Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Intervention in Democracy and the Civil Order (Continued)

Well, I note that finally you allow reference to Memory and Identity and the criticism of democracy contained therein (according to the newswire) and maybe this is indicative of a change. however the fact remains that you delete and whitewash at every opportunity. Still today you refuse to allow that the Jewish consternation reported on television is allowable . This you delete which puts you at odds with the news editor at Euronews who ensured that the public in Europe were told of this. Of course this is equally not allowed on the relevant Pope's page. The above observations remain relevant – to say that then Hitler was right, even within dialectics, is to invite the observations.

Really I can see nothing further that I need to say: you are not open to the contradiction between Humanae Vitae and co-operation with Nazism nor wish to advise on what should be done. I can only repeat that the present Pope should institute a Court of Enquiry to enable the co-operation to be disclosed. The facts of it are finally admitted in the article so I have achieved something. I can withdraw now saying only read your encyclicals, ye faithful, Dilectissima Nobis and Humanae Vitae, that I regret having to observe your mind and use the terms I did. I think you could leave this open discussion for all to see so people can judge for themselves. Renewed whitewashing will presumably be noticed by someone. A rapid archiving here will signal whitewashing. Flamekeeper 08:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Never did I reject a reference to "Memory and Identity" – the book refers to the events of Hitler's "Machtergreifung" – though I doubt the book has raised the debate you claim it has. You’re the first I hear from about such a debate. Is the passage a criticism of democracy? Only in the sense that it critiques democracy. I hope you understand by now that I don't think democracy (here and later used in the current sense of the term) is a bad idea or that other forms of governments are better. Certainly not. I agree with Churchill's famous quote. The question was, can we all lay back and enjoy ourselves because our form of government is democracy? I don't think you'd agree, given your concerns about GWB. And I don't agree either. You might say a democracy is, of all the different forms of government, less prone to tramble on humanity (or the liberties of the Church) and you might be right, but my point (and John Paul's) is, that it is not impossible and that evil remains evil, even if it is democratically voted on. I don't "refuse to allow that the Jewish consternation reported on television" – we had that in Germany too –, though I totally disagree with it, but it should be put in its proper place. "Mem&Ide" has at least some connection to year 1933 and hence to the agents back then, the "abortion row" you quote does not. And we in Europe don't have to be told about it, we have witnessed it ourselves. Who says Hitler was right? I said, if there were (that's subjunctive irrealis) no truth, if there were (s.i.) a truth for me and some other truth for you and still another truth for someone else, then we could not fault him. However, there is truth, as you yourself affirm, though we might disagree about some things. I know many people in this age of psuedo-tolerance doubt this and I hope they will realise their error before they have sawn through the branch on which they are sitting. I am open for the theoretical possibility of a contradiction between the HV principle (or rather Romans 3) and many acts of Church people through history, but we have to observe the facts and come to interpretations "sine irae et studio". We have to look at what really happened and what sources tell us and be very careful. We mustn't take a broad sweep at "co-operation" – that's a really broad term. And we have to consider each case on its own. So by saying that Kaas might be guilty of what you accuse him of, doesn't make Pacelli or Pius XI guilty of it. (Look up Socrates' behaviour at the trial of the generals, Athens 406 B.C.). I can't see where either Pius is guilty of a "formal cooperation with evil" or of breaking Romans 3. But even if they (and it's not the Church) did what you claim in the past, that doesn't take away the Church's responsibility for the present or the present Pope's responsibility to guide his flock as well as he can. Why the court enquiry you demand (except for the beatification proceedings of Pius XII) cannot be, I have explained. BTW I have sent the DN encyclica to my protestant friend and he hasn't found anything about your claims in there. And please stop your false accusations of whitewashing. I'm not whitewashing, but some are blackwashing. The result is another black legend, if that term is familiar to you. Str1977 13:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

Our discussion could now be at an end here as we went further on the BenXVI Theology page . Theology of Pope Benedict XVI discussion and now the Pope Benedict XVI discussion hold further questioning towards a resolution of this history and the exact governing principles of Church Law . This need not be archived now as it will not probably grow. Flamekeeper

Religious Question

He consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1942.

What does this mean? Marnanel 03:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

This might help: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/immaculh.html Str1977 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relations with Mussolini

The bulk of this write up focuses on his relationship with Germany during WWII. What of Mussolini and Italian Fascists? There is only one reference to Mussolini in the article and The Vatican is, after all, surrounded by Italy. Can someone with the knowledge fill this in? --Discordian 14:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nuremberg Trials and Pope Pius XII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Str1977 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)

YOU say this , but after I have quoted the canonical texts and left their link/provenance (which are now showing under 'canonical' on Hitler's pope discussion page ). It would appear that on the contrary the church is well equipped to avail of her own procedures in this regard and that the repair of a scandal is indeed legislated for . I fear that, again , all your denials of the cited historians are at variance with their historical interpretation . These have been quoted already and are in the archives that you have built . If these archives had not been created the quotations would have been easier for you to have re-read . I shall search now for the year of the insertion of the political bar in canonical law, and if it is in the later modernised law , then it would have been drafted by the self-same Eugenio Pacelli . I note, sir ,that you are very apt to require such clinching definitions and qualifications, all the while sundering the import and the clarity under the arguments over dates, pages and texts. It would appear ,as I have previously noted , the intention is that of defence . I find this absolutely natural but I have also pointed out to you that faith-led (ie wishful) defence should realise that the gravity of the matter is such that the greatest danger to the church comes not from admission , but from denial . I regret to note that since you represented in your argumentation hitherto and throughout , an increasingly defensive 'church ' posture , that any tough criticisms or qualifications of that institution became increasingly applicable to yourself as their advocate . As such criticism appears historically and canonically (if not penally) justified , you yourself took what was initially purely directed towards the institution as personal towards you (see Str 1977 ) , even as I slipped into addressing your defence similarly .

In answer to the fundamentalism , for the while , I shall simply note that ,daily ,the necessity for truth (and reconciliation) becomes more urgent and that on the contrary conscience is become and ever was , a central force in social affairs . That I do not and have never simplified this historic affair of complicity down to the penal . To the ecclesiastical , yes , because the Holy See cannot deny its own precepts and laws . I have merely suggested that the application of such laws could be of interest to the wider world . Sir, if it pains you to answer on behalf of your church , let another arise and answer , call to your superior now , as I feel sure you can , and ask that you be relieved . Send to these matters the requisite churchman of church law . My intention is to show the truth to the world and to up-end what are effective lies and propaganda . I welcome your ripostes however and especially am glad that you yourself are directing this intercourse towards the first revolution . We have further to advance ,and this will strengthen rather than diminuish the relevance of 1933 to the events and forces of the present day .Famekeeper 8 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

Present Day Vatican Federal Trial

The suit referred to is being brought by Bill Dorich through a law firm .

Request for Comments?

A Request for Comments directed me to this talk page as well as a few other pages.

It is not entirely clear to me without going through multiple archives what the original issue was. It does appear that the discussion on this page is getting rather tense. Can we please stay civil and remember the rules of Wikiquette?

Robert McClenon 14:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

One more request for a summary

Famekeeper appears to be saying that he has tried to present a solidly proven argument that the Roman Catholic Church engaged in some sort of conspiracy with Adolf Hitler to defeat communism that in turn resulted in the Holocaust, for which the Catholic Church is morally guilty. He has been saying for some time that arbitration is required about the truth. Famekeeper appears to have been saying that Str1977 has been engaging in censorship by deleting his statements of sourced fact.

If this case does go to Wikipedia arbitration, then one of the requirements of the Arbitration Committee is that each of the principals should provide a statement, not longer than 500 words, of what their case is.

I have several times asked Famekeeper for that summary, in particular with focus to facts that have been deleted, or on POV presented by sourced scholars as POV that has been deleted. I have not yet seen a summary of less than 500 words of what User:Famekeeper thinks is the substance of the censorship.

I agree that there are differing points of view as to how moral responsibility for the Holocaust should be distributed. I am asking Famekeeper to summarize, in less than 500 words, why he claims that the Catholic Church was guilty of collusion with Hitler.

I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity. A statement as to these points of view should be written. I do not think that it can be written by Famekeeper, who does not understand the difficult concept of NPOV . Can he at least present a summary of what his case is? If not, can he at least state briefly what the censorship is?

This is one more request for a summary of less than 500 words, having to do either with how the complicity can be proved, or with other scholars who have presented cases of complicity. Robert McClenon 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't agree with me at all : You accuuse me of POV-pushing , or you don't...You wouldnt know whether there has or has not been any proof of moral complicity because you have not read the relevant discourse. If you had you wouldn't ask . I find your attitude one of biased innuendo . You say I cannot understand NPOV but you spend your whole time in this defending biased editing . I have not been removing relevant scholars all the way thru . Listen ...you say I am not capable of doing something-only the most difficult thing history can require, then you order me to do it . I hardly think you have ever displayed good faith towards me , and your back-tracking now is visible . I should like an apology , and I shall consider whether I shall use the WP as organ or not . I think you require this concision because you wish to avail of the case for defensive purposes . I will wait until this is demanded by some more neutral observers, so why don't you get up a vote : should FK be forced to summarize his own sourced argumentation under insult by McClenon and Str1977 , or after an apology for your inuendo of today ? Or before or after a withdrawal of the unjust Rfc against Famekeeper?

As fas as I can see you are trying either to obtain advance info of the real canonical case- for vatican defensive purpose, or else, you are now blustering to cover your inconsistancy with your Rfc accusations . From it being me 'pushing my POV' , it's now FK is a silly man who can't distinguish between POV and NPOV anyway , can't write , but yet must be asked to summarize that which he has spent months of writing trying in good faith to justify . For whom , you ? I don't see that you are neutral at all , McC. I think it may be best to await the arbitrators, I can get my 500 words together at home, so to say . And you ,vaticanitos , can sweat . PS you will find one article's history of massage/censorship at Pope Pius XII , also beside your anti-FK innuendo at Ludwig Kaas talk .Famekeeper 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Famekeeper 17:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship/massage (Pope Pius XII)

As requested , an example fron just one of many pages of |Str1977 censorship/massage for the vatican , and against right thinking free-speech sources etc. This is not for str to lengthen now, he can do that under his arbitration space .

29 March : 199.106.94.229 rem's large sections.Only reg'd action by anons 4 hits

wasn't me.

0906 20 April: First hit by Str as 24.91.139.250

Again, this wasn't me. (though he's right)

01.39 4 may. Str rem secret clause, christ dictator=rship, danger to democ'y etc (JPII topicality)

Yes, that was me and I can clearly stand by this edit. What I removed was either unsourced, misleading or just plain wrong.

01.53 " Str massages , 'not explicit enough'

I agree this change was wrong, as the sentence talked about "fiercely condemned by the press today" and they condemn him for not speaking out. Of course, the truth is different since he did speak out. Hence my mistake.

02.08 " 1) Sts incl Dutch reprisals . 2) rem Chief rabbi conversion , 3) rem 300,000 saved

1) I included a historical fact and one that is unquestionably important, what's wrong about that.

alleged edits 2) and 3) do not exist

02.27 " Str rem. dangers Lib Parliamentary Democ'y(JPII Euronews etc)

No, I did not remove. I remplaced "who cites it as an example of the dangers associated with Liberal Parliamentary Democracy." with "who cites it as an example of the dangers present even in a Democracy" - because that's what the late Pope wrote in his book. He says that not only dictators can do wrong, democracies can do wrong too. Democracy is no foolproof safeguard.

07.22 Anon only edit on WP rem. Hochluth play as spam

Wasn't me. Granted I despise the whole work of Hochhuth (please learn how to spell!) because of his untruthfulness, his slander, his condoning of assassinations and also dislike his selfrighteousness and his chummy-ness with one David Irving, but I did not remove this. In fact, I think a mentioning of Hochhuth's slanderous play is actually on-topic and not spam, though the play is spam (no not spam, spam can be eaten).

08.49 " Str rem. 'farce' of Pius XII bodily remains

Im removed one paragraph that didn't provide any useful information and was written in a gloating, mocking language. No need to gloat over a dead man's corpse, even if you dislike him.

08.51 " Str rem, Croatia pic

Because "pictures don't tell the tale" - it was anti-catholic propaganda

08.57 " Str rem. link to article

yes, dead link

09.01 " Str rem Freespeechorg link

another dead link

22.27 " FK rev 'Christ. Dict.'(prev sourcing Wiesenthal Timeline , not accepted, error:was Humanitas)

no unsourced or rather wrongly (!!) sourced to encyclica "Dilectissima nobis", a document relating not to Germany or dictatorship but to the Spanish government and their violation of human rights (religious freedom, property etc)

22.28 " FK replaces JPII controv.

no, FK did nothing of the kind

23.05 " str rem. Christ Dictatorship Encyclical

removed wrong things again: unsourced "christian dictatorship" and alleged "countering separation of ...", would have been an euphemism for opression of religious freedom

23.07 " Str rem. Centre & policy of Vatican re same ,

removed unfounded, untrue, unsourced claims about alleged Vatican policies

5 May ,Sam Spade highlights Christ Dict (Dilectissima Nobis), Str alludes to yr 1667

no, Sam Spade wikilinks to a yet to be written entry on that document - no allusion to anythin by me (or anyone else - what article are you reading?)

01.36 10 may FK repl. 'danger to democ'y-JPII

yes, one of the world wide famous "Critics say..." quotes

22.58 " Str rem danger controv

Removed this because I disputed (and still dispute) that this questions "have re-surfaced becaise of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling Act in the book" FK obviously thinks otherwise, and hence:

23.12 " FK rv

01.26 " 11 may Str rv's , moves 2 pics positions

Yes, no problem with that, or do you? Or do you ?? (and the time is 7.26)

10.29 " FK rv's , Anon also rv's pics

- it's 11 May by now!

23.13 " Str rem. 'Jewish anger'(euronews)

as I said the sentence "maybe, but off-topic", since this was about the enabling act and not the holocaust or abortion (and remember this about P12 and not JP2)

05.53 " ret,. Croatia link/pic adds J. Cornwell link

Revision as of 05:33, 16 May 2005, User: 24.60.129.139

for qualification of the first link see above, the second link is from the same website but it is the same link that has already been included further down

22.18 " Str adds POV apparition(POVfaith etc)

unneeded disclaimer - some people don't believe in such things and will not after reading this. Also the apparitions are fact, but what they actually are, that's POV.

00.56 17? May Str rem. pic PXII in Berlin by rv of positions of the 2 pics

Date is the 19 May (why can't you look it uo correctly ?)

I moved the Berlin picture to the section that covers his stint as nuncio during which the picture was made. Hence it belongs there (and if you disagree I can only speculate about the motives, it's sme..). And I deleted the redundant second display of the same picture.

16.29 19 May Str distracts

There's no edit at 16.29 - and nothing spectacular near the time.

16.32 " Str rem. Humanae Vitae (not FK's)

yes, I just straigthened the paragraph - the issue was disobedience to "Birth control" ruling - that's still in there, as it should - not need to shout about this.

17.24  ? Anon as before 24.170.40.179 repl. Rabbi conversion, saving of 300, 000 of Jews

It's 3 August by now

again not me - though the edit is valid - why should it be excluded

18.11 31 July Str rv's user DieWiebeRose

there's no edit on 31 July

Str1977 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)