Talk:Pope Pius X
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pope Pius X article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 4, 2011.|
- 1 Father's genealogy
- 2 Father - Polish? part 2
- 3 Untitled
- 4 Can't see...
- 5 Picture of Pius X
- 6 add a link
- 7 Styles infobox
- 8 Assuming miracles
- 9 Name Change.
- 10 Theological 'errors' and the uncorrupted body.
- 11 Was Pius X's father Polish?
- 12 Diligen's edit and the NPOV policy.
- 13 Focus
- 14 Fair use rationale for Image:PiusXCOA.jpg
- 15 Page Title
- 16 Miracles
- 17 Pope Pius X's father was not Polish
- 18 Photo "as a young boy"
- 19 Quasi-quotation
Edited the talk about being Polish due to the fact that there is no factual evidence. Anyone can claim that anyone was from anywhere and migrated to anywhere for a "better life". I doubt moving to Italy at that time would be a "better life". My ancestors were fleeing Italy back then "for a better life" to the U.S. The fact that the rumor claimed a Polish/German town automatically made his father Polish is weak.
Father - Polish? part 2
You say his father was from where? Back there it was part of Germany, Boguschütz, not Poland, so how can you claim someone was "Polish" for borders that did not exist back then? This is clearly garbage and I suggest taking it out. Sure, not only Germans lived in Boguschütz, but if one is from there, doesn't make them automatically Polish. This claim needs to be taken out. Boguschütz was in Schlesien, and not everyone from Schlesien was Polish back then.
In 1978, the Bishop of Krakow succeeded the former Patriarch of Venice as Pope.
- No problem, i solved. 126.96.36.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC).
Picture of Pius X
Strongly suspect that the picture you recently have included of Pius X is, in fact, of Pius IX. Can't be certain, however.
Hello everyone I've had a little piece of information to this article and in the same time I would like to create a link to what I've add, the word is Salzano Thank you very much indeed
A discussion occurred at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution about a solution to the ongoing style wars on Wikipedia. The consensus favoured replacing styles at the start of articles by an infobox on styles in the article itself. I have added in the relevant infobox here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The article states as fact that Pius X left instructions not to be embalmed, and yet his body many years later was not "corrupted" by decay. Has it ever been proven that his body was not, in fact, embalmed? Or are we taking this "on faith", as it were? --Spudtater 12:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- should this page be moved to "Pope Saint Pius X"? Pure inuyasha 21:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Popes are listed on Wikipedia as popes, not saints, blesseds, servants of god, etc. We use the contemporaneous papal name, not a later variation. In addition, while there is universal agreement that he was a pope, there is not universal agreement outside the Catholic Church that he is a saint. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Theological 'errors' and the uncorrupted body.
In accepting the Papacy, Sarto took as his Papal name Pius X, out of respect for his recent predecessors of the same name, particularly Pope Pius IX (1846–78), who had resisted persecution and fought against theological errors.
A bit of a slant here- everyone is against "errors," but Piux IX was not proofreader-in-chief who said "oh, you meant Elisha here where Elijah actually did that part." The theological errors being referred to are almost certainly heresies of the time, and should be referred to more specifically as the actual doctrines suggested (or, at least, as "errors as considered by Piux X / The Catholic Church"). Persecution is also a bit of a strong word that usually implies the weak being oppressed by the strong, such as the Roman Empire's persecution of the Christians. While Pius IX was chased out of Rome in exile, he was a political leader in a state being toppled, and was the guy with an army who normally got to rule others. It's kind of an expected hazard of the job- I wouldn't say that Louis XVI was persecuted, for instance. You reap what you sow.
I've tenatively rewritten this to be fighting against theological liberals (a bit of a wide net, feel free rewrite as more specific) and for papal supremacy (what with The First Vatican Council and all).
As it was in 1944, Pius X's body was not "corrupted" by decay, a condition that remains true even to this day.
Does anyone have a good, unbiased source on this? If this is true, then frankly this is something that should be inspiring vast scientific interest into how that possibly could have happened. I Googled some and I couldn't even find much in the way of either believing sources nor skeptical sites. SnowFire 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some brief research shows that stories were still being written about Pius X well into the 1930s, 20 years after his death. The New York Times has stories about commemorations of the popes death in 1924 and 1934. Neither of these stories mentions his body being uncorrupted, even though his body was frequently viewed.Tocath 06:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A bit more extensive research, again from the Times, which ran a story on Pius' "reburial" on June 27 1944. The entire story is three paragraphs. There is some mention of American Soldiers in Italy viewing the body, and a bit of detail about what the body was clothed in ("clad in gorgeous red, white and gold... the gift of Pope Pius XII"). There is no indication whatsoever of his physical appearance. I would imagine that a body uncorrupted for 30 years would incite some serious curiosity, and would certainly be newsworthy.Tocath 06:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you've sold me. I did some more research as well, and can only find canonization style sites. [] seems to say that the phonemenom "hasn’t been systematically examined by science and no rational explanations have yet been offered," a claim which strikes me as reaaaaaaaally shaky considering how old the practice of autopsies are. If the only sources are ones that are inclined to say it happened regardless of it or not, I'll put in a rewrite to make it more clear.SnowFire 05:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Was Pius X's father Polish?
An anonymous user clumsily added this in. A quick Google shows that this theory is on extremely shaky grounds (people have investigated it and found no confirming records at the Polish church he was alleged to have come from), and, more to the point, it's kind of irrelevant. This is worthy of, at most, a subsection in the currently non-existent Giovanni Battista Sarto article. SnowFire 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Diligen's edit and the NPOV policy.
Diligens, I reverted your changes. Here's why.
- Despite this, the pontificate of Pius X was one of the more controversial of modern papacies.
Do you deny that the papacy was controversial? Saying that there's a controversy is perfectly NPOV, taking (unsourced) sides is usually not.
- I don't know why you say here about taking unsourced sides, because the omission (absence) of a statement is not doing so. And there are several problems with this portion:
- The most glaring is that it is a judgment without a verified, reliable source to back it. The policy says that any editor can excise such statements. This alone is sufficient.
- What is meant by "modern" is difficult to say, for how many pontificates are supposed to be included, how far back?
- What is meant by his "pontificate" being described as controversial makes it seem like the very fact that he was a legitimate pope was historical in question. And this is not true.
- What is meant by his "pontificate" being described as controversial makes the connotation that there is some moral fault in, which is huge PoV no-no with a man canonized as a Saint.
- The explicit description "one of the more controversial" itself suggests an extraordinary amount of controversy, and this is completely unnecessary because Popes by the very nature of their office and central position of a world-wide organization invariably have controversies when it comes to those opposed to the principles the Church teaches. The judgment that it was above average cannot be made. There have only been 2 more popes until Pope Pius XII who a length of time after his death saw controversy. The Popes of Vatican II stirred up an incredible amount a controversy that stil rages today among traditional Catholics, and the statistics of the effects of their reigns are incredible dismal.
- I don't know why you say here about taking unsourced sides, because the omission (absence) of a statement is not doing so. And there are several problems with this portion:
- The pontificate of Pius X was noted for its conservative agenda and as one of the most controversial modern papacies.
Again, do you deny that Pius X was a theological conservative? This is not POV, this is an accurate adjective of his policies. "Conservative" is hardly pejorative.
- The word "agenda" has negative connotations connected with it, suggesting manipulative objectives that are carried out in a less than straight-forward or honest manner. That is a bias word; liberals love to use it. As for "conservative", it is a redundant word since all popes by the very nature of their office swear to uphold tradition. Also, mentioning the word suggests that the opposite can legitimately exist - that a pope can legitimately be liberal, but this is completely not true. The Church solemnly condemned liberalism as a heresy.
- Since 1898, Perosi had been Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir, a title which Pius X upgraded to "Perpetual Director."
I don't know anything at all about this issue, but I trust the good faith of previous Wikipedia editors who added this information. Again, I hardly see any argument as to how this could possibly be POV; at most, I can see a request for sources via a fact tag.
- Good faith does not make an edit sacred or protect it from being removed. It only protects condemnation of the editor himself. This fact is totally out of place. All it is saying is that Pius X liked the Director of the Sistine Chapel Choir so much that he wished him to be so for the rest of his life. If this very unimportant fact is allowed, you might as well ask for a book to be written for this article here, and we can learn about what he thought of so many other people he had dealings with. Maybe we can learn about his cook and housekeeper, too.
- Pius X reversed ((fact)) the accommodating approach of Leo XIII towards secular governments
Although speaking of the fact tag, why'd you stick it on a comment that, by contrast, is grounded rock-solid in history texts? Did you read further down, where Pius X rebukes the French government? I mean, sure, more sources would definitely be good for this article. If you want to go dig up some references, that'd be great. But the fact tag is usually used for "fishy" statements that may be true but require some backup now, not general "it'd be nice to have" statements. (Again, unless you think that this wasn't Pius X's policy?)
- I should have placed the tag further down in the sentence, if not at the end. It simply needs a source to say that St. Pius X reversed anything that another pope did. I deny that out of hand.
- Condemnation of the heresy of Modernism
Sigh. Anti-Modernism is a perfectly serviceable header that succinctly states that Pius X was against it. "Condemnation of the heresy of Modernism" is flagrantly POV that implies that the Modernists were the bad guys. "Heretics" is a charged word and must be used with care; "The Pope considers Group X heretics" might be fine, but having the Voice of The Encyclopedia call them heretics should only be done when there's utter agreement. By way of example, check out the Albigensian Crusade article and discussion; they are very reluctant to use the heretic word there, despite the Cathars being far nuttier than the Modernists. Or heck, check out your random cults or fringe groups in any religion; pages on the Sufis or Jehova's Witnesses don't go into calling them heretics. SnowFire 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- That word does not exist in my college dictionary, nor did the oath use it. No, St. Pius X did condemn it as the "synthesis of all heresies". NPOV means that a verifiable and reliable source said it. And St. Pius X's encyclicals say so. Are you calling his encyclicals unreliable sources? --Diligens 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Continued down here.
- I don't know why you say here about taking unsourced sides,
I was using that as an example of something actually NPOV, not saying that you had inserted that (since all you did was delete!). For instance, if you saw the statement "Pius X was a horrible pope who senselessly attacked the heroic Modernists," then by all means delete it.
- "Modern" means roughly the 20th century in context. I think that's pretty clear.
- Controversial is not a moral judgment. It is a factual, historical statement that there was disagreement. "Abraham Lincoln was a controversial president" is a 100% true statement that does not imply one bit of "moral fault" as you put it. There have been controversial liberals (Pope John XXIII) AND controversial conservatives (Pius X). Obviously, depending on which "side" you're on, some people may be controversial for "good" reasons.
- Along the same lines, if you think that the article was trying to imply that he was an Antipope in disguise, uh, I have absolutely no clue where you're getting that from.
- Sure the judgment that it was unusually controversial can be made. Just because Popes get involved in controversies naturally doesn't mean you can't notice the amount of controversy generated. This is doubly true when much of the controversy is internal and coming from theoretical "good Catholics" (and yes, I know, you'll probably say that they are just non-Catholics in diguise). To go back to the Presidents example, US Presidents by nature also get into controversies, but no one would argue that Taft is pretty well universally considered a decent if boring president, while FDR is considered a national hero who is lionized by most, but there was (and still is) a significant minority who think that he started the decline of American society and "Big Government," and another different minority which believes that FDR was a warmonger who got the US into a needless war. And then Andrew Jackson might be an example of a completely controversial president, with some people thinking of him as a great American Hero, and others considering him an insane populist who usurped the protections of government, with the controversy continuing both during his time period and now and no clear consensus emerging.
- I disagree that "agenda" necessarily has a negative connotation. For instance: "reform agenda," "innovation agenda," and "environmental agenda," all of which sound positive. That said, this is a tiny issue IMHO; if it's such a big deal, go ahead and change it to "conservative nature." Gets the same point across.
- As for if a Pope can be conservative... um... I'm not really sure what to say to this. Suffice to say, call Popes who focus on upholding tradition and the status quo conservatives, and Popes who have tried to adapt the RCC to changing times liberals. There clearly must be some distinction here; there were different focuses if you compare Pius X and John XXIII, so there must be some way to describe the difference. The one classically used is liberal vs. conservative. Even if you disagree with the terminology, you surely admit that there is SOME distinction, and that the one that NPOV outsiders have generally used is conservative & liberal?
- I don't particularly want to tackle the choir issue too much, but who's to say it's irrelevant? Apparently Pius X made Gregorian chant a priority and liked it. Some more details and anecdotes here don't seem to hurt. Yes, if this section gets too long, by all means set up a new article on "Gregorian Chant and Pius X" or something to move the extra details to, but it doesn't seem overlong at the moment.
- Why do you "deny that out of hand" that Pius X changed any policies? You can't just assert that. If you mean in general, there are countless examples of Popes changing policy of their predecessors- John Paul II apologizing for World War II, the Counter-Reformation, and all sorts of Italian political choices back in the Renaissance, for starters. If you mean in specific, again, why? It seems pretty clear that he did in fact change Vatican policy.
- That section is not on the encylical in particular, but Pius X's general policies against the Modernists. He was against the modernists, so a reasonable section title could be... anti-modernism. More to the point, this is a neutral article on what actually happened historically. In general, it doesn't particular matter what historical actors wanted their works to be called.
If this guess is wrong, my apologies, but I assume that you are a "conservative" Catholic (since you claim that there is no other type)? I ask you as a Christian to another Christian to not let your own beliefs get in the way of a neutral article. Look at, say, the Scientology or Mormonism articles and edit histories for scary glimpses at believers trying to rewrite history so as to fit religious dogma that doesn't actually have any backing in history. Pius X can stand on his own just fine; let people judge him as he was. There is no moral judgment in factually stating that many people disagree with his policies. It is up to each person to decide what kind of Pope he was. SnowFire 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that you and I have covered the length of objections, I want to focus on a point at a time so things don't get so lengthy.
"Modern" means roughly the 20th century in context. I think that's pretty clear.
- That is what you mean by it, of course. But is that what it means? Is it properly used objectively? I say not. Modern means contemporary. When you read everything from Rome since Vatican II, papacies before John XXIII are considered old, so much so that hardly anything is every cited almost as if it didn't exist. Sometimes Pius XII's pontificate will be included, but rarely. John XXIII's "aggiornamento" (updating) began a so-called new era in his mind, and the coverage reveals it. In 1965 there was an official document of Vatican II titled, "ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD" and it mentions, "Today, the human race is involved in a new stage of history". The context shows that what is considered modern (even by 1965 standards) did not include early 1900's. Furthermore, that was 40 years ago, so it is even more distant than what they thought them. Antiques are sold from his era. World War I is considered old. St. Pius X was before this war. Rather than, "of modern papacies", I think the NPOV wording should be "of the papacies of the 20th century". That is accurate and indisputable. --Diligens 13:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not a huge issue. If you want to be specific, by all means go ahead and edit that wording in. SnowFire 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Now let me proceed slowly. Without yet commenting on the terms "conservative" or "controversial" allow me to quote two sentences from the article that I excised and substitute what you conceded can change:
"Despite this, the pontificate of Pius X was one of the more controversial [of the papacies of the 20th century]."
"The pontificate of Pius X was noted for its conservative agenda and as one of the most controversial [of the papacies of the 20th century]"
I emphasized in bold what is showing this to be rather unreasonable. It reminds me of the joke where someone says, "I graduated in the top 10 of my high school class", only to find out there were only 15 people in the class! We have basically only 7 pontificates in the 20th century and Pius X was "one of the more" or "most" of the controversial?? How many of the other 6 were part of this "one of"? And who said so? You must realize this is already a judgement with no reliable source to back it. Who would have spent time weighing all statistics of numerical figures of publications to determine more or most between 7 pontificates? It is sufficient to describe the individual and notable occurrences and leave the judgment to readers if they wish to judge. As for "controversial", any person in a central position of authority will have a slew of objections from those he deals with. That is expected, not something notable. For this pope it is merely sufficient to say that modernists who insisted on remaining in their error objected. But even then the number of objectors cannot be determined because it is historically known that St. Pius X's move against that error was successful, and made the modernists at least go underground. That cannot be determined. If his move against modernism were notably "controversial" it would have been more so reflected in Pius XII's canonization of this pope. Why? Not only because canonization basically makes it officially that his condemnation was divinely approved of, but for the fact that modernists were very thick in the 1950's and yet there was no major reaction from them that reflected any notable controversy. Just tell the facts, the judgement is not for us to make unless you want to find a reliable source that statistically backs it. Although there is a difference in saying the man, or his pontificate, were controversial, I don't think it necessary to go into it. (I will get into the "conservative" issue next). --Diligens 13:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose you do have a point. With so few popes to compare to, arguing over who is the most controversial seems fraught with peril. That said, I believe that the word "controversial" should remain. You've admitted yourself that most Popes are by nature controversial; at most, we are being slightly redundant by stressing that Pius X's pontificate was in fact controversial. (I don't think that he personally was very controversial, to my knowledge.)
- As for your other points, I'm not quite sure what they have to do with the topic at hand. As a neutral source, Wikipedia gives no special weight to whether a person's actions were divinely approved of whether they were canonized or not. SnowFire 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- There can be redundancy for convenience sake, such as when a biography mentions that the person is some -IST and rather than just link to an article on it, also explains briefly what it is. But this article is not a case of convenience, it is a case of intrinsic nature. You don't say "round circle", and you don't have an article on every baseball, football and basketball player and mention that he is very athletic. You mention something that is beyond the norm. If a pope is liberal or modernistic, that is abnormal and should possbibly be noted. You don't have an article on the hundreds of popes in history and keep saying for each that he was very conservative. I agree with the entry below this, - leave this judgement to the reader. It really amounts to Original Research without a source. BTW, Wikipedia is NOT a "neutral source" in the sense that the article must not favor one side or the other. Neutral only comes in to play when two or more reliable sources differ on a particular point and one is forced to word things neutrally OR mention the disagreement explicitly on that particular point. --Diligens 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I can say is that the idea that a Pope is conservative by default, while a valid opinion, is not a universally agreed-upon fact. Therefore, if a Pope's policies are accurately described by the "conservative" title, there's no reason not to use it. Even if you believe this should be the case, suppose we were to get a run of "liberal" Popes for the next millenium. Would it then become reasonable to omit "liberal" from their descriptions, since that is the new "norm"? I would say not; if these Popes were liberals, then their biographies should say so and let them be judged as such, regardless of the times. (That said, perhaps Gimmetrow will convince us that conservative doens't accurately describe Pius X after all. See below.) SnowFire 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I find the word "conservative" to be a problem. It's a loaded word which doesn't really reflect what Pius X did. He reorganized the roman curia, started the revision of canon law, changed laws to emphasize episcopal oversight of seminaries and parishes, drastically changed the divine office, and changed the focus of church music and the age for communion. He also had his hand in political movements in ways that are not easy to classify. Such numerous and wide-reaching changes are not what people usually think of by "conservative"; in a single word, reformist or even radical fits better. But that is not the point. It is better to state what he actually did and leave these sort of judgements to the reader. Gimmetrow 15:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but part of stating what somebody "actually did" means using succinct yet accurate terms to describe it. To call George W. Bush a "conservative" instantly compiles a rough political philosophy and stances on many issues, which is helpful even despite some notable deviations from "standard" conservatism. It's not a judgment; it's simply a quick summary.
- That said, you may have a point. I am not a particular expert on Pius X, and aren't terribly familiar with the reforms you mention. That said, it's entirely possible that you are correct and "conservative" is simply too far from what his actual policies were. What was the content of these reforms? Was it cutting red tape? Was the canon law modernized? Centralized to Rome as opposed to distribued? Who oversaw the seminaries before hand? What was the change in the divine office? The impression I get from the current article is that these were generally "conservative" shifts. For instance, a bishop controlling the seminaries as opposed to being self-regulating, along with the Oath against Modernism, sounds like a centralization of power to Rome and less tolerance of dissent, traditionally "conservative" views. But maybe the seminaries were actually even more closely watched before, and he lightened the oversight? Seems unlikely, but I'm not sure from what you said. As for political movements, the article makes it seem as if Pius X was very hostile to any organization that could compete with the RCC's main apparatus for power- liberal Catholic social organizations, trade unions, and so on. Lastly, Ne Temere endorses a view of Catholic uniqueism (there's probably a better term I'm forgetting here) that is, at least in modern times, associated only with the most truly hard-core of conservative Catholics.
- But, like I said, I'm not the expert. What was the content of these reforms? Maybe we're wrong about Pius X. Might be good to work into the article, too, if you have any more details. SnowFire 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that his reforms in church law tended toward strengthening the power of bishops over parishes and seminaries. While he dissolved some lay Catholic associations, he created at least one other that I know of. Lowering the age for communion and encouraging frequent communion were seen as radical by some at the time, and meant that most religious constitutions and devotional books needed changing on this point. The reform of the breviary was substantial but advertised as a "restoration"; the result was that the cycle of 150 psalms was far less interrupted by feasts of the saints, giving a precedence to the temporal cycle that still continues. Basically, I think of "conservative" as mostly maintaining status quo or finishing projects started by predecessors - which is not an apt description of Pius X. He changed a lot in a short pontificate. So rather than saying something like he made a "conservative reform of the breviary" or some such formula, I think it would be much clearer to say that he "restored the cycle of 150 psalms." About the only place "conservative" might make some sense to me is in regard to "theology", where "liberal" and "conservative" seem to have a generally accepted meaning. Gimmetrow 01:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, and thanks for the information. I was referring theology before, and it's certainly possible to have "conservative" theology while being a vigilant reformer, where "conservative" is saddled with other meanings. If you have an even better fix for that sentence, feel free to put it in; I just made the quick adjustment to be more precise on what "conservative" refers to. SnowFire 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- That much works for me. There may be some more details to add here but the John Paul I article needs more attention at the moment. Gimmetrow 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just want to add, diligens (below) has a sort of a point. I am satisfied with "conservative theology" but it does seem a bit empty - I could see the same phrase used with any of the popes since Pius X, including Benedict XVI. Better to say that his pontificate was noted for its "opposition to modernism" or some such. Not saying that's the best phrase, but something specific like that seems better. Gimmetrow 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The term conservative doesn't work. Since we are supposed to have verified and reliable sources for things, where is it in this case? I see nothing. And as a matter of fact, such terminology as someone being described as overall a "conservative" or a "liberal" came mainly about in the 20th century in regard to secular politics. This is not terminology used for the papacy. It simply isn't. It can be found now and then as a mere adjective in respect to a confined aspect, such as being conservative in a particular sphere of work. But since the latter half of the 20th century, the term has all but lost its original denotation and can barely be used with that connotation without invariably making the description seem political. Even the word "liberal" used to be used in Catholicism when someone was very merciful or magnanimous, but now it has an immediate political and negative meaning, or even heretical since "liberalism" was condemned by the Church in the 19th century. The terms conservative and liberal should not be used unless a situation truly necessitates it. The bottom line is still having reliable sources for what we say. Merely saying what someone does should be sufficient. It is not the same as saying George Bush is "conservative" because it is well-known to be political, and that reliable public sources say so. --Diligens 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are incorrect. "Conservative" and "liberal" get used for the Papacy all the time. A few examples of the many, many links out there to show the word in common use:
- Pope Pius IX#Liberalism_and_conservatism, who was famously thought to be a liberal early, but after losing the Papal States, became something of a conservative. I've seen it referred to by those terms in at least two history books, as well as the linked Wikipedia article.
- [] Article on Benedict XVI, first statement invokes "conservative doctrine."
- [] This is from the National Catholic Reporter, and refers to Benedict XVI as "the hero of the church's conservative wing."
- [] A random "this day in history" site; whoever they got their information from refers to Pius X as "A steadfast and outspoken conservative."
- Conservative Catholics; while this article mostly focuses on the schismatics within conservative Catholicism, it shows that the term clearly refers to some people.
- Those weren't hard to find or at all obscure; just a minute with Google and checking a few Wikipedia articles. You can dislike this usage, but please understand that it is in fact a scholarly usage. Yes, it's different than the political one, but so it goes. Words have multiple definitions all the time. SnowFire 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- What you have presented is evidence of what I was saying. Notice the article about Pius IX and you will see that "liberal" there did not have the same meaning. It meant magnanimous and generous, as I already said. You can't mix different meanings in history as if they are the same. Yes, lots of words have several denotations in a dictionary, some words themselves in fact can mean OPPOSITE things for the same word. (This is not even getting into the issue of connotation, which is important). Because encyclopedias are concise without a lot of context, such words must be avoided to prevent confusion. Since the 1960's the terms liberal and conservative have been used in regard to popes because the popes since then have broken with the past which was ALWAYS conservative and therefore did not use this liberal/conservative description. Why you find people TODAY describing popes in the PAST with liberal and conservative is because they are trying to apply their misunderstandings of today to things that nobody applied them to before. Gimmetrow tried to show you that Pius X was not conservative considering some heavy changes he made. The bottom line is that for articles that pertain to a living person, all you really have are current sources to refer to. Pius X lived a long time ago, and history was written by those who really knew him. Those histories do no describe him as conservative. I think it is tolerable to refer to Catholic people after 1958 with these descriptions of conservative and liberal, but they didn't exist before then. Let me ask, what exactly is your verifiable and reliable source that you wish to describe Pius X as conservative? What history book? Take a look at the lengthy article on Pius X at  and see no such descriptions are used, and it was written just a few years after his death. The average reader today who sees "conservative" will get a completely false impression of what that means in regard to that pope, which means the description would fail. --Diligens 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
First off, I'll have to get back to you on the passage on Pius IX. My interpretation was that he was originally a liberal AND he was generous; it was not intending to say they were synonyms. That said, I need to refresh myself before getting into that topic more. That said, for the whole general definitions debate in THIS article, the current wording is conservative theology. That leaves little doubt as to the meaning, I think.
Secondly. Again, you have a point that before John XXIII, most Popes would probably be considered conservatives by modern standards. That said, there were degrees. Pius IX early on was not considered terribly conservative. Neither was Leo XIII. However, Pius X- even by the standards of the era- seems to qualify as a 1910 conservative (and obviously a 2006 one!).
Thirdly. While I don't have a source on Pius X handy, I do have a general European history text that tackles Pius IX, and they definitely use "liberal" to describe his policies and changes. As an example:
- The papal states looked politically to Vienna for leadership, at least until 1846, when the College of Cardinals elected a liberal-minded Pope, Pius IX - the one contingency upon which Metternich confessed he had failed to reckon.
- Pius IX, the "liberal pope" of 1846, resumed the papal throne, disillusioned in his liberal ideas.
I'll try and get back to you on a source that talks about Pius X directly, because these references aren't perfect; they are referring to liberal ideas of the period as well, the political meaning you referred to before. (The source, for what it's worth, is "A History of the Modern World" 8th edition, by Palmer & Colton.)
I'm leaving to go to a wedding this weekend, so I'll be out for awhile. That said, let me rephrase this debate: what would you propose to put in its place? I believe that something should be said to describe Pius X's general theological tendencies. Would you keep with anti-Modernism? Is there a better, more precise term we can use here? If there is one, I'm open to it, but if we can't find one, then I think conservative still works. SnowFire 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:PiusXCOA.jpg
Image:PiusXCOA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Just a quick note. The title for this page should read "Pope Saint Pius X" with the search term "Pope Pius X" redirecting to this page. I am unsure how to do this, if someone could do this for me, I would greatly appreciate it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I took the word "supposedly" out of the miracles section. While I agree that Wikipedia needs to be NPOV on miracles which includes a certain skepticism, the boy was not "supposedly" cured. Surely he was actually cured. The skepticism is whether it was miraculous or normal. Surely no one would suggest that this sourced account is a lie, i.e. that the boy died or continued to be ill for a long time and the parent pretended that there had been a cure. Also, "supposedly" is, for me, one of the worse words to use for simple skepticism. Perhaps we should simply assert the undeniable facts, such as that the parents attributed the recovery of their child. Perhaps there is no need to add a lot of skeptical words because by putting it in a section on miracles that is already accomplished. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Pope Pius X's father was not Polish
The claim that Pope Pius X's father Giovanni Sarto was actually Polish, born "Jan Krawiec," is erroneous. Records show that Pius X's father was Italian-born, being the son of Giuseppe Sarto and Paola Giacomello, who were married in 1784. All of these records are housed in the archives of the parish church of Riese. Resources on Pius X's Italian genealogy are the following: Franceschetti, Francesco, "Gli antenati del Sommo Pontefice Pio X. Memorie storico-genealogiche", Collegio Araldico, Rome, 1903; Marchesan, Angelo, "Papa Pio X nella sua vita e nella sua parola", Benziger and Co., Einsiedeln, 1904; Gheno, Antonio, "La patria di Pio X", in "Rivista del Collegio Araldico" 1st vol. # 11-12, Rome, 1903. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Photo "as a young boy"
Don't think so. From the look of that kid, he was maybe 10 or 12, for sure under 15, which would mean it was taken before 1850. The technology was not that good, as can be seen from other photos from the period and later. Plus that kid has the wrong hairstyle, the wrong clothing, and the wrong ears. So that's pretty much for sure some other kid, maybe one born in 1935.
18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The text block "Spiritually we all are her children" purports to be a quotation from Ad diem illum laetissimum. It is not an actual quotation as it stands but rather several sentences and paraphrases strung together, in one case even by the phrase "This, the Pope argues..." Echevalier (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)