that's disputed, and has no decent source, has to go. I believe it is right to give unsourced claims a certain amount of benefit of the doubt - unlike other editors (none of whom have been chastised by our 'neutral' observer Pat), I have not made a habit of deleting unverified claims I disagree with, but of leaving plenty of time for people to come up with verification. But this can't go on indefinitely. How much time was EffK given to find accepted sources for his quid pro quo claims before they got wiped? Weeks or hours?Bengalski 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No we should not leave appearently nonsenscial insertions in. But we should not rush into removing uncontroversial stuff. As for EffK's sourcing - he was given months to provide sources (which he did, but none confirm the specific claims he made) or to even explain his point. I did understand him, as I entered in with him quite early, but Robert had his problems. I can't speak for others but please don't read into someone addressing you - you might just happen to be the most current representative of an approach (right or wrongly) criticized. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 wrote: "I did understand him, as I entered in with him quite early, but Robert had his problems." I don't entirely understand. My issues were not so much with his sourcing as such, but his belief that providing a scholarly source allowed him to state that source's POV as fact. That is, instead of saying "Cornwell said that Pius XII was anti-Semitic", EffK would say, "Pius XII was anti-Semitic (Cornwell)".

Splitting the article

I will again suggest that criticisms and defenses of Pope Pius XII should perhaps be split into a sub-article with a one-paragraph summary. This is not a POV fork or content fork, but simply a matter of providing a biography that focuses on his career as a Cardinal and as a Pope, and is primarily factual. Some people really just want to know the facts of his life, rather than the arguments. Robert McClenon 23:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for my inaction on this. I suggested that the main article contain a typical biographical set of facts not subject to dispute and an article with a title like Evaluation of Pope Pius XII be created which organizes the items of his biography that are disuputed and the historical criticism. Robert, subpages or subarticles are no longer permitted in the main namespace.

I suggest that before we proceed we have a process involving both his advocates and his critics on the name and structure of the evaluation article. patsw 03:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to wait. I used terminology incorrectly. I was not proposing a subpage that would be named as a subpage, but an article that was linked from another article. Robert McClenon 15:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that controversy over Pius' actions in a number of respects is substantial, and needs to be addressed in the main article. He was not just a churchman but a head of state and major political figure in a very complex political environment, so naturally there will be controversy. You couldn't have an article on Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt or any other major figure of the period with just facts of their careers, and Pius falls into the same category. On the other hand there is certainly duplication and bulk in the article that should be moved - for example the massive section of quotes is pretty unusual for a biographical article - in fact there's a wikiquote resource just for that kind of thing.

I think the priority is to get substance dealt with before form - again, we should get the citation issues sorted ... And is there still a dispute about the quid pro quo? I haven't had much feedback on what I put in from Scholder considering those points were being called conspiratorial nonsense here before. Any thoughts?Bengalski 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I've renamed the archives, as each one should have exactly the same address as the page that it's an archive of, plus /Archive01 (or something like that) at the end. When they're done like that, each archive has an automatic link back to the main talk page at the top. I've also made two new red links for the next two archives. AnnH ♫ 11:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Miracle of the sun

I don't know much about this but the miracle of the sun Pius saw in 1950 - was this the same miracle as the one in 1917? Currently the link directs to the page on fatima which calls it 'an event of 1917'. Do we need to explain the difference here/expand on the 'miracle of the sun' page to show it was also an event of 1950 or what? How does it work - was it the very same event only seen by different people at different times (miracles are atemporal?), two examples of the same type of miracle...?Bengalski 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben, I have never heard of any miracle of the sun in regard to Pius, only about the one at Fatima, which is only an indirect connection to him. He certainly wasn't a witness. Hence, I guess we can safely remove it. PS. Miracles are not "atemporal", quite the contrary. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Str - I have heard elsewhere though that Pius claimed to see this - I'm afraid it was in Cornwell. Bengalski 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been over at the "Miracle of the Sun" article that was linked and that someone else (a Cardinal) said that Pius saw it. If so, it was a differen, albeit similar, miracle. I don't know how noteworthy this really is. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-added "Pope Pius XII is reported to have witnessed the "Miracle of the Sun" from the Vatican gardens on the day he made the pronouncement.<ref-footnote>Joseph Pelletier "The Sun Danced at Fatima", Doubleday, New York (1983),pp150,151</ref>". This is a fully documented addition to the article. That Pope Pius is reported to have miraculously witnessed through time one of the most, if not the most, stupendous and undeniable miracles of all time (70,000 witnesses consisting of both believers and non-believers, hundreds of whom gave formal testimony, none of whom is known to have denied the event), certainly belongs in an article about this man. There are no reports that I know of anyone else having witnessed a miracle through time, which would be a miracle of notable importance all by itself. pat8722 01:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote

From [[WP:NOT}}: "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Should the quote section be moved to wikiquote with a link from the page? I've seen this approach on other pages.Bengalski 12:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between "lists of quotations" and "using quotations in an article". Nothing in the wiki rules prevents the use of a series of quotations within wiki articles, particularly not where they are used to make a stated point, as is the case here. I would not oppose reducing the number of quotations to about a dozen, provided that the ratio between pro and con reflects the approximated numbers of those on each side of the "battle" , and such that what is kept is representative of what has been deleted. I agree that the number of quotations is more than is reasonable, and detracts from article quality. pat8722 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little more anti-quotation that most, but I think very few editors would disagree with the transwikiing of those quotations. Let's just say that Pius's apologists didn't want to let any praise go unnoted, even from unnotable people. It just wasn't very encyclopedic. Find a source that talks about the overall perception of Pius in the Jewish community rather than an extensive list of pro- and con- quotes. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated paragraph

The paragraph beginning: "...preceded by the Four-Power Pact Hitler had signed in June 1933. At the time,"

and ending "...and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approval."

is repeated twice in the article. Camillus (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The article seemed strongly skewed in favor of Pius, struggling to justify his inaction and suggest he did more than the facts show.

2. Bottom line, if he spoke out against Nazism why didn't Catholics follow his lead. Is someone suggesting that Catholics followed the papacy on everything except Nazi policy.

3. Any statements were designed to minimize discord between the Church and the Nazi regime.

—This unsigned comment was added by 67.84.235.244 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 March 2006.

• First of all, please sign your posts.
• Secondly, don't post in the middle of other posts, especially if you don't sign or indent your post. I looks like someone else wrote what you wrote.
• Thirdly, your observations are wrong: Pius was no inactive (regardless of anyone thinks about his actions) and this article is certainly not skewed in his favour.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More on sourcing

The 'fact' tag I'd placed was removed from this sentence:

Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made nearly sixty formal complaints to the Nazi government, which were drafted by Pacelli but which show only a gradual realisation of the gravity of the Nazi threat and Nazi misuse of the concordat[citation needed].

The edit summary was: removed yet another {fact} - mit brennender sorge is a clear indictment of misuse of the concordat)

That may be so, but it isn't a reference for the claim I tagged. MBS doesn't say that PPXI had made nearly sixty formal complaints, drafted by Pacelli, nor does it tell us that there was only a gradual realisation of the Nazi threat.

It would be nice to get all the fact tags out of the article I agree - but the way to do it is track down the sources, or if a claim is in fact unverifiable then it should be removed. Once again I appeal to editors of this article who are knowledgeable on these points to help find the references we need, or help identify - as people have done so readily in the past - unverifiable claims that should be deleted.Bengalski 11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted - on re-reading the sentence (just before you added the above), I saw that it was referring to the "sixty formal complaints", which, you're quite right, needs a citation. I will look for a verifiable citation - although I don't imagine that MBS "dropped from the sky" -it is obvious (at least to me) that a "gradual realisation" did take place, but the fact tag should stay until this can be verified. Camillus (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Commentary from Anon (67.84.235.244)

I hope that defenders of Pius can answer some basic questions.

1. The Nazi regime enjoyed vast support from Christians of all denominations including Catholics. How was Hitler so popular among Catholics if Pius opposed him. German Catholics attended mass, took communion, did not divorce or have abortions, followed Lenten guidelines, and engaged in brutal anti-semitism during the Nazi regime. Did they follow the Pope's rules and pronouncements on everything except treatment of Jews.

"How was Hitler so popular among Catholics"? - well, he wasn't, until he became the government the Church unambigously opposed the NSDAP and Hitler was much less successful in Catholic regions than in non-Catholic ones. After 1933, after he had become Chancellor, his perceived achievements (unemployment, foreign policy) convinced many (Catholics and non-Catholics) that he wasn't "that bad". For the reasons for Hitler's success read a serious book on the Weimar Republic. "... engaged in brutal anti-semitism" is a collective accusation with no regard for any individual cases and hence clearly a statement of bigotry. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The notion of Nazis as an irreligious, Pagan group sounds nice, but has little truth. Nazi Germany was a Christian country. Jesus's eachings include love, forgiveness, devotion, concern for the fellow man, and a holy life, none of which the Nazis endorsed. Nonetheless, Nazis successfully took two themes from the Bible into their ideology. First, they emphasized the Jews as money-lenders, and many will recall how Jesus knocked over the tables of the Jewish moneylenders. Secondly, Nazis emphasized the biblical theme of Jewish betrayal, and the same way Judas betrayed Jesus, the Jews betrayed Germany. Had religious leaders explained that Jesus's teachings did not include hatred of the Jews, the Nazi message may not have been successful. Instead, German Christians saw the Nazi message as consistent with German values, and a Christian (juden-free) country.

Even if Nazis were not pagans per se (though some very prominent ones were and pagan ideas certainly were endorsed by them), that doesn't make them Christian either. Note your own contradiction in terns: "irreligious, Pagan". Germany was no more or less Christian than other western countries. That the Nazis could use Biblical imagery (so could the Communists) is of no importance whatsover), though I never heard of them using the first passage you cite (incorrectly, there were not Jewish moneylenders in the Temple - this was forbidden - there were money-changers and salesmen) and of course you also forget that Jesus was Jewish too. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Many Jews converted to Catholicism and Christianity, attending mass, taking communion, and sending their children to religious schools and churches, but Hitler defined who was a Christian and who was a Jew. Many married people from other religions, and they were seemingly Christian. Hitler explained not- these were diry, stinking Jews, and they could not masquerade as Christians; one's heritage was a matter of blood, not choice.

I have never read such sheer nonsense on WP. "Hitler defined who was a Christian"? No, he defined who was a Jew and who wasn't according to supposed racial differences. He didn't care who was a Christian. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He identified Jews based upon their heritage. Pius could have explained, these are Catholics, our brothers, help and protect them. Few did. Once Hitler defined these church-goers as Jews, they lost their jobs, livelihood, and friends, and would be sent to death camps along with their families. Had Pius said they were Catholics, a conflict would have arisen between the Church and State. His goal was to avoid any such conflict, and German Catholics and Christians adopted the Nazi defintions of who was a Christian and who a Jew.

So, you are expecting Pius to convince Hitler that Catholics cannot be "real" Jews? Unfortunately for them, the Nazis disagreed with such views, they despised the Jews regardless of their religion. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Why didn't Pius speak out clearly and specifically against anti-semitism and the brutalization of Jews.

That's a long standing issue and has been discussed here and elsewhere. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Why was the rate of death in concentration camps so high in many Catholic countries like Poland. Clearly so many Jews died, because Polish Catholics came to the Nazi government and identified their Jewish neighbors for slaughter, and came to run the death camps.

All right, let's blame it on the Poles! Do you know that many Jews in Poland lived in their Shtetls and were clearly recognisable by their dress? Do you know that the Poles were among the chief victims of Nazi policies? Why were the death camps in Poland? Because this was the first country occupied during the war and camps were set up under the condition of the war. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

6. The notion that Pius is unfairly targeted has some truth. Few spoke out forcefully or provided meaningful help to the Jews, that is why the scope of death was so massive. People speak of Muslim fundamentalism and terrorists but more Jews died in concentration camps in a month than were victims of terrorism in a decade. Lutheran ministers, German educators and moral people or all religions did nothing.

Hopey5000 —This unsigned comment was added by 67.84.235.244 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 31 March 2006.

Your last point suffers from misconception: speaking out would have stopped the killings. Before acting one should consider the (positive and negative) effects of one's actions. Pius did this and hence his vague utterances (while he offered a lot of practical help). You are free to disagree with his considerations, but you are not free to condemn him for this. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hopey5000/User:67.84.235.244,

First of all, please sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ They will expand into your username (if you have an account) or you IP address (if you don't). It makes it easier to keep track of who wrote what.

Secondly, this page is meant for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia server space is not intended for discussion on Pope Pius's real or imagined defects. You have obviously been reading anti-Catholic literature. Assuming that your questions really were meant as questions, rather than simply as accusations, you can find the answers in:

• David G. Dalin: The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis

• Ronald J. Rychlak: Righteous Gentiles: How Pius XII And the Catholic Church Saved Half a Million Jews from the Nazis

• Ronald J. Rychlak: Hitler, the War, and the Pope

• William Doino and Joseph Bottum: The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII

• Pierre Blet: Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican

If you have more questions after reading them, I can suggest a few more books for you.

Good luck.

AnnH ♫ 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you for your comments. I gather you cannot dispute or rebut the various points I have made. Thus, rather than addressing these points, you simply refer to a wide range of books by Pius's defenders which not surprisingly fail to address these points either. You might wish to tell the children who died in concentration camps, the 100 pound men who perished of starvation, that 6,000,000 did not die, they in fact were saved by Pope Pius.

Just because someone will not dispute your points doesn't mean they cannot. Just because they cannot doesn't mean that you are in the right.

2. I have read some of the defenders of Pius. What was the position of German Catholics from 1933-45, are you saying that they valiantly fought against Hitler. Are you saying that they were Nazis but disregarded Pius' condemnations. Please help me understand the specific points.

No, they did not (after 1933) valiantly fought Hitler, but a) this article is on Pius XII and not German Catholics, b) what prospects for such a fight had they?, c) they have to answer for their actions and inactions themselves, d) what was it they were supposed to fight - the years 1933-1938 were not just a big pogrom, you know. Also, please note: there are Nazis (and not all Germans were Nazis), there are Catholics, there are nominal Catholics (lapse or not) that either don't listen at all or very little to what clerics say (now as then), there are some Catholics (obviously of the latter) sort that were Nazis, and there were Catholic soldiers involved in crimes (for one reason or another, but not because their faith dictated that). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

3. This is designed to improve the article. Are you saying how German Catholics responded to Nazism is not important or that Pius's actions would not impact them. As head of the Catholic Church, wouldn't his action be relevant and a fair topic for comment. The arguments in Pius' favor are similar to saying that Southern ministers during slavery, repeatedly protested against slavery, but their cries were not heard.

No, nothing in your post(s) shows any regard for improving the article. Your Southerners analogy would work, if you produced these ministers and their protests (and again, you are taking a onesided, black-and-white approach. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Attacking Pius is not anti-Catholic; indeed, we can contrast the tremendous concern of the Catholic church for the welfare of those starving in Africa and the poor throughout the world, their intervention to help, with the languor of the rest of the world and the Church's silence during Nazism.

You didn't attack only him but millions of Catholics living then (including those murdered at death camps), as well as all the Poles murdered by the Nazis. I say "attacked" because there was no criticism (from Greek, to distinguish) in your posts. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Can't I say that the Pope should not have treated the vicious Nazi regime like other governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.235.244 (talk • contribs)

You can say it but it still isn't valid. It was a government, like it or not, you (as Pope) have to deal with it. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What changes to the article are you proposing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the fact that three million Jews were murdered in a predominantly Catholic country, Poland, casts doubt on the thesis that Catholics were actively opposing the Holocaust under Pope Pius's guidance. The scope and extent of death is relevant to the question of Pius' devotion to the anti-Nazi cause and casts doubt on the various arguments made in this controversial piece. UNSIGNED

How? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, Hopey is again indulging in his "Blame the Poles" game (see my remark above). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly this article has become an apologia for Pius with any additions to provide objectivity deleted. Specifically:

1. The article states, The term "concordat" is itself misleading, as in English it appears to connote general approval and friendship, when in fact it is merely a treaty that addresses specific concerns (in this case German Catholicism), and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approval." Obviously the concordant represented the Church's acceptance of the Nazi regime, even though it was aware of its anti-semitic and racist message. The concordant allowed Catholics to participate in Nazi activities and support the party with the Church's approval. The attempt to sugarcoat this act which led the way to a holocaust and destruction is misplaced.

I propose you first go to the articles United Kingdom, United States, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc. to claim that their failure to immediately withdraw their ambassadors means they were pro-Nazi. Everyone had to accept the regime as a reality, including the Church, and there were good reasons for a concordat, even more so after 1933. "allowed Catholics to participate in Nazi activities and support the party with the Church's approval" is an generalizing, partly inaccurate and meaningless statement, given the realities. And no, the Concordat did not "led the way to a holocaust and destruction" - the linguistic remark about the word is indeed spot-on. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

2. No one will allow notation of Nazi activities. It is important to include discussion of Nazi laws against Jews and Krystallnacht. We must see the horrors that were happening to Jews and contrast that with the bland statments coming from Pius.

No, Hopey, this article is about Pius XII. These things are indeed covered in other articles, but not here, as they lack a connection to this article's topic. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Jewish deaths in Poland would be far worse than anywhere else in the world with close to 3 million murdered and the Jewish community decimated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#_note-20. The notorious Auschwitz concentration devoted to murder was located in Auschwitz Poland . Catholicism was the predominant religion in Poland. http://wikitravel.org/en/Poland. It is difficult to conceive of that extent of death if the Catholic Church and the papacy were actively supporting the Jewish community. How did we have this Church supposedly working so hard to save Jews and 60,70, and even 95% of communities suffering brutal deaths. Isn't it more likely that a combination of historical Polish anti-semitism, Nazi ideology, and Church silence led many Polish Catholics to assist the Nazis in identifying Jewish families, bringing them to concentration camps like Auschwitz, and murdering them. 1,000, 2,000, even 5,000 Jews might be killed by accident or despite help, but 3 million in Catholic Poland. How does this happen if the Church and Pius were actively telling Catholics to help the Jews.

Your repeating a ridiculous (or rather demented) argument for the third time casts doubt on your seriousness. Do you think the Nazis asked Poles for permission when they build the camps? Or whether they were allowed to transfer Jews from all over Europe to Poland to murder them there? (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

4. If he were concerned, why couldn't Pius speak out clearly and plainly against Nazi atrocities instead of cloaking his statements in vague language so no one could be offended.

5. Even his defenders like Dalin suggest Pius chose not to endanger German Catholics. Can't we plainly say he decided not to do what was moral and right, but he chose expediency, like other German Christian religious leaders.

(Hopey5000)

• Please spend several hours meditating on WP:NPOV, then reconsider your questions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, as soon you're off line for two days, strange things appear on this page! I have read many strange posts, especially on this topics (editors familiar with conflicts on this page will know what I mean), but this beats it all. I am replying to your stuff above. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

uncited Hitler quotes in captions under photos, and one-sided POV

I have not read through the article, but at first glance, esp. from just the photo captions, and the unattributed quotes, it comes off looking like a propaganda piece. Needless to say this is certainly not in keeping with NPOV.

I know this is an area of controversy, and there are two sides of the argument, so at least expected to see at least some balance reflective of this, esp. in regards to the photo's and the rather out of context and selective Hitler quotes, which are unattributed and I question.

For example, first we hae a photo of Albert Einstein which states he praised Pius XII's efforts, etc. Then Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir stating she praised Pius XII's courage against the Nazis. These are both fine, I guess (unless Einsteien was also critical), but then we have a picture of Mussolini with Hitler, with the following: "Hitler said, "Pius XII is the only human being who has always contradicted me and who has never obeyed me." I have serious doubts that this citation is from a credible source because are lots of disputed Hitler quotes, some of them have been dismissed as not authentic, made up as part of the propaganda efforts of different interests after WW2. I think we all know this. This has been esp. true on the part of Christian apologists, btw, and I suspect this quote may fall in that category. But, Im not sure. At least lets look at the source.

Also, I'm troubled by the one-sided nature that using this selective quote gives when its not all the clear when you look at other possible quotes, unless the goal is to push one POV, which is not what the article should be doing. There are Hitler quotes which say the exact opposoite. This makes it one-sided and is thus misleading. The same goes for the next photo with the capture, "In 1943, Hitler ordered that the Vatican be leveled with 'blood and fire' in retaliation for Pius XII's ongoing assistance to the Jews and the Church's opposition to Nazism." Again, a reputable citation, and in the interests of balance and a nuetrality, there should be photo captions that illustratate the cooperation, i.e. Hitler praising, with positive comments the Pope, etc, or vise-versa. Giovanni33 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni - you're quite right. Also, as you'll see from the list I started making below this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of claims without decent (or any) sources, and for selective quotation. I've been harping on about this for a while here but so far I've taken a tolerant approach, giving people the time to find sources. (As you've experienced, this is more than the Pius apologists have been doing - anything critical is liable to be deleted pronto. If you're interested in the history of this discussion you should also see the treatment of User:EffK, who was accused of peddling conspiracy theory for trying to include points about the Reichskonkordat that I have since sourced to one of the main historical experts on the subject.)

I think it's worth reminding people here of one of the three basic policies of wikipedia - verifiability. To quote:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

That is, I or other editors are entitled to delete any of the unsourced claims littering this page (see below). So far I've preferred not to do this, but if pro-Pius editors don't start reciprocating a little and working collaboratively here maybe that approach should change and we should just stick to the letter of the rules.Bengalski 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

List of unsourced and disputed quotes and claims

There are far too many unsourced and often dubious claims and quotes in the article. Putting 'fact' tags in the article doesn't seem to have done that much to prompt people who put them in to find sources. So perhaps what we can do is make a list of questionable claims here in talk and go through them to discuss which should be deleted, rephrased etc. I'll make a start.Bengalski 13:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli

Early in this Nunciate (in a private letter (dated November 14, 1923), to Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Cardinal Gasparri) Pacelli denounced the National Socialist movement as an anti-Catholic and anti-Hebrew threat. He also remarked that Michael von Faulhaber, Bishop of Munich had condemned acts of persecution against Bavaria's Jews.

anyone have a source for the private letter?

Reichskonkordat

The term "concordat" is itself misleading, as in English it appears to connote general approval and friendship, when in fact it is merely a treaty that addresses specific concerns (in this case German Catholicism), and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approval[citation needed].

Where does this come from?

Critics of the Concordat claim it linked the Roman Catholic Church too closely with Nazism[citation needed], while defenders of the concordat argue that it was an attempt to protect the Church from anti-Church policies by the new government[citation needed].

I guess this would be fine as a summary at the top of the section, so long as we then source the detailed criticisms below.

Hitler saw the Reichskonkordat as a victory for his side. Hitler told his cabinet on 14 July: "An opportunity has been given to Germany in the Reichskonkordat and a sphere of influence has been created that will be especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry." [citation needed]

shouldn't be too hard to find a reference for this

The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (pre-World War II)

Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made nearly sixty formal complaints to the Nazi government, which were drafted by Pacelli but which show only a gradual realisation of the gravity of the Nazi threat and Nazi misuse of the concordat[citation needed].

Needs reference

In May, Hitler was quoted in a Swiss newspaper as saying, "The Third Reich does not desire a modus vivendi with the Catholic Church, but rather its destruction with lies and dishonor, in order to make room for a German Church in which the German race will be glorified."(Ronald J. Rychlak) From this point in 1937 forward, Pacelli was considered an enemy by the Nazis.

This is a very strong claim. Yes H made negative statements about the church, but also positive ones - is this quote really representative of his position overall? Rychlak has a strong POV on this. And what does 'considered an enemy' mean? Are we reading the minds of dead Nazis, or does this mean something in practice?

In 1939, immediately after the death of Pius XI, the German government issued a veiled warning to the College of Cardinals not to elect Pacelli as he was known to be an enemy of Nazism.[citation needed]

What veiled warning?

After the election, Nazi media complained about the "prejudiced hostility and incurable lack of comprehension" shown by the Holy See.

Again, are the quotes here representative of all Nazi statements at this point? I don't know. I do know that the Italian fascists welcomed Pius' election - Ciano is very positive in his diaries as I remember.

World War II

However, as Cardinal Pacelli, Pius XII was against the Nazis' increasing political power in Germany and in August 1933 wrote to the British representative to the Holy See his disgust with the Nazis and "their persecution of the Jews, their proceedings against political opponents, the reign of terror to which the whole nation was subjected."[citation needed]

Needs ref. Also, now we're jumping back to 1933 - before he was P12 and before WW2. And there were certainly pro-Nazi comments from Pius in 1933.

On the same day that Germany invaded Poland, Pius XII telegraphed the papal nuncio in Warsaw with instructions to organize Polish Jews for a passage to Palestine.[citation needed]

This seems highly unlikely. He was going to organise evacuation of 3 million jews and against the tight immigration policy of the British mandate in Palestine?

(When he was later thanked for his extensive lifesaving work, Roncalli said, "In all these painful matters I have referred to the Holy See and simply carried out the Pope's orders: first and foremost to save Jewish lives.") As the war went on, such documents were freely distributed in all occupied nations, and Pius established a committee that helped thousands of Jews leave Europe with identification showing that they were under the protection of the Catholic Church.[citation needed]

Need refs.

When the Italian Fascist dictator Mussolini learned of the warnings and the telegrams of sympathy, he took them as a personal affront and had his ambassador to the Vatican file an official protest, charging that Pius XII had taken sides against Italy's ally Germany. The Pope responded that his conscience was at ease and added, "We are not afraid to go to a concentration camp.".[citation needed] In any case, Mussolini's foreign minister claimed that Pius XII was "ready to let himself be deported to a concentration camp, rather than do anything against his conscience" (Dalin, p. 76)[18].

Is this just the same comment / source repeated? Then the original source is Ciano?

As was his practice throughout the war, Pius XII refused to go to a bomb shelter; instead he watched from a window while, in the course of more than two hours, waves of American bombers dropped hundreds of tons of explosives on Rome. As soon as the all-clear had sounded, he withdrew the cash reserves from the Vatican Bank and drove into the city. The ancient Church of San Lorenzo was partially demolished, as was the cemetery of Campo Verano, where bodies (including the remains of the Pope's parents) had been blown from their graves. Pius XII did what he could to comfort the injured, administered the Last Rites to those he could not save, and distributed money to those in need of food and clothing. One month later, when the district of San Giovanni was bombed, he was again among the first on the scene.

Need refs.

After the Nazis invaded the small nations of Holland, Luxembourg, and Belgium, Pius XII sent expressions of sympathy to the Queen of Holland, the King of Belgium, and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg.]] -->

Need refs.

Despite the Church's efforts in Hungary, 437,000 Jews had been deported by mid-summer 1944. On June 25 Pius XII intensified the campaign with an open telegram to the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy. In, it he wrote: "Supplications have been addressed to us from different sources that We should exert all our influence to shorten and mitigate the sufferings that have for so long been peacefully endured on account of their national or racial origin by a great number of unfortunate people elonging to this noble and chivalrous nation. In accordance with our service of love, which embraces every human being, our fatherly heart could not remain insensible to these urgent demands. For this reason We applied to your Serene Highness appealing to your noble feelings in the full trust that your Serene Highness will do everything in your power to save many unfortunate people from further pain and suffering." [citation needed]

Ref for telegram.

More than 170,000 Hungarian Jews were saved from deportation on the very eve of their intended departure, because of the intervention of Pope Pius XII. [citation needed]

Need ref.

Editing by Str1977

What are you up to Str1977? You just undid all my recent work - including deleting unnecessary fact tags, putting a book referred to into the references section. I guess your intention was to remove this para put in by Giovanni:

One effect of the actions of Pope Pius XII through the pursuit of a concordat, was that it assisted in the legitimization of Hitler's Nazi regime. On the significance of the Reichskonkordat, professor Guenter Lewy, author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, wrote: "There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad."

Apart from balancing the numerous interpretations and pro-Pius spins in the article from Catholic historians, this is actually one of the better sourced quotes in the article. See above for plenty of completely unsourced and questionable quotes - why not take some of them out? I am reverting - I don't want to get into an edit war, but what you did was just POV editing and destructive to boot. If you're unhappy with this I think we should ask for mediation rather than start a revert war.Bengalski 13:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ben, sorry about accidently reverting too much. I appearently was editing an outdated version - I will revert back to your version and redo the edits I intended. Cheers, (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Why did we take out the material about the historical origins of Nazi anti-semitism, Krystallnacht, and the Nuremberg laws. If we are to accurately assess Pius, we must consider the information he had and what was happening. All Germans were aware of the viciousness of Hitler's plans and his horrible acts against the Jews. Yet the goal of this piece seems to place Pius as a well-intentioned man, who did not understand Nazi plans until too late. It is relevant to show what he know and what was plainly apparent.

2. You're right that many countries supported the Nazi regime and did little or nothing. The book was not called the Abandonement of the Jews, based solely upon what the church did; virtually no one helped, no other churches, most countries denied admission, and German legal, medical, and educational bodies all embraced Nazi doctrines. The point is thought that the Pope is supposed to be moral; he is not supposed to simply consider what will help his group and prevent any problems with the new regime.

3. UTC writes, "Your repeating a ridiculous (or rather demented) argument for the third time casts doubt on your seriousness. Do you think the Nazis asked Poles for permission when they build the camps? Or whether they were allowed to transfer Jews from all over Europe to Poland to murder them there? 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Poland is a large country, how were the Germans able to arrest so a large percentage of Jews. Do you think the Jews voluntarily appeared because they were unaware of Nazi ideology. Or is it more probable they had nowhere to go, as Poles actively identified and help arrest, transport, and murder the Jewish population of Poland. Poland was predominantly Catholic. How does this occur if Pius is actively telling his faithful about nice the Jews are and what should be done to help them. A few surely helped, and a few stolen papers were issued. On a large scale though, the Catholic Polish population assisted in identifying and help murder the Jews.

This is not an article on Poland, the Holocaust or the Second World War. None of that is of more than passing relevance in a biographical article. On Wikipedia that stuff goes into the relevant article on Poland, the Holocaust and the Second World War. That is what the links are for, to let the reader go elsewhere to find specific background information. This article is already overloaded with agenda-pushing from both sides. Irrelevant detail that belongs somewhere else will simply be deleted. The whole article needs severe pruning, not yet more irrelevant agenda-pushing stuff being added in. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

article uses two conflicting footnote notations

This article uses two conflicting forms of footnotes. It uses {{ref|NAME}} and <ref></ref>. The number systems are all over the place, with two footnote number 1s. The two systems need to be merged. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're somebody, so fix it. pat8722 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been fixing everyone else's screw-ups for the last week. Its time some of the combatants on this page fixed the glaring layout errors rather than fight POV battles over an overly long text. I've got enough clean ups to do elsewhere. You do something besides talk for once. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Long list of Jewish leaders who praised him

This is one more reason to keep the dispute tag. I find it ridiculously unencyclopedic. The list is clearly intended to promote the Point of View that Pius was in no was complicit in the Holocaust and should probably be canonized for his actions during World War II. Would be better suited in a rebuttal pamphlet than an encyclopedia. I think this is another example of a lengthly list of quotations added to prove a point which would be better served on Wikiquote. Rather than doing the leg work of assembling this beast, it would be better to cite a credible source, say a biographer, who could give a more global view of the perception of Pius's actions. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

edits by Str1977

This user basically reverted all my edits with the explanation "some tweaks". Specifically, you restored the POV fork sections including "angering hitler", removed sourced information about the Pope releasing baptismal records, and destroyed all my formatting. Please make your changes from the current version rather than going back to the ridiculous version and adding things to that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, Savidan, but doing wholescale ditching of text in a controversial article never works. The best solution is to copy the article to something like Pope Pius XII/new draft and work with a group on that version to build a consensus away from the main article. Then propose a vote to replace the original with the consensus by merging them. That way stops the main page becoming a battle ground and usually forked drafts tend to lack the warlike battles that occur at the main articles. Some of the warriors fight to get their place on the live text and usually couldn't be bothered screwing around in a non-live version. That has been with numerous 'battle' articles and it usually produces a far higher quality of consensus work than simply whole scale deletions of the original. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind doing that if you think it will be necessary. My only concern is that by the time we come up with a NPOV version of the WWII section of the article so much new information, typo fixes, etc. will have happened to this article. I don't think that Str1977 is a headbanger. I am also fine with Moving Pius's speech before the reaction to it just not the other things that got disguised in that edit. I think that he just accidentally worked from an old version of the text. If he thinks that we can work together on the current version of the text, I would prefer that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Except here I have been trying to work towards consensus on the talk page and get citations for these unsourced claims for months now. The reality is I just don't get any response. This article is overlong, full of duplication, unsourced points, and POV, and we can't put off work on it forever. (In particular, as I pointed out above, WP policy is clear that disputed unsourced info is up for deletion at any time.) Savidan has started to make things more succinct, better formatted, and to remove unverified POV. I welcome that and I've reverted to that version.Bengalski 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks a bit better now, and I support the trimmed, cleaned up version (although it still neeeds more work in this direction). Giovanni33 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, I will have another look at my edits and if I consider one or the other justified I will repost it, albeit one by one and with an explanation, starting with this one:

1. "Pius actively furnished baptismal records ..." - looking at the link provided as a reference this accusation refers to the Church in general and actually applies to the German dioceses. There is not mention of Pope Pius in this context. Hence it is off topic and should be removed.
2. "Further elections in January ..." - one may disagree about how detailed Hitler's accession should be covered here (IMHO teh current coverage is already on the maximum level), but in any case the facts should be accurate. There were no elections in January '33 - there were elections in November '32 and in March '33.
3. I edited the Scholder paragraph (with the "inconceivable" quote) - it is misleading, as indeed the majorities and circumstances during the Weimar Republic did make a Reichskonkordat impossible (but not inconceivable), but it was not the republican constitution but merely the make up of parliament.
4. "Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state." - that might be so but this was not the sole reason for the trip, which had been planned for quite a while (even before the March elections) and postponed time and again. After the EA, Kaas was finally free to travel and did so. (I will remove the "in his own words" for stylistic reasons). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
5. I removed the "strong since the Reichskonkordat" passage - it is put in parantheses and adds nothing new to the content except for a quick (and IMHO to quick) and onesided summary of the relationship (BTW: what is a "strong" relationship?)
6. I removed the nonsense about the concordat determing that "baptized Jews" were "to be regarded as Christians" - 1st, the concordat does nothing of the kind, 2nd, baptized people (Jews or not) are Christians by definition anyway, 3rd the Nazis did not care about who was a Christian or not, they cared about whether one was a Jew (according to their racial definition) or not - see the case of Edith Stein, 4th the concordat (if it did contain such provisions) has not bearing at all outside of Germany.

These are the minimum changes. Cheers, (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also reincluded the quote from the christmas speech 1942, as Savidan said he didn't have a problem with it. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are mostly OK. I still have a few disagreements. I hope you don't mind me hard numbering your changes to make it easier to follow the discussion.

1. I disagree with your deletion of this. Most of the praise and criticism of Pius is actually tied to local church actions with the implication being that Pius was responsible for it. Most notably, the figures of the numbers of Jews that he saved is the total number for the Catholic Church. The baptismal record criticism is one of the more prominent indictments in Hitler's Pope, as you can see in this review. I am fine with noting that there is some question as to whether the release of baptismal records was sanctioned by the vatican. Perhaps we should even discuss the meta-question of whether Pius can be held responsible for (both good and bad) local church actions earlier in the article as well.

There's no way that a statement saying that Pius "actively furnished" something can stay in, when in fact he didn't do anything of the kind (others did) or even when nothing of that kind is claimed regarding Pius.

Pius can be held responsible for his own actions, actions he ordered, or action that were in line with guidelines he set out (in any way). But in any case, we cannot state that he did something when he didn't do it. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Being as I've already found you two prominent sources which cite the release of baptismal records by the Catholic Church as a criticism against Pius, would you be OK with "Pius is often criticized for the release of baptismal records by the Catholic Church to the Nazis which indicated those of "non-aryan" descent." I could go further say that he is criticized for not preventing/speaking out against/etc. but I want to sum up these slightly differentiated criticisms in one sentence. Also, may I take your silence as an approval of a sentence at the begining of the WWII section which says something to the effect of "The extent to which Pius can be blamed or credited with the actions of the Catholic Church at the local and diocese levels is stilled debated by historians." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. OK
2. I also disagree with the removal of the Klaus Scholder quote ("as long as this democratic republic existed in Germany a Reich concordat was inconceivable.") with the obfuscating "paraphrase" of "political circumstances". If you have some author who disagrees, include them. I have no idea what these "political circumstances" which you are referring to are, and am concerned that they are original research. In general on questions where there is historical disagreement we should document that disagreement rather than saying nothing.

"Political circumstances" might be badly worded - it is supposed to mean that there were that many decidedly Protestant and that many decidedly Liberal and that many decidedly Marxist parties in the Reichstag, all of which rejected such a concordat and made a passing of such a treaty impossible. I don't see why we have to quote an overly strong word from Scholder ("inconceivable" is clearly wrong - several people conceived the possibility).

Between Str1977's wording and Scholder's I would go with the choice of one of the widely recognised experts on this subject. Again, if there are contray sources we can include them too.Bengalski 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Str1977, I need to see an acceptable historical source for the claim that you are making. Then most likely the solution will be to add a sentence rather than to reduce this short and interesting quote. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. OK, as long as you can find a source for these "other things".

For instance, he had planned to go to Rome to discuss a conflict in the towns of Eupen and Malmedy, involving riots and priests. The towns belonged to Belgium since 1919, but ecclesiastically there were still linked to Germany. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Here is the para from the letter in full - no mention of Belgian towns: Immediately after the passing of the enabling act, in the acceptance of which I had played a positive role on the basis of certain guarantees given to me by teh Reich Chancellor (guarantees of a general political as well as a cultural political nature), on 24th March I travelled to Rome. Apart from having a holiday, in order to develop the views I put forward in the Reichstag on 23 March I wanted to explain the situation created by teh Reich Chancellor's declaration and to investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding betweem church and state.Bengalski 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, just get a sourced but put the referenced right after "other things". This article needs less unsourced claims, not more. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree that this can be reworded, but under almost any definition of relations in any theory of international relations a mutual recognition treaty is considered an improvement in relations and thus merits a mention. Obviously the Reichskonkordat is (one of) the most signficant events in Nazi-Vatican relations. I would be fine even with changing the section title to "Relations with Nazi Germay post-Reichskonkordat" althought that is obviously not prefereable. The real problem with this section is that it is all taken from Catholic webistes and only documents the negative parts of that relationship. For example, it says nothing of the fact that the Pope was pro-German in many ways. I'll find sources before I add anything.

But all this can be covered in the section on the RK - no need to add such a editorializing and ambiguous ("strong"?) statement. 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. OK

It is covered in the RK section. The point of mentioning the RK section is so that a reader interested on this section will be made award of the RK. Would you accept: "Following the signing of the RK, relations between the Vatican and Nazi Germany declined."? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I am fine with your expanding fof the quote from the Christmas speach but I am not fine with your removal of "which some have interpreted to condemn the Nazi slaughter of the Jews". It is an important point that his reference to them was indirect and open to interpretation. In this case, it was the Nazis who were interpreting his address to refer to the Jews.

Even better to include this, though more concise should be better. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you clip the second half of the Kevin Madigan reference including the </ref>? That just fucks up the text. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't intentional. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also would it be accurate to change the "Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli" section to "Papal diplomat". His name is not a very descriptive section title? Please change it to something more descriptive (but not his name!) if I erred. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Papal diplomat" is okay by me.

Strr1977 hasn't replied in a few days, so I'm removing the dispute tag. The three points still in contention were resolved largely in his faovr (the baptismal records criticism will not be reinserted until a source can be found implicating Pius rather than the catholic church; the "political circumstances" issue was eliminated in a rewrite which outsourced most of the non-germane discussion; and the relationship with nazi germany no longer claims that the konkordat indicates a "strong relationship"). Please propose any new POV disputes in a new section should they arise; please no one readd a dispute tag without a specific and actionable complaint and then only add them to the germane section. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (pre-World War II)

I'm going to merge this section into the other sections where it belongs. Anything I don't merge I'll paste to the talk page. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved it into the Reischkonkordat, Becoming Pope, Relationship with Nazi Germany and Encyclicals section. I think that all will agree that I preserved all the content although I did edit the text for succinctness and non-repetition. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tags

I removed the {{Primarysources}} tag. I think I removed all the links to blogs, etc. The {{Unreferenced}} may have to stay for a while. If me and Str1977 can resolve the last three issues remaining (see above) and whatever problems he may have with my recent edits, I think the {{NPOV}} tag can be removed too. The article still needs work, but I think its very close to not having to be disputed. Also, as we add references perhaps the blanket {{unreferenced}} tag can be downgraded only to the problematic sections. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Downgraded {{NPOV}} to {{POV-section}} savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved {{Unreferenced}} to the "Later life and death" section, as all other sections have either had references added or had the disputed content moved to the talk page. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed {{POV-section}} . See above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally got around to finding sources for the "Later life" section, so I removed the {{unreferenced}}. The article is now completely referenced, I believe. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

References formatting

Currently (in case you haven't noticed) there is a "References" section and a "Footnotes" section. I'm going to be converting the footnotes to references and unifying the sections. References seem to be becoming the gold standard on Wikipedia and and its much easier to add new references to an article than to add footnotes. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)</nowiki>

Removing unsourced claims

Per Wikipedia:verifiability I am cutting some of the remaining unsourced claims from the article. I'll put them here - if someone finds sources for them we can move them back.Bengalski 20:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Early in this Nunciate (in a private letter (dated November 14, 1923), to Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Cardinal Gasparri) Pacelli denounced the National Socialist movement as an anti-Catholic and anti-Hebrew threat. He also remarked that Michael von Faulhaber, Bishop of Munich had condemned acts of persecution against Bavaria's Jews.

In 1939, immediately after the death of Pius XI, the German government issued a veiled warning to the College of Cardinals not to elect Pacelli as he was known to be an enemy of Nazism. The Church of course ignored this threat and elected Pacelli Pope Pius XII on March 2, 1939.

Having failed to keep Italy out of the war, Pius tried to obtain assurances from both sides that they would not bomb Rome. Yet bombs fell on the Italian capital several times, including a heavy raid on the morning of July 19, 1943. As was his practice throughout the war, Pius XII refused to go to a bomb shelter; instead he watched from a window while, in the course of more than two hours, waves of American bombers dropped hundreds of tons of explosives on Rome. As soon as the all-clear had sounded, he withdrew the cash reserves from the Vatican Bank and drove into the city. The ancient Church of San Lorenzo was partially demolished, as was the cemetery of Campo Verano, where bodies (including the remains of the Pope's parents) had been blown from their graves. Pius XII did what he could to comfort the injured, administered the Last Rites to those he could not save, and distributed money to those in need of food and clothing. One month later, when the district of San Giovanni was bombed, he was again among the first on the scene.

As the war went on, such documents were freely distributed in all occupied nations, and Pius established a committee that helped thousands of Jews leave Europe with identification showing that they were under the protection of the Catholic Church. (Documents issued by the Church also allowed thousands of Nazis and other war criminals to assume false identities and escape to freedom in Latin America.)

Pius XII also sent an open telegram to Hungarian Cardinal Seredi, asking for support in protecting victims of the Nazis. This telegram was read publicly in many churches before all copies were confiscated by the government. Admiral Horthy complained to the occupying Germans that he was bombarded with telegrams from Church officials and that the nuncio was calling on him several times a day. Horthy withdrew Hungarian support from the deportation process, with more than 170,000 Hungarian Jews remaining to be deported.

Despite criticisms of the historicity of the play, a separate criticism emerged of Pius's negotiation of the Reichskonkordat with Adolf Hitler.

These too: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the same day that Germany invaded Poland, Pius XII telegraphed the papal nuncio in Warsaw with instructions to organize Polish Jews for a passage to Palestine.

Despite the Church's efforts in Hungary, 437,000 Jews had been deported by mid-summer 1944. On June 25 Pius XII intensified the campaign with an open telegram to the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy. In, it he wrote:

"Supplications have been addressed to us from different sources that We should exert all our influence to shorten and mitigate the sufferings that have for so long been peacefully endured on account of their national or racial origin by a great number of unfortunate people elonging to this noble and chivalrous nation. In accordance with our service of love, which embraces every human being, our fatherly heart could not remain insensible to these urgent demands. For this reason We applied to your Serene Highness appealing to your noble feelings in the full trust that your Serene Highness will do everything in your power to save many unfortunate people from further pain and suffering."

The Pope responded that his conscience was at ease and added, "We are not afraid to go to a concentration camp.".

Divini Redemptoris - Lend/Lease

http://i1.tinypic.com/v6hxyb.jpg

Copied from:

Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale

--EPR 14:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)