Talk:Jewish orphans controversy

Legal dispute

This article begins by saying this was a legal dispute. Does that mean a lawsuit was filed? In what court? A French state court? A Catholic ecclesiastical court? What did the court ultimately decide? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's legal because it was based on an ancient form of canon law that was adopted during the council of Toledo in the High Middle Ages, although it would be best to double-check the sources on this. The code of canon law was later reformed after the Second Vatican Council and so this particular legislation no longer applies in canonical jurisprudence. Another thing is that the Holy See is a legal and political entity which does not have a clear separation of powers, and so the Church's judicial power is closely related to the executive Magisterium of the Holy Father. For instance, the Roman Inquisition was technically legal because it was under the direct authority of the Pope, who is a head of State. A possible comparison to this is the CIA, which is a legal organization under direct control of the American President, and which was recently caught in a legal controversy about kidnapping and torture (see extraordinary rendition by the United States). ADM (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article begins by saying it's a legal dispute, it should explain which laws it's about. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some hints on the 1946 document:

"it was written in French, not Italian, as was customary for Vatican directives, nor is it on papal stationery. The directive was also unsigned".
"It turns out the directive was not a standalone document, but was part of a three-page dossier housed at the Centre National des Archives de L’Eglise de France."
"After the initial story broke, Napolitano then discovered the three-page dossier himself, and the original Vatican directive contained therein, and soon informed Tornielli about it. Their scoop debunking the letter followed."
"The most damning sentence in the French memo, the one stating that Jewish children who had been baptized were not to be returned to their parents, was not in the Vatican directive. The Vatican directive deals solely with children “who no longer have living relatives” and states that “[T]hey cannot be abandoned by the Church or delivered to parties who have no right to them.” The Vatican instruction advises that each case must be reviewed individually, adding, “Things would be different if the children were requested by the relatives.” Nevertheless, neither the Corriere della Sera nor the New York Times mentioned the context within which the memo was found, its location, or the nature of the true Vatican directive it was attached to. "[1].
Pius XII, Roncalli and the Jewish children. The facts and the prejudices "In the debate opened by Corriere della Sera on the question of the Jewish children taken in by Catholic institutions and families and asked back by Jewish organizations at the end of the war, there have been attacks against Pope Pacelli and his successor John XXIII. But unpublished documents have also emerged that enable an objective reconstruction of the “case”"[2]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104082209/http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/adl_vatican.asp to http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/adl_vatican.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]