Talk:Ludwig Kaas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mowrer

In 1968 Edgar Ansel Mowrer wrote , copyrighted and published Triumph and Turmoil-A Personal History of our Time SBN 04 920026 .The London Publishers , George Allen & Unwin Ltd foresaw reproduction without permission for the purposes of study , research, criticism or review . Mowrer was the correspondent in Berlin from 1923-1933 for The Chicago Daily News and was authorised to employ two assistants, the second of whom was Otto Brok ,a " doctor of political sciences and a respected member of the (Catholic ) Centre Party. Mowrer mentions Brok a number of times in relation to the Centre Party , metaphysical discussion of German philosophers and news sources but the central purpose of including Brok would appear to be for this his link into the Catholic (centre) party . ......"Following the May 1932 elections Brok one morning rushed into the office in tears and shouting "It is all over , it is all over ". On Mowrer's asking for the cause of this distress ,Brok is reported as saying

"Last night at a meeting of the Centre Party, which I attended, our Party leader , Monsignor Kaas , read a letter from the Secretary of State at Rome , Cardinal Pacelli, whom you knew in Munich as nuncio." "The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor . The Zentrums [Centre Party] leaders agreed ," he sobbed "Yes , go on" I said. "But, Edgar , that means HItler in power! Hitler wants a new war and he will get it." Once more he broke into tears. "Otto, may I report the cardinal's message and the Party's decision to cooperate with the Nazis?" " 'Nein. It was a secret meeting . But you will see." Mowrer's text having referred to this previously as a betrayal of the Catholics, continues from this Brok testimony :

And see we did . From that day the Centre regularly supported Hitler . In November , the Party urged Hindenburg to take Hitler as chancellor . Even when in Febuary , 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him to the Constitution , they voted an Enabling act doing away with personal freedom , democracy and law in Germany . This they called clarifying the situation . ....." Fiamekeeper 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope"

Are you really accusing someone of being an agent of the Vatican? john k 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I struggle against this person for months and years almost, all my cited references are slated as rubbish and you, sir , have until now not been prepared to do anything . Your statement after reading Tallet (?) was quite clear about the church's influence , you said Kaas was not proved to have done as Mowrer accuses, yet the import of your conclusion would back Mowrer and others up totally . Why do you not stand by your earlier resolved statement - I asked you repeatedly to enter this and you choose now ? I tell you that it is canonical law that requires someone to act as an agent of the vatican , and I note from this editor that everything he does is aimed at not wiki-cleanup , but vatican image clean-up . If I may say I think you have been dilatory in referring back to that book and to your own confirmation of the general historical analysis. I presume that directly asked to do so, perhaps you might be so impartial as to do so . No bullshit -if I may quote you . You are quite an exalted wikipedian and your comment is further required . I believe you should return to this , or does my eventual un-PC questioning of the motives of the most assiduous follower I have (and the Popes ) provide you with enough of an excuse ? I have never stated that this political connivance more than tipped the balance at 1933 , but it was conscious and of deepest consequence. Argument as to whether Kaas did or did not join in is frankly facetious following your intervention . Do you help , or do you approve of the str1977 policy , which he has explained to be that of the faith ? If you are a committed catholic , then your belief at this exact moment must choose between the words of romans and the inactions of Pope John Paul II and now B16 . Are you prepared to not be an agent of the faith but be on the side of truth ? Famekeeper 20:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FK - I don't think the book I cited was at all clear as to the specific allegations you are claiming. It provided support to the idea that the Vatican agreed not to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for the Concordat. Beyond that, you are imputing a lot of quid pro quo and imputing a great deal of significance to things that the book I quoted does not support. I would appreciate it if you quit using one brief quote from me on a limited subject to support your entire case. john k 22:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I cannot agree with what you wrote about my or your past editing, but I am willing to let the past be past so I will not comment on it. Let me just state, that I'm not receiving money from anyone and doing all my editing completely on my own. Please refrain from accusing (and in our circumstances this cannot be done civilly) other editors (not only me, also others) from being part of some conspiracy.

I never questioned that you honestly believe that what you post is the historical truth and hence your intention is not to slander. But your interpretation is not beyond reproach and must be debatable (including a conclusion and not a perpetual debate).

As far as I see it, our arguments can be classified into several fields:

1) the facts of historical events - eventually there cannot be disagreement (or balance) about that

2) the historical interpretation of these events, of the motivation of agents etc - this is open to disagreeing views (though they should not be original research, according to wiki rules)

3) a moral assessment of the events - that must always be based on points 1 and 2

4) an assessment in regard to Christian morality in particular, to Scripture and to canon law (including conclusions for today's Church) - this must be based on points 1 and 2 and on the actual Christian morality and actual canon law (and not mere inferences from these)

Now, points 3 and 4 are valid in their own right, but not really relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. You might dislike it, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. (Though I have repeatedly pointed out to you, why your "Question of the Law" reasoning is wrong, and can do it again, one final time.)

Points 1 and 2 is what we should discuss, since these are relevant to the entries here on Wiki and this is what I propose to do.

You mentioned several sources in support of your point and I am willing to check these, if you will provide exact references (page numbers, if you are using German editions, or the respective chapters). That goes for works of historiography, not for drama.

John Kenney has clarified that his book does not specifically supports your interpretation.

Far from it .

I have looked into Günther Lewy, but have found no support for your interpretation either (but you may point out some specific passages for re-reading)

Disingenuous -Lewy I quoted no more than the 'humanitas' timeline. All the relevant dates of movements and meetings between nazis and Popes and intermediaries are simply listed . I never quoted any assumptions from lewy , so , far from it .

Also, your quotes from Klemperer and even Mowrer didn't seem to necessarily support your interpretation.

I have no interpretation , but you Sir , semm to have no respect for any ciation of sources . I advise the reader to see the archives and the proof . You 'Sir, already have , and you are becoming clearer in your denials -but don't blame the messenger , blame your own clerics who connived with even then bloodied hands of Hitler , self-confessed trumpeter for ant-semitism and ,in fact,the removal by murder of the jews .

If you will point me to the passages, I will look into Klemperer (German resistance against Hitler) or Mowrer (Germany puts back the clock) as well.

I did long ago , so, disingenuous . This is the finger in the collapsing di(y)ke talking-all this is designed to palliate and dilute the subject . This is bad faith .

Any other books, I must first find out whether I have them accessible at the library. Sorry, if I can't read all your books cover to cover, but I am quite busy with other things (and as I said I'm not getting paid for this).

Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki.

You ,Sir, would not say so if you realised that therein lies a second clear reference to papal secrecy , following the Bruning/Monarchy story. herein is showm that tendency to evade a paper trail in order to protect the poe from his own actions. The vatican episode does indeed repeat , and I shall revisit it, but really apart from revealing papal secrecy practice , it is more shocking for revealing widerstand attitudes and British appeaser attitudes with the papal vision of a Germany allowed to remain without repentance or ,in fact, democracy . The Pope was no less wrong at this time than the remaining british appeasers , but more wrong because he knew of the Hitlerian anti-semitic reality .

Please don't shout at me, if I say that I don't completely understand all passages, as I have written above. If you are German or have translated this from German, I am more than willing to have a look at the German wording and try to help in translating it into English. Also, if your German or German-speaking, I am quite open to a discussion in German, if that helps you.

Str1977 30 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

See canonical legality @ Archive 1 at discussion on ' Hitler's Pope ' page Famekeeper 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I don't have to dig up the canon law in the archive, because I think, we have sufficently debated them. I think I have repeatedly stated why your reasoning does not work. Actually I'm more interested in discussing facts and interpretation (points 1 and 2) - and I also would like you to finish the "Vatican exchange section" you have started. I don't know how to handle it edit-wise in its current state.

As for your books:

Sorry to say, but what I read in Lewy does not support your interpretation and Lewy is very critical of the Church.

What you cited from Klemperer does not support your interpretation.

Even what you quoted from Mowrer does not necessarily support your interpretation.

I want to look up your quotes from Klemperer and Mowrer too, so please provide page numbers (no German edition needed, I can access the English one).

I believe you represent the vatican , indeed I would only expect that someone does. I may be wrong , but then it would be more surprising if you did not . I believe you represent the CDF and have access to all sorts of assistance . I may be wrong , but I would expect it . You keep asking if I am a german . I will only say that it is not my purpose to diminuish any german .

And please stop using John Kenney again and again. He only stated that his book referred to a quid-pro-quo in the Concordat dealings, namely trade concordat for centre party. No one here ever disputed that. Even I, in my very first post directed to you, accepted that (my "sell the car to the robber" analogy). John's book however does not support any larger quid-pro-quo.

The thing I'm concerned about is your constant claim, that the Pope put Hitler in power, when he didn't. Neither did Pacelli. The German people, yes the middle classes and some reactionary and business circles, put him into power. Kaas also bears some blame, but he didn't have the purpose of making Hitler tyrant. His coalition negotiations were quite stupid and quite useful for Hitler. I think I included this into the Centre article (section: Between ...), and in a much broader way than it was there before.

That is really not good enough , Sir, and I do not accept your qualifications as to depth of intrigue. You distrust me , but if you hadn't hidden all the references and citations it would be apparent that you do not need to attack me for inaccuracy or bias , but do need to face what so many historians increasingly say . I thank you for doing the world a service , again .Famekeeper 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Church Law Governing Ludwig Kaas' "Political career" and his Superiors

This collaboration which assisted Hitler to power is what we disagree about and now we disagree about the meaning of the historians words. Klemperer ,for one, could not be clearer and would relate to all studies previous to his own . I fear I have to say that you are misrepresenting such historical qualifications . I am repeating that historians have seen a clear involvement by the church and its papacy in German politcs ,culminating in the quid pro quo between the Concordat , the dissolution of the centre Party Germany and the Enabling Act . Church authority ignored and denied and over-ruled its own clerics within Germany in order to achieve this . As you asked ,I present the links and texts of the 1917 and 1983 Canonical codes which clearly state that only with sanction could Kaas have had a 'political career' . These two very words in the article are specious in the extreme , as is all the obfuscation and evasion. It is very obvious given these texts I quote that the political injunction existed from at least 1917 and therefore referred to all the clerics and Popes in question . These come from [[1]] 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 :[[2]]

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 .

Towards a Resolution (now including the German "soul" quote in full and translation)

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......

Note that oppose to are not found in the actual quote. The former is FK's unwarranted insertion, the latter my typo. For more see below. (Str 1977)

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!

Famekeeper 00:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well FK, no case not proved!

But first of all, I must state that Wiki is no law court and we are not advocates and this is no trial. However, if you want to see it as such, you must allow for a defence and stop complaining about apologies.

Also, I never termed you "despicable" - I guess I called some edit you did so, but that doesn't mean that you're despicable. I'm a Christian - I distinguish between people and acts.

Now, as promised, here is the German text of Kaas reference to soul.

Meeting of the Centre party's Reichstags-fraction on 23 March, 1933, 11.15.

(from Die Protokolle der Reichstagsfraktion und des Fraktionsvorstands der Deutschen Zentrumspartei 1926-1933 (edited by Rudolf Morsey), in: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Zeitgeschichte Reihe A: Quellen, Band 9), Mainz 1969, page 630.) (also in: Rudolf Morsey (ed.): Das "Ermächtigunsgesetz" vom 24. März 1933, Göttingen 1968, page 26-27.)

"... Im Anschluß weißt Dr. Kaas auf die schwierige Stellung der Fraktion im gegenwärtigen Augenblick hin. Es gelte einerseits unsere Seele zu wahren, andererseits ergäben sich aus der Ablehnung des Ermächtigungsgesetz unangenehme Folgen für die Fraktion und die Partei. Es bliebe nur übrig, uns gegen das Schlimmste zu sichern. Käme die Zweidrittel-Majorität nicht zustande, so werde die Durchsetzung der Pläne der Reichsregierung auf anderem Wege erfolgen. Der Reichspräsident habe sich mit dem Ermächtigungsgesetz abgefunden. Auch von den Deutschnationalen her sei kein Versuch einer Entlastung der Situation. Dr. Kaas lehnte es ab, von sich aus einen Vorschlag zu machen, wie man sich entscheiden solle. ..."

For the benefit of non-German speaker, I have translated this as closely as possible (so please excuse the clumsiness of the following text:

After this, Dr. Kaas pointed out the precarious situation of the fraction in the current moment. It was important on one hand to preserve our soul and on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What was left was only to safeguard us against the worst. If the 2/3-majority were not reached, the implementation of the government's plan would occur by another way. The President has accept (or resigned to) the Enabling act. From the DNVP too no attempt of allieviating the situation is to be expected. Dr. Kaas refused to himself make a proposal how to decide.

You can read now for yourself what Kaas said (it's in the reported speech of protocol).

Your conclusions from that little quote I put in, unfortunately with a typo (superfluous "to") are unfounded. Kaas did not say "opposing" (your inclusion) is necessary to "preserve the soul". That might be your view or my view but from the quote not necessarily Kaas' view and from the context certainly not Kaas' view. He goes on to win the fraction for an unanimously vote in favour of the Act. Kaas certainly was aware that it was a problematic move, a move he didn't like (and hence my opposition to your quick jumping), especially since the "assurances" were not very reliable.

Also, even if your reasoning on the alleged excommunications were correct, you cannot base any case on a letter neither of us has read. We have only Mowrer's rendition of Brok's exlamations that night. That might be enough for some qualified inclusion into the article, which I conceded on the Centre party page, but not for any pseudo law suits (pseudo because this is no court and you're no canon lawyer or judge).

I won't complain much about that your dating of the letter is still off (and even May is not one year before the Enabling Act).

This much for your proven case. Str1977 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith

One of the tenets of the Wikipedia is: "Assume good faith." I remind Famekeeper of that guideline. Famekeeper has posted: "I accuse - plainly, civilly and openly - this user of being an agent of the vatican, by his actions ,which are purely designed to erase the papal connection to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich." I respectfully disagree with Famekeeper as to whether such a plain and open allegation is civil, but I will let others decide that. It is not an assumption of good faith. Do you have any actual evidence that Str1977 is an agent of the Vatican, or are you simply claiming that approximately one billion humans are agents of the Vatican, which has aspects of a conspiracy theory?

If you lost your temper (as humans will) and made a statement that is more extreme than you intended, then I suggest that you apologize.

I agree with you more than I do with Str1977 about Cornwell and Pope Pius XII. However, you are not likely to attract support by personal attacks. You are also not likely to attract support if you cannot provide concise summaries of what your cases are.

Robert McClenon 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, but I don't demand an apology. What I'd like to have is FK finally accepting that I don't work for the Vatican, as I have stated repeatedly, and also FK stop accusing anyone contradicting him of being part of a conspiracy. I'm only a simple Catholic and a historian meaning protect accuracy. Unfortunately (and maybe we disagree there, Robert, but never mind) Pius XII is a historical person who has to suffer much slandering (don't jump, FK, I don't mean you) and "black-washing". You certainly don't have to be a fan of him or applaud everything he ever did or like his methods or style of handling things, but doesn't deserve this. Str1977 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel , if not experience , that there should be a straightforward resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts . That it is not a question of recantation , but of reason . I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn the motives of Str1977 , and hope this to be correct .

However this can only be done on the basis of adhering to the WP rules about citations and published sources . From the experience of Str1977's assiduity , I recommend him entirely , under these forces of reason . It appears to me that , au fond ,Str1977 (Str ?) is acting partly because that which his vision hitherto wishes to have been the accepted case ,is the vision of history un-tainted by this severe questioning . I do deny , however , that this re-building of vision is research : I am referring to published sources . Public sources .

Under the guidance of reason , we should be able to inhabit the same world , even this virtual WP reflection of it . If, for example , my fairly un-exotic memory remembers seeing direct evidential contradiction with the statement that there was no public "blessing" or such of Hitler from an ecclesiatical source , and if I take the effort to sift back to produce this, then reason dictates. The argument should then be the merits of the writer sourced , the validity of the report in truth and perhaps proven to the contrary -by another source .

There is no carte blanche , there is only reason and good will . If I point to a contradiction in law , whomsoever's law , based on evidence sourced reasonably , I should expect , as seems to emanate from McClenon , a reasonable variation in reaction to one un-coloured by this information . At a few times , Str and I found this , but I think the gravity and explosive nature of the reports made the connection between will and reason difficult . One can wish as a will , but it is not helpful . I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary .

As I might answer these most interesting questions arising from the widerstand, for they relate to this reconciliation , I will , equally , bear fully in mind the willed criticisms that I harshly judge and harshly & judgementally act , and that this alone proves me to be less than those who act acted then in defence of this will . I believe that the ecclesiastics acted through will , possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill . This gets back to my harsh criticisms , that 'you' should 'be controlled'.The fact is that the world has no more geo-political space left for this action through will . Nowhere is this beneficial : reason alone , as I have specified , is bound to goodness whereas will alone has no authority . Whichever body of men claim to act by will alone become a danger : the will that would say this is so because we will it so can have no place in reason or good governance . This is one of the central issues of our day , and all things are inter-connected , like the hairs on our heads or the birds in a field . The relevance of this article is total : it defines the present as much or more than anything else in the world .

As to mediation, it is quite plain from what Robert McClenon reports, that no one better than ourselves can be expected to face up to these issues . We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources , and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles . We two should take the lead in defining this in so far as it seems this is an un-tested area of the WP nature . McClenon refers to this, and I suppose it must pop up a thousand times a week .

Nevertheless , my reason forces me to persist in nailing the reports and the analyses to the relevant 'door' . I would very much like Str to help me , or I help him -because if we were to combine , much more good could be reasoned . I think I have offered this before , but mutual suspicion - he of my sources or attitude, myself disputing the origin of his will , fell asunder into a pitiless edit war . I fear that the interpretations which will soon follow as to the exact nature of german widerstand 'thought' behind that door , will also prove uncomfortable and inflammatory . Could we not agree to paraphrase sources , and expand them under fair use in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ?

Famekeeper 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)