Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 7

message: What on earth happened to this article?!  It was great a month and a half ago and now it is one big smear job by late 20th century arm chair historians and conspiracy theorists who place credence in the conjecture and bias of disgruntled ex-priests and Dan Brown style opportunists.  Why are the quotes from all the noteworthy Jewish people removed?  Because a reader won't be able to make up his own mind about quotes? Because conjecture about "secret motives" of everyone from Albert Einstein and Golda Maier should top these people’s own statements? Because they were trying to get support for the nation of Israel? It was in 1958, a decade after Israel was founded that Maier said “During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims.” Thus the idea that all the positive statements made by Jews regarding Pius XII were bribery, is untennable and stupid. What was the NY Times and Time magazine trying to gain by praising Pius XII in 1943? Were they scheming for statehood and thought throwing a bone to Pius XII would help? How come the NYT and Time magazine knew of the atrocities and wrote about them and praised Pius XII for speaking out but that is all now censored? No wonder people like Siegenthaler rightfully warn the public that Wikipedia is thoroughly unscholarly and not an academic source. LOL, you guys are so intent on bashing Pius XII and the Catholic Church that you have no objectivity, give the full stage to John Cornwell and his biased disgruntled crew, expunge the statements of everyone from Einstein and Lapide and even imagine that you know Eli Zolli's motives for converting better than the man himself does. LOL! What hubris and bad faith.  The hodge podge of faulty logic and conspiracy theories that you rely on all form a neat little package that explains everything and is a substitutte for history and the truth. Thankfully because of the good will of the average person, the crackpot smear job that this article now is won't have any credibility even among those who don't know the full story yet.  Just as a baseline matter, why remove that section with all the quotes and even photos and links that took someone (thankfully not me) so much time to create?  It's just awful how tilted the article now looks.  I can't imagine tuning back the clock on someone's hard work. The quote section was apologetic?  The idea that Pius XII was anti-Semitic is apologetic because it argues hard for a position that has no historical basis. It’s an accusation that first appeared in the 1960’s.  The accusation is not history – it’s histrionics.   Was every last Jew and Gentile around the world so duped by Catholic propaganda machine that everyone conveniently ignored this issue? LOL! Of course I secretly suspect that many of these Wikipedia articles are written by people who simultaneously think 1) Pius XII was anti-Semitic 2) UFOs are very real 3) Klingon will be the linga franca of the 21st century. Over and out. User:70.18.175.213 18:03, 12 December 2005 
Thousand of Wikipedia articles have quotes of similar or more extensive length. Certain folks don't like statements that thoroughly exonerate Pius XII. They give 20 inches to Dan Brown, scorned seminary dropout types and zero column inches to Albert Einstein and Golda Mayer. Anyone who doesn't see the problem with that is an idiot. User:70.18.175.213 21:50, 12 December 2005
I too am alarmed to see how the once-beautiful Pius XII article went down the toilet and is now 90% Dan Brown style nonsense and anti-Catholic diatribe masquerading as scholarship.  This version: 14:11, 3 October 2005 Str1977 m (rst balance) is an example when the article was great and within the past 6-7 weeks, a few people have destroyed the article probably b/c it didn't paint the anti-Catholic picture they wanted it to. All the great quotes from prominent Jews have been removed and replaced by Cornwell screed hyperbole.   Removing the quotes of every Jew from Einstein to Golda Maier is really a new form of antisemitism, but I am sure that will go right over the heads of the anti-Catholic aparatchiks intent on the triumph of Cornwell's wholly unscholarly and unhistorical text book example of an ad hominem attack.  This article is a classic example of the bigger problem with Wikipedia now getting national media attention with the Siegenthaler incident etc. Someone should think about getting this article back into shape - that would be time well spent.  I notice the Muslims diligently police their pages and won't permit even the mention of Mohammed's 12 year old wife (fact) but this Pius XII article goes on and on with this BS. Incredible disparity tolerated by Wikipedia! User:70.21.166.96 22:24, 12 December 2005 
While I completely agree with the above comment that the article has gone downhill, the anonymous diatribe above does not contribute anything, and is uncivil.  Rather than simply protesting stridently, if you think that the 1411, 3 October, version by Str1977 was good, why not just revert to it?  
The statement:  "Anyone who doesn't see the problem with that is an idiot" is both a personal attack and discounts the fact that many of us DO see the problem.  The harshness of your criticism distracts from the fact that it is largely accurate but partly inaccurate.  Robert McClenon 22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find these comments to be rather frustrating, both in tone and content.  I did make a number of the edits in question, but I discussed them on this talk page first, and sourced all of them.  Please read the discussion below.  The use of only positive quotes from Jewish sources (When there have been negative ones as well), the failure to mention anything about the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, the Israel Zolli story, etc. all led to an article that left out vital info and was heavily slanted.  If you read the new section, it ends with well-regarded authors praising the Pope and Church for saving huge numbers of lives, it still includes rebuttals of Carroll, it still says he angered Hitler, etc.  However, the article also mentions what the opposing arguments were, and it uses extensive sources on both the positive and negative arguments. Again, the attempt was not to smear Pius XII, but rather to give readers an understanding of the controversy as well, some of which was from well respected sources like the ICJHC, which was appointed by the Vatican. In any case, a reversion of months of work seems like an inappropriate response, given the problems with the original article. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous Protest and Reply

message: Is is not holy enough for us to mention the kick-back scheme with Adolf ? It is visible that the absolute cut-off point for the scandalous  reichskonkordat kick back / quid pro quo is here , despite source, put at  9 April. It is conveniently massaged in. This is a brilliant whitewash of the Pacelli influence upon the German hierarchy at the time of the scheme. EffK 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 9 April cut-off point for( here non-existant) political  kick-back Scheme

message: It seems apparent that Pacelli was involved with/sympathetic to Bishop Alois Hudal, and that there is a relationship there that is sourceable even apart from the extraordinary reference by von Papen at his trial to a high authority in the Vatican seeking yet another synthesis with the healthy doctrines of National Socialism in 1936 .
Since a high authority is not the high authority, it is reasonable to now source the identity of this high authority as in yet another synthesis. I have sourced the Pius XII Widerstand Vatican Exchanges at length, and what is most noticeable is that they reveal a willingness by Pacelli  to yet another retention of such doctrines in  even 1943.In short, knock off Hitler himself, but keep the doctrines powering Germany. Keep the war in the East, keep the expansionism and keep the healthy doctrines. It is shocking that the supposedly whiter than white Widerstand figures equally saw this as out-come, however unsuccessfully, through even 1943. That Pius XII went along with it is morally outrageous, given the ICJHC questions, and the reality of Pacelli's knowledge of the mass-murders. Fortunately, as I have before remarked, Churchill et al did not have any such intentions, and distrusted Pacelli for the very reason that this inglorious idea would sap the fighting will entirely.
EffK 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacelli, Nuremberg , Hudal and the Widerstand