Talk:Pope Pius XII

POV section

Just looking at the section covering him in the 1930s - it looks very uncritical to me - no mention of Ludwig Kaas for eg. as I understood it Pacelli took a realistic attitude to the nazi phenomenon, code for appeasement -- the section suggests no compromise was ever thought possible - yet the story of the 30s is surely in part a story of sought compromises - the fact that the Nazis were something one couldn't/shouldnt compromise with was the problem, but the Church didn't get it - and was full of 'patriotic ' bishops anyhow . like faulhaber, and galen who urged catholics to defend the fatherland , - and no mention of the Church and pacelli and pius XI seeing communism and soacialism and even liberalism as the main enemy - leading to its unprincipled allying of its cause in a crusade with hitler and mussolini against the spanish second republic - undue weight give to a few quotes in the section - the section looks pov troubling to me,Sayerslle (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for this section to mention every single fact. The section is a summary of the full article Nunciature of Eugenio Pacelli. While you clearly have your own view, the POV flag is inappropriate unless you can point to a more specific problem. I propose: quote the sentence or clause you object to; concisely state your criticism; concisely propose your preferred solution; then include any supporting material. Repeat as necessary. Savidan 08:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree more with the editor who voted 'reject' when this went for good article review, or gold star article review, 'reject this one sided and POVy aticle' - it's hard to point out each problem I see , as I didn't like much of what i was reading. 'while you clearly have your own view -...' means? Do you have a view on Pius XII? I should like to know it. in the editng history I see names of editors I recognise and I know their view, or think I do, same as you think you know mine.[in fact, its probably true every editor of this article there ever was has had a POV - it began in August 2001 the article, by april 2003 there is a fully pro-pius POV version, 'Pius - he did all he could' , not til a user:Eloquence shows up, (immediately confronted by user:JTDrl , very pro-PIus XII again), -is there any balance at all - so the first two years give an idea of what will happen at the article] Who is marchione, that the article relied on through the whole early sections as far as I can see. is she a historian? And every title she ever penned in the bibliography.... does she 'clearly have her own point of view -'? Didn't stop you using her all over the place. I don't like tags either so get rid of it, - maybe article s about people like this will always be battlegroundish- iliked versions from a couple of years back better than this 'one-sided POVy version. btw , at Amazon, I've noticed a book titled 'Eugenio Pacelli - in the view of scholarship', editor Peter Pfister, (publisher Schnell & Steiner) is to be published in June 2012 - maybe that could be used to bring the most recent scholarship to bear on the article. Sayerslle (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. The tags should either have the issues they refer to fixed and then the tags removed or, if they are unjustified, simply removed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To save anyone else from following this rabbit-trail, there is now only one notation on the Cleanup list (an unsourced statement). In such a long article, I don't have time to look for it.JWorkman 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A poster shared some interesting information of communications between the Vatican and Franco/Mussolini. I deleted the content because it was out of place, if the editors here should approve of what had been written then it could be given its own sub-section or added to a more appropriate section.

I would advise however that should the information be re posted, it should be re-written with added context and further research, as the previous edit seemed to serve a critical agenda.

Thank You and let me know if we ought to make room for the information somewhere else on the page. Scout of truth (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout of truth (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is information from a book written by a Benedictine, Hilari Raguer, - what are you on about, more context? - it was in the context of the end of the Spanish Civil War, - is' re-written with added context and further research' , code for , - ' rewritten to present PIus XII in a completely hallowed light' ? Sayerslle (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the prompt reply, I was suggesting that it would fit better in its own section (ie. "Spanish Civil War") in much the same way that there is a section set aside for the Second World War. While it is indeed chronological, it is attached to a section addressing his appointment as Pope. By context I am suggesting that we ought to include his views or involvement in the greater Spanish Civil War, including perhaps the papal response to the red terror, or nationalist crimes. What you posted was a sound byte at the conclusion of a very significant conflict.

Ultimately its just out of place, If you feel that it is necessary to post then write a new section. Not just with info you feel is incriminating, make it objective and go all the way, if your source is reputable than read the rest of it and write more. I am even willing to assist you. Scout of truth (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

'I am even willing...' bloody hell. he wasn't POpe was he during the first few months of the scw and the response to the right wing uprising (tho you're right there could be material on Pius XI/Pacelli response in the thirties section - which from my reading was certainly less fanatic and fascistic than the spanish hierarchy's response) -- you do what you want, - I'll follow my own way of contributing ta very much, - the sense I have is that it's an article written by 'croyants' i believe is the french term - time for it to be reviewed for sure. P>S - i see you've aked Nancy Heise for help - I dunno - you're dragging your own agenda around aren't you, - read books, don't rely on her opinion - (like life of brian - don't follow anyone , think for yourself)..Sayerslle (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I did indeed contact Nancy, though I suspect that she may no longer be active anymore. I did so because it seems that she had a great deal of involvement in this article, and could act as mediator, or at least observe the numerous edits. The study of History is not a one man project, it requires collaboration. You may like the "lone wolf" approach, but it is not reliable, and aggravates other contributors. Addressing your earlier comments, he may not have been Pope, but he was still a man of great influence in the Vatican prior to his appointment as Pope, which makes much of that info quite relevant. Having read through some of Ciano's diaries,and German diplomatic cables, it is clear the Pacelli was very involved. Those Communiques also speak of great friction between Papal Authorities and fascist leaders, this means that the relationship between Nazi Germany/fascist Italy/Franco's Spain, and the Vatican may not have been as friendly as you have written them to be. I am not posting this to suggest that you are entirely incorrect, I am posting it because it conflicts with much of what you wrote earlier on this page and in the talk section. It means you iether omitted important data (and I do not think that is the case), or like the rest of us, you do not have the whole truth.

Additionally, speaking of agendas, you are not being objective in your approach to the topic. You have assumed a critical position and your edits reflect that position. The subject is still being debated fervently by far more qualified historians than you and I. That means we have to step back and keep both of our egos in check. You need to dial back your hostility in your approach to this topic and in your responses to other posters. I have read through your track record and it is not exemplary, you have a bad habit of attacking those who disagree with you, and it has earned you many infractions. I would like to avoid that if possible. Scout of truth (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah, and we read the historians and benefit from their qualified opinions etc etc if you've made 30 contributions in 4 years, that is not much aid to the collaborative effort is it..if theres great friction evident betwen papal authorities and FRanco , add it, between pacelli and franco, add it.. etc .. stop telling me what I need to do , pompous..Sayerslle (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scout of truth; Sayerslle's original edit was out of place but perhaps because it did not say enough. The edit suggests that Pius XII supported Franco's regime. Presumably it did support a "Catholic victory" but I think the text inserted by Sayerslle doesn't provide enough context. We should say something like "Initially, Pius XII was generally supportive of the Franco regime seeing it as a triumph of Catholicism over its enemies in Spain. After WWII, he negotiated a Concordat with Spain although in later years the Vatican became critical of Franco." Then, we can add in what Sayerslle wrote as well as information about the Concordat and the later criticisms of Franco. Whether all that belongs in this article or a separate article on Catholic Church and Falangist Spain is something for us to discuss. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- from reading Hilari Raguer's study of the Catholic Church in Spain 36-39 I noted 7 Pacelli intervenentions/involvements 1/ in February 1937 suggesting a letter to the Basque nationalists , dealing with their attitude to the uprising ' on the collaboration between the Basque Catholics and the Communists' 2)- over the collective letter of the Spanish bishops. August 1937 - where he seems to have counselled keeping a distance from the whole-hearted embrace of the Right by the Spanish hierarchy - 'and from the bellicose attitude of the Spanish bishops' 3) March 38 - italian air bombing of Barcelona - attitude to franco-British protest over the aerial bombings - responsible for front page article on L'Osservatore Romano of the 24th - notes killing of priests in Teruel and vandalization of churches - but ends with 'other victims caused this time by the aerial bombing of Barcelona' -a rebuke for Franco 4/ efforts to reach a negotiated peace , letters about this to Pacelli from Vidal y barraquer, - Pacelli seems to have wondered pretty listlessly 'if Yanguas Messia, (Spanish Nationalist Ambassador to the Holy See), believed mediation possible, for people were continually talking to him about it' - yanguas believed he had 'dissuaded the vatican from harbouring any fond and foolish thoughts of mediation or of continuing relations with the Republic' - 5/ attitude in general of Pacelli toward how close and formal relations could be , contact between the Holy See and the Republic, and ecclesiatical normalization should the situation of the Church in the republican zone continue to improve -- Pacelli's attitude ' rather evasive and noncommital' - 6/ Francoist demand Vidal i Barraquer be removed from his see at Tarragona - Pacelli resists this 7/ Pius XII welcomes Franco victory , congratulates him for his 'Catholic victory' -and radio message (With immense joy..)the document drafted by a Fr Salaverri, a Jesuit - by whom Pacelli seems to have been guided in the language - Pius wanted to add an exhortation to reconciliation and mercy. Not like a Cardinal Goma then, or Miralles on Majorca; a conservative priest really. Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... first let's figure out where we want to cover this material and then return to the details later. Is this a topic that must be covered in this article? Would it make sense to have a detailed article on Catholic Church and Falangist Spain with a summary of relevant points in this article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I think probably there should be something in the section on Pacelli when serving as Cardinal Secretary of State, the SCW is important - but he emerges from Raguer's book as kind of passive - not sure how to shape the material at all - have more to read - i have Cornwell's (notorious) book so i'll read that, see if he adds to the material on Pacelli on Spain, and I've ordered Gerard Noel's book, - i think something belngs in the 'Pacelli as Cardinal Secretary of State section' basically, but I'm not sure what it should say. Sayerslle (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The predomination of Jewish sources in this article

This is an article about a leader of a rival religion; the Catholic Church. Jews in general, as members of its most diametrically opposed competitor are quite naturally bias against the topic and are known for extreme dislike of the Catholic Church (the Talmud singles out Christianity for strong attacks). Yet in the bibliography section their names dominate. There is a clear conflict of interest with using them so heavily as sources for this article. Especially when themes promoting their racist ethnocentric view of World War II predominates, with no mention of context of the age, such as their crimes during the same century against Christians under Bolshevism.

Some of these books, such as Daniel Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning" and Susan Sessions' "Under His Very Windows" are naked Jewish chauvinism and anti-Catholic propaganda. Unless we are going to use propaganda books of a similar level, such as Mein Kampft and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as sources for the article on Jews then we should have more serious sources for this one. I notice also that the main author of this article Savidan has created a legion of mostly inane articles such as Pope Pius XII and Yad Vashem, which do not warrant one at all, to make the navigation bar at the bottom be dominated with the theme of "Jews, Jews, Jews", thus presenting a negative view of Pope Pius XII on the page which gains most hits via an internet search engine, when this is actually a footnote of his Papacy. CatholicObserver (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

catholic observer: Perhaps had it not been for the crusades, inquisitions and Holocaust, all directly attributible to the catholic church, Jews would have a better opinion, particularly given Pacelli's friendly meeting with the Pol Pot of the Balkans, Ante Pavelic, and the church's efforts on behalf of Nazi and Axis war criminals, including Pavelic, after WWII ended. Your rancid nonsense and stupidity are not needed or wanted here. And Judaism is not christianity's rival; it is christianity's parent. How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have an ungrateful child, as "the Bard" pointed out so long ago. Quis separabit? 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Catholic Observer's point was that the books, when published, were not peer reviewed, and have since not stood well under this scrutiny. If their scholarship is in such dispute, and I am aware that "Under His Very Windows" is, I would like it omitted. The facts that remain that are brought up in the books can be brought into the article through other sources, correct? Letting in books with bias, anti-academia agendas is not helpful. David Irving had some facts in his books. That wasn't really the problem was it? Maybe, I'm a "liberal jew" but I've decided to bury the hatchet on the whole Crusades affair.Fancynancywhy (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Legend nonsense promoted by Anglophone Protestants, Freemasons and Jews. The Crusades was largely a conflict between Mohammedans and Christians, following the Mohammedans seizing control of Christian North Africa, the Holy Land and pressing to take control of all of Europe. The Jews in that conflict, at different times, backed different sides, but they initially acted as a fifth column in the Moorish conquest of Iberia (similar to their support of mass immigration today). So neither side completely trusted them.

"The Jews in that conflict, at different times, backed different sides": you mean like the Irish during World War II?

The Inquisition was an internal Catholic matter, though some Marrano's had attempted to infiltrate, as a plot to take control of Spain and were fortunetly whittled out for a while by the Dominicans. The so-called "Holocaust", ie - the gas chamber fantasy, is a complete lie, there were no gas chambers, but this basic and very real conflict was an ethno-political one; Germans-vs-Jews; based largely on the Jewish support of Communism and their financial exploitation of the German people. Talmudic Judaism is not the parent of Christianity either, but rather a rival sect; the Catholic Church has no parent, it is the orthodox continuation of the religion of Israel. Still, you avoided completely the topic at hand for some Orange Order/Masonic anti-Catholic rant, try again. CatholicObserver (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A) "Still, you avoided completely the topic at hand for some Orange Order/Masonic anti-Catholic rant, try again." -- What topic?? The fact that you don't like scholarship which goes against your biased views? Or the fact that the catholic church can not suppress films, books, etc. as it once could do, historically speaking? There is no "topic" except for your hate mongering, attention seeking nonsense, although the Orange Order comment is instructive in indicating your own likely provenance. Quis separabit? 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

B) "the Catholic Church has no parent" - I thought only monsters had no parents. Wait you might be right. Anyway, the religion of Israel was Abrahamic monotheism, by the way. It's amazing how insecure you are despite the fact that there are only thirteen million Jews in the world (although that low number is because of at least 1000 years of persecution from people like you, otherwise the number would be around 200 million), as opposed to a billion or so (nominal) Catholics. Quis separabit? 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

C) "The Inquisition was an internal Catholic matter" -- uh no. Pedophilia scandals, embezzlement scandals, sodalities, et al are internal church affairs, not forcible conversions in lieu of being burned at the stake or expelled. Also, again, "Judaism is not christianity's rival; it is christianity's parent" -- this is something which true Christians acknowledge. I do not consider the whore of babylon to be a Christian church or one which Christ would ever recognise as such. I am surprised that you, as a sedevacantist, are bothering to defend the church anyway. Something's afoot. I wonder what Herr Ratzinger (the former Hitler Youth) would have to say about all this. Quis separabit? 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Goldhagen and Zucotti just don't seem to be used much in the article , in the refs used I coudn't see their names- what was 'the religion of isarel' btw , if not Judaism? - so 'the cath church is the orthodox continuation of the religion of Israel= orthodox continuation of Judaism -' - Not that it was i don't think, i guess pharisaism was a more orthodox line , the Jesus group more apocalyptic and radical, - anyway - you are an anti-semitic ranter of some kind aren't you? would you seriously deny that? Your point about the article being too reliant on anti-pius jewish writers is not correct anyhow far as i can see. this is not a forum either- you need concrete sentences/paragraphs/suggestions to improve the article i believe. that is the 'house style' of wp. talk pages. Sayerslle (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I should desist from making any further responses to this moron, who should go back to Stormfront. I know I should have just ignored her/him ("catholic observer") but since no one else was responding I felt I should jump into the fray. He or she just craves attention and wants to get a rise out of other people, although not in the enjoyable way. (BTW, Sayerslle, your comment "you are an anti-semitic ranter of some kind aren't you?" was spot on. Good to see he/she couldn't pull the wool over your eyes.) Quis separabit? 18:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

what's the problem? let's use how many Jewish sources as possible... For example:

"POPE PIUS XII - DEMOCRACIES APPLAUD CARDINALS' CHOISE -WHEN NAZIS ATTACKED MGR PACELLI
(Jewish Chronicle, March 10, 1939)
"Cardinal Pacelli's elevation as Pope in succession to Pius XI has evoked general approval in the democratic countries, where it is believed that he will follow closely in the footsteps of Pius XI and continue the stand against totalitarian attacks on the Church. Among the congratulations receveid are messages frome the Anglo-Jewish Community, the Synagogue Council of America, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Polish Rabbinical Council. It is widely recalled that the new Pope has shown himself in the past to have shared Pius XI's hostility to Nazi paganism and racialism.... The Nazis in Germany appear to have been taken by surprise... It is interesting to recall.. that not very long ago, on January 22, the Voelkisher Beobachter, published picture of Cardinal Pacelli and other Church dignitaries beneath a collective heading of "Agitators in the Vatican against Fascism and National Socialism".source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.169.142 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CatholicObserver, when information is being provided, the religion of the author doesn't matter as long as they are able to present the view in an honest and neutral way. If the article was quoting some Anti-Catholic book written by a hard-core Zionist, that would be understandable; however, you seem to have a personal problem with the Jews, ergo, I doubt any edits will be made. If you want changes done, I suggest you rewrite your post using less stereotypes about the Jews, stop trying to pick a fight (i.e. saying the Holocaust didn't happen), provide some actual good evidence, and not get into petty squabbles about unrelated Church matters. Hucklebur (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

well, I do not agree with CatholicObserver's approach and assesments (he is wrong about the predomination of Jewish sources; scholars and historians should not be evaluated on their religion; there are Jewish authors favorable to Pius as there are Catholic against). Anyway I hope that in WP there is not the habit to respond to antiSemitic sentiments with antiCatholic sentiments as I can read in the discussion where 'unrelated Church matters' are introduced also by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.140.144 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you it isn't. This just happens to be a inflammatory religious page, so it has more than its fair share of trolls. Hucklebur (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission

In regards to clean up and relevancy, the last paragraph that quotes "Fatal Silence: the pope, the resistance and the German occupation of Rome": Is this very lengthy quote necessary? I think with proper paraphrasing and truncation it could chopped in half, at least.Fancynancywhy (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

a very long quote for things unrelated with the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.153.7 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)