Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

PPXII and colonialism

"Long before European colonialism ended, Pius XII liberated the Church from undue paternalistic influences."

This sentence is incredibly vague, yet strongly worded. "liberated" and "paternalistic" should almost never appear on Wikipedia (except when referring to military maneuvers or feminist theory), especially not in a featured article, because they are not neutral point of view by their nature. The key is to show the reader the facts, not to simply tell them the conclusion in a vacuum. what does "liberated" mean? just say what he actually did (speech? encyclical? hierarchical shuffling?). what does "paternalistic influences" mean? just say what actual practices or doctrines were changed. Savidan 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "demanded...recognition" part is less vague, but still problematic. Who did he demand it from? In what medium did he make the demand? What kind of recognition? Etc. Savidan 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion : this article should not be a featured article!!! --81.50.200.195 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

we should add it

The silence of the shepherd http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1030928.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.7.165 (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No the article is dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi anti-Christian activities

I was going to try to place a link to the Wikipedia article on Nazi persecution of Christians (Protestants as well as Catholics of course. Equal opportunity!), but can't really see where it would seamlessly fit. The link is Persecution_of_Christians#Nazi_Germany. The Nazis, basically wanted to kill everybody who didn't agree with them. Hard to see how publicly facing up to them could have helped. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. It is a complicated issue involving several fascist counties in very different ways. In the thirties, the Vatican saw itself confronted with a wide range of fascist policies towards the Church. In Spain, the forces supporting Franco were essential during the civil war to save the clergy and lay people from the brutal violence of the Red Terror (Spain). In Italy, there was conflict with the Mussolini government over education and Catholic Action, after 1938, over intended racial laws as well. In Germany, the situation was very serious for the Catholic Church with persecution from day one. This of course affeced Pacelliu as Secretary of State and as pope. An article about this has to be written. I have all the materials but not time at present. But it is on the agenda. The article refers shortly to the problem by stating:

Between 1933 and 1939, Pacelli issued 55 protests of violations of the Reichskonkordat. Most notably, early in 1937, Pacelli asked several German cardinals, including Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber to help him write a protest of Nazi violations of the Reichskonkordat; this was to become Pius XI's encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. The encyclical, condemning the view that "exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State ... above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level", was written in German instead of Latin and read in German churches on Palm Sunday 1937.Clearly, more can and should be said on this. Thank you. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't equal opportunity persecution. The Catholics had been under attack since the end of the first world war. Catholics didn't give up control of the labor unions voluntarily. The Catholic Union members and leaders were murdered by the Nazis and the Communists. The only respite for them was when the Nazis and Communists were murdering each other.

The Reichbishop was a Lutheran Bishop not a Catholic Bishop. Hitler's plan was the German pan-German plan; the protestant social gospel movement in Germany merged with eugenics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Responsibility

I don't wish to venture an opinion on whether or not Pius XII acted for or against the Nazis. However, Student7's view that people who did not act, do not have any responsibility is questionable. It is said that all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. In some churches this is described as a Sin of Omission.

Dogtooth (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone decided to remove the section I added regarding Pius's inaction and the starvation deaths of 500,000 Greek civilians. It was sourced by two authors. I can not understand why, especially since another part of the section I added, has a U.S. official questioning the "morals" of the church? I would suggest one research how OXFAM was found in response to this Allied atrocity, before verified and cited changes are made simply because someone does not like the implications. History is factual. However removal my additon regarding Pius and the Allied blockade is obviously NPOV. RandyRP (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Dogtooth - True. But how far can I go in an encyclopedia in pointing out sins of omission instead of sins of commission which are verifiable and often dramatic? How much is Dogtooth responsible for global warming/pollution by virtue of not changing his light bulbs to all fluorescent? (as opposed, say, to Saddam's setting fire to his oilfields back during the first Gulf War?) I think this sort of accusation can become pretty silly after a while. Student7 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As the Vatican's nuncio to Germany, Cardinal Pacelli did act. Under Pope Pius XI's direction, Cardinal Pacelli compelled the German Bishop's conference to impose the penalty of automatic excommunication for any Catholic who joined the Nazi party.

German protestants responded pretty much like US or British protestants would respond; they voted for Hitler as a protest against "Papal Interference" in the German elections. Hitler received 90 percent of the protestant vote. Hitler only received 10 percent of the Catholic vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the article truly reflect what happened during World War 2?

All the following information appears in Carmen Callil's book: "Bad Faith: A forgotten history of family and fatherland", ISBN 9780224978726 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, Jonathan Cape, London 2006. Ms Callil is the Managing Director of Chatto & Windus and founder of Virago.

French Catholic newspapers of the first half of the 20th century (e.g. Le Pèlerin, La Croix, La Libre Parole, and La Défense) [“The Pilgrim”, “The Cross”, “The Word of Liberty”, and “The Defence”] were viciously anti-Jewish, filled with racist slander in the guise of protecting the Catholic faith. (Jews were an easy target, being at most 1% of the population.) These newspapers were extremely widely read - even in small provincial towns. During WWII the Nazis had no trouble finding French fascists willing to carry out horrific deeds on their behalf; all were Catholic. (The Oremus – a prayer for Catholic children - was an official part of the catechism of the early 20th century. It began: “Let us pray for the thieving Jew”.)

The Action Française was a Catholic French organisation established in the wake of the Dreyfus Affair, before 1900. Its eponymous daily newspaper was published in Paris from 1908 onwards. This monarchist, anti-democratic newspaper vilified Jews, Protestants, Freemasons, and all foreign migrants. The twisted minds behind it were Charles Maurras and Léon Daudet. Action Française was strongly supported by both the Catholic clergy and laymen. Maurras composed the following song for Action Française:

"The Jew having taken all,/ Having robbed Paris of all she owns,/ Now says to France:/ “You belong to us alone:/ Obey! Down on your knees, all of you!” Insolent Jew, hold your tongue…/ Back to where you belong, Jew…/"

Pope Pius X told Maurras’ mother: “I bless his work.”

Pope Pius XI (elected in 1922) proscribed Catholic membership of the Action Française in December 1926 against the objections of 11 of France’s 17 cardinals and archbishops. Nevertheless Action Française continued to operate with impunity. Due to the esteemed place of the medical profession in French society, a special medical newspaper called “Le Médecin” was started by the Action Française to propagate racism among French doctors.

Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli became Pope Pius XII in March 1939. One of his first actions as Pope was to revoke the ban on membership of Action Française, allowing all Catholics to join it. Action Française became a significant Nazi fifth column in France during WWII.

In 1924 Pierre-Charles Taittinger, a rich French businessman, founded the organisation Jeunesses Patriotes (“Patriotic Youth”), a Catholic youth league noted for violent and occasionally fatal skirmishes with communists. The Vatican did not react.

François Coty, the founder of the French cosmetics giant, used the profits of his company to fund many fascist groups during the 1920s and 30s. Coty was fanatically anti-communist and anti-Jewish. In 1928 Coty founded the Croix-de-feu (“Cross of Fire”), a fascist paramilitary organisation. It insisted on strict Catholicism and staged militaristic rallies. By 1937 Croix-de-feu had roughly 750 000 members. The Vatican did not react. Coty progressed to found the viciously anti-Jewish organisation Solidarité Française, once again the Vatican failed to react.

In July 1933 Pope Pius XII drew up the Concordat between the Roman Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. The Pope drafted the announcement of this agreement that was made by Hitler, including the words: “…it gives sufficient guarantee that the Reich [German] members of the Roman Catholic confession will from now on put themselves without reservation at the service of the new National Socialist [Nazi] state.”

Pope Pius XII allowed Europeans to support or become fascists/Nazis without fear of excommunication. By contrast he automatically excommunicated Catholics who became communists, almost all of whom were fighting the Nazis. In France Cardinal Baudrillart openly supported the Nazis, and Cardinals Liénart of Lille, Suhard of Paris and Gerlier of Lyon openly supported the Vichy collaborationist régime. Cardinal Suhard even joined the Vichy council of ministers.

On 3 October 1940 the French Vichy collaborationists carried out a census of all Jews living in the Occupied Zone, on behalf of the German Nazis. On the same day Marshal Pétain, head of the Vichy régime, signed the “Statut des Juifs” – sweeping laws that went beyond anything demanded by the Nazis, banning Jews from teaching and all media jobs, placing quotas on the numbers allowed in the higher professions, and requiring all non-French Jews to be interned and/or used for forced labour. Jews could be arrested for any reason whatsoever. The Protestant leader Marc Boegner only objected to the laws affecting Jewish French citizens. The French Catholic Church made no objections, and the Vatican remained silent. In December 1940 the Nazi Ambassador to Vichy France reported to Hitler that “Cardinal Suhard, the Archbishop of Paris, assures me that the French clergy is ready to act in favour of French collaboration with Germany. The Church has given instructions in this direction to the French clergy…that the national interest of France today and in the future lies in close collaboration, and not in hostility to Germany.”

In 1941 Pétain asked Pope Pius XII, through his Vatican ambassador Léon Bérard, to appraise his anti-Jewish laws. The ambassador returned reports from Cardinals Tardini and Montini of the Vatican State Department in August and September 1941. Pétain was assured that there was nothing “intrinsically wrong” with the laws, while Xavier Vallat, Vichy’s first Commissioner for Jewish Affairs, was told by Cardinal Gerlier: “No one knows better than I the enormous harm the Jews have done to France…No one supports more zealously than I the policies of Marshal Pétain…it is in its application that justice and charity are lacking.” Cardinals Tardini and Montini of the Vatican State Department went further, stating that: “The Holy Father [Pius XII] does not disapprove the recent anti-Jewish measures.” Cardinal Suhard told Vichy’s Secretary of State, Benoist-Méchin, that there were no rules in the Catholic Church opposed to “precautions” against the “corrosive influence” of Jews. When some Catholic priests asked for the anti-Jewish laws to be condemned by the Assembly of Cardinals and Archbishops, they were told to obey Vichy.

When Frenchmen were asked to volunteer for work in Nazi Germany in June 1942, Cardinal Suhard of Paris blessed the undertaking.

On 1 July 1942 the BBC broadcast an account of how 700 000 Polish Jews had been murdered in gas chambers – the first time such information had been made public. On 12 July the British Catholic Cardinal Hinsley protested on the BBC about this, stating that Pope Pius XII was convinced that it was true.

President Roosevelt of the USA pleaded with Pope Pius XII to condemn Nazi war crimes, and to tell the Catholic faithful that Nazism was incompatible with Catholicism, excommunicating self-professing collaborationists and Nazis. Pope Pius XII said nothing. By contrast the German Lutheran leader Niemöller risked his life to oppose Nazism, setting an example for other believers. (Many Catholic priests and believers turned against the Nazis of their own accord, without the support of their Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope.)

In France the transport of Jews to the gas chambers started in earnest in 1942. These were massive operations witnessed by the French general public – the first major round-up on 16-17 July 1942 collected 12 884 Jews in Paris, of whom just 47 would survive. The first train left the Drancy internment camp outside Paris for Auschwitz on 19 July. In the middle of August 1942 Cardinals Suhard and Gerlier wrote private letters of protest to Marshal Pétain, while Pope Pius XII did nothing. Vichy responded by offering minor concessions to the Catholic Church, upon which Pius XII said he was “favourably impressed” and that he “warmly praised the work of the Marshal”.

Marcel Déat, fascist, French collaborationist, Vichy Minister of Labour and National Solidarity, 1944. He was given refuge in a Roman Catholic convent in Turin. Never brought to justice. [BF, p 389]

Léon Degrelle, devout Catholic and leading Belgian fascist for the Nazis in WW2. He was given asylum in fascist Spain by Franco after the war. He was photographed together with a smiling Pope John Paul II on 11 Dec 1991. This does not necessarily imply anything, although it is quite difficult to meet the Pope. [BF, p 389 and Plate 49]

Paul Touvier was the right hand man of the murderous Gestapo Chief in Lyon, Klaus Barbie. Shortly after the end of WWII Paul Touvier was given sanctuary by the Roman Catholic Church, being hidden in monasteries and convents. He was finally caught in the early 1990s, and sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity in 1994. He died of old age just 2 years later.

As Ms Carmen Callil properly references all the above material in her book, from meticulous sources, I conclude that the Wikipedia article is not a full and honest attempt to examine the role of Pius XII in WW2. (And Ms Callil's book only concerns France, let alone all the other occupied countries!) The timing of events is critical. When Pius XII permitted false baptismal certificates to be drawn up by Catholic priests for Jews, for example, he was merely giving the green light to a practice that had already been initiated by parish priests; if he hadn't doen this, the Church would have been left without much of its clergy - i.e. his hand was forced.

In short - if we are to reflect history properly we must be impartial and aim for full disclosure. (Craniotomist (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

The facts above have not been made relevant to Pope Pius XII. There are 1 billion Catholics today. Some of them are murders, thiefs, etc. This has nothing to do with the pope. If any of the above can be related to Pope Pius XII by scholarly reference, fine. I doubt you can really do that though. The Vatican harbored Italian Jews during WWII. This is hardly a sign of persecution.
"Oremus" means "Let us pray" in Latin, nothing more or less. Catholics did pray for the salvation of Jews and Protestants prior to Vatican II. That was universal. The practice was stopped in the 1960s. Nothing specifically to do with this pope, however. Student7 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some counterbalancing information in the "Holocaust" section, referenced to Rabbi Dalin's book, "The Myth of Hitler's Pope". The quotations in this section seemed to be overwhelmingly from negative or polemical sources. Xandar 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The monarchists in Germany were protestants not Catholics. Conservative Catholics were called ultra-montanists for their defense of Papal Supremacy over all governments including monarchies. They were not love by the monarchists nor by Hitler. Hitler was influenced by the monarchists but more as a nostalgia than a goal. Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist.

Merely being Socialist was enough to get Hitler automatically excommunicated from the church. Merely supporting Eugneics was enough to get Hitler excommunicated from teh church. Etc. Hitler seems to have been unable to find a bad idea he didn't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New info on Pius and Jews by third party org

This organization [1] has conducted independent research into Pope Pius XII helping Jews. Their findings can be found on that same page but are also summarized here [2]. It would be nice to add this. NancyHeise talk 02:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It would also be nice to add references to Hitler's several attempts to assassinate Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Pius XII).

The French Thomist Jacques Maritain published German language pamplets refuting the values of the Nazis from the French border town he resided in prior to the war. Hitler swore to execute him for those actions and Maritain fled to the US.

G.K. Chesterton responded to the racism of the Nazis with a column titled "The Heresy ofd Race."

Pope Pius XI responded by ordering Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) to compel the Catholic German Bishop's conference to accept the automatic excommunication decree for membership in the Nazi Party and the Communist party. Where is the mention of this in the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.156.170 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New developments

  • I ask the editors of this article to please read this new development regarding new documents shedding new light on the attitude of the Vatican toward Jews during WWII.
  • http://www.zenit.org/article-27115?l=english
  • Apparently, the detractors of Pius XII have not considered these new documents that are being investigated and discovered by the Pave the Way Foundation. I would be interested to see a paragraph at the bottom of the article and included in the lead regarding these new documents as they represent an important twist in the story of Pius XII. NancyHeise talk 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The link you provide appears to be a news story about a speech to the UN. I believe the PtWF documents have already been mentioned in the article, if that is what you are referring to. It would be hard for anyone to consider these documents if they have not been released yet or made available to researchers. Savidan 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the link posted above is going to the wrong page. I meant for it to go here: http://www.zenit.org/article-27118?l=english Do you still think it is redundant? I think this adds more info to what is already in the article regarding these new developements. NancyHeise talk 03:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, the document included in that article is curious indeed. It's not clear to me reading it exactly what is claimed about Pius XII himself. Certainly, the document predates the Holocaust by several years and Pius XII's papacy by several months. I do look forward to the publication that the article mentions as forthcoming. Savidan 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I continue to see news reports regarding this information. I think it is notable and gaining in recognition. Please see [3] NancyHeise talk 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I look forward to these documents being released to the public or at least evaluated by scholars. I don't know if a presentation to students at Yeshiva is notable enough for inclusion, but I agree that these are interesting developments and have them in my own google reader. I think its likely that when the time comes this will be picked up by all the major news sources, not just the iffy ones like Zenit. All of these types of things are fine for the PTWF article, of course. Savidan 06:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Savidan, just wondering if you saw this new developement regarding Pius XII in USA Today [4] . NancyHeise talk 04:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's some more from Transworldnews [5]. NancyHeise talk 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Just ran across this bit in Huffington Post -FYI [6] NancyHeise talk 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This author is writing a new book in defense of Pius XII and is reported in the Catholic News service Zenit. The link is to an article he wrote featured in Haaretz.com [7] NancyHeise talk 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Vatican secret archives regarding Pius XII and WWII will be available online soon according to Zenit News. This is in response to a request by Pave the Way Foundation. Please see [8]. NancyHeise talk 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like these will only be the documents contained in the ADSS. However, even translating those documents into English would be a great step. Savidan 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
What is interesting to me is that Krupp says "65%" of Pius XII's ministry has been ignored by scholars and that the previous investigations into the documents were abandoned because the scholars did not speak the language. I think he is suggesting that scholars on the subject have not been doing their job very well. NancyHeise talk 04:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I struggled to figure out where I pulled that number from. My best guess is that he is referring to the archives from his predecessors which correspond to over 65% of Pacelli's life. I am not able to speak the language myself, by many of the main authors (Phayer, Zuccotti, etc.) are polyglots and do use the ADSS as well as the prior archives. It may interest you to that this is an argument Marchione employs frequently: "scholars haven't utilized everything that's already available, so why open the archives from his papacy". I don't know how one could objectively measure whether the earlier archives have been adequately utilized, but I think we can be sure that there will be a new round of books, from a variety of perspectives, whenever the the archives are opened, and it seems like that will be this decade. Savidan 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Expert calls for historic objectivity in judging Pius XII - CNA

[9] --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Historian Saul Friedlander's comments defending Pius XII to the newspaper "Le Point" 65.11.204.217 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

New information gleaned from recently opened archives

"When speaking of Pope Pius XII, the foremost Jewish scholars of the Holocaust in Hungary, Jeno Levai, stated that it was a "particularly regrettable irony that the one person in all of occupied Europe who did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences is today made the scapegoat for the failures of others." [10] NancyHeise talk 14:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"It was recently discovered, in the American archives, that the allies had broken the German codes and knew almost a week in advance of the intended arrests of the Roman Jews. The allies decided not to warn the Romans since this might alert the Germans to this intelligence breach. This “military decision” left Pope Pius XII alone, without advance notice, to try to end the arrests." [11] NancyHeise talk 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


More new information from a German historian looking into the Vatican archives [12]. I have not put any of this into the article I am just posting it here for those who might want to improve the article. NancyHeise talk 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, I've been following these developments with much interest in my google reader. My preference is to wait until such information is published in a book, peer reviewed journal, or in-depth article in a major newspaper. However, I do not object to your or others trying to glean something from these sources in the interim to add to the article. Savidan 00:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I myself will be trying to get ahold of a copy of Gary Krupp's new book. I recommend that any and all citation to recent news articles related to PTWF be replaced with a citation to the book if the information is contained therein, which is likely. Savidan 17:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Savidan, I just happen upon these articles because I subscribe to some Catholic news organizations like Zenit and CNA. They provide another point of view on Catholic issues not always provided by other news media organizations. I think that for WP:NPOV purposes it is important to include all valid sides of an issue. People coming to this article probably already know one side of the story and might be looking for the other side as well. Why not give it to them? Zenit and CNA are reputable news organizations that meet the criteria of WP:RS.
FYI - current scholarly dispute over Pius XII [13]. NancyHeise talk 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Savidan, I don't recommend at this time adding anything from the article on the Zenit advocacy site since it seems to be a whitewashing excercise. They say that Cardinal Pacelli didn't actually name the Jews in his quoted speech and this is an interpolation by biassed scholars who are critical of Pius. The relevant passage of the speech is "As opposed to the foes of Jesus, who cried out to his face, 'Crucify him!' we sing him hymns of our loyalty and our love. "We act in this fashion, not out of bitterness, not out of a sense of superiority, not out of arrogance toward those whose lips curse him and whose hearts reject him even today.'". However they seem to be assuming that their readers are ignorant of scriptures because it is the New Testament that links the "Crucify Him !" quotation of the Cardinal directly to the Jews, e.g. "It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!". (john 19:14) It is Cardinal Pacelli, not the scholars complained about in the advocacy piece, that makes the link to the Jews by quoting scripture and they bring discredit on their own scholarship by attempting to smear others based on what they present in this article. P.s, What he said as a Cardinal was echoed in what he said as Pope in 1942 to the College of Cardinals "Jerusalem has responded to His call and to His grace with the same rigid blindness and stubborn ingratitude that has led it along the path of guilt to the murder of God." ma'at (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious content about Manhattan Project

User:Johnkatz1972 recently added the following. The quotation is too long and too obscure for this article. This article should (as much as possible) be a summary, relying as much as possible on secondary sources, not an arbitrary collection of large quotes from primary sources. Needless to say, there are no sources cited for the claim that follows, and extraordinary claims of this nature should be kept out entirely without good sources. Savidan 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

On February 21, 1943, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science, the Pope made reference to the structure of the atom as follows:
And these intimate processes of the investigation of the atom will appear as really surprising to us, not only because they open up before our eyes a world hitherto unknown, whose richness, multiplicity, and regularity seem somehow to vie with the sublime grandeur of the firmament, but also for the unpredictably grandiose effects that technology itself can expect from them. In this connection we cannot abstain from mentioning an astonishing phenomenon about which the Nestor of theoretical physics, Max Planck, our Academician, has written in a recent article of his, Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft. The curious transformations of the atom have for many years occupied only research workers in pure science. The amount of energy sometimes developed in it was undoubtedly surprising; but since atoms are extremely small, it was never seriously thought that they might become important even from a practical point of view. Today, on the other hand, this question has taken on an unexpected aspect as a consequence of the results of artificial radioactivity. It has in fact been established that in the splitting a uranium atom undergoes if it is bombarded by a neutron, two or three neutrons are freed, each of which may meet and smash another uranium atom. In this way the effects are multiplied, and it may happen that the growing number of collisions of neutrons with uranium atoms increases in a short time the number of freed neutrons and, proportionally, the sum of energy developed from them, to an extent so great that it is almost inconceivable. A special calculation shows that, by this reaction, a cubic metre of uranium oxide powder, in less than a hundredth of a second, develops enough energy to lift a weight of a billion tons to a height of 27 kilometres: an amount of energy which could supplant for many years the activity of all the great electric power stations in the world. Planck ends with the observation that, although the technical utilisation of such a tempestuous process cannot yet be envisaged, it nevertheless opens the way to serious possibilities, so that the thought of the construction of a uranium machine cannot be regarded as merely Utopian. It is important above all, however, to prevent this reaction from taking place as an explosion, and to brake its course by apt precautionary chemical means. Otherwise, a dangerous catastrophe might occur, not only in the locality itself but also for our whole planet.[1]
Some historians believe that the Pope had knowledge of the secret Manhattan Project.

Video of coronation

If memory serves me right, isn't the video of his coronation in the public domain? Would it be possible to put this into the article?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons would probably serve best. Savidan 01:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

POV section

Just looking at the section covering him in the 1930s - it looks very uncritical to me - no mention of Ludwig Kaas for eg. as I understood it Pacelli took a realistic attitude to the nazi phenomenon, code for appeasement -- the section suggests no compromise was ever thought possible - yet the story of the 30s is surely in part a story of sought compromises - the fact that the Nazis were something one couldn't/shouldnt compromise with was the problem, but the Church didn't get it - and was full of 'patriotic ' bishops anyhow . like faulhaber, and galen who urged catholics to defend the fatherland , - and no mention of the Church and pacelli and pius XI seeing communism and soacialism and even liberalism as the main enemy - leading to its unprincipled allying of its cause in a crusade with hitler and mussolini against the spanish second republic - undue weight give to a few quotes in the section - the section looks pov troubling to me,Sayerslle (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for this section to mention every single fact. The section is a summary of the full article Nunciature of Eugenio Pacelli. While you clearly have your own view, the POV flag is inappropriate unless you can point to a more specific problem. I propose: quote the sentence or clause you object to; concisely state your criticism; concisely propose your preferred solution; then include any supporting material. Repeat as necessary. Savidan 08:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I agree more with the editor who voted 'reject' when this went for good article review, or gold star article review, 'reject this one sided and POVy aticle' - it's hard to point out each problem I see , as I didn't like much of what i was reading. 'while you clearly have your own view -...' means? Do you have a view on Pius XII? I should like to know it. in the editng history I see names of editors I recognise and I know their view, or think I do, same as you think you know mine.[in fact, its probably true every editor of this article there ever was has had a POV - it began in August 2001 the article, by april 2003 there is a fully pro-pius POV version, 'Pius - he did all he could' , not til a user:Eloquence shows up, (immediately confronted by user:JTDrl , very pro-PIus XII again), -is there any balance at all - so the first two years give an idea of what will happen at the article] Who is marchione, that the article relied on through the whole early sections as far as I can see. is she a historian? And every title she ever penned in the bibliography.... does she 'clearly have her own point of view -'? Didn't stop you using her all over the place. I don't like tags either so get rid of it, - maybe article s about people like this will always be battlegroundish- iliked versions from a couple of years back better than this 'one-sided POVy version. btw , at Amazon, I've noticed a book titled 'Eugenio Pacelli - in the view of scholarship', editor Peter Pfister, (publisher Schnell & Steiner) is to be published in June 2012 - maybe that could be used to bring the most recent scholarship to bear on the article. Sayerslle (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

A poster shared some interesting information of communications between the Vatican and Franco/Mussolini. I deleted the content because it was out of place, if the editors here should approve of what had been written then it could be given its own sub-section or added to a more appropriate section.

I would advise however that should the information be re posted, it should be re-written with added context and further research, as the previous edit seemed to serve a critical agenda.

Thank You and let me know if we ought to make room for the information somewhere else on the page. Scout of truth (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout of truth (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is information from a book written by a Benedictine, Hilari Raguer, - what are you on about, more context? - it was in the context of the end of the Spanish Civil War, - is' re-written with added context and further research' , code for , - ' rewritten to present PIus XII in a completely hallowed light' ? Sayerslle (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the prompt reply, I was suggesting that it would fit better in its own section (ie. "Spanish Civil War") in much the same way that there is a section set aside for the Second World War. While it is indeed chronological, it is attached to a section addressing his appointment as Pope. By context I am suggesting that we ought to include his views or involvement in the greater Spanish Civil War, including perhaps the papal response to the red terror, or nationalist crimes. What you posted was a sound byte at the conclusion of a very significant conflict.

Ultimately its just out of place, If you feel that it is necessary to post then write a new section. Not just with info you feel is incriminating, make it objective and go all the way, if your source is reputable than read the rest of it and write more. I am even willing to assist you. Scout of truth (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

'I am even willing...' bloody hell. he wasn't POpe was he during the first few months of the scw and the response to the right wing uprising (tho you're right there could be material on Pius XI/Pacelli response in the thirties section - which from my reading was certainly less fanatic and fascistic than the spanish hierarchy's response) -- you do what you want, - I'll follow my own way of contributing ta very much, - the sense I have is that it's an article written by 'croyants' i believe is the french term - time for it to be reviewed for sure. P>S - i see you've aked Nancy Heise for help - I dunno - you're dragging your own agenda around aren't you, - read books, don't rely on her opinion - (like life of brian - don't follow anyone , think for yourself)..Sayerslle (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, I did indeed contact Nancy, though I suspect that she may no longer be active anymore. I did so because it seems that she had a great deal of involvement in this article, and could act as mediator, or at least observe the numerous edits. The study of History is not a one man project, it requires collaboration. You may like the "lone wolf" approach, but it is not reliable, and aggravates other contributors. Addressing your earlier comments, he may not have been Pope, but he was still a man of great influence in the Vatican prior to his appointment as Pope, which makes much of that info quite relevant. Having read through some of Ciano's diaries,and German diplomatic cables, it is clear the Pacelli was very involved. Those Communiques also speak of great friction between Papal Authorities and fascist leaders, this means that the relationship between Nazi Germany/fascist Italy/Franco's Spain, and the Vatican may not have been as friendly as you have written them to be. I am not posting this to suggest that you are entirely incorrect, I am posting it because it conflicts with much of what you wrote earlier on this page and in the talk section. It means you iether omitted important data (and I do not think that is the case), or like the rest of us, you do not have the whole truth.

Additionally, speaking of agendas, you are not being objective in your approach to the topic. You have assumed a critical position and your edits reflect that position. The subject is still being debated fervently by far more qualified historians than you and I. That means we have to step back and keep both of our egos in check. You need to dial back your hostility in your approach to this topic and in your responses to other posters. I have read through your track record and it is not exemplary, you have a bad habit of attacking those who disagree with you, and it has earned you many infractions. I would like to avoid that if possible. Scout of truth (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah, and we read the historians and benefit from their qualified opinions etc etc if you've made 30 contributions in 4 years, that is not much aid to the collaborative effort is it..if theres great friction evident betwen papal authorities and FRanco , add it, between pacelli and franco, add it.. etc .. stop telling me what I need to do , pompous..Sayerslle (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Scout of truth; Sayerslle's original edit was out of place but perhaps because it did not say enough. The edit suggests that Pius XII supported Franco's regime. Presumably it did support a "Catholic victory" but I think the text inserted by Sayerslle doesn't provide enough context. We should say something like "Initially, Pius XII was generally supportive of the Franco regime seeing it as a triumph of Catholicism over its enemies in Spain. After WWII, he negotiated a Concordat with Spain although in later years the Vatican became critical of Franco." Then, we can add in what Sayerslle wrote as well as information about the Concordat and the later criticisms of Franco. Whether all that belongs in this article or a separate article on Catholic Church and Falangist Spain is something for us to discuss. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- from reading Hilari Raguer's study of the Catholic Church in Spain 36-39 I noted 7 Pacelli intervenentions/involvements 1/ in February 1937 suggesting a letter to the Basque nationalists , dealing with their attitude to the uprising ' on the collaboration between the Basque Catholics and the Communists' 2)- over the collective letter of the Spanish bishops. August 1937 - where he seems to have counselled keeping a distance from the whole-hearted embrace of the Right by the Spanish hierarchy - 'and from the bellicose attitude of the Spanish bishops' 3) March 38 - italian air bombing of Barcelona - attitude to franco-British protest over the aerial bombings - responsible for front page article on L'Osservatore Romano of the 24th - notes killing of priests in Teruel and vandalization of churches - but ends with 'other victims caused this time by the aerial bombing of Barcelona' -a rebuke for Franco 4/ efforts to reach a negotiated peace , letters about this to Pacelli from Vidal y barraquer, - Pacelli seems to have wondered pretty listlessly 'if Yanguas Messia, (Spanish Nationalist Ambassador to the Holy See), believed mediation possible, for people were continually talking to him about it' - yanguas believed he had 'dissuaded the vatican from harbouring any fond and foolish thoughts of mediation or of continuing relations with the Republic' - 5/ attitude in general of Pacelli toward how close and formal relations could be , contact between the Holy See and the Republic, and ecclesiatical normalization should the situation of the Church in the republican zone continue to improve -- Pacelli's attitude ' rather evasive and noncommital' - 6/ Francoist demand Vidal i Barraquer be removed from his see at Tarragona - Pacelli resists this 7/ Pius XII welcomes Franco victory , congratulates him for his 'Catholic victory' -and radio message (With immense joy..)the document drafted by a Fr Salaverri, a Jesuit - by whom Pacelli seems to have been guided in the language - Pius wanted to add an exhortation to reconciliation and mercy. Not like a Cardinal Goma then, or Miralles on Majorca; a conservative priest really. Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... first let's figure out where we want to cover this material and then return to the details later. Is this a topic that must be covered in this article? Would it make sense to have a detailed article on Catholic Church and Falangist Spain with a summary of relevant points in this article? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I think probably there should be something in the section on Pacelli when serving as Cardinal Secretary of State, the SCW is important - but he emerges from Raguer's book as kind of passive - not sure how to shape the material at all - have more to read - i have Cornwell's (notorious) book so i'll read that, see if he adds to the material on Pacelli on Spain, and I've ordered Gerard Noel's book, - i think something belngs in the 'Pacelli as Cardinal Secretary of State section' basically, but I'm not sure what it should say. Sayerslle (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The predomination of Jewish sources in this article

This is an article about a leader of a rival religion; the Catholic Church. Jews in general, as members of its most diametrically opposed competitor are quite naturally bias against the topic and are known for extreme dislike of the Catholic Church (the Talmud singles out Christianity for strong attacks). Yet in the bibliography section their names dominate. There is a clear conflict of interest with using them so heavily as sources for this article. Especially when themes promoting their racist ethnocentric view of World War II predominates, with no mention of context of the age, such as their crimes during the same century against Christians under Bolshevism.

Some of these books, such as Daniel Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning" and Susan Sessions' "Under His Very Windows" are naked Jewish chauvinism and anti-Catholic propaganda. Unless we are going to use propaganda books of a similar level, such as Mein Kampft and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as sources for the article on Jews then we should have more serious sources for this one. I notice also that the main author of this article Savidan has created a legion of mostly inane articles such as Pope Pius XII and Yad Vashem, which do not warrant one at all, to make the navigation bar at the bottom be dominated with the theme of "Jews, Jews, Jews", thus presenting a negative view of Pope Pius XII on the page which gains most hits via an internet search engine, when this is actually a footnote of his Papacy. CatholicObserver (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

catholic observer: Perhaps had it not been for the crusades, inquisitions and Holocaust, all directly attributible to the catholic church, Jews would have a better opinion, particularly given Pacelli's friendly meeting with the Pol Pot of the Balkans, Ante Pavelic, and the church's efforts on behalf of Nazi and Axis war criminals, including Pavelic, after WWII ended. Your rancid nonsense and stupidity are not needed or wanted here. And Judaism is not christianity's rival; it is christianity's parent. How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have an ungrateful child, as "the Bard" pointed out so long ago. Quis separabit? 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Catholic Observer's point was that the books, when published, were not peer reviewed, and have since not stood well under this scrutiny. If their scholarship is in such dispute, and I am aware that "Under His Very Windows" is, I would like it omitted. The facts that remain that are brought up in the books can be brought into the article through other sources, correct? Letting in books with bias, anti-academia agendas is not helpful. David Irving had some facts in his books. That wasn't really the problem was it? Maybe, I'm a "liberal jew" but I've decided to bury the hatchet on the whole Crusades affair.Fancynancywhy (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Legend nonsense promoted by Anglophone Protestants, Freemasons and Jews. The Crusades was largely a conflict between Mohammedans and Christians, following the Mohammedans seizing control of Christian North Africa, the Holy Land and pressing to take control of all of Europe. The Jews in that conflict, at different times, backed different sides, but they initially acted as a fifth column in the Moorish conquest of Iberia (similar to their support of mass immigration today). So neither side completely trusted them.
"The Jews in that conflict, at different times, backed different sides": you mean like the Irish during World War II?
The Inquisition was an internal Catholic matter, though some Marrano's had attempted to infiltrate, as a plot to take control of Spain and were fortunetly whittled out for a while by the Dominicans. The so-called "Holocaust", ie - the gas chamber fantasy, is a complete lie, there were no gas chambers, but this basic and very real conflict was an ethno-political one; Germans-vs-Jews; based largely on the Jewish support of Communism and their financial exploitation of the German people. Talmudic Judaism is not the parent of Christianity either, but rather a rival sect; the Catholic Church has no parent, it is the orthodox continuation of the religion of Israel. Still, you avoided completely the topic at hand for some Orange Order/Masonic anti-Catholic rant, try again. CatholicObserver (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
A) "Still, you avoided completely the topic at hand for some Orange Order/Masonic anti-Catholic rant, try again." -- What topic?? The fact that you don't like scholarship which goes against your biased views? Or the fact that the catholic church can not suppress films, books, etc. as it once could do, historically speaking? There is no "topic" except for your hate mongering, attention seeking nonsense, although the Orange Order comment is instructive in indicating your own likely provenance. Quis separabit? 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
B) "the Catholic Church has no parent" - I thought only monsters had no parents. Wait you might be right. Anyway, the religion of Israel was Abrahamic monotheism, by the way. It's amazing how insecure you are despite the fact that there are only thirteen million Jews in the world (although that low number is because of at least 1000 years of persecution from people like you, otherwise the number would be around 200 million), as opposed to a billion or so (nominal) Catholics. Quis separabit? 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
C) "The Inquisition was an internal Catholic matter" -- uh no. Pedophilia scandals, embezzlement scandals, sodalities, et al are internal church affairs, not forcible conversions in lieu of being burned at the stake or expelled. Also, again, "Judaism is not christianity's rival; it is christianity's parent" -- this is something which true Christians acknowledge. I do not consider the whore of babylon to be a Christian church or one which Christ would ever recognise as such. I am surprised that you, as a sedevacantist, are bothering to defend the church anyway. Something's afoot. I wonder what Herr Ratzinger (the former Hitler Youth) would have to say about all this. Quis separabit? 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Goldhagen and Zucotti just don't seem to be used much in the article , in the refs used I coudn't see their names- what was 'the religion of isarel' btw , if not Judaism? - so 'the cath church is the orthodox continuation of the religion of Israel= orthodox continuation of Judaism -' - Not that it was i don't think, i guess pharisaism was a more orthodox line , the Jesus group more apocalyptic and radical, - anyway - you are an anti-semitic ranter of some kind aren't you? would you seriously deny that? Your point about the article being too reliant on anti-pius jewish writers is not correct anyhow far as i can see. this is not a forum either- you need concrete sentences/paragraphs/suggestions to improve the article i believe. that is the 'house style' of wp. talk pages. Sayerslle (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I should desist from making any further responses to this moron, who should go back to Stormfront. I know I should have just ignored her/him ("catholic observer") but since no one else was responding I felt I should jump into the fray. He or she just craves attention and wants to get a rise out of other people, although not in the enjoyable way. (BTW, Sayerslle, your comment "you are an anti-semitic ranter of some kind aren't you?" was spot on. Good to see he/she couldn't pull the wool over your eyes.) Quis separabit? 18:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


what's the problem? let's use how many Jewish sources as possible... For example:

"POPE PIUS XII - DEMOCRACIES APPLAUD CARDINALS' CHOISE -WHEN NAZIS ATTACKED MGR PACELLI
(Jewish Chronicle, March 10, 1939)
"Cardinal Pacelli's elevation as Pope in succession to Pius XI has evoked general approval in the democratic countries, where it is believed that he will follow closely in the footsteps of Pius XI and continue the stand against totalitarian attacks on the Church. Among the congratulations receveid are messages frome the Anglo-Jewish Community, the Synagogue Council of America, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Polish Rabbinical Council. It is widely recalled that the new Pope has shown himself in the past to have shared Pius XI's hostility to Nazi paganism and racialism.... The Nazis in Germany appear to have been taken by surprise... It is interesting to recall.. that not very long ago, on January 22, the Voelkisher Beobachter, published picture of Cardinal Pacelli and other Church dignitaries beneath a collective heading of "Agitators in the Vatican against Fascism and National Socialism".source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.169.142 (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CatholicObserver, when information is being provided, the religion of the author doesn't matter as long as they are able to present the view in an honest and neutral way. If the article was quoting some Anti-Catholic book written by a hard-core Zionist, that would be understandable; however, you seem to have a personal problem with the Jews, ergo, I doubt any edits will be made. If you want changes done, I suggest you rewrite your post using less stereotypes about the Jews, stop trying to pick a fight (i.e. saying the Holocaust didn't happen), provide some actual good evidence, and not get into petty squabbles about unrelated Church matters. Hucklebur (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

well, I do not agree with CatholicObserver's approach and assesments (he is wrong about the predomination of Jewish sources; scholars and historians should not be evaluated on their religion; there are Jewish authors favorable to Pius as there are Catholic against). Anyway I hope that in WP there is not the habit to respond to antiSemitic sentiments with antiCatholic sentiments as I can read in the discussion where 'unrelated Church matters' are introduced also by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.140.144 (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you it isn't. This just happens to be a inflammatory religious page, so it has more than its fair share of trolls. Hucklebur (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission

In regards to clean up and relevancy, the last paragraph that quotes "Fatal Silence: the pope, the resistance and the German occupation of Rome": Is this very lengthy quote necessary? I think with proper paraphrasing and truncation it could chopped in half, at least.Fancynancywhy (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

a very long quote for things unrelated with the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.153.7 (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. The tags should either have the issues they refer to fixed and then the tags removed or, if they are unjustified, simply removed. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To save anyone else from following this rabbit-trail, there is now only one notation on the Cleanup list (an unsourced statement). In such a long article, I don't have time to look for it.JWorkman 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James K. Workman (talk • contribs)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Neutrality of the article is hereby questioned. Where are the inline sources cites and formal sources cites. This reads like someone in the Vatican press office wrote it or perhaps someone on the committee seeking to make Pius XII a saint of the Roman Catholic Church which would make it a paid, planted article. The many and multiple references to Vatican documents infer that this article is agenda-heavy and the agenda is not truth.

It retroactively glorifies Pius XII as this hero of the resistance to World War II when available evidence such as the book Rise and Fall of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer -- among hundreds -- doesn't show the role for Pius XII that THIS article has.

A John XXIII, John Paul I or Francis he was not and the article should reflect thatLethomme (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"Pope Pius XII, born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (. . .), reigned from 2 March 1939 to his death in 1958."

He reigned what? Jacedc (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) He reigned as Pope. The verb "to reign" is intransitive and has no direct object, so the sentence is correct as it stands. No one ever "reigns" anything.

And this glacial pace means what?

This day - Sunday 27 April 2014 - Catholics around the world are celebrating the canonization of Pope John XXIII - who ascended the throne of Peter vacated by the death of Pius XII. Further, they are celebrating the canonization of subsequent Pope John Paul II.

The article has this accurate text: "In the process toward sainthood, his cause for canonization was opened on 18 November 1965 by Pope Paul VI during the final session of the Second Vatican Council. He was made a Servant of God by Pope John Paul II in 1990 and Pope Benedict XVI declared Pius XII Venerable on 19 December 2009."

Wikipedia also has this information. The canonization process - under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints - has four steps.

1. Receiving the title Servant of God, a title given to a deceased Catholic whose life and works are being investigated. This opportunity took Eugenio Pacelli 25 years.

2. Being declared venerable. This took him a total of 44 years.

3. Being declared blessed, after being beatified.

4. Being canonized.

If the first two steps took 44 years can recognition as a Saint in Heaven be expected 44 years from 2009, or 2053 - 5 years before the 100th anniversary of his death?

On the whole, perhaps in 1938 Mr. Pacelli should have left the Church and married Marie Lehnert, the lovely Swiss frau God gave him during The Great War. --Edward Chilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.67.56 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it took Pope Benedict XIII 282 years to become recognised as a Servant of God, so Pius XII's case seems to be moving pretty rapidly. Tigerboy1966  23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maria?

The article states that one of Pius' middle names was Maria or Mary. Is it normal in Catholic families to give boys feminine names? Zacwill (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, not "feminine names" generally; only Maria, and only as a middle name.--2001:A61:20A2:3B01:C52F:EEE8:C1B7:75F9 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pope Pius XII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

The article needs to give a much better summary and coverage of the so-called "Pius Wars", including the main arguments of the critics, the debate including main arguments from both sides should also get at least a couple of sentences in the lead. Currently it includes only one side of the debates. It is surprising for example that none of David Kertzer's two books are used as a source - Susan Zuccotti and Robert Ventresca is also used very little - and their critical conclusions are not included at all. The article does come across as mostly apologetic in its overall tone and content relative to the complexity of the body of literature. (Maunus (talk · contribs) logged out) 172.0.128.110 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it is a whitewash. A primary source is cited in the first paragraph to support some controversial original research. A short internet essay by one Frank J. Coppa is cited repeatedly throughout the article (including the next two cites of the lead section) to make highly controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice. A NPOV tag has been left for a year in one section. This is not currently "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". zzz (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Might be a silly question, but how did zzz agree with a comment by Maunus which was only posted two hours later. Tigerboy1966  21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Maunus: for what it's worth, could you add the two books by Kertzer to a Further reading section, along with any essential new literature by Zuccotti, Ventresca or anyone else? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Pius XII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pope Pius XII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Pius XII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the article Death of Pope Pius XII into Pope Pius XII. Proposer's rationale: His death article is rather short, contains excessive unneeded trivial information, and the main article already has a section about his death. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - There's nothing particularly notable about Pius XII's death and, as such, there's no reason for a stand alone article. schetm (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I totally agree.--Neufund (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This article would benefit from an update

An editor with more experience with this topic should do the update.

The Secrets That Might Be Hiding in the Vatican’s Archives After decades of controversy, Pope Francis has announced that he will open the records of Pius XII’s papacy to researchers—along with other restricted Church holdings. MAR 4, 2019 David I. Kertzer, Author of The Pope and Mussolini https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/archives-will-reveal-truth-about-pope-pius-xii/584080/

"With his March 2 announcement, Francis has put an end to half a century of speculation. The archives will soon be open. But given the large quantity of documents that are to become available for the first time, it will likely be several years before we fully know what revelations they will bring. In the meantime, what has come to be dubbed the “Pius war”—Pius XII, saint or sinner?—will likely only heat up, fed by sporadic reports trickling out from the Vatican’s newly opened archival treasure chest." Peter K Burian (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Did the pope support Hitler?

There are many theories that he did. For instance the one where he puppets the government in Romania and says "Hitler is a modern crusader and crusades are what our peace loving god wants and none have ever failed". But have undeniable proof he supported Hitler he wrote in one of his letters to Hitler a t that resembles a swastika.

See main article Pius XII and the German Resistance. Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

He did know about the Holocaust and the other awful stuff that happened...

New research is showing he was up to date with what happened and he ignored a letter about this. The article will need some extra sentences on this. Currently I can only found an article in German, just posted, but I am sure English versions will pop up soon as this is rather big news. Original German article: https://www.zeit.de/2020/18/papst-pius-xii-holocaust-akten-information or https://religion.orf.at/stories/3001739/ Garnhami (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A fascinating new bit of scholarship shows not only how Pope Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust by refusing to lift a finger to save the lives of Roman Jews sent to the gas chambers; he also strongly supported the kidnapping of Jewish children, after their parents were murdered by the Nazis, to be forcibly raised as Catholics. Any discussion of Pius XII's many antisemitic misdeeds would have to include the details laid out here, and I highly recommend this story be included in the biography: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/the-popes-jews/615736/

Poorly written sentences in final paragraph

In the final paragraph of the article, "Opening of the Vatican Secret Archives," there are two poorly written sentences. I would try to correct them, but don't know the intention of the writer. The concurrent sentences are: "While this announcement was welcome by researchers, much of it has been clouded by the role of Pope Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. However, archival research of this period should inform a much broader shift within global Christianity, from Europe to the global South."

About the first sentence: "While this announcement was welcome by researchers, much of it has been clouded by the role of Pope Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust." The announcement referenced was about the opening of the Vatican Archives. This should be a sentence on its own. The second clause (1) is vague in its reference, (2) is simply too vague, and (3) is tautological. On #3, the whole debate is about the Holocaust; how does this clause say anything at all?

The writer should use more words and spell out what s/he means.

On the second sentence: "However, archival research of this period should inform a much broader shift within global Christianity, from Europe to the global South." What does this even mean. Of course, it will cause shifts everywhere.

Wikipedia editors should consider eliminating this sentence as being fatuous.

Bookman1968 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bookman1968, the passage comes from this edit by @Rinalddsouza: and it's quite relevant to the source. During Pius' reign there continued a global shift in the Catholic Church and Christianity, away from Europe and into centers of the Global South. This is a very significant shift that has not gone unnoticed in modern times, and so the author of the source, and the Rinalddsouza, felt it was quite pertinent to mention in the opening of the archives that would inform researchers about this shift. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have great admiration for the rise of the global South, especially in matters of faith, and apologize for the word "fatuous." I have no argument with the writer of the sentences, except that s/he needs to say more--spell out the points being made. The points must be clear in the mind of the writer; they are quite unclear in print.Bookman1968 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Upper Silesia

He was "involved" (diplomatically) in teh Upper Silesian conflict (1919-21), the so called Polish (or Silesian) Upsets/Uprisings. Unfortunatelly I don´t know the details anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2ADD:AE00:A445:7E28:99D8:DBB9 (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

POV section

The tag for the "Contemporary views" section was added nearly six years ago. Is this material still problematic? —howcheng {chat} 21:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

False and misleading claims concerning Pius XII’s actions during the Holocaust, when his silence facilitated the deaths of millioms

Forget this hagiography and read David Kertzer’s “The Pope at War “ (2022), drawn from newly-released Vatican archives. 69.119.31.154 (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Address to the Plenary Session Pontifical Academy of Sciences, February 21, 1943
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII/Archive_19&oldid=1158423100"