Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 2

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)

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)

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) * * *

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)