Talk:Catholic Church and Nazi Germany/Archive 1

Scope of this article
I have just created this article using text copied from the "History" section of the article on the Catholic Church. At the moment, this article is a straight "copy/paste" content fork of Catholic Church. However, the intent is to create a subsidiary article which can delve into the details of the topic to a level of detail which would be inappropriate for an article like Catholic Church or even History of the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pope Pius XII and Germany is an alternative title that was proposed by user:Savidan. I find it better because Pacelli as nuncio was responsible for relations with Germany before he was Pope. ADM (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving back to original title; this article is not intended to be solely about Pius XII but also about Pius XI and the German church. User:Richardshusr


 * I already created Pope Pius XI and Germany by the way, much like there is already Pope Pius XI and Poland or Pope Pius IX and Russia. I think the current title makes the article appear somewhat redundant with religion in Nazi Germany and Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany. The entry should focus on the Holy See's international relations with Germany, rather than exclusively talk about the laity and the clergy at the time. ADM (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So it appears the choice is between having Catholic Church and Nazi Germany on one side and on the other side, a pair of articles about Pius XI and Germany and Pius XII and Germany. I don't like the focus on each Pope.  There is a story about the relationship between the Church and Nazi Germany which is perhaps A Tale of Two Popes.  However, if this tale is split up into two articles (Pius XI and Germany and Pius XII and Germany), it becomes harder to find and follow.  Of course, since Wikipedia is not paper, we could simply agree to have a content fork and let all three articles exist.  That would suggest that you could re-create the Pius XII and Germany article using some text from here and adding back the material about post-WWII relations between the Church and the two Germanys.


 * I do think that Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany should be merged into this article.


 * --Richard (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I don't like is that the current article tends to mix up the terms Holy See and Catholic Church. It could perhaps be a good idea to rename it Holy See and Nazi Germany. The Holy See includes the diplomatic and administrative character of the Church, but it is not the entire Church. Even so, if we were to write only about the Holy See, as most writers tend to do, we would have to try to distinguish the two separate papacies that were involved in that period. ADM (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be less of an issue if we merge in Catholic bishops in Nazi Germany as well as provide a fuller discussion of the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany. Why not let this article develop for a while and see where it goes.  Let it have a broad scope for now and see if it can live up to the ambitious title. --Richard (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a valid topic. Its scope is far broader than the role of the pope. There is much to be said about the clergy, the episcopacy, and the laity that have no direct relevance to the pope. Catholic bishops should remain a daughter article. The scope of this one is far broader. Religion in Nazi Germany obviously covers all other religions, and thus is not redundant. Savidan 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

May I further suggest that this article be divided into four main sections (in addition to background and other things of that nature): role of the pope/Vatican, role of the German bishops, role of the German clergy, and role of the German laity. I think it is obvious that the diversity of opinions, actions, and roles of each of these groups makes it pointless to generalize much across them. Even within the latter three the diversity is quite great. Savidan 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Savidan, your proposed four main sections makes some sense. However, it seems to me that the least confusing approach would be to stick to a fairly chronological order rather than repeating the chronology each time in each of the four sections. --Richard (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "repeating the chronology"? I would hope that this article would not contain extraneous chronological details about Nazi Germany which do not directly pertain to the Catholic Church. Most of the material (correct me if I'm wrong about this) would fit neatly into one of those four sections. There's a bit of a judgement call, but I think its relatively uncontroversial that the various encyclicals (although written in consultation with the national episcopate) most directly pertain to the Vatican; conversely, topics like the Brown priests don't have much to do with Vatican-German relations. The question of how many Catholics voted for the Nazis pertains to the laity, etc. I do think the organization should be relatively chronological within those subheadings, however. The problem with the current approach is that it makes it too easy to confuse (and indeed does confuse) these different scales. Savidan 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Kent
The following is excerpted from this Journal of Contemporary History article:  by Peter Kent. It can be used to improve this article which appears to be very incomplete since it omits all the work that Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli did to try and turn the German, Italian and French people away from Hitler and Nazism and Communism. Einstein said the Church did more than any other organization to help the Jews. So many prominient Jews exalted Pius after the war and they did so for a good reason that needs to be brought out in this article.


 * From page 594 of Journal of Contemporary History volume 4 1988
 * "The Vatican, on the other hand, would not play the game by Hitler's rules and refused to interpret the Spanish Civil War in this context. On 11 September, the Osservatore Romano analysed the positive and negative factors 'in the present European equilibrium' and argued that 'the preponderance is overwhelmingly in favour of the negative factors which threaten a radical disturbance of the balance of the European order and have ... a dynamism which often awakens the most brutal instincts of human nature.' The Osservatore defined the principal negative factor as the 'war of ideologies', arguing that Europe is being divided into dangerous groups of nations which add to the historic hostility between one country and another, a hostility resulting from the differences in their ideology. ... The extremist form of this war of ideologies is to be seen in the conflict between the autocratic idea and that of communism.' The second negative factor was defined as 'racial intolerance', arguing that 'state boundaries do not correspond with racial boundaries. They have in fact never corresponded with them and never will but this divergence is today one of the chief pretexts of unrest. It is the powder barrel of Europe.'
 * "The Pope spoke to Spanish refugees on 14 September. While condemning the persecution of the Church by supporters of the Spanish Popular Front, he was never prepared to forget the Germans and he added warnig to Hitler 'that war against the Catholic Church, is war in alliance with communism'. At the end of September, Pacelli, as Cardinal Secretary of State, opened the International Congress of Catholic Journalists in Rome, which the German Catholic press had not been permitted to attend. Continuing the Vatican theme of 'a pox on both your houses', Pacelli spoke of 'the need for combating paganism whether it took the form of international Bolshevism or that of nationalistic-religious movements.'"
 * "With Ciano scheduled to visit Berlin at the end of October, the continuing Vatican criticism of Germany was directed more towards the Italian government and people. At the beginning of the month, Pacelli made clear to the Italian ambassador that the anti-communist statements issued by the German hierarchy had been made entirely on their own initiative and that they had in fact been far more positive to Hitler than Pacelli had deemed wise. During the week of Ciano's visit to Germany, the Osservatore Romano reiterated at least four times what had become its constant theme of the anti-Christian spirit of nazism. Catholic protests were to no avail however, as the result of Ciano's visit was Mussolini's proclamation of the Axis on 1 November."
 * from page 595 "Once the Rome-Berlin Axis had been proclaimed, the Holy See sought to drive a wedge between Germany and Italy. In early January 1937, a series of articles in Osservatore Romano returned to the theme of denouncing the war of ideologies attendant on the Spanish Civil War, and as Mussolini sought to turn Italian opinion towards Germany, the Pope sought to turn it in the opposite direction. A public protest against the German treatment of the Church was called for so that there should be no doubt where the Pope stood and what attitude Catholics should take. This protest came with the reading of the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge from the pulpits of Germany on 21 March, denouncing German violations of the 1933 Concordat. The British Minister to the Holy See held that the 'denunciation of the German government's ill faith and persecution of the Church, by alienating devout Italian Catholics, will have its effect on Italian sentiments towards the Rome-Berlin Axis"
 * "German reaction to Mit Brennender Sorge was harsh and persecution of German Catholics was intensified in the spring of 1937. More distressing to the Vatican was the partiality of the Italian press for the German side in this dispute. The encyclical seemed to have failed in its intent in Italy.
 * page 596 "While Pacelli had been at great pains to stress that this was a religious visit with no political overtones whatsoever, his sermon at Notre Dame Cathedral on 13 July belied that assurance when, to the delight of all shades of French opinion, he condemned nazi statolatry. ... What drew attention to this Vatican leaning towards the liberal democracies were remarks made on 18 May by Cardinal Mundelein, the Archbishop of Chicago, whose criticisms of the German government and reference to Hitler as 'an Austrian paper-hanger' were attacked widely in the German press. When the Germans insisted that the Holy See publicly dissociate itself from the Archbishop's remarks, the Vatican retorted with Pacelli's sermon in Notre Dame, and, on 20 July, with the publication of comments by the Pope to American pilgrims in which he expressed particular admiration for Cardinal Mundelein. The significance of Mundelein's remarks was perceptively explored by the leader writer of the Munchener-Neueste Nachrichten on June 2 in an article entitled 'Diplomacy under the Red Hat.' 'Vatican diplomacy,' the article claimed, 'leaves no stone unturned in order to weaken the axis between the Wilhelmstrasse and the Palazzo Venezia'."
 * page 598 "The Pope certainly had no intention of welcoming Hitler to Rome as Innitzer had welcomed him in Vienna. Papal disapproval of the visit was to be writ large for all to see ...(author lists all of these)... The Vatican attitude was much resented by the fascists. On May 8, the Popolo d'Italia published a savage reply to the Pope ...(author quotes the reply)"
 * page 600 "Papal opposition to the anti-semitic policy was obviously an embarrassment to the regime. Some local Party officials tried to cope with it by banning publication of the papal speeches and went so far as to prohibit their publication in diocesan bulletins.  ... In early September as the Italian Council of Ministers moved to institute the anti-semitic legislation, the Pope returned to the attack. On 8 September, he publicly referred to the July manifesto on race as a 'gross and grave error' and 'altogether contrary to Catholic doctrine'. The decree of the Italian Council of Ministers on 11 November prohibiting racially mixed marriages was interpreted by the Vatican as a breach of the 1929 Concordat. The Concordat provided for the State recognition of religious marriages and the Catholic Church did not refuse the sacrament of marriage on the basis of race." A formal protest was lodged against the Italian government in the belief that 'once the Concordat had been breached in a single article the sanctity of the rest of it will be gravely impaired.
 * Page 601 "By the time of his death ... Pius XI had managed to orchestrate a swelling chorus of Church protests against the racial legislation and the ties that bound Italy to Germany. He had single-mindedly continued to denounce the evils of the nazi regime at every possible opportunity and feared above all else the re-opening of the rift between Church and State in his beloved Italy. He had, however, few tangible successes. There had been little improvement in the position of the Church in Germany and there was growing hostility to the Church in Italy on the part of the fascist regime. Almost the only positive result of the last years of his pontificate was a closer relationship with the liberal democracies and yet, even this was seen by many as representing a highly partisan stance on the part of the Pope. In the age of appeasement, the pugnacious obstinancy of Pius XI was held to be contributing more to the polarization of Europe than to its pacification. These reservations about the wisdom of Pius XI's policies were held by his closest and most loyal collaborator, Cardinal Pacelli ... Yet the policies followed by Pius XII soon proved to be very different from those of Pius XI. At heart, Pacelli ... was an appeaser. Pius XII rejected his predecessor's combative stance against the nazi and fascist regimes in favour of a politically disinterested position from which the Pope could act as a mediator to ensure European peace. Only if the papacy had an open and friendly relationship with all the great powers, could the Pope use his influence for the resolution of conflicts and the avoidance of war."  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above excerpt from Journal of Contemporary History summarize Kent's points which are considered to be the more anti-Catholic side of the debate (which is obviously very mild) by this author see page 121. The author, David Dalin, a Jewish Rabbi, takes another view of Pius that is much more favorable and you can read it at the link above because, unlike Tale of Two Popes, Dalin's book is listed on Googlebooks.  Nancy Heise   ''' talk 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I plan on including this material eventually, Nancy. It's just a lot of work and I'm working on other parts of the article first.  You say that this article is "very incomplete" and yet it is a more complete treatment of the topic than exists anywhere else in Wikipedia including the overly short and POV treatment in Catholic Church.  --Richard (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

not drive by tagging
please leave the POV tag at the top for a time to get into some of the issues- the lead was problematic for starters imo because it set out a narrative, basically of the Church criticising and attacking the Nazis until that was then constrained by 'the political exigencies ' - an admirable evasion of responsibility - is it OR - where does this phrase come from? did Sophie Scholl and the White Rose say they couldnt act or speak out because of the 'exigencies' of the situation - the point was maybe the Church cared more about the nature of its existence than the existence of those cast out into outer darkness - anyway - sources for these phrases are needed imo, academic sources, - the kowtowing of the Church to the Nazis is alluded to in the euphemistic 'tried to find a modus vivendi' but should be made explicit in the lead - the Concordat, the 1937 pulpit announcements that Bolshevism was the main enemy, the going along with the 'judeo-bolshevik' conspiracy talk by faulhaber etc - now, i'm bending the stick - the lead was not too bad in some ways, but I believe there are problems - because one doesn't set it all out at once -  issues irl etc - does not mean the tag should be removed straight away - i accept i should have left soemthing on the talk page, not just the edit summary to express  a POV concern , but please have some patience - this is not  a drive by tag - give me  a week or so to write of my POV concerns please and if i don't get back or find ways of expressing myself adequately, i'll remove it Sayerslle (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Drive by tagging.
“Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies… Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.” See WP:DRIVEBY.
 * thats me told aint it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of pius XII
this section is execrably written - pov problems abound it goes without saying, and it is repetetive. convoluted. 'some say the pope was not nice, but many others say he was nice,. and this writer( usually bokenkotter, dalin, rychlak) said einstein said the pope was nice. and lots of other writers have said the writer who said he wasnt nice has since said he thought the pope probably was nice but could have been nicer, so his ideas have been debunked really now by etc..ad nauseam. Sayerslle (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

POV quote in lede
One editor is insisting upon a misleading quote in the lede. First, it doesn't belong in the lede as a matter of format and style. The lede is supposed to typically be a summary of the article. Second the quote is misleading and highly POV. It creates the impression of a close tie between the Church and Nazism, when the consensus on the matter is that the Nazi's were anti-Christian or secularaized, at best. (There are an self-admitted minority of revisionist historians, Steigmann-Gall, and the like, who hold otherwise.) The matter included in the lede, out of context is: After Adolf Hitler became chancellor on January 30 1933, and following Hitler's March 23 1933 address to the Reichstag in which he acknowledged Christian belief as the " unshakeable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people", Cardinal Bertram announced that the bishops had dropped their prohibitions against Nazi membership. I propose the matter be removed from the lede. It creates an impression which is contrary to scholarly consensus. Mamalujo (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It simply doesn't create the impression of a close tie. it just sets out what happened at that time. in the meanime i'm waiting for the tagepost article - you are a corrupt POV pusher and anything which doesn't come from a right wing Catholic rag or crappy website is immediately regarded by you as misleading. did the bishops remove the prohibition ? did hitler make the speech? did negotiations begin? its just what happened. you've said elsewher you thought franco was the best Spain could hope for, you are a person incapable of not twisting everything to suit your POV. tagepost, still waiting Sayerslle (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Busting out the ad hominem attacks again? Are Tadeusz Piotrowski,  Roger Griffin, George Lachmann Mosse,  William L. Shirer, and Jack Fischel, who I sourced and you keep deleting crappy right-wing sources? What I state as the consensus and minority revisionist positions are a fact. The authors who maintain the minority/revisionist position typically will readily admit that they are arguing against consensus. Wikipedia is also supposed to be, a mainstream encyclopedia, which means "writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship." Minority points of view should be included with appropriate weight. Mamalujo (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessarily true that that quote has to be included, but the lead cannot give the impression that the relationship between the RCC and the NSDAP only took up the "antagonistic to neutral" part of the spectrum, because that's completely contrary to sources. Sorry Mamalujo, I know that the Nazis are generally shunned in society now and you don't want to be publicly associated with them, but Wikipedia works based on sources. The POV issue in the lead reflects a broader problem in the article: that information unfavorable to the RCC is downplayed and information favorable to the RCC is promoted (including through article structure and through selective attribution - unfavorable information is attributed and the latter is treated as the universal view.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The erroneous assumption in this argument is that the existence of "close ties between the Church and Nazism" and the idea that Nazi ideology was "secular" are mutually contradictory. Both, in fact, are arguably true, and they don't contradict each other: churches (and other organizations) often make alliances with others whose beliefs they don't share, out of selfish interests.  Jcarnelian (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bertram's announcement should be covered in the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the important parts of the article text. Bertram's announcement is described in greater detail in the article body, so the guideline is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The very start of the lede was rather biased, talking about "dilemmas", "modus vivendi", and "accommodation". I have changed this to be more neutral.  The lede also left out an important event necessary for understanding the actions of both Hitler and the bishops, namely that the Catholic Center Party cast its votes for Hitler on March 24. Jcarnelian (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Peter Kent Quote
I deleted the section "Denouncing the "war of ideologies". By itself, it is unclear who thought that the public protest was "called for".  It's also unclear to me what the quote is supposed to show, sounding more like a power struggle than anything having to do with ideology. Jcarnelian (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Once the Rome-Berlin Axis had been proclaimed, the Holy See sought to drive a wedge between Germany and Italy. In early January 1937, a series of articles in Osservatore Romano returned to the theme of denouncing the war of ideologies attendant on the Spanish Civil War, and as Mussolini sought to turn Italian opinion towards Germany, the Pope sought to turn it in the opposite direction. A public protest against the German treatment of the Church was called for so that there should be no doubt where the Pope stood and what attitude Catholics should take.

Deleted Unattributed Anthony Rhodes Quote
I deleted this quote, since it was not properly attributed. The quote appears to come from Rhodes, there is a lonely double quote, and the citation points to something else.

"The real issue was not, as the Nazis contended, a struggle with 'political Catholicism', but that the regime would tolerate the Church only if it adapted its religious and moral teaching to the materialist dogma of blood and race - that is, if it ceased to be Christian.'"

Furthermore, it is also not clear what the quote even means or in what sense it is a "violation" of the Reichskonkordat. Catholic clergy agreed under the Reichskonkordat to swear a loyalty oath to the German state, and that obviously implied that their "teachings" needed to be compatible with state ideology. The error was signing it in the first place. Nor has that changed one bit today: the Catholic church is still required to "adapt its teachings" to our materialistic state; for example, the state, not the church, decides what the penalties are for child abuse and corruption within the church. Jcarnelian (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Concern of "Undoing" legitimately referenced edits.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen, an issue an arisen, not surprisingly in an Article such as this one, that some have fallen into the habit of "undoing" good faith edits that offer legitimately referenced and cited third party documentation [ which requires a significant investment in time and energy to source, produce and research] simply because they do not "agree" while offering "canned" offerings why the click "undo".

This is not what Wikipedia is about. It's about truthful and respectful sharing and honoring the good intention of fellow wikipedians. Specifically, in this instance, we're discussing the Reichskoncordat. Instead of the wholly glossing over statement of "Nazi Germany" it should read as the Article 16 of the Concordat actually reads. Thereby, offering a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the very complex and fast moving history of Germany from the Summer of 1932 through the Summer of 1934. In that spirit, I offered this well referenced edit. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You changed "dictatorial" powers to "plenary" powers which is not as clear to the reader. You deleted "Nazi Germany" which is the whole point of the sentence, and you added something about governors and the president and the government. Both of these changes would blunt the intended meaning of the prose. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole point is precisely your point - accuracy and truth. "Nazi Germany" is a period of history in Germany - 1933-45 - with a history, if you will. Not a definitive as an absolute, but a process that unfolded. The Nazi Party gradually attained its dictatorship effectively through Adolf Hitler from 1932-34. It was not an singular event in time, but rather, a process of aspiration, achievement and then defeat. The Enabling Act of March of 1933 was a milestone. It was not the goal. They achieved their goal with the death of the President Paul von Hindenburg in August 1934. Nor, did I, "you added something about governors ...." as if they were my own words conjured up in my own mind. This is the actual language of the Riechskonkoradt not my adding words. This is why there is a third party citing of an English translation of the treaty. Plenary power is far more accurate as well. If you read on- I believe you'll see why.

Further, legitimate intent [not to say Hitler's intent] of the Enabling Act of 1933 was to bring some semblance of governance to Germany. It [Germany] had become ungovernable. No single party had attained a ruling majority by this time. And, none were willing to form a governing coalition that had staying power. This Act was, in large measure as well, in response to the Reichstag building being destroyed by arson in Feb. 1933 along with this was a pressing concern of an inability to attain a governing body. Germany, in short, was in chaos. Nor, was this the first time the Enabling Act was utilized in the history of the Weimar Republic to address a crisis in governance. It had been exercised 10 times previously going back to 1919.

Hindenburg remained President after the Enabling Act of 1933 was passed. Nor, were the powers of the Office of the President [the most powerful office] infringed. Read Enabling Act 1933. As President, he [Hindenburg] remained the Commander and Chief of the military, the principle negotiator of foreign treaties, appointed the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor and so on. All these constitutional powers of the office the President were still intact AFTER the passing of the Enabling Act of 1933. It is a bit of a long "reach" to say Hitler achieved "dictatorial power" through the passing of the Enabling Act in 1933 when, in fact, he was not the Commander in Chief of the military, could not appoint in the Reichstag, or be the principle to foreign treaties. This is why he [Hitler] is not a signatory of the Riechskonkordat.

Therefore, the phrase, "dictatorial powers" - though an earnest attempt to express - is "leading" the reader to what was the reality of Germany in 1933. Hindenburg was still President, the Commander and Chief of the military, sole principle to foreign treaties with the power of appointment and dismiss the offices of Chancellor and Vice- Chancellor and so on. This is not to say Hitler did not ABUSE the Enabling Act of 1933, clearly, he had. And, had command of an intimidating paramilitary [private army] to enforce this ABUSE.

At the same time, Hitler still faced serious opposition throughout 1933 even after the passing of the Enabling Act of 1933 and the expulsion of the Communists from the Reichstag later. Hindenburg was no fan of Hitler. He tolerated him often referring to him negatively as "That corporal." Nor, was Franz von Papen, of the Nationalists Party, an advocate of Hitler when he was appointed by Hindenburg as Vice- Chancellor. Papen, and his constituency: industrialists, the land owning aristocracy and so on, were Monarchists [along with President Hindenburg] who desired a bicameral Monarchy modeled after Great Britain. They [Hindenburg and Papen] were positing themselves a "check" against the Nazis at this point in history, unfortunately, they failed. Yet, throughout this time, and throughout the war, it is they, and their constituents, who were the source of plots to eliminate Hitler.

In short, what is a dictator if he is not Commander and Chief of the military, but rather, commander of a rogue paramilitary [private army], can not negotiate a foreign treaty as the principle, holds his position as Chancellor at the behest of the President and can not appoint an office? This was actually the status of Hitler throughout 1933 after the Enabling Act was passed. In 1933, Hitler was still a thug pretender to the "throne". Yes? So, let's not create history but record and report it as it unfolded. Let's not make quantum leaps of presumption, but walk with it as it actually occurred. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oath of loyalty to ...?
The statement references Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, pages 80 to 85. That reference says on page 81,


 * In Article 16 new bishops, already selected with the consent of the government, were tied even more closely to the state by being required to take an "oath of loyalty." They had to swear to respect the government and cause their clergy to do the same. "In the due solicitude for the welfare and interests of the German Reich," they were, while performing their spiritual office, "to prevent anything which might threaten to be detrimental to it."

Our article on the Reichskonkordat says the treaty is still in force, though I don't know if that's the case or not. "Loyalty to Nazi Germany" seems not quite correct. It might better reflect the source if we said "...swear an oath of loyalty to the German Reich." Tom Harrison Talk 14:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, and almost fully correct, with a very important point to be made; that, the German Reich is understood as it was intended: the legitimately constituted government as the treaty ITSELF states. It [the 1933 Concordat] is still in force IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE as you eluded to. The Western Allied Occupation Forces did not abrogate (reject) the treaty (the Reichskonkordat) during the Occupation period of Germany 1945-1947, as it had all the other treaties of the period in question. Further, the Constitutional Court of Germany ruled on this treaty in 1957 and it was upheld.

It needs to be stated Gunther Lewy's work is a tad dated. It was written 50 years ago. And, his work was then, and is now, highly debated or praised. Read Wikipedia Gunther Lewy. So, it may be wise to move on to more current sources of legitimate scholar historians. Too often journalists with an axe to grind,or writing books "on the fly" one summer, or some willy nilly citing of "flash-snapshots" of  NYT's articles, and the like, are cited in this article and others. Let's move toward other legitimate sources that are free of contentious "debate" surrounding them. Citing newspapers and magazines, or worse questionable blogs and private websites, often produce 'sloppy history'. Journalists are under pressure to meet a newspaper/magazine deadline, and so, often leave much to be desired when discussing history. Moving on. . ..

The treaty does not mention Hitler, the Nazi Party, or "Nazi Germany", nor is Hitler a signatory, or any member of the Nazi Party. This is so, because he [Hitler] had no power to act as the PRINCIPLE negotiator of the treaty directly in July of 1933 because he was not the President of Germany in 1933. This is so EVEN under the Enabling Act of 1933, because the office of the President was not infringed by the Act. Read Enabling Act. There is an awful amount of confusion on this because it is nuanced detail that requires serious discernment to get to the bottom of it. The full and complete language of Article 16 reads as follows:

'''"Before taking possession of their diocese, the bishops shall take an oath of loyalty either between the governor in the state [Land] in question or between those of the President of the Reich, the formula of which shall be the following:"Before God and the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and the land of [State of diocese] I swear and promise to respect the government established ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION and to cause the clergy of my diocese to respect it. In due solicitude for the welfare and the interest of the German Reich, I will endeavor, while performing the spiritual office bestowed upon me, to prevent anything which might threaten to be detrimental to it." '''

This is the exact and precise language of Article 16. Note, "Reich" does not mean the "Third Reich", but rather, the Weimar Republic as it was the legitimate Constitutional government of Germany in July 1933. See definition of Reich on Wikipedia. If you read the entire document, no where is Hitler, the Furhrer, the Nazi Party, or the phrase "Third Reich" stated or implied. Therefore, to state they took an oath of loyalty to "Nazi Germany" is a glossing over that leads to a bit of a spin. This is also addressing the separation of Church and State. It is, in its essence, a commitment by the bishops not to usurp the authority of a GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to rely on a primary source without a secondary source, per No original research. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - Mr. Harrison. Thank you for your fine edit work with regard to the Reichskonkordat. It should be on-going objective to raise this Article beyond contention to a genuinely neutral status. Much too easy for such a subject to slip into a spiral of "an agenda of spin" to the benefit of either "camp".

In that spirit, there is a citing in the Article that perhaps should be reviewed because it is the "Catholic Education" web page. Not that this a negative in the objective, but rather, it taints the neutrality of the Article no differently than the other extreme of someone like the journalist John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" [who is not a trained historian scholar] which does not serve well here for the same reason; it serves only to stir "bad blood" and brings into question neutrality. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Catholic Church and Nazi Germany's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rr3": From Pope Pius XII's 1942 Christmas address: Rittner and Roth, 2002, p. 3. From Public statements of Pope Pius XII on the Holocaust: Ritner and Roth, 2002, p. 3. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's good to have AnomieBot - we need to rid this Article of persistent attempts at "agenda promotion" POV with subjective and selective editing while paraphrasing, omitting, or adding words to Citations out context to spin. This is not one "camp", one over the other, but both "Pro- Catholic", or "Anti- Catholic" where some are intentionally, or otherwise, distorting history in their "favor". It needs to stop for the sake of accuracy, precision and the truth. This is an emotional topic for many and this tends to distort the facts as they are. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Section titles
a lot of the section titles - 'catholic reistance to..' etc 'deteriorating relationship with..' ' persecution of catholics..' etc it all is conveying a determined message to convey certain messages  in my opinion. I am just reading my way through Michael phayers book and the imprssion is one of papal desire for 'neutrality' - of inadequate communication of information about what was happening,  -  of bishops like preysing being stifled and criticized by a priest like Orsenigo etc -of inadequate responses in very many ways really,  What Im saying is basically, the article needs better  titles of sections, a bit less whitewash narrative specially chosen - its not a simple picture of  resistance and persecutuion - and why are you insisting on 'according to Phayer' oz history,  should we also write,  'according to apologetic catholic sources..' every time you use one of them , - probably we should actually. you write 'according to phayer' and then quote as if its gospel 'hitlers table talk' which from what I gather, is rather untrustworthy sourceSayerslle (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes Sayerslle - we should identify Ecclesiastical historians (admittedly though its ugly in photo descriptors - I'll try and avoid that sort of thing in future - not that I've done much of it in the past!) - but no, Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Yad Vashem, John Toland, Martin Gilbert, Albert Speer, and Hitler's Table Talk etc etc etc don't fit that category and are not "Catholic apologists". Neither is Phayer - though he does say that Hitler wanted to eradicate the Catholic Church (which by your rather eccentric definition of Catholic apologies, may just make him one). Some titles could be improved certainly - but "Nazi persecution of German Catholic" is not a category to be lost in a serious article about the RCC and Nazi Germany. By the way, given your interests, you'll enjoy reading Hitler's Table Talk. The fact that Kershaw, Toland, Bullock, Encyclopedia Britannica etc etc refer to it is good indication of its usefulness - though to be read with usual academic caution etc. A final request, could you work harder on those photo descriptors. Cheers. Ozhistory (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Sayerslle (talk). This article is crying for a POV tag, it's really quite sickening in my opinion. There is certainly a "tone" to this article, and it seems that only the "Apologetic Catholic" quotes and references are to be allowed, all others that might suggest that Catholic Germany supported Hitler and his Genocide of the Jews must it seems be buried deep within text or simply reverted out. Is there something we can do? It clearly needs a rewrite, as sourcing is at best very generalized and I fear much of it is poorly sourced, and taken out of context. Also my edits calling for citations and providing some evidence that Catholic Germany supported the Nazis was quickly reverted, while none of the requested citations were provided. Greengrounds (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I wouldn't say the reliable sources all point to  a decided conclusion 'Catholic Germany supported the Nazis' - reading Michael phayers book it seems more complicated than that - but I think there are pov issues  for sure, namely  a desire to paint the Church in the best possible light and gliding over/excising anything negative. the article is so massive I only look at sections at a time. On a side issue, I see the latest source is Shirer. What are his credentials for Catholic Church history. table talk, shirer, catholicculture.org etc - whats wrong with  academic historians? Sayerslle (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sayerslle meet Greengrounds. Perspicaciously you have picked up his tendency for alarming overstatement in the first hit. You will note his insertion of the line "Catholic priests and bishops held no public protests. Instead, they prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undimished". You might take up the point with him that, in the multinational Catholic Church, "Catholics priests and bishops" in Poland kind of saw things differently. On Shirer - he was not only an historian and journalist, but an eyewitness to the events of Nazi Germany. His "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", devotes a section to "the Persecution of the Christian Churches", which is well worth reading for its connection to sections of this article. Ozhistory (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle (talk) It certainly is more complicated than that, but judging by this Wikipedia article, it would appear that there was no support for the Nazis within the church. You point out that there is a desire to paint the church in the best possible light, and evidence of anything to the contrary Does not receive due weight. Perfect example: authors from Ericksens school of thought. There are others like him. They are given no due weight. I fear that If Shirer had something incriminating to say of the Church and it's relationship with the Nazis, it would not be included, Table talk carries too much weight as it is disputed, and catholicculture.org again they would be removed for sourcing. It is what I like to call a "double standard" or a hypocritical application of the rules by POV editors. Frankly, it needs to be stopped.Greengrounds (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ericksen view in the lede
I have reverted 1 good faith edit by IP address 159.45.197.17 to an earlier edit I did myself. My reasons for doing this are as follows:

1) The insert was not well-written. To take only one example, the phrase is 'comprises scholarship' not 'compromises scholarship'.

2) The material is not subejctive. The interpretation Ericksen puts upon it may be considered so, of course, but there is no doubt the Polish Catholic priests were murdered (the number is disputed) and that German Catholic priests, or at any rate a number of them, did pray in support of Germany's cause, which was by extension Hitler's cause due to his close identification with all German instruments of government (especially the Army).

3) A challenge would be acceptable if based on appropriate scholarship (reviews would be fine). However, it should not be purely speculative or editorialized.

4) If the last is done, it would be better in the main body of the article, not the lede. The purpose of this particular sentence is to amplify the preceding one on the different reactions of Catholicism to Nazism in different countries. It is based on a reliable source and according to my judgement (which is arguably itself subjective, of course!) accurately reflects what the source says.

Hope that helps.Hcc01 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral POV Dispute
In my opinion, User:Ozhistory been heavily POV editing this article. The latest evidence of this is his previous edit, where he shortened a reference by Ericksen. He explained the edit on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany&oldid=557663486 Which he immediately erased citing it was "the wrong spot". In my opinion, he reverted his own comment on the talk page athnot because it was "the wrong spot". To me, it looks like more of an attempt to hide what he is doing what with the amount of editing he has done on here, and how little he has used the talk page, why draw attention to such a small POV edit.

I originally inserted the Ericksen reference as follows:

"Catholic priests and bishops held no public protests. Instead, they prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undimished."

It was then slightly made more neutral by another editor by removing the reference to the fact that there were no public protests:

"German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show their support for Germany's (and by extension, Hitler's) cause was undimished"

This second edit would have been fine, as I consider it fairly neutral.

This third edit, however completely dumbs down the reference, and it is unacceptable. "German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause."

This is not the only POV editing I have noticed.

In This edit The caption under the picture of Orsenigo reads "The Vatican diplomat posted to Nazi Germany, Apostolic Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo with Von Ribbentrop and Hitler, in January 1939. He was a pro-German, anti-Semitic fascist. After the Concordat, Orsenigo urged German bishops to support Hitler's regime and when the war began Orsenigo complained that Catholics did not support it as strongly as Protestants"

It was a well referenced edit.

But after User:Ozhistory finished his edit it reads "Apostolic Nuncio to Germany, Cesare Orsenigo, with Von Ribbentrop and Hitler, in January 1939. An Italian fascist sympathizer, his protests against Nazi abuses were ineffectual and communications with the Vatican were hesitant and unclear. He saw Nazism as virtual apostacy, but doubted German Catholics' will to resist. After the concordat, he urged German bishops to support Hitler's regime, and complained that Catholics did not support the war as strongly as Protestants"

It is devoid of any reference to Cesare's anti-Semitism, and given that anti-Semitism was core to the Nazi philosophy, and this is an article about the Catholic church and Nazi Germany, somehow I find it quite relevant that there was anti-Semitism in the Catholic leadership.

At one point, Mit brennender Sorge must have contained the text:

"Carlo Falconi described the Reichskonkordat as being 'so little anti-Nazi' and noted that 'silence surrounds' the more serious errors associated with Nazi ideology whilst its 'conciliatory olive branch' to Hitler 'deprived the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence'. Falconi nevertheless asserts that even within these limitations it remains the 'first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world', though it was fated 'to be credited with a greater significance than it possessed'.[130] Bokenkotter describes it as 'one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican.'[131]"

Because up until May 25, 2013, in This Edit, that very block of text was being used as a Citation for this block of text: "The Catholic Church officially condemned the Nazi theory of racism in Germany in 1937 with the Encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge', signed by Pope Pius XI. Smuggled into Germany to avoid prior censorship and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it condemned Nazi ideology [128] as 'insane and arrogant'. It denounced the Nazi myth of 'blood and soil', decried neopaganism of Nazism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Führer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.' Although there is some difference of opinion as to the impact of the document, it is generally recognized as the 'first ... official public document to criticize Nazism'."

Not only is that a gross misuse of a citation, but a very important piece of information is entirely missing from the current edit: That is was seen as "so little anti-Nazi" and noted that "silence surrounds" the more serious errors associated with Nazi ideology whilst its "conciliatory olive branch" to Hitler "deprived the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence"

I can't say WHO deleted it, or WHO misused the citation quite yet, so I do not with to make the implication until it is further looked into.

With this type of editing rampant throughout the article, and other complaints of Neutral point of view policy violations - Here, where there justified pointing out of weasel wording, apologetic strategies, and giving undue weight to non neutral sources. All of this has been done with very little or no use at all of the talk page to gain any semblance of consensus. I would like to ask for that consensus here and now:

What can we do moving forward, what are our options, and is anybody in favour of taking it to arbitration. Greengrounds (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for brining this up. We should remind ourselves of the fact that a subject which combines religion, politics, racism and the horror of a war encompasing genocide is postively bound to be hotly contested.


 * A purely NPOV is nearly impossible. With that, we can aspire but, at the same time, all should acknowledge we each come to this with a bias of one sort or another at multiple levels when discussing a subject of such complexity as this one. The surest way to loose credibilty is to say you're "truly" coming from a NPOV on this topic. So, let's start from there shall we? Let's drop that pretense. And, engage authenically with respect.


 * Simply because a citation is a "Third Party RS" (a true rarity on a subject of this nature) does not assure the truth is borne out. Even scholars have 'bones to pick' or struggle to ramain "neutral". Again, we're discussing religion, politics and war. A potent mix if their ever was one.


 * What seems best is to get back to fundamentals of wikipedia. BEFROE EDITING discusss your chamge on the Talk page to allow fellow editors to offer feedback;say three calendar days? And, before "reverting" first offer a reason on the Talk page for say, a 24 hr period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.45.71.12 (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you 159.45.71.12. Meanwhile Greengrounds: if you want to want to talk of gross misuses of citations, I would refer you to your own conduct. It is regrettable that you are launching into yet another attack crying "POV" against other editors, when your own edit purporting to "quote Erikson" flagrantly ignored the point of relevance: ie the contrasting situations of the church in Germany and Poland. For this reason it had to be rescued by Hcc01 in consultation with me. My revision after that merely shortened the text, as we have a very long introduction already. If good faith editors disagree, they will say so. On your other point relating to me - Sayerslle's description of Orsenigo was incomplete as a portrait of the man, and thus needed revision. My revised edit, like Hcc01's revision of your insertion, is an example of a collaborative effort to improve accuracy ie, presenting an NPOV. Ozhistory (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the information of editors, here is the complete original text inserted by Greengrounds (but only partially quoted by him above:


 * Which, after respectful consultation and encouragement from me, user:Hcc01 duly altered to:


 * Ecc01 inserted the text regarding Poland because without it, the text would "not be a fair reflection of what's in the book". Editors will be able to pass their own judgements on the significance or motives of Greengrounds in omitting reference to Poland both from his original insertion, and in his subsequent attempt to accuse me (by name) of seeking to "heavily POV" this article. By way of background, I recommend all editors review his entries on the Religious views of Adolf Hitler talk page and the multiple responses from editors querying his conduct. Ozhistory (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greengrounds that Ozhistory has a clearly apologist agenda and everything in the article that Ozhistory adds tends to either say how wonderful the Church was, or on the numerous occasions when it was less than wonderful, it was because the Nazis were beastly and tricked them, or forced them into something etc. are you a croyant Catholic, ozhistory? if you are, are you very sure this is not influencing your edits? Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sayerslle, I am pretty sure that asking editors to declare their religion in the way you are doing above constitutes personal attack. I would ask you not to do this in future. In the meantime, your own edits continue to leave much to be desired on the POV front. Your sources are ok, but your omissions from them can be dreadful - your first Slovakia draft, a case in point: stopping I think at 1942 (thus missing all the notable 1943-4 diplomatic activity and protests) and sometimes dropping key qualifiers from Phayer's own words. Keep in mind also that the Phayer book you are working through (which I agree is a relevant and useful source) has a sharp focus on "the Holocaust", but this article is much broader. Ozhistory (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how asking a question like that is a personal attack. writers work is often accompanied by a bit of bio - has that been wrung from them by personal attacks? I don't think you can just re-name the Slovakia section derived from phayer, with a Czechoslovakia title - it seems from my reading of the material that Czechoslovakia didn't de facto exist during the second world war so its a misleading title. if you want a Czechoslovakia section up to the war, start different section - I don't know what influence nazi Germany had on the country or the church therein during that time. Do you utterly reject any pov bias by the way. Sayerslle (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, asking a person to decalre thier religious affiliation (as you apparently had of Ozhistory)in this context is a touch on the bullying side; particualrly, when you have not volunteered your own before hand.

Nor, have most of your recent edits shown an authentic spirit of reaching a consesnus, but only literally reverting your previous edits and the same old "rough" language such as "rump state" and "copy cat" and so on that you have used habitally for years. If Ozhistory is Catholic? What does it matter? It would be beyond bizzare to have an Article such as this and not have Catholics, devout or lax, come along and contribute.

You seem to struggle with the reality that there is the Church (the institition) and individual Catholics(clergy and lay) and thier actions. They are not one in the same (nescessarily)as to cupabiltity good or ill. And, you do not seem to grasp how the institutions and offices work under canon law. A Pope has only limited "control" over a Bishop. A Diocese is literally his (a Bishops) autonomous territory and it can take years to remove him from office. It is not simply a matter of the Papacy making some grand gesture and suddenly he's gone. A Bishop has legal rights under canon law. And, each national church (German, Italian and so on), by thier nature, have unique interest and aspirations. Even among the national churhes Bishop's can disagree biterly as to a course of action. And, none is beholden to the other. This is why there is the paradox of contradiction in this history. Ozhistory is quite correct. Pius XII had left it to each Bishop to respond to his local conditions.

What some seem determined to do is make the whole cupable; particualrly, Pius XII, which is your POV and sometimes simply wrong headed. Yes, without doubt, many Catholics were very far from what they were called to from Bishops on down. However, simply because others do not see it as you do does not mean its void of neutrality, or is factually incorrect. To be frank, what I've noticed is an "Anti-Catholic" element here. Too often they are the ones consistently crying foul and thrusting that the Article lacks neautrality namely because they do not agree and are intolerant to the extreme with any oppostion to their entrenched stance and too often hide their prejudice behind so called mainline RS. In short, failing consitently -not always - to maintain NPOV contributions and acceptable language and behavior toward fellow editors. Now, that is "sickening".

After all this time and effort it would be a real shame for this Article to be "trashed" because a few need to thrust thier view regardless of the cost and have been attempting for years to turn it into thier personal "venting site" against the Catholic Church regardless of the facts.

So, I suggest this whole Article be offered up for arbitration and an appeal for edit proection.159.45.71.21 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to 'trash' anything - my edits are limited to certain sections at a time and are reliably sourced additionsSayerslle (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. It must be stated - and I agree fully - questioning an editor's religious affiliation is beyond the pale and wholly unacceptable. It should not be tolerated by anyone. Whether one is Catholic, or otherwise, should not weigh in on the credibility of an editor - period. Nor, should being Catholic be a reason to label a person an "apologist-whitewasher" just as one who is a secular atheist be written off as determined to destroy any thought that virtue can found in the Catholic Church during this period in history. As someone pointed out - this topic brings out the worst and the best in everyone. Religion, politics, war and genocide make for an emotional engagement.

There has been a habit of all/most editors - with rare exception - including myself, unilaterally editing without allowing others to offer feedback prior to their contribution leaving other editors "no choice" but to "undue" and so it goes. Not the best practice for wikipedia article construction. Prior to a contribution an editor should place it in the Talk page for scrutiny for some period of time. And, genuine consensus reached. Not edit wars. On the whole, there are very high quality efforts here that should be commended. At the same time, some have taken liberties when quoting a mainstream RS and using citations that have been embellished beyond the original writers intent to the point where we need to challenge motivation, or simply point out that an edit slips into subjective and selective judgement. Even an RS itself. They are not immune. We're empowered to use our own capacity to reason through an RS.

Sayerslle offers balance in that he brings to light what ought to be "on the table", rough language aside; while Ozhistory has made major contributions that keep us aware that there is "more depth" behind the stirred up "sensationalism" and biased language that can plague a topic like this. We all can agree -objectively- the Catholic Church and many of its individual members had major failings during this period. Even to the point of shame. Yet, we can state this of every Western institution and faith tradition in Europe and elsewhere on this topic. Just as vital, let's not lose sight of the reality that it was the Nazi Party and its philosophy that is the source of this horrific tragedy.

As for this on again off again challenge to the neutrality of this article when one is not content because it does not jive with their point of view is a touch "pushy" at this point. This article has been in existence for years now. Numerous editors have come and gone. Most of its content has been scrutinized and rehashed countless times. On the whole, it is "getting there" and it is time to appeal for protecting content from editing - at least partially. This is where I stand. Thank you all and the best of luck.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be offensive - sometimes I felt  every addition I made from RS was tampered with unduly- like I would add something from phayer, and then it would get 'introduced' and qualified and extenuated and, something critical of the church in RS would transmute into something explaining how the Church did all it could in the midst of Nazi beastliness and chicanery -  I guess the kind of article I prefer is one where clear statements , well sourced, stand one after the other, if they jar sometimes, so be it, its a complex history - rather than every source is mashed up by a chef with a pov, and some kind of anodyne soup offered up -so the article would be  a series of definite  RS  views of the history (after the history has been as simply and clearly set forth as possible), (I am not anti-Catholic at all btw I feel like saying, I am a Catholic in a way, heretic-gnostic tinged though, - but definitely not 'anti-Catholic') Sayerslle (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologetics is a tactic used by religionist revisionists and it is entirely related to their religion, hence the question is a legitimate one in determining if there is a motive for POV editing. There is no room for it on Wikipedia. As for the POV edits, Sayerslle very addition I made from RS was tampered with unduly- like I would add something from phayer, and then it would get 'introduced' and qualified and extenuated and, something critical of the church in RS would transmute into something explaining how the Church did all it could in the midst of Nazi beastliness and chicanery This is called apologetics. You do not see this tactic being done with any addition that does not point to Catholic support of the Nazis. Often the edits are also denigated to the point that they have no meaning. IE going from the Catholics held no public protests to and prayed in support of Hitler and the Nazis, to simply "the Catholics prayed in support of Germany". Also the edits that are "incomplete" get rewritten to take out any evidence of anti antisemitism within the highly anti semetic Catholic church.Greengrounds (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds? You make some legitimate points but the tone of your position seems aggressive. No one is required - nor is it needed - to declare their religious affiliation, or not, in order to meet some arbitrary litmus test of credibility of our - or your - making based on some subjective standard to participate as an editor in good faith. This is nonsense. And, frankly, seems an attempt to silence others through intimidation.

And, your highly subjective and presumptive statement as an undisputed fact, and I quote, "the highly anti semitic Catholic Church", exposes your particular POV. You are entitled, but this is after all, your view of it - period. We're not obligated to accept this as fully justified with RS references, or not. Also, what is this notion that, "this does not belong in Wikipedia"? So, what are you proposing? All "religionist" must be silenced?

So, tells us all here, as you once again made a major edit unilaterally today forcing other editors to engage you, which we all have done from time to time in good faith (most often) -what is the systematic criteria you have devised that will enlighten us all? Should the Jewish among us make clear and declare belief in God, or not, so they may be filtered out from editing? Or, if one is Christian, should they be disallowed as raving "religionists"? If an atheist, should they meet a higher standard, or be granted free reign because, they have no "skin in the game" as long as they politely hide their prejudice behind a like minded RS? Or, a Hindu, should they be asked to step aside? If Muslim, are they to be asked to be silent?

Apologetics, in the theological realm, is not merely argument, but a systematic exposition, or, at least, that is the common standard. One can agree or walk away. In politics its an entirely different creature of polemics and persuasion. Anyhow, this is a very unproductive attitude in my estimation. By the way, being a hardcore atheistic secular Darwinist is no less a "faith system" than being a legitimate "religionist". This position too has a religious fervor and cosmological component to it.

Are you willing then to share with us your theology, or lack of it, as Sayerslle volunteered in his earnest attempt to authentically collaborate and express his sincere concerns? If not? Then drop it. Your demand has no credibility if you do not do so yourself. If so, bravo! But, this is the road to bigotry of the worst kind regardless. Simply because one is a devout Catholic, or otherwise, does not have an iota, or shred of "added value", as to their legitimacy, or lack of it. The only standard that has any value to all is an editor's willingness to collaborate with others and earnestly seek the truth as best we can - period. Time and experience will reveal who is legitimately engaging and who is a true vandal 'force feeding' an unfounded and biased POV on an article.

Sayerslle shared his experience and frustration that, to me, came across as sincere with a touch of frustration in tone. And, we should listen. Your position, on the other hand, and I speak for myself here, is just plain saddening. And, comes across as extreme in the extreme to the point of prejudicial. Now, I can be grossly incorrect and reading you entirely wrong. If so, I offer to listen- but - scary. Meanwhile, it is time to get serious about genuine collaboration and seeking partial edit protection. This "edit war" attitude is on the cusp of ruining a worthwhile effort Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, I'm a freethinking atheist. You? Another Christian trying to distance himself from the holocaust, which was a Christian movement? Since you can't see that the Catholic church has a history of antisemitism, allow me to refer you to the Good Friday prayer, where they pray for the "perfidious jews". Also allow me to refer you to the 6 million dead jews which the Church did not seem to have to big of a problem with. No, nothing antisemetic about that at all, right? As for Deleting and downplaying any reference to the Catholic contribution to the holocaust umm, ya Wiki is no place for that. If you can't see what Oz is doing, you might as well just join him. Real historians know what happened, despite his and others attempts to delete that record from "lay history". I will have no part of it, and I will do what I can to stop it. If he and others want to pick one or two controversial sources and quote mine from that, while playing off the perpetrators as victims, that's on your hands, not mine. As for coming at ME for "unilaterally" replacing an edit that was UNILATERALLY deleted in the first place, while letting OZ off the hook, that is in my opinion a double standard, is it not? It is what I call hypocrisy. BTW I discussed that edit, that it was relevant that the Catholic leader was antisemitic. Don't accuse me of not discussing it. Greengrounds (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, you're a "free thinking atheist". Very well. This is your choice. As for me, I have no desire "to distance myself" from the Holocaust since I personally had nothing at all to do with it. There is no need for "distance". Nor, do I defend it, or should it be "excused" away. An atheist, however, is a tad self-referencing. And, that's fine, if one honestly acknowledges the truth of this.

At the same, I see no value to engage, or entertain, a personal back and forth. My "desire" is seeking the truth. If you're a secular Darwinist, it serves well to explain the how and mechanics of nature, to be sure, and science is a valuable tool to advance and improve our lives. This is doubtless. Where it falls woefully short is it does not explain the why of it all. This is a much more challenging question, and I have the highest regard for those who wrestle with why the universe exists at all. Just as I find science invaluable. Simple.

Now, where are you heading with all this Greengrounds? It seems to me, that the only version of "neutral" that you are willing to accept is that this "highly anti-semitic Catholic Church" is wholly complicit in the Holocaust and all Christianity and, in fact, religion as a whole, is a long storied plague on the back of humanity that wishes us all to remain in the stone age? Maybe?

It may serve well to remind ourselves that some of the most horrific crimes against humanity fall right at the feet of atheistic regimes. The Soviets (an atheistic regime) murder millions in the name of science applied to labor and economy - including hundreds of thousands of Jews. The Pol Pot regime in Cambodia murdered millions for a similar "cause". Being "non-religious" or an atheist, as history clearly has demonstrated, is no assurance at all that virtue lies solely with them. And, is a wholly dangerous presumption. Nor, does unbridled Ayn Rand versions of Capitalism offer a sincere answer to the why of it. So, what is neutral to you regarding this very serious topic?

As for Ozhistory? You're being - from my perspective - overly harsh and show an unwillingness to accept the very serious and quality sincere efforts made by Ozhistory to contribute. Intolerance is a slippery slope, Greengrounds, and can blind a person from being objective. That's all I have to offer you. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate you about atheism on this talk page about the Catholic church and their relationship with the Nazis and their "neutral" stance on holocaust. I do find it quite "telling" that you refer to my atheism as a bit "self referencing" please use my talk page to expand on what you mean by that. To be a neutral article, it must not have any reference to the antisemitism withing the Catholic church and it's leadership "censored" or "deleted" by certain editors, and it must not attempt to discredit, hide poopoo incriminating statements and evidence regarding the Catholic church's idleness and direct or indirect involvement in regards to the Nazis and their final solution. I also note that you are crediting others for saying their religion publicly, poking fun at my lack of religion, yet unwilling to share yours. Quite telling in so many ways.Greengrounds (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds - Good to hear your thoughts. Fair enough; we can discuss atheism "privately" at another time. My view as to atheistic editors here, or anywhere else, is a welcomed contribution. But, we did not need to know that to offer respect for your input. Atheists can bring clarity where others may be clouded by emotion. Once more, we did not need to know that to honor your edit work. Or, verify your "faith" credentials beforehand to witness objectivity. These qualities transcend such things. It was not I who was insisting a "reveal" or "qualify" as a legitimate and earnest editor on this difficult topic. Nor, was my statement regarding "self-reference" intended to be "humorous" in the negative sense. And, yes, it was not my intention to single you out verses Ozhistory as to unilateral major editing. We all have been "guilty" of that - mostly in good faith - as I pointed out earlier and something we should strive to avoid.

We agree on many critical points. Yes, anti-semitism was and is a plague within the Christian faith tradition that pre-dates the Western Latin Church i.e., the Catholic Church. It's roots go deep - as we all know- sourced in the conflicts between early Christians and the Jewish communities of the First Century and it has ebbed and flowed in severity up to this very day.

It has been on a downward trajectory, thankfully, over time and is now - among most mainline Christians - and society at large, frowned upon with ridicule. This is not to state this is a condition unique among Christians. It has emerged in many forms: religious, social, economic, cultural and so on. Many secular governments and institutions were guilty of similar issues during the rise and fall of Nazism. And, if we wish to go further back, it dates to the earliest times of recorded history. Is this an "apology". No. It's a sociologic, anthropologic, and historic - fact.

Were there Bishops and Cardinals who were anti-semitic during this period? Without doubt. It would be literally an act bordering on criminal deception to state otherwise. Were there lessor clergy such as a Msgr. or priests, that were? Clearly. And, also among religious, that is to say, monks, nuns and friars (who require no formal training in philosophy or theology to be in an Order, such as the Franciscans) most of whom were, and are now, technically lay persons. And, last; were there lay persons who were also? Yes, perhaps a significant minority, or bordering on a majority. This too is verified history as you rightly point to. Were Protestants guilty as well? Absolutely. Martin Luther, in his later life, promoted a near fanatical anti-semitic diatribe, called, On Jews and Their Lies, in 1543, that tainted countless Germans for generation after generation. Very tragic. Is this an "apology"? No, it's a fact. It also must be pointed out that countless Protestants risked their lives to help the Jewish people in WWII.

Now, does this rise to the standard of, "the highly anti-semitic Catholic Church''" at that time in history? This is the rub. Was it the official teaching of the Catholic Church then to reject the Jewish people to the point of "looking the other way" as they were led to the their death in concentrations camps? The answer is, no. This too is a historical reality that should not be ignored in fairness. Countless Catholics risked everything to assist the Jewish people in this horrific trial: Cardinals, Bishops and so on. Some we doubtless will never hear of. Is this an "apology" - no. The documentary evidence overwhelmingly points to this history as well. And, Catholics, on numerous occasions, found themselves in the cross hairs of the Nazis for simply staying true to their faith. This too is a -fact.

As for this rather bending stretch of history of priests and bishops praying for the German troops while invading Poland in '39, therefore, "by extension" for Hitler's cause? Come on Greengrounds - this is low brow history at it's finest. And, a tad below you, in my view.

These clergy were - in all probability - military chaplains, or men approached by family members and congregations worried sick for their conscripted sons who had no choice but to fight or face severe consequences. Were some Nazi "sympathizers" - no doubt. But, to "tar and father" an entire body of clergy and the people in their care this way is just plain wrong. Sorry, but this just does not ring true for me - and I think - for most fair minded people; RS sourced, or not. Let's not abandon reason for the sake of making a point. This was a tragedy for many of these people. Who wishes to see their son forced into war? Most were given no real choice in the matter.

With all this stated, does this mean the Catholic Church and its individual members are admonished of any wrong doing or serious lapses in judgement and policy that had very real and tragic consequences? Of course not. But, did the two Popes then in office, Pius XI and XII, promote anti-semitism? No. Did they (the Papacy) actively collaborate with the Nazis in the Holocaust? No. This is were it goes beyond what can be objectively verified and becomes less than an sincere attempt to get to the truth. And, it is a historical fact that the Vatican, as a result of the Lateran Treaty, had committed to a neutral status in international affairs in 1929. This is the case today. No different than Switzerland. So, it was a bit of a jugglers act to keep from violating that commitment to maintain legitimacy in the world community while attempting to assist the Allies from time to time. This too is a historical fact that can be verified in US State Department documents.

Now, where are we going here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrtiyandhonesty (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What you call "low brow" history is a direct quote from a an expert.

"Catholic priests and bishops held no public protests. Instead, they prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undimished."

That is what I added. What is "low brow" history, and apologetic is to interpret this as you have done, by saying "These clergy were - in all probability - military chaplains, or men approached by family members and congregations worried sick for their conscripted sons who had no choice but to fight or face severe consequences." That's your interpretation, and I'm sure you'll find many quotes that support it. The fact remains that as stated in the quote from Robert P. Ericksen, Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany, which you have just stated is "low brow" history. I'm sure you'd rather that evidence or that author or that book didn't exist, but it does, you can choose to ignore it, you can even censor it from Wikipedia, but that does not change the truth, it may only serve to make it harder to find for Wikipedia readers. There is significant evidence that Catholic Germany supported Hitler and his efforts up to and including the holocaust, but looking at that evidence would be too low brow for you I guess.Greengrounds (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You will find in time I do not "ignore" valid scholarly input. This work is fairly recent. So, then, who embellished and added "prayed . . . . by extension for Hitler's cause"? Does he not state Germany's cause? And so it goes - I do not see any language in what I stated that supports an unbalanced and unconsidered response. No where did I state there was not support among Catholics for Nazism. Some willing some not. Or, that many are not guilty of horrific crimes. Where do you see that? Nor is "defense" offered to shelter leadership from responsibility. Or, did I offer a standard that is lessened via "sympathy" that I would not apply to another institution.

As for the "public protest" issue. This is not fully expressive and rounded out. The Vatican did respond with the very public protest in the form of publishing, Summi Pontificatus, in October 1939 as the article rightly points to. Further, by 1939 in Germany, it was near to impossible to muster any form of "public protest" without extreme measures and high risk to all involved.

Not "apologetics", simply: reality. Would you be so brave? Knowing full well that your life was on the the line- literally. Maybe - I do not know. Let's recall this would be considered high treason during a declaration of war. So easy for us to sit here all cozy with our 21st Century American lifestyle of Starbuck's coffee and Tablets in hand while passing judgement on others unable to defend themselves before us.

I find this "prayer by extension to support of Hitler's cause" a twist of Ericksen's intent removed from its context and the implied concept/image that flows from this is sorely lacking of consideration. We do not agree on some points but I believe it reasonable to strike this statement from the article as currently worded and the quote be fully stated - without commentary. It is literally bordering on uncouth to smear a people this way merely to make some point without a point. So, are we actually willing to state and stand by an idea that Catholics as a whole body from the Pope on down literally and intentionally prayed for Jews to be gathered up and murdered by the Nazis as this twist of Ericksen's words imply? Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I hc001 changed it to "by extension Hitler's cause", and I don't know what's so hard for you to understand about that conclusion. Logic 101. But the original explicitly states that they were seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undiminished. So how is that a twist of Ericksen's intent? The commentary version is actually softer than that. Yes, It should be put in the way I originally had it, so thanks. Feel free to make that edit. It states, and I'll spell it out for you one more time "Catholic priests and bishops held no public protests. Instead, they prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show that their support for Hitler was undimished."Greengrounds (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is the "logic" of a concluded implication. Yes? Who here has actually read this book? I have not. But, I know the author and it seems out of "character" - given his prior work - to suggest Catholics were praying for a "successful" Holocaust, or anything of the sort, is what comes across in the manner this quote is being employed. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Willing to work with you - but not willing to do your work for you. Feel free to edit as the author wrote it Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Already did that, and it was undone by Ozhistory, as I've stated. For your reference, here is the citation on pg 109-110 in context. Let me know what you think would be a better way to word it, since you have an issue with the current wording.Pg 109-110 Or did I have it right with my original wording that I've provided in block quotes for you already?Greengrounds (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Very well - let's get this accomplished. As a broader point. Editor's need to remind themselves this is history; if approached as it ought, it rises to the standard of sacred memory of the millions who suffered and died through this human tragedy. This is not a venting platform that allows for casual embellishment, intentional omission, and the like, to suite ones passions, or attempts to "soften" the reality. It is what it is.

And, that it was the principles of the Nazi Party and their twisted philosophy who worked tirelessly to set the stage for this hellish nightmare to unfold. At the same time, it's shameful to attempt, nor should it be tolerated, to "tar and feather" and/or criminalize whole classes of people whether by religious affiliation, nationality or race for the actions of those among them that collaborated with the Nazis willfully, voluntarily and with same mind and intent. That is not history but an agenda of untruth. That is not justice - but "mob action" to the unjust benefit of an other. If one can not reach this level of objectivity. Then don't edit. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw your edit, thank you for putting it back in. Also I advise you that your logic on the guilt of the Holocaust taken one step further would imply that the Nazis themselves are simply being unjustly tarred and feathered in a "mob action" because of the actions of those among them. On another note, what do you make of this reference that has been chipped away at to the point that it is devoid of all meaning: "Carlo Falconi described the Reichskonkordat as being "so little anti-Nazi" and noted that "silence surrounds" the more serious errors associated with Nazi ideology whilst its "conciliatory olive branch" to Hitler "deprived the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence". Falconi nevertheless asserts that even within these limitations it remains the "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world", though it was fated "to be credited with a greater significance than it possessed".[129] Bokenkotter describes it as "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican."[130]" I don't know why it was removed. The current article paints the Catholics as victims of the Concordat, while their part in making this agreement with the Nazis remains devoid of any objective criticism. I move that we reintroduce this reference into the article, perhaps under the already existing "conspiracy of silence" header and also make reference to it in the lead where the concordat is introduced.Greengrounds (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Our concern should be to place guilt where it squarely belongs. The issue of guilt in any criminal act against humanity (As established by the Nuremburg Tribunal and now refined by the Hague) is not purely an issue of cold mathematical "logic". Ones guilt and/or culpability, complicity, etc., that rises to the level of a criminal act can and is a matter of direct action and intent and ones degree of participation and what caused ones participation. In other words, there is the issue of mitigating circumstance. Now we're in the more complex discipline of morals.

With that, a young German conscripted soldier who hated the Nazis but reported for duty out of fear for himself and his family can be said to be guilty as a guard at concentration camp by the standards you suggest. Yes? But, let us say, verifiably, he did no harm to the prisoners himself. In fact, witness offer that he seemed to do his best to be humane given the circumstance and it was clear he was silent out of fear. But, questions remain. Why did he not help them escape? Why did he not protest "publicly"? Yet, is he truly responsible? Is he truly guilty of a criminal act? Was it he that created the conditions where this nightmare was even possible? I"ll let you decide for yourself. With one condition. This young conscript is your pride and joy - your own son. A free thinking atheist like yourself.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds - Understood, but I believe Falconi was referencing two distinct documents independently: Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Anxiety), issued in 1937 by Pius XI, is described as "so little Anti-Nazi" by Falconi while Bokenkotter says, "one of the greatest documents . . . . " Then, the  Reichskoncordat - Treaty - (Concordat) of 1933 with the Federal government of the Weimar Republic as the, "conciliatory olive branch" by Falconi, which is one interpretation.

As for the"Mit"? Well, that is one way of seeing it, perhaps. It should be stated - for balance- there was only one existent power in Germany in 1937:The Nazi Party. Given that, who else could the document be addressing primarily? As for the Reichskoncordat, it needs a bit of background to understand it in full context:

This desire/idea of a Concordat with Germany dates back to the 1870's during and after Otto von Bismark's Kulturkampf campaign to minimize "foreign influence" on German Catholics in response to the Dogma of Papal Infallabilty proclaimed during the First Vatican Council, 1869-70. When Pius XII was the Nuncio to Germany, (1917-1929) first Bavaria, then Berlin, securing a Concordat with Germany was coined "the great cause" of his work there. He first secured one with the State of Bavaria in 1925, and with other minor States subsequently. As the Secretary of State of the Vatican (1929-1939) the long-term objective of a Federal Concordat was still an on-going "project".

So, with this in mind, I agree with your concern and question why this was removed. What next?Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy putting it back in as is, but if you have the book and can back up your beliefs that Falconi was referencing two distinct documents then it needs to be expanded upon. I, however don't see any reference to it's removal in the talk pages, and I don't think it's right to unilaterally remove something so telling from the article.Greengrounds (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds- Initial peruse of both works by Falconi and Bokenkotter confirms initial instinct regarding confused reference. On the "Mit" Falconi states, pp 229 -30: "the pontifical letter still remains the great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world." Further on, he comments of the "Mit", "a conciliatory olive branch to Hitler if he would restore tranquil prosperity of the Church deprived the document of a noble and exemplary intransigence." He is referring to diplomatic correspondence following the aftermath of the letter (My words). Bokenkotter pp 389-92, "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican . . . . described the Fuhrer himself as a mad prophet possessed by a repulsive arrogance."

As of yet, I find no statement pointing to the Riechskonkordat by either scholar as "so little anti-nazi", etc. This does not mean it does not exist. I just have not found it. My memory stirs me that it may be some other than these two eluding to the Mit. Sorry, that's all I can offer now. Perhaps you'll have better luck/results. My take is that this confusion is the result of random good faith edits run amuck that have sliced and diced this to bits over time. All the more reason this Article desperately needs some level of edit protection Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds- It seems confirmed. In Falconi's work, Popes of the 20th Century (1967), his comment "so little anti-nazi" was reference to the "Mit" not the Reichskonkordat. The possible error can be traced to the sub-category in the Article titled, "Mit Brennender Sorge", footnote #127 where someone may have mistakenly substituted: Reichskoncordat.

This makes some sense. The "so little ant-nazi" is a common critique by scholars of the "Mit" because it does not specifically mention the Nazi Party or Nazism but rather attacks the principles of its philosophy, racism and so on. To some, this lack of specificity in the document is problematic. This is my best effort. Perhaps others can take it from here. What next?Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Integrtiyandhonesty Appreciate your efforts. Seems ever since it was introduced that reference had always mistakenly it seems said Reichskoncordat instead of the Mit. Do you see anything wrong with the reference other than it's mixing up of the two? The rest seems to fit, no?

Criticism of the Mit From the wikiMit brennender Sorge:

"Falconi opined that the offering of a 'conciliatory olive branch' to Hitler if he would restore the 'tranquility' of the Church deprived the document of a 'noble and exemplary intransigence'.[25] Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical 'condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)'.[26] Some scholars have criticized Phayer as having relied too much on German documents alone.[27] Other Catholic scholars have regarded the encyclical as 'not a heatedly combative document' as the German episcopate, still ignorant of the real dimension of the problem, still entertained hopes of a Modus vivendi with the Nazis. As a result the encyclical was 'not directly polemical' but 'diplomatically moderate', in contrast to the encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno dealing with Italian fascism.[1]"

Gets summarized in this article as: Although there is some difference of opinion as to the impact of the documentit is generally recognized as the "first ... official public document to criticize Nazism".

VS. this article:

By early 1937, the church hierarchy in Germany, which had initially attempted to co-operate with the new government, had become highly disillusioned. In March, Pope Pius XI issued the Mit brennender Sorge encyclical - accusing the Nazi Government of violations of the 1933 Concordat, and further that it was sowing the " tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church". The Pope noted on the horizon the "threatening storm clouds" of religious wars of extermination over Germany.[81]

The encyclical condemned the Nazi theory of racism in Germany. Smuggled into Germany to avoid prior censorship and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it condemned Nazi ideology [126] as "insane and arrogant". It denounced the Nazi myth of "blood and soil", decried neopaganism of Nazism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Führer himself as a 'mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance.' Although there is some difference of opinion as to the impact of the document, it is generally recognized as the "first ... official public document to criticize Nazism". [129]

The encyclical accused the Nazi government of "systematic hostility leveled at the Church", and criticised a range of Nazi actions and beliefs - notably racism.[130] Despite the efforts of the Gestapo to block its distribution, the church distributed thousands to the parishes of Germany. Hundreds were arrested for handing out copies, and Goebells increased anti-Catholic propaganda including a show trial of 170 Franciscans at Koblenz.

You can see our article here praises the Mit without any form of criticism, seeking to use sources like http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0229.htm, to essentially wash the church's hands of any wrongdoing, or criticism. I'm afraid seems a source that has been used rampantly throughout the article. I would move to remove edits that use that as a source and add to the intro on the Mit in this article the paragraph I presented from the Mit Wiki above. Greengrounds (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds - As you pointed out, and I agree, the current wording of the Article section covering the "Mit" offers little in the way of an earnest critique that should be offered to readers who could benefit from their inclusion.

And, a citation sourced from the Catholic Education website is problematic, but, of necessity, not requiring "censorship", per se. This seems a slippery path. Then -Yad Vashem because its the Jewish point of view? My take is that it needs to be revealed - and, If used, it needs a counter-balance and be made clear in the wording of the Article,so that, it may be considered. Of the two choices above, the latter seems to gloss over critique as "though there is a difference of opinion", which is not enlightening at all.

Be aware, Falconi was a laicized priest, turned journalist, who remained a devout Catholic, Phayer is a lay Catholic and professor/speaker at Catholic Universities and Bokenkotter, a highly respected historian, is a Catholic priest and Pastor of Assumption Church in Penn who operates a soup kitchen. So. . ..

Nevertheless, inclusion is key to a NPOV. The full text of Bokenkotter's, "A Concise History of The Catholic Church (1997), regarding the "Mit" is fairly brief and found on p. 389. Agreed, let's work on this wording so that it is indeed NPOVIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, Ozhistory, Sayerselle and others? What are we doing here? It's now going into week three with this "dispute of neutrality" with extremely modest progress. Either we work this, or there is no "dispute" - but just polemics? What I can share with you is I have discovered numerous citations have been disconnected from their respective Article quotations, or are intentional false quotes such as those using Gunther Lewy's work, "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany" (1964)  Notes 73, 74 and 145 are not even remotely close to the actual text of the book. How this happened? Not sure, but we'll get nowhere at this pace Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

We could start with the lead. Rather than simply painting the church as victims in every possible way, (the concordat "routinely" -weaselword violated by Hitler) without mentioning that the church had their own motivations for signing it other than making it seem like they were just forced into it. The Mit is heralded, when we know it is much criticized. The blanket statement by OZ "Hitler and Nazi ideology were, in many respects, hostile to Catholicism. Senior Nazis Rosenberg, Goebells, Bormann and Himmler were particulaly anti-Christian." Which basically gets added to every lead on every related topic. No mention of the church's basically "silence" other than that "there is some controversy". No mention of the Vatican's "Ratlines". No mention of Catholic support for the Nazis, though there was much support. There is only mention of the opposition.

Basically the lead and the tone of the article should read more like this: The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country. How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history. For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices. The attitudes and actions of German Catholics and Protestants during the Nazi era were shaped not only by their religious beliefs, but by other factors as well, including: •Backlash against the Weimar Republic and the political, economic, and social changes in Germany that occurred during the 1920s •Anti-Communism •Nationalism •Resentment toward the international community in the wake of World War I, which Germany lost and for which it was forced to pay heavy reparations These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, which read: "We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good." Despite the open antisemitism of this statement and its linkage between confessional "freedom" and a nationalistic, racialized understanding of morality, many Christians in Germany at the time read this as an affirmation of Christian values.

It should incorporate some of this: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NAZI GERMANY The Catholic Church was not as sharply divided by different ideological factions as the Protestant church, and it never underwent an internal Kirchenkampf between these different factions. Catholic leaders were initially more suspicious of National Socialism than their Protestant counterparts. Nationalism was not as deeply embedded in the German Catholic Church, and the rabid anti-Catholicism of figures such as Alfred Rosenberg, a leading Nazi ideologue during the Nazi rise to power, raised early concerns among Catholic leaders in Germany and at the Vatican. In addition, the Catholic Centre Party had been a key coalition governmental partner in the Weimar Republic during the 1920s and was aligned with both the Social Democrats and leftist German Democratic Party, pitting it politically against right-wing parties like the Nazis. Before 1933, in fact, some bishops prohibited Catholics in their dioceses from joining the Nazi Party. This ban was dropped after Hitler's March 23, 1933, speech to the Reichstag in which he described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values. The Centre Party was dissolved as part of the signing of a 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and Nazi governmental representatives, and several of its leaders were murdered in the Röhm Purge in July 1934. SUMMARY In both German churches there were members, including clergy and leading theologians, who openly supported the Nazi regime. With time, anti-Nazi sentiment grew in both Protestant and Catholic church circles, as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them. In turn, the Nazi regime saw a potential for dissent in church criticism of state measures. When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country. The general tactic by the leadership of both Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany was caution with respect to protest and compromise with the Nazi state leadership where possible. There was criticism within both churches of Nazi racialized ideology and notions of "Aryanism," and movements emerged in both churches to defend church members who were considered "non-Aryan" under Nazi racial laws (e.g., Jews who had converted). Yet throughout this period there was virtually no public opposition to antisemitism or any readiness by church leaders to publicly oppose the regime on the issues of antisemitism and state-sanctioned violence against the Jews. There were individual Catholics and Protestants who spoke out on behalf of Jews, and small groups within both churches that became involved in rescue and resistance activities (for example, the White Rose and Herman Maas). After 1945, the silence of the church leadership and the widespread complicity of "ordinary Christians" compelled leaders of both churches to address issues of guilt and complicity during the Holocaust—a process that continues internationally to this day.

Taken from the Holocaust Encyclopedia "The German Churches and Nazi State"

AND THIS

After the Nazis came to power in Germany, they signed an agreement (Concordat) with the Catholic Church whereby the Vatican would accept the Nazi government in return for the Nazis not interfering with the Catholic Church.

In 1939 Eugenio Pacelli was elected Pope Pius XII. As head of the Catholic Church during the war years, he signed the Concordat with Nazi Germany. The Catholic Church, as an organisation, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state.

The Pope believed that primarily it was his duty to save and look after Catholics. Nevertheless, in 1939, he did obtain 3,000 visas to Brazil for Jews who had been baptised In the belief that these people were now Christian. But the Nazis defined Jews racially, even though they had converted, and believed they were still Jews.

The Vatican knew of the murder of the Jews very early on, as they had religious representatives in all of the occupied countries. Certain individual priests saved Jews but the Church, as an official body, did nothing significant to save the Jews of Europe.

The holocaust explained - The London Jewish Cultural Centre

Our article reads nothing like this. It is the complete opposite of these. Also the article is far too busy and important facts are glazed over with non relevant material. Greengrounds (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Integrityandhonesty, I note your comment above about text in the article not reflecting the citations. I too have often come across this, and have sought to correct. Sometimes it is the result of honest misreading. Sometimes of agenda pushing. Sometimes of vandalism. The topic matter unfortunately attracts this type of thing. The only solution is vigilance, and testing as many citations as we can. Greengrounds, alludes to too much repetition in the article. I can agree with that, and have been working to reduce it. But I can't see that either as a summary of the history of Catholicism in the Nazi period or as a summary of our article that his proposed lead improves on our more detailed and thorough existing lead. Our lead needs ongoing trimming as new editors insert useful lines (which may push out an already overly long lead), but it doesn't need a re-write. The substance of Greengrounds first blockquote (from the Holocaust Museum) is actually already well presented in our article, so I can't agree with his statement: "Our article reads nothing like this. It is the complete opposite of these." - though it is true that the second quote from the London cultural centre might be read as at odds with, for example, with the John Toland quote in our lead about the Catholic Church doing more than any other aid organisations to save Jews. What are your thoughts on John Toland's Hitler as a reliable source on these issues Greengounds? Ozhistory (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No issue with Toland as a source. The issue is your use of it for POV pushing. Yes, as my source says there were individual priests who saved jews. You use Toland to try and twist that into the church as an official body did these things, while the church as an official body did not do these things. Oz, what is your opinion on the London Jewish cultural centre as a source? Could not disagree with you more that the lead incorporates the Holocaust encylopedia's information. "Hitler and Nazi ideology were, in many respects, hostile to Catholicism. Senior Nazis Rosenberg, Goebells, Bormann and Himmler were particulaly anti-Christian.[1][2] Some Nazis advocated 'Positive Christianity', like the 'Deutsche Christens' apostate Protestant sect, which did not depend on the Apostle's Creed and rejected the Jewishness of Christ, and the Old Testament.[3] After taking power, Hitler opportunistically tried to create a unified Protestant Reich Church, but the move split their churches and he became disinterested.[4] Vatican objections to Nazi ideology and 'Positive Christianity' were outlined in Pius XI's 1937 Mit brennender Sorge encyclical."

Right away it starts off with the victimization and persecution and the anti-christian. Positive Christianity has nothing to do with the Catholic church so why is it in the lead? There is no mention that there were many members of the Catholic church who openly supported the Nazis, that the church removed it's ban on joining the Nazis and that there were links between Catholocism (and Christianity in general) and antisemitism (a central part of Nazism). How is that link not relevant to an article called "The Catholic church and Nazi Germany". Please explain how your lead is anything like the blockquotes that I provided?Greengrounds (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds & Ozhistory - Good to hear from you! Can we start from a foundational understanding that we each bring something that from time to time needs a "bit of a trim", because we all have some form of bias? Including myself, particularly, regarding a "hot button" subject such as this? That we engage in a manner that offers honor and respect to the time and effort of an editor, that, in this way, we actually might learn from one another while working this? This is a massive subject with a highly complex matrix of intermingling facts. And, that when sourcing a reference TP (Third Party) we don't instinctively raise it to "hallowed status" thereby suspend our reason to critique it independently for what it is - or is not? Because, this history is so blessedly complex and fast moving we should proceed accordingly. Let's slow down the action and walk with caution. This, seems to me, is a good course.

What Greengrounds proposes appears reasonable. Thank you for your good work that clearly took a slice of your day. To start with the lead makes good sense. It sets the tone and frames an Article. We all can agree, as Greengrounds and each has pointed out, this Article has been sliced and diced in good faith, or otherwise, over time to the point it has become distractingly redundant, it randomly flip flops from one extreme to another in places, and so on. But, it has also matured to where most of the germane and pertinent facts are now on the table.

It so happens that I find virtue in both Ozhistory and Greengrounds work. There is truth that the catholic church "victim" card is overplayed. Yet, Greengrounds, there is also truth the Nazi Party was determined to oppress the catholic church and authentic Christianity (i.e., Jesus of Nazareth - a Jewish man - is/was God incarnate). And, it (the Nazi Party) had methodically, with unquestioned intent, ultimately (despite its "diplomacy" tactics of delay - then strike) ruthlessly implemented this oppression primarily aimed at the foundations of its institutions while manipulating the innocent and ignorant to view the Party as "reasonable". Even the anti-organized religion humanist historian, Gunther Lewy, points this out and paints the picture of extreme and brutal measures taken by the Nazis against the institution and individual members.

With that, I find this too is pointed out in the well organized Article, Nazi Germany, that offers some balance in the section: Oppression of Christian Religions:
 * 1) REDIRECT Nazi Germany

Yes, we should point out and agree anti-semitism was indeed a major variable in this history and should be incorporated into the Article lead - agreed. This is not to state, once again, Greengrounds, I or many, are willing to stand by the idea of "a highly anti-semitic Catholic Church." Perhaps, a touch of history will be helpful. Pius XI famously stated, "Spiritually, we're all Semites." These are hardly the words of a genuine anti-semite intent on promoting anti-semitism as the leader of the institution in question. And, as for the "silence" issue?

Well, Greengrounds, my take is, that true balance requires tolerance. To say the catholic church (as an organization or an institution) was entirely without words, public protest, or actions regarding the Holocaust are just plain not fully on the mark. It did and had. Not to the degree some would have wished, or desired, but it made clear that the core of the Nazi philosophy of racism [the source of the Jewish Holocaust] was inescapably immoral. Numerous times. The "Mit" just being one more. Yet, I too agree authentic scholarly critique of the "Mit" is responsible editing. This is where the genuine controversy is, however. And, Ozhistory is correct to point this out.

This is not about agreeing with one another and then creating a consensus POV, but rather, presenting all the facts, then presenting them for the reader to discern - not lead a reader''' to a POV arrived by consensus. Not easy to be impartial. ''' Let's tackle this one topic at a time. I agree - start with the lead - but the proposal to "carpet bomb" -if you will - the current lead seems unwarranted. It does offer the facts as it stands but needs some revision and refinement for balance. As for the London Jewish Culture site? Well, though well intentioned, I find it sophomoric - because of its target audience. Its aim is to teach students at the most elementary level. Because of this - its overly simplistic - not false - just not adult content. Whereas, the US Holocaust Museum offers more depth and detail. Yet, it too is less than ideal, but I see it as a "higher grade" source.

Until next time the best of luck to you allIntegrtiyandhonesty (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well said, Integrityandhonesty. I also find myself agreeing with something Greengrounds said in his last post. I agree that the section in our lead on Nazi policy on Positive Christianity can be trimmed because, as currently written, is probably more relevant to a Protestant article. (contrary to his expectation, I have not been pushing for that section to be so detailed, but the work of other editors has kept it so). I propose the following trim:


 * Current text:




 * I suggest:




 * The brief reference to Mit provided here can probably be improved, or shifted - but first things first. How does the above trim sound? Ozhistory (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The trim sounds fine for the article, but deserves no place in the Lead. Let's focus solely on the relationship between the the Catholic church and the Nazis. Secondarily we can discuss the Vatican's position on the Nazis relationship with other bodies such as the protestants, but this can be done in the body.96.52.180.114 (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Integrityandhonesty, that the article from The Jewish cultural center is aimed at young students is not the issue, the issue is that the history being taught is completely different than what we are teaching with this article! Why should young students be taught one thing, but Wiki readers basically the opposite?


 * Another issue is not just the lack of mention the "silence" of the Vatican, but also the active participation, the complicity. For example Tiso and others sending jews to their deaths, (see comments below re: the missuse of Toland for non neutral blanket POV) this gets NO mention. And of the Ratlines? Is that type of complicity not worth a mention in the lead when discussing the relationship between the Catholic church and Nazi Germany?96.52.180.114 (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)