Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 17

message: The next sentence:
"The Pope employed Professor Almagia in 1939 to work on old maps in the Vatican library, thus immunising him from the Fascist anti-Semitic laws."
seems relevant but is quite cryptic. What was the aim of these studies? Str1977 (smile back) 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add this sentence. It was added by another user (whose name escapes me at the moment) while this article was on the main page. I would support removing the "thus" clause of that sentence. From what I understand the benefit of employing Jews like Almagia wasn't that it gave them legal protection but that they had been fired from their previous post for being Jewish. Is there an article about Almagia on Wikipedia? savidan(talk) (e@) 19:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I see. I wrongly thought the Pope wanted to immunise himself (by that research) from any Fascist laws, so that he could use this immunity to protect the Jews. It wasn't clear to me that Almagia was a Jew. If your take is true, this should be mentioned as well. Str1977 (smile back) 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'll see if I can find another source, other than Defamation (which is not very rigorous in including many specific details from primary sources), which mentions Almagia specifically. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would appreciate that. I have ammended by last post for clarity's sake. Str1977 (smile back) 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Immunised

message: I'm glad were finally over the Hirschberger debate - neither side's arguments were entirely vindicated, which is probably a good thing in the interests of us working together. 
I've reviewed the paragraph on the Corriera della Sera/Napolitano/Andrea Tornielli controversy, and I'm concerned that the current text is an incomplete representation of its cited source ("Pius' Children" in the American online). In particular, I think it should note the following points:
*The memo was apparently written by someone on Roncalli's staff (that is, inside the French Catholic Church).
*The memo was circulated in the French Catholic hierarchy.
*The memo was a response to (which I read as, a re-interpretation of) a letter from the Secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs at the Vatican, Monsignor Domenico Tardini.
*Tardini's letter differs markedly from the unsigned French memo "in tone, language, and content" (according to the article's author).
*In particular, Tardini disavows any intention of withholding children from surviving relatives - as opposed to organizations with no legal entitlement to custody.
The background of the issue seems to be requests from various Jewish agencies to take custody of ethnically Jewish orphans, baptised as Catholics, with the intent of resettling them in Palestine to be raised by Jewish families.
Subtextually, the current version appears set up Roncalli as a hero for resisting the Vatican's policy about Jewish orphans, whereas, according to the source article, Roncalli was actually resisting pressure from within the French Church.
Minor points:
*There's no need to mention the locatin of the archive where the document was found.
*"Baptised as Catholics" would sound better to me than "baptised by Catholics", since the point (in the Church's view) was that these were Catholic children.
*In view of Pius' apparent vindication on this issue, we shouldn't give Foxman the last word. In any case, Foxman's biographical details are off-topic here, unless we're trying to imply bias on his part (which we shouldn't do).
Also, this column by John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter is worth looking at. Some details differ from the account I've given above based on the American online article.--CJGB (Chris) 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first set of bullet points you make don't appear to contradict the current text in the article at all, although it could be clarified on thse issues without (my) objection. There doesn't seem to be any harm in citing the actual document—an extra citation certainly doesn't warrant a neutrality issue. I'm fine with the as/by change if you want to make it. I don't see it as giving Foxman the "last word"--his quote on this issue was the center of the controversy at its height so should be included, if you want to change the order that's fine. I think his biographical details were extremely relevant to his percieved credibility (or lack thereof) in this controversy. As it could be interpreted either way, I don't think it implies bias. I think you're right that this contrvoersy has largely "blown over" and I thought the article reflected that; I'd be fine with any changes you want to make in this regard to make that clearer. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought, but does anyone feel that this is worthy of a subarticle. There seems to be a lot to say about this controversy that doesn't have to do with Pius (since, as it turned out, he may not have even known about the memo). If so , the summary here could cover the controversy as it related to Pius (notably, cropping up while his cause for sainthood was in the motion). It seems like the issue of what to do with Jewish children after the war was a wider issue. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Savidan, sorry I haven't followed up on this. I've been rather busy. I agree with most of your points, and will do something about them when I can - hopefully this week. In the mean time, I'd rather keep the NPOV flag there.--CJGB (Chris) 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least I got you to respond! From what I understand you have not identified POV problems in the text, but merely said that you plan to rewrite this section to make it more clear. I would ask you to at least identify some more specifics so I could try to fix this if you insist on keeping a flag up. Please keep in mind that these templates are meant to be temporary. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV problem seems pretty glaring, at least to me. As it stands, the section could easily be read as asserting that Pius wanted withhold Jewish orphans from their families. That's a serious enough violation of NPOV (not to mention basic accuracy) that unwary readers should be warned to take it with a grain of salt, until the passage is corrected. Am I neglectful for not dealing with this? Well, I have other fish to fry in the non-WP world.--CJGB (Chris) 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely does not say that. It only states the facts and attributes them. Fact: Corriere della Sera published the memo. Fact: Foxman and others used this to call for a halt on Pius's canonization. Fact: Those scholars found that the memo had originated in France and not the Vatican. The article does not make any inferences using these facts, nor should it, about what "Pius wanted" or what anyone's intentions were. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's distinguish between could easily be read as asserting (my wording) versus asserts. I agree that all the facts are correct. But facts are never bare facts: like it or not they always give rise to implications. In this case, I feel that many will draw implications that are factually wrong. So it needs to be cleaned up.--CJGB (Chris) 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clean it up then. Let's see what you are proposing. It's only three sentneces, all of which you agree are true, so let's see what you think would be a more neutral wording. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe Chris can comment soon so that me can remove the POV tag from this section. Str1977 (smile back) 17:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Chris has not followed my invitation to comment, I assume that he doesn't object to the current version. Hence, I wholeheartedly agree with Savidan removing the POV tag. Str1977 (smile back) 19:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish orphans controversy ("Pius' Children")

message: Purple? Emerald green? Don't let's fall out over this, Savidan. The point is, it wasn't nice and he exploded. Much the same happened to Henry VIII, I understand, and there was a lot more of him to be spread about. Gore Vidal quotes an unnamed 'viewer' of the corpse. Not enough evidence for a law court, I admit, but not bad for Wikipedia. And look at the photo on this page. Is it me or does his face have a distinctly greenish hue? Anyway, keep up your hard work, Savidan. I'm sure when you pass through the pearly gates, Pius XII will be the first to shake you by the hand! --OhNoPeedyPeebles 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gore Vidal's Take on the Colour of the Holy Father's Corpse 

message: The Reichskonkordat, signed on July 20, 1933, between Germany and the Holy See remains the most important and controversial of Pacelli's concordats. A national concordat with Germany was one of Pacelli's main objectives as secretary of state — historian Klaus Scholder called it his "great goal". As nuncio during the 1920s he had made unsuccessful attempts to obtain German agreement for such a treaty, and between 1930 and 1933 he attempted to initiate negotiations with representatives of successive German governments.Ludwig Volk Das Reichskonkordat vom 20. Juli 1933 .Klaus Scholder "The Churches and the Third Reich" volume 1: especially part 1 chap 10 'Concordat Policy and the Lateran Treaties (1930-33); part 2 chap 2 "The Capitulation of Catholicism" (February-March 1933)
The importance of the concordat policy to Pacelli, to the point that it dominated his thinking on German matters, is exemplified in Heinrich Brüning's account of their meeting on 8th August 1931 (Bruning, leader of the Catholic German Centre Party, was Reich Chancellor between 29th March 1930 and 30th May 1932.) According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." Brüning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis."Heinrich Brüning Memoiren, English translation as quoted in Scholder pp.152-3
After the Nazis gained even more seats in the July 1932 elections—with 230 of 608 seats they were the largest party in the Reichstag—Pacelli again advised the Centre Party to work with the Nazis in a coalition, despite the official condemnation of Nazism by the German bishops at the time. He told Bavarian envoy Ritter: "it is to be hoped and desired that, like the Centre Party and the Bavarian Peoples' Party, so too the other parties which stand on Christian principles and which now also include the National Socialist party, now the strongest party in the Reichstag, will use every means to hold off the cultural Bolshevizing of Germany, which is on the march behind the Communist Party."report by von Ritter, Bavarian envoy to the Vatican, to the Bavarian Land government, as quoted in Scholder p.157
According to Klaus Scholder, a Reichskonkordat was in fact impossible under the Weimar Republic: "as long as this democratic republic existed in Germany a Reich concordat was inconceivable." Catholic parties would never have sufficient strength to get a treaty past protestant and socialist opposition. It was thus the emergence of Hitler's dictatorship that allowed the concordat to become a real possibility, following the model of the Lateran treaties with fascist Italy where the Church had agreed to abstain from political activity in return for recognition in a concordat. Scholder pp.160-1
According to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, the new German cabinet began to talk about a concordat "immediately after 30 January, 1933," the day that Hitler was appointed chancellor of the coalition government.letter from Papen to von Bergen, translation as quoted in Scholder p.245. Scholder argues that Centre Party chairman Ludwig Kaas (a priest and associate of Pacelli) agreed to support the Enabling Act, which required a constitutional amendment and gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in exchange for a Reich concordat with the Vatican. Scholder maintains that Pacelli was indirectly involved in these negotiations through Kaas, who "probably acted as the key go-between in the whole matter."Scholder p.241 One of Hitler's key conditions for agreeing the concordat was the dissolution of the Centre Party, which occurred on 6th July.Toland & Atkin, or Volk (op. cit.)
The day after the Enabling Act vote Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state."letter from Kaas to von Bergen, German ambassador to the Vatican, translation as quoted in Scholder p.247 The first official mention of the concordat was made when Kaas returned ten days later, on 2nd April. On 9th April Kaas returned to Rome, travelling with von Papen, to begin the official negotiations for the concordat. The concordat was finally signed, by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20th July. 
Between 1933 to 1939, Pacelli would issue 55 protests of violations of the Reichskonkordat. Most notably, early in 1937, Pacelli asked several German cardinals, including Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber to help him write a protest of Nazi violations of the Reichskonkordat, which would become Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, promulgated on Palm Sunday 1937, condemning those who "exalt race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State ... above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level".Phayer 2000, p. 16; Sanchez 2002, p. 16-17.
There's my version - I went back to the original Scholder version I wrote in February. Unfortuantely it is longer, and maybe I can work on it further for length, but first I think we need some resolution about content. I think there was a problem that some of the stuff that had been removed made it less clear. I.e., obscured the point that Scholder is saying Pacelli himself was involved in the negotiations, with Kaas as a 'go-between'. This claim is obviously very much germane to Pacelli personally, and is what has been taken up by Cornwell etc. more recently. Again, if we have references to scholars of Scholder's reputation criticising his view, we should put that in to qualify - but not remove - Scholder's argument.Bengalski 19:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version by Bengalski

message: "Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility". This suggests as a corollary that during non-recent history popes invoked it more often. Is that implication intentional? Savidan said this should be an obvious point b/c papal infallibility was promulgated in the 19th century, but I find the sentence confusing for exactly this reason. Marskell 00:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. I went ahead and just removed the offending portion. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Papal infallibility is a long held belief in the Catholic Church. It was defined as a dogma in 1870, which means that ever since the belief is part of the Catholic faith which cannot be denied. It doesn't mean that before the belief didn't exist or that infallibility was not used by the Popes, though the classification before Pius IX is harder since the process was less regulated. Str1977 (smile back) 09:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which is explained by the sentence in question. Marskell 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not the topic of this article. We link to this. Str1977 (smile back) 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papal infallibility 

message: In this article, v. Weizsäcker is quoted. Would it be right to fully quote him? He cabled: "Regardless of the advice of many, the Pope has not yet let himself be persuaded to make an official condemnation of the deportation of the Roman Jews. Despite the fact that he must expect his attitude to be criticized by our enemies and attacked by the Protestants in Anglo-Saxon countries, who will use it in their anti-Catholic propaganda, he has thus far achieved the impossible in these delicate circumstances in order not to put his relations with the German government and with its representatives at Rome to the test. Since it is currently thought that the Germans will take no further steps against the Jews in Rome, the question of our relations with the Vatican may be considered closed.
The highlighting of parts of the quotation was done by me. The historian Lichten regards the highlighted part of the citation as a warning to Berlin not to proceed with the deportations of the Jews of Rome. Indeed, the deportations then ceased. 
The full citation is taken from "A Question of Judgment: Pius XII & the Jews" by Dr. Joseph L. Lichten. Dr. Joseph L. Lichten, who died in Rome, in December, 1987, was a long-time proponent of mutual understanding and cooperation between the Catholic and Jewish communities in both the United States and Europe. He was born in Poland, received his Doctor of Law degree from the University of Warsaw, and engaged in international diplomacy with the Polish government. In 1963, shortly after the initial production of Rolf Hochhuth's play, The Deputy, and while serving as director of the International Affairs Department for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, he wrote this monograph. It was published by the National Catholic Welfare Conference, forerunner of the United States Catholic Conference. To read his complete publication see here . --UAltmann 15:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to including Lichten's view point in the article if properly sourced and attributed. From your previous post it does seem like you understand that the quote itself is fact, and that Lichten's analysis is just his interpretation. savid@n 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I rendered the source I would leave the wording up to you, since you are the native speaker... --UAltmann 19:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have acess to this source. Could you give me the page numbers and preferably a small amount of quoted text for where he makes the analysis that v. W. was "in on it" or that it was a "threat." savid@n 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation of v. Weizsäcker

message: This revert requires a little more explanation than the edit window gives.
First, the thing about Pacelli using anti-Semitic language. That is actually based on a rather ungenerous translation by Cornwell of a letter written by a subordinate at the nunciature, and is not taken seriously even by most critics of Pius XII. This material is perhaps relevant to the Hitler's Pope article as it was one of the most controversial pieces of material. However, it's inclusion here, especially the unencyclopedic statement " This statement and Pius'holding regular audiences for German soldiers could not be interpreted other than as expressing solidarity with Hitler at a time he was commiting genocide against Jews, Roma and homosexuals" is inappropriate and POV.
The thing about the hidden encyclical is already mentioned in a more neutral way. Details should be added to the Humani Generis Unitas article; however original resesarchy claims that Pius XII should have promulgated this encyclical have no place in his bio. 
The last bit from Susan Zuccotti could possibly mentioned. She does rather exhaustively review evidence about whether Pius XII peronsally was involved in various acts by churches and other cristian organizations, but in the form it was added it is rather unhelpful.
Also, I don't know why the vanity fair link was removed. Theres no free version of the entire book online so thats a good resource. Vanity Fair is obviously a reliable source and obviously not a copyvio. Cornwell let them publish an exerp of his book to promote it and they put it on their website. Savidan 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of revert 

message: The reference to the anti-Hochhuth article of Ion Mihai Pacepa („National Review“, Jan. 25, 2007) should be reconsidered (chapter “The Deputy”). A deletion of this sparsely reliable source would be resonable. German conservative historian Thomas Brechenmacher (not anticlerical and far from being a Hochhuth-apologist) strongly challenges the plausibility of Pacepa in the foremost German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ("Hochhuths Quellen. War der 'Stellvertreter' vom KGB inspiriert?", in: F.A.Z., April 26, 2007) with reference to numerous „inconsistencies“ (the files on Pius XII. were still treasured in the Vatican’s state secretariat in 1960, Casaroli still played a subaltern role at that time and could hardly have given Romanian spymasters insight into these documents, Hochhuth’s documentary appendix “Historical Sidelights” goes back on sources „that were available in print at that time”, etc.). --Diggindeeper 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in inclined to agree with you as far as this article is concerned, but the national review article and the article you mention should both be cited in the article about The Deputy. Savidan 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on "The Deputy" 

message: His 1941 and 1942 Christmas messages were both translated and published in The New York Times (Dec. 25, 1941, p. 20 & Dec. 25, 1942, p. 10). To prevent retaliation, he did not refer to Nazism by name, but people of that era still understood him, including the Nazis. According to The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24):
:The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.
Also The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1942 (Late Day edition, p. 16) states:
:This Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent... Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order. They must refuse that the state should make of individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless things.
This should be mentioned in the article.´84.142.178.154 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How the New York Times wrote abot Pius in 1941 and 1942

message: I recently added the section "Visions and supernatural experiences", after watching a documentary on the life of Pius XII, which you can see at the following link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PR1_vb4To
I added these details as they had not been addresses anywhere else in the article, and I felt they would be interesting to researchers.
:Youtube is not an acceptable source. If you can find published, mainstream sources for the various claims you added, I suggest adding them to the relevant sections of the article instead of lumping them together like this. Savidan 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Youtube indeed is not a proper source BUT there is no reason to remove that material right away. I will restore and fact tag it - it cannot be that material referenced to a substandard source is treated worse than material not referenced at all. Str1977 (smile back) 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I prefer to leave the material on the talk page until a reliable source is found. Since this is a featured article, there should be a higher standard for adding poorly sourced material of such a nature. The adding editor should provide a reliable source for such material, or it should be removed. Fact tags just deprecate the quality of the article in question. Savidan 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visions and supernatural experiences 

message: I was unable to find a non-Wikipedia/Wikipedia mirror source for the following so I removed it. When/if it is readded it should at least contain the date when he became godfather so we can figure out where to add it: Savidan 16:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced addition removed 

message: this page has been vanalized.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.217.247 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalized

message: * For Pope Pius XII and the April 1944 Vrba Report on Auschwitz see Vrba-Wetzler report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.49 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pius and Auschwitz

message: :Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg

message: Savidan 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition needing verification