Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 26 August 2005

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive1 Str1977 20:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Archive2 Str1977 21:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Archive3 Str1977 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complaints

I changed the sentence next to

Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made three dozen formal complaints to the Nazi government, all of which in reality drafted by Pacelli.

change: In Duffy's words, their tone was 'anything but cordial.' with: The strongest condemnetion of Hitler's ideology and ecclesiastical policy was the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, issued in 1937 because the text of the Encyclical (much more than a diplomatic complain: it was read in all parishes of Germany) proves that the complains were not cordial at all. The complete text of the Encyclical is strongly against Hitler policy.

Repair for Article

Uh Have uh repaired the article . uh sourced uh this earlier (see uh posts). If you uh want more Ill put in my summary here uh? Famekeeper 10:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Re-repairing article

Some of the edits have been useful, but some of them have introduced POV. I have added an NPOV tag to the section in question until I can remove unsourced allegations and put sourced allegations as POV. Robert McClenon 23:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The following have been removed from the article. Robert McClenon 01:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved

A year prior to the Reichskonkordat Cardinal Pacelli had been transmitting the wish of the pontiff for Adolf Hitler to assume control of Germany , as bulwark against atheistic Communism .

The notorious up-ending of the Liberal Weimar Republic constitution is the single example of a parliamentary Democracy voting for its own demise . It is also an example of the conflicts of interest between Ecclesiastical and civil power , personified here by the Ecclesiastic Party Leader, Monsignor Kaas

The terms of the Enabling Act themselves forbad the earlier interference with the Institution of the Reicshstag which these arrests achieved .

It can be argued that Pius XI had to make the best of the situation, in order to ensure some amount of protection for the Church in Germany, but of his early approbation for Hitler , and his attitude against Communism , there is no doubt .

The Catholic Church has yet to release documents for the relevant period, but the accusation is that the Centre vote elevated Hitler to power much more quickly than Hitler's preferred "legal" entry to power might have otherwise required. Ludwig Kaas is remembered as the conduit for Pacelli's and Pope Pius XI's favour towards Hitler. Reports of complicity towards restoration of the German monarchy in 1925 suggest great care by the Vatican to avoid evidential remains in delicate political negotiations . The war-time vatican channel between the German Widerstand and the Allies in 1940 and 1943 even more naturally , for fears of the Gestapo implicating the Holy See , were purely verbal .

There is accusation that the German concordat (see Reichskonkordat ) which remains in force to this day - allowed for the induction of Catholic priests into the armed forces during hostilities. Article 27 of the concordat states, in part, "The Church will accord provision to the German army for the spiritual guidance of its Catholic officers, personnel and other officials, as well as for the families of the same...The ecclesiastical appointment of military chaplains and other military clergy will be made after previous consultations with the appropriate authorities of the Reich by the army bishop." The clear reference here is the drafting of priests not as soldiers, but as chaplains.

It nevertheless did not mention anti-semitism nor the Jews by name despite the obvious need for this , and , Pacelli's own pontificate did not do so either during the whole of the World War II and the Holocaust .

Critics cite the danger of the destabilisation of a democracy by a church, relevant even in today's politics.

The quid pro quo with Adolf Hitler lives in histories relating to this descent of Europe into barbarity and war . In terms of the Holocaust itself Pius not having spoken out for the Jews publicly by name , nor in strong and explicit condemnation of Nazism is noted .It is recently argued (see Hitler's Pope that Pacelli himself was a lifelong anti-semite who otherwise could have seriously undermined Hitler and Nazism among Germany's many catholics. While the world was divided politically and geographically, many catholics were united behind their Pope, and followed his lead into their own personal accomodations with Hitlerism .

Had Pope Pius XII denounced Nazism in the strongest possible terms, it is possible that it could have not only caused unrest amongst catholics in the German army, but it could have also caused catholics working in German war factories to undermine German army support and logistics systems. This would have dealt a serious blow to the German war effort. Conversely, such action probably would have caused heavy suppression of Catholics, given that Nazism was more focused on Protestantism in the first place.

Such speculation does not form any part of the German Resistance ( Widerstand ) studies .

Although an individual of self-less habit , he was a believer of the absolute leadership priciple . he more than anyone promoted the concept of absolute papal rule , diminuishing the earlier collegiality of the church councils . Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert all powerful control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law .

The historic autonomy of the Germanic Catholic Church stood in contrast to these developements so ...

Disagreement

The following statement on my talk page should probably appear here also:

No, I'm afraisd to say that I do not accept your ediing of this article at all . Since you would simply make me repeat all my sourcing , I take this ill as the editing you have done is clearly POV because it does not accept the sources . I am blocked , by you McC .Famekeeper 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the material that I considered either speculative or POv has been moved to this talk page and is available for any Wikipedian to review and re-edit.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has been "blocked". Blocking is an administrative function that can be used on a short-term basis to deal with abuse, typically 3RR violations or vandalism. I am not an admin and do not have (or want) the power to block anyone. Rather than complaining that editing is blocking him,Famekeeper would do better to request a third opinion or mediation. Robert McClenon 11:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Article repaired Through Scholarly Source John Cornwell

Here is the link ] to the source from Vanity Fair Magazine of an abbreviation of John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope . If the Misplaced Pages rules according to its rules , then a source is a source . This is the most complete up to date scholarly source . By all means add more recent source . Full acknowledgement to both John Cornwell and Vanity Fair- I have lagely substituted as many simple parallel terms as appropriate . Any more adherence to the Vanity Fair text is by regard for fair educational use . Something especially urgent here on WP . Famekeeper 16:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

At Famekeeper 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC) I note disappearance of John Cornwell's explanations . I note no discussion here by Str1977 , who is editing under the impressions Cornwell is POV and or mistranslating . I see no proofs nor any sign of well, lets not go into that . I refer editors to thr Rfc re:Famekeeper , linked from my name page . I can only think that this is not my argument any more , and that Str can do as he wishes . What anybody else might judge is up to them . I see messages but they should be here . This article page needs careful consideration by some authority of Wkipdia rules and regulations who can decide when a historian is not a source and consider a protection . It is not for me to say , not to hang around more in hand to hand. Famekeeper

I reverted, not because I oppose including your information (see my post at your talk page), but because the whole edit was infused with a anti-Pacelli POV (which might come from Cornwell) studded with factual inaccuracies (rewrote concordats), debunked claims (anti-semitic letter) or off-topic remarks (Martin Luther burned canons etc).

I also removed one of the links linking (sorry the redundancy) to Vanity Fair's excerpt of Cornwell's book. This is why I put them side by side first so that everyone could see that I removed only a doublette.

Str1977 16:58, 9

I really don't mind what you do as it is your own choice to intervene in this way . I do think you will be the subject of scrutiny , but I have played my part . It is not for me to fight : You are rv'ing source ., and it's up to you . Personally I believe this takes us right back to the beginning- you are a fantastic terrier for the cause of Pacelli , and it really isn't any of it to do with my POV . I sourced everything I ever did on articles , the rest were my attempts to cure you of this craziness . The WP is being made a mockery , and there is an ongoing resultant responsibility . The page will need to return to my last edit , or sources are not part of WP . As ever this goes in tandem with Kaas , attacked by McC . It's not my problem ,see? It's yours and his and the WP's . You are certainly not within the guidelines now, but it is not news to me , as you never were . Bye August 2005 (UTC)

Your insertions were reverted because they were not presented as Cornwell's POV, but as fact. It is fact and NPOV that Cornwell says that Pacelli believed in centralized power and was working toward that objective. It is POV to simply say that. You did not present them as Cornwell's statements, but as fact.

I am still agreeable to mediation or arbitration. I am not trying to block or censor any view. I am only trying to remove unattributed POV to the talk page. If you can present it as POV, then it can be presented. You did not attribute it. I suggest that you move all of the questioned material to Hitler's Pope, which is a summary of what Cornwell wrote. There is an NPOV flag on that article because I questioned whether you had accurately summarized what Cornwell wrote. If you can accurately esummarize what he wrote, then I will remove the NPOV tag. I do suggest not relying on a summary of Cornwell's book. I do suggest using the book itself.

If you think that the Misplaced Pages is being made a mockery of, please post another RfC or RfM or even RfAR. I am looking for truth, but truth is not found by shouting. Robert McClenon 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No contrary source added . No substantiated claim . Famekeeper 01:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, FK, but no. Your last edited might be taken out of Cornwell word for word, but this is about Pacelli/Pius the man as he was - not as Cornwell portrays him. Cornwell is just one book about him. I didn't want to revert alltogether - I started removing certain bits that were clearly unsuitable but it turned that the anti-Pacelli bias (even Pacelli-hate) permeated through the whole text (I guess you took that directly from Cornwell). As it were it cannot stand - not as fact - only as POV, Cornwell's POV and, there I agree with Robert would be best placed at the Hitler's Pope page - there Cornwell's book and his description of Pius is the basis of the article. Str1977 08:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What-say-you to this: You get your strictly ecclesiastical article . We remove controversy out of it completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing of his life , so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way political . Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered . No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas nor no one . No letters of accusation, no defence .

Then we agree between you and me , that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a link .

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon . Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ?

No uptake on the reasonable suggestion as to a solution . While it is further considered , we can return to the published source basis .Famekeeper 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it - you have upset my apple cart . i was being frank with you , and I was not being frivolous. This is not at all the way it should have to be that I am to tell you what you hould do . I can only tell you what you are already absolutely aware of : this is pure Cornwell that now even you , have reverted . What am I supposed to say is really not the point . The point is on what basis is Cornwell not allowed entry ?

No sourced argument was provided to justify revision of my last text expansion .Your revert like that now puts you as you yourself see under the responsibilility to justify the action against topical published source . This has to be dealt with of and in itself . I was entirely aware that you had and were suggesting reasons and movement . This rv however has simply a quality of denial , of going against a very simple wikipedianess . Would you kndly justify your rv of source , as much as Str1977 would have to justify should he have done it ? Famekeeper 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If source is denied , then the balance is denied . Currently therefore the POV tag is required . Sad unacceptance .The woman who survived Auschwitz- she's Po v removable -justlike that , uh Wyss Str1977McClenon who don't answer.... Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Famekeeper,

... as for your proposal:

1) I cannot do anything for you in regard to the RfC. I didn't start and I won't stop it. If Robert, who started it is content with your behaviour he will do so himself. And I guess I would acquiesce in this too.

2) I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.

I agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages.

So, I'm afraid I have to say: no.

Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

outside view

Looking at the rival edits, I have to say that Flamekeeper's fail NPOV by a mile. The language is biased and POV-loaded to a serious degree. It states as fact John Cornwell's analysis, must of which, as with any historian's text about events he personally did not witness, is by definition supposition. All historical writing is always treated with caution and critical analysis. (I'm a historian myself BTW). John's allegations need to be covered professionally in this article. Flamekeeper's version fails to deliver that.

Specifically

Although an individual of self-less habit , he was a believer of the absolute leadership priciple . he more than anyone promoted the concept of absolute papal rule , diminuishing the earlier collegiality of the church councils . Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert all powerful control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law . — all unsourced opinion.

It would also allow for imposition of the new Canon Law in the land of Martin Luther who had nearly 400 years previously publicly burnt a copy the canon law in act od defiance of centralised papal control . — irrelevant and pointless hyperbole.

.Pacelli noticed the repulsiveness of the Jewish leader Eugen Levine and of his followers and thence grew a suspicion and contempt of Jews for political reason — chronic and franky laughable mispresentation of what Cornwell wrote.

And what Cornwell wrote already was a misrepresentation/mistranslation of what Pacelli wrote in his letter.

Pacelli also campaigned for Allied troops to not include colored soldiery in the occupied Rhineland, and in the aftermath of World War II repeated this demand of the Americans entering Rome — breaks cardinal rule of historiographical writing — never single out as remarkable attitudes of someone if they were reflective of contemporary attitudes. Pacelli's attitude were, unfortunately all too typical of the attitudes of most white people of his generation. If a pope today held those views when society doesn't it would be newsworthy. But all he was doing was reflecting contemporary attitudes.

Pacelli spent in all 13 years trying to re-write the German State Concordats one by one — deliberate mispresentation of fact out of context. The Vatican decided to rewrite the concordats. Pacelli was given the job. That misleading sentence implies he personally did it off his own bat.

And "rewriting" was needed since even where concordat existed, they were with the monarchies. The revolution overturned the whole situtation and hence new concordats were needed.

He routinely involved himself in complicated territorial disputes following WWI ,trading Vatican support for German control under terms advantageous to the vatican Concordats . However the overall Reichskonkordat eluded him because both the catholic and the protestant population resisted this new authoritarian papal control . — POV mispresentation of what Cornwell and other historians actually say.

And certainly, Catholics did not oppose a concordat. Quite the contrary.

Pacelli's long-standing house-keeper , Sister Pasquilina Lehnert , stated after Pacelli's death that Kaas regularly holidayed with him and was linked to him in "adoration , honest love and unconditional loyalty ." The slightly younger Kaas became an intimate collaborator in every aspect of Pacelli's vatican diplomacy in Germamy . Kaas served as secretary from 1925 and then with Pacelli's encouragement took the chairmanship of the influential catholoc Centre party Germany in 1928 . Officially Kaas , also a specialist in canon law , was the representative of democratic civil party , but one who was so attached to Pacelli that he became vitually his alter ego — Innuendo-filled mispresentation of what Cornwell actually wrote.

In the memoirs of the Chicago Daily News bureau chief for Berlin reference is made to an actual letter in 1932 , from Pacelli enjoining the Centre leadership to the papal wish for the success of Adolf Hitler . The letter which not been found , confirms essentially the Bruning meeting — if the letter can't be found then the charge cannot be made as there is no substantiation to prove it. History requires evidence.

the letter is only mentioned by the journalist in question in his memoirs. But even he has not seen it. A Centre Party friend told him about it. And what he told him actually does not necessarily warrant what is in the above paragraph.

The spring of 1933 brought a thaw of approbation towards Hitler from the Vatican and from the German Hierarchy. — Without explaining the context of German politics in 1933 that sentence out of context constructs a false impression.

All was conducted in secret and over the heads of the German Bishops and faithful by Kaas, Pacelli and Hitler's catholic associate ex-Centre Foreign Minister ,Franz von Papen — misrepresentation of what Cornwell says.

Pacelli demanded the imposition of the new Canon Code of Law upon all catholics , as well as various educational measures — The Canon Law code was binding on all Catholics since 1917!!!

I could go on with the other mistakes. Many are mispresentations of claims by Cornwell and others. Many are distortions. Many suggest that Flamekeeper is, to put it politely, inexperienced in how to wrote in an NPOV manner and how to write history. In addition the standard of English in the edit is appalling. Links are all wrong. Context is wrong. The understanding of Catholicism is all wrong. The grasp of what a diplomat does (and for much of the time Pacelli was a diplomat) is all wrong. The understanding of the context of the 1930s is non-existent. Historians follow a basic rule — analyse events in a time period taking into account the nature of the time period, eg, don't make a big issue of someone in the 1920s holding rascist, homophobic or sexist views; they were the norm then. But they would be a big issue in the 1970s or 1980s, when they were not the norm. Don't demand that someone possess an insight that we only have by knowing the outcome of events. Use the knowledge of what happened later to judge the wisdom of past decision, but don't demand that people who did not know what the future would bring that they act as though they know the future.

Quite frankly, Flamekeeper's edits are so POV-driven, so heavy-handed and on occasions so OTT as to be appalling. An article with so much conjecture, inaccuracy, POV and misdirected analysis could not possibly be let stand in an encyclop�dia. FearÉIREANN\ 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)