Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 18

Canonizations and Beatifications--Please don't archive
For those interested, here are the Saints and Blesseds created by Pius XII for which we have no article. Saints: Bernard Realini, Jeanne Elizabeth des Ages, Maria Josepha Rossello, Emily de Rodat, Mariana Paredes of Jesus, Vincenzo M Strambi, Anthony M Gianelli, Emilie de Vialar, Francis Xavier Bianchi, Maria Domenica Mazzarello, Gaspar del Bufalo, Joseph M. Pignatelli, Maria Crocifissa di Rosa, Herman Joseph. Blessed: John Baptist Turpin du Cormier, Mary Assunta, Marcelino Champagnat. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg
Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WEINER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.136.174 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Theology of Pope Pius XII
Well, it has been said that theology is somewhat central in the description of a Pope because it is central to his life and office. But it was largely missing here so far. Believe it or not, I tried to keep it short, by farming out interesting details to other topics.

The theology of Pius as a whole is a difficult subject because there are simply too many topics. While there is much material on individual aspects of his teaching, not many sources exist on his theology as a whole. Another problem was his sometimes engaged almost emotional style, which does not easily fit the cool Wikipedia norms. Have fun! -:) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nuncio
I added material in order to outline better the main themes and characteristics of Pacelli's activities 1917-1929. I tried very hard not to be too specific.

I left the all existing texts with one exception but had to rearrange some in order not to duplicate.

One sentence I moved in a foodnote:

"Similarly, he later dispersed a mob attacking his car by raising his cross and blessing his assailants, as related by Bishop Fulton Sheen — the recipient of the cross — on television.[15]"

Good old Fulton may have overreacted with this wonderful description, which does not seem to be supported by other sources. For example Pascalina Lehnert, who was there with Pacelli, described the event less eventful: ..."once more, the Nuncio was threatened and asked to leave  the nunciature and the country. He declared in a firm and decisive way, that he would never leave. The men left". Pascalina Lehnert “Ich durfte ihm Dienen", Naumann, Würzburg, 1986, p16.

There is a general problem with many papal biographies, especially the ones written during the lifetime of the pontiffs. Although they often include very useful details, they are largely hagiographic. This seems to be the case here. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality theology and novelty
The current version of this article claims the unitive function of sex was "novel to the Church" at the time Pius XII spoke on it. But Casti Connubii is twenty years earlier and states, "in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence." Any novelty to this view of the Catholic Church should be credited to Pius XI, not Pius XII.

As a side note, references currently numbered 106 and 108 are duplicates of each other, and 106 and 107 only support quotes, not any of the interpretation that is being done in those paragraphs. I propose both of those paragraphs be removed, just leaving the last paragraph in the "Human sexuality" section. LyrlTalk C 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) - Hi, you raise an interesting point. Pius XI and Pius XII, who were quite close, would probably agree that there is little between them. But between "secondary ends" and .."quieting of concupiscence" on one hand, and ... "experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit" on the other, seems to be qualitiative differences to me. Which is probably the reason, why the Church uses the quote of Pius XII and not CC.

Yes, there is some duplication in the quotes, as I did not want to erase an existing text from a previous author. I'll look at it domani! Thanks for the valuable input!

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph claims, "the Church... so far had viewed sexual activities as necessary for procreation only". This claim is not supported by the reference, and, to my understanding, is false.  I'm interpreting Casti Connubii as an earlier definitive statement that sex was not only for procreation.  I can also see arguments that the nineteenth century rulings that early forms of the rhythm method were moral acknowledged non-procreative purposes for sex.  And the writings of early Church father John Chrysostom (see the section "The Saint of Sex" in this article) also support non-procreative purposes.  I hope this clarifies why I would like to remove that paragraph.  Perhaps the information about the Catechism could be incorporated into the last paragraph of this section? LyrlTalk C 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Yes, this is a slippery slope, I took out "only" Thank's --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Life, death and legacy
I deleted texts on Pascalina- Montini because of factual errors:

Pius XII. did not deny the cardinalate but had offered it to Montini. He had two constitories during his pontificate, 1946 and 1953. He offered the red hat to Montini and Domenico Cardinal Tardini in 1953, but they turned it down. He himself noted that at the beginning of his speech to the new cardinals at the consitory in 1953. (Pio XII, La Allocuzione nel consistorio Segreto del 12 Gennaio 1953 in Pio XII, Discorsi e Radiomessagi di Sua Santita, Vatican City, 1953,p.455); (see also Pope Paul VI) Montini did not get the red hat after 1954, because the Pope did not have a third consistory before his death in 1958. This meant that all archbishops, appointed after 1953, who could expect the honor because of tradition and importance of their city, did not get the red hat, (Montini Milan, O’Hara Philadelphia, Cushing Boston, König Vienna, Godfrey Westminster, Barbieri Montevideo, Castaldo Naples, Richaud Bordeaux, … and others: In the case of Montini, the facts are clear: Nothing to do with Pascalina. He was to be appointed in 1953, turned it down, and therefore had to wait to the next constitory, which took place after the death of Pope Pius XII.

Regarding the wrong information on the illnesses of the Pope, I added the official 1954 diagnosis of Swiss and American doctors. I put the detailed descriptions of Galeazzi misdeeds in the foodnote, since this about Pope Pius XII. The Galeazzi quotes are all repeated at his own page. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Marchione Reference
Sorry, but I could not identify the author of the following sentence: "Most of what is known about Pacelli's early life comes from a comprehensive biography by Sister Margherita Marchione." (Sr. Margherita Marchione, Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace (Paulist Press, 2000). ISBN 0-8091-3912-X)

The book in front of me, as the title Architect for Peace suggests, does not have ANY information on the early life nor is it a comprehensive bibliography. It deals very effectively with the peace policies of Pope Pius XII. Possibly there is an error or confusion with another book of Sister Margherita Marchione? In that case, without reducing the important contributions of Sister Marchione, whom I know,  I would also  like to point to many early biographies of Pius XII, which also have good information on the subject. (see: main article Early life of Pope Pius XII)

To the author: This sentence with slightly different wording is okay, provided a different Marchione source exists.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She's written several books on him. See the references section. Something should be said about her somewhere as she is an important source (for his entire life, really), albeit a bit haigaographical in places. Savidan 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Regarding "haigaographical", I am reminded of the quote from Robert Leiber: " Austere functionality was the life style of his pope,... against exxagerations,  he felt an almost physical repulsion, He could speak solemnly, whenever his office required it, but he never exxagerated, his word was always balanced". Maybe, he would have made a good Wikipedian -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong quote
''In 1941, Pius XII interpreted Divini Redemptoris, an encyclical of Pope Pius XI, which forbade Catholics to help Communists, as not applying to military assistance to the Soviet Union. This interpretation assuaged American Catholics who had previously opposed Lend-Lease arrangements with the Soviet Union.[''126] (Ronald Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope, p. 414–15, note 61).

Sorry but Note 61, Rychlak page 414 is not at all related to this subject. It deals with "forced conversions" etc. Can the author of this sentence please check his/her records?

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is something that has been in the article for a while, before my time I think. This is a relatively well-known fact, which I'm sure a better source can be found for. But, since you have the Rychlak book, why not try looking up "Divini Redemptoris" in the index. Savidan 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kent, 2002, p. 56, for example. Savidan 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The original source, as  I remember, is somewhere in the 11 volumes of Actes et Documents. As I recall, it did not involve the Pope himself but the Secretary of State and Cicognagni, the Vatican rep in Washington, D.C. Over the weekend, I will take a look at the Actes.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actes
This confusing and poorly written part contains errors and misleading sentences, and it is highly questionable, why it should be an item in the biography of Pope Pius XII, since Actes et Documents Du Saint Siege, as this title explains,   deal mainly with documents of the Vatican Secretariat of State with nunciatures and foreign governments. Vatican authors (with exception of Vol II) are mainly Maglione, Montini and Tardini and NOT Pius XII.

The Text itself is questionable:


 * In the aftermath of the controversy surrounding The Deputy, in Pope Paul VI authorized four Jesuit scholars I always thought he authorized three (Pierre Blet, Angelo Martini Burkhardt Schneider) and a fourth, Robert A. Graham, joined the team  two years  or so later (mainly at the request of Father General Arrupe SJ).
 * I'm 90% this is from Sanchez, which I don't have in front of me right now. Will get back to you. Savidan 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop looking. Blet reports this, the Robert A. Graham page states it,( and I know this very well because Graham, a very good friend of mine, told me so). --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * to access the Vatican's secret archives Really???, I always thought they accessed the Archives of the Vatican Secretariat of State
 * Sanchez, again. I'll have to wait before correcting it; it seems very likely to me that it was both. He is the same source for the 75 year thing, so it is very unlikely he miswrote and meant only the secretariat. Savidan 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check your sources, "likely" and "unlikely" is not sufficient. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A selected collection of primary sources, Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, was published  This is POV, highly misleading and contradicts  what the authors themselves claim  Maybe they all lied. Well then, let's prove it.
 * I don't speak the language, but I find it unlikely that Blet claims that the Actes isn't a selected collection. He may claim that its representative, but he certainly doesn't claim that this is every single document! Savidan 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Important is not, what he most likely claimed but what he said. You should quote that or say nothing. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Actes documents are (mostly Italian) Italian? Or, maybe  French? Hard to prove how many pages in each language, but then, there were recently some English only speaking Holocaust scholars in Rome, asking for Spanish translators of the Actes, by confusing Italian with Spanish documents. If you add Spanish with Italian ...you get an Italian majority. On the serious side, this claim is pure guessing!
 * Sanchez, again. See above. Savidan 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Actes include thousands of pages and documents. Did he enumerate and report percentages, or did he simply make uneducated guesses, which you then reported here?--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable documents not included in the Actes include most of the letters from Bishop Konrad Preysing of Berlin to Pope Pius XII in 1943 and 1944, Correct ditto for his letters from 1939-1942! My goodness! Why Preysing, Why not Spellmann, or 1000 other RC bishops from around the world??? Actes et Documents Vol II contains letters TO and not FROM the bishops. Is that so difficult to understand?
 * Provide a good source for the claim that all the Actes are outgoing, add it cited, and then I will agree that this removal is justified. For the record, the above is from Phayer, p. xvii. Savidan 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly read carefully again, what I actually wrote! If you single out alledged Preysing letters from 1943 and 1944 and not his earlier ones, and not letters from any other bishop, you should tell us here, Why these letters are so important, and why von Preysing and not ...  Spellmann, Galen, or Faulhaber  or Bertram? .. which makes me wonder, whether you fully understand what the Actes are supposed to be. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and the papers of Austrian bishop Alois Hudal, Yes, and the autobiogaphy of Donald Duck: They were simply not a part of State Department documents. Why Hudal? He was not even a State Department official. Why not any or all of the other Monsignori in Rome at the time.
 * This is also from Phayer, p. xvii. I find citing other sources the only non-original research way of pointing out the notable omissions. Savidan 16:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly tell us then, Savidan, why specifically the Hudal papers should be part of the Acts and Documents of the Holy See during World War Two? What is the scholarly basis for Phayer's claim?
 * Phayer? Is he the sexologist turned papal historian emeritus from Maryland? Oh my God! Phayer makes so many mistakes, that I find it unworthy to deal with him.  He should have known, that Bishop Hudal was put on ice under Pius XII. During WWII he was in charge of the small Austrian College Anima in Rome.  Nix Vatican official. He was pastor of a very small congregation and head of the theoligical anima seminary for approx 25 students. Period. (I could write a book on Hudal, just based on what Graham told me, but it would have almost nothing to do with WWII).

(A note of this fellow: Virtually all Phayer arguments are copied from a rare book: M M Scheinmann, Der Vatikan im Zweiten Weltkrieg, published first by the Historical Institut of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1953 and issued later in East Berlin (Russian Zone) in 1954.  Phayer borrows liberally from this book, which exists in very small numbers only (6000 copies). This does  not mean that the arguments are wrong, but it may raise ethical questions.)--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and virtually everything appertaining to Eastern Europe. Here we go again. This is simply not correct. Poland and the Baltics figure very prominently in volume III (about 600 documents published in two parts) There are documents dealing with finland, Romania, Bulgaria and other Eastern countries. But, as there were absolutely no contacts whatsoever between Vatican with the USSR of Josef Stalin, or with bishops inside the USSR, we can all guess three times how much communication exists from that part of the world.
 * Still Phayer, p. xvii. The argument that you have presented above (although unsourced) does not actually contradict Phayer's claim because he doesn't say that there is nothing, only that most are missing. Not that they don't comprise a significant percentage of the Actes, but that what's in the Actes is a small percentage of the whole. Please provide a source that contradicts Phayer on this question. Savidan 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No Savidan, "Virtually everything" contradicts by about 100%.


 * Savidan, when you say "Virtually everything" is missing, you have to specify WHAT is missing.
 * How many documents are missing?
 * Which Eastern European countries are affected?
 * When were they written?
 * By whom were they written?
 * To whom were they written?
 * Why are they missing?
 * How do you know that they are virtually everything??

In light of some 600 documents on Poland and the Baltics alone (not counting Romania, Bulgaria, Finland etc) this all appears to be, sorry to say, sheer nonsense! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Saul Friedlander's Pope Pius and the Third Reich: A Documentation (1966) did not cite the Actes and drew instead on unpublished diplomatic documents from German embassies. Most later historical works, however, draw heavily on the Actes. So what! I always thought this is a biography of Pius XII!


 * I think the fact that all the secondary-sources from one period, except one, are based primarily on one primary source is a notable detail for a biography. This, I also think is from Sanchez but I'm only 90% on that. Savidan 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this sentence! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote this section a long time ago. In general, though, I would say that I'm not creative enough to just make any of this stuff up and probably just didn't cite whatever source was in front of me. I would hope that you don't make the same mistake, and try to base your changes on solid citations. To make a meta-claim, like most of above (or their opposites), a secondary sourc should be necessary. Savidan 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At issue here is not what I wrote in general or what you wrote in general, but this specific section. I did not make a meta claim but attempted to detail, that every single sentence and most factual statements in it are wrong or POV. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You prematurely erased information as " quite dubious as pius xii would have been very unlikely to think he was a msgr when he was really a bishop"
 * PS: For Your Information!

Well Savidan, kindly ask me ahead of time, before you make such mistakes: A person can be BOTH! Here is a book you may like to look at:
 * Monsignor Romero: A Bishop for the Third Millennium  (From the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies) (Hardcover)  by Robert S. Pelton (Editor), Robert L. Ball (Editor), Kyle Markham (Editor)


 * Sorry about the incorrect removal; I would have asked you if I knew that you were the author of the sentence in question. I do not have the Sanchez book at the moment; I hope to get it on Tuesday. Definitely this week. When I have it I will fix the referencing in the Actes section. Savidan 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cornwell
Hey guys, there has been some back and forth about the Cornwell book recently. I agree with Savidan that the book is notable and may be mentioned but given the fact that time has passed on and that Cornwell himself has put his work into question that the section should be severely reduced. After all, the book has a whole article for itself. Str1977 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the section is of an appropriate length. I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on the impact that you think the material has on the culpability or praise-ability of Pius XII rather than the notability of the material. What you mention about Cornwell slightly modifying his views re: the economist quote (not a retraction of the substance of his central thesis but rather a re-evaluation of what his argument means for an ethical judgment of Pius XII) has no impact on the notability of the material, which is already quite modest in size. I agree that the daughter article will likely be the appropriate place for most future expansion, but think what we have now is a good summary for this article that has been reached with a lot of give-and-take, compromise, re-wording, etc.


 * Perhaps if you could be more specific about what you would like to see removed (from this article anyway), it would be easier for me to understand your view. Savidan 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Savidan,
 * please seriously reconsider your words: "I find it just a little bit off-putting that you seem to want to make allocation decisions in this article based on the impact that you think the material has on the culpability or praise-ability of Pius XII rather than the notability of the material."
 * Did I not write "I agree with Savidan that the book is notable and may be mentioned but given the fact that time has passed on and that Cornwell himself has put his work into question"
 * Where am I talking about "culpability or praise-ability" - I am talking about notabilty which in some cases is not stable over time. Cornwell's book certainly is not as notable now as it was when this was added, especially given Cornwell's comments.
 * Please retract your unacceptable claims. Str1977 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cornwell modifying his views at a later date does not change the notability of a book or the controversy/subsequent works that it spawned. If anything, that his more recent statements were deemed notable by the economist increases the notability of the material. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, admitting that he was partly wrong does decrease the notability to this article which is about Pius XII and not some fictious Hitler's Pope. Sure, the book remains notable for the controversy it created and hence I did not propose to remove him. I am sure that in 1964, The Deputy would have got a larger section on this article (had WP been around) - but now over 40 years have passed. And in Cornwell's case time has passed too. That is the main argument. Str1977 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm disagreeing with precisely. The Documentary hypothesis, for example, is an extremely notable hypothesis which merits quite a large article for itself and a considerable deal of coverage in other articles. If Wellhausen tomorrow were to retract his hypothesis or even say it was all a hoax, it would not reduce the notability of the hypothesis at all. The correctness of an argument/opinion/point of view has nothing to do with its notability. Nor, for that matter, does how long ago it was published. HP/The Deputy continue to be more notable than a handful of more recent works, for example. Savidan 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several sections in this article, which could be taken out or shortened such as the story of Jewish orphans, which, as it turns out, has absoutely nothing to do with Pope Pius XII, but reflects shrill accusations at the time. IF we take those sections out,it seems to me, the article will be viewed as partial. Keeping them here in light of their obvous shortcomings, highlights the nature of arguments against Pius XII.

Cornwell's original accusations, which he now relativized, were ridiculous, I agree. But his book does include valuable insights and some good scholarship on the early years of Pacelli. They are hidden under false pretense and an obnoxious title, which I am sure, was rewarding to him in the short run. -:)) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with Ambrosius's sentiments. That's yet another reason not to remove or whittle down material just because we as writers deem a point of view incorrect. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was never talking about removing Cornwell but about reducing the size and detail of his book's section.

One line I think questionable for content reasons is this one;

"Cornwell's work has received much praise and criticism. Much praise of Cornwell centered around his statement that he was a practising Catholic who had attempted to absolve Pius with his work.[185]"

So the only praise mentioned is this: the author was praised for making that statement? Is that all? Was he really praised for such a trivial thing. Let me also add that there is much doubt about the veracity of that statement.

What does the source quoted actually say?

Also, the extent that Cornwell had access to the archives, or rather to what extent he made use of it, is also a matter of contention. Our wording here seems too credulous about this.

Str1977 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are referring to is a nearly verbatim quotation from Sanchez. Cornwell said that we was a practicing Catholic, etc. in the foreward of the book and a lot of the early reviews picked up on that. You'll notice that grammatical that does not mean he was praised for making the statement but rather that he was praised, and the praise was related to that. As to Cornwell's use of the archives, please provide a source that makes the claim that you just made. Savidan 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't help at all. I know that Cornwell said this. But how can he be praised for being a practicing Catholic (supposedly, as even that has been questioned in the light of earlier statements by Cornwell) and (supposedly) trying to exonerate the Pope - this has nothing to do with the book as it was published. Is there really no praise of the book? And as I said, his assertions about his initial aims is very far from being undisputed, e.g. here.
 * As for the archives issue: it is partly included in the Hitler's Pope article. The main point is though he was allowed to access the archives, he made little use of it, both by not accessing it very often ("the falsity of his boast that he had spent „months on end" in the archives, when he visited the Vatican for only three weeks and didn't go to the archives every day of that.") and by not making much use of it in the book . This is mirrored here.
 * In all these links you can find the passages by searching for the word "archive". Str1977 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a mystery, why a certain well-intentioned but naive Vatican official gave Cornwell access to the documents, written mostly in Italian. Cornwell did not understand the Italian language above the tropo caro level. His only claim to fame was the money making book A Thief in the Night about an imagined conspiracy to kill Pope John Paul I. Cornwell, a journalist had no scholaly publications or ecclesiastical credentials. That Vatican official, a very old person, obvioulsy feeling betrayed by Cornwell's publication, showed me documentation from the signature book, which clearly indicated that Cornwell indeed spent precious little time in the document room. But all this is not really the issue here. A few words can be changed here and there. We want to keep the balance and Cornwell is a part of it. It could be helpful to expand on this and other points raised by Str1977 in the Corwell articles themselves. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, these things are the issue here because I raised them. I did so because the current text paints quite a different picture.
 * Expansion is helpful in the "H's P" article. But here, the section is already rather too long. Str1977 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why not refer to it in Hitler's Pope and John Cornwell articles and cross reference with this one. A very helpful source would be Ronald Rychlak, Hitler, the War and the Pope who documents Cornwell's anti-catholic biases in earlier writing. He totally contradicts Cornwell's assertions on access to "secret documents" limiting his acutal access instead to beatification papers (pages 285 ff) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. But also this section here should be reduced. Str1977 (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosius, you reverted me saying:

"But also this section here should be reduced."... see talk page Why enlarge it then with unsources statements?"

I don't understand. Where did I enlrage the section? I removed one of the two problematic bits, saving one paragraph. Please explain your point as I don't understand your actions at all. Str1977 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right on one point (which I missed) that you reduced, but you took out the sentence which happened to be backed up and is correct - he did have access to the beatification papers, and left standing the unsourced sentence about overall anti-semitism. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sentence has any right to stand as it is. Cornwell's self-potrayal about the archives has been discredited (see above) even if this detail happened to be correct. The length and breadth of this issue belong into the Hs P article and not here.
 * As for the unsourced bit, I assume that it is a quote from Cornwell's book and hence could easily be sourced from there. Do you have a reason to doubt the accurateness? Str1977 (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am not married to the "concluding statement" and I can live with simply cutting of the paragraph (without merging) as well. Your choice. Str1977 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, this is better, thanks --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re, the praise, the HsP article states: "The author has been praised for attempting to bring into the open the debate on the Catholic Church's relationship with the Nazis, but also accused of making unsubstantiated claims and ignoring positive evidence."

I think this is a basis for a better treatment of praise and criticism than the "he was praised for being a Catholic ..." we currently have. Str1977 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue of who utilized which sources first is important. This is not Cornwell's self-portrayal; this is Sanchez's summary. Sanchez's book is extremely respected, and is certainly not considered a pro-Cornwell work (published by the CUA of all places...). If you have other sources which materially contradict this (yet to be demonstrated, in my mind), it can be presented as such; in no case should it be removed entirely. The issue of Cornwell's identification within the debate as a (allegedly initially) pro-Pius author is also critical to understand how this literature has evolved.
 * And please stop this nonsense about saying that I am not acting in good faith. After all that I've been through to get this article up to FA status and to work with others (including you, on occasion) to maintain that status, I think I've at least earned the right to discuss this with you on an equal footing. Savidan 03:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Savidan,
 * "And please stop this nonsense ..." I am sorry but how can you expect me to work with you when you chose to answer a point I raised above (that the Cornwell section is too long) with bad faith accusations that I want to remove him because I disagree with him. Please don't give me the "after all I have done" line because a) you admit yourself that I cooperated on that and b) had I not safeguarded this article long before you arrived against loony conspiracy theories you wouldn't have an article to lead to FA status. "Equal footing" is what every editor is entitled too, not just you. And it is what I am asking for, not having my arguments (even if you disagree) brushed aside by accusations. That's all I (and the policy called WP:AGF) am asking for.
 * "The issue of who utilized which sources first is important. This is not Cornwell's self-portrayal; this is Sanchez's summary."
 * I don't see how the "source" issue is important enough to warrant inclusion into this article (as opposed to the HsP article), especially since Cornwell's making use of Vatican sources has been questioned. Read what I wrote above with links. And Sanchez' view is Sanchez' view and not fact.
 * Also, "Cornwell's identification within the debate as a (allegedly initially) pro-Pius author" is disputed to say the least. But more importantly, saying that Cornwell was praised for saying that he was initially pro-Pius is a strange kind of nonsense. Those who praised him, praised him because they agreed with his views (and used the self-identification as an argument to silence allegations about intentions - just as he did). Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I made my position very clear against removal of documented materials:

You took out the sentence which happened to be backed up and is correct - he did have access to the beatification papers, and left standing the unsourced sentence about overall anti-semitism.

As stated above, I was of the opinion that all agreed to that. I consider the repeated personal attacks against Savidan outragious and insulting. Savidan responded highly properly here. He has been for years the main contributor to this feature article, whose quality he knows to uphold against all kinds of contributors. I hope he will continue to do so, even though, he (and I) may not always find time to respond to improper behavior. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't we just agree above?
 * I am not sure what you feel "outragious" (sic!) - personal attacks against Savidan? I see none! What I see is bad faith remarks of Savidan against me. Str1977 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to complicate this discussion further, but I am going to inject another voice into it. I think a whole section on Hitler's Pope gives it vastly undue weight.  I believe this would be the case even if there weren't serious issues of shoddy scholarship and his later recanting of the book's central thesis.  But in light of those issues, I do not believe Cornwell is a reliable source on these matters.  You have serious bias, a well documented lack of scholarly rigor and then his recanting on top of it. What is indisputable is that he is no longer a reliable source with regard to Pius' motives.  When you have him saying it is impossible "impossible to judge [his] motives" you cannot cite him as authority for an assertion such as "that Pius was anti-Semitic and that this stance prevented him from caring about the European Jews".  That statement goes directly to his motives.  I am going to delete it.  But I think more needs to be done in the way of the seriously undue weight given to this questionable source. Mamalujo (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have fundamental disagreements with many of the sources that Str presents above. I believe that where a disagreement exists in the literature it should be stated in the article as such in as neutral and high-level (i.e. summary style) terms as possible. Thus, instead of presenting sources on the talk page with the goal of removing existing material, why not try to work those into the existing article without removing any of the currently cited material. e.g. "Some say X; others say Y". Keep it neutral, keep the sources high quality, and i doubt that i or others will have a problem with it. I will note quickly that I think the source presented to disagree with the claim that Cornwell was the first to have access to the archives does not truly dispute it as a factual claim, they just dispute that his work is more credible as a result of it.

As for claims of undue weight, I think that anyone as familiar as I assume most on this page are with the literature is kidding themselves if they claim that Cornwell's work was nothing more than a temporary blip on the PPXII radar. For better or worse, it is the single most notable wor about PPXII. It is the most cited, the most summarized, and the most discussed. I have no interest debating the correctness of Cornwell's thesis here or even the effectiveness of his prose. But I think that we would do this article a profound disservice not to provide a good summary of the importance and significance of the work. I think that most of the specific points of the praise and criticism of the work can be flushed out in the daughter article (small points of no significance to PPXII's bio, like the flamewar over the cover, are similarly well moved from this article). But the basic things about placing the original context of the book and its author, and situating the work on the timeline of where primary sources became available, and providing a basic summary of his original thesis are a must.

This Economist quote has been misinterpreted in multiple ways in this discussion already. It is not an admission that he isnt reliable or a recanting of his work, merely a modification of his judgment of PPXII as an individual in light of his original thesis. It's true significance can indeed be flushed out in that article as well. His quoting in such a source so many years later strengthens the notability of the original work rather than diminishing it. Savidan 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Savidan, I agree with you in so far it pertains to the HsP article. I wouldn't want to remove anything there, just add to it to achieve the full picture.
 * But here, matters are different as this article is about the man Pius XII and Cornwell is only a small detail. And Undue Weight has always been the cornerstone of my argument.
 * Cornwell was current for a while but now he should be treated like other past works are. That doesn't mean removing him - I never called for that - but restricting the size of his treatment to what is essential. And taking out the two problematic bits would already make for progress. Str1977 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its fair to say that there is substantial disagreement over what the quote means for the thesis of the book. I think that the first sentence of the quote makes the context pretty clear. Having limiting capability means that one's motives have fewer ethical implications not that they are more difficult to determine. In either case, it's hard to see why we can't summarize the thesis of the book as a result of Cornwell later modifying his views. This is particularly true now that the quote itself is included. I think the burden should be on the side of removal because this material is the result of a long-standing comprise and was in the article both when it was a FAC and a FARC. Let the reader decide for themself what the quote means for his thesis (and its hard to do that without even providing them with his original thesis). Savidan 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't

"He said he coudnt JUDGE his motives not that he couldnt determine them; not that any of this makes a plot summary of the major PPXII work less necessary?"

nitpicking, trying to keep something in the article that - at least according to the remover - goes against a statement by the author? Str1977 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that the quote itself is included, I don't see what the further issue is. One sentence saying what the thesis of the best-selling/most-cited/most notable work about ppxii; one sentence saying what the author's current views are. This leaves the reader completely free to determine whether Cornwell has "recanted" his views etc.; removing the summary of the book would simply make this section incomprehensible. I don't see how it can be discussed without at least establishing what the argument of the book was. M.'s most recent rationale is that "Cornwell is not a reliable source...". So what? We are not stating his thesis as fact; we are merely summarizing in the most basic way possible what his argument was, using what is probably the most neutral third party source to boot. This section is very small as it is compared to the daughter article. Savidan 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am all right with that. My objection was to the faulty argument presented above. Str1977 (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the sentence about Cornwell being the first to access many documents being "undue weight" nothing could be farther from the truth. As should be clear from the context and for those familiar with the Vatican archives, gaining access to such documents is a rare feat. Critics of Cornwell have claimed that he abused the trust inherent in this process; other (even those who dont agree with his thesis) consider this part of his work to be important. Sanchez devotes quite a bit of ink to it. This is a featured article; the sourced material in question is the result of numerous compromises and voluminous discussion. It was present when the article was reviewed both at FAC and FARC. Whole-scale removal of such material is unlikely to be the optimal solution. Removing it with abbreviated comments without first achieving consensus is a tad disruptive. Savidan 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Savidan, that the content of this particular quote should stay for the reasons mentioned. Removing agreed upon sourced material of this FAC and FARC article is highly disruptive.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tainting with more than one brush
One phrase suggests that Pius was following Benedict in the latter's diplomatic efforts with the Triple Alliance, etc. While seemingly permitting Pius to follow a presumed bad example, it also has the effect of suggesting that the Vatican picked the wrong side twice.

Several things arise that aren't explained here. 1) the pope was still "a prisoner of the Vatican" during WWI. The Vatican had not recovered from the unification of Italy which had deprived it of a major source of revenue, the Papal States. Two of the Allies, Britain and Russia were hardly going to fund the Vatican! Wrong religion for both. 2) Unlike WWII where the "right" side could be perceived by 1939 (assuming, unlike the Vatican, you didn't have a lot of people on both sides), WWI was not that clear. The German conduct of the war rather made them a bogeyman after the fact, but the Allies were not clean either.

It seems to me the material has a lot more insinuations and innuendo than can easily be answered without making a complete essay out of a sentence. Can we be satisfied with smearing Pius for WWII without mentioning Benedict in WWI? Isn't it sufficient to hold him responsible for just one world war? Student7 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please restrict your comments to actionable items based on Wikipedia's policies. These random tirades do little to improve the article. If your comments are based on the emotive response you get from the text rather than the text itself, then there is very little that can be done. Savidan 06:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a fallacy when text says "He started world wars I & II and he kicked his dog, too." There is no proof he "followed Benedict" just supposition. The slap seems too offhand to counter so it is allowed to stand since to answer it, would take awhile. The question still stands: "Why is it not enough to accuse him of crimes in WWII without dragging in WWi?" Why is this essential to the article? Student7 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to paraphrase the article so ludicrously there is little point taking your comments seriously. Please be conscious of sources and Wikipedia's policies. Savidan 23:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Do John Cornwell's recent remarks (see Hitler's Pope) justify the removal of the summary of the thesis (current issue) of a major work about Pope Pius XII or any other cited information in the section (discussed issue)? Savidan 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, posting an RfC which doesn't show what it's about is of no use. I have placed your question below your note.

However, your question is slanted and does not reflect what others here want. So let me rephrase it:

Do John Cornwell's recent remarks (see Hitler's Pope) justify reducing the summary of the book in the Pope Pius XII article (discussed issue)?

Str1977 (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle, yes, but I see the section goes on to discuss other publications responding to that book, positively or negatively. What they have to say may be important, & require explanation of Cornwell's book even if he has modified his views. Peter jackson (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reichskonkordat
I am attempting to get the photo to work in this section. I have tried editing the syntax a few times and saving but it doesn't seem to work. the picture looks great and works in the preview before i save but once i press save it doesn't seem to work properly. maybe someone else can figure this out. Magnetawan (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unbelievable !!! Totally"
It is totally unbelievable that this article could be declared "Good article"!!! For today - but we will come back- we would point out two stupid errors :

1° this pope has never been declared "Venerable"; nor on semptember 2 2000 by John-Paul II, nor on may 8 2007 by B XVI. The dedicated commission made proposals but these proposals have never been signed the only authority which has the right to declare someone "venerable";

2° In connection with world war II, it was here written that your hero had "condemned", had spoken of "invasion", or of "invasion" and that he had shown the responsability!!!

That's totally wrong !! You lie!!! These words are not used by the pope P XII and he took care not to show where the responsability was lying !! --86.218.159.14 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to ask you to moderate your tone if you want to be taken serioiusly. And you can stick accusations like "You lie!" Inform yourself what a lie is. Now as for your items:
 * The "venerable" claim was inserted a long time ago. It did not deserve to be simply deleted by a drive-by editor. Therefore I fact tagged it and had a closer look at it. As it is, the claim is indeed wrong as several reliable internet sources report that such a declaration was recommended in 2007 and hence did not happen in 2000. However, your scandalising is out of place as a short internet search will tell you that Pius is dubbed venerable quite often which probably lead to the erring inclusion here. But one must also acknowledge that something must have happend on September 2, 2000 or we wouldn't have such a precise date. Keep on searching.
 * Regarding your second item however, your shouting language reveal that this is rather a POV problem on your part. The text in question does not need to include certain words in order for the introduction as in the article to be justified.

Str1977 (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This claim predates my coming to this article. I've seen it in so many places that I never thought to find a good source for it. The above, regardless of the decorum of the commenter, troubles me, and I would not be opposed to removing the text in question until we get to the bottom of this. I'm surprised that Ambrosius hasn't picked up on this as he seems to be familiar with the cause for canonization. Agree with str too that something probably happened then. Savidan 04:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

just an offering
Of some new info that might merit inclusion. Cheers!  Nancy Heise    talk   23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

He played the violin
I am not sure where to put this in the article, but Pope Pius XII played the violin often. See this article.--Geremia (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. There is a mild reference to this in his self-portrait in Early life of Pope Pius XII But I should expand this. He also was an ardent swimmer even as nuncio in Germany. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I added this and it was removed??
On December 14th 2008 I added the following sentence.

"Pius himself would five days latter directly explain to Tittman that he could not name the Nazis without at the same time mentioning the Bolsheviks.[161]"

The original citation number #161, References Hilberg's Desctruction of the European Jews. I expanded the citation to also refer to the third edition of his three volume work (I think the original citation may be the condensed version), which includes BOTH Maglione's response and the response of Pius himself which explains his rationale. Hilberg includes both, so I don't see why someone felt a need to edit my clarification out of this article.

I did not mention this when I made the edit to the page, becuase it is cited. However, since someone feels that Pius's own explaination is not neccessary, I would hope they will kind enough to explain why. Thank YouRandyRP (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actors are responsible for actions
I realize that it is fashionable to accuse this Pope of everything that went wrong with the war. Understand that when one side actually does something, they, not a commenting bystander or non-commenting bystander, is actually responsible. This is a terrorist tactic incidentally - "if you don't do x, then you are responsible for our killing y at 2 o'clock." But of course, it is the terrorist who is responsible, not the authorities who are attempting to handle the maniac(s). People should not indiscriminately be accused of everything just because it has become fashionable to do so. People who acted deserve every credit for the action. People who did not act, do not have any responsibility unless they are in parentis locus which does not suit this case. Student7 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

2006 article by Sir Martin Gilbert
Just found what seems to be an important piece (lengthy review of the Dalin book) by the eminent historian of the Holocaust Sir Martin Gilbert. No time at the moment to edit so am posting the link here in case someone wants to use this to improve the article:

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/08/18/hitlers-pope Testbed (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hitlerspope.jpg
The use of this image fails WP:FU criteria 8 & 10 -- Egmontaz  ♤  talk  23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nazi" Germany
The term "Nazi Germany" widely employed as an unpleasantry during WWII, as propaganda. This allowed the post WWII government to disavow itself from the prior regime, as the post WWI government had not really been able to do merely by dumping the Kaiser.

It cannot accurately be applied retroactively, until it became obvious that the government would not be democratic. This was not as early as 1933 by a long shot. Most Americans at that time enthusiastically supported whoever took over in Germany since it appeared to "need a strong man." Little did they realize! No one, except for the Jews, were really very prescient on this issue. And (sorry), no one really cared that much about the Jews, per se, not knowing many of them were going to to be murdered. The West discovered this at the conclusion of WWII.

But calling them "Nazi" Germany is like calling the US "Democratic Party United States" or "Obama United States". Unpleasantness is inferred through the nomenclature which is almost never used for any country except a defeated enemy. There were no crystal balls then either. Student7 (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that important of an issue, but you're analogy is way off. There is a difference between an election creating a new government and a coup creating a regime change. Nazi Germany is the name used in the Wikipedia article for the government of Germany during that period, so if you think it is non-neutral you should take it up at that article. Savidan 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, the world didn't look all that democratic during the depression years. There were democracies in the English-speaking world, France, Switzerland and Scandinavia. That was pretty much it for the entire world. So dictatorships were not so much a matter of whether or not, but a matter of degree. Except for the Jews, Hitler was not perceived as much worse than any of the others, and even better, because he seemed "so organized"! (Right!)


 * Second: coup? Hitler was legitimately elected, first to be chancellor, then succeeded Hindenburg when the latter died. The worst illegalities were reserved for violently purging his own party of Roehm and his supporters. So his administration backed into dictatorship, which was not understood as a deliberate agenda at the time. All makes great sense with the advantage of hindsight.


 * Three. There are all sorts of articles about Germany at the time which could be used here. Germany would be most appropriate and neutral. Third Reich if you are feeling particularly surly. Or Nazi Germany if you are feeling excessively surly, WP:POV and pointing fingers. Apparently the latter has won out but for no good reason. The church thought (as did every other entity that was doing business with the country) that they were enacting a concordat with Germany. Why can't their opinion be taken into consideration? They did not have a crystal ball. Nor did anyone else except, maybe, the Jews. Student7 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you find the name Nazi Germany "excessively surly" etc. you should propose a name change at that article and then go around purging other uses of the term on Wikipedia. As long as that is the title of the article most representative of the period in question, it is the most appropriate link. "Third Reich" for example, would not be appropriate in most instances because it is just a redirect to that article (unless the term was used in a context where the terminology was important, etc.). That article has received a lot of input and discussion and is the natural, centralized place for the points you are making. Savidan 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not "Germany?" That is the legitimate name of the country article encompassing the same history. It also has the advantage of being accurate since the Vatican thought they were doing business with Germany. Used as an adjective, "Nazi Germany" is generally only used to impune the motives of whomever you are talking about. Or justify them, if they were victims/enemies. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Germany will provide almost no useful information for a reader linked from this article, certainly much less than the article on Nazi Germany. This is the fundamental principle of what link to use. You continue to ignore the point that you are raising these concerns in the completely wrong article; as long as the title of the article most relevant to the reader is as such, your claims will be without merit. It is a waste of my time, as well as that of the other editors of this article, to continue to discuss the semantic merits (or pitfalls) of phrase "Nazi Germany" here rather than at Talk:Nazi Germany. Please address your concerns to that article instead. If you succeed in changing its name, you will encounter no resistance--here or anywhere else--in changing links to the term of your choice. Savidan 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

France
I would argue that a big part of the Pius XII legend has its origins in France, where Emmanuel Mounier and Jacques Maritain first insinuated the Pius myth in the 1930s and 1940s. The Church in France had long been divided between Catho-Fascists and Catho-Communists and so it is not surprising that people on the fringes would insinuate such myths in order to wage a successful "culture war" within the Church itself. ADM (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory. If this has been published please feel free to cite/attribute it and include it. Savidan 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if this fact (documented) were in a separate article and we could like to it from here, "in passing" as it were. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gartner quote
Gartner is quoted as saying that Pius could see Jews being rounded up from the Vatican windows. First, there was no "Jewish enclave" outside the Vatican! So this, on its face is specious. Second, it is a long ways to anything from the "Vatican windows" without binoculars. Someone might have seen someone being placed into an official car, but so what? Someone filed a police report? A witness going "downtown?" From a distance, how are Jews distinguishable from anybody else? Even up close! This is a silly observation. It would be more important if he had heard that Jews were being rounded up. That would be far more significant. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Student7! How are you? I have not talked to you in a long time - I wanted to come here and add a note that I saw a documentary recently on the Nazi invasion of Rome. There was a group of Romans who resisted the Nazis and successfully killed many soldiers in an explosion as they passed in the streets. Hitler was enraged and declared that 10 Romans would die for every Nazi soldier killed. This was actually carried out. I was wondering if this event happened before the Jews were rounded up or after. One of my sources, John Vidmar The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages notes that when the Dutch bishops protested Jewish deportations, the Nazi response was to deport even more people - they rounded up 92 converts including Edith Stein and sent them to their deaths in the concentration camps. Vidmar states that this made an impression on Pius XII. Vidmars book is a peer reviewed scholarly work.  Nancy Heise    talk   03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions to this article! As you know, the Nazis took over right after the Italian surrender to the Allies in September 1943. The roundup of the Jews started almost immediately after that. The Italians mostly resisted and 80% were "saved." Placed in context of the time, Italians were risking their lives to "save" Jews, not from extermination, because no one knew that yet (some people could guess, but it was a guess only); but from loss of property, confinement and deportation. The Roman massacre was in the spring of the following year. So it was a clearly separate event. Also, the Nazis seem to have city orbs of influence rather than a truly national sway, so "policy" tended to be local, confined to various cities, though following the party line, of course. So under the Nazis, what happened in Rome, might have no influence on what happened in Milan, for example.
 * Took dates and facts from here. Not sure how reliable the overall source is, however.Student7 (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pave the Way Foundation results on Pius XII
This news article just came out about the Pave the Way Foundation's results on Pius XII. This group is headed by a Jew seeking the truth about Pius XII. Please see their report here. I think the article should be amended with a new section to discuss this group's audit and findings.  Nancy Heise    talk   01:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That article merits a sentence (maybe), not a section. The only novel claim contained therein is the existence of some new documents. However, the researchers quoted within have published neither the documents nor their analysis of them yet. The documents themselves are also not described in any meaningful detail. Maybe in a year or so these will significantly impact the field; now its impossible to say. Also, Zenit isn't exactly the apex of objective reporting when it comes to the RCC, but I'll overlook that for a second. Savidan 04:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is another news article that reports on amazing new details of new documents that are posted on the Pave the Way Foundation site. I think that this new information is fascinating - they say that the letter ordering the arrest of Rome's Jews stated 8000 were to be arrested, only 1000 were arrested because of papal intervention. It says Pius XII hid 7000 Jews in one day by ordering Catholic institutions to hide them, Jewish men were even allowed in convents and women in monasteries. It goes on to say that they reveal that the Vatican had planned to negotiate for the release of the 1000 who were originally supposed to be sent to a labor camp, but were sent to Auchwitz instead for an unknown reason. These documents are posted on the website of Pave the Way Foundation (www.ptwf.org ). Perhaps a "New Developments" section could attend to this new information? Just an idea.   Nancy Heise    talk   02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Pave the Way Foundations founder speaking about Pius XII in New York Daily News. . He says Pius saved more Jews than all the world's leaders combined. He has challenged historians to examine the evidence and correct the academic error that has been made in the case of Pius XII. This is a developing story, it will be interesting to see how historians react.  Nancy Heise    talk   02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very good article on the situation in Forbes Magazine .  Nancy Heise    talk   02:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is entirely unworthy of inclusion, but we don't need a new section for each new web-only article in a newspaper or advocacy group's website. This article really should be focusing more on material published in books from main-stream publishers or peer reviewed sources. This information about the Jews of Rome is not new, and is not even the entire story. It is covered in nearly every pro- and anti-Pius book out there. Savidan 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Savidan, I am just putting this information here for someone who cares to make the Pius XII article more accurate. I don't propose any specific method of including the information, just that it should be included somewhere because it is significant new development.  Nancy Heise    talk   20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Retraction" spam
I'm very tired of this non-sense that if an author expresses a slightly novel view five years latter that constitutes a "retraction". No one who read Hitler's Pope would think that Cornwell's statements constitute a retraction of the entire thesis of the book (or would think that the book had only one thesis). The idea that such a "retraction" means that the main idea of the book should not be stated at all is even more baffling. One gets the idea that if archaeologists uncover a series of tablets containing a retraction from Jesus, User:Mamalujo would insist on the deletion of every article about Christianity. The only way that such edits could possibly be justified is through a very narrow view of this article as a space for an all-out argument about Pius XII, not for a scholarly article that describes the most notable points. Savidan 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I note with a bit of irony that Mamalujo seems both: (1) convinced that the quote constitutes a "retraction" and could not possibly be read any other way, and (2) terrified that if the article does not explicitly label the quote as a retraction repeatedly that readers will not get the message. Savidan 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment--"retraction"
Years after the publication of Hitler's Pope (a best-selling book, critical of Pius XII, that more or less launched the debate over Pius XII and the Holocaust, extensively quoted--positively and negatively--by most following works), Cornwell stated "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany". This quote is included in the section about the book. User:Mamalujo has attempted to, on the basis of this quote, remove entirely any summary of the original argument of Hitler's Pope (e.g. here). Failing that, Mamalujo wishes to add a sentence or clause claiming that the book has been "retracted" (e.g. here). This has already been discussed repeatedly in the article about Hitler's Pope, most recently here. At issue is whether Cornwell's statement constitutes a "retraction" and if that a complete retraction of the entire work or just a modification of part of his original thesis, and if so, whether that means the original argument should not even be mentioned, or be claimed to have been retracted (in addition to including the above quote). Savidan 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cornwell himself has not explicitly retracted the book - e.g. having his publisher pull in-stock copies from bookstores and pulp them, which is what ususally happens when a book is "recalled." Instead, it seems he is willing to allow his work to stand on its merits as a piee of historical exposition - it remains a fine piece of work detailing the RC Church's actions during the war. He has gone back on many of his conclusions, but maintains that some fault still lies with Pius XII. I think a neutrally-worded mention of the retraction in the header, plus a section containing quotes from Cornwell's public statements, is enough. Jaybird vt (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The header? Do you mean "Hitler's Pope (retracted)"? To be clear the full quote is included in the article, and the issue is discussed more fully in the daughter article: Hitler's Pope. Savidan 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused. What I meant was that I like the format of the retraction coverage in Hitler's Pope; for some reason I thought I was editing the talk page of that article when I wrote the above comment. The retraction quote should be included in this article as well. Jaybird vt (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to RfC. I'm coming to this page for the first time. It seems to me that the section reads fairly. As noted just above, the "retraction" quote is not an actual retraction of the book, but rather a statement updating the author's views. It should therefore not be called a "retraction" on the page, and it is not a justification for removing the material about what the book originally said, but it is important to continue to include the quote as the page does now. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks sensible at present. Peter jackson (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC comment: No objections to maintaining the information as is. However, I do think it might be reasonable to add the information about the number of Jews the pope hid in the Vatican, and maybe some reference to memorial forest in Israel, to the article, to help more effectively balance the material. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The former is already included in the article. The latter, as far as I am aware, does not actually exist, but rather has only been proposed by a single person, Pinchas Lapide, whose primary thesis is already included in the article (the relevant claim is that Lapide thinks Pius XII saved a certain number of Jews, not that he also thought Pius XII deserved the same number of trees planted for him). Savidan 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The figure of 12000 or so refugres saved by the Pope in the Vatican was used somewhere, and I think that inclusion of the number, if accurate, might be useful. And, although I have some trouble finding a clear reference to it on the net, there are statements to the effect of Paul VI visiting the forest on his first visit to Israel, so I'm assuming that the forest does actually exist. It might not necessarily be a reliable source, but one such source is here. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see a source other than the Catholic league on this. In fact, I think we should have a very good reason for including anything not in a book or scholarly journal in this article. There's just too much crap on the internet, in all directions, for a topic this controversial. In addition, there's already an orgy of material to include, even if we limit ourselves to these sources. I have a feeling that the planting of nearly 1 million trees in Israel would be a large news item, picked up on by the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz. I won't fight you if you want to add the source you have found and clearly attribute the claim, but I think this is almost certainly in error, confusing Lapide's suggestion with reality. As for the number of Jews in the Vatican, the source currently cited (by no means an anti-Pius source) gives a much smaller number. If you find a credible source that disagrees, please include that as well. Savidan 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm old enough (barely) to remember having heard about the visit and the forest on the news at the time of the visit, so I'm pretty sure it's accurate. I've asked the people at the Israel WikiProject if they've got any information on it. With something at least 30 or so years old, though, it might well be that the story was covered, but that it isn't on the net. In any event, we should be hearing something shortly. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. If it was covered on the news, I'm sure no one will object to adding it. I find no mention of this (using google books) in the books of Dalin or Marchione (two of Pius XII's strongest defenders). I have found this on several blogs and self-published websites with google. There seems to be no agreement on the exact number of trees among these blogs, and none seems to have any idea of who specifically planted the trees other than "the Israelis". Here is the original quote from Lapide: "Pius XII deserves that forest in Judean hills, which kindly people of Israel proposed for him in October 1958. A memorial forest with 860,000 trees." (Three Popes and the Jews, pp. 267-269). Being as Lapide was the first to come up with the figure of 860k, I find it almost comical that he would claim this as anyone's idea but his own... Savidan 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember 200 as the number of Jews given refuge in the Vatican. 12000 might have been hard to fit in. However, the Pope might, or might not, claim some credit for saving some other Jews. Future Pope Roncalli, as papal nuncio, issued false baptismal certificates to Jews, for example. Was this on the authority of the Pope? Peter jackson (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am strongly prejudiced to say "no" given the weight of the Zuccotti book that goes through dozens of such claims and demonstrates a lack of (written) evidence for papal involvement; Phayer, the most recent scholarly book, agrees with this conclusion. However, if you present a source that gives reason to believe there was, this should be included. Savidan 12:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen is fit to take the role of Pope Pius XII
For me, Hayden Christensen is very, very, very fit to take a leading role for the film of Pope Pius XII. Both of them have the same fate: Pope Pius XII is always criticized for for not speaking during the World War II, but he did his professionalism as a pope. Hayden Christensen is also criticized as one of the worst, but he also did his professionalism as an actor. - Delfindakila (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Stepinac
We had part of the story that the Communists convicted Stepinac after the War. Seems to have left out that the Communists had anything to do with it though. The Croats asked the Vatican to remove Stepinac and they killed his brother - not much of a collaborationist, but that is what he was convicted of. The Reds would be ecstatic today, knowing that there were still people around who believed their elaborate lie for removing Catholics from view when they were taking over Eastern Europe. Student7 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why this is all needed in this article. The Stepinac article and the article about the Catholic Church involvement give plentiful context. In any case, there is nothing neutral about the word "showtrial" nor is this article the relevant place for laying out the full case for and against Stepinac. The most notable thing about hence the reason why the promotion afterwards was controversial was the conviction; note that I did not have this article state that Stepinac can be objectively regarded as having collaborated, only that he was convicted of such. Savidan 20:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of elaborate lies, the whole "Hiltler's Pope" defamation began as Soviet agitprop, but apparently still today there are useful idiots. Mamalujo (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - take out Stepinac entirely. As before, is he really essential to the article? Or take out business of "conviction." Stepinac, like these, and others, were, nonetheless supported by Pius, in a demonstration of his belief in them. This is a show of courage, but the casual mention suggests that he supported them despite their having murdered or condoning the murder of others. This is just not true. The casual reference should not stand alone in a picture. This gives a false picture to a casual reader. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When the POWs came home from the Vietnam war, did (do?) captions on pictures say that "President Reagan greets returning POWs convicted of genocide by the North Vietnamese? When the imprisoned diplomats were returned in 1981, did captions say, "President Carter greets returning diplomats convicted of crimes against the Iranian people? They didn't and don't unless they are really into pro    da.Student7 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is preposterous. According to several books, Stepinac is one of the most controversial issues of Pius XII's papacy. If you can produce any sources suggesting context that is relevant to Pius XII's biography then those can be added. Phayer dedicates two chapters to Slovakia, given that the      t regime was ultra-catholic instead of anti-religious. If the source supports the idea that the promotion was because of rather than in spite of the conviction then that can be added. But certainly the promotion came on the heels of the conviction; I don't see how one could argue they are unrelated; certainly the source you link does not. Please discuss more before removing material that you simply do not like. If Reagan went out of his way to honor certain POWs that were so convicted then I think that would be notable. Savidan 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, John McCain, convicted of crimes against the People's Republic of Vietnam was promoted (eventually) to Captain. I guess you would highlight his conviction in any picture of McCain? Or Solzhenitsyn, "convicted" by the Communist regime? Student7 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to continue to miss my main point. At issue in this article is the connection between Stepinac and Pius XII, that he elevated him to the article. The reason that elevation is notable is that it occurred it the context of his recent conviction. If the pope had elevated McCain to the cardinalate afterwards (as a way of protesting the conviction, etc.) then and only then would your analogy apply. Savidan 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * McCain especially was promoted while imprisoned (as were the other long-term captives), rather deliberately. This story is well-known to Americans. The Communist persecution of cardinals and other prelates occured in an earlier day and have been largely forgotten. Student7 (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * About the accusation that Stepinac supported the Bad Guys. He had 3 choices: 1) the safe one was "do nothing". This seems like an option to those of us living in a Democratic society. When the world consists of Bad Guys A and Bad Guys B, intelligent people will feel forced to take sides. 2) the second was to support the Communists, not a serious consideration since they were atheist and sought destruction of all religion, 3) The one he probably chose - the      t bad guys who theorectically supported religion, or at least tolerated it. If the       ts had won, they doubtless would have either shot anyone who supported the other side or conducted their show      . "  pport" for the wrong side per se, should not be actionable IMO. It just is with extremists.


 * The article wasn't supposed to be about Stepinac. I don't see why he must the poster boy for demonstrating the accusation that Pius like      m, which seems spurious anyway. The West was not forced to make choices that the Catholic hierarchy had to make. Americans could distain all Germans. The Vatican did not have that choice. Student7 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason you have decided to abandon any pretense of reference to Wikipedia's policies, relevant sources, or even the text in question. It is not useful to debate these random issues here; only to discuss how the article in question could be improved. Savidan 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please avoid WP:ATTACK. My choice for improving the article is to avoid biasing it by suggesting that Stepinac was some kind of criminal recognized as such by any free government. He wasn't. I don't understand why you think that avoid WP:BIAS is a "random issue." It is a central issue because Stepinac has been introduced as prominent to the bio of PP XII by you. Student7 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided my sources that establish the notability of the Stepinac promotion and the conviction to Pius XII's pontificate. The article currently does not say that a "free government" (whatever that means) convicted Stepinac so I don't know what you are complaining about. I have made no personal attacks; I merely reminded you to ground all your comments in policies, sources, and the actual text of the article. To argue about historical interpretations or emotional responses to the text gets us no where. Savidan 22:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Some perspective
I have often wondered why there is so much ado about what Pius XII did or did not do for the Jews. He is the person who drafted the first official condemnation of the Nazi's and Hitler Mit brennender Sorge, he seems to be the only person in all of Europe to have actually done something on a major scale to save as many Jews as he could from certain death. (Pinchas Lapide conducted an investigation and concluded that he saved hundreds of thousands of Jews.) Now we have this article that brings up the silence of those countries that could possibly have done more too.  Nancy Heise    talk   18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be in the article with a notation that Pius XII did not have armies at his disposal as these other countries did. A question that should be addressed here is why did everyone think that Pius could turn back the Nazis from their deeds? Historian John Vidmar points out that when the Dutch Bishops protested Nazi deportations of Jews, the Nazi response was to enhance their efforts and deport even more Jews, specifically, those hiding in convents and monasteries and including Edith Stein.  Nancy Heise    talk   20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been said on this talk page by someone other than myself that the most neutral way to state a non-event or a non-fact is not to state it. I do not entirely subscribe to that idea myself but it's one approach. I really don't think that even Pius XII's staunchest critics argue that he could have prevented the Holocaust, nor do they argue that he possessed a large army. To add a sentence to that effect, in my view, would be a dis-improvement. Most of my recent efforts to expand the content on Pius XII has been to focus more on the facts and chain of sources, and less on the argument/spin. What you are proposing is an example of the latter. Savidan 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not producing this information, this is what the Catholic Church and an organization headed by a Jewish man are putting forth. Since the article goes into great detail on Pius' critics, it might add some balance to include some of the other perspectives on his pontificate and the questions that his critics have inspired within the Church community. Featured articles are supposed to make mention of all notable criticism and provide NPOV coverage of both sides. The side I have provided here has not yet been incorporated into the article and I think it should be.  Nancy Heise    talk   03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbian concordat
An interesting an often overlooked aspect of Pacelli's diplomatic career is the political role that he played in Austria-Hungary in the years that preceded World War I. He contributed to signing the Serbian concordat, which enraged the Hapsburg aristocracy because it indicated that the Church recognized the political autonomy of the Serbian region. Incidentally, this occured only a few months before the assassination of the archduke of the Balkans by radical nationalists in the area. ADM (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pacelli's role in this concordat and the fact that it occurred before the assassination is already included. Savidan 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First References to People frequently have just surnames.
It makes it aggravating to read it -- who is "Montini"? Who is "Phayer"? I came to learn something about this pope in light of recent moves by the Vatican, but found it hard to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obafgkm (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ingenuousness and Pascalina
Hoo hah. You've gotta laugh about the description of Pascalina "following" Eguenio to Rome. Francis Spellman, aka "Monsignor Precious", had an office in the Vatican. He went to Pius XI and asked if Pascalina could be transferred from Berlin to be his secretary. Pius XI, who was no idiot, agreed that a secretary could be helpful and if Spelly thought Pascalina was best suited, so be it. Independent authors, writing nearly simultaneous biographies of Spellman and Pascalina, report the same ruse. This topic needs to be covered with a better sense of humor. A Pascalina wager is that God has more respect for the beautiful bond between Eugenio and Maria than do many Catholics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.60.165 (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Concordats, Reichskonkordat
I deleted some references to Pacelli concordats with Poland and other countries before 1929, for the simple reason that he was Nuncio in Berlin. He was not involved. There is no reference or literature to indicate otherwise or of any role of Pacelli.

I also deleted reference to his "associate Ludwig Kaas". "Associate" can mean a lot but implies a formal work relation or dependency which did not exist. Kaas was MP in the Berlin Parlament, and not employed by the Vatican while Pacelli was in Berlin. Of course Nuncio Pacelli worked with Kaas but indeed with other politicians and church personalities as well.

I added weight to the concordats with Bavaria, Baden and Prussia, since they complement the Reichskonkordat of 1933.

I also added one "evaluation" of Pius XII of the Reichskonkordat, since it is directly relevant to the topic Reichskonkordat and Pius XII.

There is a wide body of literature on "the last encyclical of Pius XI" which is not reflected here. I simply added that Summi Pontificatus includes large sections of it. But this point needs more work, I presume.

I hope I have not offended anybody. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly not offended. But let me just note that Kaas was not merely an MP but also served as a link between the Nuncio and the Prussian bishops. Str1977 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Callil, Managing Director of Chatto & Windus and founder of Virago, throws much light on the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in Nazi-occupied France in her book "Bad Faith: A forgotten history of family and fatherland", ISBN 9780224978726, Jonathan Cape, London 2006). She notes that Adolph Hitler's announcement of the Reichskonkordat was drafted by Pius XII himself, and the critical words were: “…it gives sufficient guarantee that the Reich members of the Roman Catholic confession will from now on put themselves without reservation at the service of the new National Socialist state.” This is essential information that should be in the article. (Craniotomist (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Well, there is the period before 1939, when most of Europe and America was admiring Germany which had been in chaos. This pretty much stopped in 1939. But German detractors prior to 1939 were largely confined to Jewish observers, who may have been correct in retrospect, but were understandably upset by the regime and not heard as a result. The editor suggests that the church should have been more prescient than any other observer. Why would that be? What knowledge did they have that the rest of Europe and America didn't have? Sure, they probably put their administration at the service of the Reich, and doubtless at the service of any other European government that wished to sign a concordat with them. So what? Student7 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the concordant as well as the AP reports reporting it etc. The Concordant was in no way an endorsement of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. At the time the Concordant was signed and ratified, Goebells was described in the press as a minister without portfolio. Hitler had been Chancellor less than six months and Von Hindenburg was still the President of Germany.

By signing the Concordant Germany obligated itself to protecting the rights of Catholics and Jews in Germany. The Concordant was not diplomatic recognition of Hitler as Chancellor nor an endorsement of Hitler as Chancellor. Likewise, it was not an endorsement of Von Hindenburg's Presidency.

At Madison Square Gardens in New York 1933, Al Smith, the Cardinal of New York, and the Rabbis of New York protested the threat of Adolf Hitler to orchestrate a boycott against Jewish businesses. In response to the protests in New York, Hitler began the boycott but ended it very quickly when the leading Rabbis in Germany wrote Hitler a letter reminding him that they did not support the actions of "foreign protestors" and that Jewish citizens were proud to be German citizens and had fought to defend Germany in WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I have a copy of the concordant. No where in the concordant do I find the words Carmen Callil pretends to quote “…it gives sufficient guarantee that the Reich members of the Roman Catholic confession will from now on put themselves without reservation at the service of the new National Socialist state.” I'm afraid Ms Carmen Callil was fibbing.

What I do find in the Concordant is "His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich (Paul Von Hindenburg), led by their common desire to consolidate and enhance friendly relations between the Catholic Church and the state in the whole territory of the Reich ...". It may seem insidious to the poorly informed, but Reich was the word the Germans used for the government even before Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Paul Von Hindenburg. Von Hindenburg didn't even want to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. He preferred Von Pappen (a former Chancellor) or Von Schleicher (hope I spelled it right;another former Chancellor) --Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic Gamesmanship
Multitasking is a skill necessary to the wielding of power by senior executives. Historians fail to note the congruence of the Reichskonkordat negotiations with inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt. From the get go, FDR indicated that his foreign policy would include ending the 15 year boycott, and establishing diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. Catholic pulpits, press, and organizations did their best in 1932 to protest and thwart this goal. But after his November success, FDR swiftly repeated his intention in a book called "Looking Forward".

Pacelli interlaced his German negotiations with thoughts about how to influence (or control) the upcoming talks between FDR and Commissar Maxim Litvinov. He made serial drafts of a hypothetical concordat between the US and USSR. The final draft was encoded for Cardinal Hayes at St. Patrick's Cathedral, with instructions to beat feet for Washington and give it to FDR as HIS creation. In stead, Hayes phoned FDR and asked him to receive an urgent messenger from St. Pat's. This messenger (name escapes me) later shared his adventure story with Francis Spellman.

FDR thought it was amazing that Cardinal Hayes would go to the trouble of writing up a recommended protocol for negotiating with Litvinov, who arrived 24 hours later. Litvinov emerged with a six or seven point diplomatic agreement, shaking his head that he had not known how devoted Franklin Roosevelt was to Religion. FDR had absolutely no idea that his treaty with the Soviet Union had been crafted by Eugenio Pacelli while waiting for counter proposals from Chancellor Hitler. Historians still don't know this. Ya gotta laugh. -Ed Chilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.142.167 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)