Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Str1977 (talk | contribs) at 08:38, 10 August 2005 (→Revert 1, to Cornwell Source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

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

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)

This might help: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/immaculh.html Str1977 18:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Complaints

I changed the sentence next to

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

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

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)

Nuremberg Trials and Pope Pius XII

Sir John Wheeler Bennett in his Friends , Enemies and Sovereigns final volume of his autobigraphy , SBN3331811689 notes that as there was no constitution for it being a Crime to have assisted Adolf Hitler to power , that consequently Franz von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht were acquitted . This presumably means that they could not be charged , but that consideration was given to this charge .

You're right. Schacht and Papen were acquitted "as charged". Helping Hitler to power was not a crime tried at Nuremberg and I'm not sure that a law court is the place to deal with such things. However, they were convicted during de-nazification.

However as I have noted for some period here on the WP Canonical Law clearly states that no cleric , such as were Pacelli and Monsignor Ludwig Kass should have interfered in Politics without it expressly being ordered by the Pontiff . The Magisterium or bed-rock law of the Church , however would further base itself on the clear Biblical dictum of thou shalt not do evil to further good found in Romans 3,8 .

And you refused to tell, what issue of canon law you were referring to, i.e. whether political involvement was prohibited/regulated under the canon law code in force back then. If it was regulated as you state, I guess Kaas had papal permission (that is back in 1919, when he entered politics). Pacelli on the other hand was acting as a representative of the Church, first as nuntius, than as secretary.

The inescapable conclusion is that in this case church law, the injunctions of the Christian Church, are in advance of International Law from both this its inception at the Nuremberg Trials and up to its present draft form of pre-international implementation. At least , I assume this to be the case ...

yes, but Church law is not penal law, it mostly works "internally", i.e. appealing to the individual conscience. You cannot apply it as penal law unless you want a "tyranny of virtue" à la Robespierre.

However the second conclusion is that the church, to which von Papen and Kaas adhered , headed at present by Pope Benedict XVI ,in order to claim the rightful moral leadership which our common understanding of Jesus would like to allow , shall have to institute its own clarification upon this issue .

The Church (according to faith) acts as representative of Christ. She bases her claims neither on the clarifications you demand, nor on a supposed impeccable status of all her members.

As with the Nuremberg trials , the defense that a judge may not try himself or his own case , should not excuse this present Pontiff from this clarification . He shall need to define the case , clarifying the canonical laws which have here , by means of my discussions, determined the automatic nature of the penalty for all those personally involved (Pope Pius XI,Pope Pius XII, von Papen and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas ) before then de-sanctifying the remains of the former two (and possibly Kaas) . I have been called impius for asking that the church adhere to its own clear law in this matter.

The Church is not here to issue condemnations, but if you want clarifications please address your request directly to the Pope and not to Misplaced Pages. I doubt the Pope reads Misplaced Pages.

Yes it is impious to call for a removal of someone from his grave and you still have to cite canon law for the provision that this must be done (Pope Formsosus will not do).

I deny this most strongly and assert that my wish is no more than to bolster a firm conception of international legality . My showing the superiority of the Magisterium over the United Nations drafting ,proves that I act in complete impartiality .Famekeeper 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate: Church law is not penal law, it mostly works "internally", i.e. appealing to the individual conscience. You cannot apply it as penal law unless you want a "tyranny of virtue" à la Robespierre.

Apart from that, I guess, such a move would be called "fundamentalism" or "interference in the public order" by many people.

But I'd applaud any move of any state of bringing legislation more in line with natural law.

Str1977 30 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)

YOU say this , but after I have quoted the canonical texts and left their link/provenance (which are now showing under 'canonical' on Hitler's pope discussion page ). It would appear that on the contrary the church is well equipped to avail of her own procedures in this regard and that the repair of a scandal is indeed legislated for . I fear that, again , all your denials of the cited historians are at variance with their historical interpretation . These have been quoted already and are in the archives that you have built . If these archives had not been created the quotations would have been easier for you to have re-read . I shall search now for the year of the insertion of the political bar in canonical law, and if it is in the later modernised law , then it would have been drafted by the self-same Eugenio Pacelli . I note, sir ,that you are very apt to require such clinching definitions and qualifications, all the while sundering the import and the clarity under the arguments over dates, pages and texts. It would appear ,as I have previously noted , the intention is that of defence . I find this absolutely natural but I have also pointed out to you that faith-led (ie wishful) defence should realise that the gravity of the matter is such that the greatest danger to the church comes not from admission , but from denial . I regret to note that since you represented in your argumentation hitherto and throughout , an increasingly defensive 'church ' posture , that any tough criticisms or qualifications of that institution became increasingly applicable to yourself as their advocate . As such criticism appears historically and canonically (if not penally) justified , you yourself took what was initially purely directed towards the institution as personal towards you (see Str 1977 ) , even as I slipped into addressing your defence similarly .

In answer to the fundamentalism , for the while , I shall simply note that ,daily ,the necessity for truth (and reconciliation) becomes more urgent and that on the contrary conscience is become and ever was , a central force in social affairs . That I do not and have never simplified this historic affair of complicity down to the penal . To the ecclesiastical , yes , because the Holy See cannot deny its own precepts and laws . I have merely suggested that the application of such laws could be of interest to the wider world . Sir, if it pains you to answer on behalf of your church , let another arise and answer , call to your superior now , as I feel sure you can , and ask that you be relieved . Send to these matters the requisite churchman of church law . My intention is to show the truth to the world and to up-end what are effective lies and propaganda . I welcome your ripostes however and especially am glad that you yourself are directing this intercourse towards the first revolution . We have further to advance ,and this will strengthen rather than diminuish the relevance of 1933 to the events and forces of the present day .Famekeeper 8 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

Present Day Vatican Federal Trial

The suit referred to is being brought by Bill Dorich through a law firm .

Request for Comments?

A Request for Comments directed me to this talk page as well as a few other pages.

It is not entirely clear to me without going through multiple archives what the original issue was. It does appear that the discussion on this page is getting rather tense. Can we please stay civil and remember the rules of Wikiquette?

Robert McClenon 14:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

One more request for a summary

Famekeeper appears to be saying that he has tried to present a solidly proven argument that the Roman Catholic Church engaged in some sort of conspiracy with Adolf Hitler to defeat communism that in turn resulted in the Holocaust, for which the Catholic Church is morally guilty. He has been saying for some time that arbitration is required about the truth. Famekeeper appears to have been saying that Str1977 has been engaging in censorship by deleting his statements of sourced fact.

If this case does go to Misplaced Pages arbitration, then one of the requirements of the Arbitration Committee is that each of the principals should provide a statement, not longer than 500 words, of what their case is.

I have several times asked Famekeeper for that summary, in particular with focus to facts that have been deleted, or on POV presented by sourced scholars as POV that has been deleted. I have not yet seen a summary of less than 500 words of what User:Famekeeper thinks is the substance of the censorship.

I agree that there are differing points of view as to how moral responsibility for the Holocaust should be distributed. I am asking Famekeeper to summarize, in less than 500 words, why he claims that the Catholic Church was guilty of collusion with Hitler.

I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity. A statement as to these points of view should be written. I do not think that it can be written by Famekeeper, who does not understand the difficult concept of NPOV . Can he at least present a summary of what his case is? If not, can he at least state briefly what the censorship is?

This is one more request for a summary of less than 500 words, having to do either with how the complicity can be proved, or with other scholars who have presented cases of complicity. Robert McClenon 02:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't agree with me at all : You accuuse me of POV-pushing , or you don't...You wouldnt know whether there has or has not been any proof of moral complicity because you have not read the relevant discourse. If you had you wouldn't ask . I find your attitude one of biased innuendo . You say I cannot understand NPOV but you spend your whole time in this defending biased editing . I have not been removing relevant scholars all the way thru . Listen ...you say I am not capable of doing something-only the most difficult thing history can require, then you order me to do it . I hardly think you have ever displayed good faith towards me , and your back-tracking now is visible . I should like an apology , and I shall consider whether I shall use the WP as organ or not . I think you require this concision because you wish to avail of the case for defensive purposes . I will wait until this is demanded by some more neutral observers, so why don't you get up a vote : should FK be forced to summarize his own sourced argumentation under insult by McClenon and Str1977 , or after an apology for your inuendo of today ? Or before or after a withdrawal of the unjust Rfc against Famekeeper?

As fas as I can see you are trying either to obtain advance info of the real canonical case- for vatican defensive purpose, or else, you are now blustering to cover your inconsistancy with your Rfc accusations . From it being me 'pushing my POV' , it's now FK is a silly man who can't distinguish between POV and NPOV anyway , can't write , but yet must be asked to summarize that which he has spent months of writing trying in good faith to justify . For whom , you ? I don't see that you are neutral at all , McC. I think it may be best to await the arbitrators, I can get my 500 words together at home, so to say . And you ,vaticanitos , can sweat . PS you will find one article's history of massage/censorship at Pope Pius XII , also beside your anti-FK innuendo at Ludwig Kaas talk .Famekeeper 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Famekeeper 17:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Censorship/massage (Pope Pius XII)

As requested , an example fron just one of many pages of |Str1977 censorship/massage for the vatican , and against right thinking free-speech sources etc. This is not for str to lengthen now, he can do that under his arbitration space .

29 March : 199.106.94.229 rem's large sections.Only reg'd action by anons 4 hits

wasn't me.

0906 20 April: First hit by Str as 24.91.139.250

Again, this wasn't me. (though he's right)

01.39 4 may. Str rem secret clause, christ dictator=rship, danger to democ'y etc (JPII topicality)

Yes, that was me and I can clearly stand by this edit. What I removed was either unsourced, misleading or just plain wrong.

01.53 " Str massages , 'not explicit enough'

I agree this change was wrong, as the sentence talked about "fiercely condemned by the press today" and they condemn him for not speaking out. Of course, the truth is different since he did speak out. Hence my mistake.

02.08 " 1) Sts incl Dutch reprisals . 2) rem Chief rabbi conversion , 3) rem 300,000 saved

1) I included a historical fact and one that is unquestionably important, what's wrong about that.

alleged edits 2) and 3) do not exist

02.27 " Str rem. dangers Lib Parliamentary Democ'y(JPII Euronews etc)

No, I did not remove. I remplaced "who cites it as an example of the dangers associated with Liberal Parliamentary Democracy." with "who cites it as an example of the dangers present even in a Democracy" - because that's what the late Pope wrote in his book. He says that not only dictators can do wrong, democracies can do wrong too. Democracy is no foolproof safeguard.

07.22 Anon only edit on WP rem. Hochluth play as spam

Wasn't me. Granted I despise the whole work of Hochhuth (please learn how to spell!) because of his untruthfulness, his slander, his condoning of assassinations and also dislike his selfrighteousness and his chummy-ness with one David Irving, but I did not remove this. In fact, I think a mentioning of Hochhuth's slanderous play is actually on-topic and not spam, though the play is spam (no not spam, spam can be eaten).

08.49 " Str rem. 'farce' of Pius XII bodily remains

Im removed one paragraph that didn't provide any useful information and was written in a gloating, mocking language. No need to gloat over a dead man's corpse, even if you dislike him.

08.51 " Str rem, Croatia pic

Because "pictures don't tell the tale" - it was anti-catholic propaganda

08.57 " Str rem. link to article

yes, dead link

09.01 " Str rem Freespeechorg link

another dead link

22.27 " FK rev 'Christ. Dict.'(prev sourcing Wiesenthal Timeline , not accepted, error:was Humanitas)

no unsourced or rather wrongly (!!) sourced to encyclica "Dilectissima nobis", a document relating not to Germany or dictatorship but to the Spanish government and their violation of human rights (religious freedom, property etc)

22.28 " FK replaces JPII controv.

no, FK did nothing of the kind

23.05 " str rem. Christ Dictatorship Encyclical

removed wrong things again: unsourced "christian dictatorship" and alleged "countering separation of ...", would have been an euphemism for opression of religious freedom

23.07 " Str rem. Centre & policy of Vatican re same ,

removed unfounded, untrue, unsourced claims about alleged Vatican policies

5 May ,Sam Spade highlights Christ Dict (Dilectissima Nobis), Str alludes to yr 1667

no, Sam Spade wikilinks to a yet to be written entry on that document - no allusion to anythin by me (or anyone else - what article are you reading?)

01.36 10 may FK repl. 'danger to democ'y-JPII

yes, one of the world wide famous "Critics say..." quotes

22.58 " Str rem danger controv

Removed this because I disputed (and still dispute) that this questions "have re-surfaced becaise of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling Act in the book" FK obviously thinks otherwise, and hence:

23.12 " FK rv

01.26 " 11 may Str rv's , moves 2 pics positions

Yes, no problem with that, or do you? Or do you ?? (and the time is 7.26)

10.29 " FK rv's , Anon also rv's pics

- it's 11 May by now!

23.13 " Str rem. 'Jewish anger'(euronews)

as I said the sentence "maybe, but off-topic", since this was about the enabling act and not the holocaust or abortion (and remember this about P12 and not JP2)

05.53 " ret,. Croatia link/pic adds J. Cornwell link

Revision as of 05:33, 16 May 2005, User: 24.60.129.139

for qualification of the first link see above, the second link is from the same website but it is the same link that has already been included further down

22.18 " Str adds POV apparition(POVfaith etc)

unneeded disclaimer - some people don't believe in such things and will not after reading this. Also the apparitions are fact, but what they actually are, that's POV.

00.56 17? May Str rem. pic PXII in Berlin by rv of positions of the 2 pics

Date is the 19 May (why can't you look it uo correctly ?)

I moved the Berlin picture to the section that covers his stint as nuncio during which the picture was made. Hence it belongs there (and if you disagree I can only speculate about the motives, it's sme..). And I deleted the redundant second display of the same picture.

16.29 19 May Str distracts

There's no edit at 16.29 - and nothing spectacular near the time.

16.32 " Str rem. Humanae Vitae (not FK's)

yes, I just straigthened the paragraph - the issue was disobedience to "Birth control" ruling - that's still in there, as it should - not need to shout about this.

17.24  ? Anon as before 24.170.40.179 repl. Rabbi conversion, saving of 300, 000 of Jews

It's 3 August by now

again not me - though the edit is valid - why should it be excluded

18.11 31 July Str rv's user DieWiebeRose

there's no edit on 31 July

Str1977 20:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Repair for Article

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

Re-repairing article

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

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

Moved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disagreement

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

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

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

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

Article repaired Through Scholarly Source John Cornwell

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

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

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

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

Str1977 16:58, 9

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

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

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

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

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

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