Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hitler's Pope: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:24, 17 July 2005 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,155 edits →Comments and Questions← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:25, 15 June 2024 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers43,626 edits wp books 
(383 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
'''Previous discussions:'''
{{WikiProject Books}}
*] ] 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject European Microstates|importance=Low|Vatican City=yes|Vatican City-importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|auto=long|age=2|units=months|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}


__TOC__
==POV==


== Eugene Fisher ==
I added the pov tag, because the last paragraph (Pius XI) is not only off-topic (it is neither related to Pius XII, who is sometimes termed "Hitler's Pope" nor to Cornwell's book - at least not in any visible way), it also is factually wrong in regard to the active support of the dissolution of the two parties, when it was really no involvement at all in one case and acquiesence into something that could not be stopped. Also the rest of the paragraph is deeply POV, repeatedly confusing cause and effect.
There is a reference to Eugene Fisher on the page, I am almost certain that the wrong Eugene Fisher was selected
] 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Eugen_Fischer
as there is nothing there about him knowing Hebrew and he certain does not look to being a source for such a claim


I think it would be probably be
:You complain user, when an article is too penetrating to be like an old- fashioned encyclopedia and now here , it is that the article is apparently too scant . I note that this article appears since only as a wikipedia ''clean-up'' , thus not appearing on any google search .
http://www.jcrelations.net/Fisher__Eugene_J.2433.0.html?page=2


so I took it out. Can some who has access to the original reference please check it and verify this point.
Also the whole article needs a sound clean up, especially in clearly expressing that this is about a book and about what the book says and that is not necessarily the actual truth or the only possible interpretation thereof.
] (])
] 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== ] ==
::Oh- user! welcome! And I see that the elaborate ] into the ''merits'' of the accusations concerning ] have been removed to an archive (readers, we two ltigants go way back unto when str1977 first noticed my inconvenient and allegedly impius reminders about all this -you should quickly open the archive above, there by this editors name,close to where he might lure you into a long ugly list of my supposed slanders and anti-WP behaviour ) . Good, we can start all over again, here. I missed your intervention here on this page and I am glad to have you , in fact I was wondering what kept you away , when you were so active every other where. I find it remarkable how the Deutsch WP does not seem to be concerning you and need your attention : is it already done ?


Zolli's book is listed, but not quoted.] (]) 13:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
::This article I put up as I say ''not'' because of the ] but because people say 'Oh-you mean "Hitler's Pope"-everyone knew that ' . And as you and I very well know and completely disagree about, there were two Popes who were involved. One reining and one only a Nuncio and who then became one of the Secretaries of State (as in Foreign Secretaary) of the ]. However there is no denial that they shared the same policy , succinctly analysed by John Cornwell and stated here after his analysis under 'Politics' .
:This is often done. The book might interest readers, even if it is not quoted in the WP article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== External links modified ==
::Of course the topic is N/POV , that is why it says at the beginning that the article comes from an ''expression in use for many decades'' . The expression refers to the more or less common ''perception'' , and the perception refers to the relevant facts, which is what you and I argue about . May I ask what your german WP user name is ? And welcome you on to this dangerous page , which I assumed you felt off-limits, though I wondered why you hadn't arrived . You might desire now a more serious tone , and you know that I will give it to you . Why don't you beforehand answer the questions about your denial of confirmatory citation and inclusion of historians back on the missing section of the ] article? These are the same as for here . I put this page up to quite simply allow ''some'' space to allude to what is excised, by you, elsewhere. I didnt cut you from ] but wrote 'around you' . I think it still needs a bit ''more'' sternness actually . '''If you don't flag Pacelli/Pius XII for POV or innacuracy, you can't kick about this here, now can you ?''' ]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
You flagged Centre and Kaas, so I may as well flag this entry. But then you left without actually discussing your dispute.
] 30 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)


I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I was not the first to complain, that it is not clear what this entry is about (See Mike Rosoft's: "Marked as needing cleanup - POV, deals with two subjects at once"). The entry is called "Hitler's Pope", so it can be about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016021235/http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope to http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope
:1) The term "Hitler's Pope", as used in the English language, i.e. as an epithet for Pius XII.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113200648/http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/faculty/frank_coppa_phd.stj to http://www.stjohns.edu/academics/undergraduate/liberalarts/success/faculty/frank_coppa_phd.stj
: It cannot be an article about Pius XII himself (and Hitler's Pope refers only to him and not to Pius XI), since that already exists elsewhere, only about the term, its origins, connotations and a discussion of it.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404022320/http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.949/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.949/article_detail.asp
:2) John Cornwell's book of the same title:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051013060320/http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/HOW_Pius_XII_PROTECTED_JEWS.asp
: Then it should be a outline of the book, an a critique of the book
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927220401/http://www.catholicleague.org/research/60minutes.htm to http://www.catholicleague.org/research/60minutes.htm
:3) It can (and currently is, though in a rugged stage) about both
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612143715/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2142 to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2142
: Then the entry should be clearly divided between the two topics
I, for my part, leave that work to you, since this is "your" article.
] 1 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Ah, and let me add some "advice to the wise":
It is disrespectful to constantly mistype someone's name (especially if it is a real name and not a nick).
And is also not very polite to address someone as "user". Call me by my name or just say "you", but stop using "user" all the time.
] 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Just to illustrate my last point, FK, please have a look ] and compare with ].
] 1 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
:::I have deleted the Italian allegations and therefore the POV tag . These came from websites out of John cornwell's control .] 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

==The Question of the Law==


I have returned to the ''Question of the Law'' in discussions on ] and ] . I relate this question to the ] and the judgement there that it was not an indictable offense to have assisted Hitler to power . I note that such assistance would have consituted a christian offence of the greatest magnitude , involving immediate and automatic ], as opposed to ]. There are recognised church measures to mitigate the effects of this, which any believer should expect to see implemented . ] 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Nuremberg Trials and Pope Pius XII==

Sir John wheeler Bennett in his ''Friends , Enemies and Sovereigns'' final volume of his autobigraphy , ] notes that as there was no constitution for it being a ] to have assisted ] to power , that consequently ] and ] 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 ] Law clearly states that no cleric , such as were Pacelli and Monsignor ] should have interfered in ] without it expressly being ordered by the Pontiff . The ] or bed-rock ''law'' of the Church , however would further base itself on the clear ] 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 ], are in advance of ] from both this its inception at the ] 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 ] ,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 ] 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 (],], 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 Misplaced Pages. I doubt the Pope reads Misplaced Pages.
: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 ] drafting ,proves that I act in complete impartiality .] 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Canonical Law==

: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''.
:] 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing."
Your previous but one sentence had dealt with ''Hitler'' and ''latae sententiae''.
:"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."

Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: ''latae sententiae''(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . ] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including ] assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the ''communion controversy'' a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of ''grave sin'' arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a '''public''' figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from ]) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of '''Latae Sententiae'''needing equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . ] 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical ''action'' pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the ] of the Catholic Church .
:::'''canon 1336''' section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. '''Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish''',these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;
:::part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under ''pain of nullity''.
:::'''section 2''' : Only those expiatory penalties may be ''latae sententiae'' which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 .

Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon '''1336'''. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under ]

'''Canon 1329''' Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.
::: '''Section 2''' : In the case of a ''latae sententiae'' penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ''ferendae sententiae'' penalties .

''Ferendae sententiae'' refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas ''latae sententiae'' refers to '''automatic ''' penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which '''do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that '''1329''' relates to the situation of ] as opposed to Monsignor ] and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this ''the great scandal of history'' it says in
:::Canon '''1399''':Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and '''necessity demands that scandals be prevented or ''repaired'''''.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see ''] and it is stated that excommunication '''is the spiritual sword''' and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the ''forum internum'' or internal bond to the Church '''and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven ''' affecting and binding ] . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops .''' In foro externo'''excommunication has become defunct whereas penalty ''in foro interno'' is close to the subject of the above American ''communion controversy'' . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this '''minor''' ''corrective'' penitental measure , as in the denial of the ] and real '''major''' excommunication as in the ''sword'' . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either ''a jure''( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

''A jure'' '''is''' the law itself which declares that ''' he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication''' at the offence ''ipso eo'' and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of ] through ''latae sententiae'' . '''No''' intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under ] .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in '''nullity''' and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the ] . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in ''heaven'' .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the ''']''' Churches it says that it (]) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their ''censure '' '''overtakes''' them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in ''revolt'' against the true ] .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of ] it should be relevant that there was a '''consummation''' of the offence , the full use of '''reason''' , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( ''''''].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of '''liberty resulting from great fear''' ( of ] ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a ''positive'' law , than as palliative for offence against the ].

To overcome the above problems of '''nullity''' with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of ''severity'' as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a ''mildness'' towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the '''nullity''' of certain acts by the ''censured'' cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated '''burial''' . They could suffer total loss of ] both ''in foro interno'' and ''in foro externo'' and the rendering as '''null''' of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to '''''supply''''' jurisdiction ( '''in retrospect?''')] 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.
The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will.
Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.)
] 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::With respect to the above Canons relating to ''consecrated burial'', please see ] for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. ] 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

::::Good heavens! ] 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy ''may'' be or ''is'' safe . On discussion with you now on the ] , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of '''dishonesty''' about its ] collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or ] through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . ''They'' exist to administer this 'divine' ''truth'' and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the ] (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables).

==Hitler from December 1941==

This thesis about Hitler's anti-semitic 'calm' comes from ]'s ''The Meaning of Hitler'' , 1979, ISBN0297775723 ] 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

==1917 Pio-Benedictine Codification and Current Canonical Law==

These come from ] 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 :]

::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 .

] 8 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

== CONDONATION ==

Is Cornwell's text using this word. If not, it should be in the article.

CONDONATION - Term used in canon law, but now generally obsolete, meaning a forgiveness by the husband of his wife or by a wife of her husband, of adultery committed, with an implied condition that the injury shall not be repeated and that the other party shall be treated with conjugal kindness.

] 09:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:Condonation was the description used by one of the serious historians about the ]'s relations with the Nazis . We know the church was on a sticky wicket in any condonation and had to silence its own hierarchy before the condonation began: viz the Birthday greetings to Hitler on, was it ,23 April from Kaas in the ]-it's another fact you assiduously removed . You do cause a lot of work -and still are doing so . I'm going to have to bring discussions back into here since you disallow placement elsewhere. I'm going to have to re-write your section in the centre re:QpQuo ,as that is a historical allegation . Your diminuishment has to be battled and rectified as it is out of line with history . And yes , condonation is one word but technically the canonical suit is proved by the ] .That the canonical damnation -isn't it ? It's a drag this revert war , and I don't know how we het over this unless you allow the references I require ...] 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

==Beatification of the Excommunicated==

This is denied access to the straight vatican page of Benedict XVI , in concern for the soul of Cardinal Pacelli ''et al'' , so I put it here :

I have made this on-topic ,as it should be . I refer to the ] case which is a matter of fact , as is the denial of vatican immunity . I suggest Mr. Dorich should read the following .

I revert the editors removal of this section and deny that this is off topic. It is highly relevant and that the legal suits brought in California by Victims organisations ( to do with atrocitiesdin wartime Ukraine and Croatia and the ] do not yet
appear in the article could be more a factor of white-wash than of relevance . Any way , they will as surely as as they appear in court. It appears that the ] claims diplomatic or some such immunity from that case, and the relevance of what I write is thus: that whilst up until now there is sound international juridical reason for the vatican to avoid its responsibilities ''vis a vis'' fascist and capitalist collaboration , these canonically legal points can not be similarly evaded . The reversion of this section is very symptomatic of this editor's interposition against all such references , until they are unstoppable .

I am sure that all would prefer to and accept that discussion pages can relate to what should be included in articles rather than turning them into edit wars . The fact is that real court cases have been brought and are being brought , that what I present is the canonical and historical axis for a much larger questioning to do with the whole evolution of the vatican bank , and many interlinking subjects reaching fully up into the present age . So I claim this to be a precursive section , leading the wikipedia , at least, into these published realms . I would expect that other witnesses to this reversion would not wish to be thought of as facilitating or ignoring or supporting such un-warranted removal . Here follows the canonical axis and I invite the editor who reversed this to stay on this single page with me for this subject . If so I shall endeavor to do so myself , and at the resolution of all argument , perhaps the Benedict XVI article might be allowed to reflect the enormous and widely published controversy still facing the Church and this its pontiff

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 to preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasent consequences......
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 Misplaced Pages , 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 !

Str1977 . you used the word ''sleazy'' to describe my editing and revert - do you know the origin of the word ? ] 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

== Comments and Questions ==

I was brought to this article and its talk page by an RfC. I hardly know where to start.

I agree with the user (was it Str1977?) who marked the article as the subject of a neutrality dispute. I have two issues with the article as it stands. First, it is really two articles rolled into one, and needs to be split. An article called ''Hitler's Pope'' should be restricted to Cornwell's book, and should try to summarize Cornwell's criticism of Pius XII and summarize discussion (pro and con) of Cornwell's criticism. The phrase ''Hitler's Pope'' is sufficiently provocative that it should be avoided except as a proper title of a book. Such an article should not include other criticisms of Pius XII, and should not refer to any "common perceptions". Otherwise, opinions and perceptions of Pius XII should be included in the Pius XII article, or in a separate article that is branched to from Pius XII.

Second, it does not (in my opinion) accurately summarize Cornwell's book. I have read Cornwell's book. I agree with most of what he says. As a Catholic, it saddens me to agree with Cornwell, but I think that Pacelli, with the best of intentions, did not serve the Church well. However, I do not think that the article accurately reflects Cornwell's case against Pius XII.

I see a lengthy argument about various points of canon law. I do not see the applicability of the arguments to this article.

It appears that there have been some violations of Wikiquette. I do not want to name names without doing more research. I would suggest that everyone be sure to remain civil.

] 14:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hallo sir and thanks for this . I feel that this user conflict is so serious that it should have peer '''arbitration''' ( historians) . This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is ''not'' evident . Were you able to visit the Centre Party Page and come to a similar conclusion? Did you read the citations of historians who allude to Kaas, Pacelli and the catholic retreat in 1933 which I have as necessary been posting ? Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events ? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded , meaning the citable perceptions? Are you prepared to defend such , as they are uncomfortable to the papacy ? If you say that you will , I will send a branch page off from his papal page and re-write all the citations that I used to back the views. Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy ? Maybe you have not read the archived references , but I should like to say that throughout my entire period editing, I received a brick wall of defence and I am much tired at the necessity to combat everything that is wished left out . Now do I have to accept your single opinion or would you please not leave the RFC until several editors can see how little has been achieved and how hard I have justified the cases ? Sleazy - by the way comes from ''silesian'' ( a friend of mine with silesian roots once told me ) . I deny that the collection of bad wikiquette as saved here ] is honest : at least half of the criticisms relate to the church but are listed as personal . If I were not so exhausted by this battle , I would be very angry . Please do read the archives and please understand that this is not monocausality -it is a fight to ''allow'' reality to enter the WP over a wide ranging set of pages , all of them subject to this battle . The law , the canonicals are absolutely vital to this , and I beg you to follow the reasoning . Vital because it ''governs'' these clerical actors , one a crucial politician who negotiated a bridge with Hitler . I object as of now to the other pages I requested the RFC to cover . I suppose the final alternative would be a special mirror out of WP altogether ..... I have thought this from the start . Please read the archived reasoning everywhere it is placed , and please leave the RfC for the ] and ] , and here . Can we have more opinions on Hitler's Pope ? ] 18:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You ] wrote: 'This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is ''not'' evident .'

You write: 'Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy?' Who are you saying undermines the papacy? If you are arguing that the conduct of Eugenio Pacelli was not worthy of the papacy, which appears to be your case, then what do you mean about defending the wiki? Why not present the case against Pacelli by quoting scholars, such as Cornwell, who criticize him?

What exactly do you mean about defending the wiki? Who is attacking it?

I have read the article on the Centre Party. It does appear to be neutral. I do agree that expansion is in order as to the dissolution of the party, and the nature of the moral error by its leaders. (Did they misjudge Hitler's motives? Did they collude with Hitler? Did they overrate the importance of central power?) It is clear that moral errors were made. What the moral errors were is a matter of POV, and therefore different views should be presented with a neutral point of view.

Please explain what the scandal is that spreads across decades and countries. I agree that great wrongs were done. Please explain what you are saying is the scandal that spreads across decades and countries. I can see several possible answers, but I do not want to guess at what you mean.

You wrote: "Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded, meaning the citable perceptions? " Of course I acknowledge that Pacelli influenced the events. What is the question?

You wrote: "The law, the canonicals are absolutely vital to this, and I beg you to follow the reasoning." Please explain. I am trying to understand, but the arguments about canon law appear to have been dispersed over so many archives that I do not understand, and need a summary. It is clear to me that there were moral errors made by many people in Germany and Italy. Why is it important to argue the details of canon law?

] 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

==] Comment from 1933 , Reason and Good Will==

] is on record relating the words of this Pope , whom I placed in this article . On page 315 of John Toland's 1976 ''Adolf Hitler'' (Doubleday) appears the following relation of Papen's April visit to the vatican ( the same one I cited before -this is repetition)

:::His Holiness welcomed Hitler's representative , Franz von Papen , " most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms."

Indeed .Through Pacelli and through the Hierarchy , ] knew much more , and undoubtedly was aware of the exterminating anti-semitic nature of Hitlerism , as Hitler was braggardly in claiming that (Toland writes) "He was only going to do more effectively what the Church of Rome had been attempting for so many centuries ". Earlier in April Hitler had defended his legislation , the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools , in a talk with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann saying "the Jews were nothing but pernicious enemies of the State and Church " .

Whilst this was aimed at driving Jews out of academic life and the public professions, there were many Hitlerian explicit references to Jews ''perishing'' and being ''eradicated'' out of Europe.

] I beg ''you'', Sir , to be very mindful of your position . Str1977's attitude and actions I have already qualified . All right thinking people should be most disturbed by these actions , and should seek more expansion rather than that wicked-ness should still reign by omission . Place the rfc's please , everywhere they were pointed .

I remind you that ''good action'' must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That ''good will'' is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of ''reason'' is to produce a will ''good in itself'' , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination . ] I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell , but to the history . Necessarily , the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated . I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason . ] 00:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:25, 15 June 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
WikiProject iconChristianity Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCatholicism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconHitler's Pope is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEuropean Microstates: Vatican City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vatican City (assessed as Mid-importance).


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Eugene Fisher

There is a reference to Eugene Fisher on the page, I am almost certain that the wrong Eugene Fisher was selected https://en.wikipedia.org/Eugen_Fischer as there is nothing there about him knowing Hebrew and he certain does not look to being a source for such a claim

I think it would be probably be http://www.jcrelations.net/Fisher__Eugene_J.2433.0.html?page=2

so I took it out. Can some who has access to the original reference please check it and verify this point. BernardZ (talk)

Israel Zolli

Zolli's book is listed, but not quoted.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This is often done. The book might interest readers, even if it is not quoted in the WP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.136.138 (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Hitler's Pope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories: