Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

This archive covers from 15 July to 29 August.

Apostolic Presence in the German Synagogue, 19 Aug 2005

Upon Benedict XVI's visit to only the second synagogue ever visited by a pontiff , a demand by one outspoken Jewish representative/leader for this pontiff to open the wartime vatican archives is widely reported by the media today .

This leader would do well to ask for the archives relating to 1932 and 1933 to be opened , as these would relate to both the wartime pontiff's machinations against the holy magisterium and those of his predecessor , Pius XI .

I have pointed out that both pontiffs availed however of purely verbal instruction in the most controversial matters . Yet the reference to a letter from Cardinal Sec. of State Pacelli relating the wishes of Pius XI to the Centre Party Germany should be recorded from May 1932 . These related to the papal wish to see Hitler empowered .

I repeat that these matters of interference in democracy at that time represent the most serious challenge possible to the Church , which must repair the resulting fracture of the magisterium . This is far more than a question of turning a blind eye to war-time genocide - it is the overturning of the divine order both here on earth and above in the realm of divinity .

I refer all readers to the copious sourcing and exegesis undertaken upon this gravest matter , to be found in archives here, on Theology of Pope Benedict XVI on Pope Pius XII and on Hitler's Pope as well as the Centre Party discussions . Readers should understand that prior to magisterial repair , all of this is still being obscured, and that here on the Wikipedia every attempt is made to hide and to neuter those facts that are known . This is a purely misplaced defensive reaction , a minor reflection of the vatican's inability hitherto to assume its true magisterial responsibility . I would urge the pontiff to avail of those sanctions which exist within canonical law , recognise the cataclysmic error , and recognise the self-excommunication of these two previous pontiffs mentioned . See under section discussion Canonical Law Hitler's Pope and Pius XII . Urge your priest now to demand repair to this upending of heaven and earth .Famekeeper 21:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan in good faith should study the edit under my strong contention upon the Hitler's Pope page , and see that the user in question is closely followed . It is shocking that the WP is not able to follow published source , but purely symptomatic of all the actions which I have throughout protested . Certain users are acting contrary to the principles of the Wikipedia , and something should be done . As arbitration is not possible , or rather since arbitrtation has no power , locking of these article would be more appropriate . Lulu of the Lotus Eaters may be beginning to realise just how pernicious the situation is become , others should ask themselves if they can accept clear violations without protest .

The pontiff should accept canonical law and repair the scandal referred to in the Cologne Synagogue . Since this reference was publicly made , it should be included in the article , by whichever editor of good faith , is my answer .Famekeeper 10:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we simply block this trollish user (check out user page and request for comment page). Any edit he makes to this article should probably be reverted. 83.109.191.234 02:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Synagogue and Pope Benedict XVI

Repeating a point from his synagogue visit, the pope said that "there can be no dialogue at the expense of truth." He said efforts for closer relations must be pursued "in fidelity to the dictates of one's conscience."

Progress has been made between peoples, but "much more remains to be done," Benedict said at the synagogue. "We must come to know one another much more and much better."

The visit did bring out some of the troubled history between Catholics and Jews.

In welcoming the pope, synagogue president Abraham Lehrer urged Benedict to fully open the Vatican's World War II archives — a period during which some Jews claim Pope Pius XII did not do enough to stave off the Holocaust. The Vatican denies that and has begun releasing some documents.

Taken from- [[1]]

and

Jewish leader Abraham Lehrer called on the Vatican to open up its war time archives so the world can understand the controversy surrounding the Pope at that time, Pius XII, who many claim turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out against Jews.

"You grew up in Germany during a terrible time," Lehrer said. "We not only see in you the head of the Catholic Church but also a German who is aware of his historical responsibility."

Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth at a time when membership was compulsory.

"On her lower arm you can see the number with which she was tattooed in the concentration camp,” Lehrer said referring to his elderly mother. “In 1944 in Auschwitz she had neither the strength nor the power of imagination to think that one day in 2005 her son would officially greet the Pope in a Cologne synagogue."

Taken from - [[2]]

• I'm convinced, but I wonder how we could word this into the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To explain my reverts: I'm not opposed to including this but only against including this detail over against all the other stuff left out - both from the synagoge visit as from the Muslim talk as from the WYD, which after all was the prime event of the visit. If we can elaborate more on all these points wihout inflating the article (after all, there will be more journeys in the future), then I'd agree. Otherwise, I'm afraid, it looks like pet issue pushing to me. Str1977 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Leave it where I put it , as there it will cause less heartache that where it should be , which is in an analysis of the outstanding issue . I resent Str's suggesting I'm dishonest in his editing description . I'm pleased you seem saner . This was reported throughout Europe, and only the heads listening to bad music in a mudless field didnt get the message . Abraham Lehrer made this come to everyone's attention . I tell the bosses again, listen up or get it worse later. Do yourselves a favour and come clean . No one says old Pius XII wasn't devoted to all knds of good and holiness, but that equally doesn't mean he didn't break the magisterium . Str and his ilk are close to actual contumate sin here in this cover-up policy and will have to answer to their Christ when they do fly out of the mud . They know what to do , as you should if you have read the canonical discussion Str dragged out of me . It is quite plain - the canonical offence was such that they (pius XI, XII and Prelate Ludwig Kaas and the catholic Franz von Papen , (and indeed it would seem most of the German hierarchy )all excommunicated themselves . Canon Law stipulates that the two pontiffs must be dug up and removed from their presence under St. Peter's Basilica , where they are destroying the truth of Jesus . There is no forgiveness for this heresy under latae sententiae , only repair of the scandal by acknowledgement , and removal from the sanctum a.s.a.p . Leave it where it is , which is where it is true : BXVI's Apostolic missionis to repair the scandal  : romans 3, 8 - thou shalt not do evil to achieve a good is the magisterium . This Str- is being rude to the survivors of the Holocaust what you have added on this page . I'm deeply revolted old fellow. It is outrageous ad hominem and outrageous morality - you evidently didn't learn any contrition on the banks of that slimy river . Famekeeper

The only reasonable thing I could suggest is perhaps having a paragraph about the World Youth Day and this meeting in a summary paragraph, then fork the article where this is discussed in it's entirity. While trying to call people sinners for trying to do what you say is considered a personal attack and we do not allow those on Wikipedia at all. The issue is important, but I believe we should report on what was made in the press. While, I admit, I have not heard about this at all in the States, it might have been heavily covered in Europe or in Germany, where WYD took place. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite astonished. I provided a reasonable argument (and no ad hominem) for my reverts. But Mr FK answers with a diatribe of his wrong canonical reasoning (including his - dare I repeat it - impious calling for digging up graves (this should be only taken referring to this "request")), dipping into issue of a religion he himself - as he said - has no part in, complaints about alleged personal attacks (when in fact I said nothing of the kind), complaints about alleged rudeness to Shoa survivors/victims (when in fact he was minimising somewhere else the importance of Jews as victims).

As for the word "pet issue pushing" - it is true that FK has basically posted two things on WP:

1) his "Church is the culprit of Nazism" and

2) Spanish four-letter words (only recently)

As for the press. I have not heard of this in Germany (but I was only one of these "heads listening to bad music in a mudless field" that "didnt get the message")

Judging from a quick internet search of leading German papers, I find nothing on that: "Spiegel" (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,370478,00.html) doesn't have it (and their Church-hatred is well known), the FAZ (http://www.faz.net/s/Rub21DD40806F8345FAA42A456821D3EDFF/Doc~E1B5457BA5AE74A7C909B9AED0F1576EE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html) doesn't have it and the "Welt" (http://www.welt.de/data/2005/08/19/762344.html) does quote Mr Lehrer but without including the statement in question.

That doesn't mean that he didn't say it. On the contrary I think he said it but I guess it was one sentence in a longer speech which included the request as well as positive evaluations of initiatives of reconcoliation. Hence, a reference exclusively to this one sentence is giving a wrong picuture of the whole occasion. Hence my complaints.

Str1977 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion. Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

See below.Famekeeper

Hm....and I have heard of Spiegel before...and it seems it was not covered much inside Germany. But, if this is a true debate, a true issue, we have to present it somehow in a NPOV way and without bringing in original research. We, should not, discuss of what should happen, we should discuss on what actually happened. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to explain-im sorry about the length.... Frankly the insult and lack of good faith in this particular discussion began with the tag "if it's true" . But you will note that Str did not post into the discussion at all to justify his removal , has now re-removed something of world importance (hence the reporting ) and continues in the ad hominem attack on my good faith . I have always found this editor to be damantly trying to claim that all sources I use , I misinterpret, even when I quote verbatim, he knows that I find it more ridiculous than he does to continue revert war . The fact is that in the WP situation , where users do not know one another, that people who adfhere to a faith obviously can stand together. he would get Robert mcClenon in here behind him , and they'd together grind me down. You will note that my editing of this is done in good faith, using sources , but that nevertheless protection of the Church is far more important than truth . I have been outraged on many occasions , and Str will seem to be reasonable , only to surreptitiously revert (as does McClenon , and I advise you zscout to follow the discussion on his Rfc ). Hitherto I have not found someone with the balls to help me save the WP from these insidious edits , not even jimbo himself, tho that is understandable . In this present case however you will see that no interjection is justifiable because Str finds a clear logical reasoning : this is a minor detail , on a par with nonsense or whatever said to the other faiths , therefore he can claim the right to remove . However of course neither of the other faiths he mentions come near to having this clear beef that they stood out for a demand . Hence it is not the same .

I feel you in America should know these things, this thing . Just because Str , who acts as a filter against trouble for the Catholic Church , does not know it does not make me a liar pushing a pet issue . I push this issue , as he calls it, because I have found a very complete set of corroboration for the general thesis of collaboration by these popes with Nazism . Str didn't exist until I began posting these facts on the WP , and has only appeared to relieve the resulting pressure . I suppose that If I ask you Str if you actually are a priest , you would be bound not to return a denial . I have asked you if you are paid to do this censoring , and you denied that , but I believe priests are paid well , and so I suppose you couldn't have denied the truth then... I have accused you blatantly of acting as an agent of the vatican by your continuous defence in this argument . I note that you have never denied being an agent of the vatican despite these accusations . I am still amazed at the manner in which you (and now McClenon too) have constantly rubbished historians I have quoted-and I dont mean John Cornwell but Shirer and Wheeler-Bennett and Toland and Klemperer . You are as much of an outrage to me as I evidently am to you .

As for my appearance. I first signed in (I edited some stuff before that) after our current Pope was elected, and contributed a bit to his article. I had never heard of you, or looked into Pius XII or Centre party, when some barely comprehensible comment, unrelated to Benedict, appeared on this talk page. That was your "Question of the Law", cross-posted everywhere. This annoyed me and I reacted to this post and had a look into Kaas, Centre, Pius XII, Brüning. Which got you shouting.

Also it is not true that I have only posted on Pius-related articles. I've had a hand in Abortion etc, Merovingians, German Monarchs etc and more - well you can see for yourself on my contributions list.

Good day, Mr FK.

I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on : this is the pontifical battle against liberalism , here , now , on the Wikipedia , and just try taking a look at the way the various articles were before I came along . I am hounded outrageously by this man , pretty much off the WP , which is why I appealed to Jimbo . Now as far as I know Zscout, you are another such bent user-I do very much hope not . If you are not you will be happy to hear that , given your sanity as a rationally motivated editor , that I will be happy for this detail so called to be inserted somewhere else on the page . However as this is only the second (as I think this reference to st Peter's synagogue visit is stupid given that Jesus was in and out of them all the time) -only the second visit by a pontiff in 2000 years, and the president of the synagogue demands view of secretive archives held by this upstart faith concerning it's culpability against the earlier faith- I consider this rather more than a detail and thereby completely worthy in our secular world of inclusion upon the WP . Now don't you, Zscout? And if you do will you revert this user's flagrant action here and now prior to positioning elsewhere in the article. see where you get on that-please try for the love of justice. Again I am forced to rant and filibuster so called to justify a short but awkward truth . I am totally alone in this , and were it possible for me to be completely erased , I would be so erased . howver fortunately the evidence of erasure remains. the Church is well aware of the Wiki software dangert, but they are stymied by this last capacity . My pet issue is that as yet I have not rolled over and succumbed . Look at Jimbo's discussion page to understand the full import of this , in fact remind him that I'm still getting beaten up down here in his frontline trenches . Please, Zscout , be a human being and help me just on this one revert which would take you 2 minutes. Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me Please understand that what is labelled my pet issue is none other than why members of all our families died- that I ma putting the history straight , and that I have always sourced correctly- I stand by every source, even the canonicalone's , and yes , the church in the person of str are trying to block these sources from history. Not research but in the library, in the schools , evreywhere , but not allowed here in public and easily google-able . Please understand that the Synagogue president was pushing this important issue, not me .....Famekeeper

No, FK, the synagogue president did not push your issue. He does not go around Cologne's streets shouting this sentence, like you do with your issue on WP. He just made this one remark in the context of a longer speech which included many other things. But you pick this one and include it into an article. This is what I call pet pushing.

Come off it- no Jewish leader ever did this to a pontiff before-didn't partly have a chance , did it because the pontiff is a german pontiff, served in the war , albeit as a boy. He's no boy now, he's ex-commander of the Inquisition or CDF , he knows the truth . You are wrong- this was a most shocking confrontation , a huge embarrassment , and one that opens the crack in the door that very much publicly wider . Tell your priest-if you need one , to call for rectification of the scandal, as that is the only salvation for the pontiff . But NO ! You can't because this stupid infallibility issue boxes you in and you cannot admit to error . No wonder Pius XII used infallibility- he knew the code, knew he was sunk spiritu-canonically , and knew that thereafter never could he be divested of his contumate error . But it is bad for christians , bad for the church , bad for christ .

Your argument based on my one remark "if" is quite overblown.

I haven't argued ad hominem. But you again are in danger of falling back into including me into your conspiracy fantasies. Please stop this before it's too late.

That in itself is ad hominem, Abraham Lehrer asked for the archives to be open to uncover the full story . Too late for what do you mean - is that a threat . I may tell you that I have posted insurance .

And also please spare Zscout your condesenscion ("I'm sorry Zscout, if you don't understand what is going on"). I think he's old enough to think for themselves like many other editors. Why is it that hardly anyone complained about my edits in these pages and mostly any issues could be settled quickly.

But I must warn Zscout as well. FK means business. If you don't agree with him on the last tittle of his edit, you will suffer the fate of Robert McClenon, who came in into our discussion as leaning towards FK's side but had to endure distrust and abuse from FK.

Again, FK, please respond to my argument I made four times (twice as edit summary, twice on this talk page) - do not hide behind conspiracy fantasies.

Str1977 00:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered that below-it aint a detail like you claim , that's why its plastered all over the shop as my sources showed . It was widely reported because of a) the visit and b) the demand for Church glasnost.

That should read "Church is the culprit for nazism", actually . And Church no , nor church which with small c means the flock . Church means the bosses. And within the bosses there are two factions , vatican 2 and the traditionalists referred to as being pyramidal :this is the faction of JPII and now BXVI, who are going to destroy the church with adherence to infallibility and monarchical structure. Perhaps I should let them go ahead un-molested? .....Famekeeper

Let me get this straight....you want my help but call me a bent user at the same time. No way you are getting my help. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats an easy way out for you , I said if you are a bent user , then you wouldnt help. Easy way out then, though surely you have a conscience . Never mind , you didnt help hitherto , so why would you now ? Good is as good does , good faith is as good faith does . Famekeeper

I didn't mean to sound condescending- Zscout hasn't been in this huge loop of discourse you and I have fought in. If you have taken me as assuming you are bent, well I also capitalised that I very much hoped not . it doesnt seem like you want to take this as eriously as the media who reported it, or the president of the synagogue . you probably think I write too much too. I did it in good faith , but evidently it is not wise. Too many words , but its a cop out really innit , uh ? Never mind , all will be revealed in time , and if you don't touch me , you won't catch the disease so quick . Dis-ease .Famekeeper

FK, how about - just for a start - let me go unmolested. Then maybe you can let all Catholics go unmolested and stop calling for our "control". Also please stop covering this by false distinctions, which are not even true in the English language despite the prevalent "capitalisation" issues. Str1977 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Let you go where- of course you are very exhausted. But you are also very busy on WP rectifying the scheme of things . Must have been a long flight or something . Sorry I try to help you with the language , won't again. But let you go where- No !- because I ,who am just an unwashed, unbaptised member of this species wish to help you poor misguided one's , whose very fabric has been torn by your leaders . C'mon Str no one doubts in history what I write , what I write is what they have already doubted. You can get some rest , but its still you and me . I get more use out of you on the WP than trying to bleat about removing you . You might get sacked by the faith at this rate for being incapable of the argument and making a fool of the faith , by not succeeding in YOUR overturning of history . The magisterium lies in ruins here, and you want also to leave the history in ruins . All that is happening is that just like the WP, history does not forget . Famekeeper

I end by explaining that this argument is here purely because of the revolution epitomised by the Wikipedia and the internet . Eventually everything will be known and understood and forgiven , and then we will all be better off . Wars which create so much real suffering will hopefully not suck in us poor souls, and we shall join with the Cherubim and the Seraphim , with the spirit in this Earth and with the Trees and with the Fishes and the Animals and with the Insects and the Birds , we the Mankind shall rejoin the station of all life in a great disembodied freedom .-St Thomas . It could be Nuclear War , so if you fear this freedom , pay good attention to history , and get you glasnost quick . I who represent the side of secularism , call like the Pope should, that we should repent . He who claims this leadership , should repent first . Famekeeper 01:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, FK. It is not true that "no one in history" (I guess you mean in the field of history) what you write. I guess you would even have a hard time finding many who would agree with you. Probably you would shout at them as you did at Robert or Zscout.

The magisterium cannot be shattered by anyone not following it. That has happened countless times before.

I don't mind you bringing up capitalisation issues for the article text, since it is supposed to be clear English. (However, standards at talk pages are more lenient), though I don't like the whole thing. But it's part of the language. There are things I don't like about the German language too (e.g. the third person "Sie" as a formal address over against second person "vous" or "you" in French or English resp.), but I have to bear with it. My complaint here was that your claimed distinction does not exist. The actually one is: "Church" = the Church = RC Church (or Church of England) vs. "church" = a church.

I prefer New Heaven and New Earth to disembodiment, but never mind.

Str1977 19:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It ia nice (ie small or fine) difference as in the difference between Catholic and catholic . Catholic relates to the official teaching say , and catholic to someone who follows that as best they can . The Church relates to the formal hierarchical body , and church relates to the body of following faithful . The vatican as it relates to an area is a small v , but as it relates to the orders emanating from the Hoy See , then V. All of this pales in importance compared to sticking with or sundering romans 3,8 .Famekeeper

Mr FK, I appreciate your capitalisation efforts, but what you write is not true.

"Catholic" refers to Roman Catholic, whereas "catholic" is the word in the literal meaning: universal, as it is used by non-German Protestants using the Nicean creed or the Anglican Church, or to catholics outside of the Roman church, e.g. Anglo catholics.

The "Church" is referring to one specific body, mostly the RCC, sometimes the particular state church (England, Sweden, Scotland (but that'd be Kirk), or maybe the Church in general that Protestants consider to be invisible. "church" however means "a church", either a body or a building.

I don't know about this regarding Vatican vs vatican. A native speaker could help.

Anyway, this is only an issue in regard to the English language (and sometimes taken to absurd extremes, e.g. "Truth" vs. "truth"). A native speaker could help to clear the last one up. Of course you are right that this pales in regard to other issues, no matter how we see them. That was my point from the beginning: I don't want to argue about capitalisation.

Str1977 12:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The word "Vatican" is a proper noun referring to a palace in the Vatican City, and therefore is used as a figure of speech for the papal bureaucracy that has its headquarters there. Proper nouns are capitalized in English. No amount of attempting to argue that "vatican" is ever correct will make it correct. Since Famekeeper cites Cornwell, who is English and a native speaker of the English language, I challenge him to find a single use of "vatican" in anything written by Cornwell. On this point, as on most points of capitalization, there is no difference between British English and American English. Robert McClenon 12:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Words to avoid: claim

I just noticed a revert for claim. This bit of POV is covered in the Wikipedia: how to Words to avoid.

If you can cite evidence that there is reason to believe that Pope Benedict XVI has lied about his lack of Nazi fervor, it could validate the use of the word "claim", otherwise it doesn't belong. patsw 23:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this post intended to help the editors in their discussion on how to improve the article on Pope Benedict XVI? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, whatever those popes have done is not going to reflect on Benedict at all. Plus, most of the papal papers and notes are usually burned after the pope dies. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This post was intended to justify reference within the article to the concerns expressed in the Cologne Synagogue . I am quite sure that any ayyempt by me to insert such , will be jumped upon , therefore I post also to explain to interested editors and readers that the situation exists in reality . I am still most disturbed by the un-academic defensive faith editing of all these pages , and I refer to my qualification of a certain user's actions against the Hitler's Pope article . User Zscout could be right , however he could be wrong , given the close involovement with Cardinal Ratzinger throughout the beatification process for Pius XII . Zscout is right that personal papers are burnt(though BXVI took it upon himself not to accede to Pope John Paul II's express will that this be done ).

See above for corroborating links justifying my re-inclusion of this fact . Do not vandalise or abuse good faith by removal . Famekeeper 22:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper, what is the news value or encyclopedic value of this request by Abraham Lehrer? Was he the first person or the first rabbi to make such a request? And if it was so widely reported why isn't there a link in the article to verify it?

It is not the first time that someone has been mistaken that the Vatican has hidden the papers of Pope Pius XII from the public. On the contrary, scholars have had access to the papers of Pope Piux XII after the start of World War II. You can just see how many books have been published based on the examination of these archives inside the Vatican by looking at Amazon's description of the recent books. Even one of the Pope's harshest critics, John Cornwell, was given access and acknowledges it on page viii of Hitler's Pope which you including in that article. (I'm sure some wiki-copyright-cop will investigate if the length of your extract violates fair use of Cornwell's copyrighted text by the way.)

I've spoken with the authors of two book on Pope Pius and discussed with them how they obtained access to the papers. The archives exist and are accessible but what's not been completed is the task of indexing it which will be completed in a few years.

As you can see from this Washington Times article even the United States goverment has not yet released all of its World War II archives, and the United States has a lot more resources to manage and index archives. Pehaps when we see a link, Lehrer's request of the Pope regarding the 1939-1945 archives might be regarded as factual — but not every fact belongs in the Wikipedia. What's unique about it? What's significant about this request beyond similar ones made earlier by the Anti-Defamation League, for example? Is Lehrer's premise correct — that the Vatican hiding the archives? At least, the ADL correctly acknowleges that the archives have been opened and is asking for more. This is my good faith reason to remove it. patsw 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Patsw, welcome to the problem - We can start all friendly . I am pleased that you bring out your concerns upon the discussion pages rather than like some editors , who simply rub out that which they consider offensive . Let us please keep it so .

My understanding is that Cornwell was allowed access to papers concerning the early 20's and to the wartime era , but not to the lte 20's and the 30's . Access meaning he could ask for particular papers . My understanding is that papers concerning the actual war years have been in part made available .

My understanding is that Abraham Lehrer's request was the first such public face-to-face request, and therefore highly noteworthy for no other reason. My understanding is that archives are not open , but whether they are available for the war years or not , the news reports said that Lehrer himself thought they were not and that was the basis of his request .

The article Hitler's Pope was constrained by other users to be no more than a Cornwell thesis , which is ridiculous . I was forced to accept this , and their constraint was the only reason that I firstly transcribed Cornwell to avoid copyright prtoblems. However since I was then serially accused of being a liar-type , I was further forced to use the original . I believe that fair educational use , given the enormous educational property of this organ the WP , is necessitated . Your contention and warning may be justifiable on copyright , but morally it would be interesting to follow . I would doubt that either vanity Fair or Cornwell himself would object , given the morality and the educational need for balance . If you wish to focus upon this issue , you might surmise from my involvement that a bust-up on this one issue would not serve the best interests of either the WP or of the Catholic Church : it would become a publicity gift against both , bringing us out of this rarified atmoshere and into a more immediate and therefore more dangerous secular area . You will be aware that there is already a considerable body of obfuscatory editing history within this organ which would become evidence one way or another . You could also delve into the earliest historical positions written into the relevant articles and see how relatively un-educational their positions were .

Your suggestion is that Cornwell was already known to be scandalised by the papal history when granted his access whereas this does not seem to have been the case . I am well aware that there are a plethora of books written on the general subject , and claim no knowledge of any . I am glad that you seem to have such intimate accesss to writers that you can say here that you have actually talked to several such authors . Doubtless this means that you will be concerned to support the broadening of the article , or its linking to other articles both for and against , such that a truly educational relation become effected . Certainly I for one welcome your suggestions that the archives are in fact open , save for the problems of indexation , however as you will also be aware from my history , my concern has never been with the wartime archives.

I am on record as believing that the narrowing of focus to within that era by the Church authorities is a demonstration of bad faith in itself, that this limitation is in fact designed to minimise the far greater historical scandal to do with papal policy from c 1928 onwards . I see the argumentation as to whether or not Pius XII was anti-semitic apropos the Holocaust to be symptomatic of this evasion . Anti-semitism is in fact a side issue historically , and more easily rebutted than the primary one , which is the natural papal desire to defeat atheistic , nihilistic Russian Communism , and the resultant 'quid pro quo' with Adolf Hitler.

I would go so far as to say that Abraham Lehrer by narrowing his request to the watime archive may be not only mistaken (as you suggest) but counter-productive . This would be an unfortunate situation , though a very natural one given the Jewish experience , and his own family's experience . He would appear to have very usefully fallen into the same bear-trap defense to which I refer above , leaving aside the true origins of the quid pro quo' of 1932-1933 .

My experience here is that the focus is shifted against myself in 'ad hominem' attack , whereby my good faith , my interpretation and my motives are all sundered in attempt to discredit the essential historical reference to this 'quid pro quo' . You will note that I have over the course of my intervention provided fairly un-exotic sources, from hitherto respected if aged historical commentators . I imagine that if you are in contact with writers , that you will not fall into similar denial .

I would bring your perfectly honourable concern , stated upon your user page , to my necessary relation of Canonical Law . This you will find links to upon my own Rfc page . I should like to think that you would concern yourself sufficiently as to read these , as the canonicals deal very clearly with the situation , btoh political and ecclesiastical . I should also like to think that this your honourable concern , will enable you to allow myself some reasonable lenience of respect , such that you will not simply view me as a disruptive anti-moralist , anti-christian . I consider myself to be acting entirely within the spirit of Christianity embodied in these Laws .

I may be mistaken in having concluded that the only way to defend the down-trodden of history and to open the apparent can-of-worms to dis-infection , was to have quoted these very same Church laws . It was my honourable belief that hypocrisy would not be able to prevail against such clarity . However thus far all I have garnered seems to be continuously creeping criticism , which considering these laws and the faith of my accusers , is contradictory .

Lastly we come to the contemporary reality , which apart from Lehrer's impertinence , involves Class Action Lawsuits against the Vatican . As you will be well aware , hitherto the Vatican has been able to avoid prosecution for apparent misdeed by virtue of its position as a sovereign State , but I believe that now , for the first time , that this has been denied upon appeal . Doubtless this will be counter-appealed , and possibly again the history will be avoided . However I suggest that those who seek to defend against serious accusation ,should pause to consider that when the defence becomes impossible , settlement shall be required . I have , very sincerely , provided canonical guidance toward such settlement , and should be seen , not as an attacker , but as a defender of the faith in Jesus Christ . yrs etc Famekeeper 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)