Talk:Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše/Archive 1

My edit
"eg none of this "many priests were supporting genocide and conversions and were active Ustase" line but rather "according to professor X who has researched the relationship between Stepinac and Pavelic"" Well, there is a reference at the end of the sentence.. [10], I believe, if you are inclined to check authenticity of the claim.. Should you find the source misquoted, misunderstood, or otherwise misused, please let us know.

Fixing it
So. If the page isn't going to be deleted again, who is going to fix it according to the verifiability and relevancy guidelines? --Shallot 20:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So, a month has passed, and the page is effectively unchanged. The phrase "active Usta&#353;a" still dominates the article, and there's no explanation whatsoever what it actually means in context of escaping justice, nor how it applies to people designated as such. I think I'm going to ditch all of those and leave only those where there's at least the accusation being made is concrete.
 * Also people who were "decorated by Pavelic" because that can mean just about anything.
 * Also people who were chaplains in the Usta&#353;a army because I don't believe that this was considered a crime per se (any army can have chaplains).
 * Also, the number 1500 is rather large, and probably includes all of the clerics who emigrated and not only the clero-fascists. --Shallot 12:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

My edit
Now, let us see if we can arrive to something more sensible. Obviously feel free to comment. Pfortuny 07:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I've created what could be a more NPOV paragraph. Obviously discuss.
 * 2) I've taken the list away. There is absolutely no point in including people saying "very active", "active Ustasa", etc... I would agree in including people with precise, clear and substantiated accusations, but not generic phrases.
 * 3) The title definitely is wrong: it should be "Relations between Roman Catholic Clergy and the Ustasa", otherwise the article would be simply a list which makes no sense (to me).
 * 4) Please notice that although there may be strong feelings, there is no point in turning the WP into a list of aggravations.

I've renamed the page now. Could be too long a title, suggestions welcome. --Shallot 21:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Renamed too so it sports the correct š in the name. Orzetto 18:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit war
OK folks, start actually re-writing text with source citations. This is a highly contentious subject, but many of the charges against leading Catholics as complicit in genocidal activities can be found in non-communist sources. Deleting the categories is just improper.--Cberlet 16:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"One controversial subject concerning the involvement of the clergy with the regime was the conversion of Orthodox Serbs into the Roman Catholic Church. Some clergy enthusiatically welcomed this task, seeing it as a mission to bring schiasmatics into what they considered the true church. On November 17, 1941, a bishops' conference was convened in Zagreb regarding the issue of mass religious conversions. The Bishopric News no. 2, 1942 subsequently recorded a directive that said "Our work is legal because it is in accord with official Vatican policy [...] that the Eastern Orthodox Church be converted to the Catholic faith"."

Source is needed here.

Why the article has been renamed
Because of all this, I have renamed this article into "Relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Independent State of Croatia". --Zmaj 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The article shows no proof of any "involvement of the clergy". The letters of bishops and such cannot be construed as "involvement", since they indicate only their relations to the government, as churches in every country always had relations with all the governments.
 * 2) Criminals like Majstorović are not "clergy" but sick individuals; it is preposterous to identify them with the Church as a whole.
 * 3) Finally, why "the Ustaša regime"? It was a country with a name: the Independent State of Croatia.

Whoa... Here it comes again... And I thought that it was all over after WWII. What is it with you guys? You always want Serbs to apologize for their crimes, and I agree there were hundreds, if not thousands. But the moment something is said against Croats, you know, the ones that claim to have killed more Serbs in WWI than the entire Ottoman Empire during its rule in the Balkans (Maks Luburic), you deny everything, or admit something, but try to hide most of it.

Nice touch with the discussion. So is it now "move and explain"? I thought it was "discuss and then move" if agreement was made. I'll move tha page back untill this is duscussed, if we reach an agreement, I'll move the page myself :-)

I agree about the part where you say that Majstorovic was sick, and sure that he doesn't represent the church as a whole. But Stepinac does. Stepinac gave his blessing to Ante Pavelic, just like the pope did for Benito Mussolini (Locarno Treaty). That sounds like clergy involvement to me. Ante's government was approving genocide and there is no difference between Ante Pavelic and Adolf Hitler (except that Hitler focused more on Jews, while Ante focused on Serbs).

And finally, the entire world knows that the Independent State of Croatia was run by the Ustashe. So, the Ustashe regime was running everything, and thats why "the Ustaša regime" is in the title.

So, before we start another edit war, lets really discuss first, and maybe move after. -- serbiana -  talk  00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bormalagurski, I'll ascribe the rant in your first paragraph to childishness. Now let's move on to serious matters.
 * "Discuss and then move" is fine by me.
 * Your claims about Stepinac's "involvement" can be applied to any major established religion in any country, any time. The Church was involved in the sense in which any church is involved in temporal affairs of the world. If Pavelić's government approved genocide, Stepinac certainly did not, as proven by his letters from WWII. Excerpts from those letters have been included in the Croatian Wikipedia article and I plan to translate them soon.
 * The Independent State of Croatia was ruled by the Ustashe regime. It was not identical with the Ustashe regime, but only ruled by it. The Church has relationships with a state, not with "regimes".
 * --Zmaj 13:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Independent State of Croatia was based on Genocide. It was established by the Nazis to cleanse the territories of Serbs, Jews, communists... The Ustashe was an organization in which you couldn't be a real soldier untill you killed Serbs or Jews. One example of this is the testimony of the Pag concentracion camp guard Oreskovic:

''Još kao đak gospićke gimnazije stupio sam 1939 u vjersku organizaciju "križare". Tu su nas pod firmom vjere odgajali u ustaškom duhu. Na naše sastanke su dolazili Jurica Frković i Juco Rukavina i držali nam predavanja protiv Srba i komunista. Naša parola je bila -u ime Krista ubij antikrista. Antikristi su bili Srbi, Židovi i komunisti. Organizovali smo svoju udarnu jedinicu koja je noću napadala ljevičare. Kad je došlo do rata i rasula jugoslovenske vojske mi smo je razoružavali. Odmah smo stupili u ustaše jer smo to smatrali svojom nacionalnom dužnošću. Mene su sa još nekim Gospićanima odredili u logor Slano na otoku Pagu. Tu su se nalazili najviše Židovi i Srbi, a bilo je i nekih Hrvata ljevičara. Kad sam došao tamo zapanjio sam se kad sam vidio kako muče one ljude. Spavali su pod vedrim nebom u žici. Za hranu su im nisu davali ništa osim slanih riba, ali im vode nisu davali tako da su mnogi poludjeli od žeđi. U to je došla nova skupina zatočenika. Starješine su nam dale naređenje da odvojimo 200 zatočenika iz prve partije, da ih odvedemo na more i pobijemo. Ja i neki moji drugovi nismo mogli. Onda su nas grdili i prebacivali nam kakvi smo mi to Hrvati i ustaše. Govorili su nam da nije ustaša onaj koji ne može s veseljem ubiti Srbina, Židova i komunistu. Da nas pridobiju na ubijanje davali su nama mlađima vina i likera. Dovodili su pred nas zatočene djevojke, svlačili ih do gola i govorili da možemo uzeti bilo koju, ali da ih poslije akta moramo ubiti. Neki mladići opijeni vinom i zaneseni strašću počeli su tako ubijati. Ja nisam mogao. Gadilo mi se i to sam javno rekao. Nakon par dana došao je u logor neki viši funkcioner iz Zagreba Luburić. Došao je da pogleda rad logora. Tek tada je počelo pravo klanje. More oko Paga bilo je crveno od krvi. Luburiću su referirali da ja i još neki nećemo da ubijamo. Na to je Luburić sazvao sve ustaše, postrojio nas i održao govor u kojem je rekao da su izdajice ustaštva oni koji ne mogu da ubijaju Srbe, Židove i komuniste. Na to je upitao ko je taj "usraša" koji ne može da ubija. Javio sam se ja i još nekoliko. Kako sam bio prvi po redu od tih koji su se javili, Luburić me je pozvao pred stroj i upitao me kakav sam ja to ustaša kad ne mogu ubiti Srbina i Židova. Rekao sam da sam spreman u svako doba dati život za Poglavnika, da mislim da bih mogao ubijati u borbi ali da ne mogu ubijati ovako goloruke ljude, a osobito žene i djecu. On se na to nasmijao i rekao je da je naša dužnost da očistimo Hrvatsku od te kuge, a tko to neće je neprijatelj Poglavnika i Hrvatske kao i oni. Na to je pozvao jednog iz svoje pratnje i nešto mu šapnuo. Ovaj je otišao i donio dvoje male dvogodišnje židovske djece. Luburić mi je predao jedno dijete i rekao da ga zakoljem. Odgovorio sam da ne mogu.Na to su svi oko mene prasnuli u smijeh, rugali mi se i vikali- "usraša", a ne ustaša. Onda je Luburić izvadio nož i zaklao preda mnom dijete govoreći: "Evo kako se radi". Kad je dijete vrisnulo i prasnula krv, sve oko mene se zavrtjelo. Skoro sam pao. Jedan me ustaša prihvatio. Kad sam se malo pribrao rekao mi je Luburić da dignem desnu nogu. Digao sam, a on mi je pod nogu stavio ono drugo dijete. Onda je zapovjedio: "udri". Udario sam nogom i zgnječio glavu djetetu. Luburić mi je prišao, potapšao po ramenu i rekao: "Bravo, bit ćeš ti još dobar ustaša". Tako sam ubio prvo dijete. Nakon toga sam se opijao do smrti. U pijanstvu sam zajedno sa drugovima silovao neke židovske djevojke, a onda smo ih poubijali. Poslije se nisam morao ni opijati. Kasnije, kad je Slano likvidirano i svi njegovi zatočenici ubijeni, poslan sam u kotar Korenicu na čišćenje. Šta sam tamo radio znate…'' ("Pavelić", Šime Balen, str. 78-80)

So, if Stepinac blessed such a murderous organization... Hmmm... Maybe the Vatican should re-think the whole "blazeni" thing... -- serbiana -  talk  20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, to help any non-Croatian speaking users who are reading this discussion, Bormalagurski's quote is about atrocities in an Ustashe concentration camp. Now, Bormalagurski, why did you post this? Neither I nor Cardinal Stepinac ever claimed Ustashe didn't commit atrocities, so what are you trying to prove? Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this article or with my arguments from the previous post. I can only conclude you're not ready for a reasonable discussion yet. --Zmaj 08:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't attack me personally, is that the only way you know how to defend your views? By attacking your opponent and not his views? Stepinac blessed a murderous regime! You're saying he didn't approve of it! This is a paradox, it's just impossible. You know very well that if he was against the attrocities, he would withdraw his support, but he didn't. My post is here to show that the Ustashe were all about genocide against innocent Serbs and Jews, and every normal person knows that. Stepinac knew that. And he gave them his blessing. -- serbiana -  talk  07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not attack you personally. Asking you why you posted something and what you are trying to prove is not a personal attack but a legitimate question. I suggest you read WP:NPA. Furthermore, do not distort my words. I never said Stepinac did not approve of the regime. I said he did not approve of the atrocities. --Zmaj 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only conclude you're not ready for a reasonable discussion yet., thats discussing the user, not the article. Approving a regime that comitted attrocities means that you're approving attrocities, it's as simple as that. If I support Jack the Ripper, I'm supporting what he does. Doesn't that make me a supporter of a killer? Supporting a murderous regime, and then writing letters about how its bad that they're killing people is quite ironic, and I'm afraid Stepinac was a little... well, crazy. I mean, you like the regime, but you don't like what they're doing... Who says that! And why would the Ustashe stop killing? I mean, Stepinac was saying that its bad, but at the same time helping the regime that was doing the attrocities. -- serbiana  -  talk  23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why bishops?
Bormalagurski restored the passage claiming that some of the then bishops in the territory not only cooperated with the regime but were allegedly implicated in murders or forced religious conversions of Serbs and Jews. Now, the article has no evidence for this claim, so the passage has to be removed. Or did I miss something? --Zmaj 07:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You missed history between 1941. and 1945. But, it's not your fault, you've been influenced by the pro-nazi Ustashe propaganda in Croatia. -- serbiana  -  talk  23:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't stand such offensive and supposedly ironic comments. Either you answer with facts, or you accept the removal of that phrase. --Zmaj 06:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

serbiana, perhaps someone should remind you that the Croatian people were the first to fight against the Ustashe (I'm excluding the equally murderous chetniks, who actually fought on the side of the Axis on several occasions) and the most numerous among the early partisan detachments. That you should label Croatia as pro-nazi says something about YOUR own lack of familiarity with the history of the period, since Serbs actively fought against the People's Liberation Army (the greatest threat to faschist rule in the region), and Croats (for the most part) created it. Perhaps you don't consider the Partisans a liberation army and would have preffered to see the oppressive Karađorđević regime restored. Try to remember that it was that very regime that is to blame for the creation of hatred that brought and is still bringing much suffering to Serbs and Croats in the region. I'd allso like to ask you to VENT YOUR ETHNIC HATRED ON LESS VISITED SITES. As for the clergy of the period it is beyond doubt that many of them, including Stepinac, were nationalists and considered Pavlić their saviour, many fought for the faschists, they were prosecuted however, and in many cases the people themselves spontaneously took revenge upon the priests who tormented them and linched them (this more often than not happened in Croatia by the hands of Croats!). This is perhaps the best proof of the level of involvement of clergy in the Ustasha regime. It is ulikely that the higher clergy was unaware of this. In the future reasses your beliefs about the Croatian people before labeling them. dIRECTOR (Hrvat BTW)

Sharitch
Sharitch is probably Ivan Šarić. If the linked text by Hubert Butler is authentic, then that article should be updated, too. --Joy &#91;shallot] 07:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stella Alexander
Stella Alexander's history of Yugoslavia shows that it wasn't the Catholic Church that collaborated with the Fascists, but rather, the Fascists made it a point to take over the Catholic seminaries.

Blessed Alois Stepinac condemned the forced conversions of the Serbs to Catholicism as invalid according to her. I don't have the citation at hand, but I did a paper on it at Penn State in college.--68.45.161.241 00:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is a fanciful interpretation of what she said. The Catholic Church's position was at best ambiguous as will be obvious to anyone who reads the book. Kirker (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed!
The neutrality of this article is disputed, because it contains unverified claims mixed with serbian nationalistic myths! This article contains hate speech. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.18 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Whole article should be deleted
I don't regard this article as particularly controversial, but it has some weaknesses and in any case is not worthy of a main article. In my view it should be removed, with its salient content absorbed into a section about the catholic church within the Ustaše article. Other views would be appreciated of course.

Equally I think there should be a section about catholicism's role in genocide (the Final Solution, Rwanda, Ustaše.... they emerge with credit from none of these) in the Roman Catholic Church article, perhaps under the "Role of the Church in Civilisation" heading. Right now I haven't time to start that off, but will in due course if no-one else does.

Shortcomings with this article as it stands include over-reliance on the (important) work of Hubert Butler, and no reference at all to "Hitler's Pope," by John Cornwell, a widely respected and relatively recent book which includes an illuminating chapter about the ISC (NDH). Butler could be offset perhaps by better citing of Stella Alexander, whose work I would categorise as pro-Stepinac on balance. Some un-named soul has mentioned one of her books under "Stella Alexander" above, but in the vaguest terms. Another of her books, "Triple Myth," which is a biography of Stepinac really needs to be cited as well. But as I said at the outset, a better course would be to ditch this entry altogether and include the material under other existing entries.

Perhaps I could just also comment on a potential misconception. The ISC (NDH) enjoyed at best an ambiguous status and, so far as international law had any meaning in WW2, was illegal. The Catholic hierarchy was under no obligation to support it or dispense blessings to its governing regime. A few catholic priests in ISC refused to do its bidding and paid the ultimate price, just as many priests in Germany and Austria (but perhaps not a large proportion) defied the Nazis. The Vatican was among many states that never formally recognised "Independent Croatia," a point which I should correct in the Ustaše article. No-one with nuncio (ambassador) status was sent to Zagreb from the Vatican, which retained diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia, to which the ISC (NDH) in the Vatican's judgment legally belonged. Kirker 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Organized the article
I added the introductory paragraph and divided the article into chapters. The article is far from satisfactory; for example, as Kirker said, the valuable Alexander's book hasn't been included. I have it somewhere in my library, so I might add quotes from it when I find the time. I think many other references should be added. But on the whole, the article shouldn't be deleted. It's an interesting topic. --Zmaj 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, noted Zmaj. It reads better now. I'll add some citations when I get a chance. Kirker 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help but feel you may have been too lenient in your wording, Zmaj. I have added several facts that help explain the situation and the cooperation between the NDH and the Church. DIREKTOR 12:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding random unreferenced claims and calling them facts is not going to improve the article. We need references and I'll add them eventually. --Zmaj 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your penultimate edit. You removed a sentence referring to Butler and added your own personal interpretation of the event: "leading many to believe the protests were a public show". Who is "many"? You and your friends? I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but you should pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines. This is not the first time that you try to disguise your views as "facts". If you can't find references for your claims, I will revert them. --Zmaj 13:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These are, of course, not my own interpretations. When I say "leading many to believe the protests were a public show" I do not mean they were a public show, but that was THE OFFICIAL STANDING of the Allied state of Yugoslavia, as was made plain during the trial of Aloysius Stepinac. Personally I do not believe they were a "show", but they seemed that way to the people facing forced conversions and the knife. Also do not remove my legitamate mention of the NDH military vicariate. DIREKTOR 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So you meant to say: "...leading the official standing of the allied state of Yugoslavia, during the trial of Aloysius Stepinac five years later, to believe the protests were a public show". Did I get it right? But can't you see that the official standing of the allied state of Yugoslavia, while relevant for the Stepinac trial, is irrelevant for this article? Their opinion has no influence on the matter at hand. --Zmaj 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are trying to say, but my mentioning Yugoslavia's position was merely an illustration of the overwhelmingly clear existance of a point of view very much present in Yugoslavia at the time. I merely used that as an officialy documented example. Also the trial of Stepinac IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for the article. It was not just Stepinac who was on trial, but other suspects involved in cooperation and criminal activities. It is legal proof of the crimes, and it was in essence the war crimes tribunal for the surviving collaborators among the Croatian clergy. Are you aware that people often spontaneously linched their local priests after the liberation? DIREKTOR 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have legal proof of the crimes, feel free to include it in the article. But claiming legal proof and providing none? You'll have to do better than that, especially since the state in question was biased against the Church. As for the "spontaneous lynching", which you already mentioned somewhere, I can only say that I find it revolting when people try to justify murders by describing them as "spontaneous", "just", "natural" etc. Please think about it. --Zmaj 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal proof of the crimes!!? Did you even read the article! This is not in question. Crimes were commited by the clergy, that much is undisputable. Please concentrate on the text in question ("...leading many to believe the protests were a public show"), and do not insult me or accuse me of attempting to justify murders when all I did was use the spontaneous (and spontaneous they were, no matter what you may or may not find disgusting and/or revolting) murders as means of illustrating the painfully obvious existence of the point of wiew stated in my edit. It seems to me you are the one not thinking very much. Not only did you insult me and accuse me of something a blind man could see I was not trying to do, but you now started making claims that the clergy is innocent of collaboration (when we are talking about something else) Maybe we should delete the whole article? DIREKTOR 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems I was unclear. Firstly, I meant to say that if the Stepinac trial provided legal proof of crimes involving clergy, such proof should be included in the article, since it is not there as of yet. There's only Butler and Mišić's statement. The clergy was obviously collaborating, but it remains to be specified to what degree and in which crimes. Secondly, murder is never spontaneous, but always planned. That's why it's called murder. When a man is killed spontaneously, it's called manslaughter, but that's clearly not the case here. --Zmaj 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we going to play word games now? I said LYNCHING. You started using the term "murder" (of course it was intentional murder, ffs). Lynching can be spontaneous or planned. Also, manslaughter is accidental (non intentional) killing, not "spontaneous" killing. Noone is stupid enough to say villagers accidentally hanged their priests. But when a crowd gathers without prior organisation or plan, and kills someone, that is spontaneous lynching.
 * Back to the matter at hand, are you saying there is no proof that, oh say... friar Majstorović killed anyone? Because if you cannot differentiate between the Stepinac and other clergymen like Majstorović that are responsible beyond a shadow of a doubt (and with ample proof, for example, SS letters protesting the brutal killings) for hundreds of deaths, I certainly can. I cannot believe what you are saying here!? There is no proof members of the clergy murdered people?! Who do you think performed the forced conversions! laymen? DIREKTOR 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing word games. Lynching is murder. If you don't believe me, go to Lynching and check which categories it belongs to. --Zmaj 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, as you said, back to the matter at hand... There are murders on one hand and forced conversions on the other. We need to know how much the clergy participated in either of them, if at all. You can't take sick individuals like Majstorović and call them "clergy", especially since he was suspended and probably expelled from the Church (see Miroslav Filipović). Instead of throwing accusations left and right or saying "it's logical" (the favorite strategy of those who are pushing a POV), we need data, reliable information, references. Using empty phrases like "involved heavily" or "some even encouraged them" without adding a shred of evidence or references is suspect at best. I hope you understand the problem. --Zmaj 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, but you are playing word games, even as you deny it. Of course Lynching is murder! But murder in itself, without further clarification, cannot be called spontaneous, while Lynching can.
 * Majstorović, OF COURSE, was just an example!! Follow this simple logic, if you will: 1) mass conversions occured in large numbers, 2) mass conversions require clergy to be carried out, 3) the majority of mass conversions, as is well known, ended in mass executions, only on rare occasions were all the Serbs actually left alive after the conversions.
 * Are you sying therefore that the clergy who UNDOUBTABLY participated were innocent because they MAY not have actually pulled the trigger. And many, especially in the vicariate, were Ustaše soldiers as well, and actively participated in the ethnic cleansing that followed. I hope you will not take offence, but to say "There are murders on one hand and forced conversions on the other" is absolutely incorrect, the conversions, if you had not noticed from the article, actually became synonyms for mass murder. I see you are not deeply familiar with the military history of the Yugoslav theatre. Why do you think there is such a big noise being raised about these "conversions"? DIREKTOR 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not deeply familiar with history. But I try to stick to Wikipedia rules. What bothers me is that my requests for references or sources don't seem to interest you in the slightest. What can I tell you? If you write your beliefs instead of history, you're writing on sand - they will be erased sooner or later. Your positive energy is going to waste. I can't continue this discussion, it's too depressing. Sorry. Maybe at a later time. --Zmaj 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see. DIREKTOR 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

February 2008 edits
To my mind the recent edits by 203.129.58.224 make the article much too one-sided in favour of the NDH's catholic clergy. We need to accept that some people think the clergy was criminally culpable, some think it was the embodiment of sweet innocence. I too have a view about which view is nearer the truth, but unless irrefutable evidence is found to resolve the matter one way or the other, we must take care that the article accommodates both perspectives.

But with or without the latest edits, this is a very bad article. It has a sub-heading labelled "E)" which seems to relate to no other; it has obscure citations (within the text rather than presented as footnotes) referring to AHO, RP etc, none of which are explained. The content is also inadequate, with little reference to Stella Alexander's biography of Stepinac (Triple Myth) and not enough weight given to the tone and content of catholic magazines produced in Zagreb, under Stepinac's direct authority, in the early years of the Ustaša regime. In some cases the terminology is overly generous to one point of view, eg the reference to all Serbs being murdered in "a few" villages when there is plenty of evidence that "several" would be a more appropriate word (and indeed "many" might not be overstating it).

Unless there are potential editors around who are willing to get to grips with some of the shortcomings, I would again suggest that this article could be deleted. Much of the ground it covers could be absorbed into existing articles on Croatia, Pavelić, the Ustaša, the Catholic Church, Stepinac, NDH etc. Kirker (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out the truth with references and all!
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia.pdf

This is the same material but in a different format> http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia(n)-1.htm

Sorry for not integrating these sources into the article but I don't have the time to do otherwise. It is written by Dennis Barton, who for most part is a neutral observer who seeks to defend the Catholic Church, not the NDH nor Ustase crimes but rather to clarify the truth in regards to the constant mis-information peddled by some very unsavory people in regards to the actions of the Catholic Church and the Vatican at the time. No I don't seek to defend the actions of individuals who LEFT the Church to pursue their atrocious activities (i.e Filipovic - who was expelled by the Franciscan order before he carried his actions). For the most part it was an extremely difficult time for the church, on the one hand with conversions they had deal with Serbs who were under threat of murder thus they accepted them as to not endanger there lives whilst under the pretext that they would "convert back to their Orthodox faith once this mayhem is over" as to quote Stepinac. Such instances such as these have to be dealt with in context rather then a black and white statement such as "the Church accepted converts gleefully" etc without ever looking any deeper into the issue. For most part those in Church leadership dealt with rogue priests by expelling them or condemning their support of the Ustase. These INDIVIDUALS preformed their actions with their own free will outside of their ministries of being priests or brothers without Church approval and this is what is frustrating about the continual lies that people such as DIREKTOR want to perpetrate without taking into consideration what i have just fore-mentioned.

God loves you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where my recent edits have citations such as (AHO) etc the actual references are in http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/croatia.pdf right at the end of the article where it cites references. Please go check and be enlightened! Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By dismissing as lies the contrary viewpoints of other editors such as Direktor, Objective Truth shows that he/she is not capable of reasoned discussion. Better that such a person looks at some of the most disturbing genocides - the Holocaust, Rwanda, NDH - and wonders why the Catholic church was never far away. That church could perhaps be given a fool's pardon except that it proclaims itself, with extraordinary pomposity, to be "the one true church," "the fount of all truth" etc. etc, and therefore makes itself fair game. Look at the fact that Serb intellectuals - doctors, lawyers etc - were not allowed the option of converting. Look at the tone in which Stepinac reported the conversions to the Vatican; look at the photos of Pavelić and Marcone side-by-side (the pair of them sometimes saluting Nazi-style); look at the behaviour and published utterances of one of Stepinac's most senior colleagues (Archbishop Šarić), or the tone and content of the catholic newspapers published in Zagreb under Stepinac's watch. And wonder why it was not until May 1942 that Stepinac spoke up about the depravities (and even then without bringing himself to mention the main victims, the Serbs). And why he continued to celebrate commemorative masses throughout the war on the anniversary of the puppet state being proclaimed.


 * Much as Objective Truth (so-called) may find it distasteful, this article must accommodate all perspectives if it is to have any credibility at all. Kirker (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well your [he meant "you're" - Kirker ] pretty funny mate - I wonder where you get all your information from...hmmm...let me guess? Hitler's Pope (sorry mate Cornwell in light of debates that he has had that he retracts any judgments he made about the Vatican during the holocaust) or maybe The Unholy Trinity by John Loftus and co...hmmm...there couldn't possible be any agenda's in his writings? Of course not!

Not forgetting how many lives Pope Pius and Stepinac saved to the point where the rabbi of Rome converted to the Catholic faith in appreciation for the extraordinary efforts that the pope had made in saving the Jews. Stepinac before all the Communist propaganda that you find infallible was applauded for the some 15,000 people he had saved whether they be Serb or Jew. Why don't you visit the Stepinac museum which is just located near the side of Zagreb Cathedral where all the names of the people he saved are on a wall with all the numerous letters which he wrote to save them all.

As with regards to your other hyperbole statements I suggest you read through all the material on the church in history website with 128 pages refuting your lies! (OBJECTIVE TRUTH (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Why am I still surprised when Christians conduct themselves in the manner of Objective Truth? I don't think any sort of propaganda is infallible. But unlike Objective Truth I don't think his spritual leader is either. (I'm with a famous bishop of Đakovo on that one!) Kirker (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See this is precisely the problem - this article has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility but rather the crimes of a minority of mostly ex-clergymen in the Ustase years, and again if you bother to read the Church in History essay which is widely referenced and has an insurmountable number of quotations citing the innocence of Stepinac and his consistent opposition to Ustase crimes throughout the period of NDH. I don't push an agenda like you - I'm neither an Ustase or Yugoslav-Tito apologist - I simply want to defend the integrity of innocent clergymen who were heroic in the face of oppression and who are used as playthings to further the agenda's of those who primarily want to wage a battle between Yugoslavism and Croatian Independence whether referring to WW2 or the recent wars. Not only that but "representing all views" is a great myth, with such great statements such as "the Ustase and the Catholic Church never broke ties" which for intents and purposes doesn't seek to clarify but leaves the reader believing that the Church was totally complicit in Ustase crimes. The Church recognised the NDH as a de-facto state rather then de-jure which doesn't mean that they approved of the regime but they simply recognised the existence of the Ustase and had throughout the whole war recognised the exiled Yugoslav government as the de-jure state before they recoginsed the Communists as the de-jure state after the war. Ye are simply not interested in the truth Sir Kirker - "Seek and you shall find!".


 * P.S - knowing your hunger for the truth perhaps you can learn what papal infallibility actually is, since it seems you like most people think WHATEVER the pope says is infallible > not so. Enlighten yourself
 * http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html OBJECTIVE TRUTH (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To Objective Truth: I mentioned infallibility only because you did. Some people, usually because they have been fed such garbage from infancy, believe the pope is infallible - at least when he pronounces on dogmas revealed through magic by an allegedly all-powerful deity. No wonder papal infallibility didn't get Strossmeyer's vote! Kirker (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what!, I thought this matter was long settled! Objective, what's the problem?! You fail to realize that the church is composed of these "individuals" you keep mentioning. Are you even aware of the fact that some of the worst massacres of the Yugoslv front (including Jasenovac, to a significant degree) were executed by the disproportionately large NDH military vicariate members? (Oh, and I love god too, when I die we're gonna get married ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * DIREKTOR I wasn't talking about lay persons within the Church committing crimes but rather Church endorsed clergy with Church approval committing crimes, and from what I can gather there were 10 times more Catholics fighting for the Partizans then that within the Ustase. Oh yes I hope you have the grace to surrender to that "delusional" being called Christ and remove yourself from the philosophies of a man who died a lunatic. His someone who you could challenge your mind with>

http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/pillars_nietzsche.htm


 * http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm


 * http://peterkreeft.com/featured-writing_more.htm


 * http://peterkreeft.com/audio.htm


 * Sir Kirker - seeing that you obviously dont have a clue about Papal Infallibility I dont know whether I would want to spend my time exerting myself by running in circles. Strossmayer didn't oppose infallibility like you propose but he thought that maybe Church reunification could be achieved between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches if the Church ceded to Orthodox non-recognition of Universal Papal authority. As regards to infallibility the Pope exercises an office not of his own personal opinion, when he declares something ex-cathedra on faith or morals he never adds doctrine but rather prevents doctrine from being subtracted. This is drawn from the deposit of faith which was passed on by the early church (i.e Apostles and Church Fathers) in which most if not all Church teaching had been defined. So the Pope if he one day decided he wanted to remove doctrines on Purgatory, the divinty of Christ or allow homosexual 'marriage' and abortion he simply has no power to do so because he is limited in his office to do such things. He is merely a visible spiritual head who passes on the deposit of faith - that is why the Church is so stuck in the mud because she proclaims the least power of any church because she merely passes on what has been given to her hence authority being authors rights is taught as the author had written it and the Pope, bishops and lay persons of the Catholic Church have no power to change that what has been entrusted to us. So I as a faithful lay Catholic have absolutely nothing to worry about when dealing with the the abuse of power by the pope because he has none hence I don't have to worry about such rogue Popes such as Pope Alexander VI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI destroying the Church because he can't. As for dealing with the "Historical" Jesus and the validity of the Gospel accounts I leave that to another time.


 * In Christ OBJECTIVE TRUTH (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For a devout catholic you sure mention thy lord's name in vain a lot... I for one support you, I don't think any particular religion should stand in the way of freedom of speech ;). Back to business.
 * I am fully aware (and proud) that the majority of the Partisans were Croats, being a Croat, however, does NOT thankfully automatically make you catholic (a fact I am living proof of). I also doubt the Partisans practiced much religion anyway, being communist guerrillas and all...
 * Jesus of Galilee was executed for treason against his country, claiming he descended from the royal House of Benjamin (this is from the good book) and trying to gather religious support for another regional rebellion. Near the end of it the man also claimed he was the son of a deity, sounds pretty delusional to me... (I read the Bible, twice)
 * As for the ingenious philosopher Nietzsche, I could not care less that he died a lunatic. His work is most certainly logical and far more "sane" than the bible could become even if you rewrote it in plain language. You see, unlike you, I have certain standards for belief. I do not believe in stuff simply because someone (a parent, the pope,... etc) tells me its true, I always want to see proof first, or at least receive a confirmation that scientific reasoning stands behind it. I am not so incredibly arrogant as to believe I know how the universe came to be, and I am certainly not going to use a 5000-year old Hebrew book as a source for that particular investigation.
 * As for the article, I think we all know the church isn't about to officially endorse killings and executions (at least not in the past few centuries, being busy with such concepts as brotherly love ;), this much is not in question. This is exactly why the article does not have the name "Involvement of the Croatian Catholic Church with the Ustaša regime". The fact remains that the Catholic clergy in Yugoslavia fought long and hard against the Allied troops in the area (the Partisans), as well as trying its best to "convert" infidels (the Serbs) all over the place. These goals required a STRONG involvement with the Ustaša regime. Perhaps you should read the Fra Miroslav Filipović article for a more extreme example of what I'm saying, the more moderate priests just liked to denounce people they didn't like to the death camps from time to time. Few people realize the horrid brutality of the Yugoslav front... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tell me, Objective Truth, in what way I have misunderstood the dogma of papal infallibility. But do it on my talk page. This page is here to help editors work towards a good NPOV article. (I have already said in another section on this page that the article needs much improving.) Oh, and we don't need a new section every time you say something. If we keep this argument in one section it is easier for others to bypass it.


 * At your bidding, I have just gone through the church-in-history website again. (.) I have read it before by the way. It is NOT made up of 128 pages refuting my lies. In fact much of it accords with my own views. And the analysis of victims (on both sides) looks like a fair attempt at the truth (although it seems we will never know with certainty what the figures were).


 * But when dealing with Stepinac in particular the author (Barton) really reveals his personal agenda. Consider for instance his weazel words in the last paragraph on page 43. He has no evidence for saying that a reception for the Ustaša leadership at the archbishop's palace did not take place. So instead he casually throws doubt on it, with no attempt at justification. As for this sentence: "By meeting them at a social function, Stepinac was able to judge who were peaceful and who were dangerous" - wonderful!


 * There is huge dependence on the Pattee hagiography (consult the Irish historian Hubert Butler for evidence of Pattee's readiness to distort). And relatively little use made of Stella Alexander's books - still pro-Stepinac on balance, but obviously not sufficiently so for Barton's liking.


 * In dealing with pro-Ustaša sentiments in Katolički List, Barton solemnly explains that these "could" have been inserted by Ustaša censors. Likewise the more distasteful comments in the Stepinac diaries "could" have been inserted later by communists.


 * Barton's credibility as a commentator on Balkan affairs is somewhat undermined by his numerous spelling mistakes. Fors instance "Budak" is persistently mis-spelt, Maček is spelt at least three different ways, etc, etc. Interesting indeed that anyone would attach such importance to such a shoddy piece of work. Kirker (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. But when dealing with Stepinac in particular the author (Barton) really reveals his personal agenda. Consider for instance his weasel words in the last paragraph on page 43. He has no evidence for saying that a reception for the Ustaša leadership at the archbishop's palace did not take place. So instead he casually throws doubt on it, with no attempt at justification. As for this sentence: "By meeting them at a social function, Stepinac was able to judge who were peaceful and who were dangerous" - wonderful! (REFUTED)

Admittedly you have a point, however, did you not recognise that Barton said thereafter "At this date there was no clear indication of how the new authorities would rule." and I find that to be a fair statement as at that time nothing of the scale of atrocities had been committed at that particular moment in time and Ustasa officers not leadership were present which in it self means that Stepinac had done nothing immoral or wrong. It a pretty pick-pocket criticism you making there if you ask me

2. There is huge dependence on the Pattee hagiography (consult the Irish historian Hubert Butler for evidence of Pattee's readiness to distort). And relatively little use made of Stella Alexander's books - still pro-Stepinac on balance, but obviously not sufficiently so for Barton's liking. (REFUTED)

He readily quotes 2 S.Alexander books, I find that quite sufficient - not being smart or anything but could please direct me to these Pattee texts and then demonstrate what has been quoted that is so tremendously bias Sir Kirker and whats with all this Barton hating? Butler seems to have his head up the Communists asses and in the small quote in the article doesn't even take into context why there was a welcoming of Croatian independence, sure in retrospect AFTER the Ustasa atrocities were committed its easy to bag on the Church about how she was a vulture sucking on the blood of Serbs. And remember these are the Pattee's works in relation to the Ustasa not a broader viewing of his overall works in which the immaculately conceived Butler is criticising

3. In dealing with pro-Ustaša sentiments in Katolički List, Barton solemnly explains that these "could" have been inserted by Ustaša censors. Likewise the more distasteful comments in the Stepinac diaries "could" have been inserted later by communists. (REFUTED)

Again you seem pretty desperate Sir Kirker in your criticisms - he provides solid evidence that the Katolicki List had been censored by the Ustase and not that they "could" but they did edit the newspaper. As regards to Stepinac diaries he said until the diary is handed over by Serbia and forensic experts actually have a look at the authenticity of the documents - until such a time it cannot be taken into consideration. Tell me what is so ridiculous about that - you're really stooping to some new lows!

4. Barton's credibility as a commentator on Balkan affairs is somewhat undermined by his numerous spelling mistakes. Fors instance "Budak" is persistently mis-spelt, Maček is spelt at least three different ways, etc, etc. Interesting indeed that anyone would attach such importance to such a shoddy piece of work. (REFUTED)

So far your objections to his work are very weak, spelling mistakes could've been due to typos and really have absolutely no bearing on the content of his work of which you have not barely raised one decent objection to his work accept on the basis of your Communist Left-wing, Church hating prejudices. To call it a shoddy piece of work it quite right of you after - I mean the only criticism you could invent were some relatively minor non-bearing pieces and you had not a single decent objections to the gist of his work pertaining to forced conversions, false accusations against Stepinac, and the innocent role of the church leadership during the Ustase years. I really don't understand you Communist/Tito love types - you'd rather back stab Croatia and her heroes (No I don't mean the evil Pavelic) then see them honoured, this whole HDZ - SDP partisan politics is really screwing the face of Croatia why don't you kiss the past goodbye and breathe the air of the future '''

P.S - Sir Kirker where do you live? Take the chance and visit the Stepinac museum outside of Zagreb Cathedral or perhaps the the grave of Stepinac where his incorruptible body still presides to this day (Yes it defies all Scientific explanations DIREKTOR - maybe it will help your unbelief) Its a most sure sign of Almighty God that this man was indeed a saint who led an exemplary life. The truth will win out and defeat the forces that seek to destroy this great man's name! Blessed Alojzije Stepinac, pray for us!

Oh and just another point, I really can't believe that you understand Infallibility when make such disproportionate statements like the Pope waves a magic wand - you really can't understand! Are your beliefs in a similar proportion to DIREKTOR?

And DIREKTOR I grew up an agnostic so not the Pope nor my parents had a fore bearing on my decision to use the three great divine attributes of faith, reason and logic to realise the truth of the Catholic faith with a little help from the Holy Spirit as well!''' OBJECTIVE TRUTH (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What!!? The carcass of Stepinac isn't decomposing? Defies scientific explanation? As a medical student I can tell you with absolute certainty that there has NEVER in the history of man kind existed a dead body that did not decompose. Simply because it must decompose (stealing someone from a grave near Jerusalem does not qualify as a resurrection in my book, more like grave robbery). Also, to this day not a single occurrence took place on this planet that could not be explained by science.
 * I really don't care where or how you grew up, it does not matter. Perhaps I should have realized that a religious fanatic is made not borne... Anyway, being a religious fanatic you are quite obviously profoundly biased in this matter, and are trying to push your POV. Be advised I will call in an Admin to take part in these "proceedings", perhaps you can try to convert him too. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about me pushing my agenda at all - if there was incriminating evidence then I humble myself and admit that errors were made but that's the problem there is no evidence at all that the church was an active partaker and influencer in the crimes of the Ustase and it's actually quite the opposite - there were consistent strong condemnations of Ustase crimes throughout the five years or so. I don't rely on emotionalism like yourself DIREKTOR but on documented evidence that neither yourself or Kirker have shown is wrong otherwise. My bias is towards the truth, you my brother are a rabid Yugoslav nationalist who cannot see error in your God - Tito!

Your obviously a subscriber to pseudo-science, as you yourself know - when investigating certain matters you don't impose your atheistic prejudices but test and see whether a certain phenomenon is in fact so apart from your own beliefs. I would suggest that maybe you yourself visit Zagreb Cathedral and check it out - it's all there to see and I'm sure scientist's have investigated this miracle and have come to the conclusion that the is something that science CANNOT explain. How about the stigmatists from Padre Pio, Katya Rivas to Zlatko Sudac that science has NOT been able to explain and said that this is definitely NOT of human origin through extensive scientific studies. Or perhaps you explain the phenomenon of the actual bleeding Eucharist that science has said CANNOT be of human origin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#The_miracle_of_Lanciano

It quite clear now where the rabid bias and prejudices come from (hint.......DIREKTOR) In the Miraculous and Omnipotent and ever-living Christ! OBJECTIVE TRUTH (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Amazing, you actually seem to believe that an omnipotent deity would find it necessary to preserve the redundant "vessel of the spirit". Once again, the body of Stepinac did decompose. However if it is preserved, then certain procedures were undertaken on that poor man's carcass to make it so, it can be done however, I am familiar with several modern techniques of mummification (take a look at Lenin, he must have been a regular apostle the way he looks!). I will not enter into a pointless philosophical debate, however, it is simply a proven fact that "no supernatural occurance has ever been documented under scientific conditions". This is straight from several international (official) med-school books (if you want I can write you down a list), being part of the fight against pseudo-medicine, I doubt that the undecomposable body of Stepinac a kilometer away from the school would fail to be mentioned.
 * You call yourself "Objective truth", and claim to be a champion of logical thought, I ask you simply: give me an "objective" proof of the existence of a supernatural being, and I will immediately convert to any of the various world's religions and/or sects you tell me to (I am serious). Think of me as a person who's never heard of the concept of religion, a logical but unprejudiced entity. However, please avoid the cliches like "everything you see around you is the proof", or "the essence of religion is that it is beyond science" etc.., as I'm afraid that I am not as arrogant as to believe wild guessing or ancient books are the key to the universe's secrets. P.S. I would also appreciate it if you would refrain from calling Medicine a "pseudo-science", you would do well to remember that your life expectancy is increased at least 20 years because of it (but then you probably don't care about such "worldly" things). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to get back to the subject, it's generally accepted that the worst horrors of the Ustase regime occurred in its first year. From the spring of 1942 onwards the Cetniks and Partisans assumed the Axis Powers (and therefore NDH) would eventually go down. That was certainly a widely held view after Stalingrad. I am waiting to see evidence from Objective Truth of "strong consistent condemnations" by the church during that initial first year, when some could still hope that the Axis Powers (and NDH) would prevail. I haven't seen such proof in that odious sycophantic display in Zagreb that he bangs on about.


 * Re God's magic tricks, the perfectly preserved body of Jeremy Bentham who died in 1832 is on public display at University College, London and has been known to attend meetings of the college council. (On such occasions Bentham is recorded as "present but not voting.") Unfortunately, far from being some kind of god, he seems to have disdained all superstitious nonsense and even campaigned all those years ago to decriminalise homosexuality. But then he was an educated man, unlike (for instance) the peasant masses in rural Italy or the poor of Rio's slums, whom the Catholic church exploited down the years. (I noticed that students in Rome told the pope to keep his nose out of their college a few weeks ago.) Kirker (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed I would also like to see some proof of the "strong consistent condemnations". One does not criticize the Axis powers within their reach, not "strongly and consistently" at least, and certainly not during wartime (WW2). I think what Objective fails to realize is that there certainly were elements within the catholic church in Croatia that were opposed or even strongly opposed to the massacres, but they are not the subject of this article. Another matter: it is also not in question weather the official position of the catholic church was against the killing, it was (of course). However, the subject of this article are those frequent episodes of cooperation between the Ustaše and a significant portion of the local catholic clergy.
 * Furthermore, it is beyond question that cooperation occurred. The "forced conversions" (after which the converts were knifed) that were frequent in the later years of the war are quite famous and not a subject for discussion. Follow this simple logic if you will:
 * 1) Forced conversions did occur and in relatively large numbers (they were not isolated incidents).
 * 2) Forced conversions require clergy to be carried out (HOS chaplains, for example).
 * 3) Forced conversions almost always (especially later during the war) ended in mass murder of the converts.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From Catholic.com
In opposing papal infallibility, for instance, he quotes from a speech supposedly given in 1870 at Vatican I. The speaker was Bishop Georg Strossmayer of Croatia: "I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the apostles, his fellow-workers. . . . What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of St. Peter himself!"

Young says that "Strossmayer's view exactly agrees with the understanding of the early Church, both East and West. . . . Strossmayer's words truly reflect the early Church's own understanding. Any Catholic can check this out for himself." But Young should have done some checking of his own. He took this quotation from August Bernhard Hasler's How the Pope Became Infallible, which purports to be a history of the question. Young accepts and passes along an error Hasler has promoted, one that has been pointed out numerous times in the last century.

The mistake made by Hasler and therefore by Young is one of credulity. They too willingly have believed opponents of Rome. They have unquestioningly attributed to Strossmayer a speech he never made. They have not checked their facts, thinking there to be no need. What Strossmayer purported said sounds right, according to their prejudices, so they printed it. The quotation quoted by Hasler and reproduced by Young did not come from Strossmayer at all--it was a forgery composed by a former Augustinian priest named Jose Augustin de Escudero.

As demonstrated in Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Strossmayer's real position was that he thought the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility was inopportune, not incorrect. He feared that the formal declaration of the dogma would hinder ecumenical relations with the Eastern Orthodox. But he did not disbelieve in the dogma, as Hasler and Young would have us think.

A useful analysis of Ustaša ideology
http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20070911.113128/public/02whole.pdf Franky1990 (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of this section had a frantic tone which I found annoying. I hope that Franky1990 will not mind that I have changed it to something less hysterical and, as it happens, more accurate. The link goes to a long essay by Nevenko Bartulin. It is only a doctoral thesis, but nevertheless it is indeed an impressive piece of work. Its relevance to this article is in its argument that the Ustaša movement had no interest in Catholic dogma, and was concerned to keep the Catholic Church out of state affairs. In support of this, Bartulin points to Ustaša readiness to accept Muslims as brothers within the NDH; he notes that many Catholics were among thousands murdered in the regime's genocide of its Roma minority, etc. If he is right, this would of course not alter the fact that many Catholics, including priests and members of the Franciscan order, participated in the genocidal persecution of NDH's Serb minority. And arguments about the role of the Vatican and the Croatian hierarchy would be no less valid. Kirker (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Desperate attempt to whitewash history
Article, as written, is miserable. Just another article which disqualifies Wikipedia as a reliable source.--71.252.55.101 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Church protests against crimes" removed
I've removed the entire "Church protests against crimes" section here. Beyond the POV nightmare that it is, I'm not in the mood to solve the puzzle of what the citations are to. I've edited articles in this area before to know to be more cautious than usual. It's been long enough and if someone can find an intelligible citation, then put it all back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Return to a stub
Many of the sources used do not meet WP:Reliability. For example - any reference to Hitler's Pope and The Vatican's Holocaust. The other references are either not cited in the article, or in a foreign language (allowable, but VERY highly discouraged). As a result, that invalidates most of the article. As such, I am intending to turn it into a stub in a week or so and possibly put it up for deletion, as it just seems way to obscure to be notable. Any comments in this regard are appreciated. Farsight001 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do it. Most of it is horrible biased, unclear and huge copyright problems.  Honestly, I'm pretty sure we can't just quote page after page of text without there being a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
There has been a lot of futile discussion here, but very little sourced content. I have rewritten the article making sure to only add sourced content. I have been rather harsh with the unsourced content as it has been disputed for quote some time and is written in quite a biased tone. I would advise all others who contribute here to cite their sources. Savidan 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK but why Michael Phayer is beeing cited 20 times for 20 different statements?? Why could not we simply copy his entire booK??--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add other cited information. He is one of the few sources I've found that deals with the primary sources from this period and publishes in English. Savidan 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know "fact"
The entry was:
 * Did you know ... that many Catholic clergy collaborated with the Ustaše, including Miroslav Filipović, who ran the Jasenovac concentration camp

The article says Filipović was a Franciscan, but one of the recent edits removed the reference that might have supported it (Phayer's book). Regardless: IIRC, Filipović was a Franciscan, but was expelled prior to his involvement with the Jasenovac camp. Therefore, if I'm not mistaken about this, the Did you know "fact" is in significant part a falsehood, since Majstorović, due to him not being a priest while running the camp, can't be used here an example of collaboration of Catholic clergy and the Ustaše. Was it too dificult to check the Miroslav Filipović article and its references? A falsehood on the Main Page - I find this regrettable (and I'm picking words here). GregorB (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why the reference was removed as it supports the fact you question. To the contrary, I find no reference in the Filipović article which supports the claim that he was expelled prior to running the camp. While the main page error (if actually an error) is regrettable, obviously the fact of his expulsion does little to blunt his relevance to this topic. In addition, the main page hook did not claim he was a Franciscan, and would still be technically true, as Filipović's collaboration doubtlessly began before his (alleged) expulsion. Savidan 22:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is true that Filipović collaborated while he was still a priest, this is still at best misleading. For example: A) "George W. Bush was the 43rd US President", and B) "George W. Bush was a child" (like all adults), therefore C) "43rd US President was a child" - which is technically true if it's understood in a particular way (GWB was certainly once a child), but at the same time false/misleading (he was not a President while he was a child - not a small difference in what is being said). That Filipović is relevant to the topic is beyond question, and I'm not really objecting to the article itself; it's just that the DYK hook reminds me of a certain strain of anti-Catholic propaganda. (Please note I'm absolutely not assuming bad faith here.) And it's not really necessary, since the well-established facts already paint a nasty picture of the RCC in WWII Croatia. GregorB (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point remains: what is your source for the claim that Filipović was expelled from the Franciscan order? Unless I am mistaken, you are basing this on the unsourced claim in the lead of his article. And, once again, the hook did not claim he was a Franciscan. Savidan 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The hook did not claim that he was a Franciscan, but that's not the issue here (I brought it up only because, at the time of my writing, the article said he was without a reference) - it all hinges on whether he was a priest while running the Jasenovac camp, i.e. whether he was expelled prior to that or not. No source either way. GregorB (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article currently describes him as Phayer does, citing Phayer as a source. Expulsion from the Franciscan order would not make him not a priest. Savidan 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Phayer?
Is this guy the only historian who discussed this topic? We've already heard enough myths about the Hitler's Pope and such things. This is not an objective article.

There is another book of his: Pius XII, the Holocaust, and the Cold War--Kennechten (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but this guy is considered an objective source. If the article doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy, that's only because the truth is ugly, cold and unaccommodating. Try to swallow it.SplitSpencer (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)