Misplaced Pages

Lock this page now Permanently

I ask Michael Hardy to please lock this page permanently , and do whatever has to be done to achieve this . Anything further to be said can fight it out on Hitler's Pope and the future battleground of Pope Pius XI's article .Famekeeper 15:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

WP doesn't lock pages permanently, and most admins are wary of locking them at all. Stability is reached by consensus and helpful writing using reliable secondary sources. This article will stabilize eventually, please be patient. Wyss 15:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect this page

Can someone please unprotect this page after taking appropriate action to block the vandals against whom it was being protected? Robert McClenon 16:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism hasn't been that heavy anyway. Could we please unlock this page? Thanks. Wyss 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Venerable, or not

I didn't see a link to the decree of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints that Pope Pius XII is a Servant of God or Venerable in the article. I didn't see any specific reference to this in some recent biographies of Pope Pius XII either. I suggest removing the venerable until it can be verfied. Speak up now if you can verify that he was declared venerable. patsw 01:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference. I or someone else is free to add it back when it can be verified.

Oddly enough, all the Google hits for Eugenio Pacelli venerable are cut and pasted from this very article. One would think it would be easier to find verification for this. patsw 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Both Pope John XXIII and Pope Pius XII were named Servants of God by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints with the concurrence of Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965. I will have more details and a citation later. patsw 12:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Cornwell in the introduction

I believe this text does not belong in the introduction:

The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures.

• This is the introduction: It's a detail that doesn't explain a fact about Pope Pius XII. It's a expansion of the previous sentence refering to the debate. It's terribly POV as well. Why mention Cornwell's biography when more detailed and complete biographies for the subject exist?

• Cornwell's own statement that he had in starting to write Hitler's Pope the "objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII" is itself disputed. Prior to starting his research he had written unfavorably about the Catholic Church and his personal faith .

• And since the publication of Hitler's Pope, in The Pontiff in Winter, he retracts his strongest condemnation of Pope Pius XII.

• Finally, Is there any article in the Misplaced Pages where the introduction has as its third or fourth sentence the POV of a critical biogragrapher? patsw 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an extremely short introduction. You were the one that acknowledged the importance of the book. It is important to note that Cornwell was granted access to the research to exculpate, and that his research demonstrated otherwise. This is extremely powerful and why all these editors are on this site and not on all the other Pope sites. 2 short sentences in an intro is very small, but I can make a separate intro paragraph with more on the impact if that is preferable. --Noitall 06:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer an extremely short introduction to edit wars because we cannot reach consensus as to what belongs. In the case that we do not have agreement as to what belongs, a minimal introduction does reflect consensus. Robert McClenon 12:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

To put some facts behind it, Pope John XXIII, a more recent Pope known affectionately as "Good Pope John" and "the most loved Pope in history", declared "Blessed" by Pope John Paul II, the next-to-last step on the road to sainthood, took 15 weeks to accumulate 50 edits. Hitler's Pope, on the other hand, took only 3 weeks to accumulate 50 edits. Why are they writing about Hitler's Pope and not the most loved Pope? Why, the book of course. --Noitall 06:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Given that he's actively being considered for sainthood, I think it should stay in the header. Wyss 08:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) Can that be verified? That is, is there is a real cause or process for him in which he has been declared a Servant of God or venerable? (2) The it is not a fact about Pope Pius XII but Cornwell's disputed POV. Why does it merit a mention in the introduction over anyone else's POV? patsw 10:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "it"'s more concrete than that, although he had certainly backed away from the Nazis by 1940. The PoV comes in when people start accusing him of being complicit in the genocide of the Holocaust... anti-semitism? Yeah. Accomplice to mass murder? Hardly. Wyss 11:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that a mention of the Cornwell criticism is relevant to the movement to advance him to sainthood. Since that is not in the introduction, I don't see why Cornwell should be either. It is my (unsourced) understanding that he has been declared a Servant of God. However, the Cornwell criticism is relevant only to the extent that it disputes whether he is qualified for sainthood. I suggest removing the reference to Cornwell from the introduction and putting it further down in the text of the article. Robert McClenon 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Cornwell passage from the introduction - a sentence saying there's debate on Pius and the Third Reich would be o.k. there, but not such a detailed reference which also wrongly implies that Cornwell started the debate.

I also moved the "infallibility issue" and merged it with the definition in 1950 further down. For some time I have considered the sentence as it stood to be rather circumstantial in the introduction.

As for Wyss' comments: anti-semitism? no way (Cornwell has been thoroughly debunked on this one)! Accomplice to mass murder? no way! Errors in judgment? Possibly.

Str1977 12:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thoroughly debunked? European anti-semitism is not a one dimensional thing. Wyss 12:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not "European anti-semitism" - Eugenio Pacelli's anti-semitism ... that wasn't there. (I'm not talking about anti-Judaism) And what has been debunked was Cornwell's (and Goldhagen's) use of a letter of his which allegedly proved anti-semitism. Str1977 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's call it "Pacelli's ambivalence" then. Wyss 14:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(Anyway with the header so short now there seems to be little need for any mention of the 3rdR in it.) Wyss 12:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the 3rdR?

Str1977 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Third Reich Wyss 14:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Str1977 09:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I will state it once more because it has not been disputed: the book is what made this Pope, as opposed to all others, more notable. It is the reason the world, and Wiki editors, and you, are focused on this Pope. And, separtely, most of the comments on this section are entirely inappropriate as they deal with an editor's assessment and are entirely original research. --Noitall 13:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going forward with removing the reference from the introduction. This attempt at a discussion of the editing turned into another POV-based debate. The only thing that's been added is the claim that Hitler's Pope made the subject more notable. This is false: Pope Pius XII, as all popes have been since at least the renaissance, is notable in himself. I am not not focused on Pope Pius XII because of the critical biography written by Cornwell and I'm happy to clear that up. This Misplaced Pages article would have been written and I would be editing it even if Cornwell had not written his book. As an aside, what facts about Pope Pius XII did Cornwell discover in his original research?

Criticism, including Cornwell's 2004 retractions should appear elsewhere in the article. As a an analogy: a reference to Cornwell belongs in the introduction like a reference to Edward Klein or Barbara Olson in the introduction to Hillary Clinton (but, of course, Olson died on 9/11 and Klein did not retract his criticism).

To Robert McClenon: I have tried and failed to find any reference to Pope Pius XII being declared venerable or a Servant of God. I investigated when this was added to the Misplaced Pages article and there was no announcement at that time in the non-Misplaced Pages world. It was and is unverified.

I'm an advocate of accuracy and not pushing an anti-Pius or pro-Pius, pro-Cornwell or anti-Cornwell agenda. Cornwell's POV does not belong in the introduction. This article to have a neutral point of view can have Cornwell's 1999 position, his 2004 position, and his critics' positions all presented fairly in the body of the article. No edit war please -- the next step will be Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution if you want to pursue this further. patsw 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you read what I write? Do you read what you write? Your argument is that one book by author Olsen made Hillary Clinton controversial and therefore far more notable, and that she did so with the agreement of Hillary? --Noitall 03:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I slimmed down the introcution to:

"He was the only pope in the 20th century to infallibly define a dogma. His actions before, during, and after the Holocaust are subject of debate among historians and in the public."

The previous

"In the 20th century he was the only pope to exercise his Extraordinary (Solemn) Magisterium (that is, to claim Papal Infallibility) when he formally defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary in his 1950 encyclical Munificentissimus Deus."

seems to me a very complicated rendering of one issue (already discussed further down). One could argue whether it belongs into the introduction at all, but since others seem to insist I have slimmed it down to the issue appearently everyone is interested in: exercise of papal infallibility.

The previous

"A debate among historians intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999 regarding his actions before, during, and after the Holocaust. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures."

1)the debate was there before

2)it's not only a debate among historians, but also a public debate - some contributions (Goldhagen, Hochhuth) would not be considered in historical debate

3)that C was granted access to the archives is a detail that has no place in the introduction (this article is not about C or his book)

4)C's original objective is his claim, but criticism towards how he wrote his book (what information he included and which he disregarded) makes this claim questionable

5)C's conclusion is exactly that and hence is POV - so even more out of place in the introduction

Str1977 09:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wyss, I again reworded the "infallibility" passage.

I know you strive for NPOV, but the problem is that your edit again complicates the sentence and, even more importantly, makes it inaccurate. He didn't claim to define - the fact that he defined is undisputed, but what your "claimed" intened to dispute is the "infallibility". I reworded as to say that this infallibility is part of the Catholic view.

I hope this finds your acceptance. Str1977 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Claimed is one of the words to avoid in the official Misplaced Pages style. It implies that a dispute exists. I have another attempt at an NPOV introduction which removes the reference to infallibility. patsw 00:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wolff and the Kidnapping Plot

There's no justification to cast doubt on the report of a kidnapping plot. These were German documents discovered in January 2005 and therefore not accessible in the Vatican prior to then.

There's been no report casting doubt on the authenticity of the original story of 'Operation Rabat' since it was first reported, so it doesn't need to be created here in the Misplaced Pages. patsw 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions

"A debate among historians intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999 regarding his actions before, during, and after the Holocaust. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures." Of course, it's true, that the debate intensified with Cornwells Book. But Cornwells Book was just one book in a long line. I think it would be better to mention Rolf Hochhuth "Der Stellvertreter" ("The Deuputy") because it was this theater play that started the big controverse.

The Christmas Message was too careful. The Germans tried to keep their Deathcamps secret. So just talking of some people dying, while Millions people were dying ist just not enough. But remember the "Bromberger Blutsonntag" oder the massacre of Katyn. In Bromberg the polish majority killed the german minority, in Katyn many polish officers were shot by soviet Army. These and many other incidents were abused by the german Propaganda. So a german catholic could guess, that the Pope condemned the crimes of the Soviet Union.

Pius said that Hitlers and his Nazis were infinetly worse. But to whom he said? To the british Ambassador. And so this argument is pointless. When Hitler survived the attempt to kill him in the "Burgbräu Keller" the pope sent his congratulations to him that he survived. Pius said many things. But its not important what he said, but who heard it. Only a public word can be used as an argument.

Well the Dutch Problem. This will be difficult. The protest of the dutch bishops saved many lives. You have to read the war-criminal trial of the nazis who killed the dutch jews. But the trial is german and even if you could understand german it would be not easy to get this book when you're not in Germany. But let me explain.

In the Netherlands there were 694 catholic baptized Jews. There were about 1600 protestant baptized Jews. Hopefully noone doubts these figures. about 2300 baptized Jews among 120.000 other Jews in the Netherlands is realistic. The ratio of Protestand and Catholic Dutchmen was 2:1 too. After the Bishops protested, catholic Jews were beeing deported. But not all of them. Just 92 Jews. You'll find this figure in Cornwells Book. Its based on the documentary-movie by Lewis. And this is realisitc too, because the catholic church tried to save as many baptized Jews as they could. It's possible to hide 600 Persons. alltogether 15.000 Jews were hiding in the Netherlands. But none of the protesting Bishops was killed.

So we have 92 victims. But how many Jews were saved? By accusing the Germans, many Dutch people tried to hide Jews. Some dutch men would have thought twice if the would join the Waffen-SS and fight for the germans. The protests of the Bishops were a help for those Dutch workers who didnt want to work in factories to produce goods für the Germans.

But we dont have 92 victims.

The Top-Nazi in the Netherlands was Arthur Seyß-Inquart. Catholic Bihops found out, that the Nazis wanted to deport all the Jews to land in the east (they didnt know about the extermination and deathcamps). They went to Seyß-Inquart and said that they were against the nazi-treatment of the Jews. They threatend the Nazis, that they would protest if the deportations would start. To avoid this protest, Seyß-Inquart suggested a deal. If the Bishops would remain silent, catholic Jews would be saved. If the Bishops would have remained silent from the beginning, the catholic Jews would be deported. There was exact the same deal with the protestand Churches. They remained silent, BUT more than a year later protestant baptized Jews were deported. When talking to his Nazi-Partners, Seyß-Inquart said, that he lied to the catholic church from the beginnig. He would even killed the Jews if the catholic Bishops would have remaindes silent.

And then it would be a good idea to mention the Protest of the danish Bishops. They protested against the deportations of the Jews. The biggest part of the danish Jesw survived. None of the danish Bishops was killed.

Why is it important to mention some Jews who defended the pope? None of these Jews was able to tell "exactly" what Pius did to save Jews.

When a person is accused of murder, its not enough, that a witness says, that the suspect was alwasy a very kind person. The witness must confirm an alibi. And not every jew defends the pope. If you know the literature you'll find many jewish authors accusing the church. Just to mention a few: Daniel Goldhagen, Saul Friedländer, Günter Lewy, Moshe Herczl, Frank Baron, Sandor Szenes, Menachem Shelah... --87.122.91.110 08:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss the editing of the article, not a discussion board for pro- and anti-Pius XII points of view. Please sign what you add to talk page with four tildes. patsw 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that 87..'s calculations are beside the point. The Dutch question is relevant to Pius because he included this event into his reflection on when and how to speak up. He based it on what he knew - that Seyß-Inquart lied is beside the point. Even if Pius' reasoning was based on faulty information and even if you or someone else could imagine different courses he could have taken, that's not enough to condemn Pius for what he has done. He has done what he has because he though it the right thing to do and his reasoning is comprehensible.

Patsw is right that this is about editing the article, so I won't comment on your other points, except to say that, sorry, Goldhagen is really not to be taken seriously for what he says (only for what he sows).

Str1977 08:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

(Please do not interpret the following remark as incendiary, or as an inference that Hitler and Pacelli were morally equivalent) Sadly, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing too. Intentions can be morally flawed, well-meaning actions based on them can be morally flawed, etc. Wyss 09:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nono, Wyss, I know what you mean.

But this is why I wrote "... and his reasoning is comprehensible", I meant comprehensible and justifiable today. Whereas Hitler's reasoning and intentions are not justifiable today or back then. When we condemn Hitler we don't do it because of something we have found out only later, from hindsight. E.g. we don't say "Hitler's attack on Russia was immoral because Russia could not be conquered like this", a thing that Hitler might have been unaware of. We say it was immoral because of his intentions to enslave Russia and because of his methods of mass killings etc.

What I try to say in regard to Pius is: he acted as he did, chosing from different alternatives the one he considered to be the best. In order to save as many as possible, he chose the "low-key" road. One might disagree with his assessment, but that doesn't make his decisions immoral.

I hope you understand my point.

Str1977 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do, and largely agree with it. Critics suggest that his "low-key" road was morally unacceptable because he was aware that Jews were being marginalized (often brutally) from Germany society at the outset of Nazi rule, yet signed the concordat with them etc. So long as the article contains references to documented crits along those lines, it'll be accordingly NPoV IMO. Wyss 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I still say the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat proves papal complicity in war ( the bad side of Double Effect defence), and that the contumacy( upwards through to the pontiff, of course ) is proved by Kaas in his speech of 23 March to the Centre gathering .There is certainly no moral defence of these collaborators , as that is what they were, and worse. The Hierarchy was squashed and that is terrible contumacy .yes, ant-semitism IN EFFECT (Hitler was open in threatening murder or "perish") . Whole thing stinks, and I again warn all editors to mind , this time, their very souls , if they believe-you'll go to hell, lads if you are contumate yourselves in protecting wrong.............10:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper 10:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Following WP policy, a reliable secondary source supporting your assertion would be more helpful than speculation as to the fate of editors' souls :) Wyss 11:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

About this Editing Talk page

Please keep in mind that this is called "Editing Talk" and this is not a discussion board. "X proves Y" only merits inclusion in the article if it can be verified and not merely argued. In the realm of POV: "A wrote X proves Y" in order to be presented neutrally will include "B denies X" and/or "C wrote X does not prove Y". But in all cases there needs to be a citation of the dispute and no original research. patsw 13:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A Long Series of Edits Reverted

An anonymous editor made a long series of edits to this article. The edits did have the effect of deleting considerable material. Noitall then reverted the edits with the summary of 'rv blanking vandalism'. I do not think that the edits were vandalism. They did appear to be good-faith if reckless and poorly summarized efforts to remove material that the editor in question thought was out of place. I don't think that it was vandalism. On the other hand, it does appear to have been reckless editing. Can we try again? Robert McClenon 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Introductory Paragraph

A one-sentence statement in the introductory paragraph acknowledging that there is continuing controversy about Pope Pius XII's actions in World War Two and whether he did enough to mitigate the Holocaust is sufficient. There is no need to refer to Cornwell in the introductory paragraph. I am not editing the introductory paragraph at this time, but it needs to be trimmed. Robert McClenon 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Robert, that there is absolutely no reason to refer to Cornwell in the intro. However, in my last edit I have retained the reference. I have removed the sentence pushing Cornwell's self-styling and message, but have retained the fact that his book intensified debate and that others have disputed his conclusions. I consider this to be the absolute minimum of balance (or, in other words, the absolute maximum of Cornwell in the intro.) Str1977 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that any mention of Cornwell is in order in the introductory paragraph. Basically, I disagree with the statement that the real reason Pope Pius XII is relevant is that Cornwell wrote a book about him. He is relevant because he was Pope from 1939 to 1958. Criticisms of his conduct are relevant, as is the record of his leadership of the Catholic Church. I will wait for further comments, but will then trim the introductory paragraph. Robert McClenon 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to jump the gun, and have already removed the Cornwell reference. Cornwell is worth a mention in the article, but certainly not in the opening paragraph summary of Pius XII's life. 214.13.4.151 12:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Request for Comment

Edit war over the inclusion of one writer's POV of the subject in the introduction as the third sentence of the article.

This debate intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures. Since then, others have questioned Cornwell’s conclusions.

My reasons for including that fact there is a debate in the introduction and excluding a specific mention of Cornwell's POV are given in the Talk:Pope Pius XII#Cornwell in the introduction so I am not going to repeat what I wrote there again. There's plenty of opportunity to go into the both sides of the debate in detail in the body of the article. patsw 22:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Responding to RFC: I'm inclined to agree with excluding this from the introduction. At most I would say that controversy exists, and go into it further down in the article. Anything other than a passing mention unbalances the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion on this page, with several undisputed issues. To restart the debate all over because Patsw don't like the arguments or because the article is not pro-Catholic enough for his POV (as on his talk page) is editing in bad faith. --Noitall 01:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I deny that I have been editing in bad faith - the fact that I followed the Misplaced Pages protocol and did not revert and started this Request for Comment is evidence of good faith. In my user page I make it clear that I seek to correct anti-Catholic POV in articles such as this one. By saying there's a debate and letting the details appear in the body of the article is being neutral.

Exactly what is undisputed about the issue of inserting Cornwell's POV in the introduction? What are your arguments for inserting Cornwell's POV in the introduction? You suggested above notability was the reason. This is false: Pope Pius XII, as all popes have been since at least the renaissance, is notable in himself. Cornwell's biography was neither the first, nor the best, nor the most comprehensive, nor the bestselling - it simply seems to be the one to have presented a POV that you want to push.

What other biographical articles have a critical biographer's POV as its third sentence in the Misplaced Pages? 02:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway, I have no particular POV on this article, and I don't know or care what Patsw's is. Anyone can put out a request for comments about an article; it's a good thing to do when you think you're right and are having trouble getting your point across to other editors; often fresh eyes can be helpful. My eyes find the Cornwell citation in the introduction clumsy, and it gives Cornwell's book more weight than it should at this point in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Cornwell's assessment. I also happen to agree with the current introductory paragraph with the reference to Cornwell deleted. This is not only a matter of what POV we stress, but of judgment as to what is proper encyclopedic focus. Robert McClenon 08:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No matter my opinion on Cornwell, his view, which should be included in the article, is not that important that it should be mentioned in the introduction. --Irmgard 10:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)