Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 11 May 2005

Pope Pius XII Bashing

(Actually, Pope Pius XII was a documented Nazi sympathiser, both by historical and photographic account.

He used the Nazis as a method of exterminating the Serbs (of which over one million (1,000,000) were massacred during World War II.

Adolf Hitler, apparently, was a devout Catholic:

“I am completely convinced that I am acting as the agent of God. I am now a Catholic and will always remain so.”

— Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf" (Hitler was never excommunicated by the Vatican. Mein Kampf was never banned by The Church.)

Reference:

"Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII", by John Cornwell

The Vatican’s Holocaust (online book) by Avro Manhattan published by: Ozark Books, Springfield, Missouri, http://www.reformation.org/holocaus.html )

above comment moved from article.

I think the answer is that this is an interesting point of view, and one that should be in the article - attributed to named advocates, such as John Cornwell. Misplaced Pages cannot call people Nazi sympathisers, but we can report on accusations made by other people. Martin 09:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(from talk:Catholicism) I removed the section that follows from Catholicism It contains strong POV / unsupported claims that Catholicism and Nazism are strongly intertwined. Anyhow, judge for yourselves and discuss. --Zippy 06:41, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Unsupported? He gives two references - that's not unsupported.

However, comments on a single pope are better placed here than at Catholicism. Martin 09:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, my reading of the quotation from Mein Kampf was that he was providing evidence in Trollish :).

For anyone who wants to spend some time reading up on the matter, this report, by a panel of three Catholic and three Jewish academics (no atheists :|), seems like a useful source. Interestingly, the Vatican has not responded to those requests. -- Pde 12:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, to get a proper perspective on Pius XII and his relationships with the several Fascist dictators, you have to trace Vatican politics back at least to the period of the French Revolution and the Italian Risorgimento. Pius XII's chummyness with the Nazis and with Fascist dictators was in fact founded on the traditional politics and policies of the Papacy. This material probably does indeed belong in Catholicism, or better yet, in an article on Roman Catholic Church separate from Catholicism. -- IHCOYC 13:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What was removed and is at the top of the page here is simplistic and one sided and has no place in that form in any encyclopædia. The issue needs discussing but in a proper, professional NPOV manner. I think it would make more sense to put the issue in a broader narrative perspective as IHCOYC observed, perhaps Roman Catholicism and right wing politics. FearÉIREANN 18:51, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Further to the above:

Most of the "Hitler's Views" section is problematic. Observe:

"Hitler apparently had no problems with Catholicism, however:

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Hitler's opinion of his own Catholicism has nothing to do with Pius XII, does it? (Especially without mentioning that Hitler later reviled Christianity as a "lie" and an "invention of the Jew".)

"Hitler was never excommunicated by the Vatican"

True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication. Also Stalin's question "How many divisions has the Pope?" is relevant; excommunicating Hitler would have been effective suicide.

"and so remains officially Catholic to this day..."

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.

"In addition, Mein Kampf was never banned by The Church."

Lots of books were never banned by the Church. Does this mean that the Church endorses those books? No, it does not.

"It is not clear what the intentions of the Church were in this particular inaction, but it is unlikely that the merely overlooked such a prominent figure as Hitler..."

That's just opinion masquerading as fact. Who says that? What are the other explanations given?

So I'm going to strike out this section. It might be relevant elsewhere (in an examination of Hitler's religious views, perhaps), but it has no place here.

--Mirv 05:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII Compared to Hitler and Stalin

The sway that religion has on society makes me sick, to be honest. This entry was justified the same way that defacing Adolf Hitler or Stalin is justified. Any truely objective encyclopaedia would at least detail Pius' 'alleged' involvement with the Nazis... Considering the fact that there are photographs of the Pope meeting with Hitler, however, it's a little difficult to give into the delusion that he didn't at least have some Nazi ties.

If you want to know my honest opinion, I think that unfortunately, because of the Catholic religion, we at wikipedia are being coerced to make Pius XII look better than he actually was. This is the same sort of thing that happened in the Soviet Union to anyone who criticised Stalin even after Kruschev had reversed his plans. Stalin was still regarded as a hero of the RELIGION known as the Soviet Union, people didn't want to give up their delusion that he was a good man, and as a result, to this day, Communist fundamentalists go on about how Stalin was a wonderful leader, as opposed to what he was almost certainly--a brutal and psychopathic dictator responsible either directly or indirectly for the deaths of some 20 million souls.

Incorruption

I've removed the following: In Roman Catholic lore, "incorruption", the miraculous preservation of a body from decomposition, is held to be a confirmation of sanctity; cf. Bernadette Soubirous.

That is simply wrong. "Incorruption" may be read as evidence of sanctity, but its absence does not mean evidence to the contrary. Many reasons may cause incorruption - type of soil in which the corpse is buried, type of coffin used, the use of preservatives on the remains prior to burial, etc. In catholic theological belief (not lore) an incorrupt body must have no contributing natural or chemical factors that can explain its state. In Pius's case, we simply do know what state it is currently in. All we do know is that a botched job occured when an attempt was made to preserve it prior to the lying-in-state; some form of preservation usage is standard practice with papal corpses given the numbers of people who may want to see the body during its lying-in-state; papal corpses usually are forced to undergo more exposure to air (in particular the hot temperatures of Rome) over a longer period than any other corpse, most of whose lying-in-states (eg, the Queen Mother's, US presidents, etc) take place in sealed coffins. The Vatican was quick to point out that no special meaning should be attached to the preserved state of John XIII's body when it was removed from its coffin prior to his beatification, for it had received a light wax spray prior to display in 1963 and had been buried in air-tight triple coffins. So taking Pius XII's immediate decomposition as evidence, or implied evidence, of lack of sanctity, is simply mischevious agenda-pushing nonsense. All it indicates is a botched job at preservation and nothing to do which his state of sanctity, whether good, bad or indifferent. FearÉIREANN 18:46, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unfair Links

Clearly the list of links shows how biased this article is. I think a fair approach would include at least a few of the numerous websites that are critical of Pius XII. There appear to be very few if any of these.

One link should be removed and that is of the "article" by Ian Paisley which is clearly a biased piece of slander and should not be included as it sheds no light on Pius XII. --Frankrig 05:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.

Wrong Reference

The reference to Blessed John XXIII in the list of predecessors and successors is simply wrong. This is a list of popes, not blesseds. Most people do not refer to him as Blessed John XXIII. Even most Roman Catholics do not refer to him that way. It is questionable to use that designation at the start of the article but it is patently wrong to use it in links. About the only other title besides 'pope' that could be validly used in that list is 'saint'. But Venerable, Blessed, etc have no place on that list. FearÉIREANN 18:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute : The Concordat

The anonymous edit of 23.15 hrs 01 April 05 was not minor and seriously affected the historical facts in this matter to do with Cardinal Pacelli . Of all the dates and meetings and communications removed , only the 1932 reference to Pacelli is anecdotal and refers to page 209 from the journalist Edgar Ansel Mowrer's Triumph and Turmoil ISBN 04 92 00267 , when Mowrer interrogates his assistant Otto Brok about the Secretary of State in Rome's letter read out by Monsignor Ludwig Kaas as party leader to the Zentrumspartei or Catholic Centre Party leadership . Mowrer introduces this by saying that the Communist gains in the May 1932 elections to the Prussian Landstag , only set the stage for a further betrayal, this time of the Catholics . Alleged or anecdotal ,it was reported as a secret meeting and Mowrer was ( and is ) respected worldwide by all (except Hitler) . This present editing , along with the complex and detailed timeline removed by the anonymous , removes from this encyclopedia the actual movements and meetings and communications undertaken as matters of historical fact . Their removal is not justified and their protection is . This becomes a case of Dispute and the wikipedia can no more ignore this than can the Church . Adjudication is required , and there are many historians on these pages , for what is a most crucially important political matter . It constitutes the abdication of Democracy by itself , - or its death by conspiracy , and it is the turning point around which all modern history revolves . This famous and mysterious abdication in the face of evil , as referred to in the late Pope John Paul II's recent book Memoria e Identidad is the weak brick in the foundations of our time and we can permit ourselves no amount of obfuscatory self-exculpation( ie hiding) . Until is is accepted , it remains a dispute but it is not an allegation : it is a denial of inconvenient truth which makes a mockery of all that is good and true .Tolerance of un-truth is poison and this particular poison is in need of clearance and purgation . We cannot understand our world and why we come to this present if we hide the past which led to World War II , the Holocaust ,the Nuclear Arms Race , the Space Race, European Partition , the Fall of Communism, the Middle East Crisis and the present evolving world order where balance of power and all our technologies have evolved from the wartime results of this arrangement of the Concordat .Flamekeeper

Flamekeeper, it's hard for me to understand what you are saying.

First of all, you aren't clear about what edit you are objecting to. Each Misplaced Pages viewer sees the times on the History page in their own time zone, so when you refer to "the anonymous edit of 23.15 hrs 01 April 05" I suspect you must mean the the second-from-the-bottom edit by 24.91.137.38 on that date, since this is the only edit that I see where the timestamp ends in :15. (Here in Seattle it shows as 15:15, 1 Apr 2005." I ran a diff of this and he changed "Nazi's" to "Nazis and". I agree that the meaning is changed, but since the old version was grammatically incorrect I feel this is not a big deal.

Actually - most of the time people are refering to the UTC time which is what will display unless you go into your Preferences click "Time Zone" and put in an offset - I am guessing that one of you has done this - thus the time matching is off - may I suggest that you both not have an offset so that it is easier to communicate Trödel|talk 13:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it occurs to me that you might be objecting to the combination of all four of 24.91.137.38's edits on that date. These do include some substantial changes.

In summary: The first half of your paragraph above makes no sense to me, because I cannot identify the specific edit you are disputing. The second half of your paragraph is a rant that doesn't address the point of a dispute. You can't dispute a page because it makes you angry; you can only dispute it because you believe it is factually incorrect, or because it distorts history by overemphasizing or underemphasizing key points.

Lawrence King 10:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I claim that many of the edits made since I tried to fill in the historical facts of meetings result in a distortion of history . Therefore I have shortened the interpolation of those outstanding facts and equally simplified the distortionate assertions since included . I feel this to have been even-handed as the facts are already for some time accepted on the main nazi party page , (which should be but isn't called the nazi party page but the national socialist party of germany, thus confusing modern readers ), I have given lengthy notice for my disputation of the intervening Pius XII page , I have provided sufficient info on the Centre Party (Germany) page , and all in all tried to allow the world a glimpse of its own history . You are quite correct that the time and particular edit I referred to was incorrect . I don't know how this can be resolved . Has one to simply list all the myriad books which have never quite understood this explosive connection in order to show that not only was it insufficiently understood or recognised but also carefully obfuscated by clearly interested parties ? Do I need to list all the urls to sites revealing the clear criticism of this history, mostly relevant to acts of murder we term the holocaust ? I said some time ago that historians should intervene and I am not comfortable in assuming any such mantle . I can only hope that this present move will indeed lead to a complete resolution of this dispute such that the history becomes clear and un-disputed . I cannot however accept that it is simply obfuscated -can I or can you ? Flamekeeper

No need to provide URLs. Can you state, very briefly, what facts are in dispute? Or if you prefer, can you tell me which claims on the Pius XII page are things you disagree with?

You say that these facts are "already for some time accepted on the main nazi party page". But it would take me a while to read that entire page and the entire Pius XII page and look for contradictions. It's easier if you tell me.

I'm not asking you to defend your view: just say what it is.

Thanks! Lawrence King 04:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "urban legend" for Papal involvement with the Nazis is expanded upon the Centre Party (Zentrum)page where references and facts are provided sufficient to warrant the case . Flamekeeper 21:33, 19 Apr 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)

Why was this page locked?

"Flamekeeper" locked this page on 13 April and said it was because of a dispute, "see the talk page".

This Talk page has had no new entries since 8 April. How are we to know which of the many disputes on the Talk page need to be resolved before the page will be unlocked?

Lawrence King 10:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it were in fact Flamekeeper who locked this page, this would appear to be a violation of Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, where it is written:

Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page).

Since Flamekeeper has added comments to the talk page and been involved in editing the page, he should not have locked it if it were in fact him; he should have requested that some other admin review the situation and lock the page. I would suggest calling attention to this on the talk pages of the policy article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake in Etiquette - I wish to make no mockery . I was trying to help by calling your attention to this . As I have remarked in the past , the wikipedia is at times syndicating complete falsehood which is thereby re-inforced . Everyone will be most re-assured if the administration can decide even in this one case what needs to be protected . I certainly will have caused much harm if my etiquette distracts from the essential dispute -which remains to be addressed . Flamekeeper

Why not unlock the page then - and clearly identify what portions you object to on the talk page so they can be discussed. It's been locked for 5 hours for no reason Trödel|talk 15:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is editable I just noticed that the Edit this page link was active at the top instead of the View Source of a normal protected page - looks like User:Flamekeeper is having fun - I removed the false protected notice at the top - so edit away. Trödel|talk 16:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

None of this subject is funny . I clearly labelled the dispute as being with the concordat .History and goodwill objects to all of the Concordat and to that which is a carefully crouched repair of my earlier corrections. I earnestly ask someone to protect this page in the absence of discussion and resolution . I think it was quite clear what I was trying to protect - the history and consequences of the Concordat and the Church's relationship with the Nazi party . Evidently no one else shares my indignation , which becomes a question in itself .Flamekeeper

The proper page for requesting protection is: requests for page protection. However, I don't think protection is necessary - this page does not have the type of revert war going on that usually warants protection. The controversy re Nazi Germany seems to be covered - though the language could probalby be tightened some - there is no reason to protect the page. see the protection policy for more info Trödel|talk 18:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Trödel, for your intervention here.

Flamekeeper, I think you need to be more clear in your edits. I am a fairly well educated native speaker of English, and I find your prose very hard to read. You wrote above, "I clearly labelled the dispute as being with the concordat". Sorry, but you didn't. When you added the "protected" label, all that appeared on the history page was the following text:

02:27, 13 Apr 2005 Flamekeeper (protected~~~~)

The four tildes (~~~~) appeared literally in your comment, which might indicate you didn't realize that this sign is not expanded in edit summaries.

Also, in talk pages like this one it's best to use colons (:) to indent your comments so that each user's comments line up correctly. I added colons to your comments above to make this section more readable.

Just some constructive advice, because I think your frustration is due to the fact that you think people are ignoring you, when in reality they might just find your writing difficult to read. Taking a bit more time will make it easier for all of us! Because in the end, all of us share your hope that "the history becomes clear and un-disputed".

Lawrence King 04:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes! The page is quite balanced at this point-but can we avoid another editing war? I should have reverted and I can't agree with Trodl so easily-surely you all see the requirements of the situation ? The language I use tries to communicate the maximum to those who are actively concerned . If this issue were not prohibited from discussion-if the documents were released , if it didn't lead where it lead then it wouldn't instill indignation . As it is I am re-assured by your presences which might frustrate future propagandising and I'll happily leave it to you to revert as it is required . I don't want to be the one constantly casting the stone , but the wikipedia needs to keep in step with reality and the reality is that there is a lot of indignation out there . The other reality is that the relevant bodies do not seem at all to wish to confront their 'evolution' but rather happily consider that they can revise history to suit their case . If I am historically incorrect I serve no virtuous purpose but revisionism erupts constantly . The logic of the situation following WW II is that our world is heading for a 'truth and reconciliation' scenario which will come with a future UN-type universal body . The culpability extends far from this page and into the realms of globalised capital , but the reconciliation will have to be cognisant of all the factors including this page and extend from the 1st World unto the bottom . The apparent victory of Capital as opposed to Ideology will be short-lived and the body in question here will play its part by recognising the 3rd World in its own way now . Only a 3rd world Pontiff will possesss the sufficient distance from such a severely tainted history to survive the scrutiny that will come .I humbly suggest that the new Ideology wil be simply human and incorporate all our extending bio-chemical knowledge . The economic side will however require fundamental change and such mental change will require the con-version of all beneficial social organisation into a unity .This page is vitally important for an understanding of this future . Flamekeeper

Memoria e Identidad title and relevance

This book has now been published in English as Memory and Identity. Any particular reason why it's preferred to name the book in Spanish? (Not Italian; "identity" there is identità; though I'm not sure why this has e instead of y, which is the usual Spanish for "and".) -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main relevance of the book to this article is that this use of the Enabling Act by way of an example in it shows the continuing lack of understanding of the shattering consequences of Pacelli's involvement . Separately, in the secret annexe to the Concordat, padres may perhaps include religious or monks rather than just priests -in which case it could be more accurate to stick with that term . As well as this it is a fact ( upon which Hochhuth based his play) that the Holy See invested heavily in German Industry following its settlement(by sale) of the Papal Lands outside the Vatican . It would be logical to believe that Pacelli was just partly blinded (as were so , so many other investors ) by these interests . It would be reasonable overall in fact to conclude that Pacelli mistook the size of the Devil with whom he supped and that his spoon was too short, and that he spent all his following years in greatest regret .It is undoubtedly true that the Church was desirous throughout the centuries of formal recognition by the german states .However it appears from all sides that hitherto there is no willingness to confront this Concordat ( and its dependant Holocaust) issue , but only a continuation of Cardinal Pacelli's silence . Of course infallibility when wrong and un-sustainable needs a solution that is not available within that self-same creed of infallibility . It is truly an impossible position as movement forward contradicts the teaching , and movement backward in time is unavailable . Hitherto the option has been to side-step and divert but now what  ? Lastly it is reasonable to note that there has been a change in the wikipages relevant to the Church , and it is reasonable to presume that this might follow upon the recent Vatican conference rapidly held to analyse the new media means for dissemination .That which is empowering and democratising in the wikipedia represents a great challenge and , on this page, a danger but it also provides the means for concerted action by groups . This present page is now a litmus test on several strategic levels .Flamekeeper

I understand its relevance. What I want to know is why the title is given in another language on the English language Misplaced Pages when the book has an official English title. If there's some technical reason to do so, by all means go ahead. Perhaps "the religious", which can mean "members of religious communities" in English, might be a more formal fit than "padres" BTW. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was the title used first by the euronews TV channel which provided a report of the contested attack by Pope John Paul II on democracy is the reason . Perhaps they had some cause or it is a confusion of tongues .Flamekeeper 21:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection

Following the repeated anon whitewashing of the complicity described within the article , page Protection has been sought .Intervening recent edits have been minor in comparison .Flamekeeper 07:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intervention in Democracy and the Civil Order

Two questions:One, in this paragraph: "The questions arising from the Concordat have re-surfaced of late because of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling act in the book Memoria e Identidad by Pope John Paul II, who cites it as an example of the dangers associated with Liberal Parliamentary Democracy. However the Concordat represents most clearly the opposite dangers to a Democracy from a Church." Isn't the final sentence far too declarative for Misplaced Pages? It seems to me it's taking a position as though Misplaced Pages is saying "this is what the Concordat represents". Anyone agree/disagree? Can I remove it, or should it be rephrased....and if so, how?

Two, should phrases like "Disputed" and "Disputed - see below" really be placed in the middle of paragraphs? I removed one, but now am noticing that there are several. Is this unilateral action, or the results of compromise and consensus? Help, anyone? Jwrosenzweig 21:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go to the Centre Party Germany page and decide. Maybe the wikipedia can't be relied on to help us I agree about disruption of paragraphs . It seems necessary to end each paragraph with its own references and page numbers to avoid futile argument about POV.Flamekeeper 15:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)In fact go to the history reverted within history buttonFlamekeeper 09:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The source for the Kaas movements is The Catholic Church and Germany by Guenter Lewy , from OUP . I remove disputed as suggested Flamekeeper 07:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.

(18) see Rom 3,8

This is the legal principle cited as the basis for the enciclical Humanae Vitae and is the foundation for the entire teaching concerning human fertility. It is the principle upon which Cardinal Ratzinger famously intervened in the Bush-Kerry presidential race therefore playing some large part in modern political affairs. Liberal concern exists that use of this law forbidding complicity with Evil increased the ] vote. historical concern abounds that in contravention of this church law, the Papacy in 1993 crucially tipped the balance in favour of a dictatorship by Adolf Hitler and away from democracy.

The world might enquire of the Holy Father how soon will he choose institute a public enquiry of Tribunal into the breaking of this Law in direct intent by Pope Pius XI, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli the future Pope Pius XII, and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, Leader of the Catholic Centre Party in Germany, against the moral order of the Church and of all societies in general ? The world should, within its intellectual freedom from censorship, ask of the church why this law was not adhered to by its proponents themselves .

The defence against the accusation of a quid pro quo of the Enabling Act for the Concordat with Germany appears to reside in a Catholic League quote from Dr Joachim Fest such that even should they have willed it, the Centre Party would not have had the numbers to make a difference in the vital tipping vote. However this is not borne out by the figures which therefore are herewith stated by necessity :

Without the Centre bloc vote by Monsignor Kaas ( that is, together with the offshoot Bavarian People's Party vote ) the Hitler - Nationalist DNVP totalitarian vote was 347. With Kaas this was 441. A moralist bloc of this Centre with the Socialist moralist vote (such as was registered by their leader in those terms) would have required a totalitarian doubling of that bloc (92 centre +94 socialists) of 186 votes, to 372 deputies for the Act to pass.

But, even had the Centre split, carrying off, for arguments sake, the 18 Bavarian People's Deputies, then the totalitarians would have been required to beat a (doubled because of the two -thirds majority) 74 Centre + 94 SPD, of 356 Deputies.

The Catholic League claim would require that the totalitarian vote would have to have been bolstered by the Bavarian BVP(18), all the minor parties (14) making an exact maximum of 372, as above. . However the total votes cast were 535 and the total Nazi-DNvP vote was only 347 ; and these requisite numbers do not arise to support this defence -unless the by then zombie Communist party could have helped with their proscribed 81, that were never allowed into contention.

Unless the Socialists had fractured, which it seems they did not ( though their vote was 94 out of 120 deputies elected on March 3, 1933 ), and such defecting Socialists had made up the totalitarian numbers, which they did not, then the defense against the quid pro quo seems as deficient elctorally as it is morally.

This defense addresses none of the accusation, which is of a several years long process of political influence, from 1925 onwards, which has a quite calamitous specific dual culmination. More fully, the question should encompass a parallel quid pro quo with the forces of capital, every bit in need of attention from the Upholder of the Law. It is an equal accusation that large numbers of household-name corporations have completely evaded the penalties requisite upon their own devastatingly corrupting influence. The Hochhuth Play accusations, which are by no means invented, also relate to considerable Vatican investment in these same corporations.

It is reported by the Catholic League that Cardinal Pacelli wished to exorcise Adolf Hitler- that he considered him to be possessed by the Devil but a real reckoning of the Pius XII dealings towards and opinion of Hitler needs to be specifically chronologued.

Relevant link : (http:www.//geocities.comvisplace/vatican10p2.htm)] explains the concerns of the Holy See, the Kaas importance and the monarchist factor in negotiations with the Centre (and the DNvP), and explains closely why there is a dearth of vatican documents.

The Postulator for Pius XII, Dr. Peter Gumpel SJ wrote in 1999 that John Cornwell was blinded by the writings of Heinrich Bruning, accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since "Kaas worked with Pacelli".The Vatican claims that the archives relating to this era have been accessible, but this does not seem to be borne out by the experience of Cornwell. No clearer reference is made to Kaas and Pacelli's work together and the issue is unattended on one side and on the other simply stated as a matter of complicit fact by holocaust historians . Flamekeeper 06:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

All this ranting of Flamekeeper presupposes that the passing of the Enabling Act, as deplorable as it might be, is the one thing to look at. Fests "would not have had the numbers to make a difference" does not necessarily refer to this one vote only. The Enabling act was not the first step in the demise of the Weimar Republic and it wasnt the last. Hitler could have been dismissed any time until Hindenburgs death. Str1977 23:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please clean your language STR1977. Insults do no good to the severity of the problem.

I don’t see where I insulted you, but if the word “ranting” offended you, I do apologize. But please understand, that your posting the same (literally the same) stuff all over the place does not help. I first read it on the B16 page and from the context of that page I really couldn’t understand what it was all about (What “Law” is he talking about?) But again, I apologizes.

You wish to disagree, but you do not answer the problematical points. This which you claim now is incorrect.

What do I claim?

We would be most interested if you would supply us all with deeper information as to exactly how the Enabling vote stacked up: how many of the Centre did abstain, what happened to the missing (from reports) 20 or so Socialists, and where were the 14 very minor party votes- did they vote ? Please do provide us with this information.

As Your Grace might please to notice ( J ), Never did I deny that the Zentrum’s votes very indeed essential to pass the Enabling act and your criticism of Kaas is perfectly legitimate. There was a “quid pro quo” between Kaas and Hitler in regards to guarantees for the Zentrum. Hitler only noticed them, but Kaas described it (whether intentionally or by mistake) them to be accepted. Of course the letter in question never came. It was very foolish of him to expect Hitler to respect guarantees once he had attained that much power (he should have better listened to his “life long friend” Pacelli, who had a clear view of Nazism already then – and the Ermächtigungsgesetzt certainly is one of the major steps toward Bazi tyranny, though not the only one. My criticism against your post was mainly, that you portray this bill as the one and only and decisive step and that, had the Zentrum not given its consent (as they should have IMO), Hitler would have been dead politically right away. Noone knows what would have happened and Kaas and his fellow MPs certainly bear the blame for their action, but please don’t pin the whole blame for the Third Reich on one single party.

We would also like to know of any information you might provide concerning the Kaas visits to Pacelli and the Pacelli communications back to Kaas, or anything emanating from the Vatican to elucidate any benign motivation.

… a more “benign motivation”? You don’t give any motivation at all (sparing you the trouble of proving anything), but it is innuendo at work. I don’t know what Kaas reported to Pacelli and whether he gave him all the information and what Pacelli replied. I don’t know! Neither do you. But if you want a benign speculation: they probably discussed Hitler’s rise to power, the danger that posed to the Church and christian civilization, whether something could be done against it and what that something might be.

We would like also to see the Vatican Bruning connection to a restoration of the Monarchy in Germany …

Though Brüning’s monarchism is highly questionable, even if it is true, what’s the problem in turning the unstable Weimar Republic into a more stable, constitutional monarchy along British lines? But the Holy See didn’t have any preference (look into the encyclical you cited) as regards to monarchy or republic, if only her liberties would be respected.

… within the same context of Papal involvement in the Centre Party (ie catholic voters) from 1925.

Of course there was involvement between church-men and the party, but of what kind? of what content? You’re using innuendo to hint at something sinister, but provide no proof.

We should like to see the analysis that is clearly made upon the Vatican's reaction to a fall in Catholics actually voting for the official Catholic Centre Party and how this combined with other threats to change and direct the Papal stance.

My statistics tell me the Zentrum was pretty stable all the way from start to finish.

We should like to see an analysis which would more clearly relate, yes, back to the Concordat and the other many concordats. No one denies that the desire for the German Concordat was other than beneficial.

So noone denies it? I certainly do? Why does the Church negotiate and sign concordats? To protect the local Churches freedom to practise the faith free from interference from outside the Church, especially the ever-expanding modern state. After the fall of the German monarchies, there was the need for re-regulating this relationship with the now republican states and hence there were numerous concordats with the individual states, Bavaria, Prussia. On the national level that was difficult because of the unstable governments and lacking majorities and the opposition of the Social-Democrats. Hitler’s government, as deplorable as he was, provided an opportunity to come to an agreement, as his government coalition (yes it still was one at first) had a stable majority. There also was a general feeling that this 4th presidential cabinet would not last very long (that’s what Papen thought too) and then the Church would have attained a formal concordat with the German Reich, binding future governments (As it was, things turned out differently and this came to be only after the war, but since then the concordat works well.) On the other hand, the fact that it was Hitler in power made it more urgent: how should know what he might do with this “jewish sect”, especially since in the wake of the “Gleichschaltung” the individual states practically ceased to exist, so what about the concordats signed with them. I don’t think Pacelli had any great illusions about Hitler’s trustworthyness but a document signed by Hitler could at least serve as a basis of protest as it subsequently did.

However, User Str1977, thus far your commentary seems not very elucidatory and your edits amount to a diminution of the serious historical and ethical question that remains, and which is now put into the most elemental Theological context.

Dr. Fest is used by the Catholic League as has been mentioned. Dr.Gumpel, as is mentioned. These are citations, as is everything. There is no argument about Fest at this point, but about the use of Fest by the Catholic League, which is as quoted. The validity check - you yourself should repeat and if it is incorrect, that will be very important.

I respect Dr. Fest very much, but if his quote was referring to the actual vote on the bill, he’s wrong, as numbers show. (Though further machinations could have dealt with a Zentrum problem as well as it did with Communists and Social Democrats), but if he’s talking about the whole strain of events, he might agree with my point, that it was not the Zentrum alone that could have turned the tide, certainly not at this hour.

But, User, you should refrain from open censorship, indeed save us the necessity of reverting your edits that try to assuage and diminuish from the historical contradiction. You continue to do this and the clearer it will become that this amounts to historical revisionism and censorship.

Again, no censoring here. I only objected to your exporting the same post to other pages, where a connection is only tangible and seems to me very constructed (calls for a posthumous tribunal, US elections etc). Actually the right page to discuss this all should be the Kaas page, as he was the one involved with the Ermächtigungsgesetz, but if you want to use this page, so be it. Also a serious discussion can only take place if one meets in one single space. Anyone interested can home here.

No one wished to be simplistic and obviously this quid pro quo did not exist in a vacuum.

I am happy to hear that, but from your previous posts I didn’t seem like that to me. In regard to “The Law”, as you call it, the question is whether the events in question were a mere toleration or an active cooperation in evil. This all should be discussed bit by bit and one by one, i.e. if Kaas cooperated in evil, that doesn’t mean that Pacelli also did, let alone the Pope.

The general situation, the specific situations of all Germans, were indeed dire for all classes. Actual analysis concerning the extent to which conscious german governmental action exacerbated an already extremely difficult reparations situation exists and will have to be dealt with under Versailles Treaty history. Hindenburg too. Whatever should be analysed should be so, but simply turning our back on this - or yes, pointing all the error at one party does no service.

I’m not turning my back on it and it certainly isn’t me putting the blame on one party or three individual persons.

You wish for greater clarity but if the Holocaust organisations can refrain from open accusation, so can we here and so your demand for further clarification of the point is left. You and the whole world will note that the contributions made thus far have been essentially proved. There is no pleasure in the loss of confidence to be gained by these realisations, there is the opposite. There is no confidence restored by this use of the Law in current democratic battle in the USA.

As for that, see below.

The editing of christian dictatorship from the article upon Pius XII is a semantic ploy to diminuish the odours emanating from the quid pro quo.

I deleted it because you give no source for that term. Who used it? When? In what context? Pacelli certainly didn’t consider a Nazi dictatorship to be Christian. Please provide me with that info, I would like to know, even if it turns out not to be relevant here. Until you do I will delete it again and again, as it seems to me really a “semantic ploy”, especially in times where people stoop to such lows as “Hitler was bad, he was a dictator!” Yes, Hitler was bad, and he was a dictator, but the really bad thing about him was not that he was a dictator. Democracies can act evil too (e.g. Athen's genocide on Melos, colonialism, legalisation of abortion), that's the point you're referring to in the late Pope's last book. It's not the formalities of decision that make something wrong or evil, but the decision's moral qualities.

The encyclical quoted was directed against the Spanish Republican Government legislation to separate church from state.

I have read the encyclical (Spelling!) and it seemed to me fairly reasonable. Whether a state wants to separate itself from the Church is up to the state to decide (the US did it right away, France did it later, the UK never did it, Germany did it, but in a more cooperative way) – this separation is no law of nature (as against human rights as freedom of conscience, of religious practice, etc). You might agree with it, I might agree with it (with qualifications), but it’s not “the force of gravity”. In fact, the idea of separation is in iteself based entirely on Christian, … nay Catholic ideas and principles (Gelasius, Gregory VII) and was completely unknown in ancient times, before the advent of Christianity. Unfortunately under the guise of this separation, governments can and also have implement policies intended to crush the Church or at least to drive it into the ghetto of unimportance. That was the case in France around 1900 and in Spain around 1930, which Pius XI is referring to, and this unfortunate policies did even worsen in 1936, which directly lead to the Civil war. It was one Spain against another Spain and neither is blameless. But Franco could use the bitterness among Spaniards for his one purposes.

User, you should seriously consider that your desire to retain a blind confidence leads you against the currents of truth.

Yes, I have confidence (in Him and in her), but I’m certainly not blind. Note that you’re referring to truth here, as I will come back to this latter.

No one seeks vanquishment from facts - either the pieces of history inserted are true or untrue - the words christian dictatorship precisely abbreviate the relevant import from the encyclical,

What does that mean? I can’t find the words in the document. And I can’t find it relating to anything in the document.

… which whilst evidently referring to Church history throughout the ages of darkness and strife (monarchical-aristocracy), nevertheless is greatly shocking for its toleration of such abandoned principles of government in the 20th century.

So do you think that there is only one form of government, fitting every country and every age? And what is that? I guess, you’d say “democracy”, but what is “democracy”? The one of ancient Athens, that commited genocide? The one of Switzerland? The British parliamentary monarchy? The US constitution. Is the modern, liberal democracy really a democracy or is it rather a democratically elected aristocracy. Is the US a elective monarchy? Is France a dictatorship, because the president has, theoretically, absolute powers? (Note that up until the 1930s the term democracy is defined differently from today. The still was the clear distinction between “Republic” and “Democracy”. This goes back to Plato and Aristotle, who considered Politea the best form of government and defined Democracy as its corrupted form, calling it also Ochlocracy, i.e. mob-rule. For that reason the Weimar Republic shunned the term Democracy and only two parties called themselves Democratic. Even after the war, some wings of the Chirstian-Democrats refused that name and adopted Christian-Social for that very reason.)

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion of “abandoned principles”, as if something could be true at 9 in the morning, but false at noon. Though different things might be called for in different situations.

As for the Church, as the cited encyclical shows, she can live under various forms of government and cooperate with them, if only her liberties are respected.

This is self evidently true,

The problem is that you think something is self-evidently true when it isn’t and when others hold something true, with more explicit evidence, you denounce it as "truth"

… a repetition of this would be equally more shocking today. The use of Romans 3,8 in the Bush-Kerry Presidential Election whilst understandable for its origin in the abortion debate, is equally shocking if the truth be known about this sordid quid pro quo of the thirties.

Do we come to the heart of the matter, here? Are you sad because Bush won the election? I certainly am not a 100%-Bushist, I certainly was against the invasion of Iraq when it happened (though not with a illusionary spirit of love for Saddam, as some (not you!) were, or the thought, that this is the worst war ever waged. I’m not pacifist! But still I was against this war. As were the late and the current Pope, BTW.)

Now, as for your shocking truth. Even if all your accusations (explicit and implicit) were true, i.e. that Kaas, Pacelli and Pius did “cooperate in evil” (and the Zentrum in 1933 campaigned against Hitler – the mistake was to deviate from that line after the election), that certainly does not mean that we now have to cooperate in evil too, does it? That’s the logic of the “old Adam”, biblically speaking. If the three did cooperate in evil, their case has now moved on into a higher court. (with a small exception in case of Pius XII, as he is also scrutinized by the Congregation for Beatifications – but even if he’s beatified, that doesn’t mean he’s without sin – noone is, but God is merciful – only that he’s found to be now in heaven.) The Church's job is not to judge the dead, that's God's faculty.

That George W.Bush raised from circa 48 to circa 52 per cent (or whatever) of votes cast because of the intervention through Romans 3,8 because of Pope Benedict XVI's direct admonition against complicity with evil, makes the thirties history no more than completely relevant to such as would even lazily, prefer forgetfulness.

Your straining monocausality to the brink. Bush’s victory and Kerry’s defeat had more than one reason. The were many different motivations in Bush voters and also in Kerry voters (though the most probably thought Anyhtingbutbush). Kerry was in a tough spot, since he was the third Catholic to run for president and the first since the infamous Roe-vs-Wade. Apart from his support for abortion, which the line of his party demands, he also - needlessly - supported the mass murdering activities called embryonic stem cell research. Be that as it may, it was not the then Cardinal Ratzinger that opened the question, but Kerry with his running for office and the bishops for admonishing him for his views. The cardinal’s statement in fact was very nuanced (but what do journalists of either persuasion care for nuance), as he said: >> A Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abort politician on the basis of his support for abortion. That’d be formal cooperation in evil. However, a Catholic can vote for a pro-abort politician for other, proportionate reasons. << Of course not every reason is proportionate and since abortion is a rather heavy issue, IMO it’s hard to find proportionate reasons, but an unjust war might be one. I don’t think so (at least not this – past – war), but that’s something one has to consider in one’s own conscience. Note that sometimes who have to choose between two pro-aborts! What then?

To anyone with a heart, the import however, of the thirties contradiction or conspiracy,

What does contradiction or conspiracy mean?

… is that the entire of modern world history emanates, in all its terrible tragedy, from this one battle between the forces of absolutist (dare one still suggest it given this contradiction ) truth and those of Communism.

If it’s a battle between truth and communism, I certainly would opt for truth. I’m no liberal, but I’d opt for liberalism, if the alternative is communism. Stalin is a mass murderer no less than Hitler and the two started the 2nd World War.

For my part, I'd rather think the (modern and pre-modern) battle between extreme collectivism (of any colouring) on side, and extreme individualism on the other side, both waging war on each other and against the middle-ground, where humanity, truth, Christianity dwell. (And if individuals in Church history failed in that battle, that doesn't mean the fight is wrong.) But that's a historico-theological aside.

And note that you hailed truth above and now you decry it. (And don't bother to bring up capitalization issues, that's english semantics but irrelevant to the real issue).

Of course, in this life we cannot attain truth with any absolute assurance (see 1 Cor 13) and we are well advised to question ourselves and doubt has its place on our way to truth, but we still have to look for it and we still have to cling the existence of truth. If there's no truth, everything is meaningless! If there's no truth, Hitler's only fault was, that he lost the war (He would agree with that.)

What child cannot but be radicalised knowing this, what reassessment cannot but become necessary to re-align the fractured cultures of humanity back upon some keel of truth?

Yes, radicalized! But a radical in what? I, for my part, radicalize in Christianity. Or is that too much of truth?

Would not an extra-terrestrial, even, not frown at the evident contra-diction where the leaders of Christianity abandon all humanity (but particularly the Jews) and all the norms of civilised civil order,

I don't know about extraterrestrials, but did Pius XII not hide Jews. Did not other Christian do that as well. Of course, many also failed, but you're painting with a very broad brush. Apart from persons and their actions, isn't it the Catholic faith that really is the complete opposite of Nazi ideology? I can't say that much about other beliefs, as Communism, current Liberalism.

... in order to confront an economic creed that desired the same charitable base. Aha you say - this is nonsense and don't we all know.

I don't want to sound like McCarthy, but nonetheless: Are you a Communist? Just a question. I understand where you got that, I generally am a Social Democrat by political view though not by party, but Communism is charitable is ... yes, you guessed correctly ... non-sense. There might be some good intentions in its beginning, but you know where good intentions are used as pavement stones, don't you?

Yes we know that what a certain Polish philosopher Kolokowski(?) analysed is correct in this regard: if Communism is defined as from each according as to his means, unto each according to his needs then the failure of Communism lies simply in the responsive question but who decides these.

Is this your definition of communism. I read it somewhere on wiki before. This definition describes how Marx and his followers thought the final stage of human history they called “communism” would look like. To any pointing out of the faults “real-existing socialism” they’d reply that “communism” had not yet been attained. And they are right, “communism”, defined that way, does not exist and noone has to fight it. The “communism” in the real world is (or was?) a political movement set out to bring about a revolution against “captitalism”, instute a dictatorship and so on … I don’t have to explain this to you, do I?

Sadly it now appears that a Pope decided in so far as he could to put himself on the side of actual War.

Actual war? What war? Do you mean the past war waged in Iraq? Or the war, some strains of modernity wage against humanity itself?

Flamekeeper 19:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 10:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)