Talk:Moral theology of John Paul I

Adding and verifying sources
I was just getting ready to comment on this information on the main John Paul I page when it was moved over here. I am completely new to discussion on Wikipedia (though I often read the articles), but I am writing because I feel this article contains a great deal of misinformation. Of course, it should be discussed before changes are made.

This page states that "academics and historians" say that John Paul I's moral theology was "very liberal." Which academics and historians are these, and why are none cited here? John Allen is a generally good source, but he is a journalist, not a historian.

The source that most of the information on this page comes from is Lucien Gregoire's book. Not does he not have any academic or other credentials, the information he gives is open to serious question (I would use much stronger language if I were not trying to be impartial).

Let me state my own credentials for saying this. I have an academic degree in history (Fordham University Ph.D 2001), now work as a freelance writer, and have researched Pope John Paul I's life for more than 25 years. I can speak Italian and several other languages. I have published many translations of John Paul I's writings from both before and after he became Pope for the journal Humilitas, published in Gilford NH by the Missionary Servants of Pope John Paul I; some are included in the book The Smiling Pope: The Life and Teaching of John Paul I (Huntington, Indiana, Our Sunday Visitor, 2004).

Many of the claims Gregoire makes in his works are quite incredible. For instance he says that his is the only existing biography of John Paul I. (Murder in the Vatican, p. iv). It takes only a minute or two of research to see that this is not true (just go to the New York Public Library's online research catalog and do a subject search on "John Paul I" to see all the biographies and other works about this Pope in different languages). He also says that the Vatican confiscated all diocesan records from his tenure in Belluno and Vittorio Veneto. Once again, as someone who has been to Italy and personally researched these archives and the diocesan publications, I can state that this is completely false. Several of this Pope's other biographers have used the same archives and publications over the years, and have written works citing them. Nine volumes of his complete works have been published in Italian. Gregoire never cities these volumes or any of the publications where Luciani's writings originally appeared, and his own citations, which come from publications having nothing to do with his diocese, appear to be complete fabrications. He also cities works by Luciani that never existed, such as the supposed "intermediate thesis" on homosexuality, Strategy of a Strange War. The actual thesis in question was on the custom of judicial ordeals in the Middle Ages. If any reference at all is made to Gregoire's work on this page, it should be made clear that Gregoire alleges that Luciani said this, or that his statements are open to question.

I am preparing a scholarly biography of John Paul I, as well as a more complete edition of translations of his writings. but most of my research is still unpublished. However, I have put some information that could be very useful for editing this page on my blog, such as this recent post on Gregoire, which also cites the original publication of some of Luciani's writings on moral theology in Italian, with English translations.

http://subcreators.com/blog/2009/08/15/will-the-real-pope-john-paul-i-please-stand-up/

Please feel free to link to it or use it. I would contribute to editing myself if I had time, but am working on a deadline on another project right now. Also as someone who is engaged in original research myself, I would probably not be thought impartial. But there are other citations of sources (some in English) that I could contribute. Loripieper (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would certainly be great to have your input on this issue, especially if you have been deeply involved in researching then life and work of Luciani. In which case I very much hope you have time to clean up this article and establish strong evidenced material. I note that you've challenged the claim that Luciani published a thesis on 'Strategies of a strange war' - I agree that I haven't been able to identify a copy of this so does seem suspect. The claims around influencing changes to italian adoption law seem more convincing - but again would be interested to hear your views. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd be happy to do some editing, though I have very little time. If it would be acceptable, I can provide the citations for Luciani's original writings in Italian, along with the translations. Some are on my blog, including the entirety of the pastoral letter he wrote on birth control in 1968, and parts of the test-tube baby interview (which by the way, took place BEFORE he was elected Pope, not after). I have actually translated the whole of this. I have other, as yet unpublished translations. There is some other material in The Smiling Pope (published by Our Sunday Visitor) that I translated. The problem here is that this was to be the first of a projected two-or-three volume work, but so far OSV hasn't given any sign that it wants to publish more, and much of Luciani's take on moral theology would have been in the later volumes.


 * For twenty years, I've also edited "Humilitas" the journal of the Missionary Servants of John Paul I in Gilford, NH, which contains translations of his writings and often stories or articles about him. Unfortunately, it has a tiny circulation of about 1,500. I don't know if it will do much good to cite it (though certainly copies and subscriptions are free from the publishers). In fact, it might be a good idea for the main page on JPI to contain reference to the Missionary Servants. They are actually a great source for information.


 * I have done extensive original research on John Paul I and am getting ready to finish and publish a scholarly biography of him. Naturally I don't want to put up a whole lot of my original research here, since that will be the main selling point of the book. But I am happy to correct things as much as I can.


 * My main concern is that nothing in Gregoire's volume be stated as fact. It is in fact, complete nonsense. All invented by the author. I say this as an expert! Nothing in this book is to be trusted. It's a complete work of fiction.


 * Luciani's actual thesis (or "exercitatio") in theology for his licentiate was on ordeals in the Middle Ages, not on homosexuality. No one seems to know where the typescript is; but his colleagues recall the subject and that it was published in a theological review, which I hope to find someday. Luciani himself spoke of the subject and the research he had done for it in a writing that I have translated from his trip to Africa in 1966 (all this is documented on the blog entry I linked to above)


 * The whole thing about his campaigning for gay adoptions completely unsupported by any evidence. There's not a word about it this subject in the nine volumes of Luciani's actual writings, and it stands to reason that 30-40 years ago in Italy, gay adoption was not on anyone's cultural radar. If there were any talk of it in society, I think it would be in his writings, but it's not. There is certainly nothing about it on the many Italian biographies of him. Anything that Gregoire has to say about it is not based on any authoritative source.


 * If you could give me a few tips on how to proceed in regard to the sources, I'll be happy to do what I can. That is, is it acceptable to cite original Italian sources as well as link to English translations on my blog? How far should I go in trying to correct things or refute Gregoire's work? There are certainly things I could correct on the main JPI bio page as well. Thanks. Loripieper (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - please feel free to cite italian as well as english sources. I think the best way to manage this article is to put more in about what we do actually know about his moral theology (and then refer to Gregoire/ Yallop as needs be but without necessarily having them dominate the article). Contaldo80 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I came back here a couple of hours ago, and saw that someone had attempted to incorporate some of my suggestions, but there were a number of new errors. I've just had a go at it, forgive me if I've done anything incorrectly; it was my first try. I cited my blog because there isn't anyone else out there who has written substantively about Gregoire's fictions. We didn't address them at all in The Smiling Pope, which was cited; I believe it came out before his book; at any rate I'd never heard of him then, and couldn't do anything to counter him. Should the source for the English translations of Luciani's writings be indicated in some way along with the original Italian source in the notes? (The ones I've put in are all mine, from my blog). Loripieper (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this - I think the article is slowly looking much better. I've amended the section on sexuality, however. I don't agree that we need extra references in this section or need to hedge it with 'supposedly' and 'allegedly'. Instead we have made clear in this section that this is what Gregoire believes to have happened - it's simply his view; and we do not need additional sources. It may or may not have happened as he describes. Instead it is most appropriate to put counter-arguments after this text to demonstrate why it may/ may not stand up to scrutiny. We may think Gregoire is unreliable but we need to be fair-minded as to where he is weakest. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A bad source can't be allowed to stand
I've stumbled across these pages while doing some research on HH John Paul I and have been horrified to read some of the material here, which would be laughable if it weren't so serious.. While I don't have the credentials of Loripieper, above - and her learned comments should be read in preference to these - I know enough about the topic - and crackpots - to be appalled that this work of "Gregoire" is allowed to be cited. The book referenced, as with his others it seems, is unadulterated fiction. It bears false witness against a good man (who cannot reply), with no evidence to back its assertions. It is also, importantly, a self-published book - which should be regarded as being no more authoritative than a personal web page, but for some reason is permitted here as a source?

A brief check at Amazon.com would tell any enquirer all she needed to know about this author.

Being new to Wikipedia, and having tried to correct another page on JP I, but having had those changes reversed, I'm not sure of the correct approach here. What I would like to see is all reference to this Gregoire expunged. I don't believe that this is unfair to the man: his self-published work makes outrageous claims not backed by any other biographer or historian, his work has had no probity at all applied to it - it simply has no authority. It is wholly unreliable, and slanderously so - a great crime against a good man who cannot reply.

I don't believe that it is in Wikipedia's interest to allow the value of its articles to be diminished by sources of malicious fantasy posing as scholarship. If anyone knows the right way to approach this and is able, I would like to see the record corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.162.173 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the problem here. The Gregoire references present Luciani as attacking clerical child abuse, and calling for greater tolerance and understanding of homosexuals. How is this defaming and slandering? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem, exactly, is that it is untrue.


 * It is slanderous because it is untrue - purely and simply and wholly. Your, my or anybody else's views on the subject matter here are irrelevant - the only question is whether the offered source is reliable, whether the truth is being told. And clearly it is not, from even the most rudimentary of examinations.


 * I can see from the above that you, personally, Contaldo, had this discussion three years ago with Loripieper and resisted setting the record straight then. Her comments there, and on the link noted, are as complete and withering a treatment of Mr Gregoire's work - and from a truly reputable source - as should be needed.


 * But I will attempt to elicit some common sense, it is certainly worth the effort. Let's break this down:


 * Claim 1: "..in 1941 Luciani wrote a thesis, Strategy of a Strange War", regarding homosexuality.  The document simply does not, nor ever did, exist.  As explained by Loripieper above, and in the historical record, Fr Luciani's actual thesis was "on the custom of judicial ordeals in the Middle Ages".  No primary source has been given for this claim.


 * Claim 2: Fr Luciani permitted the adoption of children from Catholic orphanages by known homosexual couples.  Where to start?  To suggest that there even existed "known homosexual couples" in religiously conservative 1950s Italy is ridiculous, but to further contend that these non-existent couples were given priority over local Catholic families in the adoption of children from orphanages (served in those days by multitudes of conservative religious nuns, priests and lay brothers) is pure nonsense, betraying this as a 21st-century secularist's fantasy.  No primary source given.


 * Claim 3: Fr / Bishop Luciani influenced the Italian parliament in 1959 to allow for "single persons to adopt children in Italy".  I have no easy way of disproving this statement, but on the surface it is as absurd as the one which precedes it.  Putting aside for a moment that such a concept goes against the grain of the Church's mission to protect the family, it is easily dismissed in that if such a thing had actually occurred it would be a part of the historical record - a remarkable feature of this Pope's life, achieved as a young bishop.  It isn't, it wasn't, and some unverifiable reference to Italian parliamentary hansard isn't going to make it so.  The primary source has been given, however - with some effort it could be checked.


 * Claim 4: "In a letter to his mother he bemoaned that 'There is something terribly wrong with a society that thinks one's sex is what makes one a good parent'".  The suggestion is that a holy priest has written to his undoubtedly devout mother to complain that Italian society was discriminating against homosexuals with regard to parenting opportunities. Beyond ridiculous. No matter what our personal views may be in secular, Anglo-Saxon 2012, such a statement would have been as likely from an Italian priest of that era - in a letter to his mother! - as a complaint that Italian society was preventing boiled eggs from pursuing careers in the law.. again, this is a 21st century author's fantasy which simply could not have been conceived of in 1940s or 50s Italy. No primary source given.


 * Claim 5: That "before his death Pope Paul VI even permitted Luciani to address the Vatican cardinals on the possibility that the Church might encourage homosexuals to enter into long-term loving relationships".  I really don't believe further comment is needed here, so far is such a statement from the bounds of Catholic doctrine.  It is the product of a contemporary, secular mind (and latter-day phraseology).  The subsequent quote has a reference to l'Osservatore Romano, the Pope's official press organ, and at that time a very conservative institution (by today's standards). Its archives may be checked.


 * Claim 6: On clerical abuse, a quote is offered which refers to the Church being required to "pay their debt in cash".  Now, the pursuit and settling of such claims, the vast majority of which relate to the terrible abuse which occurred in places from the late 1960s through the 1980s, was not a feature of the time.  The financial settlement of such suits against the Church was very much an issue which took hold a decade of more after his Papacy (and death). The language used is also a little too "modern". Notwithstanding this historical anachronicity, I am confident that no pastor who had been "reprimanded by the Vatican" (whatever that means - which congregation?  what was the nature of the reprimand?) would find an easy road to the Papacy.  The primary source given is Messaggero Mestre, and while such a publication may exist I can find no reference to it which isn't linked back to Gregoire himself..  however, it may be checked if it exists (my expectation is that it does not).


 * Claim 7: That Bishop Luciani conducted research on pederasty.  This may be the case, and I'm happy to concede it, but I do doubt that there would not have been far more pressing issues for a bishop of his diocese at the time (this had yet to become a visible scandal / disaster).   Problematic is that the proliferation of such abuse occurred from the late 1960s onwards, and it did not become the global issue we are now so familiar with until much, much later. The subsequent claim however, that "he felt that many members of the clergy were transgendered and not necessarily homosexual", is quite bizarre.  It does not read as the statement of a bishop, but rather of, again - and I apologise for the repetition - a 21st-century social commentator.  Transgendered?  From a conservative Italian bishop of the 1960s?  Really??  The word "transgender" has itself only very recently made it into our dictionaries (and even then, not the best of them).  In any case, the same seemingly non-existent primary source is presented as in #6.


 * The picture which emerges from these allegations of Gregoire (in addition to the remainder of his work, and I'd ask the favour that anyone sceptical about this matter examine his other self-publications online) is of an anti-Christian, specifically anti-Catholic, polemicist who has latched on to the figure of Pope John Paul I as a foil to promote his very current, 21st-century political agenda with regard to homosexuality and new-age religion. It is dishonest and distasteful in the extreme.


 * Let me be clear. None of these claims is backed by any other historian / scholar / author / record.  I'm calling fabrication on everything I have read from Gregoire.


 * Now, either Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia and a philosophy, is concerned with the quest for truth - a noble cause - or it is an outlet for malcontent nut-jobs to promote their mischievous agendas and self-published pap for commercial gain. It cannot be both.


 * The proposal I make - to anyone with an interest in the veracity of this page - is as follows: I suggest that each of these dubious entries be placed into hiatus, removing them from the live page (but leaving whole in Wikipedia's version history), until the point at which the primary sources can be verified.  One man's word here should not be sufficient.  Let us see the evidence, and if it can be produced and verified then I will be the first to put my name, and my apology, to the edit which reinstates any information unfairly removed.


 * Please let me know your thoughts, but I should note that conscience won't let me lie down on this. An injustice has been done to a good man, and needs to be righted.


 * On the other hand, as I say, I will be the first to apologise and backtrack if primary evidence can be produced to verify these disputed claims.


 * I don't believe, sadly, that will ever be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.162.173 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone has an objection to the course of action outlined above, please raise now. If no compelling argument presents itself within a few more days then I will attempt to remove the offending paragraphs.  I have no desire however to get involved in a delete-reinstate-delete-reinstate death spiral - far better to deal with it here than let matters degenerate.  Conversely, if there is any agreement with the above then it wouldn't hurt to add another voice.123.243.162.173 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone has an objection to the course of action outlined above, please raise now. If no compelling argument presents itself within a few more days then I will attempt to remove the offending paragraphs.  I have no desire however to get involved in a delete-reinstate-delete-reinstate death spiral - far better to deal with it here than let matters degenerate.  Conversely, if there is any agreement with the above then it wouldn't hurt to add another voice.123.243.162.173 (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that you've set it outlike this then I'd be inclined to agree. Make the changes needed. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, appreciated Contaldo. I will make the edits.  If interested in questions of actual Catholic doctrine, theology and the situation in 2012 then you might try www.rorate-caeli.blogspot.com, an excellent starting point. AMDG. 123.243.162.173 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Censorship
I am deeply disturbed by the removal of lengthy pieces concerning the subject, and their replacement with bland platitudes that say little to me about the man. I am a late Catholic convert, raised agnostic, inspired by the character, the thoughts and the works of Pope John Paul I, and despair that he seems to be being airbrushed from history. Why no official celebration of his centenary?

This source 'Gregoire' might or might not be unreliable, but it is for us to decide, not for someone here, who is amply assertive and possible has all the resources of present official Vatican scholars, who has it in his mind that Gregoire is a demented conspiracy theorist. By removing Gregoire's work from this article, we have lost the capacity to decide for ourselves whether or not this is the case. Furthermore, I feel that the wholesale censorship may well vindicate all that Gregoire has said, and cast great suspicion on the present authority in place in the Vatican. I am eager, above all, that this does not happen, since I value my parish and want there to be more followers at Mass, not fewer.

Please restore the removed references, with if necessary a notice that they are contentious, and let us decide for ourselves who is right.

Elmbeard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmbeard (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)