Talk:Pope Pius XI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject European Microstates / Vatican City (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as High-importance).
 

Untitled[edit]

I think that the following part might fit better to the article "Laterna treaties": The concordat also entailed an agreement with Italy that provided for monies being transfered to the Church to aid with the transition and intended as a compensation for the loss of the territories laid claim to by the Church (estimated to be around 700 million Lire). During the reign of Pope Pius XI this money was used for investments in the stock markets and real estate that laid the foundation of the modern wealth of the church. To control these investments, the Pope appointed the lay-person Bernadino Nogara. He accepted the task on the condition that the Pope would not interfere with his investments. This led to later scandals where it turned out that the church owned weapons factories and a company which listed among its biggest sales items the most used contraceptive pill in Italy. Gugganij 08:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blessing card[edit]

I have a assortment of old books while looking through one book," Heart of Evrope," by Ralph Adams Cram. When I looked in the book I found a card with the picture of Pius XI. The back of the card has written," Blessing of the Holy Father. Oct. 20,1924. Is there any record of blessing please e-mail me at comstock0@yahoo.com

Styles infobox[edit]

A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox to this article. FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 23:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Two small items[edit]

1) At first, I was surprised when I saw Cornwell's Thief in the Night as reference to Pius XI, but I guess that book strays from its actual topic to other supposedly murdered popes. Am I right in my assumption? (It's been more than ten years since I read it so I can't remember).

Yes: Cornwell mentions the hypothesis that Pius XI was poisoned immediately before delivering an even harsher criticism of Nazism than he previously had done. Robert McClenon 15:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

2) I don't particualarly care about the two "See also" links EffK has added recently. But I'm asking: Is the "see also" section not intended for links to articles that were not mentioned in the article text? At least all other 20th century popes have no "see also" with already linked articles. Here, both items are mentioned in the text already, so I think this section is superfluous. (EffK, if you read this, please don't jump. This is merely a issue of style.) Str1977 13:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Analysis link[edit]

good to see amplification here . The teachings I quoted of this Pius XI could be more clear . I seem to remember considerable clarity on the social front, expressed in a manner contemporaries would understand, being openly and positively social .

If these see also links disappear , then the analysis will have to enter here . Is it there is no mention of his anti-communism here , as such ? It is such that enters the Rkkdt analysis , and to at least be at least on a par with this recent justified amplification . Log in , user ?EffK 10:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Pius XI's statement on Anti-Semitism[edit]

I removed the following section from the article on Pius XII:

On September 6, 1938, in a statement published worldwide (except for censorship in fascist countries like Germany and Italy, Pius XI said:
Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites.

If appropriate insert it in the proper context Gugganij 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

138.130.69.164[edit]

All that new editing by 138.130.69.164 looks like a paraphase of the Encyclopedia Britannica article. What is the source? I don't want to have to revert it all. patsw 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I dodn't actually rely on the Encyclopedia Britannica at all - I have not read the Brittanica article on Pius XI. My sources include the French wikipedia article on Pius XI, the Oxford Dictionary of Popes (ed. J.N.D. Kelly), and The Papacy (ed. Paul Johnson). Most of the article is based on my own knowledge and it is written in my own words - I used this sources to fact check and to expand on certain points. User:Casaubon, formerly 138.130.69.164

Good job, Casaubon, but please take care to stay with one identity (preferrably Casaubon) when editing. Makes it all less confusing. Str1977 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Article Sins by Omission[edit]

The article sins by omitting this Pope's well known anti-communism. The tag for POV over-all is accurate , and that of Dubious, is accurate. I do not feel that my good faith in this matter will be allowed, so I seek a new consensus to build the proper history , from users whose good faith I have not already tested .EffK 13:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I note removal of tag by Str1977. His assertion at this removal is inaccurate . There is a current POV lack of balance apparent in the section which I will be happy to balance . I have sourced the balance for this user several times, so he is aware of the source I would base myself upon . He will doubbtless continue his accusation that because I placed it upon WP ,that The Great Scandal is a soap-box article. This is patently absurd given the external links upon the following pope's page. The fact that the Church or its adherents are ashamed of this history is not the fault of this organ . EffK 01:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

26 Nov 2005 ,User:Str1977 acceptance of POV-section Notice[edit]

Str1977 accepts the notice I placed concerning imbalanced POV. I congratulate the new found toleration and ask when this will extend to allowance of actual repair to the imbalance ? I am prepared to provide this if the editor also now accepts that contrary historical assertion is NPOV , and definitely not EffK POV. I take this as a small step along that road , but decry the user's intellectually wrongful principle hitherto that EffK alone is promoting a personal POV . To so do is bad faith and denial of source . User Str1977 knows full well the reasons for the flagging and to desire repeat of them is frivolous . If he insists I shall do so , but it amounts to repair of the article, again , I say, subject to the user's hitherto bad faith and denial of source .I regret this time wasting and hope for answer. EffK 10:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The user whom I cannot address directly (for reasons known to him) should know

  • that I did what he applauds not because I think he's right but because I respect WP rules.
  • that these rules hold that flagging an article or a section should be explained on the talk page (as the flag indicates) and that the failure to do so means the POV flag isn't justified.
  • that I know fully well that EffK is not the only POV-pusher on Wikipedia
  • that his POV is not his POV alone and that some of it is even taken from scholars, but it nonetheless can be POV.
  • that I by far do not oppose everything he posted but I do oppose that every detail should be included everywhere (as he seems to think).
  • that hence any accusation of "personalising" the issue is unfounded.

Str1977 11:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Amounts to 'Str1977 is able to deny source'. I object to your behaviour . I experience you retracting slow as hell, then aprtial acceptance then renewd retraction . All amounts to provocation, which is why I ask someone to notice you and deal with you . Meanwhile I hold the fort as best as I can . Your definition of POV scholarship sits ill with your church's refusal of source. Your assertion that writers and historians(source) are POV is not enough to justify their exclusion. You are by this going against Wikipedia, and truth . Carry on , I am not fooled and do not accept your interpretions and claim to judgement. And do not say it is my conspiracy, and if you do not now, why did you recently and vituperatively do so ? it is all provocation , which demeans you . You retract the accusation this is my paranoid conspiracy theory , or you don't . I think you don't . I think it is not good enough to brand a plethora of scholars because yopu have a large keyboard. supply proof by source contrary to them , don't kick me.
Please summarize that. What behavior by Str1977 is there any objection to? Removing unsourced polemics? Precisely what facts is Str1977 trying to suppress? Robert McClenon 15:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I am removing the NPOV banner because EffK has not stated in language that I understand what he wants changed. If he can state what he wants changed, the banner can stand, or the changes can be made. Robert McClenon 15:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:EffK will Accept Challenge From User:Robert McClenon[edit]

I hear you McC, and good to have you back out of the captain's quarters and back where you have to hold your own .

I will answer you in full . I will do it to the extent that all inquiry justifies .

As you choose to be my more than my constant constant questioner (Ladies and gents, tis so, and bores me fruitlessly) , I shall answer not you but the wikipedia(or whoever) comprehensively :I shall do this in such a way as to evitate further jumping between pages for you and others . Thanks very much for the invitation , McC, it's been too long coming .EffK 19:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Here, just to be going along with your requirements , and as interim , I show you that which was sourced and considered off-topic on the political page as concerning this pope's relations with Nazi Germany, at Enabling Act .As I pointed out at talk there , the publishers Doubleday made paper for the writer John Toland to make these remarks as consequential upon the political fact . The same old user Str1977 decides who is POV though, and what is off-topic, what is too long etc etc. Failing his capacity ,the user McClenon weighs in as here. The two editors have a long history of acting as they do . Here :
In the succeeding months to the July Rechskonkordat, in which Hitler found approbation and recognition from the Holy See , the princes of the Church curried Hitler's favour (John Toland Adolf Hitler 1977 p 315 ). Monsignor Ludwig Kaas himself announced that Hitler knows how to guide the ship . Even before he became Chancellor I met him frequently and was greatly impressed by his clear thinking , by his way of facing realities while upholding his ideals , which are noble....it matters little who rules , so long as order is maintained " . And on the 10 April Pope Pius XI had himself welcomed Hitler's representatives most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that the German Government now had at it's head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms" [von Papen ,in Toland p 315 ]. The vatican was so appreciative of being recognised as a full partner that it asked God to bless the Reich . On a more practical level , it ordered German Bishops to swear allegiance to the National Socialist regime . The new oath concluded with these significant words : "In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interest of the German Reich , I will endeavour to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it'. [ibid ,p 316] .
Readers will understand that the Monsignor acts under the pure authority of his Church , and that although this odd figure Kaas was the chairman of a secular (but formally catholic)political party during Pius XI's pontificate, very Chruch Canon Law only allowed Kaas to so act under this explicit authority. I have sourced this to this pair of users before, and therefore I do not need to do so in repetition . Any other editor can ask for such links , if in doubt . EffK 08:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Delay[edit]

I was toying with the possibility of delaying a re-balancing of this article simply that it should straightway demonstrate the remaining extent of Wikipedia massage in the politico-religious field. I am now perforce delayed anyway but will hope that sanity will prevail and that someone else will be capable should my silence be gained. I would remind the catholic editors of their duty and that the divine magisterium which confirms the faith, conflicts with the canon requiring defensive allegiance to the pontiff . Perhaps interesting would be to consider whether a true catholic, ie someone acting within this last canon, would need to do so in the case of a deceased pontiff. I doubt it and I doubt that there is a canon for that anyway. this poor man must turn in his grave , and needs great help , if you believe in christ. EffK 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Missing Documents????[edit]

Where exactly is the source that John Paul II's documents went missing after his death??? I haven't read a thing about it. 68.175.27.35 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the date of this comment something to do with it being misplaced? Jackiespeel 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The rumours of Pius XI's murder was quoted in The Times at some point in the 1960s - possibly to do with the Cardinal in question's death - I saw it in passing when looking up something else, but did not make a note of it. Jackiespeel 21:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am God on the earth[edit]

Did Pope Pius XI really say it? I read this in some book (Truth Encounter by Anthony Pezzotta) but it did not cite the source.

No, he didn't. I think you are confusing him with an earlier Pope, Pope Pius IX, who supposedly said something much milder: "I am the tradition", i.e. the tradition of the Church is embodied in and protected by the papacy.

another question, what was Pius XI's stance on the Italian conquest of Abyssinia (Ethiopia), a fellow Christian nation? Other articles make mention of this, and I am wondering about the authenticity. The Jackal God 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingship?[edit]

Regarding the Lateran Treaty signed in 1929, would it be appropriate to add that Pope Pius XI was actually a king?

80.7.1.64 20:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Heheh. Don't know about King, but he's definately the monarch of a state. Which makes him pretty much the same thing. Popes have, at varying moments of history and especially throughout most of the late middle ages and the modern era, acted as kings in their state. They have passed laws, ruled their domains, established claims of sovereignty over feifs and holdings, declared wars, signed peace treaties... the whole shabang. Dr Benway 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The questions seems funny, but is a good one. Before the destruction of the Church State in 1870, Pope Pius IX was called POPE AND KING! I suppose, Pius XI did not use this title, because it may have been interpreted as a hidden claim to the old State. but I do not know. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, his actual title as regards the Vatican City State was 'Soveriegn of the State of the Vatican City' so yes, a monarchical head of state ('Sovereign') but no, not a king as such.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of Catholic Political Involvement in Germany[edit]

If John Cornwell is correct in "Hitler's Pope" that the 1933 concordat with Hitler removed Catholic political involvement in Germany, this would deal a serious blow to the article's contention that the pope's primary goal was for Catholic influence at all levels of society. At the least, mention ought to be made of the conflict between the concordat and the goal.


Not necessarily so. The Vatican opposed Catholic clerics in politics and the use of the "Catholic Church" as a cover for legislation. How does one define a Catholic economic stimulus package as opposed to a Protestant or Jewish one? On the other hand, the Vatican encouraged Catholic lay people be be involved in politics and all levels of society, but not as THE spokesperson of their Church. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain, the Republic, and the usual stuff :P[edit]

Hi there. I liked the article overall, but I've gone through the section on Spain and I've found a couple of things worth commenting, in my humble opinion. Anyway, I've put citation tags where I think they're urgently needed;

- "This encouraged Catholics to support the military coup against the Republican government in 1936 led by General Francisco Franco. The Republicans responded by murdering priests and nuns." Hrem. Yes, priests and nuns were brutally murdered. But the way it's put is tendentious, don't you think? It sounds a bit like "Oh, you support Franco now, do you, you dirty so and sos? Now we're going to shoot you all". Which of course wasn't the case ;) Also, not all Catholics supported the military uprising. The Catholic Church as an institution (and therefore the pope)and most of the clergy did, but not "Catholics" as a whole. Anyway, I really think this line ought to be changed a wee bit. And finally, the way it's expressed, it's almost stating that the Republican government officially responding by murdering clergy. Which, unless you can give a source or citation, is streching it all out a bit too much, don't you think?

- "Pius XI gave moderate support to Franco and the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39, however it is also said that he wished both parties to reconcile, to stop the war." Italics added. Ayayay. Got ya, weasel ;) I think this statement is important enough to be given more attention, and deserves at least to be referenced, no? :)

Cheers! Dr Benway 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PiusXICOA.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:PiusXICOA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Style box[edit]

Is there any particular reason this page doesn't have the papal style box, as do most, if not all, of the other popes' pages? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy Extreme Bias Batman![edit]

"This encyclical condemned particularly the paganism of the national-socialism ideology, the myth of race and blood, and the fallacy of their conception of God."

Um. I think we can let the encyclical speak for itself. "Paganism of the national-socialism ideology", "the myth of race and blood", "the fallacy of their conception of God"? How exactly did this get past the wiki censors? PyroGamer (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


I'm not exactly sure I see the problem. What's wrong with providing a synopsis of an encyclical in an article about its author? Surely you didn't expect the editors to insert the entire text of "Mit brennender Sorge" in the article, did you? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

General Stylistic Issues[edit]

There are a number of passages in this article so badly written that their significance is, to me at least, all but unrecognizable. For instance:

"Achille Ratti underwent the most unusual papal career in the 20th century. Throughout his life he was an accomplished scholar, librarian but humble priest." The first sentence seems rather a remarkable assertion in view of the unique careers of Beatus John XXIII and John Paul II, and should probably be defended somewhere in the following lengthy paragraph; so far as I could tell, it wasn't. As for the second sentence, even if one corrects the grammatical errors, it still seems oddly unrelated to the rest of the paragraph.

"A related issue, so Pius is the relation between capital and labour and the determination of fair wages." Should this, perhaps, be, "A related issue, according to Pius, is the relation between capital and labour," etc.? This sort of thing appears a couple times in the "Public Teaching" section.

"The actual writing of the text is credited to Munich Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli..." This should read either "... is credited by Cardinal von Faulhaber to the Cardinal Secretary of State..." or "...credited to Cardinal von Faulhaber by the Cardinal Secretary of State". As it stands, I'm not sure which the author meant. (Whichever it is, the assertion would seem to merit a citation of some sort.)

"Pius XI will be remembered as the pope who reigned between the two great wars of the 20th century." Like, duh. This seems to be more a statement about the legacies of World Wars I and II than about the legacy of Pope Pius.

These are just the first four that caught my eye. I'm sure I could find others if I looked. All things considered, a fairly significant technical overhaul might not be the worst thing that could happen to this page. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have sympathy with this. "Humble priest" sounds very subjective language and editorialising in a sense. Can we remove some of these gushing phrases and keep it more straightforward. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nuncio Ratti in Warsaw[edit]

The caption under the photo of the enthroned Pius XI in the section "Internal Church affairs and ecumenism" says "Warsaw forced his departure as Nuncio." Should the article say why this extraordinary expulsion occurred? Torontonian1 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mit Brennender Sorge[edit]

The article has this sentence "The actual writing of the text is credited to Munich Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli, who later became Pope Pius XII."

I am not clear why there are two "to..." prepositional phrases: "to Munich Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber" and "to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli".

What exactly are we trying to communicate with this sentence?

--Richard (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber who drafted the encyclical. Cardinal Pacelli had his input but as far as I'm aware no academic who is a specialist in the subject credits it to Pacelli. See main article on the encyclical for refs. Taam (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
So, do we just delete the words "to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli"? --Richard (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Essay Like[edit]

I have looked over this article and I have come to the conclusion that it is written like an essay or comes off sounding like one because parts of it continues on with what Pope Pius XI−believed without coming back and clarifying that is what he said−and I shall tag it as such. Some parts of the article (looking at Revision 386771353) that make me think this:

  • The Church has a role in discussing the issues related to the social order. Social and economic issues are vital to her not from a technical point of view but in terms of moral and ethical issues involved.
  • Pius XI believed that industrialization results in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities get absorbed by larger ones. The society of individuals becomes the mass class-society. People are much more interdependent than in ancient times, and become egoistic or class-conscious in order to save some freedom for themselves. The pope demands more solidarity, especially between employers and employees, through new forms of cooperation and communication.
  • His last words to those near him were spoken with clarity and firmness: My soul parts from you all in peace
  • Pius XI will be remembered as the pope who reigned between the two great wars of the 20th century.
  • A theological conservative, he strove to improve the condition of the Church, through the negotiation of the concordats (treaties) in Europe and to increase its strength worldwide through vigorous missionary work.

--Melab±1 01:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


Obscure Pius XI facts[edit]

'Mentioning in passing' (as possibly too trivial for the article): Ratti, while on the staff of the Ambrosian Library knew Wilfrid Voynich (see [1]), and he was able to use a gun [2]). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity Versus Politics[edit]

Regarding this sentence: He issued numerous encyclicals including Quadragesimo Anno highlighting capitalistic greed of international finance, social justice issues and Quas Primas establishing the feast of Christ the King. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a quote wherein he used "capitalistic" or "social justice. If it cannot be found, this sentence should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talkcontribs) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening summary jumbled[edit]

The opening summary is jumbled--going back and forth between subjects. A more chronological approach here would read better.

And in the second paragraph, what is the point of this sentence: "He celebrated his 60th birthday as a priest on 31 May 1917"? Hundreds of thousands of priests celebrate their 60th birthdays as clergy. James K. Workman (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is to show how rapid his rise in the church was after that date. Most popes were cardinals or at least bishops by their 60th birthdays. He was a priest (not yet a bishop) at 60, but within five years was pope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.4.89 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lateran Treaty and bishops' oath to Italy[edit]

The section on the Lateran Treaty states that Italian bishops were required by the treaty to swear allegiance to the government of Italy. I've read the Lateran Treaty and do not find this requirement. Does anyone know the documentation for the claim in the wiki article? If not, shouldn't it be removed?James K. Workman (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

it's what the RS say. (1) "ensuring that the clergy were forbidden to take part in politics and that bishops swore allegiance to the Italian state." says Cyprian Blamires (2006). World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 120. ; (2) John A. Hardon - Christianity in the twentieth century (1971) p 317 says " the swearing of allegiance to the King by bishops"; (3) Albjerg, Europe from 1914 to the present (1951) p 234 says "Archbishops, bishops, and coadjutors were to be appointed by the Pope, but with the approval of the state, to whom they should swear allegiance." (4) the Catholic magazine Commonweal (1943): " such as the oath of allegiance to be taken by bishops and parish priests, to the fascist regime." Rjensen (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Rjensen--Thank you for the references. Since the oath of allegiance is such a big moral issue, would you be willing to put this documentation in at that point? BTW--I'm a newbie--what does RS stand for?James K. Workman (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
RS = "reliable secondary source." Look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the link about sources. And thank you for adding a citation on this subject.James K. Workman (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed for quote analyzing Pacelli[edit]

The section Condemnation of Racism concludes with a long important quote analyzing the differences between Pius XI and Pius XII. Isn't a citation needed for a quotation?James K. Workman (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation added. Thank you Rjensen.James K. Workman (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Syllabus against racism--why not published?[edit]

The corrected text now indicates that the syllabus against racism was never published. Do the authors cited venture a reason? Would it not be relevant to include the fact that the pope was 81, in poor health, and would die within less than a year? This would hedge against the idea that he just didn't like the text of the syllabus. It doesn't need to be suggested (unless there is evidence) that the syllabus was suppressed (by E. Pacelli?).James K. Workman (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The unpublished final encyclical[edit]

The text "Following Vatican custom, his successor Pope Pius XII, who according to the authors was not aware of the text before the death of his predecessor,[52] chose not to publish this encyclical" seems innocent of the debate about E. Pacelli's role at this point. "Following Vatican custom" loads the sentence to one side of the debate. Pope Pius XII could have done anything he liked with the encyclical; his choice was to use parts of the theme in his first encyclical. I would like to remove the opening clause and reword the rest of the article to be less of a brief for Pius XII carrying on Pius XI's ideals. The long quote in the previous section indicates that the differences between the two popes on dealing with Nazi racism were significant.JWorkman 15:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James K. Workman (talkcontribs)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)