Talk:Hitler's Pope

Previous discussions:

• Archive1 Str1977 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV

I added the pov tag, because the last paragraph (Pius XI) is not only off-topic (it is neither related to Pius XII, who is sometimes termed "Hitler's Pope" nor to Cornwell's book - at least not in any visible way), it also is factually wrong in regard to the active support of the dissolution of the two parties, when it was really no involvement at all in one case and acquiesence into something that could not be stopped. Also the rest of the paragraph is deeply POV, repeatedly confusing cause and effect. Str1977 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You complain user, when an article is too penetrating to be like an old- fashioned encyclopedia and now here , it is that the article is apparently too scant . I note that this article appears since only as a wikipedia clean-up , thus not appearing on any google search .

Also the whole article needs a sound clean up, especially in clearly expressing that this is about a book and about what the book says and that is not necessarily the actual truth or the only possible interpretation thereof. Str1977 18:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh- user! welcome! And I see that the elaborate discussion into the merits of the accusations concerning Hitler's Pope have been removed to an archive (readers, we two ltigants go way back unto when str1977 first noticed my inconvenient and allegedly impius reminders about all this -you should quickly open the archive above, there by this editors name,close to where he might lure you into a long ugly list of my supposed slanders and anti-WP behaviour ) . Good, we can start all over again, here. I missed your intervention here on this page and I am glad to have you , in fact I was wondering what kept you away , when you were so active every other where. I find it remarkable how the Deutsch WP does not seem to be concerning you and need your attention : is it already done ?

This article I put up as I say not because of the book but because people say 'Oh-you mean "Hitler's Pope"-everyone knew that ' . And as you and I very well know and completely disagree about, there were two Popes who were involved. One reining and one only a Nuncio and who then became one of the Secretaries of State (as in Foreign Secretaary) of the Holy See. However there is no denial that they shared the same policy , succinctly analysed by John Cornwell and stated here after his analysis under 'Politics' .

Of course the topic is N/POV , that is why it says at the beginning that the article comes from an expression in use for many decades . The expression refers to the more or less common perception , and the perception refers to the relevant facts, which is what you and I argue about . May I ask what your german WP user name is ? And welcome you on to this dangerous page , which I assumed you felt off-limits, though I wondered why you hadn't arrived . You might desire now a more serious tone , and you know that I will give it to you . Why don't you beforehand answer the questions about your denial of confirmatory citation and inclusion of historians back on the missing section of the Centre Party Germany article? These are the same as for here . I put this page up to quite simply allow some space to allude to what is excised, by you, elsewhere. I didnt cut you from Pope Pius XII but wrote 'around you' . I think it still needs a bit more sternness actually . If you don't flag Pacelli/Pius XII for POV or innacuracy, you can't kick about this here, now can you ? User: Famekeeper

You flagged Centre and Kaas, so I may as well flag this entry. But then you left without actually discussing your dispute. Str1977 30 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)

I was not the first to complain, that it is not clear what this entry is about (See Mike Rosoft's: "Marked as needing cleanup - POV, deals with two subjects at once"). The entry is called "Hitler's Pope", so it can be about

1) The term "Hitler's Pope", as used in the English language, i.e. as an epithet for Pius XII.

It cannot be an article about Pius XII himself (and Hitler's Pope refers only to him and not to Pius XI), since that already exists elsewhere, only about the term, its origins, connotations and a discussion of it.

2) John Cornwell's book of the same title:

Then it should be a outline of the book, an a critique of the book

3) It can (and currently is, though in a rugged stage) about both

Then the entry should be clearly divided between the two topics

I, for my part, leave that work to you, since this is "your" article. Str1977 1 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Ah, and let me add some "advice to the wise": It is disrespectful to constantly mistype someone's name (especially if it is a real name and not a nick). And is also not very polite to address someone as "user". Call me by my name or just say "you", but stop using "user" all the time. Str1977 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my last point, FK, please have a look Kenny and compare with Kenney. Str1977 1 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

I have deleted the Italian allegations and therefore the POV tag . These came from websites out of John cornwell's control .Famekeeper 07:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The Question of the Law

I have returned to the Question of the Law in discussions on Pope Pius XII and Pope Benedict XVI . I relate this question to the Nuremberg Trials and the judgement there that it was not an indictable offense to have assisted Hitler to power . I note that such assistance would have consituted a christian offence of the greatest magnitude , involving immediate and automatic Excommunication, as opposed to beatification. There are recognised church measures to mitigate the effects of this, which any believer should expect to see implemented . Famekeeper 13:35, 23 Jun 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 Wikipedia. I doubt the Pope reads Wikipedia.

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)

Canonical Law

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)

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing." Your previous but one sentence had dealt with Hitler and latae sententiae.

"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."

Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . [User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature;

part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity.

section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 .

Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon  1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties  or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity.

Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties .

Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see [[1]] and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( [[Contumacy]].

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be or is safe . On discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables).

Hitler from December 1941

This thesis about Hitler's anti-semitic 'calm' comes from Sebastian Haffner's The Meaning of Hitler , 1979, ISBN0297775723 Famekeeper 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1917 Pio-Benedictine Codification and Current Canonical Law

These come from [[2]] the vatican and one assumes they are from the most up-dated version :

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.

Can. 286 Clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, for their own advantage or that of others, except with the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

139

Herewith is canon 139 from the Pio-Benedictine 1917 Code . in French .taken from www.catho-org ,under similar fair use :[[3]]

p.1 Les clercs doivent s'abstenir des occupations qui, bien que non inconvenantes, sont cependant étrangères à l'état clérical.

p.2 Sans un indult du Saint-Siège, les clercs ne peuvent exercer ni la médecine, ni la chirurgie; ils ne peuvent être tabellions ou notaires, si ce n'est dans une curie ecclésiastique; ils ne peuvent accepter des emplois publics, comportant l'exercice d'une juridiction séculière ou d'une administration.

p.3 Sans la permission de leur Ordinaire, les clercs ne peuvent prendre sur eux l'administration de biens appartenant à des laïcs, ni accepter des offices séculiers entraînant l'obligation de rendre des comptes; ni exercer les fonctions de procureur ou d'avocat, si ce n'est dans un tribunal ecclésiastique ou même dans un tribunal civil, mais seulement quand le clerc y défend sa propre cause ou celle de son église. Les clercs ne peuvent avoir aucune participation à un jugement séculier au criminel, poursuivant l'application de graves peines personnelles; ils n'y peuvent même pas porter témoignage, sauf le cas de nécessité.

p.4 La fonction de sénateur ou de membre d'un corps législatif ne peut être sollicitée ou acceptée par les clercs sans la permission du Saint-Siège, dans les régions où une prohibition pontificale a été portée; dans les autres régions, ils ne peuvent le faire sans la permission cumulative de leur Ordinaire propre et de l'Ordinaire du lieu où l'élection aura lieu.

Part 4 says that function as an elected representative or member of a legislative body must not be sought or held by the clerical without papal permission , where there is a papal prohibition ; and in all other regions , not without "permission cumulative" from their superior or the superior of the region wherer the elections are held .

Famekeeper 8 July 2005 10:26 (UTC)

CONDONATION

Is Cornwell's text using this word. If not, it should be in the article.

CONDONATION - Term used in canon law, but now generally obsolete, meaning a forgiveness by the husband of his wife or by a wife of her husband, of adultery committed, with an implied condition that the injury shall not be repeated and that the other party shall be treated with conjugal kindness.

Str1977 09:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Condonation was the description used by one of the serious historians about the Centre Party Germany's relations with the Nazis . We know the church was on a sticky wicket in any condonation and had to silence its own hierarchy before the condonation began: viz the Birthday greetings to Hitler on, was it ,23 April from Kaas in the vatican-it's another fact you assiduously removed . You do cause a lot of work -and still are doing so . I'm going to have to bring discussions back into here since you disallow placement elsewhere. I'm going to have to re-write your section in the centre re:QpQuo ,as that is a historical allegation . Your diminuishment has to be battled and rectified as it is out of line with history . And yes , condonation is one word but technically the canonical suit is proved by the contumacy .That the canonical damnation -isn't it ? It's a drag this revert war , and I don't know how we het over this unless you allow the references I require ...Famekeeper 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"We know the church ..." - Actually no we don't.

"Birthday greetings to Hitler" are a diplomatic formula and hence a mere detail, especially since the Vatican and the German government were just involved in the concordat negotiations. And I don't see anything wrong about wishing someone a happy birthday.

"I don't know how we het over this unless you allow the references I require"

I allow whatever you can derive from a proper source (no wrong conclusions from it), with the needed qualifications and properly dimensioned, as this issue is not the only topic of the page in question. Str1977 17:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Beatification of the Excommunicated (now including the German "soul" quote in full and translation

This is denied access to the straight vatican page of Benedict XVI , in concern for the soul of Cardinal Pacelli et al , so I put it here :

I have made this on-topic ,as it should be . I refer to the Bill Dorich case which is a matter of fact , as is the denial of vatican immunity . I suggest Mr. Dorich should read the following .

I revert the editors removal of this section and deny that this is off topic. It is highly relevant and that the legal suits brought in California by Victims organisations ( to do with atrocitiesdin wartime Ukraine and Croatia and the vatican Bank do not yet appear in the article could be more a factor of white-wash than of relevance . Any way , they will as surely as as they appear in court. It appears that the Holy See claims diplomatic or some such immunity from that case, and the relevance of what I write is thus: that whilst up until now there is sound international juridical reason for the vatican to avoid its responsibilities vis a vis fascist and capitalist collaboration , these canonically legal points can not be similarly evaded . The reversion of this section is very symptomatic of this editor's interposition against all such references , until they are unstoppable .

I am sure that all would prefer to and accept that discussion pages can relate to what should be included in articles rather than turning them into edit wars . The fact is that real court cases have been brought and are being brought , that what I present is the canonical and historical axis for a much larger questioning to do with the whole evolution of the vatican bank , and many interlinking subjects reaching fully up into the present age . So I claim this to be a precursive section , leading the wikipedia , at least, into these published realms . I would expect that other witnesses to this reversion would not wish to be thought of as facilitating or ignoring or supporting such un-warranted removal . Here follows the canonical axis and I invite the editor who reversed this to stay on this single page with me for this subject . If so I shall endeavor to do so myself , and at the resolution of all argument , perhaps the Benedict XVI article might be allowed to reflect the enormous and widely published controversy still facing the Church and this its pontiff

It was on the 9 th of June this year that Str1977 himself added the following reference to these subjects of christian and particularly here, Papal, collaboration with Hitlerism which concerns the actions and words of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas leader (chairman) of the Catholic (Centre)Party in Weimar(pre-Hitler) Germany :

....when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the "precarious state of the fraction", he described as follows: "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasent consequences......

Note that oppose to are not found in the actual quote. The former is FK's unwarranted insertion, the latter my typo. For more see below. (Str 1977)

which concerns the catholic Centre Party Germany vote to complete the required two thirds palrliamentary majority required to abolish democracy , in Berlin on 23 March 1933 and hand dictatorial power toAdolf Hitler and the Nazi party . I include the italicised 'oppose' for clarity and refer readers to all previous analysis /threads , but here I list the proven {church/divine/canonical/biblical/moral) injunctions :

Case proved -

Ludwig Kaas excommunicated himself at that action against his soul. Pope Pius XI excommunicated himself from his words in May 1932, as I cited repeatedly from Mowrer and Otto Brok preferring Nazism to the possibility of Communism Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli excommunicated himself at writing those his pontiff's words to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , who read them at the Centre Party ledership meeeting in May 1932 fully one year prior to the enabling act democratic suicide . This is not a POV /NPOV issue . Words have not yet been used to fully describe what this exactly has had in importance , and because the efects are remaining , viz, the Middle East , words may never finish describing the importance of this indescribable moment in history . I have limited myself as much as possible to the simple provision of the reports and of the histories assembled in the english language .

My threads everywhere elucidate the unfortunate souls . I am thinking of bringing , as it appears someone must , a simple canonical court case . I read recently , I think even here on the Wikipedia , that anyone can demand such an action , even the un-baptised. but can the un-christened ?

I am termed despicable by this valiantly opposing editor for repeating {the purely church law relevant to) the procedure soon to be imposed following a success in such a court case , but I think I can surmount that epithet . Will he however be prepared to specify the origin from whence he retrieves Kaas words , and supply them in the original tongue, and stand by his quotation of them in such a case ?

Who would like to be the advocate-or has one got to do everything around here ? How about you yourself , Str1977 ? Surely your claimed christian conscience requires you to take this case - if only to hope to save the church from the great scandal which they claim the ability to repair ? (see endless thread ) .

Answer and disprove , or recant like a christian should, or this must be nailed to the door, musn't it? The same goes for the catholic leader-(ship?)- whoever is in charge , undoubtedly the remarkably well placed and prepared Pope Benedict XVI - he the prince against darkness must help us back through into the light , surely , whatever shocking it may take ? Well done , editor Str1977!

Str1977 . you used the word sleazy to describe my editing and revert - do you know the origin of the word ? Famekeeper 00:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well FK, no case not proved!

But first of all, I must state that Wiki is no law court and we are not advocates and this is no trial. However, if you want to see it as such, you must allow for a defence and stop complaining about apologies.

Also, I never termed you "despicable" - I guess I called some edit you did so, but that doesn't mean that you're despicable. I'm a Christian - I distinguish between people and acts.

Now, as promised, here is the German text of Kaas reference to soul.

Meeting of the Centre party's Reichstags-fraction on 23 March, 1933, 11.15.

(from Die Protokolle der Reichstagsfraktion und des Fraktionsvorstands der Deutschen Zentrumspartei 1926-1933 (edited by Rudolf Morsey), in: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Zeitgeschichte Reihe A: Quellen, Band 9), Mainz 1969, page 630.) (also in: Rudolf Morsey (ed.): Das "Ermächtigunsgesetz" vom 24. März 1933, Göttingen 1968, page 26-27.)

"... Im Anschluß weißt Dr. Kaas auf die schwierige Stellung der Fraktion im gegenwärtigen Augenblick hin. Es gelte einerseits unsere Seele zu wahren, andererseits ergäben sich aus der Ablehnung des Ermächtigungsgesetz unangenehme Folgen für die Fraktion und die Partei. Es bliebe nur übrig, uns gegen das Schlimmste zu sichern. Käme die Zweidrittel-Majorität nicht zustande, so werde die Durchsetzung der Pläne der Reichsregierung auf anderem Wege erfolgen. Der Reichspräsident habe sich mit dem Ermächtigungsgesetz abgefunden. Auch von den Deutschnationalen her sei kein Versuch einer Entlastung der Situation. Dr. Kaas lehnte es ab, von sich aus einen Vorschlag zu machen, wie man sich entscheiden solle. ..."

For the benefit of non-German speaker, I have translated this as closely as possible (so please excuse the clumsiness of the following text:

After this, Dr. Kaas pointed out the precarious situation of the fraction in the current moment. It was important on one hand to preserve our soul and on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What was left was only to safeguard us against the worst. If the 2/3-majority were not reached, the implementation of the government's plan would occur by another way. The President has accept (or resigned to) the Enabling act. From the DNVP too no attempt of allieviating the situation is to be expected. Dr. Kaas refused to himself make a proposal how to decide.

You can read now for yourself what Kaas said (it's in the reported speech of protocol).

Your conclusions from that little quote I put in, unfortunately with a typo (superfluous "to") are unfounded. Kaas did not say "opposing" (your inclusion) is necessary to "preserve the soul". That might be your view or my view but from the quote not necessarily Kaas' view and from the context certainly not Kaas' view. He goes on to win the fraction for an unanimously vote in favour of the Act. Kaas certainly was aware that it was a problematic move, a move he didn't like (and hence my opposition to your quick jumping), especially since the "assurances" were not very reliable.

Also, even if your reasoning on the alleged excommunications were correct, you cannot base any case on a letter neither of us has read. We have only Mowrer's rendition of Brok's exlamations that night. That might be enough for some qualified inclusion into the article, which I conceded on the Centre party page, but not for any pseudo law suits (pseudo because this is no court and you're no canon lawyer or judge).

I won't complain much about that your dating of the letter is still off (and even May is not one year before the Enabling Act).

This much for your proven case.

PS. I have called "sleazy" (no, I did not know, but I do now, but maybe you can expand on this a bit more) only the one edit when you deleted my replies to some of your posts, while your posts stayed on. Don't take that as personal. Str1977 17:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments and Questions

I was brought to this article and its talk page by an RfC. I hardly know where to start.

I agree with the user (was it Str1977?) who marked the article as the subject of a neutrality dispute. I have two issues with the article as it stands. First, it is really two articles rolled into one, and needs to be split. An article called Hitler's Pope should be restricted to Cornwell's book, and should try to summarize Cornwell's criticism of Pius XII and summarize discussion (pro and con) of Cornwell's criticism. The phrase Hitler's Pope is sufficiently provocative that it should be avoided except as a proper title of a book. Such an article should not include other criticisms of Pius XII, and should not refer to any "common perceptions". Otherwise, opinions and perceptions of Pius XII should be included in the Pius XII article, or in a separate article that is branched to from Pius XII.

It was I who marked it for breaching neutrality , Str retaliated marking Hiter's Pope, I also called rfc 's down .Famekeeper 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Second, it does not (in my opinion) accurately summarize Cornwell's book. I have read Cornwell's book. I agree with most of what he says. As a Catholic, it saddens me to agree with Cornwell, but I think that Pacelli, with the best of intentions, did not serve the Church well. However, I do not think that the article accurately reflects Cornwell's case against Pius XII.

The article never limited itself so .

I see a lengthy argument about various points of canon law. I do not see the applicability of the arguments to this article.

It appears that there have been some violations of Wikiquette. I do not want to name names without doing more research. I would suggest that everyone be sure to remain civil.

Robert McClenon 14:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hallo sir and thanks for this . I feel that this user conflict is so serious that it should have peer arbitration ( historians) . This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is not evident . Were you able to visit the Centre Party Page and come to a similar conclusion? Did you read the citations of historians who allude to Kaas, Pacelli and the catholic retreat in 1933 which I have as necessary been posting ? Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events ? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded , meaning the citable perceptions? Are you prepared to defend such , as they are uncomfortable to the papacy ? If you say that you will , I will send a branch page off from his papal page and re-write all the citations that I used to back the views. Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy  ? Maybe you have not read the archived references , but I should like to say that throughout my entire period editing, I received a brick wall of defence and I am much tired at the necessity to combat everything that is wished left out . Now do I have to accept your single opinion or would you please not leave the RFC until several editors can see how little has been achieved and how hard I have justified the cases ? Sleazy - by the way comes from silesian ( a friend of mine with silesian roots once told me ) . I deny that the collection of bad wikiquette as saved here Str1977 is honest : at least half of the criticisms relate to the church but are listed as personal . If I were not so exhausted by this battle , I would be very angry . Please do read the archives and please understand that this is not monocausality -it is a fight to allow reality to enter the WP over a wide ranging set of pages , all of them subject to this battle . The law , the canonicals are absolutely vital to this , and I beg you to follow the reasoning . Vital because it governs these clerical actors , one a crucial politician who negotiated a bridge with Hitler . I object as of now to the other pages I requested the RFC to cover . I suppose the final alternative would be a special mirror out of WP altogether ..... I have thought this from the start . Please read the archived reasoning everywhere it is placed , and please leave the RfC for the Centre Party Germany and Ludwig Kaas , and here . Can we have more opinions on Hitler's Pope ? Famekeeper 18:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You Famekeeper wrote: 'This is a scandal which spreads across decades and countries and is not purely to do with the papacy , or nazism , or germany or anti-semitism or law. Therefore because it spreads across hitherto unconnected articles there is nowhere that the battle , which I claim amounts to POV censorship , is not evident .'

You write: 'Are you prepared to continue to defend the wiki by defending one who so undermines the papacy?' Who are you saying undermines the papacy? If you are arguing that the conduct of Eugenio Pacelli was not worthy of the papacy, which appears to be your case, then what do you mean about defending the wiki? Why not present the case against Pacelli by quoting scholars, such as Cornwell, who criticize him?

I'm not allowed to quote anybody ever .

What exactly do you mean about defending the wiki? Who is attacking it?

Apologists , revisionists

I have read the article on the Centre Party. It does appear to be neutral. I do agree that expansion is in order as to the dissolution of the party, and the nature of the moral error by its leaders. (Did they misjudge Hitler's motives? Did they collude with Hitler? Did they overrate the importance of central power?) It is clear that moral errors were made. What the moral errors were is a matter of POV, and therefore different views should be presented with a neutral point of view.

You are unable to see whether it is neutral , which proves my point rather . "The(centre) party was out-lawed by Hitler", before I came along -check that right at the start of the history . The moral errors are not a matter of POV to the Catholic Church , as you realise, being a catholic, surely ?

Please explain what the scandal is that spreads across decades and countries. I agree that great wrongs were done. Please explain what you are saying is the scandal that spreads across decades and countries. I can see several possible answers, but I do not want to guess at what you mean.

You wrote: "Are you saying that Pacelli did influence the events? Are you saying that these historical perceptions should be recorded, meaning the citable perceptions? " Of course I acknowledge that Pacelli influenced the events. What is the question?

You wrote: "The law, the canonicals are absolutely vital to this, and I beg you to follow the reasoning." Please explain. I am trying to understand, but the arguments about canon law appear to have been dispersed over so many archives that I do not understand, and need a summary. It is clear to me that there were moral errors made by many people in Germany and Italy. Why is it important to argue the details of canon law?

Robert McClenon 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

(To you ) I meant that by qualifying anything here yourself , without apparently studying the history( in WP terms) , you assist an un-reasonable editing . Reason is something un-obtainable here if citations are not to be recognised and acted upon . This is basic Wikipedia . I refer to reason and goodwill in terms of catholic biased editing , evident in Str1977 actions and throughout the WP presentation of this church - I warned you that this is the case , not that you are unreasonable or biased .

I have said lots of things : I several times accused Str1977 of putting them in archives precisely to hide them from such as yourself - partly in order to draw 'you' into pressing his user button by mistake , thereby rvealing his out of context and dammning quotations from myself . For example I said that 'you should be controlled' meaning an illegal(by their own definition) church should be controlled etc.

I have explained that because there is and was , no international law ( it was not a crime to have assisted Hitler to power) that the only relevant law governs those who claim that law :the Roman Church . My purpose is to bring that legality back into effect : the same law is used in Humanae Vitae to rule the lives of living people today . That is why this issue relates to condoms and AIDS . Truth is either truth or undone . I have stated that the law is good in itself , to show that I hold only good will . I am adjudged despicably impious for simply stating the full rigour of this law . I am not a christian , except by agreement with the goodness of the original law (romans 3, 8) . Str1977 is bound though , by canonical law ,to defend the pontiff (any pontiff) as are you , I am forced to clarify . It sounds as though you are open-minded on this , and speak from a clear heart without fear for yourself . That would be completely in order, given that you do not expect to have to yourself commit wrong , or defend wrong . I can assure you that there is here no legal wrong other than the transgression of romans : the canonical law breaking is qualification , that proves who was in charge , what the order of delegation was, and how interference in the civil order was sanctioned .

I apologise if I gave you a shock with my words , which are always written in a public spirit of general relevance . I have been angered through-out by unreason , not by your reasoning . I do still urge you /everyone to be most careful : you are effectively being intellectually stalked by a knowingly criminal organisation ( I have proved the criminality which is there for you to read , if you can find it ).

I am defending the wikipedia in the sense that I am trying to include a complete version of history against a censored version . You should imagine how dangerous the WP seems to say , the CDF (Ratzingers old office, which is the Inquisition) when they see the freedom and interactivity . This freedom and power is anathema to a secret unaccountable organisation , which is a State ,and you would be naive in the extreme if you did not think that WP would need a reaction , and that this Spring's Vatican communications conference concerning the internet etc. called while JPII was alive, had nothing whatever to do with WP .If I had not interposed myself none of this would have appeared in even the cursory way that Str1977 has allowed . What you yourself say in relation to the Centre Party Germany pages , I had effected and it has been deleted repeatedly . This is not acceptable ,in general . You are the first person in a year who has entered this in a manner which sounds independant, and I would be very pleased if you would simply start at the beginning of my user history and work through , in order to come up to date , Str1977 records the different user-names that losing my ID cookie forced me to assume . Fortunateley I am ,as chided, very monocausal and everything I have written relates to the scandal : I have had no time to work on anything except this defence of freedom . And I placed the rfc in order that your reason enter , for several articles . Could you check that they are still in place -I get lost ? Thankyou for your attention . Famekeeper 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Slow down. I was asking for short answers. You need to provide a short summary of your case. I do not have the inclination to read through years of discussion to determine what your case is.

1. You speak of a scandal that spreads through decades and countries. What do you mean? Do you refer to the Nazi ascendancy in 1933 itself, or to the Holocaust, or to what you allege is a rewriting or censoring of history.

2. Please explain what is wrong with the Centre Party article. It is true that it says very little about the motives of its leaders for its dissolution. I agree that expansion would be in order on that point. However, motives are difficult to ascertain. They may be explained in writing by the actors, but there can be questions as to the honesty of those explanations. They can also be inferred, but in those cases the NPOV would be to quote scholars with different interpretations. It is self-evident that moral errors were made by the leaders of the Centre Party. It is not self-evident what the errors were, because they have to do with motive. We can either leave the article as it is, discussing the known facts, or expand it with multiple interpretations of motives.

replace the quid pro quo removal for starters

3. You write: "I do still urge you /everyone to be most careful : you are effectively being intellectually stalked by a knowingly criminal organisation ( I have proved the criminality which is there for you to read , if you can find it )." Please tell me what the knowingly criminal organization is, and where the proof is.

The proof is in the histories , most reference the church's volte face and approbation of Nazism at this 33 juncture. This is redundant _ I quoted the papal words at you , yesterday

4. Do not suggest that I do extensive research in order to determine what your case is, without giving me a short summary of what it is.

Done , here below

I suggest you take cognizance of str1977 rv, and edits following my additions. Its a drag because they are too often marked minor when they are long or strong edits : perhaps you don't have the time or regret being involved -I'll go for calling arbitration if you prefer

Robert McClenon 15:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XI Comment from 1933 , Reason and Good Will

Is this really about Pope Pius I, or about Pope Pius XI, or about Pope Pius XII?

Typo, sorry

Robert McClenon 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Franz von Papen is on record relating the words of this Pope , whom I placed in this article . On page 315 of John Toland's 1976 Adolf Hitler (Doubleday) appears the following relation of Papen's April visit to the vatican ( the same one I cited before -this is repetition)

His Holiness welcomed Hitler's representative , Franz von Papen , " most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms."

Indeed .Through Pacelli and through the Hierarchy , Pope Pius XI knew much more , and undoubtedly was aware of the exterminating anti-semitic nature of Hitlerism , as Hitler was braggardly in claiming that (Toland writes) "He was only going to do more effectively what the Church of Rome had been attempting for so many centuries ". Earlier in April Hitler had defended his legislation , the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools , in a talk with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann saying "the Jews were nothing but pernicious enemies of the State and Church " .

Whilst this was aimed at driving Jews out of academic life and the public professions, there were many Hitlerian explicit references to Jews perishing and being eradicated out of Europe.

Robert McClenon I beg you, Sir , to be very mindful of your position . Str1977's attitude and actions I have already qualified . All right thinking people should be most disturbed by these actions , and should seek more expansion rather than that wicked-ness should still reign by omission . Place the rfc's please , everywhere they were pointed .

I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law . That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination . Robert McClenon I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell , but to the history . Necessarily , the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated . I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason . Famekeeper 00:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is puzzled, and asks:

You write: "I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason." Please be more specific in identifying where reason is being suffocated. I was, as a responsible Wikipedian, requested to review this page. I did that. I am trying to figure out where reason is being suffocated. Perhaps you have not made your case. Please try again.

You asked me to "be very mindful of your position". That is exactly what I am trying to do. What are you saying about my position I should be mindful about?

A belief in good will in the WP

You wrote: "I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell , but to the history. Necessarily, the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated . I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason."

Please try to enlighten me. I think that I am an intelligent and well-educated human being. Please be more specific in asking me how to reconsider my position. By the way, I am not sure what my position is, except that a neutral point of view should be presented.

Robert McClenon 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Canon Law Issues Again?

Is a Wikipedia talk page for article really for discussion of issues related to how the article can be improved, or is it really for a flame war?

The discussion of canon law appears to be simply a restatement of previously argued points. I will try to summarize what I think the issue is, and would appreciate comments that do not tell me to research a long record.

It appears that one Wikipedian thinks that certain Catholic leaders in the 1930's were guilty of moral error in their negotiation of the Concordat that amounted to willed sin rising to the level calling for excommunication. There clearly were errors that can be seen in retrospect by Pius XI, by the future Pius XII, and by the leaders of the Centre Party. Hindsight is often clear. The question is whether those who made the errors deserve to be condemned as wicked, or merely to be recognized as having made mistakes.

This borders on POV (your statement) :I cited sources . This borders therefore on allowing another wikipedian to censor citation against WP rules , if no more

Exactly what is being alleged is the nature and motive of the errors by Pius XI, Pius XII, and Ludwig Kaas?

Breaking romans 3,8 injuction against doing evil to promote a good.

The mere fact that we can see now that their actions contributed to the rise of Hitler to power does not mean that we should judge them as having engaged in collusion with Hitler. Cornwell does not make that allegation. That is a much stronger charge than any made by Cornwell.

Humanitas International in a holocaust timeline refer repeatedly to Kaas' movement directly between Hitler and the vatican preceding and following the Enabling Act , when Kaas threw in the democratic towel . Historians suhgesst there is a quid pro quo element , or a very firm suspicion of it.

It should be clear from a reading of Mit Brennender Sorge that Pius XI had expected Hitler to honor the Concordat. We can see today that he should not have expected Hitler to behave honourably. Can we say that he should have known that Hitler would behave dishonourably? Even if we say that he should have known that, can we really condemn him as having acted immorally by presuming that he knew that Hitler would violate the Concordat?

This is POV .

Cornwell claims that Pius XII made systematic errors of judgment and emphasis that had the tragic effect of assisting Hitler (without any intention by Pius XII). He concludes that he was "Hitler's pawn", but that must be interpreted as meaning that Hitler was manipulating him, not that he was allowing himself to be manipulated.

The excommunication case has to be something much stronger than any that Cornwell made. What is it?

Robert McClenon 20:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel pressured to research the posting . The accusation is that the Church backed the dissolution of democracy in favour of autocratic Hitlerism, consciously ,as being in the best interest , despite knowing this to entail likely anti-semitic murder and inhumanity of man to man , in order to defeat or prevent the spread of communistic atheism . Can I expect you to have some knowledge of the avowed Hitlerian position  ? I never said this was limited to Cornwell and (have always0 said that the problem for the other editor is precisely that I introduce corroboration from another source, and very many historical criticisms of the church from the historians . Silly me , it seems to expect reflection of these historians . I posted the excommunication issue , I will dig it up for you .... Famekeeper 22:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Here it is -do note the words quid pro quo as used by another editor ...

I have taken the liberty of deleting the long topic being repeatedly copied from the Talk:Pope Pius XII page. Conf 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And I take the liberty of inserting this relevant statement by user [[John}}K "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."

Conf, can you shed any light on posthumous excommunication , by any chance ? Flamekeeper 09:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What has all this got to do with discussion about an article on Pope Benedict? Ann Heneghan 09:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It has to do with Pope Benedict XVI's use of the term 'complicity with Evil' in 2004 and his being the Prefect in charge of everything .The theological injunction comes from the Prefect . He is in charge of the above . But , were the possibility of excommunication to arise concerning the above then the article would indeed have to include a report that would answer the questions raised . A first question would be that if a Pope could, because he should ( debateable) , excommunicate a Pope (two here in this case ) posthumously , then would the legitimacy of the living Pope not be called itself into question ? It is just as well that the Pontiff is still the Prefect ,or, maybe theres a simple way out . To assert that this is speculation is contradicted by the Prefectoral re-iteration and by the above authors , if the user:JohnK report is correct . Flamekeeper 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I can't provide much knowledge regarding posthumous excommunication. (The other talk pages where connected issues arise are Talk:Centre Party (Germany), where the quote comes from, and Talk:Theology of Pope Benedict XVI.) Conf 17:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Flamekeeper. in this place you stated I had written "that it would be that a declaration of automatic excommunication would be declared under latae sententiae" At this time let me just state I did nothing of the kind. A fuller answer will follow.

Sorry- it was this you told me "The Church cannot excommunicate anyone posthumously. It can declare after someone's death that s/he had incurred automatic excommunication -- but that's not quite the same thing." Your previous but one sentence had dealt with Hitler and latae sententiae.

"True, but Catholics argue that his actions and words would have incurred automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."

Let the actual relevance of the law be the way forward , less my good faith. Eg: latae sententiae(automatic)? You can see that very minute assertion in the article would mitigate this quality of frustrated attention we see . I suggest you yourself are well qualified to provide the rendering . You could create a viable section perhaps on the Theology page and doubtless agreement would follow what be the simple bases of the laws as relevant to all the issues upon this current page . [User:Flamekeeper|Flamekeeper]] 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy , including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiaeneeding equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I take from excommunication.net 's Canonical action pages http:www.//excommunication.net/Canonical_action/Abortion_related_canons.htm in the Catechism of the Catholic Church .

canon 1336 section 1:Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish,these penalties are as follows part no 2: a deprivation of power,office,function,right,privelige,faculty,favour title or insignia,even of a merely honorary nature; part no 3: a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in no.2 , or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place : such prohibition is never under pain of nullity. section 2 : Only those expiatory penalties may be latae sententiae which are enumerated in section 1 , part no. 3 . Other subsequent Canons refer back to Canon 1336. above but Canon 1329 may refer to the Question of the Law raised under Pope Pius XII

Canon 1329 Section 1 :Where a number of persons conspire together to commit an offence , and accomplices are not expressly mentioned in the law or precept,if ferendae sententiae penalties were constituted for the principal offender , then the others are subject to the same penalties or to other penalties of the same of lesser gravity. Section 2 : In the case of a latae sententiae penalty attached to an offence , accomplices, even though not mentioned in the law or precept , incur the same penalty if, without their assistance , the crime would not have been committed , and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect them ; otherwise , they can be punished with ferendae sententiae penalties . Ferendae sententiae refers to instituted legal trial and judgement whereas latae sententiae refers to automatic penalties incurred by the more serious classes of offences which do not require the judgement of a Superior judge . It would appear that 1329 relates to the situation of Pope Pius XI as opposed to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII).

With relevance to historical writers terming this the great scandal of history it says in

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired. The details of excommunication can be seen at newadvent.com see 1 and it is stated that excommunication is the spiritual sword and is not merely the severing of the outward bonds that holds an individual to a place in the Church, but also the severing of the forum internum or internal bond to the Church and the sentence pronounced on earth is ratified in heaven affecting and binding Souls . Prevention of abuse and thus devaluation of the sentencing confined the judgement to Bishops . In foro externoexcommunication has become defunct whereas penalty in foro interno is close to the subject of the above American communion controversy . The penalty of excommunication is constituted as a medicative measure , that is to require the subject to undertake corrective measure .There once was ( before 1884 ) a difference between ,however, this minor corrective penitental measure , as in the denial of the Sacrements and real major excommunication as in the sword . Since then major excommunication alone is used , and charged either a jure( by law) or ab hominem ( by civil judicial act ).

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae .

Contradictions ,in terms of time and how law presented by effectively excommunicated Pope's can be quoted , follow , as all laws promulgated under those circumstance would exist in nullity and therefore the relevant law would have to return to its origin in Romans 3,8.

According to the Church a dead Christian cannot be excommunicated because at death the baptised Christian ceases to be a part of the Church Militant . A dead Christian can be censured and it be declared that during his lifetime that he had incurred excommunication , or , indeed , be absolved .

It seems rather contra-dictory , considering the former ruling which bound even the souls in heaven .

Relating to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching concerning the Protestant Churches it says that it (their effective excommunication) is not a question of personal excommunication but that their censure overtakes them in their corporate capacity as members of a community in revolt against the true Church of Jesus Christ .

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( Contumacy.

In relation to defence in the accusation , a lack of liberty resulting from great fear ( of Communism ) will be more readily accepted as excuse for violating a positive law , than as palliative for offence against the Divine Law.

To overcome the above problems of nullity with respect more to the conditions for the remaining faithful than to the status of the excommunicated , a principle of severity as regards the excommunicated is balanced with a mildness towards the faithful . Inconvenience caused by the nullity of certain acts by the censured cannot be rigidly maintained , and , presumably less so in this case .

The subjects should not have consecrated mass throughout their condition , and should not have received or remain in their consecrated burial . They could suffer total loss of Jurisdiction both in foro interno and in foro externo and the rendering as null of all acts accomplished without that necessary jurisdiction . In such an extreme case the Church apparently would be able to supply jurisdiction ( in retrospect?)Flamekeeper 13:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's your point to delegitimize the papal succession by alledging Pius XI or XII incurred excommunication, you are mistaken.

The pope cannot be excommunicated. The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope. It'd probably lead to some strange version of sedisvacancy, at least in effect. This is all unclear, as it has never happened - and God-willing never will. Even if the pope had incurred automatic excommunication, or lost the "state of grace", that doesn't affect his authority, as according to universal Christian tradition, with only the early African church dissenting (see Donatism), that a priest's or bishop's authority to distribute the sacraments (including ordination) or the validity of these sacraments do NOT depend on the priest or bishop being in the "state of grace". (That doesn't mean this state won't have consequences for the cleric in question.) Str1977 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the above Canons relating to consecrated burial, please see Cadaver Synod for a rather interesting, albeit macabre, application of church law. Just leave it to lawyers (either canon or civil) to mess things up. Sorry, I promise - no more attorney jokes. Aloysius Patacsil 23:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good heavens! Conf 00:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Phew! That'll save a lot of troube . Whatever you can prove ,you can prove and thus legitimacy may be or is safe . On discussion with you now on the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI , however , is the regularisation (Censure) . The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables.

* * *

That is long. Please give me a short summary.

You state that the Church, or some of its clerics, supported the dissolution of democracy in favor of autocratic Hitlerism, knowing the risk of anti-Semitic murder, in order to check the spread of atheistic Communism. That would be a moral error, because it would be a violation of the principle of double action. I agree. You have made a valid case for moral error, if you can establish that those were the motives.

Motive is supplied by the words of Pius XI quoted this page for you, by the Brok relation of the Kaas-read , Pacelli-written thought-of Pius XI and supported by the numerous analyses of historians , which I can repeat , that recognise that there was an adjacent approbation alongside the Concordat . I shorten this last to volte face for these discussions , whose aim is to improve the NPOV nature of WP . My statements are coralling : similarly they shorten by enjoining various historical interpretations of the events . However when requested , I expand as I can or need . Such as with claimed divine or canonical law .

Can you show me a canon that states that errors in dealing with double action (a difficult concept) are grave sins, warranting excommunication? Can you show me how you would address my reasonable doubts that the errors required excommunication.

A jure is the law itself which declares that he that shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication at the offence ipso eo and therefore relates to this case of the law raised in virtue of the actions of 1933 through latae sententiae . No intervention of an ecclesiastical judge is needed if it is the case as contested under Humanae Vitae ( being against the preservation of the moral order etc as in the bed -bottom romans 3.8 injunction .

The most turgid part of the canonicals, and the longest ,deals with that here already on this page, subtracted from where it was not wanted , but needed temporarily to be ( The Benedict XVI discusion ) .The essence is that a breaking of the magisterium or divine teaching of the Bible ( the simple law in romans 3.8 forbidding active choice of an evil even to achieve a good ) is what excommunicates . Read that section with that in mind , and your wisely canonically informed mind , which questions me about double actions , will find all the remaining issues of exactly how to deal with and rectify the scandal . Self excommunication is the conclusion , and a comment is required most urgently from the pontiff , all the rest explains the internal procedures of law relevant to the conclusion resting on the magisterium in summary .

Give me a short summary. Please be sure to distinguish between moral error (which we all sometimes do) and willed grave sin.

Above is willed grave sin or is it not ?

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

It appears to me that you may yourself help in qualification IF 287 section 1) is broken . Historians allude to this as approbation from the church , including Birthday greetings to Hitler on 23 April from Kaas in the Vatican , magnified throughout Germany , and reversal of the Hierarchy'd condemnation as far as providing a blessing on the fuhrer. perhaps Str1977 , will comment on the term Fuhrer in terms of its novelty or otherwise at that date, and upon the connotations in relation to the common good of people . However that might return us to a questioning as to whether democracy is in fact desirable or beneficial , again , ( said in summary of long sections of our interaction). As a non-canonical lawyer nor believer in the divinity of this injunction against doing evil

, I should say it is most grave overturning of the vital concepts of christianity , the magisterium . Below the other part of the canon 287 , reveals the line of command . We could blame the officers , but for the fact that there was wilful contumacy or understanding of the crime , by all three (lets leave the rest of the Hierarchy to one side, for the moment) :

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it

You will note that these canons of "divine or canonical law" relate to people and common good . They do not specify race or nationality . They are a world and a heaven away from Hitlerian thinking and therein lies the scandal IF historians consider the Concordat bought with the Enabling act ( and the Hierarchical volte face approbation) . I report this , and am naturally indignant when I see its absence from WP, and its diminuishment so active . I refer you , despite his not liking it , to the Kenny description of the 'authoritaive Atkins and Tollett and etc citations made . Yes , I will repeat any source required of me .

Absent from the WP presentation of history are reports concerning pontifical attitude to some of these races possession of co-brands of christianity . I speak of the orthodox church , which I will leave out entirely , but for reporting the present day california Federal suit against the vatican concerning precisely this , interposed upon BXVI's article page . Present in the accusations reported are Communists , who threatened with atheism , and combined , by all reports, into amillenial duration of anti-semitism with that the short-lived bolsheviki . This is not yet dealt with by complaint , except to class the article as POV . Doubtless we will , as the results of this scandal become more understood . John Paul II reaped the benefits of these excommunicable actions , or alternatively , the Church has to prove that a fear of disbelief is more dangerous than the upending and loss of the worldy order . If they claim this , and justify the offences against romans in this manner , it is hard to see what purpose humanity plays in 'god's' will .

Robert McClenon 05:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Traceability of discourse

If you insert statements into a signed statement that I made asking questions, please sign them. I find the unsigned commentary in my statements and questions to be unreadable. Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary

I think that I now understand. It appears that Famekeeper is saying that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Ludwig Kaas made moral errors in allowing evil to be done so that good could prevail, and therefore violated Catholic teaching on double action. I said the same thing about Pope Pius XII and Ludwig Kaas. All living and recently dead humans have made moral errors. We disagree as to the extent of the moral errors. And there is no point in discussing this at more length. Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Would mediation be acceptable? - Is it time to request mediation?

Famekeeper wrote, responding to Robert McClenon:

"I suggest you take cognizance of str1977 rv, and edits following my additions. Its a drag because they are too often marked minor when they are long or strong edits : perhaps you don't have the time or regret being involved -I'll go for calling arbitration if you prefer"

The policies of Wikipedia are that arbitration is a last resort, when all other remedies have failed. We have not yet tried mediation. I am not ready to request arbitration until mediation has been tried. I am ready to request mediation, but all parties must agree to that. Shall I, as the third opinion, request mediation?

If not, shall I be bold and edit this article to be only a discussion of the Cornwell book, and to move all discussion of Pius XII to his own page and to move all discussion of the Centre Party to its page? Robert McClenon 06:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree to that . I put up this page because I asked my oldest cousin, what did he think about this scandal, and he replied_"but it's nothing new-we all knew he was Hitler's Pope "......... Can I ask you ,Robert McClenon what your previous useranme was on the WP, as I wished to check out your specialities, and the User Contributions only seem to start on 12 July this month ? Thankyou .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that you cannot agree to mediation, or do you mean that you cannot agree to have me edit the article? Do you want me to request mediation? Are you requesting mediation?

I think the article should reflect the history and analysis of the interlinked factors behind the vatican's choice of Hitler, not the reverse . I suppose this is where users think it is two articles , because of course both Cornwell's use of the term Hitler's pope and mine , relate to the same concept of collaboration . Note that I do not claim that Pacelli or Pius or Kaas retained their belief in the usefulness of Hitler, only will I say now that they helped create a monster . I say that the peace making by Pacelli /Pius XII (and Kaas)in 1940 and 43 reveals a continuing ability to contemplate a non-democratic government in germany , under racial dimensions , despite their experience of the Nazis A genuine article would need to expand immensely upon this and upon the anti-semitism (see discussion page BXVI ).

Robert McClenon 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" is a POV. Even Cornwell never states that he was intentionally acting as Hitler's Pope. As an article name, the phrase "Hitler's Pope" is non-NPOV unless it refers only to the book. Robert McClenon 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I come from the published memoirs of Edgar Ansel Mowrer in the first instance who clearly accuses the church of promoting Hitler from 1932 not 1933 through the Centre Party . I am not entirely concerned as to whether this suceeded before March 1933 or whether it succeeded at all, it is enough that this was attempted for it to risk automatic excommunication at that time . I believe the general consensus is that there was in fact a quid pro quo instituting an inhuman dictatorship against peace and harmony and the moral order of man . I do not come from Cornwell 's book and it is not my concern whether he has or has not made these accusations . Edgar Ansel Mowrer stands in his own right as a Chicago Daily Tribune pulitzer prize-winner . This nonsense prevents me from finishing his page . Famekeeper, who has not signed his post properly 14:12, 19 July 2005

Dear Robert,

I'd agree to your "edit(ing) this article to be only a discussion of the Cornwell book". However, I don't think moving discussions is necessary since there are posted there already anyway.

Dear FK,

Are you saying you are against moving this all on to Pope Pius XII links ?

it's true that I used the minor function too frequently when I was a newbie but I hope I have bettered. Again, now that I checked EAM's book I don't object to his rendition being included in the Centre party page, but the proper dimension of the article and qualifications of this source have to be maintained and I can only accept what he actually says, no more no less.

Any other sources you have cited so far (Klemperer, Lewy, Kenney's book) have not provided what you claimed they did - what they supported is already in the article.

Str1977 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

When one has time for this , you are great fun, but really . ....I know this , every inch has to be won , and then re-fought . I have already fought your editing using these authors and several more . You deny , but of course not one of them makes the entire report - they all piece together . What is needed is more not less . I don't claim that, say ,Klemperer's earnest tome about the widerstand in any way centers upon the catholic church in this regard. I simply quoted what he does say . And ,it names Kaas along with von Papen( accused at Nuremberg and let off as we agreed , for lack of the requisite law( strangely enough one like in romans) of being cardinal in the process for abandonment through the Enabling Act , of the parliamentary power .

Wikipedia and Hitler Issues Concerning the Catholic Church

I was the person to suggest mediation-but I have also suggested that these may need arbitration . I have constantly warned that the value of the WP is prejudiced by faith-based editing , I do not think I am alone in estimating it so .

I am not particularly concerned about Cornwell - I associate the direct historical analyses of the vatican policy towards Nazism , which I have cited and I reported as I can or , it seems , cannot . I have managed to provide balance to the Pius XII article and I repeat that that which is on his page contradicts complaint here on this article . That fell on deaf ears , and remains a contradiction .

I asked Str1977 whether he would tell us his deutsch WP user name and I have asked you a similar question concerning your editing history . I repeat that your user history started last week , or says so , and wonder how you come to this position as potential mediator with no history ? Surely this a fair question , as it was to Str1977 ? You have also written that you neither have the time or wish to follow the editing battles in the archives , and that nor do you have any particular knowledge of the history . It therefore might be difficult to sort a POV from a historical analysis .

I am afraid that that there are sufficient reasons to think that Pius XI and the future Piuz XII were as one in the quid pro quo for the concordat , and that Monsignor Kaas was their tool . In so far as historians analyse this , there may well have been regret by all of them , though history in fact suggests that even by 1940 and then by 1943, that Pius XII was still blind to the true Nazi iniquity , and contemplated and furthered a negotiation and sttlement of the war which would have left Germany still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law . This is a scandal referred to and diplomatically passed upon, and was considered a great danger to the war effort . Certainly it shows that Kaas, who was involved on both wartime occasions , and Pacelli who was in charge , remained important relevant figures to Germany .

Discussion as to whether or not Pacelli was Hitler's pope has not entered the Pius XII article , which is still claiming that from 1933 there were anti-Nazi complaints from the vatican : this is nonsense and POV . There were no complaints from the Vatican but rather the reverse, there was public approbation of Hitler as beneficial leader , there were blessings called down upon his head by the leading German Cardinal (who mysteriously changed from critcism to approbation) and all in all there ws a massive organised conspiracy to wean sufficient of the german catholic populace away from their doubts and dislike of Nazism towards joining it . This can be said to emanate from the vatican , and to have been over-seen by the future Pius XII as secretary of State . vast number s of catholics were encouraged by this vatican approbation , including the concordat , to join with th Nazis. The concordat is well known to have been Hitler's crown of respecability . POV-?

So , no . You are not showing signs of understanding , nor the desire to understand , but you are already claiming what is or is not POV. This is not therefore acceptable . Please answer the question about your user history , and I may feel that I am wrong on this your capacity .....Famekeeper 08:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some things

you complain about "faith-based editing". Though I am a practising Catholic and try to life according to the faith (though I fail quite often), my editing is no more faith-based than any other's. I'm a Catholic (and still don't work for the Vatican), but I'm also a historian and am mainly interested in factual accuracy of historical topics, like this one. However, what kind of epithet should we give to your editing, considering that you hardly ever contributed anything else than the same accusations all over again and again and again.

Monocausal you wrote about my editing, inter-linking is required because of the history : I begin conclude that you are such a nice guy , that your sense of taste and justice and propriety , leads you in this . One could easily believe , if one didn't have respect for such as Mowrer , who were there and who saw with their own eyes , heard with their own ears . I do not believe that Mowrer invented this damning letter, and i think it high time that soem historian revealed more, or we find where they have . Again , I proved vatican secrecy- and it is surprising you didnt know about the vatican episode ( peace making 41 amd 43) which have been reported to lesser analysis than KvKlemperer for decades . So , no , it wouldn't actually prove anything if it didn'ty showe up in their records : Bruning surely mentioned it . either way , that relates to may 1932 , the historians who reference quid pro quo certainly don't see it as actively imposed until early 1933 .

You're saying: "I am afraid that that there are sufficient reasons to think that Pius XI and the future Piuz XII were as one in the quid pro quo for the concordat , and that Monsignor Kaas was their tool."

This is right insofar the actual Concordat negotiations starting with Papen's arrival in Rome. The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. The party's demise was not their intention and it is obvious that the party was a dead man at that point.

I fear that that is a literal view of the negotiations, and reminds me that you deny a great deal when it suits yopur propriety, such as the general view that kaas stayed repeatedly with pacelli in the vatican, they'd known each other well for years and years , etc ... whatever leads you. I will continue with this , as you need , post-haste . Analysis of the widerstand , good . Thankyou . Famekeeper 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that were no complaints from the Vatican after 1933 is totally incorrect. There were complaints, based on the terms of the concordat and your calling it "nonsense and POV" is excactly that: (your) nonsense and POV. That's the Vatican's reason why the concordat was concluded: to have at least minimal protection from the regime. They could base their complaints. The alternative was "Konkordat oder Kirchenkampf". You might have preferred Kirchenkampf, but

a) you're no Catholic and it is not very noble to expect others to suffer for you

b) you're neither Pope nor Bishop and don't have responsibility of protecting your flock as best as possible

b) you overlook that there was nothing in the Concordat itself immoral, or going against faith and morals. (Yes, I know the partner was Hitler, well, no, actually the partner was the German Reich and no one knew how long Hitler would actually last. Even if he did last, than the concordat was needed even more urgently (see above)).

All your insinuations about conspiracy are your interpretations at best, wild phantasies at worst.

There were no blessings of Hitler, except for diplomatic formulae. The bishops' declaration no one disputed and it is controversial and I don't like it either (though that is of no importance) but note that it also retained the condemnation of Nazism.

"history in fact suggests that even by 1940 and then by 1943, that Pius XII was still blind to the true Nazi iniquity , and contemplated and furthered a negotiation and sttlement of the war which would have left Germany still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law ."

First note, that this is all your interpretation (or some historian's that you accepted, don't claim you don't do interpretation). Secondly, so now trying to mediate between parties of the war is wrong, especially when it involves resistance circles as you posted with the, though sadly unfinished and sometimes incomprehensible, Vatican exchange section? Please consider, that any settlement, especially if it had involved Hitler's deposing/death, anything that would have stopped the war would have saved millions of lives. Consider that, had Stauffenberg's coup succeeded and stopped the war, the death toll of the war would have been half as big. And even less, if something had happened in 1940.

You complain that "still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law" - well, we don't know what the government would have looked like after a successful coup. Granted, the military types were not exactly democrats, but there was also the Kreisau circle. However all resisters (save maybe the Communists, but maybe even these) wanted to restore the rule of law, the mere fundamental basics of humanity and civility. Especially the right-wingers among the resisters didn't oppose Hitler out of mere political reasons, not because they considered him a "Fascist" or a "tool of the reaction". But maybe you think that democracy is so great and indispensible in itself (note, I'm not detracting it) that some millions are a price worth paying. Please at least consider this.

Str1977 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Restatement of the question as to mediation

Famekeeper wrote: "I was the person to suggest mediation-but I have also suggested that these may need arbitration." Famekeeper then wrote: " I repeat that your user history started last week , or says so , and wonder how you come to this position as potential mediator with no history ? Surely this a fair question , as it was to Str1977 ? You have also written that you neither have the time or wish to follow the editing battles in the archives , and that nor do you have any particular knowledge of the history . It therefore might be difficult to sort a POV from a historical analysis "

Perhaps I was not clear. I was not proposing to mediate. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee. Famekeeper had written that arbitration might be necessary. Wikipedia has a well-defined dispute resolution process, in which arbitration is the last step, undertaken only as a last resort when other processes have failed or would be futile. The first step is discussion to reach consensus. That has been tried, and has not succeeded. It is difficult to reach consensus on controversial issues, or on how to present controversial issues with a neutral point of view. Another step in the dispute resolution process is a Request for Comments. Someone posted a Request for Comments (RfC). I do not know or care whether it was Famekeeper, Str1977, or someone else. I read the Request for Comments page and followed the links. That is why I have no previous history in these pages before 12 July 2005.

The next step in the dispute resolution process can be mediation. That is done by a member of the Mediation Committee, after a Request for Mediation is posted. I was not offering to mediate. I was offering to post a Request for Mediation. However, mediation is only useful if all parties agree to mediation. That is why I was asking Famekeeper whether he would agree to mediation. I am also asking Str1977 whether he will agree to mediation.

I do know that a mediator is expected to come into a dispute with no previous involvement. I also know that, although mediators and arbitrators do read through the long history of a dispute, they also request a short summary. If Famekeeper is serious about wanting arbitration, he should respond to my requests for short summaries with short summaries.

There is no reason to go to arbitration unless someone refuses mediation or unless mediation fails.

I did read one of the talk page archives. It does not enlighten me. It merely shows that there has been an editing battle. As I said, I am not a mediator or an arbitrator. I do know that if I were a mediator or an arbitrator, and there was a dispute over article content that could not be resolved, I would ask each principal to write their own version of what they thought was an accurate NPOV article, rather than attempting to read all of the diffs.

Famekeeper: Would you agree to try mediation? Str1977: Would you agree to try mediation? Robert McClenon 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I myself called for mediation and placed the Ffc's for the interlinked articles, not just this one but Ludwig Kaas and the Centre Party Germany . I don't understand the user history at all, sorry . Are you saying that you happened to create a new user name , just prior to this , used it for various un-related articles shown , and then plunged in here using the new name .? I don't wish to be offensive but you come in to a very strident battle , and immediately start asking me questions about grave sin and more . You also claim that something is POV , before reading the relevant sections of justification . Apart from that I am happy to see another human hand here .

As to the rest , I tried uploading the summaries you required earlier but lost them all in process . I shall have to restate them now .

My position on this dispute is not as Str 1977 states on your discussion page , I'm afraid to say . This is not a POV by me nor limited to Mowrer , nor Tollett nor Wheeler-Bennett , nor Klemens von Klemperor , nor Shirer , nor Toland , all of whom I cited for Str19977 and John Kenny (well Kenny actually cited Tollet and Atkins (?) for me ) . Certainly there are another three writers presently in print with similar or parallel attacks such as Cornwell has made , none of which I am familiar with , but the American reading public would have seen in their reviews .

I categorically tell you that I have cited sufficiently from the other named authors to quote Hitler, Pius XI , Kaas ; to portray the fact that history , not I , suggests a shameful quid pro quo involving Cardinal Pacelli as principal actor  ; that this explains the German Hierarchy's papally obliged volte face in approbation of Hitler  ; that this describes , along with the Humanitas Foundation's holocaust timeline the key personalities in a close dance of interaction in the spring of 1933 , which i repeat , are not the subject of dispute despite a complete contradiction with Str1977 defence of the church -which I could quote , if required .

As I understood it , the citation of sources was a main plank of the WP . I tell you that a mediator would find these citations where they were relevant , and if necessary I shall dig them up and repeat them , one of which as I say was provided by John Kenny about the quid pro quo between the Concordat and the Enabling Act 'democratic suicide' . I tell you that the Enabling Act is studied in higher education , because of its importance , and if the sources link the two together , which to a greater or lesser extent , they picture , then it is fair to ask the WP to allow a representation of this . I have quoted at you the very words of Pope Pius XI in 1933 but you seem prepared to make limiting conclusions even so , which is a tad worrying .

I do agree that it appears to be a POV/NPOV set of issues and of course it is difficult , because of the wide spread of actors . I do not report that the vatican was a pawn of Hitler's , indeed I do not report that Pius XII was Hitler's Pope , I report towards the reverse , that the vatican consciously chose Hitler as their pawn : they were not the only to try and so do , as the Rhenish Westphalian Industrial Magnates certainly chose him , as I included in WP ,and that the Army chose him but not as a pawn , and that Franz von Papen represented forces that also chose to use him as pawn , but that is apart ) . I have not mentioned the Protestant faith, and I have not been left the time to do so by this constant battle against sources , and the need to actually determine the church norms - which I now will interpose between your questions above by way of summary .

In fact all I claim is that I am battling faith-bsed editing , which breaks wikipedia policy , and makes it next to impossiible to carry on in reason and under good will . No one els has taken on this battle , and in consequence I am the subject of suspicion and innuendo . I clearly recognise the position of the editor Str1977, and I object as strenuously as the moral context requires. When he estimates the minds of great men , including Adolf Hitler , I react with the required indignation , due to an enlightened age . I reacted to equanimity expressed towards dictatorship , and the result is I have you here rather alluding to this as if this were a disgraceful little editing war : it is not . It is a giant pullulating morass of wikedness which hurt real people and which to this day , conditions people and causes more war and hurt . Thus I warn you to be careful , to uphold the enlightened , to defend the norms of decency , and to realise the nature of the problem left by the history of men's actions . This is not a Famekeeper issue : it is a roman church issue , a german issue , a capitalist issue , a widerstand conscience issue, an issue for german protestantism , for appeasers , a democracy issue and at its heart yes , it is a moral issue .

I therefore object most strongly to any tone of condemnation . I think that since I hastily ill-remembered the Trieste as opposed to Bavarian birthplace of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , Pacelli's tool inside Democracy , that no one including Str1977 has faulted anything I wrote or discussed , only denied such as POV in order to remove the accusations history has proposed . In fact this is not true, I removed from the Cornwell thesis , his supposed(from a website condensation ) analysis concerning Pacelli's brother destabilising the Italian catholic Party similarly :Str1977 objected , so I removed it citing the source , as report , immediately . But if this is the wikpedia way , well , I have warned throughout that the mirroring of half-truth was filling the world with trash . As you will have seen from the Adam von Trott su Solz article , one word is enough to distort history completely . I think in that case it was not even intended, but that is even more frightening .

I am insulted for my writing , as verbose and a ranter, because the subjects are deep and cut down to the very nature of society and human developement . I am not well pleased at this treatment , but then I give as good as I get . Just by way of one example of that to which I allude , read a version of Pope Pius XII before I joined in , and you will find the standard whitewash : the critics are coralled into a separate period, that of his papal era , as the church apologists have continuously aimed to do for years. This way there is some hope of defence for him . Nothing was ever said about the extra-ordinary variation of church policy co-eval with the Concordat .

If arbitration can only be achieved by persons who come to the subject a new , well ,the WP suffers . This is not serious , if it is the case , and it is not what I a have alluded to in calls for arbitration . So be it, but if the persons do not take account of the course of the history (not editing) war , then it will prove the Wikipedia to be more a tool of danger than of benefot, and I , for one , am prepared to vary the attack completely and take aim at the WP for becoming a pawn of the vatican.Famekeeper 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please try to Be Concise

Famekeeper writes: "I am insulted for my writing, as verbose and a ranter, because the subjects are deep and cut down to the very nature of society and human developement." No. It is true that the subjects are deep and present difficult moral issues. However, the real reason why your writing is criticized is simply that you are verbose. the most likely reasons for that are that: first, that you are angry, and this causes you to be repetitive; second, you have not learned how to summarize what you are saying. Please try to learn to summarize your case when you are asked for a summary. Robert McClenon 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Solution of Question as to Mediation

I feel , if not experience , that there should be a straightforward resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts . That it is not a question of recantation , but of reason . I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn the motives of Str1977 , and hope this to be correct .

However this can only be done on the basis of adhering to the WP rules about citations and published sources . From the experience of Str1977's assiduity , I recommend him entirely , under these forces of reason . It appears to me that , au fond ,Str1977 (Str ?) is acting partly because that which his vision hitherto wishes to have been the accepted case ,is the vision of history un-tainted by this severe questioning . I do deny , however , that this re-building of vision is research : I am referring to published sources . Public sources .

Under the guidance of reason , we should be able to inhabit the same world , even this virtual WP reflection of it . If, for example , my fairly un-exotic memory remembers seeing direct evidential contradiction with the statement that there was no public "blessing" or such of Hitler from an ecclesiatical source , and if I take the effort to sift back to produce this, then reason dictates. The argument should then be the merits of the writer sourced , the validity of the report in truth and perhaps proven to the contrary -by another source .

There is no carte blanche , there is only reason and good will . If I point to a contradiction in law , whomsoever's law , based on evidence sourced reasonably , I should expect , as seems to emanate from McClenon , a reasonable variation in reaction to one un-coloured by this information . At a few times , Str and I found this , but I think the gravity and explosive nature of the reports made the connection between will and reason difficult . One can wish as a will , but it is not helpful . I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary .

As I might answer these most interesting questions arising from the widerstand, for they relate to this reconciliation , I will , equally , bear fully in mind the willed criticisms that I harshly judge and harshly & judgementally act , and that this alone proves me to be less than those who act acted then in defence of this will . I believe that the ecclesiastics acted through will , possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill . This gets back to my harsh criticisms , that 'you' should 'be controlled'.The fact is that the world has no more geo-political space left for this action through will . Nowhere is this beneficial : reason alone , as I have specified , is bound to goodness whereas will alone has no authority . Whichever body of men claim to act by will alone become a danger : the will that would say this is so because we will it so can have no place in reason or good governance . This is one of the central issues of our day , and all things are inter-connected , like the hairs on our heads or the birds in a field . The relevance of this article is total : it defines the present as much or more than anything else in the world .

As to mediation, it is quite plain from what Robert McClenon reports, that no one better than ourselves can be expected to face up to these issues . We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources , and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles . We two should take the lead in defining this in so far as it seems this is an un-tested area of the WP nature . McClenon refers to this, and I suppose it must pop up a thousand times a week .

Nevertheless , my reason forces me to persist in nailing the reports and the analyses to the relevant 'door' . I would very much like Str to help me , or I help him -because if we were to combine , much more good could be reasoned . I think I have offered this before , but mutual suspicion - he of my sources or attitude, myself disputing the origin of his will , fell asunder into a pitiless edit war . I fear that the interpretations which will soon follow as to the exact nature of german widerstand 'thought' behind that door , will also prove uncomfortable and inflammatory . Could we not agree to paraphrase sources , and expand them under fair use in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ?

This is the mediation , I can accept no other, as effectively there is no other . The only remaining question beyond this I see , is the fascinating one as to whether in fact the wikipedia is controllable  ? Meaning whether in fact a user can be banned . I gather from an IT type that this is impossible . I see no benefit in driving religious will from the WP, but I only accept it under that definition and qualification of control .Famekeeper 11:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up

I am not exactly sure that I understand Famekeeper's response about mediation. It appears that he is stating that we should discuss our differences of opinion reasonably, and that there is no need for mediation. If future discussion is reasonable, then there is no need for mediation.

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed.

In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.

I hope that this is satisfactory.

Well , I have to differ on the general. First , OK the perception in people's (some people's ) minds is excludable as a title . However the generality of books (there are four ) uncovering machination in the vatican connections to power politics coupled with the actual linkage in the histories I 'did cite to Str1977, lost now in the various archives on the various pages I put thr Rfc's upon , these all add up to published reasons for , if nothing else , relating the actual dates of meetings between the players . Thus a part shall have to be admitted upon the Pius XI page including his approbatory words to papen-I think the repetition of these in published sources , if not the Nuremberg trial , verifies them . Equally on his page must come the fact of Papen's being exposed as visiting his State secretly (by the Rome newspaper), the fact of his and his Secretary of State's close understanding of the grman and Silesian regions , his Cornwell analysed attitude strenghtening the latterday authoritarian nature of church rule, with a simple reporting of the facts of Ecclesiastical variation towards nazism, the public recommendation by the leading german Cardinal, Faulhaber , the apparent facts that in a window of 1933 that there were no condemnations of Nazism despite previous inhumanity provoacations, that Hitler angled the church with the concordat into expecting certain respect , enumerating that respect desired, the fact that whilst Hitler was awaiting the papal approbation and international respectability it conferred , he between about the 15 march 1933 and the middle of july , called his own blessings forth upon a christianity he had previously abused , coupled with the rapid and rude re-awakening from this softened line by the leaders in the vatican after the 5 July Concordat ,coupled to the 1936 encyclical suggesting toleration by the church of authoritarian civil rule and a firm analysis and reckoning allowable concerning the fact or otherwise according to proof of Pius XI anti-semitic thinking such as would be relevant to the connections he himself forged directly with Goering and indirectly to Adolf Hitler .

If on Pius XII page a similar section of analysis appears of his part in this apparently historian suggested transaction of interests , an analysis of his continuance of the authoritarian direction , notice of his having himself worked upon the revision of canon or divine(that's a quote from WP) Law is related, if the Cornwell accusations concerning the alleged parallel nature between his and his blood brother in Italy are related. If the nature of continuing jewish and other shock at the comlete lack of reference to the Jews by name is allowed, in conjunction with s thorough an analysis of the four(?) present conspiracy type authors is allowed along with the necessary allegations concerning anti-semitism and conspiracy with Ustashe as in the present federal case is allowed, a relation of the nature and results of that conspiracy (parallel 'rat-line' escapes funded by war gold(teeth) and links thereby to alleged fascist corporations in third countries , such as Argentina , are allowed , if the allies , initially the appeaser type allies of 1940 but then the harder line , no surrender allies , peace -suggestion negotiations are allowed together with the estimation that Pius XII himself represented a potential danger are allowed , if the reports a Mowrer are allowed in full as being from a Pulitzer prize winning respected and truth-ful journalist Then the picture of truth , suggested by the term encyclopedia may be sought . I would add the concern , which evolves from JPII's accusatory but erroneous , comments on democracy when Pius XI and XII themselves appear to have de-stabilised it through their history claims tool Ludwig Kaas , this should be allowed in a separate section of canonical relevance to Pius XII use of infallibilty and his devise of the humanae vitae conformation of a contradictory nature to the actual as shown by the involvement via Kaas and Pacelli , then we might be allowing truth .

This is what I have been attempting to achieve , along with the same on the Centre Party page and here on Kaas . Are you Robert McClenon able to countenance this , because I do believe that Str1997 is ready . In anticipation of your reason saying yes, I would make every effort to do as I have suggested and simply link citations and strict reported published fact , dates or speech together with the various conclusions made by separate historians . If this is the WP , then it is goodwill , the canonical I will leave as I have effectively proved the self excommunication of two popes . let them repair their damage themselves in there now in the vatican . The vatican by this history has been more nihilistic than any Russian Jew they accused of such . Your church history , men, stinks and you can take that in good faith . I will not remove any of the apologious text I find but write a true view from sources . Will you allow this truth  ? Will you Robert McClenon be prepared to visit the several pages over time to oversee and then I can work undisturbed by reverts blocking this all off ? Thankyou . Famekeeper 15:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar

Famekeeper writes: "The only remaining question beyond this I see, is the fascinating one as to whether in fact the wikipedia is controllable? Meaning whether in fact a user can be banned. I gather from an IT type that this is impossible." It is not entirely clear to this "IT type" what he means by "controllable". Users can be banned. It is true that users who are banned do find ways of evading the ban, but it is also true that admins find ways of blocking the IP addresses from which banned users attack. Wikipedia is not Usenet. In Usenet, there are many islands of civility, but if Internet trolls decide that a particular group is their turf, it will be swamped by a sea of incivility. Wikipedia is a landmass of civility with a few swamps of incivility that can sometimes (although not always) be drained.

On the Internet, in any given forum, civility depends on the presence of a benevolent dictator who has a claim to a cyberspace based on some sort of property concept. No one owns Usenet. It is also true that no one owns Wikipedia, but it is also true that Jimbo Wales and the Board of Directors own Wikipedia. If you don't understand that paradox, you don't understand that paradox. But that is the truth. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One more time

Famekeeper writes: "Well, I have to differ on the general." Because of the length at which you write, it is not entirely clear to me where you take issue with what I stated. Do you mean, first, that you decline to follow the Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith? Do you mean, second, that you decline to follow the Wikipedia guideline not to use talk pages as soapboxes? I see that you have agreed to cite sources in articles, so I doubt that that is the issue. Do you mean something else? Do you mean that you intend to continue making the case that certain clerics "excommunicated themselves", which I find both irrelevant to the discussion of the articles and faulty? Robert McClenon 22:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper writes: "Will you allow this truth? Will you, Robert McClenon, be prepared to visit the several pages over time to oversee and then I can work undisturbed by reverts blocking this all off?" I am not entirely sure, due to the length of his reply, what he means by "this truth". Of course I am prepared to allow progress to be made toward the truth through reason, which can be done by presenting points of view as points of view and citing sources. Robert McClenon 22:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Moral error

You,Famekeeper, claim to have made the case that two Popes self-excommunicated. That is POV, and depends on interpretation of their motives. You have persuaded me that there was moral error by Ludwig Kaas and by Eugenio Pacelli, but not by Pope Pius XI. You have not made any case about self-excommunication. However, that is irrelevant to a discussion of what are proper contents of articles. Drop it. Robert McClenon 08:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, in the first case - your counter-claim is not reason , not sense :I have proved that wrong by reporting the expression ,by their speech of motive ,by Pius XI and Kaas... Also I have proved the excommunication , read my posting , see all my user history .... however .... Why you should not accept that is for you to say . ....Which is not to say that they are or are not relevant . I still claim everything that is relevant should be opened , and that I brought the divine or canonical law in under good faith discussions highly relevant to who are the subject of the articles, and in discoursive justification for the inclusion of inflammatory /or restrained ,NPOV modern historians objected to by my opposing POV claimant .

I am plainly in wikiquette fault...... But I came into fault by calling fault , I was and remain deeply shocked and claim that this would be an NPOV shock open to anyone in this subject-you Robert McClenon admitted to shock , but I admit Wquette error claiming wholescale vivid shock at the other editor 's defence and denial (of that shock) of NPOV  : You are not concerned until this very moment in joining in that , but I see a move now and answer 'non sense' , Let me again prove the wrong , the POV in that you here assert ........

I repeat that a perfect example in representation of the the POV editing which called forth my transgression ,is that of today's present article about Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , which is against NPOV : by eradication of (my, but that is not relevant) sourced material . The effect is plain to see when compared to a previous version or to the relevant articles and their discussions of proof which I have had to try and deal with . I do now go to mediation on these, which include :

• Hitler's Pope article for its retention , recognition as NPOV as is , and unlimited expansion of sourced accusations as NPOV in addition , related user denials in discussion ( see also 'archives[ relating to all these *'d articles under Pope Benedict XVI , Theology of Pope benedict XVI ,Pope John Paul II , Pope Pius XII re- editorial conflict-discussion

• Centre Party Germany article for re-inclusion of the section obscured by rv's & source denial, concerning the quid pro quo , related user denials in discussion, and completion of historical NPOV now in rv

• Ludwig Kaas for analysis as deeply POV , for prevention of the rv and censure for denial of sources , judgement for POV editing etc , related user conflict-discussion ,and continuous expansion to re-establish NPOV

As a user I reasonably ask that this be achieved , and that despite my culpable wikiquette behaviour , that my good faith be recognised and justified as NPOV -or not. I have apologised to Str1977 for impugning him , but in my NPOV I deny that his editing is allowing NPOV in the above . A concern for the quality of motive is determinable by the strict level of POV / NPOV in the outcome . I will supply my side as summary . I will not happily accept a determinant based upon the culpability alone of my assumption of bad faith . I own up , just as I have all along recognised it , and I feel justified by today's perfect example , at : Monsignor Ludwig Kaas .

If mediation does not achieve the NPOV , then we will go to arbitration . I note that questions remain un-answered , which can all be dealt with under mediation . I try for mediation on the asterisked pages and hope for NPOV , hope the basis is that all integrity questions are answered thereby, admit my transgression of WQ (thus enable you-all more time to study the intervening facts and citations) .

OK- I,FameKeeper transgressed WQ- I am sorry , I suffered unwiki provocation(denial) , and civil shock (as in holocaust/ excommunication discourse).Other's can ask or answer the questions they wish to :

But ,let's see, does .....FK prove POV on WP : yes...../no.....?-

Does FK exhibit POV and fail in providing NPOV ... yes..../no......?

Famekeeper

Request for summary

Famekeeper appears to be requesting a poll or vote on something. It is not clear to me what he is requesting a vote on.

The self-excommunication talk is not only POV, but is irrelevant to these talk pages because it is unrelated to any proposed content of the articles. It therefore is using Wikipedia as a soapbox. See the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Famekeeper was entirely reasonable in putting an NPOV banner on the Ludwig Kaas page. Robert McClenon 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I do not follow. I put a POV banner - I object , still .

It is not a soap-box -I just find the info treated un-reasonably , therefore I cavil . It is reasonable to cavil at the exclusions , and the opposition accounts for the necessity to explain . Soap is what the church pages smell of , and Kaas . I shall try and summarize , with mediation . Famekeeper 18:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You had written:

But ,let's see, does .....FK prove POV on WP : yes...../no.....?-

Does FK exhibit POV and fail in providing NPOV ... yes..../no......?

Was that a request for a vote, or only a statement of the issue that you wanted mediated? Robert McClenon 18:5q, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

An Idea

I have an idea. Famekeeper thinks that the historical articles, which are largely chronological, neglect to present the POV of Catholic Church complicity in the rise of Adolf Hitler to power and therefore in the Holocaust. Why doesn't someone create an article summarizing published points of view that criticize the Church and those that defend the Church? It could be called something like Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views. The historical articles can then simply link to that article. Robert McClenon 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

All I famekeeping know is that after writing a close exegesis for you of my objection to the Kaas article , I received a microsoft pop up, which when you click on the don't send error report or send, it eats the already locked up article . My patience is getting severely strained . I don't care whether somebody does put up such a page or not, I expect no good to come from this as I have received no good dealing here . I expect before long to have to put up another wiki mirror and rob all I can out of here , and get it into Google (which is what the church are really trying to stop ). This aint a wiki conspiracy , it is church policy , on a par with jihad . I'm messed about and I am most unhappy , but they are messing with your minds and your bodies too .

Yeah : vote , or don't , who cares ? Mediate-what does the Str1977 say now ?and who cares ? The exact same thing wrong with jihad is what is wrong with the vatican and Judaism  : visit unto the sons the sins of the fathers, hence nothing is innocent . Kill , use Hitler or whomever, but kill them as they are not innocent , they are the polluters in the land and excluded from our tenets of good faith . Perish the Jews , the Commies , the Russians , well chums , now it s perish you . I'll write your famekeepering allegations again , and Ill put up that page and fill it in 3 minutes beyond size if I need a morrow . I have called it Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy , which will especially rile someone . There- its up and should go blue . No -it stays red , means it's vandal proofed . Good idea McClenon , but also wrong , as the church aim is to eradicate unpleasantry of history from the pukka pages , innit ? No, it can't be done . It's Hitler's Pope and from their or nothing remotely Googleable . And whatever about WP good faith ., what about the TV Euronews telling us the vatican was gonna infiltrate the power of the internet ? I mean come on , if I can get in here , they sure as dust blows can get in here. Naive or what?

Are we trying to avoid mediation: I want a deal -truth , but who cares? Pius XI's words, Otto Brok's words , Kaas' words , Hitler's words , Faulhaber's words , Brunings words , Klemperers words , Wheeler-Bennetts , every famekeepering word I want to see , I want mediation and then arbitration and an excuse to mirror an alternative to this avalanche of soap , not soap box . Vote or not because this is as immortal as your words or theirs , say your piece , then we let go as only our words will stay when we all die , in or out of faith , good or bad . We all deserve this which we receive . We allow the injustice , and we allow the corruption , the jewish organisations feel we allowed the murders and we argue about it at length . We are all an an abominatiion of collusion . Good faith : as Pasternak had a character, the driver at the hospital where the Doctor helped the wounded, say, when Lara claimed " but he is a good man" - "God rot good men" . What did the book Dr. Zhivago end on ... the character asks " why you would go to the river to wash your shitty shirt before the battle that will kill you, where did you learn to do that ? " - answer "A pole in the ground in Siberia , called Gulag 405xyz" .This is the first reference to the Gulag . See you there , users or is that paradise that pole ? Famekeeper 23:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You asked for it. You got it.

Go to Catholic Holocaust Complicity Views. It is a stub. You may post sourced summaries of other authors who have been critical of Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, or the Catholic Centre Party. Any unsourced arguments will be moved to the article's talk page. Any arguments about self-excommunication will be moved to the talk page and identified to the mediator as issues.

The above post is very difficult for me to understand. It appears to be a rant. Please do not rant. It is likely to cause the mediator to counsel you to be civil.

Please do not post conspiracy theories. Please be civil, even on talk pages. Robert McClenon 00:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced argument moved

The expression Hitler's Pope has been in use for many decades, certainly in English. The term was adopted as a title by the Catholic writer John Cornwell.

Hitler's Pope generally refers to Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who became Pope Pius XII, however the previous Pope Pius XI dealt with Adolf Hitler through various intermediaries, and the separation of actions between these two Pope's is difficult. Cardinal Pacelli was in the position of a specialist advisor for several decades before ascending the Throne of St Peter.

The linking of the two names Pope and Hitler succinctly expressed popular conception that the Holy See colluded with the Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

Thanks for that-at least now itl google ....pity tho.Famekeeper 10:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

August 2005

I still think it a pity . I think it is such a pity that this page will have to be corrected off page , by virtue of full sourcing of historical comment relating to the Hitler quid pro quo . A desire to confine this page to Cornwell's book is illogical , given the historians prior to him , and the historical question which connects Pacelli with Hitler from 1933 ( my relevant source goes back to 1932 ) .

Anne Heneghan puts capitalisation which I specifically did not place . There is a difference betwen Catholic and catholic ( plural equally) and vatican is officially small v - I thought . Not just with me - I was trying to adhere to useage . However , it may not matter , certainly not in comparison with what does matter .

Dear FK,

you might think it a pity, but this entry, created by you, is according to its title about either the expression "Hitler's Pope" (which makes for an entry of two lines, maybe three) or about Cornwell's book of that title. You chose to create this page, now accept the consequences.

Str1977 19:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It can enter the arbitration, as this is what you push towards. Famekeeper 20:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Article repaired Through Scholarly Source John Cornwell

Here is the link [[4]] to the source from Vanity Fair Magazine of an abbreviation of John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope . If the Wikipedia 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 01:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Take Issue

I happen to agree with most of what Cornwell says, and he is a valid scholarly source. However, he is a POV source, and not a fact. I have restored the NPOV tag. Robert McClenon 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you do not see fit to answer a civilised question, amongst other things. And the exclusion of this source ,makes the PPXII article POV . So much for ettiquette . Who are you to judge an entire source as POV, so make justification , editor .Famekeeper 08:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 10:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't abuse the NPOV tag!

Far too many people seem to use the NPOV tag whenever an article describes a subject whose views they disagree with. E.g. a politician, figure, party, country, religion, etc. the editor dislikes. Adding the tag to this article seems like a clear example of NPOV abuse. Cornwell really did write a book that negatively characterized Pius XII; and it (presumably) really did characterize Pius as described. Disagreeing with Cornwell's characterization doesn't make the article POV!

I don't think the article is particularly good, FWIW. It seems to have way too much biographical information that should go in the regular Pius XII article as a link. And it rambles a bit. The article should just say what is unique in Cornwell's thesis, not all the undisputed stuff about Pius. Moreover, I have no opinion on whether Cornwell is right. But those flaws in the article aren't a matter of failing NPOV, but just regular "could be improved" type flaws. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:35, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Lulu, I'm not aware that I've ever edited the article before tonight. If I have, it has only been minor edits. I have looked at it from time to time. I would be a bit reluctant to arrive as a newcomer to a particular article, and immediately add the NPOV tag, even if I felt that the article was POV (as I certainly felt in this case). I would want to discuss problems on the talk page, get agreement, if possible, propose changes, etc.

However, that tag was already there, and it was obvious from the edit history that it was there because the article didn't make clear that these were Cornwell's views. At least two of the editors seemed to agree that the tag should be there [5] and [6]. (There may have been more; I haven't researched it.)

You arrived six days after the last edit, and removed the tag without making any other changes. Your edit summary [7] suggested that simply because the book exists, the article is not POV. Since I am sure that Robert McClenon and Str1977 were aware of the book's existence, I do not think that their concerns were adequately addressed. Nor do I think that by adding a small clarification [8], you have succeeded in making the article neutral. For the article to be truly neutral, there would have to be no feeling that it is supporting Cornwell's position, or indeed, that of the Pope. Obviously, if there are facts which favour one side rather than another, then they could be inserted without compromising the neutrality; indeed, it would be POV not to insert them. (For example, if it is a historical fact that on a certain date the pope signed a certain document, then it should go in the article, whether it implies that Pius was a Nazi or that he was a heroic saver of Jewish lives.)

Does this pass your standards of neutrality?

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.

What about this?

Pacelli noticed the repulsiveness of the Jewish leader Eugen Levine and of his followers and thence grew a suspicion and contempt of Jews for political reason.

Or this?

Pacelli as newly crowned Pope was eager to affirm Hitler publicly.

Those kind of things, all of which were in the article when you removed the tag, cannot be made neutral simply by your adding to the top of the page:

The characterizations Cornwell makes of Pius XII, summarized below, are contended by many other observers of the latter's papacy.

My use of the tag was not because the article described "a subject whose views [I disagreed] with." I restored it because it seemed to have been removed without any attempt to address the issues which had led to its original insertion, and because of various flaws I saw myself in the neutrality of the article. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV Issue

I take strong exception to the claim of NPOV abuse. I put the NPOV tag on the article. I did not tag the article because I disagreed with Cornwell's thesis, with which I mostly agree. I put it there because the article, as it was when I tagged it, presented Cornwell's views as fact, rather than as his views. I also put it there because the article, as it was when I tagged it, attributed views to Cornwell that were not Cornwell's. I now see that the current version of the article contains a large amount of material that was copied from the biography of Pope Pius XII. That material should simply be deleted.

Most of this article had been the work of a previous editor (at least temporarily not active) who had been the subject of a formal request for comments and did not know how to distinguish POV from NPOV or fact from viewpoint. Robert McClenon 00:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize for overstating what I meant, Robert (McClenon). "Abuse" isn't the word I should have used, but simply "misuse." I've seen the tag attached to too many articles where it really reflected underlying opinions about the topic itself, rather than about whether the article was NPOV. Reading through the Talk page and the article itself, I felt that the complaints made on the talk page were not problems with the current article version (which isn't to say the article is good, of course).

I honestly have no real opinion on this article (I just stumbled on it from somewhere else), nor much knowledge of the topic. I'll depart from this topic, and let those more familiar work it out. But I encourage editors to simply trim the excess content, and contextualize the rest as Cornwell's views, but try not to leave a perpetual NPOV tag in it.

All the best. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:06, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Accuracy Tag

Since Lulu disputes my use of the NPOV tag, I have instead tagged the article with the less commonly used tag for an accuracy dispute. I do not think that its summary of what Cornwell says is what Cornwell says. Robert McClenon 00:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Watches

A certain editor removed whole sections relating to 1937 and the encyclical "The Unity of the Human Race" as discussed by cornwell . This is not removal of duplicated biographical material , as the editor asserts , but is the piecemeal emasculation of Cornwell's apposite historical analysis . This is , to say the least , wrong and unacceptable . I strongly advise editors of good will to reverse this , and to take note of the action by this editor , and of his qualification of the action .

A lot of abuse is being bandied around here , all of which I reject ,I refer readers to the abbreviation from Vanity Fair if they wish to judge . However there are Johhny cum lately's with strange priorities trying to justify their reaction and there has always been argument as to the appropriateness of the history to the WP. I reject all the attack on myself, but anyone reading this page will understand what we are up against : criminally subversive alliance with mass murder and holocaust .

The assertion that these are not Cornwell's views is typical of the efforts to negate all of his findings,those same which are echoed throughout history , and the which I have repeatedly substantiated from other sources. All POV/accuracy/ clean-up argument is designed simply to discredit those who would expect the truth rather than continuance of the 70 years of lies . There is wrong afoot here and there is wrong at the heart of christendom .

Interesting is the Cornwell analysis as to the Pacelli motivation , which would bring us bang up to date with present vatican 'politics' and the direction away from Vatican II taken by Pope John Paul II and the present Pope Benedict XVI .This analysis is the only extra exploration needed in the article .

To enable readers to avail of the relevance of the history to the present I shall repeat below that which was so stealthily (and typically )removed from a discussion page, that of Cormac Murphy O'Connor. If it is removed from here, you will know why. I do not intend at present to edit pages , as the level of abuse is too great , but I am watching . Famekeeper 09:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This dicussion can be read over there. Here it is off topic. Str1977 10:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am particularly disturbed by the actions of user McClenon . Having left note upon his editing last that he was removing duplicated biographical material, he actually excised sections relating to 1937 and 1938 which were previously excised from the Pope Pius XII article . These excisions are not therefore in line with his description of removal , and warrant attention as being an exercise of strange faith . This editor was instrumental in trying, through ad hominem, to paint myself into a dunce's corner , however it is clear from this action that user McClenon either does not concentrate on what he removes , or acts with incorrect procedure . I should say that this user should be watched , as if his actions here can be so surreptitious and counter to his avowed listed editing report, what confidence can remain as to the use's worthiness ? Unlike his action against me , I will simply leave this post to alert those of good will . The WP is again under attack as the completeness of Cornwell is being sundered piecemeal . I strongly suggest that this article be reverted to my complete summation of the Vanity Fair abbreviation of Cornwell , and then locked . Famekeeper 10:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not insert the material back into the Pope Pius XII biographical article? I was removing what was clearly biographical information that belonged in the biography. I was not comparing the two articles. Unlike Famekeeper, I have been known to make mistakes. Robert McClenon 12:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer to the question that Famekeeper has posted on my talk page is that if any sourced biographical material has been deleted from the Pope Pius XII article and presents POV as POV, it should be re-inserted. However, some of it was deleted by Wyss and dtdirl after they tried to disentangle POV from NPOV. I will note that most of the deletions from Pope Pius XII were not made by me. Robert McClenon 21:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed questionable phrase

I removed the phrase "error in doctrine became tantamount to heresy". It is dubious in that form since actually "error in doctrine" is the definition of "heresy". I don't know what Cornwell wrote - and someone who does might re-include it in a proper wording. Str1977 10:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We're both back . I have re-inserted , boldly , the necessary link to Cornwell's own abridgement . I am going to go back in and remove these tags, but I shall embolden at the top that this is Cornwell's view . Famekeeper 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Fair Use apply to 598 words from the book's introduction?

We can't police the source of the quotation, but we can question if such a long extract here is a violation of the copyright of the book or fair use here. Please let's have a shorter quote. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

English translation, please

The characterizations Cornwell makes of Pius XII, summarized below, are contended by many other observers of the latter's papacy.

What is being contended? Who are these anonymous many other observers? If this sentence belongs at all, it belongs after the characterizations have been listed. These observers need names. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

Hitler's Pope is a work of biography. What it adds to our knowledge of Pope Pius XII belongs in that biographical article. What's the encyclopedic value of anything else in the book? This article looks merely like a platform for Cornwell's own POV on Pope Pius XII and by extension a platform for Wikipedia's editors' POV on Pope Pius XII -- in short a discussion board and not an encyclopedia. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

patsw, I don't know how to answer you briefly but I paste this from Robert McClenon as on this page :

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed.

In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book.

I hope that this is satisfactory. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC

I can tell you that I thought it very unsatisfactory indeed . I fear you come in here ,patsw , rather late . I take the quote as disingenuously pernickety self-righteous intentional muddling .

• Non-negotiable should not apply to reason ;

• Recognition of censorship was dependent on irrefutablility within the history ;

• Soapboxing , that's a form of ad hominem;

• Drop- cheek , it was/is applicable to sources ;

• Evil motives- is a statement of POV/ and ad hominem ;

• Source was cited to this interposition, and always ;

• User's decision to confine article to Cornwell was to ignore sources .

Your postion patsw , seems to be coming in along McC lines earlier and here . I myself would indeed put it all under the main Pius XII page , but I have tried and been blocked from doing so by reverts , so , sorry , don't kick at me . Famekeeper 07:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your editing history or the history your exchanges with other editors, I'm asking "What's the point of this article?" Book-focused articles describe what the book is about, what's the significance of the book in the public eye, and how the book has been received by the peers of the author. This article isn't doing that and as such probably requires a total replacement rather than minor editing. Famekeeper, what's your outline for the content of a book-focused article? Or what's wrong with my outline? patsw 22:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I can provide my own POV as to why this article should exist. I assume that Famekeeper will tell me that my opinion is unacceptable and that I am blocking him and so on, but here is my view. Hitler's Pope is not so mucn a biography as a criticism in the framework of a biography. The factual events of the life of Pope Pius XII belong in his biographical article. The usual Wikipedia format for biographical articles about people who held high offices (President, Pope) about whom controversies exist is to put the facts in the main biographical article and to summarize the controversies, and to provide another article detailing the controversies at more length. That way, the outline of the life of Pope Pius XII is available for a reader who wishes, for instance, to see the history of the Catholic Church via the biographies of its Popes.

An article such as this one should provide an NPOV summary of Cornwell's POV of Pope Pius XII. It had been my plan to revise this article to provide that. However, to do that, I will have to re-read Cornwell, which I have not done in the past few years, and provide a reasonable summary of what he wrote, and to separate POV from NPOV. I agree that the article as it stands with its neutrality warning is a discussion board. I do think that an article summarizing the book is needed. It is just that this article, as it is, needs a lot of rework, which I have not had time to provide. Robert McClenon 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your patsw's outline? I agree with your view that the article as written is unsatisfactory and requires either major editing or a rewrite. Robert McClenon 00:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Double Action as Regards Grave Sin

McC-I'm still hoping you'd answer that question, if not how you come to the question, what then, you think the answer is ? Perhaps an Opus Dei man could answer ?

As to yrs of today , again is this bad-faith ? You will have seen that Cornwell himself wrote his abbreviation , it was published , and should therefore stand as an abbreviation of him as a source . But no , you want to read the book and somehow do better than Cornwell out of Cornwell.... that is really wierd .

As to allowance of Cornwell, or any body else's conclusions concerning the biography or life of pacelli, well , this is just wierd too, because you know that that will not be allowed . The conclusions of Cornwell and the very many references by historians to what a lay-man would call a stitch-up but what grandly could be called a quid pro quo lie in utter contradiction with the saccharine sanctity of this pontiff . You know very well that the truth is completely denied, evaded , disparaged and hounded . That the level of hypocrisy visible on the present pontiff's page and Pacelli'ds is blood-curdling .

Of course if your aim is to seem reasonable (though the logic is that it would prove entirely unobtainable as a result) you might appear so to those who have not tried to balance the reality . The reality is that no allowance of contrition is forthcoming despite 60 years of historical reference to the suborning of democracy by the Church , with the brok analysis being the most very succinct -WAR .

Stop mekking about McC , and if you have a conscience , use it to help the world . If you are of good faith you will join with me in as you say re-writing the main article to the length dictated by the necessity of truth nothing less . Everything sourced from Brok thru Kenney's Tollet , Shirer, Toland, WBennett , margaret Lambert, Rosenberg , Hafner re his boss , Churchill re his boss .

But you can well see that the contradiction is so vast , the analysis of truth so dangerous , as to sunder all the supposed papal snctity of Pacelli . All of Cornwell that is proved must be referenced to cap all that these other's separately with Mowrer testify concerning the story of 32 -33 .

However as I was not allowed to explain, against all policy , without any original research but purely from the above , this is not just about Pacelli . pacelli was just the clever-dick on the tiller, whilst the sleepcaptain provided the destination . lets have the by-your-lady truth , McC ... which is that this was the Church's battle against Communism at whatever the immoral cost , which is where it would then be relevant to really confine the canons within a short summary-but one that you won't throw back in my face .

So you answer the by-your-lady question about double action first and then we'll talk seriously . otherwise you act just as a provocateur , with no real desire for relation of truth , no wish to see the Church or its human following benefit and regain some respect , no wish to still the injured hearts of the victims who so terribly suffered . Absolutely outrageous of you to be sort-of mediating , sort-of understanding , sort-of shocked, sort-of moral, sort-of believing YOU understand Cornwell better than himself . All because you supect there may be some way in which vanity Fair and Cornwell are traduced by that website. That is to clutch at the last hair of reason not to get real . Stop making by-your-lady excuses to preserve your morality , stop acting as if Str has the right to deny all the above sources I have produced (and Kenney) as I for one am sick of this dishonesty in defence of total christian hypocrisy , which is to have done this deal against the faith of Jesus Christ Almighty . My faith as of a human being will rise up against this immorality until I have no breath more .Famekeeper 13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am answering McClenon's question(s) on the appropriate page which is Theology of Pope Benedict XVI

Shorten the article

There is an article about Pius XII that covers his biography and his dealings with Geramny. This article should eliminate this information and simply link to the main article. 214.13.4.151 16:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happens, and there is "Wikihistory" reason from editing behaviour for the forking of the subject to this article , the actual historical truth should reign . It does not as yet , but it is inching closer .Famekeeper 08:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand. Why should this article repeat the biography of Pope Pius XII? Robert McClenon 09:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, FK's reason for creating this page was to use it as a platform for all his "criticism" of Pius XII which he though should be included in the Pius XII and related pages and which he couldn't because of my opposition to what I call "blackwashing". Of course, he's free to create this page in which Cornwell's POV naturally plays a bigger part. But still, this restricts him to Cornwell and his book. What's not in Cornwell has no place here. Also we cannot lower standards of presentation of POV as POV. It seems that he has trouble accepting these limitations to his intentions. This article needs to be reduced to the gist of Cornwell's book and appraisal of that (including the new counter-Cornwell book). I am prepared to give him or others who have read Cornwell time to this. Str1977 19:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This betrays a regrettable bureaucratic mind-set, not limited to any particular editor, but one I have seen used over and over when deemed useful for squashing facts . As to Str's first point it was he himself , in a seemming dare, who suggested I start the Hitler's Pope article . This is all , like the birds in the field, countable within wikihistory, if anyone cares . As soon as the article was begun , Str began damage control in attempt to indeed limit it to John Cornwell, against the wide common knowledge present on the Allied side since that era. I am particularly irksome to this attempt as I quote source which independantly confirms the Cornwell research . User McC does not understand, as he has not done from the get-go(American ,colloquialism) . This is rather unfortunate . What Str writes above could enable him to do so . This is low level and boring , this particular discussion and possibly only serves to show the wikilimitations as historical tool .

I repeat , Str, please answer the question re KKD't and the secret annexe . Or return to your post justifying earlier complete removal of its secrecy and of its illegality . that would be time better spent. And abandon this strong bureaucratic meddling with history . Cornwell used a common term , not the other way round .Famekeeper 20:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Answer necessity for full article on Hitler's Pope with suitable Protest

Any doubts as to the necessity for this article , and it's length are abundantly proved by Str1977's edit (of Pope Pius XII) of 20.06 3 Sptember 2005 . I protest, as I have always done and appeal to the dispassionate , who should have numbered one Robert McClenon .Do not remove this my notice of protest. Famekeeper 20:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your abbreviation refers to. If it's the annex section on the Reichskonkordat (as I think it is) than it should be there in a short while. Please understand that I don't have seven heads and ten arms. Str1977 20:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Reichskonkordat RKK't /RKKd't , whatever . see above - I am ,again , seeing RED. This is usual apparently co-operative deflection ,this question . You are very naughty, old man but suit yourself, I can't be watching you . G-bye.(hence colour high-light) You always win , because everyone else is too thick/stupid/disingenuous/ill-informed/lazy (they won't study our shared discourse to check the sources provided):You win for these reasons alone-you are great-I salute your endeavour .End. No more . FK watches, having once again tried to repair three articles-Ludwig Kaas ,Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope . Do not trust what you read, search all archivesFamekeeper 20:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)