Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 22 May 2005

Church doctrine and personal theology

I'm reposting my query from the Benedict main page:

Dear all,

I feel somewhat uneasy about a lack of distinction between Ratzinger's personal emphasis and stances as a theologian and his pronouncements as head of the CDF. Not that there is a disagreement, but I don't think it appropriate to e.g. list his condemnation of Boff or of female priests as a personal view. This is why I moved these two to the CDF section. But this might be appropriate for other paragraphs as well, e.g. the Homosexuality paragraph (but needs rephrasing to start with statement, not with critics) or the abortion paragraph.

Also, if anyone has greater knowledge about the theological writing of Ratzinger please post it.

Of course the creation of the subpage makes it more complicated. Maybe we should put in some passage here, distinguishing the two. Str1977 09:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine with me. Though I do apologize if this sub-page put a wrench in anyone's plans, but if yall want to link to the main page in the various passages, thats cool with me. I am mainly just watching the page for vandalism. Zscout370 (talk) 18:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear all again, I moved some stuff over from the main page. It still needs some editing, as some things are now double. I will look into it again, but also feel free to edit and add what you think right. Str1977 20:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear all,

I am removing the Uganda reference as it is disputed, in the AIDS section, if one looks at the letters responding to the washington post/times? article, it is claimed that the study cited was only done in the Rakai district which accounts for 2% of the population, and is not representative of the general trends in Uganda.

Flamekeeper says, I ask

Flamekeeper added this paragraph to the "Abortion and politics" section.

The basis for the injunction against co-operation with Evil lies in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae and comes from Romans 3,8. It is an injunction whose application applies to actions whether personal, family or societal and forbids the knowing choice of an evil course even in order to achieve any subsequent known good. This teaching is the bedrock of Christian morality and provides the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on issues relating to Human Life. The controversy generated by this reference to Evil in 2004 , adds to the controversy concerning the proposed Beatification of the wartime Pope Pius XII.

I'd like to ask anyone to comment, whether his observation that the then Cardinal Ratzinger's statement towards elections really had the effect he describes - not just being controversial, but drawing attention (other than FK's) to this principle or Pius XII. PS: Of course, Flamekeeper, we know you think it's true so don't bother to post here. Str1977 22:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Another question is, whether it really is important for what reason a topic is brought up in discussion. Str1977 23:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask some questions within the text of Flamekeeper's paragraph...

"The basis for the injunction against co-operation with Evil lies in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae and comes from Romans 3,8. " Who says that this is the basis? Where do they say it? Can the place where 'they' say it be cited?

"It is an injunction whose application applies to actions whether personal, family {familial} or societal and forbids the knowing choice of an evil course even in order to achieve any subsequent known good. This teaching is the bedrock of Christian morality and provides the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on issues relating to Human Life." See question above.

"The controversy generated by this reference to Evil in 2004, adds to the controversy concerning the proposed Beatification of the wartime Pope Pius XII." What controversy? Who is talking about it besides Flamekeeper? Why does it add to the Beatification controversy specifically?

Just some thoughts. plain_regular_ham 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Let the church answer this.Flamekeeper 09:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question in Humanae Vitae is:

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 It then cites Romans 3.8 which says:

Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. Romans 3.

Who has stated, Flamekeeper, that what you detail is the "bedrock of Christian morality"?

And, what controversy? Who besides you, Flamekeeper, sees a controversy in this?

Not trying to attack you here, but some important elements are missing from your paragraph. plain_regular_ham 13:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The question is I suppose whether Pius XII tolerated Naziism or co-operated with it in full knowledge of everything that it was going to do. The latter involves a level of foresight that would be truly astounding. JASpencer 12:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

JASpencer 12:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Much study of that refers to Churchmen and statements then, read up Guenter Lewy.

It seems to me that if these statements are written in an encyclical like that, they are pretty foundational to Catholic morality. A lot of other Christians would agree with them too, though not universally. Deitrich Bonhoffer clearly didn't. However there is a big difference between doing an evil action in the expectation of a good result, and tolerating evil in the expectation of preventing a greater evil. Almost all Christians would probably agree that the former was allowed only in exceptional circumstances; many would say it is never allowed. DJ Clayworth 14:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Bonhoffer might need to come into focus theologically. I come back to this as I'm asked. Humanae Vitae see Section 14 paragraph 3 second sentence goes In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a lesser evil ot to promote a greater good,(17) it is not licit,even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;(18) that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person,even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Footnote 17 , Cf Pius XII,alloc.to the National Congress of the Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. ^, 1953 in AASXLV(1953)pp.798-799. Footnote 18. Cf.Rom.3:8.

The other answer is that No. I am the first to quote the law in reference to knowing, pre-meditated collaboration with Evil (the Nazis) by these churchmen three at this time, 1932-1933. Historians limit themselves to the facts, not to the law. I follow humbly in the wake of true historians as does a sparrow after crumbs but I am not the history nor the historians. There is a saying that You can achieve anything in this world, if you do not require to take the credit and this combines with the productive power of open software in the Misplaced Pages to enable what up until now has been fractured ( history ) to link with what is morality (law).

I am afraid to have to add that my inescapable conclusion is not only that that which user JASpencer finds astounding if true, but is worse. It is that beyond the action being calculated openly as in the interests of the Church in fighting Communism , that by subterfuge the clinching dimension was a quid pro quo between Kaas, Pacelli and the frail Pontiff Pius XI. History does not single out the last, I will remark. However history remarks on the remarkable rise of Pacelli to over-whelming influence (upon the frail Pontiff) and remarks on the immediate exile of Kaas from a leading public office, into a position of lets say hardly modest station within the Vatican. Kaas continued his relations with Germany to the extent that he re-appears in wartime dealings had by the Vatican with a strand of the German Widerstand or resistance. However my saddest accusation raises the corruptible nature of the institutions of the Church, it is that far and beyond the cynicism which transgressed the moral laws of the Church law, lies a more banal , personal cynicism between Kaas and Pacelli. They had their own little Vatican putsch amongst so many others of that time, such that no one particualrly remembered, for the Pacelli pay off is separated to his actual accession.

This should interest our new german Pope who inherits above all others the abilities necessary to steer the Church through these particular rocky waters emanating from this stage in her long history. I seriously foresee that this will help the world - that settling this will enable the Church and other religions to avail of a truer position in the modern world. One based on clear visions of morality which can be shared truly between races and without falling prey to imperialism or tyranny. The consequences upon this strategic facilitation of tyranny have very greatly shaped the actual panorama of the present world. As we confront the future we will need the reconciliation attendant upon the acknowledgement of this truth.

I would like to bolster the present Pontiff, that he should not in any way see any of this as an attack upon himself or his ministries , nor upon the relevant law, nor upon his valid guidance for its promotion. Unfortunately for him the Malthusian circumstances of this interregnum of Eras now presents the gravest difficulties. Only a reconciliation with truth in respect of the past will enable the institution to firmly uphold the real essence of its mission .

I feel but do not know -as only with death or some gift of God whom none of us is vouchsafed to have, but feel in my heart, that Humanae Vitae is right. Despair at the living conditions of humanity can turn citizens to a Hitler or all manners of solutions, but none of these are the real problem. The real problem is that as we are incorporated, we are sparated from our spirit. Our incorporation in life allows us the chance to make of our spirit a communication. As spirits we do not communicate-which is why we hear nothing sensible back from the dead . But go we do, and my heart feeling , rational as this incorporation is, is that in so far as Humanae Vitae encourages birth , even into a pitiable life, it is correct.

Howsoever piteably stricken or unwanted or starved is this life yet we treasure it politically (as we do in partial measure, nationally and through aid and the UN organisations and, yes, the Churches). Unfortunately for the Pontiff, in the absence of incarnated proof supporting the existence of Spirit, we simply prefer to dwell as much as we can in the present Now of Life, revelling in its aberrance from dis-incarnation, revelling that we can touch and struggle and hear and run and see into each others eyes. We forget and we wish not to remember the silence from whence we came nor whence we go. And this will continue but maybe not for very much longer. So I say that we should prepare here on earth , now, the way to this. Reconciliation is required and truth is per se universal. We go into a new era now and it is time to open the heart and the doors and the cupboards and cabinets and reveal such as we discuss, that was millions of peoples lives. We need to reach out to those extra millions of spirits who were tortured and burnt and starved and frightened to death because of that tyranny in question then, and opening the tragedies of the past that we might better share the now, share that life in the lives that are here . Law must be true or must be wrong and a law that applies as to life as to spirit, must be right. So . ... Do it I plead, Apply it now, that we may believe. Flamekeeper 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Given the theological question raised shouldn't there be now?

I admit its all my fault, my suggestion alone, my pin-pointing towards incredible un-reconstructed hypocrisy but - just the question of the Law ; not the co-operation question nor the Beatification, nor the Jewish discontent, nor' the American Socialist controversy.

The Law, its just Flamekeeper, shining a light. On hypocrisy and corruption in the Vatican. On Vatican legal mis-maneagement. On the futility of claims by human representatives to infallibility. On the moral wrong of protecting the divine right of God before the civil rights of humanity. Herein lies the resurgence of that other question regarding the separation of Church and State. It is herewith apparent that the Church does not exhibit the slightest degree of awareness or responsiblity, nor it's members nor its apologists nor its theoreticians nor jurists. A Church that appears immune to the contents of its infallible encyclicals - Yes ! Pius XII was infallible - he claimed it formally.

Go on - he needs prosecution, conviction against the Law and excommunication or the equivalent for the dead.

The Pontiff must awake, because his job is on the line - he will become illegitimate will he not? The end of the Church as we know it : the beginning of the Law? Welcome to the new era.

I predict that Papal elections will have all Cardinals wearing plastic sensorized see-through smocks revealing them in all their nakedness and humanity within the new Church, such that their very emotions register automatic tonal variations according to their mood. Man will demand and receive the chance to really see the Holiness of the Pacellis amongst us, and of the Saints true. It will be good and more infallible. Seriousness will however divorce music and singing and prayer from the words of truth. All such dangerous and indeed Nazi-like affectations shall be excluded from the workings of legality that are from now the principal requirement for leadership. Thus will the lead, taken by the Society in the stylisation and presentation (syndicated very efficiently as we saw) of this last little Conclave, be taken to its conclusion in time.

However shocking might appear this course and my words, this is a joyful prospect compared to the thoroughly evil illegality of the past which assisted towards it is still at least believed 40,000,000 European and 295,000 American war dead, as well as 5,662,000 Jews and 1,000,000+ Roma. A lot of death certificates, a lot of Law. See-through cassocks, I predict . Flamekeeper 01:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear all,the objective of this talk section, however, was to ask, whether the paragraph in question was relevant in the sense that your observation that there is controversy stemming not only from the CDF's statement regarding elections, but from any relation to Humanae Vitae or the events of 1933 (a discussion of these has been donee at Pius XII talk, so no need to repeat it all here). That's my query: is there such a controversy (as Flamekeeoer says) or isn't there (as I think).

Dear Flamekeeper, please respect that this is the objective of the query. Nothing else.Str1977 21:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

CDF? So you wish to know what the american socialists say about church interference to justify my paragraph..Ill quote then? How the controversy is viewed by Jewish commentators in regard to both Pacelli and The law( about complicity in Evil) together? Your precise language as phrased is unclear. I must say that your language is exceptionally clear sometimes and more fuzzy at others exhibiting a curious dichotomy. You are powerfully well informed , so can we analyse again the situation as regards legitimacy. You referred to posthumous correction earlier so can you relate this to Pacelli and what could be the result of censoring his meditation and action ? I broaden the enquiry but will answer, when I understand you, since no one else seems to be queuing up. Flamekeeper 09:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Three things:

1. Statements on my query: - Is the CDF's statement in question based on the principle in Romans 3? Yes, and this can be included in a subclause. - Is the statement based on Humanae vitae? No, HV was limited to contraception and only bases itself on Romans 3 – hence both the statement and HV are based on Romans 3. - Did the statement cause attention to HV? I think no. Hence it's not relevant to this entry IMO. - Did the statement cause attention to Pius XII? I think no. Hence it's not relevant to this entry IMO.

2. You say my language is fuzzy sometimes. Please direct me to the points you are unclear about and I'll try to clarify. What do you mean by legitimacy?

"a you criticize the Concordate?" Truly I should in fact say that you are in near total command of English and where not it could be only speed error. Your first posting to me on the Centre party is from whence the above. Most readers might suppose your writng clearer than mine in fact.

Allright.

3. Regarding any trials/corrections/enquiries: Of course any question is open to enquiry by historians, whether outside or inside the Vatican. Sources will be disclosed in time, in line with the rules to protect living people (just as any other archive too). There can be no posthumous excommunication or any posthumous penalty or censoring issued by any Church body (or anyone else). Dead people are subject only to God's judgment and that is. The only exception is the process of beatification: the proposed Saint (I don't know the exact terms of canon law) is put to scrutiny just as in a trial (with a formal prosecutor, formerly known as 'advocatus diaboli') – the difference is that even if the person is beatified and canonised, that doesn't mean he's sinless or his life is without fault or error. No one is anyway and any repetentent sinner can be forgiven. Beatification is only a formal confimation that the person is in heaven with God (usually proved by miracles that occurred on his intercession). BTW, infallibility is no issue there.

A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication, or, indeed, be absolved. Wrong? Flamekeeper 10:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Both right and wrong. Church authorities may indeed state that someone had incurred excommunication (not pronounced by attained by some deed itself) or absolution. But that's only stating something that has already occured - it's just a "making something known" thing.

There could also be a statement dealing with actions of a dead person, including a pope, but that would have no "legal effect" in regard of the person in question - it'd be more like a historian's statement. It could have be included in a statement on current affairs, current actions - this could draw arguments from the past.

However, there's no posthumous excommunication.

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.)

Str1977 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

But please may others comment on my query (this shouldn't be an "all over again" debate) Str1977 21:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Censure, Legitimacy and The Magisterium

I am very perturbed by this for as you say if it is not true, then despair alone follows. I understand you to say that the Church exists in the conscience of man. My disquiet I place here in the body of the church, here in the conscience. I see the proof to re-write the words in Romans and I seek that the good order of such Magisterium be re-instituted.

The query is "The Question of the Law". In conscience it exists now, from what is known. In conscience the question is answered here below within the Magisterium (or centre) of the Roman Catholic Church.

The meaning of the word if can only be satisfactorily defined through a tribunal as I in conscience ask. A despair at history , a despair at a perversion of both history and of truth that lies in the if, racks the truth of the teaching.

The contradiction of what the conscience sees and what the conscience demands is too great: the teaching must be adhered too, whatever the consequences or heaven itself be (is) overturned.

I cannot tell what these four paragraphs are supposed to mean (especially "if it is not true", "despair alone follows", "Church exists in the concience of man ... in the body of the church", "proof to rewrite", "if").

Only: heaven will not be overturned, at least not by us or anything we do.

Conscience is the vital essence of Christianity . You use it and are part of it, which is why you cannot walk away from here. You are the Church.

Heaven has been overturned by these actions - and more to the point life here on Earth was overturned - earthly justice and moral law as lived or suffered was suffered because of the abetting moral incoherence from the Pontiff. Our despair is for the loss of truth, the loss of our protection which the contradiction by the highest Church authority of its own Law implies.

If heaven has been overturned by these actions, it has been overturned a thousand times since the world began. I don't experience loss of truth or protection or despair. If you think you can shock me, think Alexander VI, Innocent VIII and a whole lot of others. Popes have by word and (especiall by:) deed contradicted Divine law and canon law time and again. That doesn't shake the foundations of the Church at all.

Proves my point - that the Church must now repair. That which is history in the 15 th century should be no excuse for this modern complicity in political evil with evil physical and social results (to stay brief)- this is a source for m,oral corruption and i denopunce it. yhe church cannot play a patrt of goodness which manking might find beneficial in this mental confusion. repair and now for the future, not for the past.

Proves nothing of the kind.

These were just examples, there are worse in the 9th and 10th century, but I get all the Benedicts mixed up, so I gave these.

My point was: there were Popes in the past that did wrong and if Pius XII were one of these - and BG he wasn't - it would not shake the church.

Reflections on past mistakes should always be encouraged - and it is happening - it doesn't need your legalistic hurlyburly for that.

Repair? Real repair is coming, when He comes.

The legitimacy problem I have posted for obvious reasons on Pope Benedict XVI discussion. It appears within that scandals can be rectified and concludes that a solution exists to these accusations and can be supplied (direct quote from the canonical guide cited there) by the Church.

As for legitimacy, see my comment above (If it's your point to delegitimize ...)

A solution exists? A solution along your lines is not necessary!

Indeed it appears not - it is that the solution is held within the Magisterium and all its canonical dependancy. Automatically. All that remains is regularisation. Below you are unclear as to the legitamacy. The Church can supply rectification of the scandal, as has been shown, my purpose is to test the truth which emanates from fact and from history. Readers should be aware that the accusations against Pius XI and Pacelli precede that of Germany in the Mussolini dealings within Italy, and follows in the embrace of a third fascist tyrant in Spain.

From the very beginning I disputed that your claims and accusations are valid. And even if there were, your "legitimacy problems" don't follow, and also your demands for rectification need not be followed. Neither Pius XI nor Pius XII nor any other Pope did give the rule to Mussolini, or Hitler, and not even to Franco (though the breaking out of the Civil war is related to the governments anti-Church policies). I won't comment on your calling all three of them fascist, in order not to confuse you.

In so far as humanae vitae was published 35 years after the 1933 "scandal" I can see a reason for its avoidance as a guide to the law affecting Pius XII. In so far as HV concerns itself with 'human life', then I see no limit to its teaching in regards to human life. A truth must be true under all circumstances or be false under one circumstance.

No, the reason for avoidance as a guide affecting Pius XII is that it deals with different subject matter, namely contraception ("Of Human life" is the title, yes, but that stems from the first line of the document. In this case it is close to the topic "ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH", but that's not necessarily so, see Dilectissima Nobis). But what you actually mean is that the principle from Romans 3 applies universally: it's the basis for HV and it's the basis for your argument against Pius, for your question, though I disagree with your answer.

Casuistic distinction cannot exist - as I said either a truth is universal or un-true. The universality of HV is not the question, HV rests on the basis that embrace of evil is always forbidden as figuring in the magisterium. Rightly, the Holy See legal department refer the "Question of the Law" quote to Romans.

I won't continue this argument since there's not really a disagreement and one of us has to stop somewhere.

Romans chapter 3, verse 8 exegesis concerns the slander upon the Apostle Paul's doctrines of unconditional election, free justification, of the Divinity converting (judging or overturning) man's sins for good, put in a rhetorical attack:

Though our Critics Attack us, That we collaborated with Nazis to beat Commies; They'd be right to if we did.

Actual and not rather, as we be slanderously reported and as some affirm: that we say let us do evil that good may come; whose damnation is just.

Rom. 3,8 as quoted would be part of the constant or universal Magisterium and Infallible.

Flamekeeper 19:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course Romans 3 is universally binding - it's the Bible after all.

What I meant with my BTW above was: You speak of "shining a light ... On the futility of claims by human representatives to infallibility." Papal infallibility is restricted to definitions in matters of faith and morals, issued by the Pope ex cathedra, in his office as supreme teacher of the Church. Pius XII is the only Pope in the 20th century that did this, in 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary as a dogma. I don't think you can ... or would ... contradict this. This matter is totally unrelated to our debate or the events of 1933. In all other areas (except the ex cathedra defintions) the Pope is just as fallible and just as prone to sin as any other man would be.

Str1977 22:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The lack of clarity concerning the Magisterium here stems from that which is defined as Hypocrisy. That these Churchmen, in defence of the Church, broke the most essential law, and that says that their their "damnation is just". There is no further Law which supercedes, there is no Divine Law allowing contravention of this part of the Magisterium.

There is no lack of clarity. There is only the question whether your accusations are right. I disagree.

Canon Law sect. 273 rules that all Clerics must obey the Pontiff. Canon Law sect. 287

Part 1: Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to observed among people.

Part 2: They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labour unions unless, in the judgement of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

Thus Monsignor Ludwig Kaas was obeying the Pontiff and was carrying leadership of the Centre Party Germany with the approbation of the Pontiff, under these particular terms . Cardinal Pacelli was the channel for the practical approbation. The Church can justify itself on the protection rights (the Concordat) but presumably "people" in part 1 and "common good" in part 2 refer to the one living concept and would extend to people as civilisation defines the term - natural human beings. Not monkeys or rabbits. Ergo the charge under Can. 287 implicates Pius XI and Pacelli, and Kaas who was their tool. The "good of the Church" in 2 cannot contradict the justice in 1. Injustice may not be fostered -as was the case- any more than the Rom 3,8 injunction may be broken.

1) Are your quotes from the Code of Canon Law issued in 1917 or in 1983. If the latter, you shouldn't use it for these times.

Morally inferior defence.

It is not a defence at all. And the point here was not moral, just legal technicalities (prohibition of politial acticvity for clergy). Just seeking clarity.

2) Kaas certainly wasn't violating anything by being the chairman of the party. If that were against the CIC of 1917 he wouldn't have been.

Not if he was Being the tool for the good of the Church, no. My point is that it shows that he was indeed so, approved.

I guess you do agree, that Kaas was not violating anything by the mere fact of being party chairman. His actions are another thing.

3) You can rest assured, the Church doesn't play the game of redifining, e.g. of "human", "people" etc. (It's one of the few institutions that doesn't). Who is to define the "common good"? There is no a priori defintion of that.

The point of this is that I and historians and many many people are far from re-assured or at rest. your very own arguments add to the disquiet which Church silence hitherto stimulated. Your temporisation against democracy and openness to this morally ridiculous and ante-deluvian 1933 Encyclical promoting monarchism or aristocracy adds to the shock that the worlfd feels at these actions. Of treachery against democracy, of the betrayal of decency, justice and of the usual christian virtues of tolerance and forgiveness and love.

You're misunderstanding my arguments. I did not argue against democracy, only against a misguided trust in democracy, à la "We're a democracy, nothing bad can happen!" - and your misinterpreting the 1933 Encyclical from the very beginning. It did not advoacte any form of government, in fact it explicitely stated, that the Church must bear with what's there. The encyclical complained about policies of the republican government at that time - you might disagree with the complaints, but the Church should at least have the right to complain.

4) It is your claim that Kaas was the tool of Pacelli, but this is actually what I disputed.

The history is against you. I start the clock on the Church actions with Edgar Ansel Mowrer accusation in 1968. I come purely from there - all the rest comes from all the various history books. you are so wrong that I simply suggest you refute these books. None do - you cannot. you always move across the years. Pacelli was a fine fellow later on, but no. he's accused of burying the Lost Encyclical, of defining the whole policy, of carving up the world in his mind, of assigning the temporal power to his tool Adolf Hitler and thereby ensuring the safety of .. well you define that so much better than I ... it is not myclaim.

It is your claim, since you brought it forth. (It might very well be someone else's claim, too.) I admit that I'm no expert on the Concordat business and also not on details of the Ermächtigungsgesetz negotiations, but your story smells like "conspiracy theories". And what follows, makes it worse:

"P is accused" - yes, he is, but is he found guilty

"of burying the Lost Encyclical" - if he did it (and he also contributed to the encyclical in the first place) he did it for a reason: that was immediately before the outbreak of the war and he thought it might hinder any mediation attempts. You think he was wrong? That's legimitimate! But was it a crime? Hardly!

maybe

"defining the whole policy" - policy of making agreements with states to protect the Church? yes, though it wasn't him alone.

"of carving up the world in his mind" - he is accused of that, but how about the verdict? The accusation is either ridiculous or banal.

"of assigning the temporal power" - he did not assign temporal power to anyone. Hitler's rise was the result of Germans voting for him, Germans not resisting him enough, Germans conspiring for him (Papen, Oskar Hindenburg, Hugenberg Schleicher - though it backfired) and Germans being to credulous to guarantees or to careless (this is were Kaas comes in)

History is against me, I will tell that to my professor.

5) Injustice was not fostered by the Concordat (except if you want to point out how some paragraph of the concordat was injust - it certainly isn't perfect - but injust?) - the Ermächtigungsgesetz is another thing, but there you've got Kaas and not Pacelli (see #4).

Better that readers study the circumstances. the benefits of the concordat pale into insignificance with the zillions of lost sheep trampled like confetti into the blodd-soaked soils and hillsides and marshes of the continent. It is too disgusting your evasion, I marvel at your shame ... at the consistency of the Church's shame. ye really are like a child who does not know that there is no way out except penitence. The Concordat is most definitely not the issue - it is motive.

But these zillions didn't die because of the concordat. Many died in spite of the Concordat, noone because of it.

I know quite a lot about penintence and it is the way out. But first you must get facts rights. And BTW, penitence is something everyone should apply to himself - not point the finger at others.

Magisterium is magisterium is Divine Law and whilst a page does not exist for divine law (nor a country page exist for Vatican wikipedians) the faith-based contributions inside the wikipedia refer in capitals to (D)ivine law. If it is referred to, a page should exist, to clarify it.

A page on "Divine law" would only cause controversy and edit wars. Think of "the title is POV, the title is POV" - if the mere style of the pope can get out of hand, what will this cause?

But we must understand it, is there a deeper level than Romans, where is the Divine when the law is so completely debased as this debasement .. Oh yes-turn the other cheek. Love thine enemy. It is not fine that the Church obtained their little legal scrip in return for the death of Europe and a whole people in the Holocaust. you deny, because you wish to avoid the consequences, not because it did not occur. collaboration in 1933. i do not refer to 32 or 34, though in 1932 there was kaas reading aloud pacelli in berlin to the centre party central leadership and members (see Centre Party Germany)

It is not fine - the carnage of the war and the shoa, but your rendering of the deal is wrong. The war and the shoa were not on the line in the concordat negotiations. And Collaboration? The implication is, that it's the same as collaboration in cases like Petain, Quisling etc, but it's not. It was a diplomatic matter, a treaty, and other states made treaties with Germany as well (UK, France, Poland).

Please bear in mind there's a difference between contributions on talk pages and on entry pages.

My contributions are not more faith-based than yours or anyone else's. I've got my faith, my POV - you've got your faith (even if it's not a declared religion), your POV. I can very well reflect on this, so it doesn't interfere illegitimately with my editing.

Nonsense. Your edits are especially designed to remove any trails - you fulfill your canonical order (even non clerical must obey) to defend the pontiff now. it is not good and plausibly evil to divvert me into any suggestions I do not make, the crucial was the enabling act/ concordat collaboration. the effect was sufficient and terminal.

Yes, what you write is nonsense. I don't act under any orders (who is ordering you? ZK?) and I my edits are not designed to remove any trails. I'm here to contribute, as little as I can, to wiki, with the little knowledge I have. Our conflict began, because you were spamming the same stuff all over wiki, also in places where there was no relevance and where you didn't edit, and by the spread indicating that you're not seeking discussion. I did not remove your post, but replied to it, where it belonged.

All three clerics incurred automatic excommunication at the embrace of evil. Recognition is required of this to restore the magisterium.

No, I'd dispute that either Pius XI or Pius XII incurred automatic excommunication.

They did not formally cooperate in evil (and much less embrace it, if you want to use that term).

And the magisterium is intact, nothing needs to be done to restore it.

Str1977 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 00:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The common good requires that I quote verbatim from Mowrer's report despite copyright in "Fair use" etc. I will put it on this page and /or I shall start a page about the 32-33 conspiracy to interfere in the German democratic process ,and invite in all the historians who do reference the apparentconspiracy . I think you foresaw a link for Hitler's Pope so , there it should go . Perhaps John Kenny will expand on the work which persuaded him(even partially). Otherwise he shall have to be quoted . The charges will not go away . Flamekeeper 08:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Accusation Against The Holy Roman Catholic Church

In 1968 Edgar Ansel Mowrer wrote , copyrighted and published Triumph and Turmoil-A Personal History of our Time SBN 04 920026 .The London Publishers , George Allen & Unwin Ltd foresaw reproduction without permission for the purposes of study , research ,criticism or review . Mowrer was the correspondent in Berlin from 1923-1933 for The Chicago Daily News and was authorised to employ two assistants, the second of whom was Otto Brok ,a " doctor of political sciences and a respected member of the (Catholic ) Centre Party. Mowrer mentions Brok a number of times in relation to the Centre Party , metaphysical discussion of German philosophers and news sources but the central purpose of including Brok would appear to be for this his link into the Catholic (centre) party . ......"Following the May 1932 elections Brok one morning rushed into the office in tears and shouting "It is all over , it is all over ". On Mowrer's asking for the cause of this distress ,Brok is reported as saying

"Last night at a meeting of the Centre Party, which I attended, our Party leader , Monsignor Kaas , read a letter from the Secretary of State at Rome , Cardinal Pacelli, whom you knew in Munich as nuncio."

"The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor . The Zentrums leaders agreed ," he sobbed

"Yes , go on" I said.

"But, Edgar , that means HItler in power! Hitler wants a new war and he will get it." Once more he broke into tears.

"Otto, may I report the cardinal's message and the Party's decision to cooperate with the Nazis?"

" 'Nein. It was a secret meeting . But you will see."

Mowrer's text having referred to this previously as a betrayal of the Catholics, continues from this Brok testimony :

And see we did . From that day the Centre regularly supported Hitler . In November , the Party urged Hindenburg to take Hitler as chancellor . Even when in Febuary , 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him to the Constitution , they voted an Enabling act doing away with personal freedom , democracy and law in Germany . This they called clarifying the situation . ....."

Removal of Controversial Uganda Study

This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Misplaced Pages is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ipse dixit.