Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 1

message: I have removed the request concerning this page and Benedict XVI Theology . I do this because I have finished the discussion . All readers should note that at last some information  is allowed to balance the article  . If the  apologists will refrain from their  censoring edits , I shall be able to remove myself . I ask that the discussion concerning intervention in the Civil Order be allowed  to remain for the sufficient period  as instructional and relevant and even handed . I think it should be added to Benedict's  Theology discussion pages as relevant to his rule  and if there is someone  who agrees with the necessity , I ask them to do so . The present state of  this article on Pius XII justifies my intervention as  balance is now being allowed . A new user could perhaps fairly attempt to erase unwelcome references  but all current users  here  should accept the validity of this balance  now and preserve this state .Flamekeeper 09:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection request removed

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

message: Clearly the list of links shows how biased this article is.  I think a fair approach would include at least a few of the numerous websites that are critical of Pius XII.  There appear to be very few if any of these.
One link should be removed and that is of the "article" by Ian Paisley  which is clearly a biased piece of slander and should not be included as it sheds no light on Pius XII. --Frankrig 05:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair Links 

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