Talk:Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII has had two peer reviews by fellow Wikipedians which have now been archived (1, 2). They may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

Archives
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17

Scholder

I am restoring the POV tag as long as a minority view like Scholder is presented as historical consensus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there really is a consensus on this issue so I don't know how fair it is to call Scholder the minority. Irregardless, Scholder's opinion is never stated except when attributed to him. There should be a link to his article (if there is one), and readers should be able to go to that article and figure out what the deal is with his work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is consensus on this point as no historian I know of, agrees with Scholder. I studied the events of Hitler's rise, including the Enabling Act and the Concordat, and Scholder wasn't even mentioned to us. Only EffK brough him up, finally coming up with one historian somewhat agreeing with his point. If you remember, I uploaded the review of Scholder's book (I don't think it's still online but I can upload it again) and this very point was criticized in the review. Things haven't changed. Scholder's notable in Wiki-terms only because he happens to agree with EffK's conspiracy theories (at least somewhat, as Scholder is no fruit cake). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember very well the review (that you emailed to me). It does criticize Scholder's book, but it does not touch upon any matter currently in this section. As I explain below, the scope of this section is limited to Pacelli's role, for which Scholder is a valuable source. If you would like to augment this with other sources, that's fine. "EffK's compiracy theories" are no longer included, because this article does not contain any content about the impact or importance of the RK. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So there's nothing controversial in there:

• One argue whether Scholder's term "great goal" needs to be attributed to him, if it's not controversial.
• "According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Brüning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis." - that is purely Scholder in this form, as Brüning's memoirs are deemed not very reliable sources by most historians (I think that was touched upon in the review).
• "Pacelli again advised the Centre Party to work with the Nazis in a coalition, despite the official condemnation of Nazism by the German bishops at the time. He told Bavarian envoy Ritter: "it is to be hoped and desired that, like the Centre Party and the Bavarian Peoples' Party, so too the other parties which stand on Christian principles and which now also include the National Socialist party, now the strongest party in the Reichstag, will use every means to hold off the cultural Bolshevizing of Germany, which is on the march behind the Communist Party." - again purely Scholder.
• According to Klaus Scholder, such a concordat was impossible prior to the rise of the Nazis because the Catholic parties in the Weimar Republic could not overcome Protestant and socialist opposition.[15] - this prefers to use an overstatement by Scholder for the actual facts (that were once included, though I think that was in some other article).
• And here, most importantly: "Centre Party chairman Ludwig Kaas (a priest and associate of Pacelli) agreed to support the Enabling Act, which required a constitutional amendment and gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in exchange for a Reich concordat with the Vatican.[17][18]" - this is the Scholder thesis, not even attributed but stated a fact, despite not being accepted by most historians. If this is not POV-pushing what is.
• "One of Hitler's key conditions for agreeing the concordat had been the dissolution of the Centre Party, which occurred on 6th July." - true but again POV-pushing, as it does not tell us that the Centre Party dissolved itself, much to Pacelli's disatisfaction. It neither tells us of the actual state of the party (doomed anyway).

Apart from these points, the section is uncontroversial, yes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Bruning's memoirs? More importantly, what needs to be said in this article about Bruning's memoirs as opposed to in his own article? This may be a fact utilized by Scholder, but as used in the article, it's a primary source. I agree with the rest of your points, and I'll make these changes in a second; let me know where we need to go from there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Historians doubt the truth of Brunings memoirs concerning this point, since Brunings memoirs from the times after his chancellorship are marked by the attempt of personal justification of his policies. In addition to that, he was quite cross with Kaas at least after 1931. It is clear that the initiative for the Reichskonkordat came from the German Government and not from the Vatican. Hitler had - for the Vatican quite unexpectedly - described the christian churches as the "very fundament of the moral life of our nation" and offered the granting of certain rights to the churches. Considering the recent attacks of the SA on a convention of the Kolping-foundation at munich, Cardinal Faulhaber valued this as an unexpected offer for peace, it would make me wonder if Pacelli would have thought in a very much different way. Of course the Vatican wanted the Reichskonkordat, but for sure not as a result of the misinterpretation of the personality of Hitler and his nazis. This thesis contradicts all recent findings on both the reichskonkordat and Pius/Pacelli and certainly cannot be kept up. UAltmann 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

UAltman is right, except that Brüning was cross with Kaas after 1933, not before. Brüning tries to justify his politics and, more importantly, writes from memory in exile in the mid-thirties. And in details his account has been demonstrated to be unreliable. I have posted a short assessment of this, taken from Ludwig Volk, a long time ago during the EffK dispute but it is buried in some archive and I cannot find it. However, the reference I found: it is from "Volk, Reichskonkordat, page 81, footnote 115".

Hitler's reference was indeed not merely an offer of peace (though Faulhaber might have said that) but an offer of "cooperate or face the consequences", and who could have justified not trying to reach an agreement after such speeches.

Yes, Hitler wanted the Concordat as a means of eliminating political Catholicism and of gaining diplomatic credibility. But he would have done away with the Centre Party anyway and hence Pacelli did bargain it away, though it is documented that he was dismayed that the party dissolved so early. What is not documented is any insinuation on Scholder's part that any other clerics was involved in the passing of the Enabling Act except Kaas. Kaas might have had some concordat perspective when he cast the vote, but for any involvement by anyone else, most of all, Pacelli, there is no evidence whatsoever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all somewhat fascinating, but if the proposed remedy is that Bruning's memoirs simply not be used as a source at all, I am unpersuaded. A lengthy explanation of this could be added to Bruning's article. As long as the points that UAltmann is making are made in a scholarly source, then I wouldn't be opposed to the inclusion of some context for Bruning as a source. I would prefer if the secondary sources cited for this are as on point as possible about the only quote used. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 14:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Using arguments like the latter one of your's ("Why not use a source since it is there") instead of critically questioning the existence of such a source, you make just about the same mistake like Scholder himself. Scholder with his thesises stands absolutely alone, this is what Str1977 is saying all the time. But obviously, this is no reason for you to question your point. I cannot force you to question your point, this is something you must do yourself. For the time being, the NPOV tag remains there. --UAltmann

Savidan, no one is proposing that Brüning's memoirs should not be used at all. I have always been of the opinion that every source should be used in some way. Discarding a source is not okay IMHO. Historians use Brüning, but they are aware of his deficencies. And in the end, we don't use sources here on WP, we report the scholarship of others. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So, just to make sure, you are OK with the current version? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I wasn't. It talked more about all kinds of things than about the concordat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all the stuff you added in your last edit, but not with the removal of the Bruning memoirs, as I thought we had just agreed against. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no agreement. I was speaking in general about using the source. But we must leave that to the historians.

Re Brüning, it is problematic that now his account, his view stands alone along with his remark about Pacelli's supposed "mistaking the Nazis", quite apart from the anecdotal character of that passage.

I didn't see that I repeated anything. Rather I added a lot of narrative that was missing, not speaking of the actual content of the concordat (but that might be better of in the main article). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can solve the problem by not quoting but narrating that episode. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But rereading that passage now, I must say that it is simply bogus, at least in this form. Either Brüning blundered, or Scholder, or the one who put it here. Let me explain:

"Heinrich Brüning, leader of the Catholic German Centre Party and Chancellor of Germany met with Pacelli on August 8, 1931. According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats"

Now, Brüning never had a coalition with the Social Democrats, that ended in 1930, leading to Brüning's appointment. It was Brüning's and others' failure to get the SPD on board in 1930. Instead we had new elections in which the Grand Coalition lost the majority.

On the way I came up with a possible explanation. If this indeed is accurate, then the two were talking about the government coalition in Prussia, where the Weimar Coalition lasted until Papen's Preußenschlag of 1932. But the text currently gives the impression that it is the Fedral government, especially by the reference to the concordat. Prussia already had a concordat, so I can't see how this scheme could have worked.

Something is cooking here and it's not smelling nice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been away travelling for a while - shame to see this going backwards to where we were some months ago. I will re-insert information sourced to Scholder which I put in (not EffK) earlier. "no historian I know of, agrees with Scholder" - Str if you are going to make claims like this you need to back them up with sources. What you may or may not know of isn't a strong enough ground to delete a claim made by a respected historian. Can you give sources saying that Scholder's is a minority view? Or at least a list of historians criticising his view? And sources to show that it is such a rogue view that it shouldn't just be qualified by stating the majority opinion but excised from the article altogether?Bengalski 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I put this section back to the featured article version of 3 July, with one amendment - Str is right that Scholder's view on the 'quid pro quo' was not attributed but stated as a fact, I changed that. If Str can get reputable sources with different views (as I asked however many months ago - see archives where we first discussed Scholder) then let's talk about how we balance them out - but find the sources first please, otherwise this discussion just spins in circles.Bengalski 08:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the Scholder review I posted? Scholder never was accepted in regard to this issue. Rather than asking me to prove a negative, how about you providing confirmation. Quite apart from your ignoring the last point I raised here and your flat out reverting back to an earlier version. And not, there is no "featured article version of 3 July", or else there is also a "featured article version of 26 September". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you post or link to the review again? Who was it by? Savidan's comment above suggests it doesn't discuss the 'quid pro quo' point.Bengalski 08:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What is it, Ben? Are you asking these questions or are you revert warring. Simply staying away doesn't give you the right to revert the article back to July. You will have to base yourself on the existing version. I have not reverted back to January after being a bit negligent of this article and during that time some horrid, horrid POV pushing entered here (as you yourself pointed out: your version stated opinion as fact but it wasn't you who changed it.)

The review, taken from American Historical Review, Vol. 83, pp.1285-1287, can be found here: [1], and here: [2]. (The first link only provides the reviewed book's title so you might as well skip it.)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for re-posting the review Str. Yes it does address the quid pro quo claim and criticise Scholder on this. You have established that your reviewer disagrees with Scholder. You have not established that there is a 'consensus' or even a 'majority' of 'historians' ranged up against him. So I do not think you (and Musical Linguist) are entitled to keep removing his point. Scholder is a reputable and important source (your review while calling his book 'flawed' also says it is the best available work on its subject), even if you disagree with him, and even if particular reviewers disagree with him. So once again I'll put him back in, and ask once again - please do not remove sourced, attributed information. If you want to report contrary views from other important sources - e.g. other historians of similar status - then find them and let's do that - but not just censor the one you disagree with.Bengalski 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, if you claim that Scholder is not alone, then you should be the one to give sources. As we say that Scholder is alone, of course then there are no others supporting him, thus there are no other sources. Why give sources as there are none. Therefore, Scholders view cannot be put as historical consensus, since it takes at least two persons to come to a consensus. I shall undertake a revert during the next days since the latest version before your changes was a result of a long discussion. Take a look into the archives. --UAltmann 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I don't think I have to educate you on the importance and relevance of book reviews in academia, do I? Sure, no review is infallible but this is the process of peer reviews. And if parts of Scholder were disputed when he first published then, the burden of proof lies with you to show that he later found acceptance. To my knowledge he hasn't. Finally, please stop revert warring and accept that we are no longer in July. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One book review does not equal a 'consensus' or 'the majority'. The date has nothing to do with it - we disagreed on this then, we still disagree on it now. Your arguments haven't changed since we first went round on this issue, and you don't seem to have found any new sources.Bengalski 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No Str, you're not just saying Scholder is alone - you're saying there is a 'consensus' or 'majority' ranged up against him. If so, why is it so hard to get quotes from other historians contradicting him? Please do not 'undertake a revert'. What you're saying is: I find a notable expert source A who makes an important and relevant claim X, and stick it in with appropriate attribution; you disagree with X and allege that it is a minority view, though you don't provide evidence to back that up; you are entitled to remove X. That can't be wiki-right. Nor does having a recent discussion in which you convinced (ground down?) Savidan into going along with it (against earlier and even longer discussions we had before) make it right either. The rules still apply - we should have respect for reputable sources, and a lot less for editors' personal opinions when they disagree with said sources.Bengalski 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea! After you have changed the article to report Scholder's opinion as fact and I had to dig up this review to show that he is very much disputed on this, I am supposed to dig up more people disagreeing with him (which many do by simply writing differently). Certainly Savidan was not ground down. All this while you stay away (which I understand, there is a life outside of WP) and now you return and expect that everything must be returned to the state you last saw? This coming from the guy who suppported EffK's wrongheaded abuse of his talk page? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note I never wrote Scholder's view as fact - that has never been my intention. My view is that it is a plausible, and highly notable, interpretation that needs to be featured in the article. I'm fine with saying that other experts disagree with it, if you have those sources. But you have no justification for removing it altogether.Bengalski 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If I attributed that inclusion wrongly to you, I am indeed sorry.

Let's see if I get your point right: we should include a opinion into the article whose only link to the person covered in this article is that opinion itself, an opinion that has not acceptence and not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence? The issue with your demands for verification of the verified while not providing some yourself, I have already addressed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again:

1) The guy is a recognised authority on the subject - as far as I can see even those who disagree with him admit that his book is the number one reference on the relationship between the churches and the third reich.

2) That his conclusion "is not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence" is your own personal opinion, and carries no weight in WP.

3) Even if it were the opinion of other notable scholars, and you could show this, I still don't see it as reason for censoring him from the article. If there are differences of scholarly opinion we should say what they are and if possible try to indicate the balance of opinion on either side. This would need more though than just citing one critical review - we should do a more comprehensive survey of the historical literature.

4) Scholder is notable not only on his own merits (point 1), but because he is a major source for much of the recent criticism of Pius - e.g., a chapter of Cornwell's book is based entirely on his work on the concordat. I know of course that you disagree with Cornwell and these other recent critics, but they are nevertheless notable criticisms and highly relevant to the article. I included Scholder in place of more recent sources because a) he is so highly respected and b) they are mainly building on his work. But we could certainly add in names of modern writers who agree with him. (Who knows, maybe even the 'majority' - though I think that's impossible to prove either way unless we conduct some major survey of everyone who has written on Pius, off the net as well as on it.)

5) I don't see what you want me to verify. I have never tried to represent Scholder as fact, or even as 'majority opinion'. Just as one important source - important enough (see points 1 and 4) to be included in the article. If there are important counter opinions ... see point 3.Bengalski 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And so I'll try again as well:

1) The guy is a recognised authority on the subject. Those disagreeing with him laud his pioneering role but the don't call him the "number one reference on the relationship between the churches and the third reich", not then, certainly not now. Certainly not on the points he is criticized at.

2) That his conclusion "is not supported by and rather running counter to the mass of evidence" is not my personal opinion but what the review says.

3) Ben, namecalling like "censoring" doesn't help matters. In any case, you want to give a certain POV undue weight by including it here when the only connection between the EA and Pius is exactly that disputed POV. I am not saying that this view has no place on WP but this article is on Pius the man.

4) Your fourth point is irrelevant IMO. If Cornwell is partly based on Scholder that is his concern and not important to this article. We don't include other books Cornwell used into the article directly.

5) You should verify that serious scholarship agrees with Scholder on this. That is what I am asking of you and that is what your own principles demand. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this on topic. Scholder is obviously a important source about Pacelli's role in the crafting of the Reichskonkordat. As str's review shows, his work is not without criticism, but that review also acknowledges him as perhaps the best source for this. I think that establishes him as a non-minority view, but I don't know if any view on this subject can qualify as the majority view. Str, while it is not your burden to find more indicts of Scholder, I do see it as your burden to provide some other sources which rise to at least this level of scholarship for the subject of Pacelli's role in the Reichskonkordat. Just so we can see what we're dealing with, I've set up a section below for you each to put your prefered version so they can be viewed side-by-side. I took the liberty of grabbing the most recent version, but each of you please feel free to edit! savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reply:

• Scholder is an important work but we are dealing exactly with these issues for which he is not merely "criticized" in the review, but blasted. And rightfully so, if you take a look at his strange correlation between his chapter headers and reality (read the review for this).
• I also want to remind you that I have already provided Volk, a large tome entirely on the Concordat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more note. As I posted this [3] I do not propose the inclusion of Brüning in this form. More on this later. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Version by Str1977

The Reichskonkordat, signed on July 20, 1933, between Germany and the Holy See remains the most important and controversial of Pacelli's concordats. A national concordat with Germany was one of Pacelli's main objectives as secretary of state. As nuncio during the 1920s he had made unsuccessful attempts to obtain German agreement for such a treaty, and between 1930 and 1933 he attempted to initiate negotiations with representatives of successive German governments, but the opposition of Protestant and Socialist parties and the instability of governments thwarted this aim. In particular the questions of denominational schools and pastoral work in the armed forces prevented any agreement on the national level, despite talks in the winter of 1932.

Heinrich Brüning, leader of the Catholic German Centre Party and Chancellor of Germany met with Pacelli on August 8, 1931. According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Brüning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis."

Adolf Hitler, appointed Chancellor on 30 January 1933, seeking to gain international respectability and to remove internal opposition by representatives of the Church and the Catholic Centre Party, sent his vice chancellor Franz von Papen, a Catholic nobleman and former member of the Centre Party, to Rome to offer negotiations about a Reichskonkordat. On behalf of Cardinal Pacelli, his long-time associate Prelate Ludwig Kaas, the out-going chairman of the Centre Party, negotiated the draft of the terms with Papen. The concordat was finally signed, by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20 July and ratified on September 10, 1933.

Between 1933 to 1939, Pacelli issued 55 protests of violations of the Reichskonkordat. Most notably, early in 1937, Pacelli asked several German cardinals, including Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber to help him write a protest of Nazi violations of the Reichskonkordat; this was to become Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. The encyclical, condemning racism, was written in German instead of Latin and read in German churches on Palm Sunday 1937..

Version by Bengalski

The Reichskonkordat, signed on July 20, 1933, between Germany and the Holy See remains the most important and controversial of Pacelli's concordats. A national concordat with Germany was one of Pacelli's main objectives as secretary of state — historian Klaus Scholder called it his "great goal". As nuncio during the 1920s he had made unsuccessful attempts to obtain German agreement for such a treaty, and between 1930 and 1933 he attempted to initiate negotiations with representatives of successive German governments.

The importance of the concordat policy to Pacelli, to the point that it dominated his thinking on German matters, is exemplified in Heinrich Brüning's account of their meeting on 8th August 1931 (Bruning, leader of the Catholic German Centre Party, was Reich Chancellor between 29th March 1930 and 30th May 1932.) According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Brüning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis."

After the Nazis gained even more seats in the July 1932 elections—with 230 of 608 seats they were the largest party in the Reichstag—Pacelli again advised the Centre Party to work with the Nazis in a coalition, despite the official condemnation of Nazism by the German bishops at the time. He told Bavarian envoy Ritter: "it is to be hoped and desired that, like the Centre Party and the Bavarian Peoples' Party, so too the other parties which stand on Christian principles and which now also include the National Socialist party, now the strongest party in the Reichstag, will use every means to hold off the cultural Bolshevizing of Germany, which is on the march behind the Communist Party."

According to Klaus Scholder, a Reichskonkordat was in fact impossible under the Weimar Republic: "as long as this democratic republic existed in Germany a Reich concordat was inconceivable." Catholic parties would never have sufficient strength to get a treaty past protestant and socialist opposition. It was thus the emergence of Hitler's dictatorship that allowed the concordat to become a real possibility, following the model of the Lateran treaties with fascist Italy where the Church had agreed to abstain from political activity in return for recognition in a concordat.

According to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, the new German cabinet began to talk about a concordat "immediately after 30 January, 1933," the day that Hitler was appointed chancellor of the coalition government.. Scholder argues that Centre Party chairman Ludwig Kaas (a priest and associate of Pacelli) agreed to support the Enabling Act, which required a constitutional amendment and gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in exchange for a Reich concordat with the Vatican. Scholder maintains that Pacelli was indirectly involved in these negotiations through Kaas, who "probably acted as the key go-between in the whole matter." One of Hitler's key conditions for agreeing the concordat was the dissolution of the Centre Party, which occurred on 6th July.

The day after the Enabling Act vote Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state." The first official mention of the concordat was made when Kaas returned ten days later, on 2nd April. On 9th April Kaas returned to Rome, travelling with von Papen, to begin the official negotiations for the concordat. The concordat was finally signed, by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20th July.

Between 1933 to 1939, Pacelli would issue 55 protests of violations of the Reichskonkordat. Most notably, early in 1937, Pacelli asked several German cardinals, including Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber to help him write a protest of Nazi violations of the Reichskonkordat, which would become Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, promulgated on Palm Sunday 1937, condemning those who "exalt race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State ... above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level".

There's my version - I went back to the original Scholder version I wrote in February. Unfortuantely it is longer, and maybe I can work on it further for length, but first I think we need some resolution about content. I think there was a problem that some of the stuff that had been removed made it less clear. I.e., obscured the point that Scholder is saying Pacelli himself was involved in the negotiations, with Kaas as a 'go-between'. This claim is obviously very much germane to Pacelli personally, and is what has been taken up by Cornwell etc. more recently. Again, if we have references to scholars of Scholder's reputation criticising his view, we should put that in to qualify - but not remove - Scholder's argument.Bengalski 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

Is there a source for the 55 protests claim?Bengalski 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On Bruning and the 'coalition': yes my understanding is that Str is right in that Bruning's government was not a formal coalition involving the SDP. However his rule relied on what might be called a 'tacit coalition' or understanding with the SDP. Here's what the WP article on Bruning says (obviously I'm not quoting this as a source but just to help discussion) :

Hindenburg desired to base the government on the parties of the right but the right-wing German National People's Party (DNVP) refused to support Brüning's government. To the President's dismay, Brüning therefore had to rely on his own Centre Party, the only party that fully supported him, and the toleration of the Social Democrats.

... also this, which suggests Pacelli here was making the same arguments as conservatives within Germany such as Hindenburg:

These effects undermined the support of the Social Democrats for the government and the liberal and conservative cabinet members favoured opening the government to the right. President Hindenburg, pushed by his camarilla and military chief Kurt von Schleicher, also advocated such a move and insisted on a cabinet reshuffle and especially the resignation of ministers Wirth and Guérard, both from the Centre.Bengalski 11:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that there was no coalition after all, hiding it behind wordings like "informal coalition"?

Since after the 1930 elections, the SPD (as it is called correctly) tolerated Brüning by not supporting any parliamentary moves of opposing him, thus allowing him to rule by decree (as majority of parliament could contravene every decree - such an act led to the disastrous elections of 1930).

That several forces (including the President after his reelection which he considered embarassing) wanted to open the adminsitration to the right is no secret and actually only logical given the parliamentary structure of the constitution. Whether Pacelli entertained such thoughts is a different matter. However, this doesn't change that a statement about a SPD-Centre coalition in 1931 either refers to Prussia or is simply factually incorrect. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy to admit I made a mistake about there being a coalition government. I'm not trying to hide anything - what happened to 'assume good faith?'. I'd be happy to remove that - it's not the point in any case. We could change it to e.g.:

According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he ally the Centre Party with conservative parties and the Nazis and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately."Bengalski 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, but why first talk about an "informal coalition", if it simply was a mistake. And yes, the "simply" is indeed a problem, as it singles out Pacelli when many people tried the same, the logical thing in a parliamentary democracy. Also, where did the coalition bit come from - was it your or Scholder's mistake? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the Scholder book with me at the moment - I will check it as soon as I get a chance. If you have it to hand - I remember you saying you were reading it - you might have a look. My guess it was my mistake, as it was my wording not a quote, and I think it's rather more likely I would make such a slip than Scholder.

Anyway that is all rather beside the point - let's just remove the reference to the coalition. It has no real bearing on the point - that Pacelli urged Bruning to work with the Nazis in order to get the concordat. This is a highly illuminating point, and I can't see any reason for removing it from the article.

Yes other conservatives of the time favoured working with the Nazis - but I don't see how that diminishes the relevance of this for understanding Pacelli, and the concordat in particular.

Meanwhile, we don't seem to be getting any further with the other points you removed from the article. I feel they're highly relevant and need to go back in, but as I've said a few times now I have no problem with balancing them with other views of equal scholarly weight. For example, you mention Volk - why not provide a quote from Volk on this?

If we can't get any headway on this I think the best move would be to ask for mediation.Bengalski 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look into Volk and into Scholder and get back to with the results.

If we include this it has to be in proper context. Currently, it isn't.

PS. And I did some archiving as well - all these other issues seemed to be solved. The archiving request I did delete (before anyone accuses me of censoring), as it is not really worth keeping, is it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Papal infallibility

"Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility". This suggests as a corollary that during non-recent history popes invoked it more often. Is that implication intentional? Savidan said this should be an obvious point b/c papal infallibility was promulgated in the 19th century, but I find the sentence confusing for exactly this reason. Marskell 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. I went ahead and just removed the offending portion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Papal infallibility is a long held belief in the Catholic Church. It was defined as a dogma in 1870, which means that ever since the belief is part of the Catholic faith which cannot be denied. It doesn't mean that before the belief didn't exist or that infallibility was not used by the Popes, though the classification before Pius IX is harder since the process was less regulated. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

None of which is explained by the sentence in question. Marskell 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not the topic of this article. We link to this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ciampa book

Giovane is adding again and again a book by one Leonardo Ciampa, who according to his WP article is a musician. How is a book by a musician relevant? What is this book about? (Don't say Pius XII, as we could guess that much.) The website of the author's publisher has only empty spaces on that book and says "coming soon". Please explain this all here (and not in the article) and don't issue ultimata. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Str1977, I will kindly warn you once again to be more respectful and less sarcastic towards fellow editors. Giovane is adding again -- what kind of statement is that? It is inappropriate in every way. How is a book by a musician relevant? I took a moment to look at the Ciampa WP article (which you yourself mentioned but did not read) and saw that he is a musician and author. I sincerely hope that you will take a more courteous tone in the future. GiovaneScuola2006 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have any reason to lecture other editors here. It is you who have hitherto not explained your addition (and I remotely remember that this book came up before).

I have seen that he is called a "musician and author", only that the word author is utterly void. Anyone who has written a book is an author. But what makes Ciampi relevant on Pius? Is he a historian? A theologian? Or is he somehow taking a musical approach? I really don't know and would like to know. And I think others think so as well. So please put the cards on the table. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You write that it is "a very good book about Pope Pius XII" and "a highly relevant and in fact important book on this topic". Please explain why, in what regard. Just your "humble opinion" is I am afraid not good enough if you don't share your insight. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your feeling, I have as much right to edit as you do. Also contrary to your feeling, my humble opinion is not inferior to yours. In 48 hours I will restore a book which, if you had bothered to read it, would find is an extraordinary book. And if "anyone can be an author," what have you written lately? Your attitude is very snobby, sarcastic, and un-Wikian in feeling; I kindly request that you reconsider your negative spirit. GiovaneScuola2006 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with str1977. The references section is not inteded to be a complete bibliography on Pope Pius XII. It should be limited almost exclusively to works that are cited in the article or that are seminal/important/niche. Wikipedia certainly should not be used as an outlet to bring more visibility to a work. This book hasn't even come out yet. Let's wait until it gets reviewed and cited to judge how important it is. It's not snobbish to try to keep the References section concise. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Savidan wrote: str's intentions were noble, but if this ridiculous is going to go on within the commenting its better just to remove it entirely OK, so let me get this straight (Admins, listen up, this appears to be the policy with many here): if someone reverts an edit enough times, that makes the whole matter "ridiculous" and the best solution is to "remove it entirely." Is that how Wiki works??? Savidan, your ideas are regrettable and lamentable. Str's intentions were noble? Noble? GiovaneScuola2006 03:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was very reasonable of him to leave the book in as a comment, but you abused that too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your estimation I absolutely agree with you that you "have as much right to edit as you do" and that your "humble opinion is not inferior to" mine. However, that goes both ways and I (and note it is not just me) have just as much the right to challenge your addition as you have the right to add them. Maybe I would find the book extraordinary if I read it. I have absolutely no view on the book, positive or negative. However, why are you not responding to my simple request to give an outline here, since you obviously have read it and think it so great and relevant. If you do, you will find open-minded listeners to your case. If the book hasn't come out yet as the publishers web site suggests (if so, how could I have read it?), then there is no need to hurry. You have all the time to make your case. There is certainly no need for ultimata - these I find very "un-Wikian". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocked indefinitely by Glen S. AnnH ♫ 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Copyright Laws?

Certain paragraphs of this featured article are absolutely similar to sentences of this page [4]