Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 10

Venerable

Pius XII is referred to as "venerable" in the Styles box, but there is no information about when this came about, under which pope, or the beatification process. Can somebody add this info, please. JackofOz 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi-Jack of : no one else answers your point, I am sorry you have been so left dangling. My little understanding is that this is a very precise and necessary word, Venerable. I beleive it signals that the subject is on the first step in the road to Saint-hood. He has a 'case' and a postulator, a Father/ or Monsignor , I forget , who is placed in charge of the determination or presentation of the case/ascent to sainthood. Venerable means that the first stage has met with approval.{{Pope John Paul II]] wanted to achieve this "beatification" I came across Gumpel, as he quoted the leading German historian , or close to it, for Adolf Hitler facts, and is remarkable to me,this the postulator as admitting that the ex-Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, in his later memoirs alluded to the Pius/Kaas actions. The postulator's riposte against Bruning being a poor source, even un-believable to User here Str1977, was that Bruning knocked /was against Ludwig Kaas because "he knew that he worked with Cardinal Pacelli. I rememberer this because at the time , the same User was trying to deny any connection between Kaas and Pacelli, or did not know of it and denied my suggestion of it. They worked together, Kaas was the now Venerable Pacelli's secretary from 1925 until his subsequent Chairmanship of the catholic German Centre Party in 1928. In fact your question , Jack of Oz, is apposite to the extreme. The path to this Sainthood is in direct contradiction of all that is discussed here, and the reason for the dispute of source and history. Well noted, and I guess I pressed that button and saw what it said. The Church is full of Laws and grades and distinctions. This is a problem that carries down through the Church, and I think I once managed to include that nominating pacelli for beatification was the Church response to out-standing historical question. EffK 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have since read that John Paul II was the pope who decreed Pius XII to be venerable. This happened sometime in the 1990s. What I want to know is, exactly when? There must have been a public announcement. JackofOz 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quid pro Quo and aftermath Sources

Unless otherwise stated all are placed by EffK 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cornwell used the following history, amongst others. Scholder is criticised now, but appears to be the fullest reference of his time, and Cornwell is criticised for retrieving the quid pro quo from Scholder. All Under fair/use /educational

• Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich: Volume One (SCM Press, 1977).

• Klaus Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich: Volume Two (SCM Press, 1988).

• The[[Cornwell] account of the Reich Concordat of 1933 is based almost exclusively on that of Klaus Scholder, which has been translated into English. Cornwell accepts uncritically Scholder’s contention that there was a direct connection between the Catholic Center Party’s assent to the Enabling Act in March 1933, alleged Roman desires, and the conclusion of the Concordat. Scholder’s critic, Konrad Repgen, whose refutation of Scholder is available only in German, is for all practical purposes ignored. At one point Cornwell does consider a contrary position: in footnote 24 to chapter 7. This mentions – only to dismiss at once as “”niggling and not entirely accurate” – Rudolf Morsey’s criticism of a passage in the memoirs of the Catholic former Reich Chancellor Heinrich Brüning, in which the latter severely criticizes Pacelli’s Concordat policy. fromhttp://www.bid-owl.de/rdecker/Homepage/DeckeronCornwell.htm;internal&action=showPrintVersion.action

• In the period directly preceding the Enabling Act, the Catholic Church authorities had used their influence in the Centre Party to express their hostility to the Nazi regime. On 19th March, Cardinal Bertram had remarked in a confidential statement to his German bishops that “as a result of biased announcements to the effect that the Church will revise its attitude to the National Socialists, Vice-Chancellor Von Papen brought up the question during his visit yesterday. I replied that it is for the leader of the National Socialists to revise his attitude.”[18]Jeremy Noakes & Geoffrey Pridham, Documents On Nazism, 1919-1945 (Jonathan Cape, 1974 from [[1]] .

Hitler did this , as did the Church . The biased announcements require notice.EffK 18:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1933 March 18 Papen visits Cardinal Bertram, inquiring whether the Church would not revise its stand on Nazism. The Cardinal tells him, ""The act of revising has to be undertaken by the leader of the National Socialists himself." (Lewy) (from [2]

• "Hitler's aim was to form a totalitarian state in the most literal sense: a state in which every implement of instruction or mind-forming should be used by Nazi officials to instil racial pride and a readiness for aggressive war. Yet the first thing he does after securing power is to promise a Church which he hates that it shall control the education of millions of children, continue to have a press that is pledged to internationalism and peace, and draft its members into societies and fraternities for the cult of a Jewish Bible and a Gospel of Peace. He was carrying out a bargain; but one that he never had the least intention of honoring in practice.(from Joseph McCabe ,[3]) It is a valid point

• Pope John Paul II's 10 November 1994 apostolic letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente: The Duty to remember:......"The common future of Jews and Christians demands that we remember, for "there is no future without memory". History itself is memoria futuri."....... "It is appropriate that, as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close, the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal"

• Pope John PaulII,16 march 1998 A REFLECTION ON THE SHOAH : "The Church in Germany replied by condemning racism. The condemnation first appeared in the preaching of some of the clergy, in the public teaching of the Catholic bishops, and in the writings of lay Catholic journalists. Already in February and March 1931, Cardinal Bertram of Breslau, Cardinal Faulhaber and the Bishops of Bavaria, the Bishops of the Province of Cologne and those of the Province of Freiburg published pastoral letters condemning National Socialism, with its idolatry of race and of the State.10 The well-known Advent sermons of Cardinal Faulhaber in 1933, the very year in which National Socialism came to power, at which not just Catholics but also Protestants and Jews were present, clearly expressed rejection of the Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda.11 In the wake of the Kristallnacht, Bernhard Lichtenberg, Provost of Berlin Cathedral, offered public prayers for the Jews. He was later to die at Dachau and has been declared Blessed."

"Pope Pius XI too condemned Nazi racism in a solemn way in his encyclical letter Mit brennender Sorge,12 which was read in German churches on Passion Sunday 1937, a step which resulted in attacks and sanctions against members of the clergy. Addressing a group of Belgian pilgrims on 6 September 1938, Pius XI asserted: "Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Spiritually, we are all Semites".13 Pius XII, in his very first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus,14 of 20 October 1939, warned against theories which denied the unity of the human race and against the deification of the State, all of which he saw as leading to a real "hour of darkness"." [4]

• reBishop Clemens August Graf von Galen Review by John s Conway, Columbia University : "One clear trend is evidenced from many of the internal documents covering his correspondence with other members of the Catholic hierarchy. In defence of the church's position, Galen found the conduct of his superiors, especially the aged Presiding Bishop, Cardinal Bertram of Breslau, to be far too reticent and diplomatic. He never shared the Cardinal's belief that the Nazi government would willingly uphold the terms of the 1933 Concordat if sufficiently lengthy remonstrances were forwarded to Hitler's office. Instead, Galen insisted, this kind of secret negotiation only baffled the ordinary Catholics suffering from the innumerable pin- pricks of Nazi officialdom, while unable to see that any improvements were forthcoming. Galen wanted a much more forceful and public confrontation against these encroaching impertinencies, and sought to rally the faithful of his diocese to be on their guard against all such attempts to strangle church life and institutions. But his advice was not accepted by Bertram, and every time he urged a stronger line to be taken, the Cardinal backed down. Clearly Galen, who rather enjoyed the epithet of "The Lion of Muenster", was frustrated by such pusillanimity, and even courted persecution in order to defend his diocesan territory. But he was unsuccessful in getting any more challenging line adopted." ed. by former archivist of the Muenster diocese,

• [Galen].........."prepared three sermons of protest, which included full details of the Gestapo's lawless iniquities, and ordered them to be secretly printed and circulated even before he spoke. To gain effect, he delivered these sermons in his own cathedral, dressed in the full insignia and vestments of a bishop, so that, if arrested as he stepped down from the pulpit and taken away by the Gestapo, the whole town would know of this insult to the majesty of his office. In fact, the Nazis were taken by surprise, and were unable to prevent the very wide circulation of these outspoken denunciations of the regime, which were quickly spread from hand to hand, and even appeared in other parts of Europe, and also were used as very effective propaganda by the BBC. But, of course, Galen denied having any political intentions. He still apparently thought that the Nazis could be recalled by fervent exhortations to uphold the concepts of German law and traditional Christian moral values."

"Courageous as these actions were in defence of the Church's traditional concerns for its flock, it has to be noted that these documents contain not a single instance of Galen's being ready to make similar protests against the even more heinous Nazi crimes against the Jews. Indeed it would seem clear that Galen, like so many other German conservatives, shared much of the prevalent anti-semitic attitudes of his day, especially the widespread assumption that the Jews were powerfully represented in the Communist leadership of the Soviet Union. Consequently, his ardent support for the Nazis' war of liberation against the "godless atheism" of the Bolsheviks, as expressed in a pastoral letter of September 1941, no doubt influenced him in remaining silent on the events of the Holocaust. Such was the ambivalence, or the dilemma, of this section of the German populace. His national loyalties remain firm to the end. Germany's defeat by the Allies was a major disaster, and in no way could be celebrated as a liberation. In fact, as the American troops advanced into his diocese Galen withdrew to a remote country convent to avoid the coming of the "barbarians"."

"The value of these documents will be to allow a clearer picture of the extent to which Catholic apologists are justified when they argue that the bishops' stance during the Nazi years was successful in preventing the whole-scale apostasy of the Catholic population, or that any more open protest would have endangered needlessly the lives of millions of Catholics. On the other hand, they also show how the bishops' illusions about the character of the Nazi regime prevented any mobilization of Catholic resistance, especially on the most vital issue of the persecution of the Jews." 2 volumes,ed. by former archivist of the Muenster diocese,

by Freidrich Loefflered. P. Loeffler, _Bischof Clemens August Graf von Galen: Akten, Briefe und Predigten 1933-1946 _ , Vol I: _1933-1939_, Vol II: 1939-1946_, Second revised and enlarged edition (Veroeffentlichungen der Kommission fuer Zeitgeschichte, Reihe A: Quellen, Vol. 42) Paderborn: Schoeningh 1996 1476pp DM ISBN 3-7867-1394-4 (cloth), 3-506-79840-5 (paper)

• Cardinal Bertram, congratulating Hitler on his fifty-first birthday in April, 1940, cited from Johann Neumann's "1945: The German churches before and afterwards" A review of the incomparably great successes and events of recent years and the gravity of this war which has come over us gives me, as chairman of the Fuldaer Bishops' Conference, special reason, in the name of the bishops of all the dioceses in Germany, to convey to you on your birthday the warmest felicitations. This occurs in conjunction with the ardent prayers offered at the altar on the 20th of April that the Catholics are sending to Heaven for the German people, army and Fatherland, for the state and Führer. This is being done in deep consciousness of the national and religious duty of loyalty to the present state and its rulers, in the full sense of the Divine commandment that the Saviour Himself and the Apostles have handed down. [We] protest against the suspicion, nourished by anti-Church circles and secretly disseminated by them, that our declaration of loyalty is not fully dependable.... I beg to be allowed to call to remembrance that our aims do not stand in any contradiction to the programme of the National Socialist party and that they find a clear echo in your own policy statement of 23.03.1933 and commitment of 28.04.1933. ...with the most reverend obedience, Cardinal Adolf Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau. (from [5]

EffK 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building in article lacking sources

Do you have some change to this article that you are proposing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My attitude has commonality with Patsw, McClenon and Str1977, Goodoldpolonius2, Bengalski, the late Wyss and others: the subject of Eugenio Pacelli has to, because of WP principles about forking, merge with the Hitler's Pope/ The Great Scandal subjects. They were created because the apologists removed all the shown references I already included. Did you see these ?

I am not technical, so I don't know how such important information can be pooled bit-wise, but I put these verifiable quotes as the basis of source and because they appear necessary to finally illustrate the contradictions needing representation. I am sorry that you do not see any reference towards solution for the intractable dispute with the a.r.t. that others had seen and I would certainly say that, unless you were to be the judge of a conflict of history, or someone , then there remains a conflict of history. Could you explain why you cannot see anything to comment upon with the a.r.t. and perhaps define just how I can help overcome the problem better or more W/Pishly?

I believe myself not to be the most experienced at expressing the sort of NPOV writing that Goodoldpolonius requires, and that Jdtirl acutely criticised. In brief the problem is that here both sides are difficult. I more than less represent the side that requires full historical analysis, and then, there is another side which follows the entire structure of the JPII quote. As you will have seen he leaves a gap between 1931 and 1937. Then you will note the contradiction between Galen and the 1940 Bertram(whom I think was the ordinator of the present pontiff. The gap has been evident here as long as I have visited, and was in fact erroneously filled as containing 37/? vatican condemnations, when there were not.

Within the source I have quoted, there is one thing that is extremely relevant, which is the reference by Bertram to the "biased announcements" that led to the requested Papen exchange with him of 19 march, as you know some 4 days before Ludwig Kaas handed the Enabling Act vote. Bengalski, then, had asked me to source the clearest references to the quid pro quo and I am therefore attempting to satisfy this good request. The fact that Bertram refers to biased statements proves that somewhere between the Nazi-Hugenberg coalition and Bertram, more that one statement had been made , and the logic of Bertram's denial,and of his demanding explanation from Franz von Papen, is that Papen either made them or knew who had made them, and that they suggested publicly made reference to precissely the Church accomodation Bertram at that week (but not the next) denied.The following week there was a hierarchy u-turn. I have referred you to the figure of the Centre Chairman Monsignor Kaas, to the source showing there was little new in direct Pacelli influence upon the Centre. I have shown you that Kaas made a solo approach to Papen and the coalition (ie Hitler - because of the Fuhrer-principle) on the 6 March. This source certainly proves that there had arrived a new (or newly re-affirmed) Pacelli accomaodation or approbation, or at least the suggestion thereof by his close associate Kaas.

It has always been the point of attack against me as a user, that I am in single error when I alert the WP to the actually rather commonly expressed and published similar conclusion. I rather find this an intellectually dishonest provocation, because it is demonstrably un-true. However I will admit that really since Avro Manhattan first published his 50 editions concerning Kaas and his part, several authors, on either side of the dispute/contradiction seem each to fail in drawing the real strings of the bow. All make mistakes, as it is very complex. Note however the as scholarly as possible answer I placed concerning the apologetics, which should stand as helpful guide.

You will note that the late pontiff speaks the word "scandal" as relating to this history, if not with the intention of the writer for the Council for Secular Humanism who entitles his less than erroneous relevant round-up The Great Scandal. I borrowed this term, as it is obviously a scandal, and is here confirmed. therefore I hope that I prepare the way for some even and cleear ratification of the Article, which will bring it to the level of respect that WP desires to achieve. Is that all right? I am very glad if you will be able to perhaps act as as general referee whatever template of balance is instituted. I believe what I have just said to you to be relevant and necessary and preparatory to establishing as much good faith here as possible.

I would add meanwhile one thing, which is the oft repeated criticism that I seem to overdose on the presentation of 'POV' as something other, and that I seek to change it into NPOV surreptitiously or merely by stupidly. For this reason, and I mean that in the classic sense of the word, I bring full source to the point of proving the NPOV. I may have failed in expressing the apparent POV, but actually, Robert McClenon says above that he believes only the Avro Manhattan should be excluded. I will not argue that point at present but I refer you to that statement as being preparatory consensus. I therefore say that these selected sourced quotes are precisely here to enable such as you, who have never been here to over-see WP procedures, to hold us to the clear understanding that, if all source is to be classed, per Str1977, as inherent POV whether scholarly or whatever, then the verifiability of these sources, like for a demand from the Apostle Thomas, shall surface to make full justification . They should, but never do, defend me from attack, made against my good faith.

If I or the apologists could find contrary source for the relevant missing period between 32/3 and 37, that would be required. I do not find it, and I have for a long time suggested that it be produced in order to show contradictory evidence as being POV. I am so sorry to be so long, when you are so short. A snippet of information I would also suggest be entered would be the curious fact that the anonymous and precisely apparently un-important figure of Father Richard ? Lieber, who was the actual interlocutor of the papacy between the British and the part of the 1939/40 Widerstand, was also the confessor of Pius XII. This comes from the only strong version of a disputing article that can be seen in todays world, and which is the basis of pretty much all such articles of catholic apologia,and which is from precisely the source given to Cornwell, which is the evidence for the beatification of the subject , collated and supplied to Cornwell by the Postulator Father Gumpel.

Can we establish good will now as per the demands of the late John Paul II ? If you absolutely insist on my making a reversion of the article prior to such foundation, I believe it is to expect me to operate under bad-will. I have done so for a very long time, and can do so, but I feel it is time this changed, and here and Adolf Hitler is where it starts. Is this wrong, Tom Harrisson, to prepare consensus through source and to do it right? EffK 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So you would like to merge this page, Hitler's Pope, and The Great Scandal. It is perfectly acceptable to propose this and seek consensus for such a change. I do not suggest that you make any reversions or changes like you describe until consensus support exists. No big changes should be made unless most editors want them to be made. I invite anyone with an opinion on the changes that EffK recommends to speak up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

May we have a completely rational, un-hurried consideration of this grave matter? There is such over-lap between the secretary of State Pacelli under the Pius XI papacy, and the subsequent Pacelli papacy -as to cause us to pause. The anti-communism was cardinal to the history, and therefore Pacelli cannot be isolated from Pius XI's resultant policies. I do not know how we conjoin these Popes. I do think we need to set some consensus and in some way agree between us to allow the contradictory claims to all show their source. There are other articles such as Hitler and the Church and Nazi Accession Question. It is possible there are other ways of dealing with the problem. Altho there is ecclesiatical foundation, the political strategy is the driving means for achieving the retention of the ecclesiastical foundation. In short I am open-minded as to how and where, but not to the necessity of source and its acceptance (verifiability. I believe this is the key subject to un-locking the history of the world 1933 onwards, which I estimate by the resulting out-come. I am obviously as originator accepting of the present separation of articles- but not at the de-linking and hiding of them, and not the claims of bias or POV, which prevent their completion. Ie,the minimum is a link from here to any such as The Great Scandal, and their expansion to being balanced with the 'apologetical' source(if it exists from 1932-37).This may entail less strife, and bring greater success. I will not do anything until there is consensus. My comments apply to Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust and Nazism and Nazi Germany, all in similar need. Thankyou.

EffK 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Response Robert McClenon

EffK: I realize that you are angry at almost everyone in the Wikipedia, especially me and Str1977, except for Tom Harrison.

• Not at all, you're great guys, wonderful !-couldn't be more useful to the cause of secular humanism. I am a vehicle of reaction, no more.FK

However, I will remind you that Tom Harrison is trying to do what I tried to do six months ago. I agreed with you that the criticisms of Pope Pius XII should be presented in more detail, and that there were moral errors by various Church leaders and groups, and that scholarly analyses of those errors should be presented. What I was trying to do was to ask you, User:Famekeeper/User:EffK, to summarize how the articles could be improved. You either did not want to present a short summary or did not know how to present a short summary. You eventually exhuasted my patience, and also began attacking me, just as you had been attacking User:Str1977. You again have someone who is willing to try to work with you to provide the balance that you think is lacking.

• Nein, no: I have no thinking - I referred to source always. This is why we were unable to find accord-there has been no accord, and stil you demnonstrate the fact with thinking and no plausibility. Sorry.There is no thinking of FK.

Please, please try to work with him. Please use these article talk pages to discuss articles. Robert McClenon 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please qulaify reason for duplicate 'please'. Please please please try and shtop having me banned from pleasing Wikipedia ! Bu'f! FK

Here is what I would suggest. First, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII are papal biographices, and should summarize the lives of those two men with particular attention to their papacies. I see no reason why anything needs to be changed in Pope Pius XI. I think that its emphasis is right. In particular, I see no reason to include any criticisms of him, because I have not seen any plausible charges that he was complicit in the Nazi accession.

• Natural desire to avoid christian-type language here prevents me from all normal sounding communication. For God'd sakes! Your view ignores the source of Fulda, the today's Bertram, Galen JPII. Ignores the entirety of the world as affected. Ignores the supposedly-purely-diplomatic statements of Pius XI on 10 April 1933 crowning the publication of the event. Kaas I do not say quid pro quo here , but events. All known events. Sufficient source is present to require your answer to verifiability. "Doubt" that accuses verifiablity means is illogical bad faith. Prove lies or withhold yourself, from plausible. I reject your word plausible. I continue this conversation only, following this word, under some discomfort, as you ignore source.

FK

Pope Pius XII was pope during World War Two, and much of the subsequent writing about his papacy has been concerned with praising and criticizing his conduct with respect to the Holocaust. His biography should summarize those arguments in proportion to the extent that historians have been favorable or unfavorable to him. It is reasonable for one-half of the article to summarize those views in balance. That is my opinion, and it is worth what you, Tom Harrison, paid for it.

• What does that mean, paid for it? "It is reasonable for one-half of the article to summarize those views in balance. That is my opinion, and it is worth what you, Tom Harrison, paid for it." What is this expostulation?

• As to balance you are folloing the on-line papal or apologia defence of accepting necessary questioneing re the Holocaust but rejecting account and source for 1932-37. There is no contrary source for 32-37. Statistics, 591 Priests kicked or not kicked. But not source, showing the source presented and repeatedly stated that the church went along with its own Priests kicking, abdicted its own autonomy. This is illogical, when said contrary to source. Pease please re-consider your logical adherence to verifibilty .FK

I think that The Great Scandal is a POV fork, and should be merged partly into Pope Pius XII and partly into Centre Party.

• I have shown contrary source to that which demonstrates clear collusive links, actions, contumate statements, mysterious Party indiscipline, solo ecclesiastical action within Parlamentary Democracy, and intrigues prior to the Reicskonkordat, all has necesssary justifying source, so the suggestion of POV fork prevents us from satisfying verifiability.

However, if there is a name for a school of historical interpretation (an "ism") for views that the Catholic and Lutheran Churches were complicit in the rise of the Nazi Party, then that "ism" deserves its own article.

• I second McClenon. I agree whole-heartedly with this bit of clear analysis. Yes- it is called Nazism/ NSDAP study alone. Anything further is but a study of a facet of Nazism. Nazism in relation to other Concepts, a name that is impossible to link to from a search box

I think that the article on the German industrialists who financed the Nazi Party should be part of the history of the Nazi Party.

• You hang out with and support guys who remove everything , pushed out as off-topic -there must be surely worthy inclusion of any verifiable truth ? in this case we should not argue about structure od linkage , that is apart from acceptance of NPOV.

Hitler's Pope is a book. The question is whether the book is sufficiently significant to deserve its own article. If so, the article should be a summary of the

book, and discuss arguments in favor of and against Cornwell's conclusions. Whether or not the book deserves an article, Cornwell's book is one of the criticisms of Pope Pius XII that should be psummarized neutrally. Those are my opinions. Robert McClenon 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Your use of POV here is at variance with source, and is exactly precise miniaturisation of all that is true, but uncomfortable- there are many such books as Cornwell's, but only one subject by that easily remembered and apparently most correct urban legend title, and which is fit for an online enciclo. Online there is no doubt of the source. only in here. Thankyou Mclenon, for being so clear. Please do not take it personally what you force me to say. Progress cannot be made without acceptance of source-such as that of Bertram : are you prepared to include the relevance of Bertram on 19 March to the 28 Fulda to the 10 April Pius to the subsequent dependent Holocaust via the source anyone could make of the 1 April Jewish Boycott. Please answer the Tom Harrisson question I ask of your comment. And re-confirm that verifiability allows itself ?

Thank you for reminding us that article talk pages are for discussion of article content. Robert McClenon 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, Robert talks nice but you ...

I just want to remind you of two things:

• "Nein, no: I have no thinking" - if you don't have thinking you shouldn't be out here editing articles and telling of others. But the thing, you do think and you do have a POV. Nothing wrong about that. The trouble is: you don't realize it.
• "you're great guys, wonderful !-couldn't be more useful to the cause of secular humanism" - since was Wikipedia about furthering the cause of any ideology? Quite apart from the fact that you just called your "thinking" (the one that doesn't exist) by name.

Str1977 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What is good for that thinking is evidently blatant denialism , as it proves that the denialism is in operation. Scandal is scandal on a world magnitude here. The church is characterised by history ever since - I simply insist on the statements being entered in balance to hagiography. Legal was in fact illegal, and that is more important than our personalities. You defended legal, and you are wrong to have done so-historically wrong as on too much for it to be co-incidental. Str1977 has promoted un-historical un-sourced POV ad infinitum. I answer and seek balance. My writing is ghastly, of what importance beside the gravity of this is my discussion manner? be real, please EffK 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)