 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As far as I remember in the online snakepit of info , in fact there were several levels to understanding the veto.
The article could expand.
EffK 00:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As the Cardinal died in 1913 how could he affect policy in the 1930s?
"Odd that" the matter has not been picked up by the "create a story group" Jackiespeel 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is lifted from a book review by Terry Dolorosa: "Rampolla's influence continued through much of the 20th century due to the influence of Rampolla's proteges, della Chiesa (Benedict XV), Pacelli (Pius XII), Roncalli (John XXIII), Montini (Paul VI), and Pietro Gasparri (Cardinal Secretary of Sate 1914-1930)." The book he is reviewing is "The Undermining of the Catholic Church" by Mary Ball Martinez. 166.203.143.218 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)agentmorristown166.203.143.218 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "(one of the three Catholic powers with pretensions to such a capacity)". Pretensions is a misleading word: Franz Joseph had a right, which he exercised. 166.217.110.187 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)agentmorristown[reply]
'Having displayed a considerable ability in Oriental Trading'. What's meant here? Not the linked Japanese toy seller. Glatisant 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glatisant (talk • contribs)
A common conspiracy theory originating from abbé Ernest Jouin was that the Cardinal was linked to the Illuminatis. This claim, although largely refuted, should perhaps be mentioned in the article because it was very popular at a time when many people gave creedence to it. However, it should probably be refuted again. ADM (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also "current claims" that he was a Freemason (though several of the websites looked at are of "the more traditionalist" persuasion). Jackiespeel (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was some dispute over Rampolla's will, and his valet was held responsible for certain thefts. Some details to be found in The New York Times. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems (from articles in The New York Times etc) that there was some opposition to Rampolla's appointment from other quarters than Austria Hungary as well. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very uncomfortable with the sentence, "Craig Heimbichner, writing in the August 2003 Catholic Family News, states that Monsignor Jouin is said to have intervened personally with Emperor Franz Joseph to ask for the Jus exclusivae to be invoked, having procured some evidence that Cardinal Rampolla had at least a close affinity with the Freemasons." He is dredging up material that appears and reappears on Traditionalist Catholic websites, which maligns nearly everyone in the Vatican. They never seem to be able to produce facts-- only 'so-and-so said' or 'it was widely believed'. These are weasel words and phrases, which are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Rather that allow it "for the sake of balance", I think it should be deleted in the interest of historical honesty.Vicedomino (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
