Talk:Hitler's Pope

Previous discussions:

• Archive1 Str1977 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV

I added the pov tag, because the last paragraph (Pius XI) is not only off-topic (it is neither related to Pius XII, who is sometimes termed "Hitler's Pope" nor to Cornwell's book - at least not in any visible way), it also is factually wrong in regard to the active support of the dissolution of the two parties, when it was really no involvement at all in one case and acquiesence into something that could not be stopped. Also the rest of the paragraph is deeply POV, repeatedly confusing cause and effect. Str1977 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You complain user, when an article is too penetrating to be like an old- fashioned encyclopedia and now here , it is that the article is apparently too scant . I note that this article appears since only as a wikipedia clean-up , thus not appearing on any google search .

Also the whole article needs a sound clean up, especially in clearly expressing that this is about a book and about what the book says and that is not necessarily the actual truth or the only possible interpretation thereof. Str1977 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh- user! welcome! And I see that the elaborate discussion into the merits of the accusations concerning Hitler's Pope have been removed to an archive (readers, we two ltigants go way back unto when str1977 first noticed my inconvenient and allegedly impius reminders about all this -you should quickly open the archive above, there by this editors name,close to where he might lure you into a long ugly list of my supposed slanders and anti-WP behaviour ) . Good, we can start all over again, here. I missed your intervention here on this page and I am glad to have you , in fact I was wondering what kept you away , when you were so active every other where. I find it remarkable how the Deutsch WP does not seem to be concerning you and need your attention : is it already done ?

This article I put up as I say not because of the book but because people say 'Oh-you mean "Hitler's Pope"-everyone knew that ' . And as you and I very well know and completely disagree about, there were two Popes who were involved. One reining and one only a Nuncio and who then became one of the Secretaries of State (as in Foreign Secretaary) of the Holy See. However there is no denial that they shared the same policy , succinctly analysed by John Cornwell and stated here after his analysis under 'Politics' .

Of course the topic is N/POV , that is why it says at the beginning that the article comes from an expression in use for many decades . The expression refers to the more or less common perception , and the perception refers to the relevant facts, which is what you and I argue about . May I ask what your german WP user name is ? And welcome you on to this dangerous page , which I assumed you felt off-limits, though I wondered why you hadn't arrived . You might desire now a more serious tone , and you know that I will give it to you . Why don't you beforehand answer the questions about your denial of confirmatory citation and inclusion of historians back on the missing section of the Centre Party Germany article? These are the same as for here . I put this page up to quite simply allow some space to allude to what is excised, by you, elsewhere. I didnt cut you from Pope Pius XII but wrote 'around you' . I think it still needs a bit more sternness actually . If you don't flag Pacelli/Pius XII for POV or innacuracy, you can't kick about this here, now can you ? User: Famekeeper

You flagged Centre and Kaas, so I may as well flag this entry. But then you left without actually discussing your dispute. Str1977 30 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)

I was not the first to complain, that it is not clear what this entry is about (See Mike Rosoft's: "Marked as needing cleanup - POV, deals with two subjects at once"). The entry is called "Hitler's Pope", so it can be about

1) The term "Hitler's Pope", as used in the English language, i.e. as an epithet for Pius XII.

It cannot be an article about Pius XII himself (and Hitler's Pope refers only to him and not to Pius XI), since that already exists elsewhere, only about the term, its origins, connotations and a discussion of it.

2) John Cornwell's book of the same title:

Then it should be a outline of the book, an a critique of the book

3) It can (and currently is, though in a rugged stage) about both

Then the entry should be clearly divided between the two topics

I, for my part, leave that work to you, since this is "your" article. Str1977 1 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Ah, and let me add some "advice to the wise": It is disrespectful to constantly mistype someone's name (especially if it is a real name and not a nick). And is also not very polite to address someone as "user". Call me by my name or just say "you", but stop using "user" all the time. Str1977 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my last point, FK, please have a look Kenny and compare with Kenney. Str1977 1 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

I have deleted the Italian allegations and therefore the POV tag . These came from websites out of John cornwell's control .Famekeeper 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Question of the Law

I have returned to the Question of the Law in discussions on Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XVI . I relate this question to the Nuremberg Trials and the judgement there that it was not an indictable offense to have assisted Hitler to power . I note that such assistance would have consituted a christian offence of the greatest magnitude , involving immediate and automatic Excommunication, as opposed to beatification. There are recognised church measures to mitigate the effects of this, which any believer should expect to see implemented . Famekeeper 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials and Pope Pius XII

Sir John wheeler Bennett in his Friends , Enemies and Sovereigns final volume of his autobigraphy , SBN3331811689 notes that as there was no constitution for it being a Crime to have assisted Adolf Hitler to power , that consequently Franz von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht were acquitted . This presumably means that they could not be charged , but that consideration was given to this charge .

You're right. Schacht and Papen were acquitted "as charged". Helping Hitler to power was not a crime tried at Nuremberg and I'm not sure that a law court is the place to deal with such things. However, they were convicted during de-nazification.

However as I have noted for some period here on the WP Canonical Law clearly states that no cleric , such as were Pacelli and Monsignor Ludwig Kass should have interfered in Politics without it expressly being ordered by the Pontiff . The Magisterium or bed-rock law of the Church , however would further base itself on the clear Biblical dictum of thou shalt not do evil to further good found in Romans 3,8 .

And you refused to tell, what issue of canon law you were referring to, i.e. whether political involvement was prohibited/regulated under the canon law code in force back then. If it was regulated as you state, I guess Kaas had papal permission (that is back in 1919, when he entered politics). Pacelli on the other hand was acting as a representative of the Church, first as nuntius, than as secretary.

The inescapable conclusion is that in this case church law, the injunctions of the Christian Church, are in advance of International Law from both this its inception at the Nuremberg Trials and up to its present draft form of pre-international implementation. At least , I assume this to be the case ...

yes, but Church law is not penal law, it mostly works "internally", i.e. appealing to the individual conscience. You cannot apply it as penal law unless you want a "tyranny of virtue" à la Robespierre.

However the second conclusion is that the church, to which von Papen and Kaas adhered , headed at present by Pope Benedict XVI ,in order to claim the rightful moral leadership which our common understanding of Jesus would like to allow , shall have to institute its own clarification upon this issue .

The Church (according to faith) acts as representative of Christ. She bases her claims neither on the clarifications you demand, nor on a supposed impeccable status of all her members.

As with the Nuremberg trials , the defense that a judge may not try himself or his own case , should not excuse this present Pontiff from this clarification . He shall need to define the case , clarifying the canonical laws which have here , by means of my discussions, determined the automatic nature of the penalty for all those personally involved (Pope Pius XI,Pope Pius XII, von Papen and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas ) before then de-sanctifying the remains of the former two (and possibly Kaas) . I have been called impius for asking that the church adhere to its own clear law in this matter.

The Church is not here to issue condemnations, but if you want clarifications please address your request directly to the Pope and not to Wikipedia. I doubt the Pope reads Wikipedia.

Yes it is impious to call for a removal of someone from his grave and you still have to cite canon law for the provision that this must be done (Pope Formsosus will not do).

I deny this most strongly and assert that my wish is no more than to bolster a firm conception of international legality . My showing the superiority of the Magisterium over the United Nations drafting ,proves that I act in complete impartiality .Famekeeper 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canonical Law

I reiterate: Church law is not penal law, it mostly works "internally", i.e. appealing to the individual conscience. You cannot apply it as penal law unless you want a "tyranny of virtue" à la Robespierre.

Apart from that, I guess, such a move would be called "fundamentalism" or "interference in the public order" by many people.

But I'd applaud any move of any state of bringing legislation more in line with natural law.

Str1977 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing." Your previous but one sentence had dealt with Hitler and latae sententiae.

"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."

Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . [User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;

part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity.

section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 .

Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon  1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties  or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.

Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties .

Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see [[1]] and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( [[Contumacy]].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be or is safe . On discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables).

Hitler from December 1941

This thesis about Hitler's anti-semitic 'calm' comes from Sebastian Haffner's The Meaning of Hitler , 1979, ISBN0297775723 Famekeeper 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1917 Pio-Benedictine Codification and Current Canonical Law

These come from [[2]] the vatican and one assumes they are from the most up-dated version :

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.

Can. 286 Clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, for their own advantage or that of others, except with the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

139

Herewith is canon 139 from the Pio-Benedictine 1917 Code . in French .taken from www.catho-org ,under similar fair use :[[3]]

p.1 Les clercs doivent s'abstenir des occupations qui, bien que non inconvenantes, sont cependant étrangères à l'état clérical.

p.2 Sans un indult du Saint-Siège, les clercs ne peuvent exercer ni la médecine, ni la chirurgie; ils ne peuvent être tabellions ou notaires, si ce n'est dans une curie ecclésiastique; ils ne peuvent accepter des emplois publics, comportant l'exercice d'une juridiction séculière ou d'une administration.

p.3 Sans la permission de leur Ordinaire, les clercs ne peuvent prendre sur eux l'administration de biens appartenant à des laïcs, ni accepter des offices séculiers entraînant l'obligation de rendre des comptes; ni exercer les fonctions de procureur ou d'avocat, si ce n'est dans un tribunal ecclésiastique ou même dans un tribunal civil, mais seulement quand le clerc y défend sa propre cause ou celle de son église. Les clercs ne peuvent avoir aucune participation à un jugement séculier au criminel, poursuivant l'application de graves peines personnelles; ils n'y peuvent même pas porter témoignage, sauf le cas de nécessité.

p.4 La fonction de sénateur ou de membre d'un corps législatif ne peut être sollicitée ou acceptée par les clercs sans la permission du Saint-Siège, dans les régions où une prohibition pontificale a été portée; dans les autres régions, ils ne peuvent le faire sans la permission cumulative de leur Ordinaire propre et de l'Ordinaire du lieu où l'élection aura lieu.

Part 4 says that function as an elected representative or member of a legislative body must not be sought or held by the clerical without papal permission , where there is a papal prohibition ; and in all other regions , not without "permission cumulative" from their superior or the superior of the region wherer the elections are held .

Famekeeper 8 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

CONDONATION

Is Cornwell's text using this word. If not, it should be in the article.

CONDONATION - Term used in canon law, but now generally obsolete, meaning a forgiveness by the husband of his wife or by a wife of her husband, of adultery committed, with an implied condition that the injury shall not be repeated and that the other party shall be treated with conjugal kindness.

Str1977 09:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Condonation was the description used by one of the serious historians about the Centre Party Germany's relations with the Nazis . We know the church was on a sticky wicket in any condonation and had to silence its own hierarchy before the condonation began: viz the Birthday greetings to Hitler on, was it ,23 April from Kaas in the vatican-it's another fact you assiduously removed . You do cause a lot of work -and still are doing so . I'm going to have to bring discussions back into here since you disallow placement elsewhere. I'm going to have to re-write your section in the centre re:QpQuo ,as that is a historical allegation . Your diminuishment has to be battled and rectified as it is out of line with history . And yes , condonation is one word but technically the canonical suit is proved by the contumacy .That the canonical damnation -isn't it ? It's a drag this revert war , and I don't know how we het over this unless you allow the references I require ...Famekeeper 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Beatification of the Excommunicated

This is denied access to the straight vatican page of Benedict XVI , in concern for the soul of Cardinal Pacelli et al , so I put it here :

I have made this on-topic ,as it should be . I refer to the Bill Dorich case which is a matter of fact , as is the denial of vatican immunity . I suggest Mr. Dorich should read the following .

I revert the editors removal of this section and deny that this is off topic. It is highly relevant and that the legal suits brought in California by Victims organisations ( to do with atrocitiesdin wartime Ukraine and Croatia and the vatican Bank do not yet

appear in the article could be more a factor of white-wash than of relevance . Any way , they will as surely as as they appear in court. It appears that the Holy See claims diplomatic or some such immunity from that case, and the relevance of what I write is thus: that whilst up until now there is sound international juridical reason for the vatican to avoid its responsibilities vis a vis fascist and capitalist collaboration , these canonically legal points can not be similarly evaded . The reversion of this section is very symptomatic of this editor's interposition against all such references , until they are unstoppable .

I am sure that all would prefer to and accept that discussion pages can relate to what should be included in articles rather than turning them into edit wars . The fact is that real court cases have been brought and are being brought , that what I present is the canonical and historical axis for a much larger questioning to do with the whole evolution of the vatican bank , and many interlinking subjects reaching fully up into the present age . So I claim this to be a precursive section , leading the wikipedia , at least, into these published realms . I would expect that other witnesses to this reversion would not wish to be thought of as facilitating or ignoring or supporting such un-warranted removal . Here follows the canonical axis and I invite the editor who reversed this to stay on this single page with me for this subject . If so I shall endeavor to do so myself , and at the resolution of all argument , perhaps the Benedict XVI article might be allowed to reflect the enormous and widely published controversy still facing the Church and this its pontiff

It was on the 9 th of June this year that Str1977 himself added the following reference to these subjects of christian and particularly here, Papal, collaboration with Hitlerism which concerns the actions and words of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas leader (chairman) of the Catholic (Centre)Party in Weimar(pre-Hitler) Germany :

....when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the "precarious state of the fraction", he described as follows: "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasent consequences...... which concerns the catholic Centre Party Germany vote to complete the required two thirds palrliamentary majority required to abolish democracy , in Berlin on 23 March 1933 and hand dictatorial power toAdolf Hitler and the Nazi party . I include the italicised 'oppose' for clarity and refer readers to all previous analysis /threads , but here I list the proven {church/divine/canonical/biblical/moral) injunctions :

Case proved -

Ludwig Kaas excommunicated himself at that action against his soul. Pope Pius XI excommunicated himself from his words in May 1932, as I cited repeatedly from Mowrer and Otto Brok preferring Nazism to the possibility of Communism Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli excommunicated himself at writing those his pontiff's words to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , who read them at the Centre Party ledership meeeting in May 1932 fully one year prior to the enabling act democratic suicide . This is not a POV /NPOV issue . Words have not yet been used to fully describe what this exactly has had in importance , and because the efects are remaining , viz, the Middle East , words may never finish describing the importance of this indescribable moment in history . I have limited myself as much as possible to the simple provision of the reports and of the histories assembled in the english language .

My threads everywhere elucidate the unfortunate souls . I am thinking of bringing , as it appears someone must , a simple canonical court case . I read recently , I think even here on the Wikipedia , that anyone can demand such an action , even the un-baptised. but can the un-christened ?

I am termed despicable by this valiantly opposing editor for repeating {the purely church law relevant to) the procedure soon to be imposed following a success in such a court case , but I think I can surmount that epithet . Will he however be prepared to specify the origin from whence he retrieves Kaas words , and supply them in the original tongue, and stand by his quotation of them in such a case ?

Who would like to be the advocate-or has one got to do everything around here ? How about you yourself , Str1977 ? Surely your claimed christian conscience requires you to take this case - if only to hope to save the church from the great scandal which they claim the ability to repair ? (see endless thread ) .

Answer and disprove , or recant like a christian should, or this must be nailed to the door, musn't it? The same goes for the catholic leader-(ship?)- whoever is in charge , undoubtedly the remarkably well placed and prepared Pope Benedict XVI - he the prince against darkness must help us back through into the light , surely , whatever shocking it may take ? Well done , editor Str1977 !

Str1977 . you used the word sleazy to describe my editing and revert - do you know the origin of the word ? Famekeeper 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

I was brought to this article and its talk page by an RfC. I hardly know where to start.

I agree with the user (was it Str1977?) who marked the article as the subject of a neutrality dispute. I have two issues with the article as it stands. First, it is really two articles rolled into one, and needs to be split. An article called Hitler's Pope should be restricted to Cornwell's book, and should try to summarize Cornwell's criticism of Pius XII and summarize discussion (pro and con) of Cornwell's criticism. The phrase Hitler's Pope is sufficiently provocative that it should be avoided except as a proper title of a book. Such an article should not include other criticisms of Pius XII, and should not refer to any "common perceptions". Otherwise, opinions and perceptions of Pius XII should be included in the Pius XII article, or in a separate article that is branched to from Pius XII.

It was I who marked it for breaching neutrality , Str retaliated marking Hiter's Pope, I also called rfc 's down .Famekeeper 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Second, it does not (in my opinion) accurately summarize Cornwell's book. I have read Cornwell's book. I agree with most of what he says. As a Catholic, it saddens me to agree with Cornwell, but I think that Pacelli, with the best of intentions, did not serve the Church well. However, I do not think that the article accurately reflects Cornwell's case against Pius XII.

The article never limited itself so .

I see a lengthy argument about various points of canon law. I do not see the applicability of the arguments to this article.

It appears that there have been some violations of Wikiquette. I do not want to name names without doing more research. I would suggest that everyone be sure to remain civil.

Robert McClenon 14:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hallo sir and thanks for this . I feel that this user conflict is so serious that it should have peer arbitration ( historians) . This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is not evident . Were you able to visit the Centre Party Page and come to a similar conclusion? Did you read the citations of historians who allude to Kaas, Pacelli and the catholic retreat in 1933 which I have as necessary been posting ? Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events ? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded , meaning the citable perceptions? Are you prepared to defend such , as they are uncomfortable to the papacy ? If you say that you will , I will send a branch page off from his papal page and re-write all the citations that I used to back the views. Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy  ? Maybe you have not read the archived references , but I should like to say that throughout my entire period editing, I received a brick wall of defence and I am much tired at the necessity to combat everything that is wished left out . Now do I have to accept your single opinion or would you please not leave the RFC until several editors can see how little has been achieved and how hard I have justified the cases ? Sleazy - by the way comes from silesian ( a friend of mine with silesian roots once told me ) . I deny that the collection of bad wikiquette as saved here Str1977 is honest : at least half of the criticisms relate to the church but are listed as personal . If I were not so exhausted by this battle , I would be very angry . Please do read the archives and please understand that this is not monocausality -it is a fight to allow reality to enter the WP over a wide ranging set of pages , all of them subject to this battle . The law , the canonicals are absolutely vital to this , and I beg you to follow the reasoning . Vital because it governs these clerical actors , one a crucial politician who negotiated a bridge with Hitler . I object as of now to the other pages I requested the RFC to cover . I suppose the final alternative would be a special mirror out of WP altogether ..... I have thought this from the start . Please read the archived reasoning everywhere it is placed , and please leave the RfC for the Centre Party Germany and Ludwig Kaas , and here . Can we have more opinions on Hitler's Pope ? Famekeeper 18:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You Famekeeper wrote: 'This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is not evident .'

You write: 'Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy?' Who are you saying undermines the papacy? If you are arguing that the conduct of Eugenio Pacelli was not worthy of the papacy, which appears to be your case, then what do you mean about defending the wiki? Why not present the case against Pacelli by quoting scholars, such as Cornwell, who criticize him?

I'm not allowed to quote anybody ever .

What exactly do you mean about defending the wiki? Who is attacking it?

Apologists

I have read the article on the Centre Party. It does appear to be neutral. I do agree that expansion is in order as to the dissolution of the party, and the nature of the moral error by its leaders. (Did they misjudge Hitler's motives? Did they collude with Hitler? Did they overrate the importance of central power?) It is clear that moral errors were made. What the moral errors were is a matter of POV, and therefore different views should be presented with a neutral point of view.

You are unable to see whether it is neutral , which proves my point rather . The party was out-laawed by Hitler, before I came along -check that right at the start of the history . The moral errors are not a matter of POV to the Catholic Church , as you realise, being a catholic, surely ?

Please explain what the scandal is that spreads across decades and countries. I agree that great wrongs were done. Please explain what you are saying is the scandal that spreads across decades and countries. I can see several possible answers, but I do not want to guess at what you mean.

You wrote: "Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded, meaning the citable perceptions? " Of course I acknowledge that Pacelli influenced the events. What is the question?

You wrote: "The law, the canonicals are absolutely vital to this, and I beg you to follow the reasoning." Please explain. I am trying to understand, but the arguments about canon law appear to have been dispersed over so many archives that I do not understand, and need a summary. It is clear to me that there were moral errors made by many people in Germany and Italy. Why is it important to argue the details of canon law?

Robert McClenon 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(To you ) I meant that by qualifying anything here yourself , without apparently studying the history( in WP terms) , you assist an un-reasonable editing . Reason is something un-obtainable here if citations are not to be recognised and acted upon . This is basic Wikipedia . I refer to reason and goodwill in terms of catholic biased editing , evident in Str1977 actions and throughout the WP presentation of this church - I warned you that this is the case , not that you are unreasonable or biased .

I have said lots of things : I several times accused Str1977 of putting them in archives precisely to hide them from such as yourself - partly in order to draw 'you' into pressing his user button by mistake , thereby rvealing his out of context and dammning quotations from myself . For example I said that 'you should be controlled' meaning an illegal(by their own definition) church should be controlled etc.

I have explained that because there is and was , no international law ( it was not a crime to have assisted Hitler to power) that the only relevant law governs those who claim that law :the Roman Church . My purpose is to bring that legality back into effect : the same law is used in Humanae Vitae to rule the lives of living people today . That is why this issue relates to condoms and AIDS . Truth is either truth or undone . I have stated that the law is good in itself , to show that I hold only good will . I am adjudged despicably impious for simply stating the full rigour of this law . I am not a christian , except by agreement with the goodness of the original law (romans 3, 8) . Str1977 is bound though , by canonical law ,to defend the pontiff (any pontiff) as are you , I am forced to clarify . It sounds as though you are open-minded on this , and speak from a clear heart without fear for yourself . That would be completely in order, given that you do not expect to have to yourself commit wrong , or defend wrong . I can assure you that there is here no legal wrong other than the transgression of romans : the canonical law breaking is qualification , that proves who was in charge , what the order of delegation was, and how interference in the civil order was sanctioned .

I apologise if I gave you a shock with my words , which are always written in a public spirit of general relevance . I have been angered through-out by unreason , not by your reasoning . I do still urge you /everyone to be most careful : you are effectively being intellectually stalked by a knowingly criminal organisation ( I have proved the criminality which is there for you to read , if you can find it ).

I am defending the wikipedia in the sense that I am trying to include a complete version of history against a censored version . You should imagine how dangerous the WP seems to say , the CDF (Ratzingers old office, which is the Inquisition) when they see the freedom and interactivity . This freedom and power is anathema to a secret unaccountable organisation , which is a State ,and you would be naive in the extreme if you did not think that WP would need a reaction , and that this Spring's Vatican communications conference concerning the internet etc. called while JPII was alive, had nothing whatever to do with WP .If I had not interposed myself none of this would have appeared in even the cursory way that Str1977 has allowed . What you yourself say in relation to the Centre Party Germany pages , I had effected and it has been deleted repeatedly . This is not acceptable ,in general . You are the first person in a year who has entered this in a manner which sounds independant, and I would be very pleased if you would simply start at the beginning of my user history and work through , in order to come up to date , Str1977 records the different user-names that losing my ID cookie forced me to assume . Fortunateley I am ,as chided, very monocausal and everything I have written relates to the scandal : I have had no time to work on anything except this defence of freedom . And I placed the rfc in order that your reason enter , for several articles . Could you check that they are still in place -I get lost ? Thankyou for your attention . Famekeeper 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Slow down. I was asking for short answers. You need to provide a short summary of your case. I do not have the inclination to read through years of discussion to determine what your case is.

1. You speak of a scandal that spreads through decades and countries. What do you mean? Do you refer to the Nazi ascendancy in 1933 itself, or to the Holocaust, or to what you allege is a rewriting or censoring of history.

2. Please explain what is wrong with the Centre Party article. It is true that it says very little about the motives of its leaders for its dissolution. I agree that expansion would be in order on that point. However, motives are difficult to ascertain. They may be explained in writing by the actors, but there can be questions as to the honesty of those explanations. They can also be inferred, but in those cases the NPOV would be to quote scholars with different interpretations. It is self-evident that moral errors were made by the leaders of the Centre Party. It is not self-evident what the errors were, because they have to do with motive. We can either leave the article as it is, discussing the known facts, or expand it with multiple interpretations of motives.

replace the quid pro quo removal for starters

3. You write: "I do still urge you /everyone to be most careful : you are effectively being intellectually stalked by a knowingly criminal organisation ( I have proved the criminality which is there for you to read , if you can find it )." Please tell me what the knowingly criminal organization is, and where the proof is.

The proof is in the histories , most reference the church's volte face and approbation of Nazism at this 33 juncture. This is redundant _ I quoted the papal words at you , yesterday

4. Do not suggest that I do extensive research in order to determine what your case is, without giving me a short summary of what it is.

Isuggest you take cognizance of str1977 rv, and edits following my additions. Its a drag because they are too often marked minor when they are long or strong edits : perhaps you don't have the time or regret being involved -I'll go for calling arbitration if you prefer

Robert McClenon 15:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XI Comment from 1933 , Reason and Good Will

Is this really about Pope Pius I, or about Pope Pius XI, or about Pope Pius XII?

Typo, sorry

Robert McClenon 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Franz von Papen is on record relating the words of this Pope , whom I placed in this article . On page 315 of John Toland's 1976 Adolf Hitler (Doubleday) appears the following relation of Papen's April visit to the vatican ( the same one I cited before -this is repetition)

His Holiness welcomed Hitler's representative , Franz von Papen , " most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms."

Indeed .Through Pacelli and through the Hierarchy , Pope Pius XI knew much more , and undoubtedly was aware of the exterminating anti-semitic nature of Hitlerism , as Hitler was braggardly in claiming that (Toland writes) "He was only going to do more effectively what the Church of Rome had been attempting for so many centuries ". Earlier in April Hitler had defended his legislation , the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools , in a talk with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann saying "the Jews were nothing but pernicious enemies of the State and Church " .

Whilst this was aimed at driving Jews out of academic life and the public professions, there were many Hitlerian explicit references to Jews perishing and being eradicated out of Europe.

Robert McClenon I beg you, Sir , to be very mindful of your position . Str1977's attitude and actions I have already qualified . All right thinking people should be most disturbed by these actions , and should seek more expansion rather than that wicked-ness should still reign by omission . Place the rfc's please , everywhere they were pointed .

I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination . Robert McClenon I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell , but to the history . Necessarily , the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated . I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason . Famekeeper 00:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is puzzled, and asks:

You write: "I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason." Please be more specific in identifying where reason is being suffocated. I was, as a responsible Wikipedian, requested to review this page. I did that. I am trying to figure out where reason is being suffocated. Perhaps you have not made your case. Please try again.

You asked me to "be very mindful of your position". That is exactly what I am trying to do. What are you saying about my position I should be mindful about?

You wrote: "I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell , but to the history. Necessarily, the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated . I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason."

Please try to enlighten me. I think that I am an intelligent and well-educated human being. Please be more specific in asking me how to reconsider my position. By the way, I am not sure what my position is, except that a neutral point of view should be presented.

Robert McClenon 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Canon Law Issues Again?

Is a Wikipedia talk page for article really for discussion of issues related to how the article can be improved, or is it really for a flame war?

The discussion of canon law appears to be simply a restatement of previously argued points. I will try to summarize what I think the issue is, and would appreciate comments that do not tell me to research a long record.

It appears that one Wikipedian thinks that certain Catholic leaders in the 1930's were guilty of moral error in their negotiation of the Concordat that amounted to willed sin rising to the level calling for excommunication. There clearly were errors that can be seen in retrospect by Pius XI, by the future Pius XII, and by the leaders of the Centre Party. Hindsight is often clear. The question is whether those who made the errors deserve to be condemned as wicked, or merely to be recognized as having made mistakes.

Exactly what is being alleged is the nature and motive of the errors by Pius XI, Pius XII, and Ludwig Kaas?

The mere fact that we can see now that their actions contributed to the rise of Hitler to power does not mean that we should judge them as having engaged in collusion with Hitler. Cornwell does not make that allegation. That is a much stronger charge than any made by Cornwell.

It should be clear from a reading of Mit Brennender Sorge that Pius XI had expected Hitler to honor the Concordat. We can see today that he should not have expected Hitler to behave honourably. Can we say that he should have known that Hitler would behave dishonourably? Even if we say that he should have known that, can we really condemn him as having acted immorally by presuming that he knew that Hitler would violate the Concordat?

Cornwell claims that Pius XII made systematic errors of judgment and emphasis that had the tragic effect of assisting Hitler (without any intention by Pius XII). He concludes that he was "Hitler's pawn", but that must be interpreted as meaning that Hitler was manipulating him, not that he was allowing himself to be manipulated.

The excommunication case has to be something much stronger than any that Cornwell made. What is it?

Robert McClenon 20:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel pressured to research the posting . The accusation is that the Church backed the dissolution of democracy in favour of autocratic Hitlerism, consciously ,as being in the best interest , despite knowing this to entail likely anti-semitic murder and inhumanity of man to man , in order to defeat or prevent the spread of communistic atheism . Can I expect you to have some knowledge of the avowed Hitlerian position  ? I never said this was limited to Cornwell and (have always0 said that the problem for the other editor is precisely that I introduce corroboration from another source, and very many historical criticisms of the church from the historians . Silly me , it seems to expect reflection of these historians . I posted the excommunication issue , I will dig it up for you .... Famekeeper 22:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Here it is -do note the words quid pro quo as used by another editor ...

I have taken the liberty of deleting the long topic being repeatedly copied from the Talk:Pope Pius XII page. Conf 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I take the liberty of inserting this relevant statement by user [[John}}K "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."

Conf, can you shed any light on posthumous excommunication , by any chance ? Flamekeeper 09:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What has all this got to do with discussion about an article on Pope Benedict? Ann Heneghan 09:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It has to do with Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term 'complicity with Evil' in 2004 and his being the Prefect in charge of everything .The theological injunction comes from the Prefect . He is in charge of the above . But , were the possibility of excommunication to arise concerning the above then the article would indeed have to include a report that would answer the questions raised . A first question would be that if a Pope could, because he should ( debateable) , excommunicate a Pope (two here in this case ) posthumously , then would the legitimacy of the living Pope not be called itself into question ? It is just as well that the Pontiff is still the Prefect ,or, maybe theres a simple way out . To assert that this is speculation is contradicted by the Prefectoral re-iteration and by the above authors , if the user:JohnK report is correct . Flamekeeper 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't provide much knowledge regarding posthumous excommunication. (The other talk pages where connected issues arise are Talk:Centre Party (Germany), where the quote comes from, and Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.) Conf 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper. in this place you stated I had written "that it would be that a declaration of automatic excommunication would be declared under latae sententiae" At this time let me just state I did nothing of the kind. A fuller answer will follow.

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing." Your previous but one sentence had dealt with Hitler and latae sententiae.

"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."

Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . [User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature; part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity. section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 . Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon 1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity. Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties . Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired. The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see 1 and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( Contumacy.

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be or is safe . On discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables.

* * *

That is long. Please give me a short summary.

You state that the Church, or some of its clerics, supported the dissolution of democracy in favor of autocratic Hitlerism, knowing the risk of anti-Semitic murder, in order to check the spread of atheistic Communism. That would be a moral error, because it would be a violation of the principle of double action. I agree. You have made a valid case for moral error, if you can establish that those were the motives.

Can you show me a canon that states that errors in dealing with double action (a difficult concept) are grave sins, warranting excommunication? Can you show me how you would address my reasonable doubts that the errors required excommunication?

Give me a short summary. Please be sure to distinguish between moral error (which we all sometimes do) and willed grave sin.

Robert McClenon 05:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it time to request mediation?

Famekeeper wrote, responding to Robert McClenon:

"Isuggest you take cognizance of str1977 rv, and edits following my additions. Its a drag because they are too often marked minor when they are long or strong edits : perhaps you don't have the time or regret being involved -I'll go for calling arbitration if you prefer"

The policies of Wikipedia are that arbitration is a last resort, when all other remedies have failed. We have not yet tried mediation. I am not ready to request arbitration until mediation has been tried. I am ready to request mediation, but all parties must agree to that. Shall I, as the third opinion, request mediation?

If not, shall I be bold and edit this article to be only a discussion of the Cornwell book, and to move all discussion of Pius XII to his own page and to move all discussion of the Centre Party to its page? Robert McClenon 06:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree to that . I put up this page because I asked my oldest cousin, what did he think about this scandal, and he replied_"but it's nothing new-we all knew he was Hitler's Pope "......... Can I ask you ,Robert McClenon what your previous useranme was on the WP, as I wished to check out your specialities, and the User Contributions only seem to start on 12 July this month ? Thankyou .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that you cannot agree to mediation, or do you mean that you cannot agree to have me edit the article? Do you want me to request mediation? Are you requesting mediation?

Robert McClenon 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" is a POV. Even Cornwell never states that he was intentionally acting as Hitler's Pope. As an article name, the phrase "Hitler's Pope" is non-NPOV unless it refers only to the book.

Robert McClenon 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)