User talk:EffK/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inter-related Articles needing attention as of 2006[edit]

The following articles in Wikipedia suffer from the absence of the Scholder type information. It is idle to repeat the cause of this, except to say that EffK has never singled out the particular quid pro quo as more important than it in fact was. The culpability for the "Conspiracy to Institute Totalitarian Government" is by no means limited to the Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli vatican faction.

An example of the general Wikipedia error needing correction is such as this :After new elections a Nazi-led majority could easily abolish parliamentarism, the Weimar constitution, and practically the parliament itself through the Enabling Act on March 23, whereby the Nazis' planned Gleichschaltung (regimentation) of Germany was made formally legal. from [1]

The Arbitrator (students) such as Mackensen, should take note.

24 02 2006 Bengalski, Str1977 re :Klaus Scholder[edit]

Bengalski has been as good as his word and has now posted to the central relevant page discussion, that of Pope Pius XII, the verifiable confirmation for the quid pro quo or political bargain made between Adolf Hitler and the papacy or Holy see of the Roman Catholic Church as a Neutral Point of View. See top of page.

This re-opens the entire EffK battle here in Wikipedia to correct the POV obscuring this bargain. A concert of successful editing, straw man and ad hominem argument had succeeded in silencing Effk , by purely bureaucratic Wikipedia means. It now remains to be seen whether this other Editor, Bengalski, can expect to see a more normal reaction from those who have clearly made year long effort to rubbish the EffK historical corrections. These users are the same Users who do not here answer for their administrative or editing actions. This is of no surprise to me, but such behaviour may come as a surprise to this new editor . It should be apparent to these believers in that which is unverifiable (and thus POV) that , as I always warned, they would damage themselves in the end by persisting in the indefensible.

I have seen Bengalski awaiting a good faith reaction to his report from the principal User proponent against this historical NPOV, and so estimate that Bengalski is going through the earliest phase of Wikipedia good will and assumption. However, whilst Bengalski has awaited response following his clear invitation to User:Str1977|Str1977]], this latter User can be seen to have not only not responded to this invitation, but has further shortened the historical NPOV at Reichskonkordat itself. This editor is one for saving a few words, especially when they are awkward to the memory of this long-gone era. I would therefore, from my entrapped position here on this sole WP page, seek to assist both and all Users to now come towards the NPOV . I would suggest to Str1977 that he indeed answer my questions above concerning archiving, which are purely WP norms, that he assent to similar norms concerning sourceing and translation , which I quoted at him, and that he at long last retract and withdraw his unhistorical attitude towards EffK attempts at correcting the entire history.

Str1977 is congratualted for having retained his composure at Adolf Hitler and related Articles, whereas EffK is banned forever from any Catholic articles. The composure of Str1977 is completely out of line with the inner torment of contradiction faced by those who, like Str1977 , retain a clear faith in this particular church. The ad hominem which I have suffered and which I can at any time evidence as having been used to portray EffK as impious and bigoted and anti catholic and POV and unhistorical , all is factor purely of the inconvenience to this otherwise shining body of faith, from the bargain made with Hitler by its papacy. EffK is not responsible for this , any more than a policeman is , say, responsible for those examples of paedophile abuse which have to be reported to the policeman.

I would very much like Str1977 to at last retract such accusations as he has continued to make against me, such that I would not further have to explain the obfuscating motivations of his and his associated editors actions.

I should not like to see Bengalski treated to the same un-verifiable interpretations as those that made of my last year such a penance. I therefore ask that Str1977 answer all questions put to him in good faith concerning all related subjects, that he furthermore prevail upon the other five and possibly more sympathetic associates, to themselves renounce their desire to silence that which is verifiably NPOV history. I suggest that actual devotion to honesty itself would demand of Str1977 that he quickly now recants of this counter-NPOV attitude against my good faith Userdom, and, himself require an appeal to be made back to Arbcom to the effect that he was mistaken, and that EffK was perfectly justified in his exhaustive attempts at persuasion, and should be released from what is an illogical proscription from Wikipedia. That he Str1977 bear, himself, the responsibility for these over -exhaustive attempts at explanation, unto even those ejaculations, made initially in great discursive haste and heat, categorising him as a vatican agent. Not being so, he will have no further need to encourage and permit what is plainly verifiable NPOV, and will see the injustice of the proscription of EffK for what it is - a most dangerous avoidance of an important historical truth.

The alternative would be to openly disdain the central principles of Wikipedia , and more importantly, to use this organ as a means for the destruction of truth . I hardly feel that a person would wish to continue in such a position , so I invite Str1977 to now prove that I was wrong to call him no more than an agent of his faith and its pontificate by returning to Arbcom and expressing his mistake in the matter of EffK as POV pusher. Str1977 knows the verifiability and that it was his denials of all details supporting this verifiability which led to the intense and continuous argument.

Please, for the sake of truth and the world and the Magisterium,do this Str1977. EffK 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


EffK attack: Musical Linguist, Str1977, Robert McClenon, & Jimbo[edit]

Hi, EffK. I hope all is well with you. I saw your recent edit summary saying that I appear mute. No, I'm not mute, but I'm a bit sick at the moment, and am going to bed now. In any case, I'm not sure what you want me to answer. I am not a historian, and have very little interest in the articles at which you disagreed with Str1977. My friendship with Str results from our collaboration on theology-based articles, and from my observation of his obvious good wishes towards you. My participation in any articles concerning German history consists entirely of revertion of vandalism, improvement of the English, and trying to ensure that consensus was respected. I don't even know Hitler's year of birth off by heart. So I'm sorry I can't help you more. Please try as much as possible to limit your use of your talk page to questions that you think are really important (and that don't amount to accusations). Otherwise, you could lose that use again, and I really don't want that to happen. Regards. AnnH ♫ 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I referred you to 1), 5) and 6) at Norms , above. However the intervening post by Bengalski warrants your and all other involved Users attention. Simply, EffK is wrongly adjudged and Str1977 notwithstanding his manner to me, does not allow for any NPOV resolution. This is clear as crystal. EffK was not pushing a POV, nor obsessive, nor disruptive. The obsessive disruption, as the verifiability proves, comes from all those who have adjoined to disrupt the insertion of the verifiable, into WP. NB:You have partaken of this yourself and so it is on-topic for you to concern yourself. The particular action of 15 December 2005, visible overleaf is also clear as crystal. You have adjoined in supportive action on history, and you have supported the effective yet erroneous attack on my historical verifiability. In the admin sphere I suggest you refer the 1,5 and 6 to an admin, if you are not willing to act as an admin concerning those particulars. Ton Harisson does not concern himself . Your own active responsibility in the closing of my userdom demands that you understand the issue, which Bengalski clearly describes, and that you thereafter direct your friend Str1977 to justify those continuous 15 December-type actions , made against my clear verification , and thus, all Wikipedia principles and good faith. I have addressed this editor friend clearly, and expect you to inform him that he is addressed in the requisite good faith. The issue of papal involvement with Hitler's "conspiracy to Institute Totalitarian Government" is quite simple, for those willing to accept that sources allude to it. I do not accept that there is a misunderstanding of history, nor that those who judge me can claim that they are un-informed. I specifically quoted Shirer at Jimbo and the Arbs, and have at everyone because it is the simplest source. It cannot remain good-will to continue this reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of this the token simplest source. I expect you to urge Str1977 and Robert McClenon to return to Arbitration as the verifiablity demands, and to undo the damage to it and to me. The accusations upheld are entirely false : I throughout behaved in the best manner and interest of civilisation, and am still abused by all of you who suport the un-truth. That I had to explain at such length throughout only shows my good faith, and to be forbiden from presenting the NPOV on catholicism pages, is a censorship of civilisation itself. Your reading of Bengalski should, as with all, show you immediately that you have all been most grievously mistaken in every qualification against me. As you are ill, I can wait. I trust you will recover, and your immunity will strengthen. Thankyou for responding. EffK 11:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide for Bengalski towards NPOV Exactitude re the QpQ[edit]

Hi EffK, thanks for your efforts at encouraging a response to my post on Pius XII talk page. As you will probably see I received no reply as yet, so I have gone ahead and put what I got from Scholder in the article. That may prompt someone to respond.Bengalski 21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is extremly difficult to explain why you may find it difficult to write the QpQ so I think I had better show you what I see as the sourceable EffK and Bengalski version of NPOV.I have taken the liberty of mingling your refs with mine .You may do well to take this that follows back to your own more legal page, and invite consideration by such as Durova, Lacatosias, Goodoldpolonious2 and witness Sam Spade, all of whom may help you in deciding how Robert McClenon and Str1977's wishes that the controversy be properly housed, is fulfilled. In so far as the papacy is a pyramidal organisation I would suggest you leave PPXII as you now have it , and render the facts unto the pontiff who chose to use Hitler as his pawn, Pius XI. I feel you should be also brought up to date on the wider moral sensibility which this history involves, such that Str1977 as concerned editor, may be more understandable to you. I will do so as a "letter to Bengalski" !

The Reichskonkordat problems[edit]

The Reichskonkordat and the Empowerment of Nazism[edit]

Continuing forceful controversy surrounds Pope Pius XI's Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli's personal over-seeing of the Holy See's Reichskonkordat with the German State in 1933 and many books ever since have concerned themselves with the historic issue of papal approbation made through it towards the Hitler regime.

The Brüning Era[edit]

One of Pacelli's main objectives as Secretary of State - historian Klaus Scholder called it his 'great goal' - was the conclusion of a Reichskonkordat with Germany. Between 1930 and 1933 Pacelli attempted to re-initiate the 1920's abortive negotiations with representatives of successive fragile Weimar Reublic German governments on this matter. [2] [3] The importance of the Reich or national concordat policy to Pacelli, to the point that it dominated his thinking on German matters, is exemplified in [[Heinrich Brüning]]'s account of their meeting on 8th August 1931 (Bruning, the economist leader of the Catholic German Centre Party, who was Reich Chancellor between 29th March 1930 and 30th May 1932.) According to Brüning's memoirs Pacelli suggested that he disband the Centre Party's governing coalition with the Social Democrats and "form a government of the right simply for the sake of a Reich concordat, and in doing so make it a condition that a concordat be concluded immediately." In what was a stormy meeting, Bruning refused to do so, replying that Pacelli "mistook the political situation in Germany and, above all, the true character of the Nazis." Bruning angered the Cardinal by suggesting he not further interfere in the internal politics of Germany [4]. In this same month it is alleged that an instruction from Pope Pius XI was sent to the Centre to do everything to support a Hitler Government {{ref|Mowrer]]

The German elections of July 1932 saw a further rise in Nazi representation: the Party became the largest in the Reichstag with 230 seats of 608 in the parliament. This prompted Pacelli again to advise the catholic Centre Party Germany to work with the Nazis in a coalition of the right, despite the fact that at this point the German bishops officially condemned Nazism and banned catholics from membership of the Nazi Party. Pacelli, however, saw things differently from the Hierarchy, telling a Bavarian envoy Ritter: "it is to be hoped and desired that, like the Centre Party and the Bavarian Peoples' Party, so too the other parties which stand on Christian principles and which now also include the National Socialist party, now the strongest party in the Reichstag, will use every means to hold off the cultural Bolshevizing of Germany, which is on the march behind the Communist Party." [5]

The necessity for Hitler as pawn[edit]

According to Klaus Scholder, a Reichskonkordat was in fact impossible under the Weimar Republic: "as long as this democratic republic existed in Germany a Reich concordat was inconceivable." Catholic parties would never have sufficient strength to get a treaty past protestant and socialist opposition. It was thus the emergence of Hitler's dictatorship that allowed the Reichskonkordat to become a real possibility, following the model of the Lateran Treaties with fascist Italy where the Church had agreed to abstain from political activity in return for recognition in a concordat.[6] pp160-1

Hitler's rise to power through Janauary 1933 came through receipt of financial guarantees from German Magnates and conspiracy towards a Hitler demand for the chancellorship in a coalition of the nationalist right, due the preceding inconclusive 6 November 1932 elections. According to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, the principlal organiser of this state of affairs ,a Christian basis for the German State was pre-requisite and the new German cabinet began to talk about a Reichskonkordat "immediately after 30 January 1933"(Hitler's presidential appointment).[7].

Ludwig Kaas and The Un-doing of the Reichstag[edit]

With the Nazis still short of a majority in the Reichstag, and desirous of absolute power, a remaining catholic Centre Party demand for constitutionality was answered by Hitler's dissolution of the parliament for more elections to be held on 5th March.

This period in Germany saw the roll-out of institutionalised brutality by forces of law , greatly accelerated by anti-communist arrests and anti-jewish propaganda. Pope Pius XI's well known anti-Bolshevik stance found echo in a widespread Nazi linkage of the semitic to the Boslhevik menace and on 23rd March Hitler assumed dictatorial powers with the passing of the [[Enabling Act]]. The Act required a two thirds majority as it amended the German constitution: this majority was obtained through the support of the Centre Party, though counter-argument both at the time and ever since claims that the Centre would not have been strong enough to resist. Historians including Klaus Scholder have maintained that a key reason for the Centre Party leadership agreeing to support the Enabling Act was a promise from Hitler to negotiate a Reich concordat with the Vatican. Scholder maintains that Centre Party Chairman Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, a priest and longstanding close associate of Pacelli since 1920, "probably acted as the key go-between in the whole matter."[8] p.241, whilst other historical reports place Kaas together with von Papen, as the two most important architects for this crucial Hitler success [9]. Historians ever since have remarked at the manner in which the Hitler speech at the voting for the Enabling Act, clearly referred to the prospect of warmer ties with the Holy See.

Hitler and Kaas[edit]

The day after the Enabling Act vote Kaas went to Rome in order to, in his own words, "investigate the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state." [10].The period is characterised by sinister forces {{ref|Nuremberg trials]] which acted in secrecy, from at least the 4 January agreement that Hitler rather than von Papen, would head the German Government during the transition to Dictatorship [{{ref|Wheeler-Bennett]] , and this continued with Kaas' return from the Vatican by 2 April for a private meeting with Adolf Hitler. Even the subsequent negotiations for the concordat began with the secret arrival of von Papen as Foreign Secretary for Hitler's Government, in Rome on 9 April, accompanied by Kaas. Kaas it was who received first audience with Pacelli, and was subsequently deputed to himself over-see the drafting of the concordat.

Pope Pius XI approbation of Hitler[edit]

The controversy is compounded by memory of the pontiff, Pope Pius XI then on the 10 April receiving von Papen jointly with Hermann Goering as honoured Nazi Party representative with clear words of approbartion for hitler as a man of uncompromising strength against nihilist Russian communism. The pomp of the reception magnified these words and came only a week after the same Goering had publicly disdained any further necessity for any norms of legal principle in this uncompromising battle , and the current conrtoversy clearly rests between the hard to sustain but claimed Pacelli anti-Semitism strenghthening the entirely consistent Pius XI anti-Communism. Certainly Germany's catholic Hierarchy were in everyday contact with Rome, and both the anti-Christian as well as the anti-Semitic nature of Nazi brutality could not but have been continuously reported to Pacelli.

The Hierarchy and the abandonment of catholic resistance[edit]

The concordat was finally signed on 20th July. This shortly after Germany had signed similar agreements with the major Protestant churches in Germany. One of Hitler's keyconditions for agreeing the concordat had been the specifically voluntary dissolution of the Centre Party, for publicity reason, which occurred on 6th July.[11]. This was pre-figured by Kaas himself, who remained thereafter in Rome sending clear approbation for the Fuhrer in a widely published vatican telegram for Hitler's 23 April birthday. However according to Fr. Robert Leiber, Confessor to this Cardinal, the secretary of state was upset that the party had dissolved itself earlier than necessary. (see Rychlak).This however does not balance the controversial view which, through succeeding historians shows a remarkable turnaround in the German Hierarchy's stance at the 28 March Bishop's Conference at Fulda coupled with the demise of the entirely entrenched catholic political organs. The importance of the voluntary dissolution of the catholic political bloc is linked to a large move amongst catholic voters, a third of the German electorate, into the successful, absolutist, and papally approved Nazi party.

(add double square brackets start and end) Image:konkordat.jpg|frame|Cardinal Pacelli, representing the Holy See, signs the "Reichskonkordat" on July 20, 1933 in Rome. From left to right: German Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, representing Germany, Giuseppe Pizzardo, Pacelli, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, German ambassador Rudolf Buttmann.

Deputy Arrest, Anti-Semitism and Pope Pius XI[edit]

The Reichskonkordat remains controversial.It gave important early international acceptance to Hitler's regime, though it was preceded by the Four-Power Pact Hitler had signed in June 1933.Germany's slide however into out-right political illegality preceded the Reichskonkordat and the fact remains that it was the un-constitutional Nazi arrest of the actual Communist Reichstag deputies which prefigured the final condonation by the Centre party on the 23 March. It is also fact that nation-wide anti-semitic brutalism in Germany was reported across the World before the von Papen and Goering April 10 audience with Pacelli and the condoning pontiff.

At the time, however, it was very common for the Holy See to sign concordats with many nations, which in reality had more to do with bolstering the new, 4-year-old Vatican State's own international recognition than with recognizing other regimes.citation needed Such concordats were important to the Holy See because without them the Church might be denied the right to organize youth groups, make ecclesiastical appointments, run schools, or even conduct religious services. The term "concordat" is itself misleading, as in English it appears to connote general approval and friendship, when in fact it is merely a treaty that addresses specific concerns (in this case German Catholicism), and is not a broad declaration of regimental or ideological approvalcitation needed.

Communism and Chairman Kaas as Papal tool[edit]

Together with this, the equally anti-democratic and subversively conspiratorial nature of German Communism, which was a stronger force than the catholic Centre Party, is factor in the out-come. Pacelli's position as principal advisor to a firmly anti-Communist papacy came at a time of drastic and complex economic conditions which both re-inforced German Communism and the fear of its success. The isolation of Pacelli's involvement (through his loyal friend Ludwig Kaas) from that of Pope Pius XI is thus hard for historians to estimate, as is the remaining and more widely researched questioning of Pacelli's Holocaust knowledge as wartime Pope Pius XII. This comes from the absence of publicly accessible documentation . That this friendship with Kaas persisted through the entire period is more widely remarked than the curiosities concerning the Kaas involvement. Apart from Kaas own words esteeming Hitler as a noble guide and of high ideals, the fact also remains that Ludwig Kaas performed six principle solo acts in 1933 whilst acting as Chairman of his constitutionally minded party: his 6 March approach to Papen and the Hitler coalition; his circa 22 March negotiation for a Hitler letter of Constitutional Guarantee; his giving of the Centre party bloc vote , made under duress but without the crucial and Centre persuading Guarantee; his immediate week sojourn in the Vatican following this vote for dictatorship; his 2 April private meeting alone with Adolf Hitler; and, lastly, his delegation to draft the Reichskonkordat itself on 9 April, and his inclusion in the concordat of a secret annexe which did not come to light until the Second World War.

Modern Study[edit]

The first published allegations against Kaas, Pacelli and Pope Pius XI were written by Avro Manhattan in 1949, and taken up by playwrite Rolfe Hochhuth by 1963. Edgar Ansel Mowrer published his accusation in 1967. Allegations continued to be published and defence against such controversy is published by numerous authors, such that one recent volume is called The Pius Wars, whilst another is called The Myth of Hitler's Pope, rebutting that Writer title. Many more scholarly writers include Guenter Lewy and Klaus Scholder.

Church Autonomy, Totalitarian Germany and Pacelli during the Holocaust[edit]

Critics of the Concordat show the manner in which it linked the Roman Catholic Church too closely with Nazism by un-necessarily weakening the power of its own members and clergy to respond to anti-Christian excess, or brutality. This and only this concordat sacrificed the very autonomy of the clergy to comment against the Hitler dominated Government of Germany. This was achieved through the requirement of all Clergy to swear allegiance to that "Totalitarian Government" [12]. The analysis made at the end of the Hitler instigated World War, by the victorious countries, was hasty and superficial but touched briefly upon this concordat , coming as it did after the start of the successful Nazi "Conspiracy" towards such Government. The analysis leant very much more towards representation of the concordat as somehow cheating the German catholics, than towards the since perrenial allegations, suggesting the concordat as pact against the forces of Communism. The continuous cynical brutality of Nazism immediately made of the concordat an insufficiency against such political excess and at the time these clear excesses were the priority focus.

The controversies surrounding Pius XI and Pacelli still focus on the clearer Nazi excesses concerning anit-Semitic Holocaust and in comparison the subtle maneuvers of Pacelli's friend Kaas concerning the Reichskonkordat, athough alleged since 1949, are harder to contemplate. Defense in the issue is rather less documented than is separate defense of Pacelli (as Pope Pius XII ) for his interventions in certain cases of threatened Jewry. The concordat's defenders argue that it was a necessary attempt to protect the Church from anti-Church policies by the new governmentcitation needed. The 3 June encyclical Dilectissima Nobis, in which Pius XI protested against anti-Church policies in republican Spain, indicated that the Church found no difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions, be they monarchic or republican, aristocratic or democratic, "provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe".[13]

Hitler saw the Reichskonkordat as a victory for his side. Hitler told his cabinet on 14 July:

"An opportunity has been given to Germany in the Reichskonkordat and

a sphere of influence has been created that will be especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry." citation needed

In contrast, Pacelli, in a two page article in the Vatican influenced L'Osservatore Romano on 26 July and 27 July, dismissed Hitler's assertion that the concordat in any way represented or implied approval for national socialism, much less moral approval of it. He argued that its true purpose had been

"not only the official recognition (by the Reich) of the legislation

of the Church (its Code of Canon Law), but the adoption of many provisions of this legislation and the protection of all Church legislation."[14]

The value of the Concordat to the Holy See has also to be seen as very considerable in that it did, and continues to bring Roman Catholicism back into an official position in the land that gave birth to the Reformation (of that same Holy See]]. A plethora of volumes are written concerning the significance of the concordat in the longer course of both Church and German History, whilst notable catholic Christian braveries, as well as collaborations, can be and are repeated in both Pacelli's favour and against.

Examples are Cardinal Faulhaber was one of Germany's leading catholic figures and at the time is reported to have said: "With the concordat we are hanged, without the concordat we are hanged, drawn and quartered."culture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm%3Frecnum%3D1438+%22With+the+concordat+we+are+hanged,+without+the+concordat+we+are+hanged,+drawn+and+quartered%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 However,this defensive quote can be balanced by previous Hierarchy resistance towards Nazism. On 18 March von Papen visits Cardinal Bertram, inquiring whether the Church would not revise its stand on Nazism. The Cardinal tells him, ""The act of revising has to be undertaken by the leader of the National Socialists himself." [15] and it was on 25 March 1933 that this Cardinal writes a list of proposed instructions to the clergy. He has now joined the group of Bishops who favor withdrawing the various prohibitions imposed on the Nazi party. [16]

By April 20, On Hitler's 44th birthday, Monsignor Kaas sends a telegram of congratulations from Rome that is widely published in the German press. Kaas assures Hitler of "unflinching cooperation." This accelerates the movement of Catholics into the Nazi Party. April 24 Baron von Ritter, the Bavarian ambassador at the Vatican reports to Berlin that Monsignor Kaas and the Papal Secretary of State are in constant touch with each other. "There can be no doubt that Cardinal Pacelli approves of a policy of sincere cooperation by the Catholics within the framework of the Christian Weltanschauung (world view) in order to benefit and lead the National Socialist Movement." By April 26 Hitler tells Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann, representatives of the Catholic Church in Germany, that he is only going to do to the Jews what the Church of Rome has been trying to do without success for over 1,500 years. [17] It is such as this last, coming as it did before the institution of the concordat with Germany, that has fuelled such continuing suspicions against Pacelli as successful advisor to Pius XI for the concordat .

Bengalski "Un-acceptable" Truth, Faith and Str1977=[edit]

The Hitler Quid pro Quo problem for the Church[edit]

As it was always only Str1977 who attempted to still all questions regarding the quid pro quo with Hitler , and since you will have to deal with him yourself henceforth I open here the explanation for the deeper issues , which we would like Str1977, as representtive editor of faith(un-less he make only joke of this) to elucidate. We put him in a hard position, from which he has not fully or consistently deviated.

One can, Bengalski, prefer the reassurances and counsels of Str1977 to source. His clear positions are so comforting: if Kaas really in truth wasn't the stooge and had only gone on the 24th as Str1977 claimed, to negotiate some minor extra-German issues in Eupen and Malmedy (qv)- well it'd be very comforting indeed to be wrong.I was wrong, since he insisted on that, in allowing myself to be persuaded by him. Call it an example of my susceptibility to Wikipedia good faith assumption. It would be better that this be reciprocated by him when he is wrong.

The fact is we are where we are. Your arrival Bengalski has worringly changed everything. The whole issue was closed and we were going to start a clothes shop, see? But no, you Bengalski come in and rejuvenate that EffK- just when he was down and out for the count.

The Holy See could breath again , several years could have gone by and who knows but that some better theologian than that EffK could appear and HELP us.

I write to say to you Bengalski that we need to see it the faith way: they of faith are really scared of what they have done, and of what the choice is now . The choice was and is this:

Join with the big beast, or risk the continuity of good.

It is exactly as Cardinal VON Faulhaber stated then , be hung or, on top of your own and your friends and countryman's deaths - see the church in all its genuine alleviating goodness, also be sundered and quartered.

The loss of the Magisterium or teaching, is not our object, nor sadly was it Pacelli's and PPXI's. The reverse. Their deal was done to prevent the loss of that Magisterium even to the point of contradicting it. The central worldly issue is that ther Church wilfully supported a conspiracy for aggressive war. In this , the secret clause of the Reichskonkordat is the clearest damnation. The contumacy of its provision by Kaas in its draft, presumably at Hitler's insistence, matches with the contumacy of Kaas words of the 23 March Centre Party (Germany)caucus.

The Nuremberg Trial's cast an entirely poor light on the Reichskonkordat, as a "maneuver intended to deceive". As Mowrer clearly states, there was a betrayal of -not by- the German catholics (Brok's testimony). The known and actual Conspiracy as successfully prosecuted, was for the "Institution of Totalitarian Government" leading to the "waging of Aggressive War". The Trials opening date of the Conspiracy to so Govern, is at the Hitler and Oskar von Hindenburg meeting of 4 January. The essential problem for the Church institution lies in proof that their appeasing , approving quid pro quo, including the illegal secret clause and the muzzling of their own clergy, all started contumately (knowing itself as wrong as kaas' words shewed) during the conspiracy. I set the ground here, and you now lay upon it the full sourced proofs that my histiorians and commentators lacked.

In terms though of the resulting theological problems (the repair to the theological institution) however, the Church's (as opposed to church's) self-saving action, only Mowrer and Margaret Lambert saw at the time since so great was the the contradiction that has contradicted the entire basis of that Magisterium. It is only EffK and Jimbo himself who have brought this to a head, or the Internet itsef, as means of communication. This is what is called EffK original research (tho I did not actually attempt to place it-so the charge is spurious and concocted ad hominem ).

The Pontifical Council under now Bishop Renato Boccardo have an immense theological problem, and for all the natural child-desire for surety that leads me, even, to say that I miss Str1977's surety through denial, by my admitting this I weakly echo the overall loss of those out there now who understand the nature of this great threat to their faith from recent history.

There would appear to be no way out(except for what the canons demand, and this is why a dead hush falls now. Neither small norm type solely WP essentials nor the greater history questions can be addressed. The magisterial edifice itself teeters on a balance of contradiction and the power for redress escapes those to whom hitherto its defence has been entrusted. The secondary blocking contradiction is that the primary canonical amd magisterial transgression (joining with the Conspiracy for Aggressive war) cannot be regualrised without the breaking of the concept of papal infallibility claimed by this same Pacelli as Pope.

As within Nazism , as with Faulhaber, over the world entire, christians are strengthened into acts of Jesus, of charity , and the very poorest are succoured by these acts. Neither you nor I desire a weakening of this living charity of Jesus, nor a dimming of the beacon of love whose hope sustains not only the poor but even the acceding rich (acceding to their better fortune).

Can we really say to ourselves that we are true, once we know the historical facts, to show the bargain of the Church with (effectively the Devil) Hitler? Can we say to ourselves that our apprehension of the truth of the Magisterium , that it resides in that same Kantian type truth, of loving one's neighbour as oneself, and justify to ourselves our protective dismemberment of the institutional error- in order to help truth from contradiction? In this regard the late pontiff thought the scandal needed attention. The canonicals reveal tat Church legality demands repair to the scandal. But are we , outside, obliged to repair this scandal?

We are shocked to find that the Magisterial truth has perhaps ,or, it can be said with surety, been preserved only through such bargains with Evil. Do we think, both of us, that there can only be one truth, and one denial of truth? That the compromise with the evil of un-neighbourliness, of dis-love, cannot be the means for a sustainment of its opposite?

Undoubtedly the Str1977 position is that the Holy See has always and forever had to compromise with temporal power, and that our locally timed shock at the compromise reveals us to be no more than un-involved and un-committed observers, whose profession of shock is banal and actually fatuous.

I however, and perhaps you, come from the idealism of the singular truth, thinking that whatever is done against it will only increase and mutliply itself, and we perhaps are, essentially, at the very leading dangerous edge of fundamentalist thinking.

Compared to the slow morass of the clergy within who is instilled the prime of obedience as equal to charity, and for who truth itself is unnecessary, - within their faith, we are but mental vandals and mental street rioters.

Yet, whilst saying this I also feel sorry and sad for the Str1977 type or representative, for all those to whom blind faith and obedience can wash clean such dirty compromise through the centuries. You weren't here when the late great polish pontiff wrote of the scandal (search 'Memoria e identidad'), and you may not be entirely aware of the canonical adjudications as to the repair of scandal, but you are well aware, as are now very many people, of the great scandal of the Church's Hitler bargain.

You feel with me that it is time to place the mirror to the institution, and force it to confront its actions within its teaching. A simple sense of right pushed us forward, a simplistic demand for words of expression to mean what they say unto the very Magisterium of truth. At any rate the actions to forestall sourced historical events here in Wikipedia , push us forward.

I remind you of my modernist exegesis for the Law- If our critics attack us, saying that we joined with the Nazis to beat the Commies, then they would be right to do so, if we had.

This Pauline aside, from romans 3,8, of course is not the entirety of the Magisterium, rather it is the legal expression of what Robert McClenon, oddly, knew to call (erroneously) the Doctrine, but which is in fact the 'Principle', of Double Effect. The legal explanation of that old known saying:do as you would be done by.

Jesus built a deeper sense, unto a complete forgiveness beyond this more political injunction of equality of expectation. Quite why you and I are now brought to confront the contradiction of the Church, exceeds my present train, as neither of us would appear to base ourselves on the forgive and forget principle here.

You and I Bengalski are the living optimists here on these pages, though I am the essential optimist as I was un-cynical enough to have become entirely indignant. A pessimist would have shown scant interest and nil indignation.

We however rise to the challenge which Jimbo's conversion from the baser sections of the Internet has provided to the world. Our moral opitmism is the fresh face of youth and is dangerous to those on who the burden of ancient obligation rests. They fear that we will shatter all the effort made to preserve semblance of good. We are at the beginning ............EffK 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, in Wikipedia, EffK is Not the Schizmatic[edit]

I am enjoined by Christianity to determine the answer to all the questions from just the one condition: the Christian condition. If I were a formal Christian I would consider myself governed by these particular saving words:the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. These say that were I a Christian and to be acting as I am, I would not be schizmatic. As the persistent error exists- I would be justified in my 'dis-obedience'.

EffK had the benefit of discourse with Str1977 concerning the Scandal and the position of a pontiff but it could be appropriate to show what the Catholic Encyclopedia says at [18]

"schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (De fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy."

"Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy." [Fair Use/educational from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm ]

[St.Jerome]:"It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" [St. Ignatius of Antioch]:"Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church"

However the Scandal concerns the schism of two pontiffs of the Holy See. The Holy See is [from the same catholic Encyclopedia at [:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm] ] In this canonical and diplomatic sense, the term is synonymous with "Apostolic See", "Holy Apostolic See", "Roman Church", "Roman Curia".The origin of these terms can only be approximately ascertained. The word sedes, "chair", is an old technical term applicable to all episcopal sees. It was first used to designate the Churches founded by the Apostles; later the word was applied to the principal Christian Churches. These ecclesiae dictae majores were understood to be the five great patriarchal sees of Christian antiquity: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. To these the word sedes was applied: "quod in iis episcopi sederent in thronis", and of Rome it was expressly said: "Romana quidem erat prima sedes propria dicta." Thus, Gelasius I (492-496) at a Roman council: "Est ergo prima Petri apostoli sedes." In the earliest Christian writings, also, we often find references to the see or chair of Peter: "Sedet in cathedra Petri". Throughout the early Middle Ages the term was constantly in official use. Thus, in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, II, Paris, 1892, 7), under Leo III (795-816): "Nos sedem apostolicam, quae est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, judicare non audemus." (We dare not judge the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the Churches of God.) We can thus readily understand how Holy See came be the technical term for the pope, the central ecclesiastical government, and the actual abode of the same.

A, or the prime Bishop , of 5 Bishops. The Gospels report :

"Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd"(John 10:16). Unity of faith and worship is more explicitly indicated by the words outlining the solemn mission of the Apostles: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). These various forms of unity are the object of the prayer after the Last Supper, when Christ prays for His own and asks "that they may be one" as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:21, 22). Those who violate the laws of unity shall become strangers to Christ and his spiritual family: "And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17).

..."A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" (Tit., iii, 10); and again when he so energetically condemns the dissensions of the community of Corinth: "There are contentions among you. . . . every one of you saith: I am indeed of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"(1 Corinthians 1:11-13). "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). St. Luke speaking in praise of the primitive church mentions its unanimity of belief, obedience, and worship: "They were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). All the first Epistle of St. John is directed against contemporary innovators and schismatics; and the author regards them as so foreign to the Church that in contrast to its members "the Children of God", he calls them "the children of the devil", (1 John 3:10); the children "of the world" (iv, 5), even Antichrist (ii, 22; iv, 3).

...The bishop is the centre and pivot of the Church: "Where he is there should the community be" (Smyrn., xi, 1). ....."Those who belong to God and Jesus Christ ally themselves with the bishop. Brethren, be not deceived; whosoever follows a schismatic shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven"

...."Let that Eucharist be lawful which is consecrated by the bishop or one deputed by him. . . . It is forbidden to baptize or celebrate the agape without the bishop; what he approves is what is pleasing to God, in order that all that is done may be stable and valid" (Smyrn., viii, 1, 2).

....Origen is more explicit; for him also the Church is the city of God (Contra Cels., iii, 30), and he adds: "Let no one be deceived; outside this abode, that is outside the Church, no one is saved. If anyone leaves it he himself shall be accountable for his death" (In lib. Jesu Nave, Hom., iii, 5).

...."If the Lord Jesus Christ sent His Apostles to preach we conclude that we must not receive other preachers than those appointed by Him. What they have preached, in other words, what Christ has revealed to them, can only be established by the Churches founded by the Apostles themselves, to which they preached the Gospel by word and writing" (De præscr., xxi).

.....Concerning this unity the various forms of which he explains, St. Augustine agrees with St. Cyprian in maintaining that outside of it there is no salvation: "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" (De bapt., iv, 24), and he adds in confirmation of this that outside the Church the means of salvation, baptism, and even martyrdom will avail nothing, the Holy Ghost not being communicated.

....."We must have recourse to your clemency, beseeching you not to let the head of all the Roman world, the Roman Church, and the most holy Apostolic Faith be disturbed; for thence all derive the rights of the Catholic communion" (Ambrose, "Ep.", xi, 4). "I who follow no guide save Christ am in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the chair of Peter. I know that on this rock the Church is built. Whosoever partakes of the Lamb outside this house commits a sacrilege. Whosoever does not gather with you, scatters: in other words whosoever is not with Christ is with Antichrist" (Jerome, "Epist.", xv, 2).

.....Moreover the Greeks recognized in the Roman Church a pre-eminence and consequently an incontestable unifying rôle by acknowledging her right to intervene in the disputes of the particular Churches, as is proved by the cases of Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Chrysostom. In this sense St. Gregory Nazianzen calls ancient Rome "the president of the universe, ten proeodron ton olon" (Carmen de vita sua), and it is also the reason why even the Eusebians were willing that the case of Athanasius, after they had passed on it, should be submitted to the pope's judgment (Athan., "Apol. contra Arian", 20).

In respect of schism and various motives for it the catholic Encyclopedia quotes Augustine: "The whole world unhesitatingly declares them wrong who separate themselves from the whole world in whatsoever portion of the whole world" (quapropter securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum, in quacumque parte orbis terrarum) . 

             __________________________________________

These excerpts are basis for analysis of the Wikipedia situation , where we have catholic Users, and apparently catholic historians , of much talent. However these considerable individuals and groups have unfortunately to consider the contradictions which history shews their pontiff having recently made of what are termed, it seems, fundamental article and which are repeated in respect of the fallacy of Newmanian Oxford Anglicanism: According to this theory, in order to safeguard unity and avoid schism it is sufficient to abide by Scripture as interpreted by each individual under the direction or with the assistance of tradition. At any rate the Church should not be regarded as infallible, but only as a trustworthy witness with regard to the true sense of the inspired text when she testifies to an interpretation received from Apostolic times. It seems unnecessary to point out the illusory and almost contradictory character which such a rule ascribes to the living teaching authority; obviously, it does not meet the conditions for unity of belief which requires conformity with Scripture and, no less, with the living authority of the Church, or more exactly, implies absolute obedience to the infallible teaching authority -- both to that which interprets the Scripture and to that which preserves and transmits under any other form the deposit of Revelation.

....To these guardians and to them alone we should have recourse with confidence: "The truth which it is easy to know through the Church must not be sought elsewhere; in the Church in which as in a rich treasury, the Apostles deposited in its fulness all that concerns the truth: from her whosoever desires it shall receive the draught of life. She herself is the gate of life; all the others are thieves and robbers" (iii, 4). Such is the authority of the living tradition that, in default of Scripture, recourse must be had to tradition alone. "What would have become of us if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures? Would we not have to rely on that tradition which they confided to those to whom they committed the government of the Churches? This is what is done by many barbarian peoples who believe in Christ and who bear the law of salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit without ink or paper and who faithfully preserve the ancient tradition" (iii, 4). It is plain that with the assistance of the Holy Ghost the teaching authority of the Church is preserved from error: "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is there is the Church with every grace, and the Spirit is truth" (iii, 24). "That is why obedience must be rendered to the presbyters who are in the Church, and who having succeeded the Apostles, together with the episcopal succession have received by the will of the Father a certain charisma of truth" (iv, 26). This is far removed from the half-way assertions and the restrictions of the Oxford School.

Which is to say to such as EffK,or you, that only within the scriptural teaching, within the Law of the Church, can we find solution to any problem-even that of the 20th Century Scandal. And that this must rest on obedience, and obedience to those bishops who represent this Law. Ultimately to the Bishop of Rome as prime bishop of all bishops. For this bishop represents the law which is infallible.

EffK has tried to do this, and been cursed by bureaucratic principles of Wikipedia. But throughout it is known that Wikipedia is an open community, resting on amongst other sound principles, the allowance for good will explanation, as and when required to explain motive or belief. The above excerpts all rest on the apostolic traditions and the magisterium or Divine Law, rests on these scriptures. The bishop rules through obedient submission to also the body of tradition that embellishes ( in Wikipedia terms- provides explanation) and which appears to be no more nor less than the codification of the meaning within the scriptures, namely the Canon of Law.

The reason to write all this is that since Wikipedia is the open organ of communication par excellence as of now, and carries within it the un-precedented capacity for the expression of such law and founding articles- such is being expressed, very well. At very great length and with utmost detailed complexity Wikipedia articles are expressing the entire history and substance of all which is, or ever has been, related to this tradition built upon Christian founding articles. One would be hard put to it to see in this anything but good. if one were to be outside of the tradition, as parts of the world are, it must still be good. If one is within, it must be good. It is at any rate a far cry from the few centuries ago, when no part or excerpt of the scriptures were available to the commonality of humankind save through the mouth of the priest of bishop.

Altogether good, presuming that other humans within separate traditions can avail of it, or compare it, or express their own world of their own Law. Indeed if Wikipedia is not a negative force, it is to be expected that first report of any breaching of any barriers between Law, or, the institution of new Law, will appear in these pages as soon as anywhere else.

However, since there is utter disagreement even locally between wikipedia Users such as EffK and Str1977, and others, as to even the history of the uses made of such Law recently, one has to expect that overall the level of beneficial human synthesis may be slight. One has also , to explain the disagreement and the denial of the 'History', explain the motive , which rests in the many excerpts above.

One could even need to question whether a denial of the history does not in itself constitute an immorality of a criminality. We know that denialism of the outcome of the history, its manifestation no less, is a criminal act- because it is so immoral. However the excerpt also claim that all worthwhile Law can only rest within the founding articles. This being the case , and being tied to the history as it is through a broad affected population, then the founding articles are relevant in the very least to explanation of the history.

EffK is censured and censored for stating this obvious truth, because it appears to others, not least those in Wikipedia for whom these founding articles might carry most sway, that their conjunction made towards the 'history' is new. A/The 'New' is not allowed in Wikipedia.

This is very odd , when the explanation of belief affecting history is the sole appearance, and one can only see that it is negative to explanation and understanding of the history to deny reference to the founding articles or their relationship to such history. Wikipedia as said is full of the goodly Catholic Encyclopedia, and rightly so. The only reason that EffK is corralled into a criminalised single user's page , is because the explaantion given for the understanding of the history , is -not new, for the Law or founding articles are not new but well represented within Wikipedia, but grossly inconvenient to the very excerpts qualifying the foundational Law.

If for no more reason than as explanation for the censure of a Wikipedian here, this is as said, an explanation. In fact that is a tiresome and tedious level . The Wikipedia is accessible to demonstrate (in neutral but nevertheless authoritative) manner , the utmost heights and breadth of the foundation articles of this , in effect, Law. All worthwhile saints or theologians of whatever origin, are encompassed by their words here in Wikipedia, or soon will be as excerpts such as presented rise in with digital liquidity. All, it seems, but the history as it really happened, may rise and enter.

The history may not rise to visibility and may not enter. The error persists without recognition , and obedience prevails over Law . There is no Wikipedia rupture of the bond of subordination despite the accompanying persistent error, one that is directly opposed to the definite dogma which is romans 3,8. (Wikipedia search: 'The Question of the Law' )

I would remind all those who have joined against the entering of the history, however inconveniently necessitous of its canonical repair, that the excerpts clearly state that those who are not with the Law, are against the Law. I strongly suggest to them all that they straightway cast off their shackles of its denial to free themselves from the ineluctible consequence of its retention and free themselves from their schizm.

Re-repair to Wikipedia[edit]

  • I dont know how that category of this page at the bottom got there, and it is erroneous. Perhaps someone knows how to remove it(ML?)
  • Bengalski will have his heart cut out to survive the glossing going on here in Wikipedia. All of good will should share in his job at re-instituting verifiable NPOV to the listed Articles above two sections. I think of Durova, of Lacatosias, of Goodoldpolonious2 , of User:Sam Spade as people who should assist in at least prventing disturbance to his projected repairs for this at present shameful situation.

Adolf Hitler (gloss)[edit]

The Article for Adolf Hitler is historically objectionable. Amongst the chief wrong is the suggestion "the party decided to assent to the Enabling Act in return for the governemnt's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party itself." . It would take a while to find who is responsible, but I would urge such as Wyss to remember the facts as sourced by EffK which are impeccable, and divide back to the EffK NPOV correctitude. There was negotiation with Kaas and Hilter as chairman on 20,21 and 22 March which resulted in written agreements of guarantee which were accepted by the chief party leaders such as Stegerwald (education and civil servant catholic guarantees). These were separate to the swinging promised written guarantee negotiated solely by Kaas for constitutional guarantee, and which were not orally promised. This article is plain wrtong. The written letter of Guarantee was, even at the last moment of voting of the second (voting) sssion of the fateful 23 march abandonment of democracy. On the basis that there was to be the Written Guarantee , the Centre Party acceded to Kaas' position of support for the EAct, not on the basis of verbal guarantee. Whoever is responsible for this is wrong, and all who allow its continuance there, are wrong. I suggest to bengalski, who alone on Wikipedia seems to be prepared to face reality as it is verified, that he re-iterate or indeed copy excerpt from this statement of mine here. This is in short, scandalous whitewash however it was achieved. Wyss should, given her tone of such assurance-not un-welcome at all- nevertheless return assuredly to the sourced Wheeler Bennett ref I gave. A cursory search of WB would bring up the exact reference, which shows that there was a letter and it was eventually given, and what WB said about it not being either the kaas agreed letter, nor anything like it, nor coming from Hitler, nor sent to the Chairman(who was in Rome already). The rest of the AH article there is riddled with appalling ignorance or concerted dismissal of the true history. The actuality of the period 4 to 30 January is no more than gloss. Shame ! great shame accrues to all who persist in gloss. The crucial magnates are diminuished, the Oskar von Hindenburg -Hitler conspiracy in the Banker Schroder's house and the actuality of conspiracy "to Institute Totalitarian Government" is all lost in a shameful gloss .No link exists to the Reicskonkordat, of course not ! This is what happens when EffK is banned. As to the intro and the discussion for it, it is perverse and ridiculous. The word totalitarian is the official word from the resulting Tribunal, and good enough for these editors, for whom gloss is also good enough. Shame.

  • I took the time to see where the Hitler article became so weak- [19] .

Oh dear it's our friend Str1977, the historian, again. Oh dear Oh dear...Str removed in this edit,

  • the illegality of the Deputy arrest,
  • the anti-semitic nature of the Nazis even during the March Elections
  • the full force of the state apparatus being at their disposal,and
  • the change of procedure categorising the  ! absent ! deputies as absent, and
  • the leagal appearance of Hitler's maneuvers.

Str1977's subsequently at that time (16 Febuary 2006) at [20]] then removed

  • Str1977 erroneously and contumately placed Hitler's Government[sic and proved by all History ] "confronted" the Reichstag ith the Enabling Act- the matter had been in negotiation in the committee also removed
  • the exact EffK reference concerning the Letter of Constitutional Guarantee, replacing the erroneous oral guarantee, furthermore
  • Str1977 removes the Committee of 20 March onward , between Hitler and the Centre Party Germany whilst including that it was not a 'marxist' party, then
  • Str1977 removes
  • the separation of the 23 March sessions between that of Hitler's midday ingratiation -including the ingratiation of the Papal Prelate Kaas (the sign of the QpQ or bargain Hitler made with the vatican), and separation of that Reichstag session with the menacing later session, and then
  • Str1977 lastly removed
  • the fact that Kaas voted and that
  • Ludwig Kaas did so despite the Hitler prerequiste Letter agreed with his own Party leaders as condition for their bloc assent to the Enabling Act.
  • Str1977 removed further suppression of parties
  • Str1977 removed SDP collaboration with Hitler against Communists
  • Str1977 removed that other parties dissolved themselves

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Str1977 that same day had posted EFfK talk, under my questioning of his technically aberrant Archiving behaviour he exhibited(never yet accounted for above) , and since the Verifiability of all the above removed NPOV facts from Hitler, are of old denial between him and EffK , he knew of their provenance, and it can be abundantly shewn, he knew of their sourceing as that NPOV Verifiability. Str1977 again demands attention for his actions at Hitler. This comes as little surprise to EffK, and EffK expresses only that the edited material was sourced correctly and Verifiably, and that these actions are no surprise, and that Str1977 deserves Wikipedia attention. Oh dear Oh dear ...EffK could track down the obliteration of the correct (NOPOV) concerning the January 1933 Conspiracy build up of the Hitler appointment, but there is enough here to already deserve attention, or to help repair. it would be pleasanter if Wikipedia norms could be adhered to, however since EffK is banned all that can really be said without calling up further danger to EffK, is to say that the allowance of all this removal without demur by the other wikipedians present who are:

These Users, whose names are sometimes difficult to enter correctly, howsoever on etries(sorry !)were largely all more concerned with bickering about the word totalitarian placed by EffK in honour of the Nuremberg Tribunal, fascist, imperialist etcetera. oh dear oh dear... in other words they were nearly all, and remain so, counting the Angels on the head of the Pin. Congratulations to you all....Wikipedia is in even bigger trouble than the denialism of Verifiability. What a show ! EffK 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinners, blood, quotes[edit]

  • "…when a just person sees a sinner punished, he or she profits thereby; the death of one is powerfully life-giving for the other. If people are dying within themselves, blood is flowing out of them in a spiritual sense; and when you see them suffering such vengeance…you are the one to learn a lesson from the dying unbeliever, and purge yourself of sins. In this way you will, in a sense, wash your hands in a sinner's blood." from St. Augustine of Hippo[21] and Augustine is qualified thus:
Other than the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine is considered the greatest single intellect ever in Holy Mother Church. St. Monica and St. Ambrose realized the treasure God had provided in this man who first turned his back on Our Lord until he realized only too well that he would remain restless, totally restless, until he rested and trusted solely in God.
Today St. Augustine is revered as one of the greatest and learned scholars of the Church and is given the title the "Doctor of Grace." His conversion proves the power of God's love and the power of the Word of God. ditto from [22]. Fair use/Educational

Minor report (googling)[edit]

  • Dear Secretlondon, I don't know where to put this so I am writing to you. I thought User:EffK was banned but, as it appears, he is still posting today and yesterday. He is not doing much damage but I should like to know when he will be gone. Cheers, Str1977 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He's gone. Looks like a previous block overlapped with his 1 year block causing him to become unblocked. Secretlondon 20:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC) He has only been editing his own talk page. And blocked users are technically able to do that. As far as I know, that was a new feature requested by Ed Poor last summer, so that blocked users would still have a means of communication. I'm not sure if banned (as opposed to simply "blocked") users are allowed to edit their talk page — perhaps that could be clarified. Certainly, EffK seems to believe he's allowed to do so, so if he isn't, he should be informed. I don't think he's able to edit anything other than his talk page, but the only way to make it impossible for him to edit that is to protect it, which would also mean that nobody else (except admins) could post there. AnnH (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC) You're right. If there are any problems then let me know - he's not allowed to use it as a soapbox for example. If people ignore him he'll get bored. Secretlondon 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I didn't know that. His last edit was accusing me of deleting something from an archive - which is technically true, but it was my erroneous archiving that made this necessary in the first place (I put content from one talk page into the archive of another ..). Str1977 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not new but represents what at Tribunalk was called common purpose, not that User:Secretlondon has any interested part. However the other Users have had purpose, and thus should welcome remembrance by this reference. Quite when those addressed are going to answer the admin-type queries above, is typically un-clear. If being concerned with the validity of Wikipedia is to be a [[Soap-box]........EffK 22:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia:Googling EffK turns up Tony Sidaway which turns up Robert McClenon's thanks for his deletion of Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia which leaves only this as record here [23]. this is the Admin log [24].

  • Original wording of page: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group."
  • Wording of page at time of deletion: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results."

User:Pilatus said re the deletion -It was pointed out that while the outcome of the debate[to delete] was never in doubt, closing the debate early might serve as a focus for trolls invoking censorship and that in the interest of peace and to be more respectful to the community to let the inevitable take its course.

EffK says that Tony Sidaway was trying perhaps to preserve a neutral WP, as with his and others religious Userbox actions, but the actual Alliance Article disappeared at the point EffK was looking at it, and as Robert McClenon said-it was exactly the evidence of infiltration to WP McClenon feared could justify a 'certain troll'. That is , open infiltration. EffK 12:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ann / Canonical, if not WP, Repair to the Scandal[edit]

EffK, I looked through the coding in your talk page, and finally worked out what was causing the page to be added to Category:Articles lacking sources. You had, it seems, recently made additions to your talk page which were simply copied and pasted from articles. These additions had {{fact}} a few times. When that is added to the coding, it expands into something like citation needed, and it adds the particular article to that category. Since you copied that into your talk page, the talk page was added to that category.

By changing {{fact}} into <sup>[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]]</sup>, I was able to get the same appearance on the page, but without adding it to the category. You can see what I did, if you click on the link for the diff.

I'm disappointed to see that you're still focusing on Str1977. You know that that's partly why you were banned, don't you, even if the ban is unjustified in your eyes? And you know that the only reason you're able to edit your talk page now is that I felt sorry for you and asked Str would he mind if I unprotected it, and he said he was more than happy to give you another chance.

I'm already beginning to feel uncomfortable at having indirectly subjected Str to your recent posts, and I ask you again, please remember that the person you're harming most is yourself. Str1977 will get over the things you write about him. He'll certainly forgive me for having given you the opportunity. But if your talk page is protected again, you will not be able to communicate with us at all. Even if you decide at that stage that you're prepared to focus on article content rather than on a particular editor, you won't be able to tell us that, because the page will be locked.

As I've said before, I know little about the subject matter over which you and Str1977 were in dispute. But I do feel that the decision of the Arbitration Committee was the right one, so I will not be asking Str1977 or Robert to try to have this case reopened. In any case, if it were reopened, I think the outcome would be the same. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -I'd suspected it was the paste, clever, well done. I wish I were able to be appreciative of the rest, and greatly regret the inability to so be. I really find it hard to understand how none of you adhere to the Wikipedia norms, and yet crow against me as an abuser of those norms, especially an administrator. That my demur at you being so made, returns with every avoidance you make of the norms as 1, 5 and 6 above. The Hitler gloss, as I show-when I was remarking here for the apparently completely moral Bengalski, was a general criticism. I should not at all be blamed for tthen finding the source of the Article's gloss. Again, the illogic is damning, and again , the admin does not admin within WP norm. This is why I voted against you, because I saw slanted , document war editing at the Sex Abuse poage. I hate to be right and to be vilified for it, to be forced to be a champion of people who by their complacency, are un-worthy of championing. I refer to the other users outside of your triangle. The old saying- you get the government you deserve. That there is a plain quid pro quo now with war, as there was in 1933, shows that faith deserves its condemnation, just as the several US Bishops rcently said. The doctrine/principle of Double Effect does not permit the wars, the canaon does not permit the political bargainsa, and the words of Jesus and of Paul do not permit the overturning of all that is true, by accepting war as consequence. 9 Eleven as the Reichstag Fire, will rebound through history , and the evident deal done now, will further compound the wound to the faith. As to these in comparison minor actions in Wikipedia, if it were not but for knowledg of the rules governing the faith, I would be logicall unable to follow the actions, nor anyone. You can very well see that several users, but particularly Bengalski can see the injustice of the revisionsism as carried on. You cannot or will not, and it is against logic not to see the contradiction. I wonder how you can justify yourself , Ann, to yourself if not alone through the forcing of obedience over the principle of love and charity. To go against the Kantian expression of reason as good will is such shame. You refuse reason with kindness, but for all that it is refusal. I repeatedly ask you as an admin to be an admin. I saw with McClenon that he was logically against me not by his words, but by his actions, and his crowing as placed at this page, provbs why I was right. That you logically cannot see the pure harm caused at Hiler hereabove, an article you frequent, is beyond my reason. How is someone who is normal, who adheres to verifiability of human source and reason but to think that ye do not work on the parallel open avowed obedience principle. As Bengalski clearly says, this is injustice. Why would you put yourelf there, and why shield those who plainly are wrong? You all forced me to the conclusions I reached, and I regret it. I see a Wikipdia that is sectarian in effect, or populated by a majority who are so shocked, like I am, at the very suggestion, that they would sooner martyr me , than face up to the reality of it. It is very sad, and only reinforces the world's historical pain. I tell you that the denialism of history- such as the list now for Hitler of 16 Febuary , adding as it does to the contumate 15 December, is akin, related to, and as shocking as, Shoah Denial. You may be able to sustain this immoral position as you and the others are protected by the abuse of Wikipedia norms , but by moving into the ground of defamation this becomes actual provable wrong. I beg of you to become the citizen of the world rather than rest as the cerberus of those anti-christs who broke the magisterium, thereby so defiling it . I esteem your kindness here, but I remind you that what you are doing and allowing to be done, is greatly harmful to that faith itself, and puts you in terribel terrible wrong . I fear more for you than for anything such antti-christ defenders can do to me through WP . You are the formal christian-and I cannot remember that we have ever openly discussed it, but you are a member of the body , Ann, your very suspicion that , as Bengalski has cited, but will evidently be citing more, that that reality which confirms all my NPOV report, demands of you , of you, to call for immediate repair by the canonical authorities , of the anti-christ transgression through that Bargain with evil. You, Ann , yourself are under the greatest pressure there is- far greater with these words of mine here, than the Wikipedia's own assumption of good faith - you are bound by the doubts confirmed by Bengalski , to go straightway to your religious advisor, and to ask that a canonical council redress the vast , lasting, shattering damage to the teaching of Jesus by the Question of the Law. I shouldn't have to instruct you in theology. Do it for Him. not me.

EffK 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as Novissimi relating to Kaas and St.Peter[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EffK/Archive_4&oldid=1074603834"